Mystery AMD Radeon RX Vega GPUs Outperform GTX 1080 in Benchmarks

Written by Shaheryar Ehsan-i-Haque on Mon, Mar 13, 2017 5:25 PM

While Raja Koduri's (AMD Radeon senior VP) GDC presentation was a mere bore for fans waiting for some juicy announcement regarding Vega, the internet is not the one to wait around for AMD to show its hand. Someone has been playing around with Radeon Vega GPUs and running some benchmark tests, and their apparent scores have surfaced on the 'net and given Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 a run for its money.

First up we have CompuBench on which AMD 687F:C1 GPU scores around 11.567 mPixels/sec, which is a tad higher than the GTX 1070 which scores around 11.311 mPixels/sec and GTX 1080 at 11.092 mPixels/sec. Check the screenshot below:

Results show a discrepancy here however; the GTX 1070 is being shown as a tad quicker than it's more powerful sibling, the GTX 1080, which shouldn't be possible considering the overall specifications and real world performance.

However the Sisoft Benchmarks are pretty much spot on for a second Vega variant listed as AMD 687F:C3. According to Sisoft's database, the AMD 687F:C3 has around 4096 GCN cores across 64 compute units. It's got 8GB video memory on 2048-bit bus. This configuration manages to score 2756.69Mpix/s, which is well above GTX 1080's score of 2050.72Mpix/s or above, however it's still well short of the 3,451.05Mpix/s scored by the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti.

If the Sisoft benchmarks are taken into account then this Radeon Vega GPU has around 35% faster performance than the GeForce GTX 1080 but it's still second to the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. All these should be taken with a hint of skepticism though, as in-game performance may have totally different results and we should wait for official numbers as well.

However these are some pretty interesting results. Two Vega GPUs offering near-GTX 1080 performance certainly shows AMD has some high performance offerings waiting in in the wings. The crucial thing now is how AMD combats Nvidia in terms of price. Will Team Red attempt an audacious undercut, just as it did with its Ryzen processors? Do you think any Vega GPU will also outclass GTX 1080 Ti? Let us know in the comments.

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
62
Offline
admin approved badge
12:47 Mar-14-2017

Btw I've got this feeling that Vega 11 (the weaker of the 2) is actually meant to compete with Pascal and Vega 10 is for Volta. Just a hunch but it sorta makes sense too

1
Rep
14
Online
10:01 Mar-14-2017

by the time vega launch it will be too late for amd. nvidia will counter that by launching volta.

1
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
11:48 Mar-14-2017

Except that we know even less about Volta than we do about Vega.... which suggests either it's nowhere near in a stage of completion or Nvidia is better at keeping tight-lipped about their launches.
We also have no clue of AMDs launch plans or for that matter what Vega will be competing with.... the way they've held it back so long suggests it may be aimed at Volta and not at Pascal at all.

0
Rep
0
Offline
07:14 Mar-14-2017

in this even a gtx 1070 is better than 1080
think its fake

11
Rep
18
Offline
10:07 Mar-17-2017

yeah; how can you trust this benchmark?

1
Rep
50
Offline
03:10 Mar-14-2017

I want to see Vega 11 leaks, either this year I am getting another 480 for a crossfire config or I am getting the top end V11 card

0
Rep
48
Offline
20:05 Mar-13-2017

I honestly don't see VEGA outperforming the 1080ti and this is from someone having a ton of AMD hardware. They always seem to be catching up, while having worse thermals, power consumption and performance. I hope I'm wrong this time though.

8
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
20:20 Mar-13-2017

Who knows what's going on with Vega right now tbh. The fact that we still know so little about it could mean literally anything. AMD could be saving it to compete with Volta, and instead releasing a Polaris Refresh to fill in some blanks till then.... AMD could be having problems getting some bugs worked out.... or maybe AMD decided to tweak a bit more after seeing what the 1080 TI could do....

