Team Group MP34 NVME SSD (512GB) review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gaming OC review
Anno 1800: PC graphics performance benchmark review
NZXT H500 Overwatch Special Edition review
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Twin Fan 6 GB Review
Corsair Carbide 275Q review
Cooler Master MK850 keyboard review
WD Blue SN500 NVME SSD (250GB) Review
ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme Alpha review
Possible Radeon RX Vega 3DMark Time Spy Benchmark Result
In our forums there have been posted some links towards a 3DMark TimeSpy results. Looking at the result set, that actually might be Radeon RX Vega. The result shows the card that is running Time Spy with with a score of 5950 points and a graphics score of 5721 points.
It might be Radeon RX Vega as the graphics card info in the result set shows a few familiar things. It is an undetected AMD card, is has 8GB of graphics memory and the strongest indicator of it all, the memory runs 700 MHz. In case you don’t remember, HBM memory on the Radeon R9 Fury ran at 500 MHz. With Vega having HBM2, that 700 MHz is very plausible.
The driver result set is a 22.19.384.20. The driver states, not FM approved e.g. it is a beta driver.
The score seems a bit low, the card runs 1200 MHz. If it is an engineering board we assume the clocks on the final products would be much higher. The card is tested on a X370 system with Ryzen 7 1800X processor. Perhaps we are assuming a little more than is possible and it is a Firepro card.
If you compare a little back and forth (Ryzen 7 1800X and out test platform only differ a few hundred points in Time Spy), you can assume a card in the GeForce GXT 1070 and when faster clocked 1080 performance bracket) at 5950 points. If you focus solely in the GPU score then 5721 points is spot on a GeForce GTX 1070.
Plese keep in mind, AMD might releasing several products based off Vega, e.g. something again a 1070, something against a 1080 and who knows something that climbs up towards the 1080 Ti. Let's hope so.
The score can be found publicly on 3DMark:
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741
Let’s take this entry with a huge grain of salt, and take all the right disclaimers for granted okay?
Update, thanks to the sharp eyes of GeniusPr0 who spotted that the Devier Hardware ID for the entry is 687F:C1, and that leads to a story we covered back in December.
We also noticed that ID for a Doom Vulkan result set that was posted from an AMD event (check photo above) So yes, chances are getting much higher that this is the real thing. You can retrieve the Hardware_ID info once you place the result set into a comparison. You then will also notice that this result set was a fresh one, created on the 12th of April.
Wanna Flash your Radeon RX 470 towards a 570? It’s possible. 480 towards 580 as well. - 04/19/2017 03:37 PM
So yesterday after posting our RX 570 and 580 reviews some questions have risen on the fact if the the 470/480 and be flashed towards the 570/580. This seems to be a correct assumption....
Six Core AMD Ryzen Processors Might Still Possible - 02/02/2017 09:02 AM
So we have posted a thing or two already about Ryzen being released as 4 and 8 core processors. AMD will release an 4 and 8-core model with and without hyper-threading. ...
New Screenshot Show Possible Windows 10 for Phones - 04/27/2015 04:12 PM
A new screen-shots of the new Samsung Ativ S with Windows Mobile build 10070 shows possible changes to the live tiles on the start-screen. The tiles design and layout appear to be very close to each o...
Possible GeForce GTX 870 specs and benchmark leaked - 08/11/2014 11:35 PM
Over at an Asian website specs leaked of what could be the pending GeForce GTX 870. A user from the forum website Coolaler posted aa GPU-Z screenshot detailing what seems to be the GeForce GTX 870....
Is it possible for the NSA to Spy through the Xbox Kinect ? - 07/17/2013 08:10 AM
Okay here's a new theory. Would it be possible for the NSA to Spy through the Xbox Kinect ? So not unlike Kinect, Skype had assured its users that "wiretaps were technically impossible" ...
Bogeyx
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 2013-12-03
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 2013-12-03
#5426407 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:07 PM
What else to say?
That's incredibly disappointing. Hope for AMD's sake it is not true
What else to say?
Kaotik
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 2004-12-24
Senior Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 2004-12-24
#5426408 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:11 PM
Let's put it this way, at reported clocks Fury X would be as fast or faster > It's OC'd Fury (X)
That's incredibly disappointing. Hope for AMD's sake it is not true
Let's put it this way, at reported clocks Fury X would be as fast or faster > It's OC'd Fury (X)
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5426409 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:14 PM
This could just be the cut down Vega that's supposed to compete with the 1070. Or it could be full Vega clocked lower.
People need to stop forming conclusions on these leaks. They're almost never accurate.
This could just be the cut down Vega that's supposed to compete with the 1070. Or it could be full Vega clocked lower.
People need to stop forming conclusions on these leaks. They're almost never accurate.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34850
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34850
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5426410 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:14 PM
1) Fury is 4GB only
2) HBM memory cannot OC to 700 MHz
Let's put it this way, at reported clocks Fury X would be as fast or faster > It's OC'd Fury (X)
1) Fury is 4GB only
2) HBM memory cannot OC to 700 MHz
ivymike10mt
Senior Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 2015-01-28
Senior Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 2015-01-28
#5426411 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:19 PM
It's looks like rebranded Fury X, rather than just a new 2017 Vega product.
I don't belive that will look their flagship product in 2017.
It's looks like rebranded Fury X, rather than just a new 2017 Vega product.
I don't belive that will look their flagship product in 2017.
