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

Digidi said:
But where is the Quality? The best mess you see at Wolfenstein. Only one site reportet that there is an issue with one Special scene. But no fouther Testing whats the Issue! Other sides didn't even stated that there is an issue. Is this Quality?
Click to expand...
You get what you pay for, I'd say, sad as it sounds.
Maybe you can ask at those sites you regularly visit and support to investigate in this matter.
 
Last edited:
Ethatron said:
You are generalizing.
Click to expand...
Yes, very much so. It's hard not to generalize when you speak of a generic type of publication.

Ethatron said:
You are generalizing.
In the engineering space I have not observed any out-of-its-own-space fishing. We have a few of them coming in every month or quarter or bianually and circulating the office. That doesn't mean there are none doing, just that there are some not doing it. There are more engineers than ever, no need to diversify, would be my guess. I also didn't observe rushing with stories, they are published when the author feels he covered all (or the relevant for the article) bits, which means sometimes half a year of latency (not because of publishing frequency).

I know there is the more interesting question lingering below the meta-discussion: Are number of CUs a good markting instrument for consumers? If yes, what do you need to do in your articles to make everyone understand what exactly it is and what it means? If not, what do you have to do to break the vicious circle of marketing departments obsession over "number races" and "checkbox accumulations"?
I'd prefer to stay away from any marketing effords of the current IHVs (as a writer, hypothetically), there is not much innovation going on, there is no justification to write an in-depth piece for every release, there is not enough information to make a piece correct.

Then there is the question of using games for benchmarking, which I think is very questionable. Because you have no chance to decompose the games software effect from the hardware effect, and tend to attribute everything to hardware, until contradictions appear, and then the attribution is simply like sampling an RNG.
For as long as games are not looked at with RGA or Nsight or RenderDoc I don't see conformation for an attempt to even be serious about analyzing the situation and trying to find answers. Or for as long as a writer doesn't blame the engine first and foremost for observed performance (which requires skill and knowledge or good contacts, or guts).

I don't believe in big picture statistics (smash all games benchmarks in a statistic and pretend that it's a good or valid thing to do). Not about age, or gender, or populations or graphics cards. No thing is the best for all, put the pretention exists, and companies are living off it.
Click to expand...
That's all very nice in theory, also decomposing every frame down to its roots - but that's also a question of audience. Beyond3D for example would be one of the premier sites with probably just the right kind of audience to do this. And yet, sadly, the article part of the site is comatose at best because Rys has a demanding day job at AMD - and why does he do that and not live off his writing? He has bills to pay like everyone else.

But you are right, in theory, there is much currently published online-articles could do better. But there's the problem of economics playing a role: If you research an exklusive behind the scene story really on your own and not being tipped (or worse: sponsored) by any competitor, you have expenses, you have your salary and in the end, you'd sell maybe a thousand special interest magazines full of very cool, very exclusive and very quickly copied to the internets-oh-heres-the-full-content-and-hey-we-put-in-a-link stories. Does that begin to even cover your costs? At what price can you sell these mags? And what people often forget: You don't set out to do a story, research a bit and then have that story. For every story published, there are two or three, where the research produces no publishable result, i.e. at some point you hit a wall. There's no automatic reimbursement for that.

It's pretty sad, but for most online-journals and also most printed magazines, also including some of the Fachzeitschriften, it just does not work out. You probably know „Stiftung Warentest“ - and their extensive testing. Do you think they could survive without the foundation's money in the background only by selling their magazines?

Ethatron said:
Lastly, every publication chooses it's audience, if the audience is known to be volatile, you can't blame the audiance for it's attitude. Choose your audience more wisely. You can always change the publication you work for (in principle), just pick one with an audience you'd prefer to work for. :)
Click to expand...
And now you're generalizing, don't you? ;)
 
Frenetic Pony said:
Of course in the end it doesn't really matter other than what your power supply is rated for.
Click to expand...
And fan noise.
And heat output.
...Which in this day and age probably means throttling as well. Maybe both on CPU and GPU, depending on circumstances (laptops, cramped cases and so on.)
 
CarstenS said:
Yes, very much so. It's hard not to generalize when you speak of a generic type of publication.
Click to expand...

You were generalizing that all [graphics tech related] publications face the same "problems", which isn't true. I understood it that way.

CarstenS said:
That's all very nice in theory, also decomposing every frame down to its roots ...
Click to expand...

Correction: decomposing what is driver and what is engine. You agree you have no foundation for judgement if you can't make correct attribution?