4
Rep
45
Offline
19:14 Mar-13-2017

GTX 1080,RX VEGA, GTX 1080Ti! Which to buy for gaming at 1366x768 to last about 5years? how long will 8gb of ram be relevant, given poor optimization and high VRAM usage..

0
Rep
59
Offline
admin approved badge
19:34 Mar-13-2017

Considering that resolution they are overkill either way.

7
Rep
45
Offline
20:42 Mar-13-2017

That's the point .... my 960 4gb is no longer enough for my res.. & I have the money already.

0
Rep
59
Offline
08:28 Mar-14-2017

i get it..you like to get ultra 60fps in all games even if the game is unoptimized , well your problem is that old CPU... upgrade that 2009 CPU so that the GPU can give all of its power.. even with a 1080ti you wont get a real difference in gaming because the CPU is a bottleneck.

3
Rep
59
Offline
08:32 Mar-14-2017

also go with i7-7700k instead of Ryzen because currently AMD CPUs doesn't do well on low resolutions... or you can wait for Ryzen software improvements but thats your choice ..

0
Rep
45
Offline
21:03 Mar-14-2017

Yea I will upgrade the GPU for now... If cannon lake is worth then I will upgrade...

0
Rep
9
Offline
20:07 Mar-13-2017

Your GTX 960 is already overkill at that resolution


If you are planning to upgrade your GPU, then you should upgrade your display to 1440p at least


Otherwise you are wasting your money

7
Rep
45
Offline
20:51 Mar-13-2017

I do not think I am wasting money. GTX 960 4GB is no longer good for ultra with everything maxed out 1366x768. & Also, thinking of the future and I have the money and when a good AIB version is released I am buying(After vega launch).

-1
Rep
94
Offline
19:16 Mar-17-2017

What are your gpu clocks and voltage? I have 1532MHz on core, 2053MHz on memory at 1.25v

0
Rep
1
Offline
22:40 Mar-13-2017

best value/money is 1070 ... if you still have enough money. Over 1070, you pay more per $. Also 1070 is a beast too.

2
Rep
45
Offline
01:25 Mar-14-2017

I find that a GTX 1070 is not good enough(even though it is a good card).

-4
Rep
17
Offline
00:33 Mar-14-2017

Currently, your PC is well balanced, which means your getting the most out of your CPU and GPU. Therefore, I would only get a new GPU if your going to get a new CPU.

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
02:38 Mar-14-2017

You guys know this dude is trolling right lol. Theres no way a gtx 960 isnt enough for that piss poor resolution. Unless you're playing highly unoptimized games all the time.

5
Rep
9
Offline
06:19 Mar-14-2017

keep in mind, he wants to play on ultra at a solid fps, I've got a gtx770, a little faster and its crap with new AAA games with performanc at 1080p, I get 50,40,30 fps on low/medium. i do get his statement to take performance over resolution and this works really well if only have a 720p instead of 1080p so n downscale

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
11:24 Mar-14-2017

r9 390 and even newer titles on high/ultra with freesync its still perfectly fine, and im on 2560x1080. At his resolution i would be CRUSHING the fps, dude must be running 8x msaa haha.

0
Rep
5
Offline
06:57 Mar-14-2017

I was thinking the very same Blue...

1
Rep
5
Offline
06:17 Mar-14-2017

No kidding... the R9 X80 competes with that card and mine will run run Doom at full HD and ultra everything at about 120 to 130 fps......

0
Rep
59
Offline
08:17 Mar-14-2017

my card is at least 25% faster then the 280x and i get 120fps in doom.. so how did you get that much fps 0o ?

0
Rep
5
Offline
23:13 Mar-15-2017

Which OS and API were you running? Also, are you doing anything intensive in the background?

0
Rep
59
Offline
09:12 Mar-16-2017

hmm...never mind. i forgot about the new patches, i played the game last year so i didnt catch up with the latest updates.

0
Rep
94
Offline
19:00 Mar-13-2017

Is it something like ryzen where amd's benchmarks shows that it outperforms intel when customer benchmarks clearly show that ryzen's performance is behind intel's with regular gaming?

