AMD Vega Hardware Reviews
- Thread starter ArkeoTP
- Start date
leoneazzurro
Regular
Yes, of course, it is only another proof of the Vega drivers being in a really poor condition.
Vega doesn't do unusually better than Fiji or Polaris here; it looks more like a case of poor scaling at low definitions on GeForces.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Tested only @High preset, which is not the game's highest settings (don't know why PCGH would do that)! There is Ultra. And at Ultra Vega suffers heavily. It's a good 10fps behind 1080.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html
Last edited:
leoneazzurro
Regular
Surely it seems there is some CPU bottleneck on NV cards, but it is strange, notoriously it's the AMD drivers having an higher overhead and at 1080p and anyway the AMD cards do not seem limited in the same way (which is two times as strange).
But as 1080P performance is quite good, the hit at 1440p it is not really undestandable, the game seems not to be SO taxing, even with AA, and even if taking in account the NV's efficiency in bandwidth usage, RX Vega 64 has practically DOUBLE the bandwidth of a 1070...
Does Techspot explain somewhere, what their benchmark looks like? Seems not like a very performance heavy scene, when they score 50% more Fps in Ultra instead of High in my colleagues' scene only. The video you linked is also a bit selective about it's quality setting...Tested only @High preset, which is not the game's highest settings (don't know why PCGH would do that)! There is Ultra. And at Ultra Vega suffers heavily. It's a good 10fps behind 1080.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html
That said, my colleague states in the text, that PUBG can be rather heavy and needs high FPS, which is why most players choose high instead of ultra. If that makes sense? IMHO as much as any other arbitrary choice.
DavidGraham
Veteran
It's not selective, he turned off motion blur just like PCGH did. Activating it won't change the results though. PCGH results are in line with the benchmarks I posted as well, except @1080p, the cause is testing @High instead of Ultra. Geforce cards seems to hit an early CPU limit here at 83 fps (1080Ti = 1080 = 1070 performance). Which is why I am left puzzled by PCGH choice of High, seeing as most NVIDIA GPUs hit a CPU bottleneck here. He should have switched to Ultra to become GPU limited.
Actually most players invest in high end GPUs to play the game at Ultra settings (Ultra distance is important for the gameplay) at high fps. Anyone can lower the settings and get a good 100fps on a 1060/580 GPU.
monstercameron
Newcomer
This maybe anecdotal but everyone I know plays this game at low with the max view distance. Don't know how you could say "most players..."
Well, take it at face value then or dismiss it if you don't agree. edit:Apparently, other players are not 100 % in line with your assumptions. It was a game test, not a GPU test, so maybe that's why my colleague did not force highest possible detail? Don't know.
edit 2: Just taking a look at the GN benches you linked: Does it not strike you as odd, that between a MSI Gaming X 1070 and 1080 is a mere 10 Fps (+12%), while the 1080 Ti pulls ahead by 26 Fps (28%)? 8 Gig not enough?
Last edited:
DavidGraham
Veteran
Does everyone you know invest in a High End GPU?
DavidGraham
Veteran
Maybe. This would perhaps explain his totally weird 1080p numbers, the 1060 is within 5% of the 1080Ti, 1080 and 1070. The 970 is within 10% of them as well. Obviously this is not a solid benchmarking practice.
You mean for Destiny 2? No, the game has a max VRAM utilization of 3.5GB @4K, see TechPowerUp and GameGPU for VRAM numbers
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Destiny_2_Beta/4.html
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/destiny-beta-test-gpu-cpu
No, obivously, I'm still talking about PUBG.
Either way, it's an interesting data point, IMHO.
Wrt to that YT-video: He has post processing at very low in addition to motion blur off. Selective non-ultra-details? Should be dismissed immediately.
Obviously, it shows either a driver flaw for Nvidia or a particular strength of the Vega architecture, if you chose to believe that there's a CPU limit. Traditionally, Radeo GPUs regularly did worse than Nvidia cards in CPU limited scenarios.
Either way, it's an interesting data point, IMHO.
Wrt to that YT-video: He has post processing at very low in addition to motion blur off. Selective non-ultra-details? Should be dismissed immediately.
No, I'm still talking about PUBG. I confused the logo on the big picture you linked. It was techspot, I think. And I still do not see how or where those benchmarks where done. If they get 45% higher performance on ultra than my colleague does on high, then that's probably not a very good indicative of the game's performance either.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Wrt to that YT-video: He has post processing at very low in addition to motion blur off. Selective non-ultra-details? Should be dismissed immediately.
Fair enough. I agree. Here is another video with Ultra everything
It does make sense when you consider PCGH numbers are off because of a bug @High settings and 1080p/1440p. Which puts a ceiling on 1070/1080/1080Ti fps, essentially rendering them equal even @1440p. Is that representative of a real life scenario or the real performance of the game?
Regarding your VRAM point, according to GameGPU, the game only max out @5.5GB @4K. So no, VRAM is not a factor here.
http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/playerunknown-s-battlegrounds-test-gpu-cpu
DavidGraham
Veteran
Additionally, you could test @Ultra -since the purpose of any GPU benchmark is to test GPU limited scenarios- and get the full non limited performance.
As I said, maybe it's a game test, not a GPU-test*? For a GPU test, like, a graphics card review, I would agree of course.
*I know, it's a bit hidden, so I'll mention it here: it's not filed under hardware, but under the game's URL structure.
Similar threads
