Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
jihadjoe wrote:At the high end, it actually makes a 1080Ti + G-Sync monitor look like great value. The combo will cost less than Vega FE + Freesync and be faster.
DancinJack wrote:Man, that review does not paint a pretty picture. I almost feel bad for AMD.
Redocbew wrote:It's difficult to call anything at the high end a great value these days, but yeah it does help to tip the scales. If this is at all predictive for Vega RX, then I guess I'll continue saving rewards points on the CC for a 1080Ti upgrade at some point.
Of course I don't really need a 1080Ti, but my inner hardware junkie does.
ultima_trev wrote:PC Perspective review is up:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics- ... led-Review
Good News: It tends to beat the GTX 1070.
Bad News: Only just barely at twice the power consumption.
ptsant wrote:ultima_trev wrote:PC Perspective review is up:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics- ... led-Review
Good News: It tends to beat the GTX 1070.
Bad News: Only just barely at twice the power consumption.
On the other hand, Vega FE is highly competitive with the Quadros in professional benchmarks and scores wins over the P4000 ($1000) and the P5000 ($2000). It also wins over the Titan Xp in many of these benchmarks. Now, take a Quadro and try to play a game on it. If I needed a Quadro (and did not absolutely require CUDA), I would take a really good look at Vega FE.
This is not the gaming card and the drivers are not 100% gaming drivers. For example, I have no idea what the penalty is for ECC RAM.
My estimate for the gaming version remains: roughly equivalent to the 1080 nonTi (at best slightly faster with the watercooling), consumes more power, sells at $500 ($700 with water). If they can't manage this, Raja will (should) have to find another job.
ptsant wrote:My estimate for the gaming version remains: roughly equivalent to the 1080 nonTi (at best slightly faster with the watercooling), consumes more power, sells at $500 ($700 with water). If they can't manage this, Raja will (should) have to find another job.
Kougar wrote:That being said, by the time consumer Vega shows up in stores with actual stock, then odds are it's three months away from facing Volta. As long as Vega is good for compute it will at least have a leg to stand on but as a consumer card it might as well be DOA given Volta is so close.
stefem wrote:What's the problem gaming with a Quadro? It's no more like in the old days. I can't confirm for all games of course but they have comparable performance to an equivalent GeForce, some did actually made a review
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
stefem wrote:What's the problem gaming with a Quadro? It's no more like in the old days. I can't confirm for all games of course but they have comparable performance to an equivalent GeForce, some did actually made a review
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
LostCat wrote:Kougar wrote:That being said, by the time consumer Vega shows up in stores with actual stock, then odds are it's three months away from facing Volta. As long as Vega is good for compute it will at least have a leg to stand on but as a consumer card it might as well be DOA given Volta is so close.
AMD hasn't even had a high end card since the 290 have they? I mean the 390 was basically a 290 so...
Even if it doesn't compete 1:1 on performance, if it can compete on price or features (freesync etc) that's something.
I don't know what to make of it all yet but from what I can tell AMD post Ryzen and Vega AMD is in a hell of a lot better shape on the high end.
LostCat wrote:AMD hasn't even had a high end card since the 290 have they? I mean the 390 was basically a 290 so...
Even if it doesn't compete 1:1 on performance, if it can compete on price or features (freesync etc) that's something.
I don't know what to make of it all yet but from what I can tell AMD post Ryzen and Vega AMD is in a hell of a lot better shape on the high end.
Kougar wrote:Fury & Fury X was their "high-end card". I get what you're saying, but my point is AMD cannot sell a midrange GPU that costs as much as a flagship model to make. Unless AMD turns Vega into a GDDR6 chip for consumers it's going to cost too much to make for AMD to be able to market it as anything other than an expensive card.
If AMD wants to continue to "not compete" at the high end then they really should drop HBM2 from their consumer cards altogether. Basically what NVIDIA has already been doing for several years... whomever is pre-planning these GPU generations years in advance at AMD really needs to get their act together.
Kougar wrote:LostCat wrote:AMD hasn't even had a high end card since the 290 have they? I mean the 390 was basically a 290 so...
Even if it doesn't compete 1:1 on performance, if it can compete on price or features (freesync etc) that's something.