0
Rep
27
Offline
19:04 Mar-13-2017

1800x and 1700x are not meant for only gaming purpose brother

10
Rep
94
Offline
19:09 Mar-13-2017

Same goes for i7 cpus

6
Rep
27
Offline
19:12 Mar-13-2017

then why r u saying ryzen's performance is inferior to intel? 1800x is on par with 6900k. Dont compare with 7700k

8
Rep
247
Offline
admin approved badge
21:04 Mar-13-2017

Well not all i7 CPUs. For example,i7 6900K is clearly not meant for gaming but on the other side i7 7700K is suited really good for gaming,at the 1/3rd of the price of i7 6900K.
However,R7 Ryzens are made to compete with CPUs like 6900K in heavy-multi-threaded rendering and other really demanding stuff that requires a lot of cores. R5 and R3 Ryzens will be aimed at competing with CPUs like i7 7700K and i5 7600K in gaming

5
Rep
27
Offline
19:06 Mar-13-2017

Watch this and educate urself pls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73_gkHiE8w

0
Rep
94
Offline
19:11 Mar-13-2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cznxigESBo (even though it is overclocked)

0
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
19:19 Mar-13-2017

And you see the gap between them is extremely small in comparison to what MANY reviewers were doing by comparing its gaming performance with a 5Ghz overclocked 7700K and then saying "Ryzen doesn't have good gaming performance"..... that's because they're comparing it with the wrong CPUs!
A 2 or 3% gaming win for the 6900K is nothing when you consider that it's DOUBLE the price!

5
Rep
27
Offline
19:19 Mar-13-2017

So what? In ur video A $500 cpu is getting only 5% lower fps than a $1050 cpu and u think ryzen is not worth a buy. Good judgement :D

2
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
19:15 Mar-13-2017

Exactly, I think the reviewers were showing things entirely out of context by only comparing the X99 lineup in regards to productivity then substituting the 7700K(intels heavy hitting GAMING CPU) when it came time to compare gaming performance, they should have stuck with the same format throughout R7 vs X99.

1
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
19:22 Mar-13-2017

let me sum up facts:
1) games want high core clocks
2) i7-7700K runs at highest core clock of all current cpus available, therefore wins by default in most game benchmarks
3) Ryzen can be overclocked, but it appears even 4.1GHz is almost impossible for users with current 1700/1700X/1800X lineup
4) X99 cpus can be easily overclocked, I can overclock my i7-5820K to 4.3GHz (from stock 3.3GHz which is a huge leap) on all 6 cores without even touching voltages
5) IPC of Ryzen is no way better than Intel Kaby Lake, therefore lower clocks simply mean less performance when comparing those 2 techs

1
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
19:57 Mar-13-2017

Let's sum up facts
1) Anyone with two brain cells knows that an I7-7700k at 5Ghz is going to destroy a much lower clocked Ryzen CPU of a similar IPC in MOST gaming benchmarks
2) If I'm interested in buying an 8 core 16 thread CPU, I couldn't care less how it compares in gaming compared to a GAMING CPU, and am more interested in how it stacks up against other similar layouts SUCH as the 6900K

7
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
20:03 Mar-13-2017

3) Most of the reviewers were clearly stacking the deck in Intels favor BY comparing R7 with Kaby Lake in gaming benchmarks and FAILING to provide the proper context.
4) Most reviewers didn't even bother mentioning anything about Optimization concerning a new architecture... again FAILING to provide context.
5) MANY reviewers incorrectly stated the IPC was low comparing against HIGHER clocks!

8
Rep
74
Online
20:21 Mar-13-2017

You do realize that 95% of users do not overclock CPU. Unless you have great cooling you are damaging the transistors, and as a physicist that studied semiconductors thoroughly, higher voltages decrease the lifespan of CPU, and my friend who works at ASUS Eastern Europe branch said that companies encourage overclocking so you upgrade sooner due to performance decrease.

