Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
bfg-9000 wrote:It's certainly a disappointment that neither Vega nor 1080 are really satisfactory for 4k.
Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry. The whole point of Vega's new architecture was to allow it to clock higher, but just like Bulldozer, AMD haven't pulled it off.
Krogoth wrote:AMD RTG gave up the notion of reclaiming high-end gaming after Maxwell's massive success via 970. Vega and Navi are all about the future. The days of widespread discrete video cards is coming to an end.
Krogoth wrote:The days of widespread discrete video cards is coming to an end. iGPU on SoC solutions are getting good enough to handle majority of the needs of mainstream gamers and users which will eat away at mid-range discrete video cards (which makes up the bulk of the market).
Redocbew wrote:Krogoth wrote:AMD RTG gave up the notion of reclaiming high-end gaming after Maxwell's massive success via 970. Vega and Navi are all about the future. The days of widespread discrete video cards is coming to an end.
When making this kind of prediction aren't you supposed to toss in a few phrases like "paradigm shift" and "inflection point" also?
I don't doubt it'll happen, but we're not there yet. IGPs may be "good enough" for a lot of things, but the distance between a really good IGP and a lower end discrete GPU can still make for quite a gap.
MileageMayVary wrote:Any reason AMD couldn't have Vega made at TSMC instead of GloFo? Didn't they redo their GloFo contract a bit ago to be less tied to them?
MileageMayVary wrote:bfg-9000 wrote:It's certainly a disappointment that neither Vega nor 1080 are really satisfactory for 4k.
Actually since I have the numbers...
Airmantharp wrote:MileageMayVary wrote:bfg-9000 wrote:It's certainly a disappointment that neither Vega nor 1080 are really satisfactory for 4k.
Actually since I have the numbers...
Coming in a little late here, but it needs to be said: do not- ever- argue with average FPS alone. You're on TechReport.
Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
Duct Tape Dude wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
+1
I wanted a flagship card and would have been ok with taking Vega64+Freesync vs a 1080Ti+Vsync if the power consumption was lower.
JustAnEngineer wrote:$0.000012 per watt per hour is less than 5¢/hr.
Duct Tape Dude wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
+1
I wanted a flagship card and would have been ok with taking Vega64+Freesync vs a 1080Ti+Vsync if the power consumption was lower.
Duct Tape Dude wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
+1
I wanted a flagship card and would have been ok with taking Vega64+Freesync vs a 1080Ti+Vsync if the power consumption was lower.
ermo wrote:Duct Tape Dude wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
+1
I wanted a flagship card and would have been ok with taking Vega64+Freesync vs a 1080Ti+Vsync if the power consumption was lower.
Exactly this.
Unless RTG and GloFo can pull a rabbit out of their collective as***^H hats with future steppings, Vega will likely be consigned to the history books as borderline irrelevant.
For something that was hyped as the shining beacon of the future @RTG, that's a pretty poor showing.
Krogoth wrote:Power consumption has never been about the electric bill. It has always been about thermal management and noise level that goes with it if you go with air. If you can't afford electrical cost of running a performance GPU then you got much bigger problems on your hands.
MileageMayVary wrote:I pulled together average reported frame rates from several sites (including TR) for how the Vega64 and Vega 56 compare against the GTX1080 and GTX1070 at 1440. I'm not sure why the general feeling I get from the interwebs is that Vega failed. Was Vega supposed to beat the GTX1080Ti? No. Does it use more power? Yes. Is it way late? Yes. I know a lot of places are giving thumbs up, especially to the Vega56, but if the price is comparable, then being -2% to +7% of your opponent seems pretty on point to me.
Vega64 is 98% the speed of the GTX1080 @ 1440.
Vega56 is 107% the speed of the GTX1070 @ 1440.
Some games are ridiculously in favor of Team Green, such as Fallout 4, GTA V, and Civ VI, but overall very competitive.
And yes, I know this doesn't take into account minimum frame rates, micro stutter, and possible stub frames.
Here's hoping they're next gen is more or less on time with NVidia's next gen.
Krogoth wrote:Duct Tape Dude wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:It's a failure to me because it's so power hungry.
+1
I wanted a flagship card and would have been ok with taking Vega64+Freesync vs a 1080Ti+Vsync if the power consumption was lower.
Power consumption has never been about the electric bill. It has always been about thermal management and noise level that goes with it if you go with air. If you can't afford electrical cost of running a performance GPU then you got much bigger problems on your hands.