GeniusPr0
Senior Member
Posts: 1222
Joined: 2003-04-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1222
Joined: 2003-04-26
#5426414 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:23 PM
Hi Hilbert,
Doing a score compare reveals a driver name of 687F:C1
Hi Hilbert,
Doing a score compare reveals a driver name of 687F:C1
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6972
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5426415 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:28 PM
What's interesting is that the reported driver version is the OpenCL one (22.19.384.20), instead of the D3D one.
The clock could also just be a part of extrapolating performance, a leak to measure reactions, or a ton of other things. I personally don't believe that any Vega part that goes versus the Ti/XP, will have anything less than 1.5GHz. They were promising passively cooled server parts at 1.5GHz, so...
What's interesting is that the reported driver version is the OpenCL one (22.19.384.20), instead of the D3D one.
The clock could also just be a part of extrapolating performance, a leak to measure reactions, or a ton of other things. I personally don't believe that any Vega part that goes versus the Ti/XP, will have anything less than 1.5GHz. They were promising passively cooled server parts at 1.5GHz, so...
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34850
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 34850
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5426417 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:30 PM
Hi Hilbert,
Doing a score compare reveals a driver name of 687F:C1
That's a good spot, and the ID matches the presumed AOTS Vega leak back in December.
Hi Hilbert,
Doing a score compare reveals a driver name of 687F:C1
That's a good spot, and the ID matches the presumed AOTS Vega leak back in December.
Anarion
Senior Member
Posts: 13425
Joined: 2005-08-13
Senior Member
Posts: 13425
Joined: 2005-08-13
#5426420 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:37 PM
This could just be the cut down Vega that's supposed to compete with the 1070. Or it could be full Vega clocked lower.
People need to stop forming conclusions on these leaks. They're almost never accurate.
That would be disappointing if they need one extra year and HBM 2.0 to match GTX 1070. That would mean no competition again when NVIDIA launches Volta.
If it's noticeably cheaper and uses less power... Then it could be nice.
This could just be the cut down Vega that's supposed to compete with the 1070. Or it could be full Vega clocked lower.
People need to stop forming conclusions on these leaks. They're almost never accurate.
That would be disappointing if they need one extra year and HBM 2.0 to match GTX 1070. That would mean no competition again when NVIDIA launches Volta.
If it's noticeably cheaper and uses less power... Then it could be nice.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 11983
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5426421 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:39 PM
What's interesting is that the reported driver version is the OpenCL one (22.19.384.20), instead of the D3D one.
The clock could also just be a part of extrapolating performance, a leak to measure reactions, or a ton of other things. I personally don't believe that any Vega part that goes versus the Ti/XP, will have anything less than 1.5GHz. They were promising passively cooled server parts at 1.5GHz, so...
Calling them passively cooled is a bit of a stretch, but yeah - MI25 probably around 1.5Ghz - the gaming variants should be higher, not 300mhz lower.
In the other thread, GeniusPr0 brought up a good point though - if you take these measurements and pretend the clock was 25% higher you'd get ~5-10 above stock 1080 performance. Which is where we saw Vega perform in BF1/Doom a few months back.
What's interesting is that the reported driver version is the OpenCL one (22.19.384.20), instead of the D3D one.
The clock could also just be a part of extrapolating performance, a leak to measure reactions, or a ton of other things. I personally don't believe that any Vega part that goes versus the Ti/XP, will have anything less than 1.5GHz. They were promising passively cooled server parts at 1.5GHz, so...
Calling them passively cooled is a bit of a stretch, but yeah - MI25 probably around 1.5Ghz - the gaming variants should be higher, not 300mhz lower.
In the other thread, GeniusPr0 brought up a good point though - if you take these measurements and pretend the clock was 25% higher you'd get ~5-10 above stock 1080 performance. Which is where we saw Vega perform in BF1/Doom a few months back.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 8607
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 8607
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5426422 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:39 PM
There are "vega" "687F:C1" values from compubench.
And they look like 35~45% above Fury X across the board.
There are "vega" "687F:C1" values from compubench.
And they look like 35~45% above Fury X across the board.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Joined: 2006-09-24
Senior Member
Posts: 6717
Joined: 2006-09-24
#5426423 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:40 PM
That would be disappointing if they need one extra year and HBM 2.0 to match GTX 1070. That would mean no competition again when NVIDIA launches Volta.
If it's noticeably cheaper and uses less power... Then it could be nice.
If this is their topline card it's Fury X at 1200mhz pretty much, with more RAM. It's like everything they should have done has not happened.
Or maybe it is a Fury X done with hbm2 for their 1070 adversary
I don't know.
@ fox
And this looks like it's barely above fury x.
That would be disappointing if they need one extra year and HBM 2.0 to match GTX 1070. That would mean no competition again when NVIDIA launches Volta.
If it's noticeably cheaper and uses less power... Then it could be nice.
If this is their topline card it's Fury X at 1200mhz pretty much, with more RAM. It's like everything they should have done has not happened.
Or maybe it is a Fury X done with hbm2 for their 1070 adversary
I don't know.
@ fox
And this looks like it's barely above fury x.
w0nderz
Senior Member
Posts: 152
Joined: 2016-09-16
Senior Member
Posts: 152
Joined: 2016-09-16
#5426424 Posted on: 04/30/2017 04:47 PM
I'd lean more towards an RX 590 candidate.
I'd lean more towards an RX 590 candidate.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
#5426429 Posted on: 04/30/2017 05:00 PM
Uh oh, has someone crashed the hype train?
Uh oh, has someone crashed the hype train?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 2014-07-24
That's incredibly disappointing. Hope for AMD's sake it is not true