A graph appears on Reddit, on the AMD RX Vega, where the AMD graph wanted much higher even than the NVIDIA Titan Xp, which points to be completely false.
We have been with radio silence for a few weeks by AMD on the AMD RX Vega, that led us to speculate that there will be no commercial graphics card, that there would only be some engineering and private sample versions for brands and perhaps for some very specialized media. concrete. There is no relevant data about these GPUs, other than that they carry HBM2 memory and some other characteristics regarding their internal architecture. We comment on this because on Reddit an image about this graphics card and the assumed performance has appeared in an image that would be a slide of an event.
This slide or graph that has appeared on Reddit by user Kyozon shows that the AMD Vega would be 60% more powerful than the NVIDIA GTX 1080 graphics card. This could be a relative reality in certain games under DirectX 12, but the problem is that the user who has uploaded the image is has swung and not exactly little when adding in the comparison the Titan Xp, the latest card presented by NVIDIA and that performs more than the GTX 1080 Ti. If I had put the latter or more credible percentages, I would have slipped.
Regarding the little data that has been leaked, we must say that the performance in this graph would surpass the GTX 1080, but surpassing the GTX 1080 Ti is relatively complicated, since we are talking about a high-performance and high-performance graphics card, which means an improvement of more than 30% over the GTX 1080. AMD Vega will be difficult to have a variant that can compete with the GTX 1080 Ti and it is almost impossible that there is a variant with better performance compared to the Titan Xp.
We must say that AMD's solution will surely go through offering a high-performance graphics card for a lower price than NVIDIA solutions. If the RX Vega offers better performance than the GTX 1080 and the price is well below the current GTX 1080 Ti, it might be a viable option, but until then, we must hope that AMD will say something about these. graphics cards.
The problem with AMD's HBM2 is that they are launching without improving their architecture. If they pitched it should over time improve it and perform well
That "totally new architecture" I do not believe it and I hope to see the Vega analysis instead of being carried away by the hype, AMD is not there to completely renew its graphics architecture, you just have to see the performance of the Radeon 7970 / 280X, 380X, 290/390, 470 and 480 all have between 2048 and 2560 stream processors and their performance is not very different, in addition they all share that energy inefficiency so characteristic of AMD.
We are not talking about comparing a Geforce 1060 with 1280 cuda cores and a Geforce 980 with 2048, in those conditions it is obvious that Nvidia improved something and not only the GPU frequencies.
RX Vega is not even the improvement of Polaris, they are two different architectures ... We could put Polaris as the Test version of 14nm, Vega would come with an architecture also in 14nm + architecture in this case more mature than Polaris could be, moreover Polaris is like what did not come from Vega. Perhaps the data is false as they say, but it is not impossible that Vega does not perform even more than Pascal from Nvidia and that is because if AMD has not launched Vega until now it is because Nvidia has made it difficult to overcome and obviously what it tries AMD is refining its architecture even more ... besides that it is already seen in the distance that Volta is rushing it more than they should and it is for something, maybe you are Vega can give a good blow and that is the reason that Volta is being rushed to not hitting this hard on Nvidia.
Vega is a completely new architecture, not for nothing will I put aside the gcn (Graphics Core Next) and now they will use (next-generation compute unit)
(it costs nothing to do a little research)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/3
AMD is a disservice to its fans by raising expletives beyond the account, it is said that the Radeon Vega has 4096 stream processors the same as the Radeon Fury X and it does not take a genius to notice that there are not many differences in performance between The Radeon 480 and its 2304 stream processors and the Radeon 290/390 and its 2560 stream processors, we mean that AMD would have to have a revolutionary architecture in hand for those 4096 stream processors to perform more than a 1080Ti.
Again the hype ……… ..
If it is a version with factory crosfire the one that has 2 gpus in 1 I do not doubt that this is its performance
The same if amd manages to get something that is not hot shit one day we buy him something
Ryze
We will wait for ryzen 2, the current one has turned out bad and they fought ... he fights with all god ... hahaha
You just have to look at the consumption of the RX 500 Series, which is stupid. 100W than GTX 1060
The r9 390x screwed nvidia very hard, I don't know where you see the problem
Yes, nvidia winked… .hahahaha
Let's see, it's not a bad graph. At the time of launch, it yielded a little more (little) than a 970. And the driver updates and the 8 gb have been futureproof. About dx 12 still and have better support than nvidia, I don't think. In fact, I honestly think the 390x isn't far from a 580 at all. It wasn't far from a 480… .or rather, the 480 I think outperformed the 390x in a game or two… Bad for amd. There are already two new series from the 390x.
