i know, thats why i said revised,
but lets wait and see, hopefully its not another thermal disaster.
if they already have this problem with polaris, and vega being more power hungry chip.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
T-Minus (3) Days Until VEGA!!
- Thread starter fate0311
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but lets wait and see, hopefully its not another thermal disaster.
if they already have this problem with polaris, and vega being more power hungry chip.
They're a bit hard to find, most reviews seem to be about games. As a rough order of magnitude of performance potential, you could expect the 2070 to be 10-20% faster for games, but the Vega 64 to be ~60-70% faster for compute. How much of that translates into real world performance is hard to say, and it's not even super clear how a reviewer would make an exact apples to apples comparison with currently available software. For anything more exact I think you'll have to say what you expect to use it for, because the relative performance will differ depending on use case.
For thermals, I have no first-hand experience with the Vega 64, but I have a Vega 56 in my box, and when tuned it's actually quite good. I can't give exact numbers, but it runs cool and reasonably quiet under heavy load. Certainly cooler than my MBP 2018
It is NOT revised chip.
It is completely brand new design.
Are you sure it runs on 45W TDP Power Limit with 3.2 GHz?
Im asking this seriously, because it is interesting from the perspective of desktop chips. I would actually love to test this on proper motherboard, and try running it passively. What workloads you have that you can test this?
I think you mean undervolt, not underclock. The whole point of that is to lower power consumption, while NOT lowering performance. And actually, you can get higher performance. I have first-hand experience with this, and it's also confirmed by many reviewers.
And I don't think you have your facts straight about Vega being a power hungry chipset. Vega is significantly more power efficient than Polaris, which was already very power efficient. What caused the thermal outcry at the Vega launch was that the cards were effectively overvolted and slightly overclocked. And as I'm sure you know, it's an exponential curve. Get a little bit out of the sweet spot and you'll have a massive impact on power draw. That's just how the physics work, it's not a Vega specific thing.
Of course, different chipsets can have different exponential curves. Vega is manufactured on the GF 14nm node, which seems to be quite good for lower clocks, but doesn't scale all that well to higher clocks. That's a big reason behind Vega being what it is. You can contrast this with Nvidia's Pascal chips, which seem to be very overclock friendly. In contrast, the Vega chips can overclock their memory quite favorably, and this has a pretty significant performance impact.
So it really depends on how Apple are configuring the Vega chips. They can get something really power efficient, or they can get something that is a thermal disaster. We won't know until reviewers have done their thing.
my apology, yes i meant undervolt, i haven't mess with a vega card since launch, but yes it needs to be undervolt to gain optimal effiency and performance, coming from buying nvidia and used to nvidia's philosphy this doesn't sit right with me.
but yes all of this right now is pure speculation, lets see how the review goes, it won't have an effect on me since i'm going with the mac mini + egpu route anyhow. but for these who have a genuine interest in this i wish you luck
[doublepost=1542136561][/doublepost]
given amd's history of rehashing 290 - 390 i wouldn't hold my breath in "completely brand new design. unless your talking about NAVI thn yes i would definitely agree
[doublepost=1542136947][/doublepost]
please share these links of the test comparison, i would like to see them. from what i read from my own is that i7 and i9 are not much difference in performance underload since i9 gets throttled after a certain period and performance same as the i7.
Thats what Power Gadget says at least. I tried different things, from simple memory subsystem overload (piping yes or zero to null) to running multi-core Cinebench or statistical simulations. The results are always the same. It plateaus at around 45Watts, give or take, while reaching approx 3.2-3.3 Ghz and making out at 99C.
When the GPU is doing work at the same time, the CPU clocks obviously drop. In some cases, they can drop below the nominal (I've seen it run at 2.7 Ghz instead of nominal 2.9) — but maxing out both the CPU and GPU at the same time is a rather unrealistic usage scenario and certainly not something this laptop is designed to do.
I saw one game benchmarked, and the Vega 64, 1080, and 2070 performance was about the same. I have no idea abot the card models and whether Vega was running too loud or hot.They're a bit hard to find, most reviews seem to be about games. As a rough order of magnitude of performance potential, you could expect the 2070 to be 10-20% faster for games, but the Vega 64 to be ~60-70% faster for compute. How much of that translates into real world performance is hard to say, and it's not even super clear how a reviewer would make an exact apples to apples comparison with currently available software. For anything more exact I think you'll have to say what you expect to use it for, because the relative performance will differ depending on use case.
For thermals, I have no first-hand experience with the Vega 64, but I have a Vega 56 in my box, and when tuned it's actually quite good. I can't give exact numbers, but it runs cool and reasonably quiet under heavy load. Certainly cooler than my MBP 2018
Are you actually saying this because you know, or because you have an opinion?
Have you heard anything about: Uneducated opinion?
How can 4096 GCN Core GPU, with 2048 bit memory bus, 8 GB of HBM2 memory, be the same chip as 1280 GCN core chip, with 1024 bit memory bus, and 4 GB of HBM2?
And that is DESIGNED chip. It is different design, different chip. Completely.
