As I always understood it (since Navi was first mentioned a long time ago), RX Vega was the "place holder". Just a better Polaris -- to hold folks until Navi.

Since they startted talking about it, Navi has been portrayed as a "new way" do do GPU architecture -- one that would stress low cost per shader, and have the possibility of virtually unlimited shader count (in the same sense as a Threadripper CPU pushes core count). Given the cost per shader, Navi could be game changer. Still, Nvidia knows what I know, so I assume they have already have their answer in the pipeline. Competition is good

Meantime, it was the Press that built up RX Vega expectations and the unexpected delay of HBM2 development (not AMD's fault) that delayed Vega. Then, cryptocurrency miners pushed up the prices -- no more "bang per buck". So, RX Vega has not been the "gaming success" it might have been. Heck, even I won't pay the price. Had they sold on time (nearly a year earlier) at the expected prices, they would have been very competitive "bang per buck". As I always mention, Nvidia's top card will ALWAYS win FPS at a price -- AMD is aiming for competitive performance in a "complete" GPU at bang per buck.

I'm hoping the 12nm RX Vega is priced more reasonably next spring (requires a fall off in cryptocurrency demand). I may yet buy one.

Adrenalin drivers are on-line at the AMD site.

Adrenalin supports AMD GPU features in RX Vega (and some Polaris) that had not been "activated" with Crimson drivers.

I updated to Adrenalin GPU driver set (from Crimson). I won't bother to test -- just use.

Interestingly, AMD claims since releasing Crimson a couple years ago, they have released a total of over 70 updates (or drivers for new cards). Over that period, FPS increases have been roughly 15 percent, typically -- not per driver, rather "in sum" over the time.

That amounts to a new driver every two or three weeks. And, typical 15 percent increase in FPS (sometimes much more -- when a game is initially unsupported -- most games need specific support by a driver, I have read).

This gets back to what was discussed above in this thread: Drivers change a couple times a month and performance increases in some games as a result.

So, two concepts: First, when a new AMD GPU is released, its don't compare it too closely to an older Nvidia GPU with established drivers -- AMD improvements of 10 percent plus are likely with driver updates. Second, don't use old GPU comparison test reports -- they are comparing old drivers.

By the way, that 19% uplift they talk about is very specific to a specific game and setup. More likely, on older games with established driver support, Adrenalin improvements will be approximately 0%, or maybe 1%

Hopefully, folks will get the message. And GPU prices will fall.

A longer article (but easy to read) that articulates the many functional improvements in the Adrenalin drivers.

Among them, up to 60 percent less power draw from RX Vega -- at a slight cost in FPS. Better DX11 FPS. And, up to 15% more efficient cryptocurrency mining. All part of an attempt to provide a "complete" GPU for games, computation, etc.



Article

More powerful Ryzen/Vega APUs are coming fairly soon. Should out perform Intel APUs in the same wattage range for game FPS. Good for inexpensive PCs and home theater PCs.

The Ryzen 5 2400G is "leaked" to be the most powerful of the bunch.

1792 SP shaders -- that's what seems to be in an even newer AMD APU than the one's listed just above (we're not supposed to know about it yet). We'll eventually see if this rumor/leak is true.

The latest Windows 10 Creator's Update breaks at least one application when an AMD GPU is used -- CorelDraw 2017. "Copy" and some other actions go from instantaneous to nearly 50 seconds in some cases.

Who would have guessed that was a GPU/W10 interaction thing? I didn't (I'm a CorelDraw user).

It is said this is being fixed by Microsoft. But, how fast?

Just a "heads up" in case one of your applications suddenly slowed down after the recent W10 major update.

EDIT: The temporary fix (at least for my uses) is to drop back to AMD WHQL driver 17.7.2.

Besides being an AMD fan, I'm also a low key Sapphire fan. Sapphire specializes in AMD products. Theirs seem to be the most advanced in many cases. The article seems to think they've done it again.

Its nominally faster, quieter, uses less power than the AMD RX Vega 64 Reference card.

If one is interested in a card, one should read the article. Its nuanced. In only a couple games, the new card blows away the Nvidia 1080 Ti in minimum framerate (the important framerate). Of course, the 1080Ti remains fastest overall.

In a couple games, the reference RX Vega 64 card is a bit faster than the new Custom card. The authors put it on the current AMD drivers -- not the card. We must wait for updated drivers to get all the power from this card.

Article

I can confirm that the reviewer clearly isn't aware of the 1080ti issue with DX12 in Battlefield 1. I assume this is the area that you refer to whereby the 'new card blows away the Nvidia 1080 Ti in minimum framerate' in two tests.....it's actually just one game but you're referring to the the 2 different resolutions of 1440p and 4k?

For whatever reason the GTX1080ti is gimped in DX12 mode unlike the normal GTX1080, but a simple console command of 'RenderDevice.RenderAheadLimit 2' puts the performance back into the card with minimum framerates at 1440p beyond 110fps and at 4k beyond 85fps at the highest settings. Unfortunately for AMD fans, the sensationalist claims of blowing away the 1080ti is false by a huge margin as the 1080ti puts the other cards all in their places.

What is more striking in that review are the power requirements that are well and truly swept under the carpet as the Vega 64 uses more than 80% more power when gaming in comparison to the GTX 1080 which is its closest competitor (but still loses in nearly all the benchmarks) and has the most ridiculous peak I've ever seen on a GPU.

I keep mentioning cryptocurrency mining because its central to the "overpricing" of AMD RX580 and RX Vega cards. This article is based on mining XMR Monero (one of the many cryptocurrencies).

AMD cards make miners more money per month at a given cost. So, AMD GPUs being a good "investment", cryptocurrency miners drive up their prices.