It has always been said that polaris is an improvement in electricity consumption, I prefer to have a 480 or 580 with reduced electricity consumption and not a 390x where the electricity bill will hurt.
Polaris was a total success, amd has done very well, I do not agree with you.
I invite you to read the posts I have written about the RX 500 Series, which consume 100W more than the NVIDIA GTX 10 Series
Yes, if we compare them with nvidia in consumption, these rx 5XX have nothing to do, I think these graphs are unnecessary, I personally look at the issue of consumption a lot, but even so I do not buy nvidia because I hate the monopoly they want to implement, and I prefer to support the competition, as long as the product is good for what I want to use it and with a reasonable consumption (case rx 470 and 480).
With ryzen for example amd continues to consume more than intel but they are very close and the difference is practically nil.
What worries me about Vega is that consumption is very high, I hope it is not.
Polaris was a fiasco, with no high-end offering to compete with Nvidia. And Vega… It's going down the same path. And as for the electricity bill, no comment. I'm buying a Ferrari and complaining that if I push it, it uses 35W per 100W. Energy efficiency is very good for a laptop. On a graphics card… I use 100W less in exchange for not surpassing previous generations in fps… Bad for AMD. I prefer to stick with my 390x, knowing that at most, it's close to a 580. Which I also believe once again increases consumption compared to the 480. AMD may have done halfway with its homework regarding processors. As for graphics, it hasn't had a truly high-end product to compete with for generations. And in the rest, it's rehashed after rehashed. Oh, and the 480 was sold with those cool AMD Power Points, just like a 980. Then, sad reality exposed it for what it was: a cheap way to play at 1080p. In short, after two more generations, I'm still delighted with my 390x. That includes power consumption and electricity bills.
Amd focused on the mass of players who are in the mid-range, and preferred to opt for a new architecture for the high-end, 80% of players on steam are in that range, that's why it focused on that market, not all of them are equal to you and they plan to always be in a high range. Going from a 390x to a 480 or 580 does not make any sense except that you care about the electricity consumption. The positive thing was in addition to the lower electricity consumption, the price at which I chose to put it, your 390x was much more expensive at the time and I insist that its consumption is very high and there are people who do care about this.
Compared to the 580, this second generation of Polaris has higher fuel consumption and 10% more performance, which is why I see this particular move as unnecessary on AMD's part; they simply want to make more money.
And the success of the 480 is not something subjective of mine, look at the amount of sales and how well amd has done in the market with these graphs (470 and 480), therefore your comment on that does not have a Real foundation, it is a very particular situation of yours, if you are always looking for the highest range, go with nvidia.
And the vegas do not even have any idea how they will go in the market because they have not yet come out, the assumptions do not work, you have to observe the results that is reality.
This is a fiasco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pxeJJzR3to
And I imagine the 580 will improve somewhat compared to the video one, the 1060GB 3. In sales they will have gone as they will have. Because there is a lot of fanboy loose.
It is a fiasco that the 480 and 580 cannot compete with the 1070 and 1080. The only way that amd has to make its graphics perform more is to increase its consumption. That a 1060 of 6 GB almost equals a recently launched 580. Tell me what a low electricity bill with a 390x (or a 580, seen what I have seen).
And you have said it, it will be seen with vega. But for two generations ... a fiasco. And as if they want to sell ten times more than nvidia. The truth is not very sad, what has no remedy.
Since when is it a fiasco to get a mid-range graphic that competes against a mid-range one. Here there was no deception to the consumer, even for me the 1060 is a total nvidia scam, I'm not a fan of amd, but they are selling you a graphic with 6gb or 3gb memory, without SLI, with a consumption similar to the 480, just a little lower, at the same price as amd's.
When the 480 allows crossfire, it has more Vram in both versions, where is the fiasco? , these polaris graphics were never intended to compete with the 1080 or 1070.
I honestly do not understand the logic that some people use when evaluating these issues.
Of the 580 I will not say anything else, because it seems to me a terrible decision of amd.
LOL. OMG. WOW, what are we saying here? I don't feel like looking for something with more "foundation":
https://www.profesionalreview.com/2016/07/19/comparativa-radeon-rx-480-vs-geforce-gtx-1060/
Without going into the nonsense that represents a dual configuration with two "mid-range" cards in particular and without going into the nonsense that represents a dual configuration with two "any range" cards in general. And that is something that those who defend energy efficiency should keep in mind. To finish, the 480s were already a terrible decision that the only thing they cut was consumption. Hence their performance.
