AMD recently held a behind closed doors press event, in which it showcased its upcoming high-end VEGA GPU. This GPU is reported to be the AMD Radeon RX490, will compete with NVIDIA’s GTX1080 and from the looks of it, it will be able to run DOOM in 4K at 60fps.
YouTube’s ‘Tekknological’ shared a video (embedding is disabled unfortunately), showcasing the AMD Vega GPU running DOOM in 4K with more than 60fps. DOOM was running under the Vulkan API, and it appears that in this particular title, the AMD Vega GPU is faster than NVIDIA’s GTX1080.
Here is hoping that AMD will showcase to the public the AMD Vega GPU today, during its New Horizon event (in which it will give us an exclusive advance preview of our new “Zen” CPU ahead of its 2017 Q1 launch).
Last week, we shared the first leaked Ashes of the Singularity benchmarks for this brand new GPU from AMD. And this video basically confirms that the GPU that was used in those leaked benchmarks is AMD’s upcoming GPU (as the GPU ID on both the DOOM and Ashes of the Singularity tests is exactly the same).
Enjoy and stay tuned for more!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Standard 1080 already runs game at ultra settings 4k 60fps anyway. So can’t really say Vega is faster based on this
more importantly, has been running doom at 4k 60fps for 7 MONTHS…. by the time this is out it will be approaching the 1180 release or whatever. AMD are so far behind.
Indeed. It’s an endless cycle. AMD release a gpu that’s competitive and reasonably priced with Nvidia’s last gen gpu, whilst nvidia brings out better performance gpu and naturally charges fortune as there’s no competition.
The gap will never be bridged i don’t think. Nvidia don’t even have to try any more
Which is not a bad thing. More alternate options for consumers, and possibly at a more affordable price.
from benchmarks i saw it runs lowest of 57fps on a non overclocked 1080 reference card. anyone not overclocking a 1080 and not going to get extra 3fps ?
Never stated we did, and i actually posted that AMD normally come in with a card that is priced competitively against the Nvidia competitor. Nvidia naturally reduce their prices slightly, but AMD always take lead on price usually.
But then Nvidia release new GPU and this outperforms the AMD one and this is new benchmark king and is suitably overpriced and on and on.
This doesn’t seem to change.
AMD simply are behind in terms of high end GPU and efficiency with power etc etc.
They are great GPU in own right, and have come on leaps on bounds with drivers etc, but they still don’t force Nvidia to even compete financially as they are that dominant at low, mid and especially high end of market, and they are always ahead of AMD in the high end market in terms of performance.
If you watch that video and another one that was shown it was higher than 60. Most of the time it hovered between 70-80fps.
Even if its 1fps faster, you cant say is faster? Or what about if theres no framedrops, you cant say then is faster? Ill wait and see more reports and of course the price, not everyone is a rich kid living in their parents basement waiting for the next NVIDIA card…
What sort of dumb comment is this???
So let’s look at facts. A reference 1080 does minimum 57fps and averages over that. This is without the huge overclock you can apply or getting an overclocked version with better cooling.
My point (if you bothered to read)was thar even if the standard 490 is 3fps faster out box, that’s nothing and is not an advance in the enthusiast market.
Cool, now all AMD need to do is price it to being cheaper than the 1080 and I’ll make my jump to the Red Team (assuming it’s not just £20-50 shaved off)
I want to jump to AMD too, no complains of GTX750ti, but I dont like where Nvidia wanted to take us with G Sync.
The way Nvidia is going, is right into a wall, but with higher prices. AMD is going for their long run plan, and so far it’s been going great.
I’m stuck with my 980, but I’m wanting to step things up. GTX 1080 is just too expensive for me and doesn’t really do all on the tin with such a high asking price, the ti variant will only be 30% better, but still asking for more.
Also them G-sync monitors aren’t even cheaper either, yet I’m seeing Free-sync ones that cost less. Nvidia is just charging high due to their lead.
“Nvidia is just charging high due to their lead”
Every single company in the world would do that yet people bash at nvidia. You should bash at capitalism.
