64 vs 1080 ti

64 vs 1080 ti
>Memory bandwidth - 409.6 GB/s vs 224.4 GB/s
>Floating-point performance -12,665 GFLOPS vs 8,228 GFLOPS
>Memory bus - 2,048 bit vs 256 bit
>Texture rate - 395.8 GTexel/s vs 257.1 GTexel/s
>More shading units - 4,096 vs 2,560
>Texture mapping units - 256 vs 160
Why does VEGA 64 perform so badly when on paper its significantly better than the 1080 ti?

>Drivers
>Game Engines

Surely drivers can't account for such a shortfall? There is a 30%+ difference in many of its hardware stats.
>game engines
Even on DOOM which was made with AMD hardware in mind it still loses to the 1080 ti.

>>Drivers
>>Game Engines
Big yes
No

shit just gets hot and loud. No one wants it.

Basically it comes down to performance per unit
and utilization of those units

what would determine that? architecture?

Yes, they can. Drivers can easily make a GPU underperform by well over 50%. And game engines have to adjust themselves to the drivers and OS.

Vega 64 will become like 7970. Drivers are a huge player here. Rajah fucked up development team now Lisa is going to fix his shit now that ryzen roadmap is good

>Why does VEGA 64 perform so badly when on paper its significantly better than the 1080 ti?
Because no NGG and TBDR.

God damn. So its yet another industry case of just wait™?

It doesn't really matter if it's "drivers" or "game engines" or what the underlying cause really is. The simple truth is that the 1080 ti outperforms the Vega 64 in the vast majority of games.

The raw performance of this card is apparent the moment you try to mine with these GPUs, the 1080ti is a piece of garbage that can barely compute while the Vega64 is the absolute king which makes the 1080ti look like a piece of trash. Of course.. the 1080ti is at a big disadvantage to begin with there since the 1080 does perform much better than the ti.

You can see the inevitable result by looking at prices, both the Vega 64 and 56 are still horribly overpriced. Nvidia cards are overpriced but not to the same degree.

I honestly don't see the point in buying either of these for gaming, though. Just get the Xbox One X. Seriously. That's a complete system for less than a high-end PC GPU.

No point in waiting, you'll just get old and die.

You seem to have missed the entire point of the thread which is discussing WHY it performs worse. We all know that the 1080 ti wins in gaming.

Drivers. They seemed to have improved late though.

I'm guessing async compute has something to do with it, nvidia cards can't and use software. Many games so it in software on all cards because they are optimized for nvidia.

a heavy geometry bottleneck along with tile based rasterization not being implemented yet

the geometry can roughly double what nvidia does on paper, but its currently limited to 3-4 instead of little over 17

and we know tile based rasterization is a motherfucker to implement, something nvidia had a near total rewrite to get working in driver.

If amd drivers are fucked, the solution will likely come in time, if its a hardware fault, something we would have known as a fact by now if it was, then the card both 64 and 64l are worthless as they bottleneck at the same spot the 56 does.

VEGA computes in waves and it can't "fill" those waves to capacity enough in games because of drivers/optimisation. It has a lot of extra hardware that it is not using, which is why it performers so well in comparison when it does.

Immature drivers and game optimisations.
I know it sounds like a meme, but give it a while and when the drivers mature Vega 56 and 64 will be really strong cards.

I have a Vega 64 right now and while performance is stellar, it's still just an AMD GTX 1080 wannabe. Supposedly, Vega 64 should compete with the 1080ti, but as of now in every bench except Wolfeinstein, the 1080ti is far ahead.

don't know why you're quoting 1080 specs but even then it's not holding up to that anyway

woops my mistake

>buy a vega
>leave it to mine eth at nights
>megaprofit while manchildren cry about 190 instead of 200fps

Yeah, nice try. Those are the specs for the 1080, not the 1080 Ti.

>Memory bandwidth - 409.6 GB/s vs 484 GB/s
>Floating-point performance -12,665 GFLOPS vs 11,400 GFLOPS
>Memory bus - 2,048 bit vs 352 bit
>Texture rate - 395.8 GTexel/s vs 354.4 GTexel/s
>More shading units - 4,096 vs 3,584
>Texture mapping units - 256 vs 224

OP IS A FAGGOT

GTX 1080 has 320GB/s of memory bandwidth

Pointed out already but thanks for posting the corrections

They're not even the 1070, they're the 980 or 970 or something. The regular 1080 is 320GB/s and the 1070 is 256GB/s

OP also fails to compare one of the biggest factors, clock speed. The 1080 runs at a significantly higher clock speed than the air cooled Vega 64.

Wolfenstein 2 is basically a best-case scenario for Vega.

Where did these numbers come from? I have 3584 shaders on my 1080ti. 348.8 Gtexel/s memory bus is 352 bit. These seem like regular 1080 numbers.

can i emulate nintendo 64 games with a vega 64?

No, it's not 64 bit

aw man why call it vega 64 if i cant run mario 64 on it?

Pajeet shit