What in tarnation

What in tarnation...

Other urls found in this thread:

pcgameshardware.de/Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Grafikkarte-266623/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-1235445/3/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

so basically if you are like me, and don't use AA, vega is amazing? woah

>Vega FE
>Vega 64
>Vega 56
Stupid names in hindsight.
>Vega Content
>Vega Compute
>Vega GTS
Far better names considering that Vega56 is the only one that can actually perform for vidya.

Fuck off

>>>/teamred+/

It beats the 1080ti in 1080p. Only in dirt 4 though, even other games run with post processing AA that's light on bandwidth won't show such results so we can surmise a few things: vega is limited by geometry throughput; even if geometry is fixed, it will be limited by bandwidth or the rops.

Vega's a flawed design

Why does dirt 4 make nvidia lose? The vega 64 was supposed to compete with the 1080 not the 1080ti.

Ohhhhh so that's why everybody was talking about 3 triangles per ops instead of 12 like it's supposed to.

How soon before the drivers are fixed?

Do we even need AA on 1440p monitors anymore?

It's a racing game that's shader heavy with optimisations for heavily threaded shaders.

nVidia GPUs are 'shader lite' compared to AMD but ROP and TMU heavy (good for vidya, bad for compute, but nVidia sells dedicated compute gear)
AMD is shader heavy with hardware threading but 2/3 the TMU/ROP count of a comparable nVidia GPU, great for Compute, less than stellar for gaming.

It's probably a shader heavy game. By that I mean the models and textures are probably fairly simple but it uses a lot of lighting and post processing effects to look good. Iirc Dirt Showdown was one of the first games to implement global illumination, so the company clearly likes the compute intensive features

Wow it's like they could have sold it for the price they were going to originally and make Nvidia have some actual competition.

that's why I don't use it

rx580 MSRP is $200
you can't find one for less than $400
is it also amd fault?

>Fury X beating the 1070
I'm pretty impressed to be honest. All those people who said that the 1070 would never be touched by the Fury X... eat your heart out.
AA isn't necessary at or above 1440p anyway. Or, I don't think so. Highest I use is 2xAA unless I'm playing a game like Fallout or Skyrim where I don't want to go above 60fps anyway.

Is Vega 56 available bundled with Ryzen anywhere? I'd consider it that way but not on its own.

You mean like how the 1070 has an MSRP of $350 and yet it retails for $450-$600?

>Fury X beating the 1070

No...

>AA isn't necessary at or above 1440p anyway
You sure you've played games "at or above 1440p"? Because AA is sure as fuck entirely necessary on common 1440p/27" monitors and sometimes is necessary even on 2160p/27" monitors too.

>Fury X beating the 1070
>AA isn't necessary at or above 1440p

The city of amdrones

>amdrones cherry picking
That's a first.

Actually, it's 4 triangles per clock at the moment. The Vega whitepaper claims up to 17 polygon per clock effective throughput, but even realizing half of that would be enough to massively improve RX Vega's geometry performance in games.

And no one is sure when primitive shaders are going to hit the public drivers, but I've heard estimates ranging from ~15 days to ~2 months.

I use a 2560x1500 30", needs AA to look good

Now post texel throughput

I don't have them handy at the moment as an image, but if you want to see them they are available here: pcgameshardware.de/Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Grafikkarte-266623/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-1235445/3/

DELET

wow the 1070 really is useless against the 580 considering the price

why vega's texture bandwidth is lower than fury's?

>placebo resolution
>placebo fps
So you're saying all the listed cards are fine and you should just get the cheapest one? Got it.

if it's bigger than 27" then yes

>decent (for AMD) random texture fillrate because of HBM's lower latency random accesses
>worse black texture bandwidth than a 1070
>half the bw of a Titan X

Vega's never going to reach its potential. Sorry to say but your dreams have been dashed.

I'm getting pic related, would I be fine without AA?

>placebo resolution
1080p? What do you need 720p for? HELP, this man is making me display video games at 480p!!!

>124.15 ppi - 1440p
>92.56 ppi -1080p
that screensize is even comfortable in 1080p. imagine cutting 1/4 of your screen and it would have the same number of pixels as a fullhd screen. all that pixels just sharpening the picture. it's going to be crisp clear

I don't think it's realistic to try and assess the performance of the rest of the rendering pipeline while Vega is still front end bottlenecked like crazy. Once they implement primitive shaders, then it will be easier to assess where the other bottlenecks actually lie.

noice

Primarily from what I've seen in my gameplay it has an incredibly overuse of global illumination
Shit is nearly 64 samples

What the fuck have they been doing for 2 years

What's this?

Primitive shaders enabled when

for the last time: they were writing the drivers for professional/enterprise stuff first, only recently they started working on the gaming stuff

damn, amd's going to be charged with murder when they enable primitive shaders if only undervolting gives this performance increase

>only recently they started working on the gaming stuff
But why release it when it's not done?

because they were forced to meet specific deadlines, their shareholders didn't want yet another delay