Come on Allen, this is getting ridiculous.....if you're trying to show AMD in a good light by providing evidence of how long it takes to break even when cryto mining then show GPUs that are roughly the same cost as that will be the comparison of the performance versus cost.

The Titan V is a £2700 GPU, but hey...anything that attempts to show AMD beating Nvidia must be good yeah? Your posts are usually good but be aware that if other SimHQ'ers are looking for information for comparison with GPUs and CPUs then your posts are plain mis-leading and intentationally so.

This thread is "Future and Current Status of AMD".

Compute is about "bang per buck" to some users. That's the point. One pays a lot for an Nvidia GPU versus what they get in "compute. That affects AMD's "status" with consumers -- positive with some (more profit) and negative with others (price too high for gamers).

GPUs do graphics and "compute" functions. Some applications and games make use of the GPU compute functions. AMD has typically supported compute functions well compared to Nvidia. And, that matters to folks who use GPU compute functions.

AMD's lead in compute (bang for buck wise) and the effect of that on AMD GPU cost (driving up the cost) is relevant to AMDs "Future and Current Status" with all sorts of consumers -- from SimHQ gamers who don't want to overpay for FPS to cryptocurrency miners who want the best "bang per buck" (its all about money to them) to professionals who use the compute side of GPUs and may find AMD less attractive at a higher price.

With me, its not about "beating" Nvidia or Intel. Rather, both provide excellent products that AMD must be competitive with -- so it makes sense to me cut and paste articles that compare all aspects. Its about the "Future and Current Status of AMD" -- which involves more than FPS.

By the way, here's the Titan V advertisement cut and pasted from the Nvidia site.

They call it the most advanced "supercomputing architecture" GPU and its aimed at "fueling breakthroughs in every industry".

So, its interesting that an AMD GPU product is "competitive" (bang per buck) with it in "compute" -- when "compute" is the Titan V specialty. At least, its interesting to me

So OK, if you want to make noise in the 'bang for buck' arena.....then show bang for buck.

Stating how long crypto mining takes to offset the cost of a $3000 Nvidia GPU against an $800 GPU isn't showing back for buck at all. Neither are benchmarks that show an Nvidia card operating at 50% less wattage and core clocks......all the key variables are completely unmatched in the attempt to make AMD look like the clear winner....it's not even apples to oranges.

With regards the advert, your'e still off on a tangent.....you're still claiming the 'bang for buck' is the comparison yet nowhere have you featured a benchmark that actually shows bang for buck. Has it occurred to you that profit per month figures you quoted are completely inaccurate because it isn't even taking into account how much electricity is being burned by the AMD cards where in some cases they are using over twice as much than the Nvidia card. Of course you're going to get a large performance boost if you take a set period of time but use a performance metric within that timeframe. The article that you lifted the graph from even caveats it with 'but if electricity costs are not a concern (or if less of a concern) to you........' .

You also seem to be indicating that 'compute' is only relevant for mining? You are aware the so-called speciality of the Titan V is for AI and to be used for scientific research? In summary, all these silly benchmarks attempting to make AMD look good are simply cherry picked values and they're not even consistent across cards. Look at the mining graph again....the Vega cards aren't even comparing ETH, yet the Titan V has entries against it! If you did find benchmarks for that, you will find the Vega 64 losing by a large margin (see youtube clip below).

It does seem that AMD are intent to focus on mining though and have pretty much given up on trying to challenge in the gaming stakes - evident by releasing the dedicated blockchain driver, even if the flip-side is to increase the prices of already scarce hardware.

=========================================================================================

Here is an apples to apples mining benchmark (something that your graph didn't attempt to show)......ETH at Mh/s and Power Consumption, fast-forward to 29 seconds

An article built from rumor, leak summarizes where Navi GPU "seems" to be -- nothing new -- other than a Navi driver seems to be along in development . The "super secret" part is "humor".



Article

Nvidia will have 12nm Volta this spring and AMD is rumored to have 12nm updates of both Ryzen and Vega this spring.


UPDATE: Some believe that we really won't see Navi until 2019 and the above driver is not for Navi (they believe). I think 2019 Navi GPU on-the-shelf is probably how things will turn out -- new technology is often delayed for one reason or another.

More competition might be on the way -- the pundits speculate.



May happen. But, Intel and AMD see it coming, so they will compete. This will lower prices and add to choices. Competition is good

Full Article with Links to Low Cost Components

The $1100 and $1450 units use Ryzen CPUs.

All use Nvidia GPUs. Though historically good buys, AMD GPU prices are not the lowest right now due to cryptocurrency mining.

Still seems like Ryzen 2000 by March/April.

Looks like I may have to upgrade in a few months then. I am mainly hoping for improved IPC and a minor MHZ bump. If I can get it to run at 4.2GHZ easily with IPC improvements I will certainly consider an upgrade. I may continue using 6C/12T but if the 8C/16T are cheap enough I will consider moving to that.

I'm hoping your plan works because I'm thinking along the same lines.

For what its worth: My Ryzen 1800X is advertised as 3.6GHz with 4.0GHz turbo. Out of the box, with no BIOS mods it nominally ran at 3.7GHz. I've got it set in BIOS to 4.0GHz on all cores at all times -- did not even bump up the voltage. It just works. So, I'm guessing I'll easily get 4.4Ghz (or slightly more) all cores all the time out of a Ryzen 2800X (or whatever they call it).

Getting my 32GB memory to run at 3GHz was harder because the initial BIOS's did not support some memory.. Now, one can get memory that's compatible with Ryzen overclocking.

My wife has been using my "hand me down" Phenom II PC for years. Based on the rumors and speculation, I plan to buy a 2800X and give her my current 1800X so she can live in the 21st century -- I need an excuse

Hopefully, the Vega 12nm will sell for a reasonable price. Then, I'll give her my RX480 and go Vega.