The Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid, Vega 64 & Vega 56 Test: 32 Games Benchmarked

[hahahanoobs]

Again you guys don't even realise what Vega was designed for. Please do some research before saying it is a failure. Yes it is not the best at games, but it is for sure not a failure. The main design was for compute and pro, but mainly for compute, at which it excels.

On the Pro level, nothing can beat the Radeon Pro SSG, but this is probably something most WCCF readers does not even know exists. So at games it is not the best and now it is a total failure, yet gaming is by far no longer the main money maker in the GPU business. That is why even nVidia made it clear that Volta is not coming to desktop. It might still come when a new architecture is unveiled.

So stop spreading lies of stuff you know nothing of.

Does it say Radeon on the box?

 

[AntiShill]

....yet gaming is by far no longer the main money maker in the GPU business. ....

Really? You know this for a fact? How? Here is some market data. Workstation units is still a tiny sliver. Even in dollar amounts, with a ridiculous generous 10x coeffecient multiplier granted to workstation side, it would still have a hard time matching all the dollars going to gaming oriented cards. nVidia, and AMD would NOT be trying to hard with their advertising targeted towards gamers, all this bundled games, and gaming publications, etc.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-discrete-gpu-market-share-q1-2017/

BTW here is more market analysis:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613...-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top

BTW the miner fad is a short-term thing, GPUs don't mine efficiently when the computational demands gets hard. The miner trend is not sustainable.

So stop spreading lies of stuff you know nothing of.

Looks either you do not know about the market and/or you are spreading lies.

BTW everyone knows Volta is being kept in reserve now because Vega is no threat to nVidia. Heck nVidia doesn't even have to lower prices on their existing line-up right now. AMD doing their best to milk the donations from fanboys, not pricing to compete, completely failed their purpose for gamers. AMD needs to play to their strength with is lower price and sometimes by a lot.

 

[NightAntilli]

What is it with people about being right all the time? Really right about what?

Don't be purposefully obtuse. You know damn well what I was talking about.

You are entitled to think you are right in any case or every case you like. But facts are facts. From the chart with the GTX1060 and RX480 I do NOT see Ryzen scoring better or being superior in any scenario.

Oh really? Here;

Now before you start accusing me cherry picking, you just said, "I do NOT see Ryzen scoring better or being superior in any scenario."

Well I doubt you nor AMD can dictate to game developers how they choose to code and which platforms they select to optimize for. How about AMD just deliver better single core performance to start with, and NOT conduct bait-and-switch marketing tactics with the gamers and endusers alike? The current generation of Ryzen has been shown to gimp GTX1080ti and in all likelihood do no better with Vega.

Waiting for game developers to re-code their existing games and get those optimizations out could be a long time in waiting. Why doesn't AMD take a 20% deposit now and get the rest later, like 2 years later, when those optimizations for "moar cores" or updates for vega arrive later. And since they can't deliver that performance, how about they lower their prices so the gamers and endusers are not the ones to bear the risk.

Ok Mr. AMD hater. The numbers will speak for themselves. This is nothing but a useless rant that diverts the topic. We're done.

 

[The Tech Gen]

I wish I could see the benchmarks alongside a Ryzen 1800 CPU and see if results differ at all. Call me crazy or my tin foil hat, but is it even possible for a CPU to affect the performance of a GPU at least terms of purposely reducing the performance of a GPU?

 

[NightAntilli]

I wish I could see the benchmarks alongside a Ryzen 1800 CPU and see if results differ at all. Call me crazy or my tin foil hat, but is it even possible for a CPU to affect the performance of a GPU at least terms of purposely reducing the performance of a GPU?

A CPU can limit the GPU from reaching the frames it could have reached. This can be if the draw calls are either limited to a single core, and the single core performance of the CPU is insufficient, or if the draw calls requires more threads than are free on the CPU.

 

[psycros]

Sometimes I think Steve does these comparisons just so the Techspot staff can decipher who is the best at hiding their inner, raging fanboy. The chosen winner/poster should then get a Loot Crate of the opposing brands products, complete with a signed GPU by Steve, T-shirt and coffee mug that states 'Don't Be A B!tch, Bro'.

I would fanrage sooo hard for that loot crate.

 

[HardReset]

AMD should just focus on CPU's. They should completely give up on graphics.

They used HBM, because they said GDDR5 was "power hungry."
Even with HBM, they still needed water to stop throttling.
The power consumption is atrocious, and has been for years.
Overclocking Radeon flagships is a joke.