In this world there is either capitalism or the kind that the Russians have wanted for centuries. Either way it’s down to Nvidia charging high on their end, not the system,
It’s down to Lamborghini, ferrari, buggati and every other company that has a niche product. The point stands. Nvidia can get away with these prices because of Amd’s failures.
The idea of putting all blame on something that 90% of the world indulges and takes up on isn’t going to absolve Nvidia from setting their prices.
I love how we’ve turned this into “oh it’s capitalism” to “oh now it’s AMD’s fault entirely”.
This reeks utterly of fanboyism.
So companies such as nvidia should give you nice prices just because you ask them nicely ? Yes it is amd’s fault in a way and yes it is also nvidia setting those prices. If amd had ANYTHING up their sleeves worth something for the past years we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You have to get outta the house man, the world isn’t as pretty as you think. Everybody’s in it for the money. Industrialism 101 : Your main competitor has a hard time following you ? You’re alone on top ? Heh, jack prices.
You serm to have a logic, you can understand. And don’5t resort to useless name calling.
Brings nothing to the conversation other than piss some 2 watt mongols.
I am excited for Vega. Tech sites showing Vega beating the 1080 GTX. I am glad I did not jump the gun on Pascal. Can’t wait to see the full Vega card lineup in 2017.
well vega was supposed to go against nvidia GP102 not GP104 GTX1080. beating GTX1080 was supposed to be polaris 10 task. that aside i want to know if this is just for doom or in general vega will constantly beating 1080 even in DX11 tittles. and i see some people hoping this will be the small vega and there will even faster one in 2017. but looking at the released spec of MI25 this could be very well that “big” vega. the next big vega (dub vega 20) will only arrive in 2019…..if GF could get 7nm up and running by that time.
LOL where did you get that? in doom is 480 close to 1070 but thats because of vulkan and shader intrinsics.
480 was always VR ready gpu (970/390 performance range).
Sorry to disappoint you but an Gtx 1080 already plays Doom at 4k/60fps. But i am happy that AMD launches this card, competition is what we need right now, i am hyped for the new next cards from both from Nvidia and AMD.
Nvidia can’t do low lvl API’s while gaining performance like AMD can… I have 970’s in SLI… No performance gains.. And I have to get pascal just to see a slight gain? lol what a joke
and you should be aware that nvidia don’t really need them right? when 8.6tflops cards barely on par with 5.6tflops cards there must be something lacking to the former preventing it from performing more true to it’s raw performance
Get a titan x 🙂 it won’t be a slight gain 😀
1080 hardly plays DOOM in 4K with max settings (TSSAA included). If vega can it is undoubtedly faster than 1080.
you talk like the 1080 is a new card, its 7 months old. Vega isnt even competition when its this late. Next nvidia card will release soon after it. Those who ‘jumped the gun’ have been enjoying this performance for the BETTER PART OF A YEAR while the mythical amd beast looks on from the sidelines.
It’s not 7 months old… And Pascal is a joke because it was never on the original roadmap. Nvidia can wake us up when Volta hits. Till then I am all about Vega 🙂
1080 is actually very close to 7 months old as it came out on May 27th 2016.
Well, officially speaking it did. But for the first couple of months it was ‘out’ it might as well have been mythical for the great majority of people.
But that still doesn’t disable the fact that it’s launch date was within May. Just because you or some others didn’t know about it’s release date, doesn’t actually stop it from existing.
I had that same type of debate with a console user on a forum a few hours ago, where he stated that said games he listed were PS4 exclusive, because he wasn’t into PC gaming, therefore they were exclusive to the system he owns, despite the fact that most of what he listed are also on PC.
Erm… I think you misunderstood my post?
I knew when the 1000-series cards were coming out (as did many others), and it was borderline impossible to get them.
The same for the 1070 which I had pre-ordered for weeks on Amazon before Overclockers got some stock in that I pounced on (it was subsequently emptied in seconds after I clicked ‘Buy’).
It would be more like if a game was on both PS4 and PC… but didn’t boot up on 95% of PC’s out there.
But the date it launched still didn’t change how it came to exist.
“It would be more like if a game was on both PS4 and PC… but didn’t boot up on 95% of PC’s out there.”