I don't know what to make of it all yet but from what I can tell AMD post Ryzen and Vega AMD is in a hell of a lot better shape on the high end.
Fury & Fury X was their "high-end card". I get what you're saying, but my point is AMD cannot sell a midrange GPU that costs as much as a flagship model to make. Unless AMD turns Vega into a GDDR6 chip for consumers it's going to cost too much to make for AMD to be able to market it as anything other than an expensive card.
If AMD wants to continue to "not compete" at the high end then they really should drop HBM2 from their consumer cards altogether. Basically what NVIDIA has already been doing for several years... whomever is pre-planning these GPU generations years in advance at AMD really needs to get their act together.
the wrote:stefem wrote:What's the problem gaming with a Quadro? It's no more like in the old days. I can't confirm for all games of course but they have comparable performance to an equivalent GeForce, some did actually made a review
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
This is one of the things I'm curious about the Quadro GP100. More bandwidth, lower latency memory and presumably more ROPs for really insane pixel pushing capabilities. Raw FP32 throughput is actually less than a fully enabled GP102 (Quadro P6000) but those other factors may make it faster in gaming.
It would also be a good point of comparisons as it is the only nVidia card shipping (GV100 on the horizon?) that also has HBM/HBM2 memory.
stefem wrote:ptsant wrote:ultima_trev wrote:PC Perspective review is up:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics- ... led-Review
Good News: It tends to beat the GTX 1070.
Bad News: Only just barely at twice the power consumption.
On the other hand, Vega FE is highly competitive with the Quadros in professional benchmarks and scores wins over the P4000 ($1000) and the P5000 ($2000). It also wins over the Titan Xp in many of these benchmarks. Now, take a Quadro and try to play a game on it. If I needed a Quadro (and did not absolutely require CUDA), I would take a really good look at Vega FE.
This is not the gaming card and the drivers are not 100% gaming drivers. For example, I have no idea what the penalty is for ECC RAM.
My estimate for the gaming version remains: roughly equivalent to the 1080 nonTi (at best slightly faster with the watercooling), consumes more power, sells at $500 ($700 with water). If they can't manage this, Raja will (should) have to find another job.
What's the problem gaming with a Quadro? It's no more like in the old days. I can't confirm for all games of course but they have comparable performance to an equivalent GeForce, some did actually made a review
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
Krogoth wrote:stefem wrote:ptsant wrote:
On the other hand, Vega FE is highly competitive with the Quadros in professional benchmarks and scores wins over the P4000 ($1000) and the P5000 ($2000). It also wins over the Titan Xp in many of these benchmarks. Now, take a Quadro and try to play a game on it. If I needed a Quadro (and did not absolutely require CUDA), I would take a really good look at Vega FE.
This is not the gaming card and the drivers are not 100% gaming drivers. For example, I have no idea what the penalty is for ECC RAM.
My estimate for the gaming version remains: roughly equivalent to the 1080 nonTi (at best slightly faster with the watercooling), consumes more power, sells at $500 ($700 with water). If they can't manage this, Raja will (should) have to find another job.
What's the problem gaming with a Quadro? It's no more like in the old days. I can't confirm for all games of course but they have comparable performance to an equivalent GeForce, some did actually made a review
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
The same story holds true today. Quadros run ~10-30% slower then their Geforce counterparts in real-world gaming applications because their drivers are focused on precision and accuracy in their renderings and don't utilize optimization tricks for extra performance.
stefem wrote:Not in my experience
Glorious wrote:stefem wrote:Not in my experience
That's because it's largely a myth.
To the extent that there is a difference, it probably comes to down to Nvidia just not bothering to include the game-specific profiles with the Quadro drivers. Which matters somewhat for some games, very little for others, and not-at-all for the games that never got them.
Obviously the price-performance is wrecked for these cards if you are just gaming, but the rest of is tech enthusiast urban legend.
cynan wrote:DrDominodog51 wrote:Hmm... The guy in the link says it wasn't holding a constant 1600 MHz during the 3DMark run.
Could that have something to do with the tester using a barely adequate PSU (550W)?
DrDominodog51 wrote:This came out today: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977- ... clocks-ipc
I'm fairly confident that either the Fiji driver theory is correct or it's a die shrink of Fiji.