Filtered three benchmarks of the AMD RX Vega under the Fire Strike with a 1080p resolution, which offers quite enlightening data on what the performance of this graphics card will be in the future.
The wait for the AMD RX Vega is getting excessively long and the data is quite confusing, aiming to finally compete with the NVIDIA GTX 1080, not reaching the level of the NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti. The latest is the leak of three 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark results with an AMD RX Vega graphics card. The results are what they are and as we have seen, it is unlikely that there will be differences between these data and those that will finally occur when it reaches the market.
According to the data that the software gives us, we see that we are facing a single graphics card with an amount of memory of 8GB and a frequency of 945MHz, which would clearly indicate that we are talking about HBM2 memories. The working frequency is 1630MHz in the most powerful version and we are clearly facing an RX Vega, since that is how the software detects it. It is possible that this working frequency is the maximum that the graphics card will allow. The benchmarks seem to be made, according to the points, with a 1080p resolution, so there are doubts about the behavior in 4K.
| AMD Radeon RX Vega 3DMark Fire Strike Performance | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Graphic card | Freq. GPUs | Freq. Memory | 3DMark Fire Strike GPU Result |
| MSI GTX 1080 TI Gaming | 1924 MHz | 1390 MHz |
29425
|
| MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X | 1924 MHz | 1263 MHz |
22585
|
| AMD Radeon RX Vega # 1 | 1630 MHz | 945 MHz |
22330
|
| AMD Radeon RX Vega # 2 | 1630 MHz | 945 MHz |
22291
|
| AMD Radeon RX Vega # 3 | 1536 MHz | 945 MHz |
20949
|
| COLORFUL GTX 1070 | 1797 MHz | 2002 MHz |
18561
|
Looking only at the score, we see that the models of this RX Vega that work at 1630MHz, give approximately 22300 points, being close to an MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X, which would work at 1924MHz and the memories work 1263MHz, giving something more than 22585 ( apparently it would be working in overclocking mode). There is another RX Vega with a frequency of 1536MHz, which would give close to 21000 points, but it would not finish arriving, giving a much higher result than a Colorful GTX 1070, which would give just over 18500 points.
We want to provide our data and compare the general results with respect to those we have been obtaining with the benchmark of different graphic cards that have passed through our office. We focus on the overall result, not just the GPU results and the differences are quite clear. It is you who in this case have to draw conclusions.
Source: VZ
How little you like AMD here ...
What we like is data and data says what it says.
I wouldn't say 'disappointing' until the sale price is assured. It is also 4 points from a 1080 Ti (masters, I don't know, is what I see in that graph of yours).
The Founders Edition, the reference model that came out in the beginning, the ones to look at are the custom ones. Not only the price, we must also look at the consumption and temperatures, which seen with the Frontier Edition, points to excessively high consumption.
Our data is taking into account all the hardware, if you look at the table only with the GPU score, you will see that the difference is brutal.
Well, with HBM2 and liquid cooling as standard at the top, they are not supposed to be cheap, unless you want to beat it all. But hey, there is little left to leave doubts.
Arriving almost a year and a half late, and barely exceeding 1080, is disappointing per se, no matter how cheap it costs, for that they reframe the fury x at 1300 MHz and do not wait a year and a half, because they would have the same consumption, and it would be to replace the hbm per hbm2 for the largest capacity ..
Especially based on "leaks". I don't know if they are good or bad, but making these kinds of statements based on leaks is risky to say the least. And yes, given AMD's track record it is almost certain to be the case, but we must be more cautious and not be carried away by favoritism.
What is worth is the gpu score, the global one is not worth it, it is clear that it will not give the same with a 3770K than with a 6950X.
An i7 7700K is more common than an i7 6950X.
I am quite happy with what vega could offer me now that I am dabbling in medium precision calculations related to deep learning. Vega has more or less as double the power of a gtx 1080ti for example in FP16 calculation and it will be quite interesting considering how the medium precision calculation is being implemented today. Unfortunately, on the nvidia side, it's time to go for a GP100 to have a large amount of medium precision calculation, and it costs more than 8000 dollars, so Vega is a good boost for that market.
I am quite happy with what vega could offer me now that
I am dabbling in medium precision calculations related to the
deep learning. Vega has more or less like twice the power of a P6000, for example in FP16 calculation (cards like the 1080ti are capable of FP16), and it will be quite interesting
considering how the calculation of medium precision is being implemented in
the actuality. Unfortunately on the nvidia side, it's time to go for a
GP100 to have a large amount of medium precision calculation, and
it costs more than 8000 dollars, so vega is a good revulsive
for that market.
It is unknown which of the three final models have passed the test… it is rash to say that they disappoint…. if it makes it clear that polishing them more AND lack of consumption / price will be one more option and it is good for everyone, because both nvidea and intel have taken advantage of their supremacy in the market ...
Zen apu with vega will be a huge leap in both laptops and desktops….
I would love for Vega to put out some good graphics so that I can put Nvidia on the ropes. Same with processors. Perhaps the high consumption of the frontier edition is a cause of being poorly polished. By the way, when is Vega's presentation?
Well, I don't remember if it's the 30th or the 31st.
what disappoints me about the amd vega, is the beast that seems to be its energy consumption, I would have preferred something with lower performance but high efficiency and at a good price, which seems to be due to the leaks so far, which would not be typical of this generation . Much to my regret since amd products have always been friendly to me, especially because of the price-performance ratio. Now I am about to build a pc with a ryzen 1700 it is not for games, it is more for working with audio and video editing, and some other tasks that I will probably do simultaneously. A query, with an nvidia gtx 1050ti it would have to work well for these tasks? I'm going to use a 40 ′ 4k LCD as a monitor.
Better a GTX 1060 or an RX 580, to be more baggy.
Well I finally decided on a gtx 1060 and a ryzen 1600, with a GA-AX370-Gaming board that has 8 sata 3pcie x1 and 3pcie x16 that I need, in the end the ryzen 1700 seems to me to be more than what I need. Thank you.
Roberto you are totally wrong, nothing disappointing. Another thing is that you are pro NVIDIA.
They are more than a year late and barely reaches the level of the GTX 1080 when NVIDIA already has developed Volta. Man, no little disappointment.
For 100 points and little you are going to tell me that it does not reach the level of a GTX 1080, come on man. Another thing that is true is that they have arrived a bit late.
As much as disappointing I do not think, and if the price is lower we already have a very good option for many new users, which would surely lead to Nvidia partially lowering its current prices, leading again to those who have bought some Nvidia graphics such as to feel again like they have been taken for a ride.