Wat?.
If my example puzzles you I don’t think you understood my point.
That being, the distinction between a statement that is de facto true, and one that is only technically true.
Yes, the GTX 1080 may have technically ‘launched’ at that date if you want to be pedantically accurate. But can you really say a product has launched when it isn’t available to purchase?
Likewise, just as the game in my example may ‘technically’ be available on the PC, it would still effectively be a de facto exclusive once you eliminate exceptional outliers because what good is a game that you can’t actually play? It might as well not even exist and should, for all reasonable intents and purposes, be stricken from consideration.
You couldn’t get is doesn’t equal to “it never existed until Is aw it”.
Either you go and edit that Wiki article yourself and call out the ones who edited it or even thought of it, or we come to an understanding that it came out on May 27th.
Not getting that last part, mainly because I disagree and by that logic, tons of console games are exclusive because farmville PC’s can’t run them.
You have very narrow logic when it comes to acknowledging that something exists. If you cannot run it then upgrade your hardware, but don’t say it doesn’t exist in general.
No, I’m not labouring under the misunderstanding you are attributing to me.
And you are failing to understand the game example which is not intended to bring specs into the equation (it’s implied all 100% of the PC’s are capable of playing thr game but JUST CAN’T).
If you cannot purchase a product because no stock exists then it essentially isn’t available even if it is marketed as such.
This had NOTHING to do with ignorance. Jen-Sen couldn’t have gotten himself a GTX 1080 in through consumer channels if he tried.
he said if it was not available for a lot of people t buy then you might aswell call it a fake launch regardless of the launch date…. or just call it a paper launch. 😀
Or we edit the WIki article and put something fancy in the release table chart, but I’m sure that would get removed for obvious reasons =D.
‘You couldn’t get is not equal to “it never existed until I saw it”‘
After having fixed your atrocious, borderline incomprehensible English I think I’ve understood what you are attempting, in your own curious way, to convey. Your thanks is presumed — and if it isn’t forthcoming you should offer it anyway.
The issue isn’t ‘I’ couldn’t get, but that NO ONE could get it. And if no one can acquire an item it is effectively the same as the item not existing. i.e It’s a paper launch.
No idea what Wiki article you are ranting about or the insane cacophony of demands you are making. If you are so incensed why don’t you go and edit it for me buddy? Because I don’t give ****.
You didnt get, quite simple, if consumer wasnt available to get it, you cant say “its officially released”. Its like games, of course Starcraft 2 existed much before it was released, but the official released date is when it was available for everyone to buy it.
So Vega exist right now but its not available, people saying 1080 is old, in your logic is much older because its development started like two years and half ago, same could be said of Vega, being in development for 2 years…
You don’t seem to get it’s date. I know you’re trying to insert a date that some stores acquired the GPU, but that still doesn’t erase the fact that it launched on May 27th 2016.
Again and I will say it, if you don’t agree with it’s date, then go change the wiki article with the “store” date instead.
Consoles are dinosaurs if we go by yours.
lol you know it was release on 27 may, it doesnt matter how many ppl could get, do you know anyone who have vega now? lol vega never even get released to press yet so ur comparison is invalid
The point isn’t how many months it been up before the new vega it’s the fact that nvidia has been left alone on top for a long time. People gave them money, alot. Now amd are countering the 1089 but nvidia will just release the 1080ti and bam, again, alone on top for another couple of months.
the original maxwell was very different from what nvidia first envision as well. faster DP performance than kepler and things like special ARM core inside the gpu itself. pascal will be nvidia learning curve on newer node before jumping into full new architecture. they definitely don’t want to repeat the mistake they did with fermi. if they never recover from that right now nvidia probably only own 30% of discrete market share instead of 70%.
Fermi was bit disaster but still nvidia’s been selling them very well, better than Radeons, even AMD in that gen had much better chips in every way.
AMD win the power efficiency metric back then. “bit disaster” is quite understatement. nvidia were late by 6 months. and somewhere along the line AMD was able to gain up to 51% market share. but it doesn’t matter how good AMD is the one with fastest single gpu will always win. AMD only mistake back then was they did not target significantly faster performance with 6970. and they probably never think that nvidia will be able to fix GF100 that fast to the point nvidia able to ninja 6900 series release. it was game over when 6970 end up being slower than GTX580 despite coming out later.
