Compute Performance

Compute: Blender 2.79 - BlenchMarkCompute: CompuBench 2.0 - Level Set Segmentation 256Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - N-Body Simulation 1024KCompute: CompuBench 2.0 - Optical FlowCompute: Folding @ Home Single PrecisionCompute: Geekbench 4 - GPU Compute - Total Score

Total War: Warhammer Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

215 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dr.Neale - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    Hear, hear!

    Indeed, this needed to be noted.

    Thank you for doing so!
    Reply
  • Otritus - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    in the first page on the AMD Radeon RX Series Specification Comparison chart it says vega 56 has 3585 shaders instead of 3584 shaders Reply
  • Otritus - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    gtx 1070 msrp is 349, price drop after 1080 ti Reply
  • Targon - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    I'd be surprised if we don't need another two to three months to see how the Vega performance ends up with the expected driver updates. Every high end card from AMD and NVIDIA gets at least one big driver update to add 5-10 percent performance in games. Reply
  • Cellar Door - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    Thanks for your excellent work Ryan. Reply
  • redwarrior - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link

    Did you noter that the duynamic cache controller that AMD has touted is disabled at this point since the drivers have not been perfected to operate the cache efficiently. Once they solve that issue performance will jump anywhere from 10 to 15%. There is also some feature with the shaders that is also still disabled. All in all if we exercise a little patience Vega 64 should be a credible performer about half way between 1080 and 1080 Ti in performance. I hope when the drivers are more mature that people will do further reviews on these Vega offerings. Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link

    Thank you Ryan. Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    It seems amd still have a long way to do with the drivers, despite vega being so late... Judging by the battlefield result, a title that has both optimized for amd rather than exclusively for nvidia, and has been optimized on driver level by amd, this is where vega's actual graphics capabilities lie when it comes to the actual hardware, between the 1080 and the Ti.

    The good (for amd) news and bad (for people like me) is that vega looks like it has exceptional compute performance, which means prices will no doubt go through the roof because of the mining craze. This is not bad for gamers, since nvidia seems like the better value, but people who need compute for stuff other than mining will have to wait a while before vega could be bought at a good price.
    Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link

    If we have to rely on AMD optimizing every single game for VEGA, we will never see its true potential. AMD couldnt manage to do it right in a year and some change. Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link

    nvidia is pretty much doing that, they spend a tremendous amount of money doing other's work, money that amd is not in the position to spend Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now