GPUs Graphics Reviews

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition review: Hiking between the worlds

This means that it is already in the approximate, where AMD actually wants to go. While Nvidia has to be careful not to cannibalize its own sister card, the Quadro P6000, AMD does not (currently) have an in-house sister, which can be used with it. With Vega, AMD is now offering a new generation of GPUs that will have received over 200 changes and improvements in the redesign of the architecture. Even if in the end it probably boils down to a kind of new GCN generation: AMD emphasizes that the... Disassembly and radiator details Removing the upper hee cover requires some suitable tools. With a small Torx screwdriver (T5), the six small swivels that hold this cover can be turned out.... Board layout AMD has definitely thought a little bit about the division of the board, especially since the elimination of the external memory modules opens up new possibilities. Exactly in their place you now place the individual power supplies. We... Foreword to the application benchmarks Why we use the Quadro P6000 as a counterpart and not the Titan XP or GeForce GTX 1080 Ti certainly has several reasons, which we have already partially mentioned on the first page. In addition, there is nat... Cheat as you cheat can? It's easy to explain why we've changed our benchmark selection slightly compared to the recently released CPU tests. Since we have to compare several graphics cards from different manufacturers, it falls... Gaming with a "Prosumer" card? Yes, but... AMD itself says that the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is not an explicitly gaming graphics card, but you can still do so with it. Another problem arises ... Even with DrectX12, we probably can't expect any miracles after the results we have just seen. Should a driver bang give a real boost, then the difference between DirectX11 and Directx12 performance could still be ... DirectX12 and Doom in the window The game Volcano vs. OpenGL 4.5 has been interesting for a long time when it comes to testing Doom. Annoyingly, the Creators Update of Windows again presented us with problems when it comes to the perfor... Power consumption at a glance We measure a value of 14 watts for the card in the idle, which is so okay in view of the scope of performance, even if we had hoped for a little less. But you can really live with that. For the multi-monitor... Temperature curve and clock rate The fan control is quite conservative, so that the maximum temperature of 84°C (short-term also up to 85°C) is reached relatively quickly. But then the card already has approx. 10% of their performance from the cold... Summary There was once a film called "The Great Bluff" - a classic in which you didn't really know who died in whose arms and who gets whom in the end. So either AMD has all enjoyed over a year on the nose ring...

Cheat as you cheat can?

It's easy to explain why we've changed our benchmark selection slightly compared to the recently released CPU tests. Since we have to compare several graphics cards from different manufacturers, the special driver optimization for such benchmarks is also important.

We have therefore deliberately refrained from using the SPECviewperf freeware benchmark, because it has a real image of the actual workstation or CAD performance, including the workloads it contains, are about as much as cheap artificial honey with real beekeeping honey. In addition, some of the programs it contains do not actually start at all or do not start at all. limited with consumer graphics cards or drivers.

Driver offers for specially dead-optimized benchmark suites are unfortunately the order of the day; both manufacturers, mind you. But on this very subject we already had a small paragraph on the previous page. Therefore, these statements are all too often completely worthless and the distances between the consumer and pro cards are sometimes so severe that one wants to hit the wall smoothly with one's head (e.g. Maya). Good for PR and marketing, but unfortunately only mirror fencing.

One of the parade horses from the collection of now-driver-optimized benchmarks is Cinebench OpenGL. We have reconsidered with current drivers and find the result (and the way of the drivers up to it) quite worth questioning. We will certainly not use this as long as we have to put different drivers against each other.

Solidworks 2015

Then rather an honest comparison with the complete installation of one of the usual standard software packages like Solidworks. If we compare the Radeon Vega FE with the Quadro P6000, you get about 90% of the performance for approx. 30% of the price. Even if the P6000 is ahead in the end, the Radeon Vega FE does not make a bad picture. It operates at roughly the same level as a Quadro P5000 (equivalent to the GeForce GTX 1080), but also costs just over half.

We can also see from the individual benchmarks that there are no real outliers in the individual sub-composite scores. For this purpose, we have compared everything once again in percentage terms for the better over-the-counter, with the Quadro P6000 always being the 100% mark.

Creo 3.0

Creo 3.0 also runs on the Radeon Vega FE, even really good by the way! In none of the sub-areas is the Radeon Vega FE slower, on the contrary. You can see what real application optimization can make when you look at software in all its complexity. But here it is a real performance in everyday life and not a multi-second benchmark sequence, about whose image quality one could then also argue about. However, the quality of the graphics output was at a similarly high level for both cards.

Also with Creo 3.0, the normalized comparison to the Quadro P6000 shows the differences most clearly. A whopping 20% extra power in total is a real house brand – for now. But can be sure that Nvidia will again optimize the driver to follow suit. This in turn suits every user, because even with the professional drivers it is like with the respective game profiles of gaming graphics cards and their drivers.

2015 3ds Max

The appearance could not be more balanced, despite the many and even larger workloads. In the GPU Composite Score, both cards are almost equal at the end.

From a purely percentage point of view, the partial gap in the affected areas is always less than 10% and even turns into a 6% lead in an important sub-sector. This in turn saves the Radeon Vega FE in the end on the same step, because 0.6% difference is almost already in the range of measuring tolerances.

AutoCAD 2017 – 3D Performance

Let's move on to AutoCAD and the fact that instead of OpenGL and large, own graphics libraries, we simply use DirectX for rendering – in a rather unexcited form, which usually relies directly on Microsoft's libraries using a simple wrapper. In terms of performance, the Radeon Vega FE ranks fairly solidly between the GeForce GTX 1080 and the GTX 1070, with a tendency towards the GTX 1080.

Should this very real, hardly optimizable (and therefore also difficult to manipulate by the manufacturers) evaluation of the Radeon Vega FE now exemplify all DirectX-based applications and even games that do not have their own special game profile in the driver Bring? That would be rather a disappointment, to say the least, but it is not yet all evening. Let's see.

Danke für die Spende



Du fandest, der Beitrag war interessant und möchtest uns unterstützen? Klasse!

Hier erfährst Du, wie: Hier spenden.

Hier kannst Du per PayPal spenden.

About the author

Igor Wallossek

Editor-in-chief and name-giver of igor'sLAB as the content successor of Tom's Hardware Germany, whose license was returned in June 2019 in order to better meet the qualitative demands of web content and challenges of new media such as YouTube with its own channel.

Computer nerd since 1983, audio freak since 1979 and pretty much open to anything with a plug or battery for over 50 years.

Follow Igor:
YouTube Facebook Instagram Twitter

Werbung

Werbung