Yes, those who ‘jumped the gun’ did. But what about those who recognised that the GTX 1080 was poor value for money?
That the 1000 series of cards have seen a price hike over their 900 series cousins is well known at this point. There’s no sensibly priced card above the 1070, as diminishing returns in price-to-performance hit very hard after that.
The problem I think some had with the 1080 was the scarcity of it when it launched and the pricing (the two issues are kind of linked) — and it’s still really expensive for what it is.
Those who buy nvidia products for the most part know they’re not hitting the best $/fps value. They’re just hitting the king of the hill performance, no matter what the price is.
Most just don’t care if they have to put an extra 200$ if it gives them 15% more performance or whatever.
I know, i do not, and so does a bunch of my friends.
It’s a personal decision. It is true that amd has the best $/fps value doe.
’Those who buy nvidia products for the most part know they’re not hitting the best $/fps value. They’re just hitting the king of the hill performance, no matter what the price is.’
This is true — but I think everyone has a breaking point. As a 1070 owner myself I recognised I was paying a premium over the similarly performing 980 Ti, but rationalised it in terms of having 2 extra GB of VRAM, newer I/O and a more power efficient card. Small wins but then the premium over the 980 Ti wasn’t that great.
I forewent the 1080, not because I was against spending that much on card, but because the premium was a little TOO much for me to stomach. However, if the card performed more similarly to the Titan XP (or was cheaper, as this Vega card might be) I might have reconsidering buying a card in the £500+ region.
True there’s a breaking point like you said. It will all end up how amd will price the the vega 10.
1070 definitely an improvement when it comes to pricing. in previous gen you need at least spending $650 to get such performance. some people might complain that 1070 end up a lot more expensive at 970 debut price but then again looking back $400 (with board partner card might go as high as $450) is nvidia standard pricing on 670 and 770. also 1070 is based on much newer node while 970 was based on very mature 28nm node hence nvidia probably did not lose much by pricing the card at base price of $330.
flagship card like 1080 has always have super premium ‘tax’ for holding “world fastest single gpu” tag.
Yeah, 1080 is SO old, how could anyone use graphic 7 months old, lets all sell them out!
Let me remind you that a gtx 1050ti can run doom on ultra 60fps 1080l, my 980ti runs doom in ultra 4k way over 60fps.
i have 1070 on my laptop, doubt you can get any vega atleast till the end of 2017 or early 2018. not sure what makes u think that “pascal” is great coz there is no 1080 competition from amd side for over 8months(considering vega releasing early feb). and thn they’ll release 1080ti making nvidia above again. cycle never ends.
The main problem is, a lot of gamers have already bought current gen Nvidia’s 10XX cards. So those people won’t be wanting to pay out another £400+ on a Vega, regardless of it being faster or not. It’s great to have competition though, but AMD need to be quicker off the blocks next time.
to have a real chance of success they need to really target 9xx users who are thinking of upgrading now.
Like myself, who is stuck with a 980 and wants to bump things up to 1440p next year.
If AMD price the high end card right, then I can easily see myself going for it. Though it has to be priced decently and not just £50 shaved off from the 1080 price point.
Why can’t you bump your gaming up to 1440p now? I recently bought a R9 fury for $220 (sales ftw) and that card can easily play 1440p with damn near every game. GTX 980 is comparable to that.
Because I’ve tried 1440p already via DSR with my 980 and it’s not doing all that well. I’d rather go for Vega and have a better jump at a decent price and then roll in with a 1440p monitor.
Also going by benches, even for 1080 max settings for various AAA games, the 980 isn’t cutting it as much as when it first came out.
ive been doing pretty well with my R9 fury tbh. Only poorly optimizaed games like Dishonored 2 need to be dropped to 1080p and honestly if doesnt matter what res i play that game at i get 40-60fps no matter what lol.
There you go then.
There are millions of gamers that have cards weaker than the 1070/1080 though.