CarstenS said:
- but that's also a question of audience. Beyond3D for example would be one of the premier sites with probably just the right kind of audience to do this. And yet, sadly, the article part of the site is comatose at best because Rys has a demanding day job at AMD - and why does he do that and not live off his writing? He has bills to pay like everyone else.
Click to expand...

This is anectodical. B3D was never made up of journalists, not lead by an editor in chief with a business plan, and so on and so on. RWT the same. It could have become, but I dare to guess nobody wanted to be publicist, which requires an entire different kind of appretiation and dedication.

It's not suitable for a discussion about existing publications which fall in the be-popular trap.
I could sing you a song about gaming companies falling into the be-popular trap, and also of gaming companies which just do their thing and have critical success, or just made people happy for a time if nothing else. The critical success is something I would expect a journalist desires more than a traditional game company, which doesn't really want to make art but entertainment. The current super-conglomerates just want to reach hollywood levels of yield.

CarstenS said:
But you are right, in theory, there is much currently published online-articles could do better. But there's the problem of economics playing a role: If you research an exklusive behind the scene story really on your own and not being tipped (or worse: sponsored) by any competitor, you have expenses, you have your salary and in the end, you'd sell maybe a thousand special interest magazines full of very cool, very exclusive and very quickly copied to the internets-oh-heres-the-full-content-and-hey-we-put-in-a-link stories. Does that begin to even cover your costs? At what price can you sell these mags? And what people often forget: You don't set out to do a story, research a bit and then have that story. For every story published, there are two or three, where the research produces no publishable result, i.e. at some point you hit a wall. There's no automatic reimbursement for that.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that there are publications which surpass the problems you described.

CarstenS said:
It's pretty sad, but for most online-journals and also most printed magazines, also including some of the Fachzeitschriften, it just does not work out. You probably know „Stiftung Warentest“ - and their extensive testing. Do you think they could survive without the foundation's money in the background only by selling their magazines?
Click to expand...

Look, they have made a foundation because they know how to put themself on a stable socket. They thought about what to do and found a solution. I'm just suggesting to start looking at way/paths/alternatives, whenever one feels between a rock and a hard place. Abandoning being large with high turn-over might be part of it.

CarstenS said:
And now you're generalizing, don't you? ;)
Click to expand...

I believe that the paths to choose from are universally available. Indeed, this is a generalization, a necessary one if you a believer in "freedom of choice" (not to be confused with "freedom of will"). Executing your freedom of choice facilitates freedom of choice of your readership.

This is at the core of the discussion, do you want to serve, or serf-serve; as a publication, a journalist? Do you have the resources to serve? If not, why do you continue publishing (as a publisher)?

Is it okay to perpetuate "garbage" news so that the corporation continues to exist? A corporation is an amoral (not to be confused with unmoral) institution, it will corrupt to stay afloat, that's the dynamic. Then there's the people working there, they have to find more complicated answers because they are moral beings.

I don't judge, or critizise, here. I hear your discomfort about the situation you seem to carry around (it has a lot of angles, it's complex and ambiguous, I know that), and just want to remind you that there always is a niche you can carve yourself, and/or for your publication.

Edit: I'm sorry for the going off-topic, I think it's a rich topic; feel free to fork this thread of ideas off into another "thread".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kej
Google translated ...
At ComputerBase and PC Games Hardware , the graphics card performance of Wolfenstein II was considered. Unfortunately, the results of both reviews are not comparable, as they chose very different approaches: The PCGH has consistently measured under the ultra-picture quality (the third best image quality offered by the game) , while a relatively good result for AMD was measured - with a Radeon RX Vega 64 at eye level to a well-overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 and otherwise tend to tend to AMD-speaking measurement results. The ComputerBase, on the other hand, went into even two test sequences under the best possible image quality "My Life": in the first one came roughly to the results of the PCGH, the tendency in favor of AMD was even more pronounced.

With the second, more demanding test sequence of ComputerBase, however, there was a completely opposite result: nVidia was clearly ahead, sometimes even better than the general performance image ago known (GeForce GTX 1070 before Radeon RX Vega 56) . The relative difference between the two test sequences is very dramatic: While nVidia cards only lose 1-5% between test sequence 1 & 2, the AMD graphics cards are down 29-38%. Here it must be determined even further on what this performance behavior is or whether there is an error or just a general difference. For the moment, it can only be said that graphics card measurements under Wolfenstein II depend very heavily on the chosen test sequence - and thus one can not actually make a solid performance statement, unless one (at least internally) handles more than 3-4 test sequences. Another point to clarify with future reviews is the CPU performance of the game - after the game publisher initially wrote 8 CPU threads in the official system requirements , you should certainly check this out.
Click to expand...
http://www.3dcenter.org/news/hardware-und-nachrichten-links-des-282930-oktober-2017
 
roybotnik said:

Wonder what this is all about?

