AMD Vega Hardware Reviews

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by ArkeoTP, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. Anarchist4000

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    359
    No way of knowing how much power Vega uses on hashing. If leveraging packed math and ultimately bottlenecked by memory the power consumption could be extremely low. Puts the burden on HBM which is designed for lower power usage. Depending on the algorithm used, AMD would have had hashing instructions for SME designed to work transparently.
     
    BRiT and Cat Merc like this.
  2. BacBeyond

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2017
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    43
    Why not? Power really doesn't matter much compared to raw power. Power is super cheap vs how much you mine.

    Lets even do a super high 30c/kw for power

    100MH/s @ 300w will generate ~$121 and give 0.83 coins
    29MH/s @ 95w will generate ~$33.60 and only give 0.24 coins


    Thats underclocking a 1070 and over estimating the Vega GPU power as well. I was mining over 30MHs for little power on my Fury when I was mining a few months ago.

    If Vega only uses 200w for 100MHs that is a gain of $143 per month!

    Even @ 70c/kwh @ 300w Vega would pull in $35 per month which beats out that 1070... And no way would power cost that much or Vega use that much power.

    Edit: Damn I think you just sold me on a Vega :p, probably last a good 2 months even with high power when difficulty spikes and assuming coin price doesn't go up (it would likely with a difficulty spike) it would half way pay itself off...
     
    Lightman, Mize and BRiT like this.
  3. Tim

    Tim
    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denmark
    70 MH/s @210W for the Vega 56 is slightly better per watt and it will be even better with undervolting, assuming that the rumored hash rate is correct (I am skeptical).

    Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
     
  4. Cat Merc

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    108
    You're talking a 1070 optimized for mining.
    We don't know what kind of mining perf/watt you can squeeze out of RX Vega. For all we know it can drop to 50W and barely lose any hashing. (Not likely, but hey)
     
  5. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,066
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    We'll have to see. I know RX580s are far less efficient than 1070s at this point I built a rack of each and the RX580s consume nearly 600W more than the 1070s for a slightly lower hashrate. They run much hotter too. I run the 580 fans in the 90% range to keep <=60 C whereas I run 55% fans on the others and they don't break 45C. Guess we'll see. If they really do 100MH/s for 200W that'll be bad for gamers. Let's hope it's closer to 70MH/s @300W :)
     
  6. giannhs

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    40
    if amd comes out so confident about vega hashing capabilities id say that amd was mining for the past 6 months with vega's and they gonna resell them as new :p
     
    Lightman likes this.
  7. seahawk

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    141
  8. chavvdarrr

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Sofia, BG
    70-100 is bullshit
    We have some anonymous guy vs Claymore who made best miners for AMD
    So 30MH@100W for 1070 vs 35MH@300W, not even funny
     
    xEx and Mize like this.
  9. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,066
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    chavvdarrr, can you link to that post?
    Does Claymore have an RX or was that an FE?
     
  10. chavvdarrr

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Sofia, BG
    Its not clear from his posts what cards he has, but given that AMD supposedly fixed their drivers for Vega,Fiji &Polaris (increasing ethereum speed with bigger DAGs) because of his input... I prefer to beleive him
    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg20464462#msg20464462
    He claims 40-41MH/s with memory overclock and no dual-mining (heat issue I guess)
     
    BRiT, CarstenS and Mize like this.
  11. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,066
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    His dual mining is impressive. I get a tiny drop in ETH hashrate when enabling and a 300+ watt increase in consumption. Apparently there's no way to use that untapped computational resource for the primary blockchain work.

    Thanks for the link.
     
  12. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    Location:
    Germany
    If that's only one single card, it's more than impressive. With a 1080 (the „regular“ competition for Vega as it seems now), I'm getting less than half of that (11 MH/s ETH + 1800 MH/s DCR with dcred intensity set to 500 (-dcri 500).Edit: Didn't do dual-mining before, performance was not where it should be. correction: 12 MHS/s ETH and 2050 MH/s DCR, but still.
     
    #612 CarstenS, Aug 4, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  13. Mize

    Mize 3dfx Fan
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,066
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    -dcri 500 is pretty huge bias and really killing your ETH hashrate. I'm finding 50 to be a better setting for me but I'm not prioritizing decred.
     