Totes dude, everyone gamer I know has at least 3 1080’s.
WOW, where do you live bro? People here are still sticking to 900 or R300 series…
lol it was sarcasm
Try running Nvidia Based game (Arkham Knight, Watch Dogs 2, Project Cars..if it outperforms 1080, then I will put AMD into consideration. Anyway, since AMD took over ATI, I had problems with their cards running older Directx Games Like Resident Evil 2 and Roller Coaster Tycoon. No probs on my GTX 1070 so far.
Some of those games cripple AMD cards. Honestly its as if they were designed to hurt AMD sales. At least with Doom Nvidia and AMD handle that game well. Why should we only base AMD performance on games that support Nvidia sabotage?
“Some of those games cripple AMD cards”
“they were designed to hurt AMD sales”
“on games that support Nvidia sabotage”
Hehe. It’s still the same. AMD fanboys blame NVIDIA for worse support of some games from their favorite company. 🙂
I own a 1080, not a team red fanboy. its clear though certain devs make their games work way better on Nvidia cards and it has nothing to do with those cards being better. Honestly when a damn R9 fury X gets out benchmarked by a GTX 970 you know something is going on behind the scenes.
“you know something is going on behind the scenes”
Just conspiracy theories. Many of games which do you think where crippled for AMD run good after some patches and AMD driver updates. Then there are games like Project cars where AMD just didn’t care about until they were released.
“when a damn R9 fury X gets out benchmarked by a GTX 970”
It’s the same case like when RX 480 is close to GTX 1070. If developers work with one of these 2 companies, they optimize their game to the card for one of them. And then (in the most of cases after release), they are cooperating with another one. But people remember only results close to release.
Some people in general have big imagination. When they see Gameworks in game, it’s automatically unoptimized crap. Even if there is only TXAA or HBAO+ which doesn’t hurt performance for both companies. There are also people who still believe that Project Cars are using GPU PhysX or that CPU PhysX in this game cripple performance of AMD GPUs (which has no sense). All what these people are doing is just fanboizm. And funny think is that in many cases they are claiming they have GPU from NVIDIA, like it should support their opinion. But it doesn’t.
either the architecture in general have much problem with older API or AMD put much less attention optimizing anything that is dx10 and older. when 7000 series first comes out they have issue with dx9 based games where they will flicker in most of them. and i’ve seen in one of TH bench where nvidia GTX950 actually faster than RX470 in starcraft 2 (dx9).
I’ll need some DX12 and DX11 benchmarks. I get that there are games that just straight up run way better on Nvidia and/or AMD cards so we need a whole slew of benchmarks across many games.
If i can build all AMD PC with Vega and Zen i would prefer that. imo i honestly dont like the high prices of Intel and the crap long term driver support of Nvidia gpus. AMD deserves more of the market share imo. So building a AMD PC makes me feel like im helping a little.
Im not some team red fanboy btw im more of a guy that likes to cheer on the underdog. If the roles were reversed and it was intel and nvidia with lower market share i would try to support them.
I pray to god AMD has something else up their sleeves because there’s a 15-25% performance gap between the 1080 and the titan x/1080ti. If they aim to beat the 1080, nvidia will laugh it out by release the 1080ti and byby amd…
Again…..
Why do i feel that amd is always on the retaliating side of the gpu war and no on the offensive side compared to nvidia ?… in terms of performance.
There are millions of PC gamers that doesnt have a GTX 1080, that means that if AMD just closed the gap between then and NVIDIA two things will happen.
1. AMD putting the right price for many, cheaper than Nvidia GTX 1080 and maybe better support.
2. Nvidia then going cheaper with their GTX 1080…
This is a win-win situation, and some people are acting so butthurt because this, most of them 1080 owners, like if AMD is taking something away from them, I just dont get it. You act like console gamers with their PS4 pro, “OH my console is better than yours”…
AMD Vega showcased running DOOM in 4K at 60fps with vulcan only, not dx11/dx12, not openGL…..nice radeon vga…. ^^
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/359e684b87fa70248e8943c5a44974136aec379cbe0d4b68727c2707a6f60fba.png
Lul.
TL:DR.
TL;DR.