AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition vs NVIDIA GTX1080 - New Benchmarks (BF1, Assassin's Creed: Unity)

DudeRandom84 has put the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX1080 in three new games. These games are: Battlefield 1, Sniper Elite 4 and Assassin’s Creed: Unity. And the results are quite interesting.

[Psychotica]

So glad I got the 1080Ti, all settings to max and play..

[MegamanXXX]

Nvidia is the way to go for gpu

[NatureOfLogic_]

What year is this?

AMD CPU-GPU build is the way for gamers right now.

1080Ti is overkill.

Also, 144hz freesync/g-sync > 4K craze.

[SinkingSage]

@NatureOfLogic_
AMD CPU-GPU is the way for gamers right now?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[fr0sty]

It's definitely the way to go for workstations, which is my PC's primary purpose. I still use Nvidia GPU though, as I've had issues with AMD drivers in the past.

[0Day]

1080ti is the best GPU purchase I've made. Period. And I previously had a 1080, 980ti, and SLI 970's.

[Sircolby45]

@NatureOfLogic_ So let me get this straight...First you say that 1080 Ti is overkill and then proceed to state that 144Hz is the new craze...Umm...If you want to run at 144Hz then the 1080 Ti is the perfect card for that. I hate to break it to you but the AMDs GPUs are trash. They are finally showing some competition in the CPU market, but the high end GPU market is something they just need to bow out of, because their high end GPUs are a joke.

Also as much as I would like to recommend a Ryzen chip for anything else, if you want 144Hz an Intel chip is still going to give you the best performance in games.

[XxINFERNUSxX]

The way it's meant to be played ^_^

[Weeblordbad]

If the gaming variant sits around the 1080 but below the 1080 TI is still perfectly fine. At that point it all depends on the price of the cards, if they're priced competitively around the price of the 1080 the RX Vega will be a winner.

Also just so everyone knows, being a "fan" of one hardware vendor over another is just the most ridiculous crap. Go with the hardware that fits your budget and does what you want it to do not because something says Intel, Nvidia or AMD.

Also Nature of Logic, the Intel processors in the i5/i7 Range are still perfectly fine for gaming, and you're gaining very little by going with Ryzen. If your goal is just to game on your PC, those two are almost interchangeable and before you mention 8 cores 8 threads, remember the 8350 had 8 cores and we all know how that turned out. Go with your budget.

[AZRoboto]

If it doesn't consistently perform higher than the base GTX 1080, a card from Q2 2016, I don't think price at any range would let it be a winner. Just the raw possibility that AMD's flagship could be behind their competitor's flagship from over a full year ago, as that competitor already succeeded that card with the so-much-faster TI version.

[Weeblordbad]

This is the worskstation card, not the RX Vega releasing at the end of the month, When I say a "winner" I mean it's a viable alternative to the Nvidia cards based on price, heat and energy use. They don't have to beat Nvidia outright performance wise to be successful, we've already seen that with Polaris and the 480. That's why price matters, if the price of the RX Vega is sandwiched in between the 1070/1080 but performs like a 1080? They're going to sell those cards and sell a lot of them.

[xenz]

I agree, but if you do anything different than gaming, lets say streaming, graphics etc. Ryzen beats i5/i7 both in price and performance. If you want future proofing, an Ryzen 7 1700 8c/16t will only get better when games start ultilizing more cores and threads. It already performs quite well and beats Intels 4c/8t offerings.

[Gravesinger_]

I agree with the "Fan of one hardware company over the other", we don't need to act like console savages, just use what hardware fits your purpose.

[xenz]

Firstly, Vega FE is not a gaming card but merely a card for developers, animators etc. FX Vega will be their gaming card with drivers and arcitechture optimized towards gaming.

AMD is currently the way to go if you want to game at the high-end for a much lower price. Why you ask?

- Ryzen has a much better price/performance ratio than i5/i7 and performs as well or better than in DX12 and Vulcan optimized games. If you pair Ryzen with 3200mhz RAM you'll see major performance increase also.

- B350/X370 motherboard is much cheaper than Intels X299 lineup. Also, you can get Freesync 2 monitors at 199$. 200$ than the G-sync offerings.

- Vega will be optimized for Ryzen.

- Games in the next years will be optimized for Ryzen as developers get more time with the new arcitechture. Games will also start ultilizing 8 cores in the next 2 years, giving Ryzen an even bigger jump in performance.

[SinkingSage]

AMD and drivers? pffft
AMD is nowhere near high end at the moment.
-7th gen i5s and i7s are much cheaper than R5s and R7s, while offering outstanding performance.
-X299 isn't for gaming, Z270 is.
-Well of course it will.
-Games are already optimized for i3 / i5 / i7.