4
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
18:41 Mar-14-2017

95% of GD users do :)))))
it is possible to do moderate overclocks without even modifying default voltages,
some members here even enjoy undervoltaging components,
and yes it is true that overclocking may decrease lifespan, but honestly with nowadays speed of tech advancement, it's more likely you'll buy new parts after years of use so you won't meet the dead spot (or if you do, you don't really care much)

1
Rep
5
Offline
23:38 Mar-15-2017

I can put my 3570k upto 4.2 Ghz with $20 Cooler Master-T4 and stock voltages, and it doesn't run that much hotter than normal. It probably helps a lot that my wife keeps the house cooled to around 15 degrees °C though.

0
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
18:35 Mar-17-2017

I put my i7-5820K at 4.2GHz on stock voltages and it's rock-solid stable :D

0
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
18:50 Mar-13-2017

These benchmarks don't really mean much in my opinion, they're literally all over the place, with even the 1070 beating the 1080.... I don't put much stock in this..... as others have said... show us the gaming benchmarks, show us some specs, show us a release date and show us a price.

2
Rep
5
Offline
18:34 Mar-13-2017

Tip when reading benchmark databases: The performance of the top level GPU's will usually be lower than what it actually is. That happens because of users with weak CPU's and powerful GPU's lowering the GPU's score. I doubt AMD ever used an i3 or a FX-4xxx to test Vega, so its benchmark average never suffered from CPU bottlenecking. Also, after how Ryzen turned out, I wouldn't put my money on AMD on this...

-3
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
18:56 Mar-13-2017

Ryzen hasn't "turned out" yet, it's still being held back by the lack of software optimization that comes with any brand new architecture, AND it was being unfairly compared in gaming benchmarks with a CPU running a full Ghz faster, I know that AMD opened that can of worms themselves by comparing the 1700 to the 7700K, but it's still a dumb comparison, these CPUs have entirely different purposes.

8
Rep
27
Offline
19:01 Mar-13-2017

I dont understand ur point. Why the hell anyone on earth would pair an i3 or fx-4xxx with a top end gpu.
Also Whats wrong with ryzen? Only top cpus r released yet. They r not targetted for gamers only. Remember that the R-1800x beat 6900k in gaming although it couldnt beat 7700k bcoz of lower clock. Wait for 1400x and 1600x. Also current games r not optimized for ryzen as good as intel.

0
Rep
5
Offline
19:32 Mar-13-2017

Not everyone knows how to build a PC: Let's say you run a generic benchmark with your current rig and gets 10.000 points for the Rx 480. Later, someone with a weaker CPU runs it and gets only 6.000. The benchmark would show the Rx 480 scoring an average of 8.000, which is 20% lower than it can score. My point is that benchmarks usually don't take the standard deviation into account so the results may be misleading when you have little technical knowledge of how they work.

0
Rep
27
Offline
19:37 Mar-13-2017

Thats why while making benchmark comparison reviewers use same cpu with all gpus and state the specs before presenting the benchmarks.

2
Rep
5
Offline
19:42 Mar-13-2017

That is exactly what I'm trying to explain! The benchmark from the post was taken from a database, not from an actual test conducted in a controlled environment. We can't know which CPU's were used to form the scores from the GPU's, so, even if these results turn out as accurate, I won't put my money on something I don't know how was tested.

2
Rep
111
Offline
admin approved badge
00:15 Mar-14-2017

Good call Leinad.

0
Rep
5
Offline
19:19 Mar-13-2017

First, i7's are not meant only for gamers either. Second, don't compare clock speeds between different architectures. Third, I never said Ryzen is not good, I just meant that the marketing was better than the product. Taking AMD's word about Ryzen's future performance is a gamble, make no mistake about it: they can either succeed or fail. Therefore, I stand by what I said and won't put my money on AMD on this (referring to the benchmark, in case you're illiterate)

0
Rep
27
Offline
19:27 Mar-13-2017

Amd didnt say 1700x or 1800x will beat top intel cpus in gaming. Have they?