Everyone is going to say, "but, but AMD cards are cheaper." Yea, well AMD can't survive doing that anymore. If you want AMD to stick around, then you want someone that knows what they are doing over there and Raja is not that guy. I don't know who is, but it's not him.

Graphic card market leader is Intel. Fastest Intel GPU barely matches 10 year old AMD GPU...

So Intel should just stop making GPU's?

Also AMD has 100% GPU market share for both Sony and Microsoft consoles (not counting very old ones).

Just wait until Raven Ridge arrives.

 

[Burty117]

Just wait until Raven Ridge arrives.

Pure gold right there! (y)

Just wait everyone, just wait until the next version arrives! You'll see!

I Love You HardReset <3

 

[Vulcanproject]

Vega 64- most useless POS (for gamers) since Radeon R600 aka HD2900XT 10 years ago, that AMD wheeled out to much lols against the 8800 series.

Vega 56 - passable. If it was only slightly more expensive than a GTX1070 it might be a good proposition, but at $50 it isn't so much. Considering you can get really good overclocked GTX1070s and they all overclock well with low heat and power draw the 56 is something I would probably only bother with if I had a freesync monitor.

For the miners then yeah all is great but for the gamers it's a bit of a fail. Onwards and upwards to Volta....

 

[hahahanoobs]

Graphic card market leader is Intel. Fastest Intel GPU barely matches 10 year old AMD GPU...

So Intel should just stop making GPU's?

Did you just tell me Intel is the graphics card leader (they don't make cards remember), and then suggested Intel should stop embedding GPU's in their CPU's, because AMD graphics hardware is faster? Wow!

Let me fill you in on something. When you pair a good GPU with a weak CPU, you get an AMD APU, so unless you're a gamer first, that combo makes less sense. That's why an Intel GPU was the top graphics part on Steam until the GTX 970 took its spot.

AMD has 100% GPU market share for both Sony and Microsoft consoles (not counting very old ones).

Lol. That is chump change spread out over several years. AMD is primarily a CPU company, remember? Ryzen is where AMD's focus needs to be. Period.

AMD has used HBM and water for the last two generations, and lost to GDDR5 and air. Think about that.

Just wait until Raven Ridge arrives.

Wait wait wait. You guys say that EVERY year! I'm just gonna wait for Raven Ridge to see it fail. Have you even seen current Vega thermals and power draw? And you think they are going to get close to Pascal performance in a laptop? Lmao!

And please don't give me that we need competition crap. We do need competition, but we just aren't getting it from AMD on the graphics side. It needs to be sold off.

 

[AntiShill]

....
Wait wait wait. You guys say that EVERY year! I'm just gonna wait for Raven Ridge to see it fail. Have you even seen current Vega thermals and power draw? And you think they are going to get close to Pascal performance in a laptop? Lmao!

And please don't give me that we need competition crap. We do need competition, but we just aren't getting it from AMD on the graphics side. It needs to be sold off.

So VERY TRUE.

Here is the AMD's marketing playbook.

1. MOAR CORES - distraction
2. We'll get you updates LATER - stall tactic
3. COMPUTE Performance - more distraction
4. Wait for NEXT thing (be it Vega, Raven Ridge, etc. etc.) - more stall tactic
5. Repeat

This get so old so fast. Look "fool me once shame on you (AMD), fool me twice shame on me". Most of us are not "poorly educated" to become a worshipper for any of these tech companies, AMD included.

Here is what AMD can do, and can do now. Lower prices. AMD does not have to top performance, and they can not right now anyways. But if you can get 80% performance for 50% of the price or $100 off their competition, they can provide unrivaled value and win market share and goodwill. In simple terms, win on price, no excuses.

 

[NightAntilli]

So VERY TRUE.

Here is the AMD's marketing playbook.

1. MOAR CORES - distraction
2. We'll get you updates LATER - stall tactic
3. COMPUTE Performance - more distraction
4. Wait for NEXT thing (be it Vega, Raven Ridge, etc. etc.) - more stall tactic
5. Repeat

This get so old so fast. Look "fool me once shame on you (AMD), fool me twice shame on me". Most of us are not "poorly educated" to become a worshipper for any of these tech companies, AMD included.

Here is what AMD can do, and can do now. Lower prices. AMD does not have to top performance, and they can not right now anyways. But if you can get 80% performance for 50% of the price or $100 off their competition, they can provide unrivaled value and win market share and goodwill. In simple terms, win on price, no excuses.

If a lower price didn't work with HD 5870 vs GTX 480, why would it work now?
If it didn't work with an HD4870 vs a GTX 280, why would it work now?
If it didn't work with R9 290x vs Titan and GTX 780, why would it work now?

