AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 Rumors and Discussion

I bet my 980ti oc'd at 1500+ core (easy to do on air) keeps up comfortably.

I doubt the air version of vega will have much headroom for OC.

Their best bet is bundled sales with Zen and seems like what they will be heavily promoting.

It's a dud.
 
I never said it was unfair. I'm saying you're not comparing Apples to Apples. I don't see how it's possible to accurately estimate how much has to be added for the others to add all the advanced Tier 3 features.
I think you're not trying very hard.

Conservative rasterization, something Pascal also has. Tier 3 seems to add precision, a few more modes, and options to handle geometry. Does that sound like your ticket to the missing 169mm2?

Various additional options to tiled resources. That's essentially memory management stuff. Not a likely candidate either.

Same think for resource binding tiers: more management stuff.

What kind of other features are we talking about that's new compared to Polaris?
 
It's funny, after AMD has gone through "something is clearly not right" convulsive revival, then finally lunched the card, layed out the "official" performance guidelines vis-a-vis competition, etc, people are still grasping at "wait for magic drivers" straws. I guess if you repeat a mantra long enough, it becomes ingrained.
 
I tend to agree. It just seems so odd that the performance/area or performance/watt is so horrid. Something went seriously wrong and they ran out of time to fix it. Now they're polishing a turd.
The smoking fun that something unexpected went wrong is not perf/W or perf/mm but gaming perf/TFLOPS.

AMD was always lacking a bit in this department, but Vega is off the charts bad. 13 TFLOPS to compete against 9 TFLOPS.
 
Power management is still WIP:
Which did almost nothing to their rated TDP, AMD rates the air cooled @295W (despite lower clocks than Vega FE), Water cooled is rated @345W. Still incredibly high.
They aren't releasing more info yet because its clear drivers are still WIP. Tile based rasterization is disabled currently:
We're well past hanging to false hopes now, several outlets do warn not to expect miraculous gains, besides AMD's numbers are logically with these features enabled .

AMD is being careful not to make too many promises here – the performance and power impact of the DSBR vary wildly with the software used – but it means that the RX Vega will have a bit more going on than the Vega FE at launch.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680...-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august/3
Don’t expect any miracles from the feature’s activation. After all, AMD is assuredly projecting performance with DSBR enabled. But a slide of presumably best-case scenarios shows bandwidth savings as high as 30%.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-specs-availability,35112.html
 
Last edited:
doesn't seem like a huge power diffrence looking at reviews of the 1080 . Dunno how much money you pay for power though

The 1080 Ti FE tops out at 250 watts at stock settings. The 1080 FE is at 180 watts.
 
It's funny, after AMD has gone through "something is clearly not right" convulsive revival, then finally lunched the card, layed out the "official" performance guidelines vis-a-vis competition, etc, people are still grasping at "wait for magic drivers" straws. I guess if you repeat a mantra long enough, it becomes ingrained.
This was one of the greatest disappointments I've ever had in B3D, I couldn't believe how some of the best hardcore and technically oriented people repeat and cling to such an obvious fantasy after seeing the results of Vega FE.
 
The cut down version does decently in the power department with 210W for a boost clock of 1471. AMD still aren't out of the woods in the clockspeed department requiring 1.2V for 1.6Ghz while Pascal can touch 2Ghz under 1V.
 
My guess is that Vega is likely bandwidth bound as the tiled rasterizer is not enabled. Vega has slightly less bandwidth than Fiji and significantly more computational (and geometry) throughput. Also I would guess that Vega L2 cache is trashing a bit more in graphics workloads, since Vega brings ROP caches under L2. Tiled rasterizer should significantly help with rasterizer cache trashing (bin triangles first to tiles -> much better area (cache) locality when rasterizing). Vega RX reviews (today) also reveal that L2 cache has been doubled from 2 MB to 4 MB. This means that L2 cache flushes now cost more. They really need new driver code to avoid bottlenecks and take advantage of the new hardware.

I would assume that the final RX drivers are released on 14th. AMD recently released a tool that allows you to record frames and inspect all the barriers (cache flushes and stall types) of their GPUs. When there is an official developer driver supporting Vega, we could do some captures and inspect how the behavior has changed since Fiji/Polaris.

Link to this awesome tool (I have waited for long time to get tools like this on PC):
http://gpuopen.com/gaming-product/radeon-gpu-profiler-rgp/
 
You mean the performance estimate did not use a fully functioning driver? And even then and under cherry picked conditions it is a 50:50 against a stock 1080.
 
Which did almost nothing to their rated TDP, AMD rates the air cooled @295W (despite lower clocks than Vega FE), Water cooled is rated @345W. Still incredibly high.