5
Rep
27
Offline
19:34 Mar-13-2017

To u a cpu is judged by its performance in gaming. Its not true. AMd never said these two processors will beat 6900k and other top intel cpus in gaming. They just produced cpu benchmarks and had said that ryzen multithread power is more than intel 6900k. thats it. Amd didnt made any false marketting. its the gamers who expected too much regarding its gaming performance.

5
Rep
5
Offline
19:34 Mar-13-2017

I never said anything about Ryzen having lower performance on games, have I?

0
Rep
27
Offline
19:42 Mar-13-2017

Amd also havent said anything during marketting about 1700x nad 1800x beating intel top cpus in all games. Just tell me one reason why u think amd's marketting was overhyped.

0
Rep
5
Offline
19:55 Mar-13-2017

Ok, pal, I give up. It's clear you can't hear a different opinion without getting offended. Also, saying the marketing was better than the product also does not mean the product is bad: It's the same as saying a Big Mac looks better on the ADs. If you want to keep trying to create a fight where there isn't one, feel free to do it by yourself.

-2
Rep
9
Offline
21:25 Mar-13-2017

Leinad, please explain why was ryzens marketing bad? I dont understand, just like Raj0288... I mean not bad cause you wrote: " I just meant that the marketing was better than the product." What do you mean by that? It did not fullfill your expectations? If yes, than what expectations?
From my point of view, it turned out better then expected, at least from what i expected.

0
Rep
27
Offline
02:55 Mar-14-2017

Man i didnt get offended. I m also not looking for any fight. It is just I dont get ur following points so i ask u for a bit of clarification :-


1) "Also, after how Ryzen turned out, I wouldn't put my money on AMD on this…"
2) "I just meant that the marketing was better than the product"

2
Rep
5
Offline
13:17 Mar-14-2017

When Ryzen was unveiled AMD used this exact same words: "Extreme Performance for Gamers and Creators". Also, the statement about Pure Power was that it would enable "lower power for same performance". I'd even wait to see the "Extreme Performance" on gaming, but the power consumption of the 1700X and 1800X stock was really a disappointment for me. The money part was already explained in another response and refers to not trusting the benchmark.

0
Rep
53
Offline
admin approved badge
18:16 Mar-13-2017

These are not 3D gaming benchmark results and since a GTX 1080 has more cores and faster RAM compared to a GTX 1070, the 1080 should perform better, theoretically though.

1
Rep
38
Offline
17:54 Mar-13-2017

980Ti being shown better than the 1080, even the 1070 is, what the hell? Can't quite get any usable info out of that diagram.

7
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
17:34 Mar-13-2017

good to know my 980Ti is ahead xD

7
Rep
62
Offline
admin approved badge
18:07 Mar-13-2017

Buddy this info is full of bullshiet. Your 980 Ti is somehow faster than a 1070 or 1080 according to this.... that's just not possible. So I wouldn't trust anything in this "benchmark"....

1
Rep
3
Offline
18:24 Mar-13-2017

I think the tongue in cheek sarcasm must of flew right over your head.

3
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
19:09 Mar-13-2017

you're forgetting 980Ti has full 384bit vram bus accompanied by 6GB vram and 3072kB L2 cache,
but both 1070 and 1080 have only 256bit vram bus abused by 8GB vram but only 2048kB L2 cache,
just because nVidia and Microsoft cripples drivers to favor Windows 10 and Pascal doesn't mean it wins every time ;)

3
Rep
96
Offline
admin approved badge
18:30 Mar-13-2017

Same. XD
980 Ti masterrace!

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Athlon II X2 245 GeForce GTS 250 4GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Core i5-2400S 2.5GHz Radeon R5 340 (OEM) 4GB
| High, 720p
Core i5-2400S 2.5GHz Radeon R5 340 (OEM) 4GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 720p
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 10GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Core i3-8100 4-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 32GB
100% Yes [5 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-4770K 4-Core 3.5GHz GeForce GTX 980 4GB 32GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ti MSI Ventus 2X 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [6 votes]