AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition runs DOOM faster than the NVIDIA GTX1080, "Gaming" mode tested

YouTube’s ‘DudeRandom84’ has tested AMD’s Radeon Vega Frontier Edition in DOOM and compared it with both NVIDIA’s GTX1080 and GTX1080Ti graphics cards. And the results fall in line with what we are basically expecting from the gaming/consumer variant of the upcoming Vega GPU.

[MegamanXXX]

Interesting

[boomtube1987]

its an AMD game. Not surprising. Its one of few games that perform really well on AMD GPU

[NecoTehSergal]

When a game is made for AMD in mind - it runs well on both Nvidia and AMD hardware.

If a game is made with Nvidia and Gameworks meddling with it, it becomes broken and flawed on AMD hardware....

I'd prefer the prior than the latter. When Nvidia sabotages game development to be donkey-balls for AMD consumers? It's a practice Nvidia does non-stop due to their monopolization. Witcher 3 that includes Nvidia's HairFX? Horrible for AMD. Crysis and Tessellation? Horrible on AMD - AMD lets their features be Open Source while Nvidia takes and makes things theirs for a reason, they're jackasses and the 'Apple' of the GPU industry.

I hope the Vega series do well. Nvidia needs less control, since they handle the power in a way that fucks the industry over.

[kdmitchell_toh]

And once again, DSOGaming shows its click bait writing style. There was zero mention of the testing using Vulkan, which has been the only way Fury X was able to get close to the GTX 1080. Not OpenGL, not DirectX, just Vulkan.

[joab777]

I don't know a lot, but I read this was underwhelming for gaming, and it again states this here. It is not made for gaming, yet it runs Doom 20% faster than the 1080. What does this mean?

I do a lot on my PC, but it isn't optimized for gaming. This would be great if it actually did both.

[Angeljuice]

This is a rushed card to meet deadlines. They were due to launch the new cards in "summer 2017" or "Q2 2017", depending who was asked.

The cards were running behind schedule so they decided to focus on releasing the "frontier edition" on time.

It's rushed, uses rushed drivers and doesn't represent the new card properly.

If you bare this in mind, the results are pretty encouraging.

[Razzer]

I'm not following you. The video shows the test running using Vulkan.

[Angeljuice]

It's only the rushed to deadline Frontier edition, the newer cards are slap bang in the middle of a GTX 1080 and a GTX 1080Ti without the final drivers.

You should check out some tech sites, there's been a few good findings over the last week or so.

[SCW1982]

If its a choice between AMD and NVIDIA, I will choose the latter every time.

[clouds5]

So if AMD had a card that is cheaper, consumed less energy and had more power you would still choose NVIDIA?

[Avery]

(my observations over the past few years) AMD = poor driver support, poor blower GPU fans, poor GPU roadmap, not optimized for as many games and NVIDIA, shorter life-cycle (they die faster), poorer software, they run hotter and they make more noise (past 2 years of iterations since GTX 480 space heater - AMD have gone backwards / and/or NVIDIA forwards through being more efficient, cooler) etc etc.
http://store.steampowered.c... there is a reason 60% folks use NVIDIA
http://store.steampowered.c... - can't find any AMD card growing
VEGA should of been out 10 months ago, It's late and not good enough at all considering the development lead time. HBM is a fail and expensive. perf/W advantage is with NVIDIA.

[freshslicepizza]

Sad to see there are fanboys in videocards too. AMD's track record has greatly improved the last year or so and they constantly update their drivers. They still don't have a card that can compete with the GTX 1080ti but they are very good in the mainstream cards.

[SCW1982]

Yes because AMD does not have the best track record and everything that Avery just said I agree with. The quality is not there.

[SCW1982]

@moldy

Its not being a fanboy, its being willing to pay for the better and superior product that has a track record of being better and not having nearly as many issues as the competition.

[Angeljuice]

That's a bold statement, markets change, if NVIDIA make some poor investments, you could be forced to play on a sat nav.

[bluefox755]

I agree on the high end, but AMD does pretty good with low and mid-range.

[Avery]

HBM has been a bad bet for AMD unfortunately, it's currently very late, way below bandwidth targets, likely running at higher voltages and probably has less than ideal yields.
AMDis also stuck with a slightly less optimized process for HP silicon, I reckon that's worth at least 10℅ performance or 15℅ lower power consumption at these clocks, all these things combined add up to a nightmare for AMD. I was apprehensive at first about Vega being a disappointment. But all this talk is a wake up call. Vega isn't going to be overly competitive. Nvidia will continue to dominate the high end.

AMD is too busy making CPU's. It's a concerning situation. There's simply no money to develop a full line of GPUs like they used to. Hopefully that will change with the success of Ryzen. Otherwise it'll look as though ATi selling to AMD was a huge mistake.

Vega is having a similar dilemma like a few of the former AMD GPUs have been having. Getting the clock speeds up to desired levels requires far too much power. They run quite efficiently at lower voltages, providing much better perf/W. It was suggested that this GPU can compete with similar perf/W when slowed down to a GTX 1070 performance. However, moving up from there throws the wattage out the window in a big hurry.

So if the architecture is just too slow and they can't fix it with clock speed.... we're only going to get a ~$350 graphics card that AMD has horrible margins on which is a shame.

AMDs performance targets were completely wrong for both Polaris and Vega. They likely never expected such high clocks from Pascal. Consequently they had to bump clocks for both Polaris and Vega far above optimal.

[clouds5]

@Avery: I agree, I use a NVIDIA card myself at the moment (gtx970), they are the better cards right now overall. But I used AMD in the past and they have made great chips and balanced cards, so no reason that they can't make that happen again in the future. I have no issue with buying the best card on the market at any given point in time, on the contrary. I don't understand the logic behind "I always buy NVIDIA, Samsung, Razer or -insert random brand name-". Actually, if you really care about a company and they really fuck up with a certain product, you _don't_ buy it, on purpose. To tell them with your money that you don't accept fuckups from your favorite brand. You don't go and buy their shit ripoff products because you feel obligated.

[freshslicepizza]

@SCW1982
"Its not being a fanboy, its being willing to pay for the better and superior product that has a track record of being better and not having nearly as many issues as the competition."

AMD's track record is vastly improved over the last year, get with the times.

[SCW1982]

Vastly improved but still behind the competition. I am very much with the times.

[leeeroythe3rd]

Doesnt the amd vega cost significantly more than both gtx 1080 and gtx 1080ti? I would hope it could outperform both...

[dcbronco]

The gaming model will most likely be cheaper. The Frontier edition is for workstations and not optimized for gaming.

[porkChop]

Yeah this isn't a gaming card, it's a workstation card. So if this thing is performing this well, that likely means good things for the consumer cards coming out. Those will launch at the end of the month and will be better optimized for gaming.

[tyasia0]

It cost half of what a pascal card costs and performs nearly identically.

[XBManiac]

Drivers... it only needs gaming drivers and games will come.

[Sircolby45]

Is anyone actually still waiting for this? I gave up on AMD back in November of last year...

[sadsatan]

1080ti destroys vega