We're well past hanging to false hopes now, several outlets do warn not to expect miraculous gains, besides AMD's numbers are logically with these features enabled .


http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680...-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august/3


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-specs-availability,35112.html

I'd say a 30% increase in memory bandwidth is exactly what Vega needs. It is clearly held back by lower than Fiji memory bandwidth while 50% or more higher core clocks.
This was one of the greatest disappointments I've ever had in B3D, I couldn't believe how some of the best hardcore and technically oriented people repeat and cling to such an obvious fantasy after seeing the results of Vega FE.


Yet you continue to post in this thread? Why not just wait for the official reviews?
 
My guess is that Vega is likely bandwidth bound as the tiled rasterizer is not enabled. Vega has slightly less bandwidth than Fiji and significantly more computational (and geometry) throughput. Also I would guess that Vega L2 cache is trashing a bit more, since Vega brings ROP caches under L2. Tiled rasterizer should significantly help with rasterizer cache trashing (bin triangles first to tiles -> much better area (cache) locality when rasterizing). Vega RX reviews (today) also reveal that L2 cache has been doubled from 2 MB to 4 MB. This means that L2 cache flushes now cost more. They really need new driver code to take advantage of the new hardware and to avoid bottlenecks.

Exactly. If memory bandwidth was always going to be a core issue they would have gone with 4 stacks (maybe 3?) again of cheaper (4x4 or 4x2) and slower memory and still had way more bandwidth than Fiji. They designed Vega to have better memory bandwidth utilization and its clear its not working properly right now. The engineers saying that its disabled just confirms it.
 
If AMD knew how to alleviate the bottleneck with software changes they wouldn't be releasing the cards with their current performance.
(Unless they know consumer Volta cards will be out in a few months)

They should have done it in the last 12 months. It sounds irrational that you cant write release ready drivers in this timeframe...
 
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9GL1ovNjk3ODIzL29yaWdpbmFsL2RpcmVjdHgtMTItZmVhdHVyZXMuanBn


aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9GL1kvNjk3ODIyL29yaWdpbmFsL3ByaW1pdGl2ZS1zaGFkZXIuanBn


aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9GL1EvNjk3ODE0L29yaWdpbmFsL2RzYnItaW1wYWN0LmpwZw==


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-specs-availability,35112.html
 
This was one of the greatest disappointments I've ever had in B3D, I couldn't believe how some of the best hardcore and technically oriented people repeat and cling to such an obvious fantasy after seeing the results of Vega FE.
GTX 1060 was beating RX 480 by 12% in TechSpot launch review. They ran benchmarks again with newest driver (at RX 580 launch). The difference had dropped to 1%. That's a 11% increase. And that's been AMDs track record for ages. There's plenty of reviews stating the same thing for different AMD GPUs.

Link: https://www.techspot.com/review/1393-radeon-rx-580-vs-geforce-gtx-1060/page8.html

Vega is the biggest change to GCN architecture since GCN launch. Would it be wrong to assume that AMD needs more time than Polaris required to get the drivers up to peak performance? AMD today officially told us that the tiled rasterizer has been disabled in the current drivers. Vega FE is likely bandwidth starved. Expecting 10%+ performance gains during the first year of driver upgrades is plausible. They managed to do it with Polaris which was a much smaller upgrade. Now they have a completely new rasterizer and new ROP cache hierarchy.

Obviously it's silly if someone expects a 30%+ perf bump over Vega FE in 2 weeks :)
 
My guess is that Vega is likely bandwidth bound as the tiled rasterizer is not enabled. Vega has slightly less bandwidth than Fiji and significantly more computational (and geometry) throughput. Also I would guess that Vega L2 cache is trashing a bit more in graphics workloads, since Vega brings ROP caches under L2. Tiled rasterizer should significantly help with rasterizer cache trashing (bin triangles first to tiles -> much better area (cache) locality when rasterizing). Vega RX reviews (today) also reveal that L2 cache has been doubled from 2 MB to 4 MB. This means that L2 cache flushes now cost more. They really need new driver code to avoid bottlenecks and take advantage of the new hardware.
Have you experienced anything similar to the weird texture fillrate results and unusually low effective memory bandwidth in your work with Vega?
 
Which means AMD numbers are from the DSBR enabled driver. They didn't measure those data with it enabled only to release "final" performance estimates with it disabled!

Those are all very old titles, who knows when that was tested, maybe it was tested a year ago and something broke and caused them to have to rework it. We don't know
 
Expecting 10%+ performance gains during the first year of driver upgrades is plausible.

Yep, also once games start using the new features like rapid packed math that can give huge gains as well. Futuremark found over 15% gain in the benchmark they are creating that tests it.
 
Back
Top