MSI Pretty Much Just Called Radeon GPUs Sub par

You need to deal with the fact that Vega was a fail, and latest AMD products were subpar, you can keep denying as much as you want, trying to discuss which card battles which, AMD hyped the card up and it was a complete fail.

I honestly look at everything when i buy a card, power consumption is one of those things that really tell you how good or bad an architecture is, we're not talking about 10/15 Watts here, we're talking about something from 60 to 90Watts more with a worse performance in gaming, that's as much important as performance itself if you ask me.
If an architecture doesn't reach a certain performance level and by doing so also consumes much more than the card that reaches that performance level, there's something wrong or just bad in the architecture, it's badly designed, and no matter how much you drop the price and make it look ok, it remains bad, especially if right after the launch prices go skyrocketing, due to whatever reason you want.
Guys you have to deal with it, there's no running away, Vega was bad, very bad, polaris was good, but Vega is the opposite, stop with this delusional thinking.

 

WTF? noooo!
Trash can will catch on fire

just chuck it THROUGH THE WINDOW

 

Well, when I upgrade to a Ryzen in the future, you can be sure I'd not even consider any MSI product in that build. That's my way of registering my low opinion of MSI, ain't gonna rage here or any other forums.

 

My favorite part of the thread is where it turned into Nintendo vs Sega thread.

 

Saitama will always use MSI, he acknowledges strength.

 

The only person I am seeing in denial is you who keeps making invalid and hilarious comparisons like nvidia should've dropped the prices of GTX 1070s to kill off RX 580s

Can you show me where a VEGA 56 consumes 90W more than a GTX 1070 in gaming and manages to perform worse? Don't think you can back that statement up either. And you've completely ignored the fact that the nvidia cards ship with stripped down compute, whether it's intentionally done within the driver, it's a fact that the ability isn't there, whereas AMD actually lets you choose between compute and gaming workloads within the same driver now. And what AMD can't make up for the power consumption, they make up with price. Sadly, the whole memory supply shortage, coupled with the holocaust from this mining craze has dented thing so out of proportion, what you say in essence can be seen as the truth.

But I wouldn't hold on to a statement that isn't MSI's official stance on the matter or let alone defend it. It's written by someone who works for MSI's local distributor, and was selected to maintain the facebook page. I can show some more examples of the goof ups these locally employed people make on their appointed official product pages of RAZER, GIGABYTE, ASUS ROG etc. (for region/locality) but that may land me in a bad position with them, so my hands are tied. But they are all very meme worthy, for sure!

I get it that you like nvidia. And that's okay.

 

I wish it turns into:

Tiger versus Lion: Who Would Win?

 

I like what performs best and has the best tech i don't really care whether it's nvidia amd intel or someone else, i just go where performance and better tech is, even if that means paying extra money.


This is the consumption, performance in gaming of 56 are mixed, but it's true that it's faster than 1070 in most of the cases, i was talking more regarding the 64 which was supposed to be the pinnacle of Gaming hearing the ads and all the propaganda from shills and from AMD itself.

Edit:Also note, how the 56 consumes around 35% more power and only goes 2-9% faster depending on the resolution

Anyway you can go check out the benchmark yourself https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/
Not that i don't trust guru3d, it just came easier to find something on tpu.

 

@oxidized

nooo... first one to link random benchmark loses.
(says so in Guru3D Rules Of Conduct/ NvAMD subsection)

 

Does it also say to be a good AMD boy and try to be fun in some way?

 

Peak power consumption is indicative of power draw over time? I don't think so. It's a reading of the highest power draw recorded. It doesn't mean the card draws that much power all the time. And VEGA 64 gives you options to power save, balance, and Turbo.

And the results you linked to on TPU show some interesting figures, like the GTX 1080 having a 184W peak power draw whereas the GTX 1080 Ti having a 267W peak power draw. In that sense, the GTX 1080 Ti is a power hog and inefficient architecture in your own words. To me it looks more like that result chart has some mix of old and new data, and could likely have a blend of outdated data too.

Or it might have something to do with the fact that a GTX 1080 Ti is a cut down GTX Titan XP and has compute. Having uncompromised compute means the step up in power consumption. Something VEGA has, in both 56 and 64 variants.