[xenz]

AMD drivers are much better than they were 5 years ago. Their latest driver update reduced ZBrush performance from 22 sec to 11 millisec. Also, latest Rise of the Tomb Raider improved fps on Ryzen by over 20%.

Intel prices were off the charts before AMD released Ryzen. Lets compare current prices:

Ryzen 7 1800x = 399$ (8c/16t, 20MB Cache, 95W @3.6Ghz)
i7 6900k = 1050$ (8c/16t, 20MB Cache, 140W @3.4Ghz)

Intel have been cutting their prices on a couple of CPUs by over 200$ and still cant compete on price/performance ratio. And if you look at optimized games like BF1 or Doom you'll see that Ryzen are equalient and outperforms Intel on every other non-gaming benchmark by up to 60%. Its ridicilous.

[Weeblordbad]

Ryzen is a perfectly fine alternative to the i5/i7's.

X299 is absolutely for gaming, it may not be their main angle with the HEDT lineup but you're insane if you don't think gaming factors in there. Quad channel memory and enough PCI E lanes to support actual SLI/Crossfire (X16 on both cards not x8).

Vega will perform just fine in a Intel based system. They aren't going to alienate potential buyers because they have an Intel system. AMD cannot afford that right now.

If games are optimized to utilize more threads, everyone will see performance improvements. Look at the Ryzen Ashes of the Singularity update, it improved Ryzen performance it also improved Intels performance;

I'm just going to say guys, I thought we would see huge optimization for the FX 8350 when it came out. Even built two PC's for friends with 8350's specifically because specific optimization HAS to happen....right? It never did, and the 8350 only got rougher with age. I'm not saying this is the same fate for Ryzen, but it would pay to not wander around saying it's going to happen. You're just being set up for disaster.

[SinkingSage]

@xenz
i7 7700k - 349€ 4.0GHz Turbo.
Ryzen 7 1800X - 524€ 4.0GHz Turbo.

Who the hell would choose a 6900k over a 6700k for gaming?
The 6900 is a workstation CPU. Compare it to an actual gaming CPU and they cost way less than AMD's stuff.
The 6700k is just 344€.

Also you are comparing old generation Intel hardware with new generation AMD hardware. Stupid comparison.

@WeebLord
No, X299 is for workstations, the best gaming CPUs are LGA 1151 not LGA 2066.
1151 are focused on clock speeds, 2066 and 2011 are focused on cores. 1151s consistently have better performance in gaming than 2011 or 2066, you don't know what you are talking about.

[xenz]

Why are you comparing 1800x to 7700K? You should be comparing Ryzen 5 1600x to 7700K.

Ryzen 5 1600x = 229$ (6c/12t @ 3.6Ghz, 20MB Cache, 95W)

i7-7700K = 349$ (4c/8t @ 4.2Ghz, 8MB Cache, 91W)

Yes its true that 7700K performs a bit better than Ryzen, by only 10-15 fps. And it cost 125$ more, has less cores, less threads, drops fps massively when streaming compared to Ryzen and performs about 20% worse on any multi-threading applications and multitasking in general. The value clearly is in Ryzens favor, and when more games starts to ultilize more cores (example, Destiny 2 uses 10 cores) and optimizing for Zen CPUs (Rise of the Tomb Raider 20% fps increase after update on Ryzen), you'll see these 6 and 8 cores beating Intels 4 core offerings in gaming.

[iloveallgames]

Benchmark after benchmark after benchmark shows the 1800x to be more comparable to an i5 in gaming. PC gamer's 15 game average slots the 1800x somewhere between an i5-6400 and an i5-7600k.

The 1800x is a great performer for workstation duties but gamers should still be buying intel.

Tom's Hardware
"Even after down-clocking the -7700K to 3.8 GHz, it still beats Ryzen 7 1800X in nearly every game in our suite."

Gamersnexus
"We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price."

Techpowerup
"We also tested a large selection of games, in both 1080p and 1440p, comparing it to the Intel Core i7-7700k, which is the typical gamers' choice and $150 cheaper than the Ryzen 7 1800X. Depending on the game, the results either nearly match the Intel CPU or are vastly slower, especially at 1080p."

[Weeblordbad]

My god dude.

If you're going to spend thousands on a machine you always go with the HEDT lineup. Not for the processor specifically, but for the PCI E lanes 44 on X299 vs 24 on Z270. What do those lanes allow? Much better scalability with either 2 card or multi card SLI and allowing more bandwidth for storage. All of those things matter, Z270 is the mainstream option not the only option.

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-...

There's a nice slide from Intel, they absolutely push their HEDT line to gamers wanting the "best". Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when you're the one who doesn't even understand the benefits of HEDT systems with gaming. Also Threadripper has 64 PCI E lanes, 64!

[TheHunter81]

Can we stop comparing a workstation card with a gaming card? Thanks

[LAWSON72]

GPU is kot made for gaming so stupid ass comparison