You are giving me a review of games that use DX11 and are already old, we know that in Dx11 the 480 does not perform well, the only current game is doom, which is confirmed that if you run it with vulkan it gives the best performance with the 480.
Regarding the crossfire, I am not in favor of that option, but for many it is attractive and one is giving you that possibility while the other does not.
You're welcome:
http://wccftech.com/rx-480-gtx-1060-dx12-vulkan-tested/
A dual configuration is mounted from the beginning ... because the dollars or euros come out of your ears. And if they come out, before waiting for one game or another to deign to offer support for two graphics, you choose to buy a more powerful one. In other words, it is a good principle to waste money, since the performance of a dual configuration is known is not as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. About the instruction queues and their management by amd and nvidia under dx11 and dx12 another day that you catch me with more enthusiasm and at other times I will explain it to you.
Well, to compete with the 1080, the Vegas will come out, that is their objective, to offer the high-end with this architecture to play at 4K 60 fps and 2K 144 fps, we will see if it achieves it, it is a matter of time.
Yes, the problem is the time that AMD has spent without having a high-end, something that competes head-to-head with the most powerful from Nvidia. Two generations? Three? And it's clear that high-end sales do not represent the bulk of sales (although I don't know if it represents profits). But it emits a powerful call effect for anyone who doesn't understand components. And if AMD launched cards that range by range were on par with their Nvidia counterparts, perhaps we would all benefit in terms of prices. A bit like with the Ryzen, but well done. Understand me, they are excellent micros for certain things. But it's not a blow on the table enough to worry Intel. You only have to look at the prices today for a 6700k. I just looked at it and I think it's 15 euros cheaper than a year ago. Although perhaps if Ryzen had been a more well-rounded product, we wouldn't be seeing the prices of the R7s even remotely. When AMD had its Atlhon FX X2 dominating the scene… There was no “normal” economy that could sink its teeth into them.
Ryzen is another story, I really like the 1600 / 1600x with production performance superior to the i7 7700k and in games it performs very similar to the i5 7600k, it is worth $ 100 less than the i7.
Remember that AMD is a small company, it does not have the same power as nvidia and intel, so they have focused on the large mass of gamers, but with the processors they have done very well. But it is more than clear that by the end of the year Intel will come with its 10nm and perhaps an improvement of 40% as I have seen news, which was predictable because Intel has a great infrastructure and economic power.
For my part I am now with an i5, but I have always had AMD and it has always worked well for me, I opted for the i5 at the time because there was basically no competition from AMD. But I would like to continue supporting them so that they gain ground and can offer us better products and the competition would benefit us all, that is what the fanboy people do not realize, bringing down a company supports the monopoly and with the monopoly then you have exorbitant prices.
By the way, in the botched machine they think the same. If you have to go, you go, but go at all ... That's nonsense. Later it turns out that from here it is misinformed or that it is pro Intel or nvidia. I do not post the link, that there are plenty of visits.
The difference with media that seem directed by Eduardo Inda, is that here if it is white or black or gray, it is so every day, not when there is no way to cover it.
I didn't know that the bungler belonged to the Inda mafia. One more reason not to follow them ... I'm beginning to understand some things, thank you BAURK.
I'm not saying they belong to the same mafia, I think they do the same style of sensationalism and cheap demagoguery. To his flowers and the more the better and try to manipulate the truth. To the others, sticks.
Yes, excuse me again, for the hours I read wrong. Strongly agree in general. It's a circus more than anything else and a former visitor to that page tells you. The strange thing is that ... now they also hit him at 580 ... well, who doesn't.
The RX 500 Series, no matter how much you want, there is no where to take them, let's be clear.
The 390X is superior to the RX 480 and apparently has the same performance as the RX 580. In two years they have not improved at all only in energy consumption.
Well, I've seen some analyses where the 580 offers between 2 and 10 fps more, depending on the game. Some find it below par, and some even have a technical tie. Regarding the 390x, it's understandable. Therefore, the 580 is a very bad joke. I completely agree with you, Alexander.
Well hopefully VEGA, is for AMD what was Zen in processors, because the truth is that these cards are totally disgusting, the performance is mediocre and as many have said better or they would not have taken anything.