People only want lower AMD prices so nVidia drops theirs and they can buy cheaper nVidia cards. AMD always loses, even when they are the better buy.

Disclaimer: I did not say any statement regarding Vega being a better buy or not. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[AntiShill]

If a lower price didn't work with _________, why would it work now?
...

How do you define as "didn't work"? Looks like AMD sold plenty of those.
And from the Techspot back in 2010:
https://www.techspot.com/review/283-geforce-gtx-400-vs-radeon-hd-5800/page10.html
"In fact, value is the real showstopper for Nvidia’s current generation GPUs in our opinion. Although the GeForce GTX 480 is unquestionably a beast, at $500 it is an expensive one that sells for a $70-$100 premium over the Radeon HD 5870."

And from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...n-amd-r9-290x-or-nvidia-gtx-780/#26f634a1e522
"
Buying Advice:
24 hours ago these results would have led to a dramatically different conclusion: Buy AMD's 290x since it's $100 cheaper and offers comparable, if not superior, performance to its closest competitor. With this morning's aggressive price cut, however, Nvidia may be causing droves of tech journalists to revisit their 290x reviews.

As things stand now, Nvidia's GTX 780 is $499, while AMD's R9 290x is $549. Make no mistake: both cards are a steal at these pricepoints. So let's talk about added value such as bundled games.
"

I don't know where you get the idea that lower prices did NOT work. Lots of people went with AMD because of the price advantage. And if AMD does not keep up with nVidia in lowering prices, whose fault is that but AMD's.

AMD always loses, ....

Really? Trying hard to win the "victim mentality" trophy? AMD getting chips into Xbox1 and PS4 is another loss too right? Such exaggeration. If AMD lost so much they'd be out of money, insolvent, and out of business. Nobody is obligated to donate to AMD for pity, guilt, or any other nonsensical emotional nonsense. So I'll reiterate:

Here is what AMD can do, and can do now. Lower prices. AMD does not have to top performance, and they can not right now anyways. But if you can get 80% performance for 50% of the price or $100 off their competition, they can provide unrivaled value and win market share and goodwill. In simple terms, win on price, no excuses.

 

[NightAntilli]

How do you define as "didn't work"? Looks like AMD sold plenty of those.
And from the Techspot back in 2010:
https://www.techspot.com/review/283-geforce-gtx-400-vs-radeon-hd-5800/page10.html
"In fact, value is the real showstopper for Nvidia’s current generation GPUs in our opinion. Although the GeForce GTX 480 is unquestionably a beast, at $500 it is an expensive one that sells for a $70-$100 premium over the Radeon HD 5870."

And from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...n-amd-r9-290x-or-nvidia-gtx-780/#26f634a1e522
"
Buying Advice:
24 hours ago these results would have led to a dramatically different conclusion: Buy AMD's 290x since it's $100 cheaper and offers comparable, if not superior, performance to its closest competitor. With this morning's aggressive price cut, however, Nvidia may be causing droves of tech journalists to revisit their 290x reviews.

As things stand now, Nvidia's GTX 780 is $499, while AMD's R9 290x is $549. Make no mistake: both cards are a steal at these pricepoints. So let's talk about added value such as bundled games.
"

I don't know where you get the idea that lower prices did NOT work. Lots of people went with AMD because of the price advantage. And if AMD does not keep up with nVidia in lowering prices, whose fault is that but AMD's.

One simple question. If it worked, where were their profits?

You're free to check the steam hardware list to know which ones sold and which ones didn't. Just FYI, nVidia sold way more despite having the inferior product in all those cases.

Really? Trying hard to win the "victim mentality" trophy? AMD getting chips into Xbox1 and PS4 is another loss too right? Such exaggeration. If AMD lost so much they'd be out of money, insolvent, and out of business.

Guess ATi wasn't acquired because of losses, and AMD doesn't have debts...

Nobody is obligated to donate to AMD for pity, guilt, or any other nonsensical emotional nonsense. So I'll reiterate:

Here is what AMD can do, and can do now. Lower prices. AMD does not have to top performance, and they can not right now anyways. But if you can get 80% performance for 50% of the price or $100 off their competition, they can provide unrivaled value and win market share and goodwill. In simple terms, win on price, no excuses.

If the card is more expensive to make, it's kind of hard to lower prices don't you think?

But I can't expect you to look farther than the end of your nose.

 

[AntiShill]

One simple question. If it worked, where were their profits?

You're free to check the steam hardware list to know which ones sold and which ones didn't. Just FYI, nVidia sold way more despite having the inferior product in all those cases.