 

It's from the time they tested Vega. Peak consumption gives a decent idea of power draw over time. But well i can give you average if you want
Now what, you want an entire graph of how much consumes in a time frame? I'm afraid that very few do that test, if at all

Hey but i linked you TPUs benchmarks, you can go look at it yourself, there's all the info you need. You don't trust TPU? Here's guru3d benchmark of a 1070ti, there you can find the last results they got from Vega
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/galax_geforce_gtx_1070_ti_hof_review,1.html

How's 1080Ti inefficient if it the fastest card performing there, and it has like 4 slower cards, consuming more than it? Also what's 1080 and 1080Ti got to do with one another?

 

The 1080 Ti is inefficient in the sense that it delivers roughly 30% more performance than a GTX 1080 while consuming 46% more power. As you're.. not opened to look at the fact that having the ability to have both gaming and compute on the same solution comes with it's own downside, the increase in power consumption, I think it's fair to say that this conversation isn't going to lead anywhere but you staying with your decision of VEGA being a sub par product.

And of course, completely ignore power draw figures from the VEGA 64 powersave.

Ironically, I had both. But I liked the slogan Genesis does what Nintendon't. Nintendo didn't downright jump into the dissing fest.

 

The most amazing thing about Vega is that it is slower or almost equal to GTX 1060 sli and consumes more wattage.

Two Rx 580s consume as much as three gtx 1070s but they have about half of their total performance. If this is not sub-par situation I don't know a thing.

 

My decision of Vega being a sub par? Are you serious? Anyone in the right mind would tell you that. Vega is raw power that doesn't do anything other than mining for what it draws. I'm ignoring the powersave because peformance would drop as you drop the power draw, and it doesn't make sense, because the comparison is based on cards running in the same conditions.
1080Ti delivers ~30% more performance while drawing ~46% more power (compared to a 1080) a difference of 16% if we take a 1 to 1 scale (compared
Wanna talk about Vega both 56 and 64?

V56 vs 1070 from +2 to 9% of performance and +36% average in power consumption a difference of 25% at best, always taking the 1 to 1 scale.
V64 vs 1080 from -4 to 3% of performance and +48% average in power consumption a difference of 45% at best using the 1 to 1 scale
V64 vs 1080Ti from -25 to -31% of performance and +27% average in power consumption a difference of 52% at best, 1 to 1 scale

Now it's late and i never was good with math, but this much i could calculate, i'm off to bed see you.

 

Some Reddit AMD fanboy hunting down a stupid MSI employee, welcome to the age of social network

 

Does GTX 1070 offer you an all in one gaming and compute solution while having a 36% lower "peak" power consumption compared to VEGA 56? Nope.
Does GTX 1080 offer you an all in one gaming and compute solution while having a 48% lower "peak" power consumption compared to VEGA 64? Nope.
Does GTX 1080 Ti offer you an all in one gaming and compute solution while having a 52% lower "peak" power consumption compared to VEGA 64? Yes, to an extent.

I am tired of repeating the same thing over and over, while nvidia focused more on gaming workloads, they crippled compute. It's what made their card "power efficient" because their implementation couldn't maintain both compute and keep power consumption in check while focusing on gaming products. Contrary to their failure, AMD managed to have struck a fine balance between both. This does mean that these cards can't be power efficient. But AMD makes up for that with their pricing.

VEGA is anything but sub par, and power consumption alone can not, and I repeat, can not be the sole metric for measuring the merit of a GPU architecture. I am sure if nvidia had the performance lead, while having the same power consumption figures of the current AMD cards, you'd be the same person to tell me that gamers don't care about power consumption. Like they've done when the HD 5000/HD 6000 series had the performance per watt lead, but the same people have grown oh so power conscious today.

 

Really cant wait for the MSI Gtx 2080 once its out, wish it would hurry

 

@Romulus_ut3 HD5000/6000 back then have had fake tessellation h/w in comparison with gtx400/500 series. AMD's myth back then debunked quickly with dx11's gaming inferiority and unigine heaven embarrassment.

I do not accept AMD ever have had the edge. ATI was always the runner up.

 

I enjoy acting like a monkey and tossing my poo at other monkeys.

Edit: what would stormy daniels do?