AMD Vega Hardware Reviews
- Thread starter ArkeoTP
- Start date
If it were a purely "user experience test", they should have limit the frame rate of the Nvidia system to 2-3 fps below the monitor refresh rate.
Anarchist4000
Veteran
Probably the same reason all these newcomers know the performance despite no reviews or fully enabled product.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
DavidGraham
Veteran
It should, but when compared to a FreeSync display with no stutter, the Freesync should feel smoother.
If Kyle did cap the fps the experience would be similar between the two, negating the effect of the powerful card. If he enabled FastSync this will incur a small latency as well affecting the 1080Ti. If he did enable normal Vsync it will affect the 1080Ti more (introducing lag and stutter) since it's fps is always above 100fps
There is literally nothing accurate about this test, it is biased against the powerful card because of the limited refresh rate of the monitors. The best accurate test would involve 200Hz monitors.
I may be a "newcomer", but I´m one of the potential buyers of AMD products. I have owned k6 233, k6-2, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon x2, even the infamous Phenom 9850, and lots of their graphics cards. I don´t believe that "fully enabled product" theory. They must show me what I´m buying. The first reviews will determine if Rx Vega is or isn´t a flop for potential buyers. Promises of future performance "unlocks" (that may never come to fruition) will not sell the card. Blind tests, in my view, are not what high end buyers search when they decide for a new graphics card.
I upgrade every year, even if I don´t need, and do this to support the industry. Currently, I own two Intel/1080ti systems (one for my wife) and one Intel/1070 HTPC, and was considering buying a Threadripper 1950x + Rx Vega to support AMD efforts, as I know healthy competition is necessary. However, I just can´t justify to myself buying RX Vega, as what´s being show is not good. TR, however, appears to be a fantastic product.
Look at my message as that: a consumer that had hope on Vega being AMD coming back to the game.
I believe what he's referring to is the idea that Frontier Edition (the same die) is not fully unlocked for all its features yet due to immature drivers, which is based on downclocking tests making it equal or inferior to Fury at the same clocks. This has caused many on the internet to label Vega a failure. The fact that you're willing to wait for RX Vega and reviews makes that irrelevant, as you'll base your opinion on the card then, not on Frontier Edition and current drivers. Whether there is a difference or not, we'll know eventually.
leoneazzurro
Regular
OK, so basically you are saying that GTX1080Ti with a Gsync display and Nvidia fastsync provides a worse user experience than a Vega with Freesync display and AMD fastsync version, despite the GTX could theoretically provide a better average framerate. Did I undestand well?
DavidGraham
Veteran
Nope, If AMD had EnhancedSync enabled as well then the experience should feel similar to NV's FastSync. But Kyle didn't enable EnhancedSync for AMD. It wasn't there in the drivers. Nobody knew it even existed for AMD till yesterday.
If Kyle only enabled FastSync for NV, then 1080Ti's experience will feel worse to Vega's experience without any sort of "sync".
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
If only we were 3 days away from the actual RX Vega launch and could afford to avoid infesting the thread with all this pre-knowledgeable drama and FUD about the cards' perfomance...
Anarchist4000
Veteran
What speculations? The known specifications for Vega are far beyond just a GP104. FLOPs, bandwidth, and die size. Being faster seems rather likely from a technically superior card as opposed to slower with verification some features currently make zero difference.
As mentioned above, all the FE gaming tests haven't shown any of the new features making a real difference. It also stands to reason the launch wouldn't be pushed back unless something wasn't working or AMD wanted more inventory.
It wasn't you specifically I was referring too. Like most product launches, there are a lot of new users around.
leoneazzurro
Regular
It's a given or it's your speculation? Because I saw all the video and it was not even mentioned there.
Anyway, is not the purpose of both Gsync and Fastsync to provide a smoother experience to the end user?
How could the activation of both get the experience WORSE? Please explain.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
As I said, pure speculation as enabling those "features" may actually make the card slower and possibly the reason they are not working correctly. One would think AMD would want to introduce the card in the best possible light but seems unable due to perhaps architectural mishaps -- kind of stupid developing technical superior features that you never know will work until consumers get the product.
Sometimes you can't always look at FLOPs, bandwidth and die size to technically determine the higher performing card in a particular segment, but instead look at the differences that enable efficiency and clockspeeds as determining factors for overall performance. Right now these two factors seem to standout. But we should know in a few days what is the situation with Vega.
DavidGraham
Veteran
It's a given, EnhancedSync only got released for AMD yesterday. Kyle did the testing Saturday.
VRR technologies (FreeSync/GSync) do provide massively better experience IMO, provided that you have the fps to stay under the monitor refresh rate. Because if you exceed it, VRR is practically disabled. And you are left with a regular panel, tearing will come up again.
There are several solutions to this problem, but each come with it's own problems. You can use VSync to cap your fps, but then you will introduce lag especially if your fps is always above the monitor's refresh rate. You can use FastSync, but this one also adds a bit of latency. You can cap fps using in-game settings or via a third party app, but then why use a faster card anyway? capping the 1080Ti's fps to 100 effectively ties it with any card that can produce 100fps in this game.
The only viable option you have is to upgrade your monitor to a one that have higher refresh rate than your GPU can handle. Or use an adaptive V.Sync technique (which disables itself once fps is higher than refresh rate). Kyle didn't mention using any though.
AMD themselves were there and installed the drivers for him, it's highly likely they had access to Enhanced Sync.
Not one of the 10 gamers reported any kind of tearing which means a) a driver-level frame rate cap was used (since DOOM doesn't have one), or b) FastSync and EnhancedSync was used on both systems.
Rootax
Veteran
What stands to reason to me is that something is kind of broken in the design, but they can't fix it, so, even with the "new features", something is holding the card back, and we see what we see. Kind of R600/MSAA stuff, even if it's over simplified of course. So they try to push the clock as much as possible to be competitive, and with that, the power draw take a hit.
leoneazzurro
Regular
I meant enabling of fastsync on nvidia only. Anyway, why does fastsync add latency and why one should notice at 100Hz? Nobody spoke of tearing in that video, though.
Considering they had the Vega for only a few hours, I think Kyle did an everything and somewhat interesting test. All the should have comments clearly didn't read far enough to understand the time limitations.
It's also interesting in that it calls into question how much we spend on performance we cannot actually perceive. I liked that part.
It's also interesting in that it calls into question how much we spend on performance we cannot actually perceive. I liked that part.
DavidGraham
Veteran
I guess that indeed remains a possibility.
But then the discussion will turn into what technology offers lower latency? FastSync or EnhancedSync?
It's effectively a modified triple buffering solution. NV measured it's latency and found it higher than disabled V.Sync.
You would only notice if you compare to another identical system which has no VSync nor FastSync active.
Similar threads