Pretty massive difference between Vega on i5 and Ryzen. (Starting about a minute in)
Click to expand...

I thought many of the reviews show Vega performs better with quite a few games with 8C/16T Ryzen (once many of the early launch issues were resolved), while Nvidia could be more consistent over a broader range of games on Intel.
If I was buying Ryzen I would be tempted for Vega tbh and vice versa, Nvidia can have challenges with Ryzen and some games.
Edit:
That is ignoring 720P with context more on real world gaming.
 
Last edited:
I'd be curious to see extensive vega testing across multiple games using comparable Ryzen and Intel cpus. Not sure why there would be such a big difference between performance between vendors. In this case, they're not matching the number of cores, so maybe it has something to do with gpu occupancy because more cores can submit draw calls at the same time? It is a game that submits a ton of draw calls.
 
Scott_Arm said:
I'd be curious to see extensive vega testing across multiple games using comparable Ryzen and Intel cpus. Not sure why there would be such a big difference between performance between vendors. In this case, they're not matching the number of cores, so maybe it has something to do with gpu occupancy because more cores can submit draw calls at the same time? It is a game that submits a ton of draw calls.
Click to expand...
But then Nvidia does well with 6C and 8C Intel CPUs in general, even under DX11.
The headache I feel for reviews going forward is they need to take into consideration both multiple CPU manufacturers and GPU manufacturers for gaming.
Sort of like with some games it makes more sense to show the best API for either AMD or Nvidia without both being fixed to either DX11 or DX12 (more of an issue with older game engines for Nvidia but some games still have issues for them while other games may have problems under DX11 with AMD).
 
Last edited:
Malo said:
Maybe it really likes hyperthreading? Should be easy to test with a HT enabled coffeelake 6-core.
Click to expand...

Not sure, one interesting thing is that the GPU is under 100% load when the performance drops with the i5, while it's only at 95-97% with Ryzen. Something stalling or getting saturated when running with the i5 perhaps? No idea..
 
Bondrewd said:
I think cheking semiwiki and looking at production targets will do?
Click to expand...
Er, no, because just because they've hit delays doesn't make their process "trash". You have to do better than that.

What manufacturer hasn't run into delays as feature sizes are shrinking? Declaring them all "trash" would be going a step too far, yes?

You do understand that this design goes back for quite some time?
Click to expand...
I understand that you're not actually as knowledgeable about these things as you're letting on. For starters, if you actually knew any intimate details about the deal you wouldn't be here talking about it.

Oh boy the denial is sweet.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying anything, I'm trying to cajole you into providing some basis to your proclamations and I find you've got nothing. Just speculation asserted as fact.
 
Grall said:
Er, no, because just because they've hit delays doesn't make their process "trash".
Click to expand...
It's trash because it's later than N7, less dense than N7, and it literally has no customers.
The node advantage Intel was touting for ages evaporated in mere moments.
 
It appears the "device name" in geekbench says "GFX804" but I see it as no more proof of it being GFX8 than the fact that it uses HBM2 as proof of being GFX9.
I'll trust a generational hardware compatibility more than a string in some firmware that might have been wrongly written on purpose.
 
Bondrewd said:
Fiji used HBM, and there's not much difference between HBM and HBM2.
Click to expand...

There's not much difference... other than 2x higher bandwidth and 4x higher density per stack?

It's not even in AMD's best interest to nerf this solution with an old GPU IP. What does AMD stand to gain with delivering a more mediocre GPU here? More people becoming convinced that nvidia GPUs are better?
 
ToTTenTranz said:
2x higher bandwidth
Click to expand...
Moar clocks (literally).
ToTTenTranz said:
4x higher density per stack?
Click to expand...
Bigger dies.
ToTTenTranz said:
It's not even in AMD's best interest to nerf this solution with an old GPU IP.
Click to expand...
Handcapping Intel and besides Vega is totally not in it's best state right now.
Also why XBX is not using Vega then?
Roughly the same timeline for both solutions.
ToTTenTranz said:
More people becoming convinced that nvidia GPUs are better?
Click to expand...
I don't think people buying Macbooks and such care about GPUs inside, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top