It's not that the i9 gets throttled. Since they are essentially the same chip, both the i9 and i7 tend to reach the same plateau. Intel prevented it in previous CPUs by limiting their clock wen running heavy multi-threaded workouts, but it seems that the limit in mobile Coffee Lake is set up very high (if it even exists). Since the i9 is higher binned, it tends to perform slightly better on average, but this all again depends on your luck in the silicon lottery. The point is that they perform better than what has been guaranteed by the manufacturer, so in any case you are getting what you have been promised. The difference is that with the base model, you are probably getting substantially more of that
I guess that all this confusion is because people who bough the i9 expect it to be much faster overall and get upset that their more expensive investment doesn't give them much of an edge in some situations. The entire topic is much more about marketing and customer expectation than about technology. And since people have difficulty understanding that all these clocks and TDP and whatever are all marketing concepts, we have this rather unhealthy discussion as the result.
My point is that with the i9, you are paying for a higher chance to get a slightly faster CPU overall (but you can also get lucky with the i7), more cache, as well as higher single-threaded boost clocks.
[doublepost=1542138242][/doublepost]
Well, wait, I understand what you are saying, but its also not like this chip has been completely designed new from ground up. It uses the building blocks of the Vega design, just arranged a bit differently. And some components, like the interposer are likely to be entirely new design, sure, but the processors, memory controller, and the entire bus design is pretty much the same, just scaled down.
Yeah. You'll find some benchmarks where the Vega 64 is ahead, some where it's behind, and some where it's the same. Generally, my own rule of thumb is that if performance is within 15% then you probably can't perceive the difference anyway, so I tend to consider them "the same" for practical purposes.
What's a bit interesting is that I think Vega 56/64 have been doing better in some modern titles, relative to 1080.
No. GCN is ISA. Vega, Polaris, etc are just implementations of the ISA in the GPU. THEN you have the design. We have talked about this, in the Vega thread.
I will put it in another way. Is Polaris 10 and 11 the same design?
No.
Vega 10(4096 cores, 2048 Bit memory bus, 8 GB HBM2) is not the same design as Vega 12(1280 GCN cores, 1024 bit memory bus, 4 GB HBM2).
I assume that's titles that either use DX12 or Vulcan. The secret is game-specific optimisations in the driver (and the overall driver quality). DX12/Vulcan/Metal provide computational models that are much closer to how hardware operates compared to earlier APIs. IHVs have been "cheating" their way around the inefficiencies of the older APIs by optimising their drivers for specific cases. And its something Nvidia has always been very good at. With modern APIs, this is less of an issue, and the gap between Nvidia and AMD has shrunk.
I would consider 5% on average to be negligible.
But it has to be at the same price and without thermal or acoustic excess.
In any case, the big draws of AMD's consumer cards are compute performance and FreeSync.
It's not the same design but they use same modules. The ALUs, the memory controller, the cache - they will be basically "copy-pasted" parts between different designs. Maybe with some incremental changes and improvements. But they certainly didn't come up with completely new circuitry to implement the ISA. That wouldn't make any sense commercially. The strength of Vega is its modular, scalable design — its like a box fo Lego parts that can be assembled together in different configs with relative ease. Thats why AMD can use them for dGPUs and integrated GPUs at the same time.
Well, arranged differently does mean a different design, no? Same architecture, different design.
Yeah, I think that's what koyoot's point is. I can't escape the impression that 90% of the time people at these forums are just arguing semantics anyway
When you design new implementation of an ISA, you usually design different circuit design...
Voltage curve can be different, that is the first thing...
Yes, and also simpler for hackintosh builds. When I got mine, it was also cheaper than Nvidia's equivalent cards, and I've found thermal and noise to be on par with Nvidia when tuned (not stock though).
For gaming only, I don't think either Vega or RTX are the sweet spot for value.
[doublepost=1542139742][/doublepost]
It's probably the case that in general, most people here do. But in this case I think koyoot has a valid point, if I've understood it correctly. Point is that you can't draw too many conclusions on Vega mobile based on performance of the Vega desktop chips. They can have different power consumption profiles, and will clearly run at different clocks anyway, and with different amounts of memory, and therefore also with a different memory bus and bandwidth. From what I've seen so far, I suspect that the chip design is actually quite good. Then what Apple does with it is a different story, we'll know soon enough.Yeah, I think that's what koyoot's point is. I can't escape the impression that 90% of the time people at these forums are just arguing semantics anyway
easy there, no need to attack others, since all of this is speculation unless you are in the industry, we all are forming uneducated opinions
difference is your uneducated opinion is optimistic
Flaming aside, the chip design is necessarily different, and there's no need to be in the industry to know that. It having 4GB HBM2 is official information. Given the way GPUs work, this immediately implies half the memory bus size, and automatically lower memory bandwidth. We also know officially that there are fewer compute units. In theory, it could just have been a regular desktop chip with stuff disabled, but we know that's not the case since we've seen the die, and it's clearly smaller. So it's not the same design, it's different. There is no speculation involved, just logical deduction from official sources.
What I have written, about Vega GPU is not an opinion. I am not speculating about this chip. That is the difference.
In all fairness to apple, their website does state late November. I don't think November 14th qualifies as late November