Really in "ALL those cases"? "inferior" in every one of them all the time? Yep good job telling lies. Gotta try harder than that.

The reality is often, that AMD is trying to play catch to nVidia. This chart is particularly telling:

Reference:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613...-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top

It would seem that when AMD put something out to take marketshare, within a year nVidia will counter with the next gen product along with price reduction on the older stuff. And similarly, AMD would do the same to nVidia, and it was 40-60 split for the most part. This is the normal course of the market, having 40% of the market is hardly losing.

But noticed what happened around Q2 2014? Anyone NOT know about the nVidia Maxwell cards? What did AMD counter with? AMD was way late with the counter. And guess what is problem with Vega, same as it was before with the 300/Fury series. When AMD was more than a year late with a me-too product, they are going to lose market share for a good long while before than can recover. The chart doesn't show 2017, but we all know that Pascal followed up in 2nd half of 2016. Being the me-too product (barely par performance) with certain deficiency (power heat noise) like Vega, AMD will just have to price lower.

As for profits, that is a managment problem. AMD is not losing money on every card even if they are $100 cheaper or 50% less than the nVidia equivalent. The can trim the fat from all the worthless execs and VPs that come up with the lame marketing and improper pricing, and failure to meet expectations of the gamer and endusers.

 

[JohnnyStone]

Really? You know this for a fact? How? Here is some market data. Workstation units is still a tiny sliver. Even in dollar amounts, with a ridiculous generous 10x coeffecient multiplier granted to workstation side, it would still have a hard time matching all the dollars going to gaming oriented cards. nVidia, and AMD would NOT be trying to hard with their advertising targeted towards gamers, all this bundled games, and gaming publications, etc.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-discrete-gpu-market-share-q1-2017/

BTW here is more market analysis:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613...-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top

BTW the miner fad is a short-term thing, GPUs don't mine efficiently when the computational demands gets hard. The miner trend is not sustainable.



Looks either you do not know about the market and/or you are spreading lies.

BTW everyone knows Volta is being kept in reserve now because Vega is no threat to nVidia. Heck nVidia doesn't even have to lower prices on their existing line-up right now. AMD doing their best to milk the donations from fanboys, not pricing to compete, completely failed their purpose for gamers. AMD needs to play to their strength with is lower price and sometimes by a lot.

Quite clear that you did not take the time to watch the video I have posted... Then I won't take the time to further try and explain or react to your post.

 

[JohnnyStone]

Does it say Radeon on the box?

Your response does not make sense in any way. Did you say Vega RX? No! Radeon Pro SSG is also a Radeon, yet it is in a completely different class. Do you even know what that is? Probably not.

 

[AntiShill]

Quite clear that you did not take the time to watch the video I have posted... Then I won't take the time to further try and explain or react to your post.

Yet you do exactly what you say you won't. We don't want to see some biased video anyways. This article is about "Vega" and gaming who care if the letters "RX" is attached to that. Don't distract and misdirect to some SSG or other nonsense.

 

[HardReset]

Did you just tell me Intel is the graphics card leader (they don't make cards remember), and then suggested Intel should stop embedding GPU's in their CPU's, because AMD graphics hardware is faster? Wow!

Let me fill you in on something. When you pair a good GPU with a weak CPU, you get an AMD APU, so unless you're a gamer first, that combo makes less sense. That's why an Intel GPU was the top graphics part on Steam until the GTX 970 took its spot.

Better to talk about GPU yeah, not cards. Intel should stop making embedded GPU's if AMD is faster if AMD should stop making discrete GPU's if Nvidia is faster.

Raven Ridge will change that weak CPU good GPU as Ryzen core is not weak CPU in any metric.

Lol. That is chump change spread out over several years. AMD is primarily a CPU company, remember? Ryzen is where AMD's focus needs to be. Period.

AMD has used HBM and water for the last two generations, and lost to GDDR5 and air. Think about that.

Lost in DirectX 11 games yeah.

Wait wait wait. You guys say that EVERY year! I'm just gonna wait for Raven Ridge to see it fail. Have you even seen current Vega thermals and power draw? And you think they are going to get close to Pascal performance in a laptop? Lmao!

And please don't give me that we need competition crap. We do need competition, but we just aren't getting it from AMD on the graphics side. It needs to be sold off.

Pascal has no chance against Raven Ridge except perhaps on high end where GPU has tons of dedicated memory and Nvidia's "mobile" GPU's are in fact desktop parts.

Really in "ALL those cases"? "inferior" in every one of them all the time? Yep good job telling lies. Gotta try harder than that.