  14. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, it is. I just tried to adjust settings to what claymore used:
    -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg20469546#msg20469546

    With dcri 100, a 1080 with mem-OC is at 24,9/830 MH/s for ETH/DCR dual mining - especially the 2ndcoin is unbelievably strong with Vega.
     
    Cat Merc, pharma, DavidGraham and 2 others like this.
  15. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    It can only be with FE version, or it seems the Vega 64-56 seems acting differently. Power manangement have been fixed on them and it seems the 2x 4GB HBM bring less power than 2x 8GB.
    ( or fix thermal issue ).

    I dont think he speak about support by the driver, look like he speak about the new version of the miner who have been updated with Vega support.

    it is not clear if this driver is in the wild.. ( Note that i don't put much trust on this 70-100 ( seems a bit too huge )..

    This said, the card have updated mining / hash optimization compared to Polaris ( offcial AMD slide )... Dont know if they are, was enabled in the FE version.

    Anyway, it is just a rumor, yet.. time will tell.
     
    #615 lanek, Aug 4, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  16. Anarchist4000

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    359
    HBM2 is somewhat meaningless. The whole HBM is bad stems largely from a capacity issue. Fiji having lots of compute, bandwidth, and relatively low capacity.

    Driver aside, optimizing the actual algorithm would make more sense here. Get packed math enabled or use some of the new instructions and a performance increase isn't surprising. Vega would have significantly more cache, probably different VGPR arrangement, packed integers/hashing, and may or may not have had HBCC enabled. Assuming HBCC is even useful or practical for coin mining with all the risers. Some adjustments would seem necessary.
     
  17. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Exactly and anyway mining on the FE was not make much sense ( price alone ) so i will not be surprised that it was not enabled for it.
     
  18. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,137
    Likes Received:
    2,939
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    The impression I get is that in this context it is the diminishing returns versus compute and bandwidth noted for Ethereum in particular for GPUs using HBM and GDDR5X. Both Fury and the GTX 1080 saw reduced rates given their resource advantage over lesser products, whereas the GDDR5-based 1070 saw better results. I haven't seen a definitive analysis as to what caused that outcome, or how significant that difference still is.

    The capacity doesn't seem to be strictly a problem, given the popularity of 4GB cards even in the era where Fury was considered something letdown, and Ethereum trying to adjust at various times so that it stays applicable to more GPU hardware.

    I'm not seeing a strong indication that VGPRs are changing that much in terms of what the software sees, how the VGPRs look from the die shot, or how AMD's slide on its SRAM customizations seemed to be more concerned about making the register files just be more efficient in terms of area, power, and delay.

    It may depend on the cryptocurrency or mining algorithm, but outside of possibly secondary effects like better page handling or bandwidth utilization of on-board RAM, HBCC's ability to page large amounts of memory doesn't sound like it should help.
    The reason for GPU-friendly cryptocurrencies is that they were adjusted to not be scalable for ASICs or esoteric accumulations of ALU or memory storage that might lead to concentrations of mining capability in specialized hardware or clusters.

    The size for Ethereum is aligned with a more general amount of GPU RAM and leans on the specific abundance of local device bandwidth, and odds are if HBCC and its capacity play somehow had an outsized competitive difference they could tweak it further so that it didn't.
     
    Lightman, pharma and DavidGraham like this.
  19. Anarchist4000

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    359
    Oddly enough, if those upper end hash rates hold FE might be viable at that price. Given a cheaper alternative and supply, yeah RX would be a better choice.

    My take was that it had to do with how many waves were being launched. I haven't studied crypto in any detail so speculating there. That being the case, if Vega significantly increased VGPRs, accommodating far more active waves, it would be a concern. Not accounting for any changes to LDS mechanics or temporary registers (SIMD local LDS?) that may need some explicit coding to see gains with hashing algorithms. Also the possibility of packed math for the algorithms increasing the amount of waves in flight.

    I don't know enough about the access patterns to really judge the impact, just that it's possible. If accesses were grouped or following a parabolic/clustered distribution in their access pattern over time as opposed to completely random. Where HBCC could page in active areas and maintain a more even distribution and throughput. Again, speculating on that, but it could be a possibility that presents the card with an opportunity to sustain far more throughput. Programming that would be difficult if the algorithms followed a random, yet clustered access pattern, as it would be inherently unpredictable.
     
  20. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Well completely pure speculation from me, but i was think it is quite possible that they have not enable it specially for this reason. limited supply.. ( and been able to put the gpus in the hands they was intended )
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...