The reality is often, that AMD is trying to play catch to nVidia. This chart is particularly telling:

Reference:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613...-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top

Remember that AMD sells tons of non-discrete graphic cards. Nvidia, well, almost none. So basically if Raven Ridge is huge success, it will make AMD's share of discrete graphic cards to be lower, not higher. On total market share Intel is superior leader and AMD is very close to Nvidia. So this discrete GPU share does not tell everything.

 

[AntiShill]

One simple question. If it worked, where were their profits?
...

For all that about AMD always losing, one simple answer:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/amd/financials?query=income-statement

FYI 2017 is still TBD.

BTW here is nVidia in contrast:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nvda/financials?query=income-statement

Roughly the same 5 billion give or take in total revenue, yet nVidia will return a positive yield to their share holders. Go figure, the losers are AMD are in their screwed up management. Lisa Su's job to clean that mess up is NOT going to be easy.

 

[NightAntilli]

For all that about AMD always losing, one simple answer:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/amd/financials?query=income-statement

FYI 2017 is still TBD.

BTW here is nVidia in contrast:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nvda/financials?query=income-statement

Roughly the same 5 billion give or take in total revenue, yet nVidia will return a positive yield to their share holders. Go figure, the losers are AMD are in their screwed up management. Lisa Su's job to clean that mess up is NOT going to be easy.

Conveniently ignoring that AMD is CPU + GPU rather than GPU alone.

What's the revenue in the gaming sector alone? Care to compare that?

 

[AntiShill]

Conveniently ignoring that AMD is CPU + GPU rather than GPU alone.

What's the revenue in the gaming sector alone? Care to compare that?

If you are trying to make that case that AMD is not laser focused on gaming, well they have their own management to blame. Maybe AMD should not have acquired ATI to start win. Always thought that was a terrible merger.

Profits and losses do not make a distinction between CPU, GPU, consoles PS4/Xbox1 etc. or whatever else. Nor does bad management get excused for failing to make money when they get billions in gross profit year after year. Where did the the monkeys squander all that money? They only spend 2/3 the R&D budget that nVidia does, and it shows up in the products. That is why they are the second option, late to the market, and must be priced lower.

 

[JohnnyStone]

Yet you do exactly what you say you won't. We don't want to see some biased video anyways. This article is about "Vega" and gaming who care if the letters "RX" is attached to that. Don't distract and misdirect to some SSG or other nonsense.

Typical response of a fanboy. It is really sad, since this video is not about Vega as such but about GPU as a whole. People who wilfully avoids information is wilfully ignorant. This is what is happening to most people in the world.

Sad to see it though. It is probably the hardest thing for people to admit that they are wrong, so much so that they would avoid the truth.

Saying this I myself will admit that I don't understand everything and that I might even have missed some things in this very chat and might have even gotten some things wrong, but at least I am open to that. What makes your position troublesone, is that you are not even willing to contemplate that you might be wrong, not even one bit. Anyway...

 

[AntiShill]

Typical response of a fanboy. ...

Whatever happened to

Then I won't take the time to further try and explain or react to your post.
..

Can't resist the urge to resort to namecalling? LOL. Either that or you are used to telling lies. No matter.

Sure I am fanboy of saving money. Cheapskate and Proud not going to lie about that. I am not loyal to none of these tech companies, they are all busy trying cut costs, outsource jobs, and funnel money to the top 1%. There is NOT one single good reason to be loyal to any of them especially when they fail to perform, fail to deliver, fail to be reliable, and most important of all when they fail to be truthful in their marketing.

 

[NightAntilli]

If you are trying to make that case that AMD is not laser focused on gaming, well they have their own management to blame. Maybe AMD should not have acquired ATI to start win. Always thought that was a terrible merger.

Profits and losses do not make a distinction between CPU, GPU, consoles PS4/Xbox1 etc. or whatever else. Nor does bad management get excused for failing to make money when they get billions in gross profit year after year. Where did the the monkeys squander all that money? They only spend 2/3 the R&D budget that nVidia does, and it shows up in the products. That is why they are the second option, late to the market, and must be priced lower.

You were comparing revenue as a way to show that AMD and nVidia gain the same amount of money, but that is inherently dishonest because in the case of nVidia practically their full revenue is relevant, while for AMD only their GPU revenue is relevant. It puts things in perspective. If a company that sells only books has a total revenue of $1 million but a company that sells books, movies, cloths, dog food and roof tiles also gains that same $1 million total revenue, the first one might be doing well, but the second is not. You can't directly compare that way, which is why I asked to compare gaming sector revenue. But whatever.