Amd vega 64 vs 1080ti: AMD RX Vega-64 vs Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti: What is the difference?

53points

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

62points

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Comparison winner

vs

54 facts in comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Why is AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti?

  • 2 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
    12.6 TFLOPSvs10.6 TFLOPS
  • 63.8 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
    395.8 GTexels/svs332 GTexels/s
  • 1696bit wider memory bus width?
    2048bitvs352bit
  • 512 more shading units?
    4096vs3584
  • 32 more texture mapping units (TMUs)?
    256vs224
  • 0.8 newer version of OpenCL?
    2vs1.2
  • 2nm smaller semiconductor size?
    14nmvs16nm

Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti better than AMD Radeon RX Vega 64?

  • 233MHz faster GPU clock speed?
    1480MHzvs1247MHz
  • 31. 26 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
    130.2 GPixel/svs98.94 GPixel/s
  • 75W lower TDP?
    220Wvs295W
  • 431MHz faster memory clock speed?
    1376MHzvs945MHz
  • 9118MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
    11008MHzvs1890MHz
  • 35.8% more VRAM?
    11GBvs8.1GB
  • 24 more render output units (ROPs)?
    88vs64
  • Supports 3D?

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

AMD Radeon R9 290X

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

Asus Radeon RX 6900 XT

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

AMD Radeon Vega 8

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

AMD Radeon VII

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

vs

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia Tesla T4

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

Price comparison

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

0 User reviews

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

0. 0/10

0 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

1 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

10.0/10

1 User reviews

Features

Value for money

No reviews yet

 

9.0/10

1 votes

Gaming

No reviews yet

 

9.0/10

1 votes

Performance

No reviews yet

 

10.0/10

1 votes

Fan noise

No reviews yet

 

10.0/10

1 votes

Reliability

No reviews yet

 

10.0/10

1 votes

Performance

1.GPU clock speed

1247MHz

1480MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.GPU turbo

1546MHz

1582MHz

When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

3.pixel rate

98. 94 GPixel/s

130.2 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

4.floating-point performance

12.6 TFLOPS

10.6 TFLOPS

Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

5.texture rate

395.8 GTexels/s

332 GTexels/s

The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

945MHz

1376MHz

The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

7.shading units

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

8.texture mapping units (TMUs)

TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

9.render output units (ROPs)

The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

Memory

1.effective memory speed

1890MHz

11008MHz

The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

483.8GB/s

484GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

2048bit

352bit

A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

5.version of GDDR memory

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.

6.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

Features

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

2.OpenGL version

OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

3.OpenCL version

Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

4.Supports multi-display technology

✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.

5.load GPU temperature

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)

A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.

7. Supports 3D

✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.

9.PassMark (G3D) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)

This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

Ports

1.has an HDMI output

✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.

2.HDMI ports

More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.

3.HDMI version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

HDMI 2.0

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4.DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best graphics cards?

RX Vega 64 vs GTX 1080Ti ⚙️

0x1011.998MH/s195W0.062MH/W

Allium12. 373MH/s216W0.057MH/W

Argon2d-dyn224.874KH/s231W0.973KH/W

Argon2d-ninjaKH/sWKH/W

Argon2d250912.077KH/s275W3.317KH/W

Argon2d409640.697KH/s250W0.163KH/W

Astralhash15.441MH/s173W0.089MH/W

Autolykos291.104MH/s174W0.524MH/W

BCD33.745MH/s247W0.137MH/W

BMW5121513.796MH/s132W11.468MH/W

BeamHashII36.97H/s273W0.135H/W

BeamHashIII25. 77H/s296W0.087H/W

Blake (14r)1.841GH/s113W0.016GH/W

Blake (2b)1.769GH/s133W0.013GH/W

Blake (2b-BTCC)1700.985MH/s130W13.085MH/W

Blake (2s)5.098GH/s283W0.018GH/W

Blake (2s-Kadena)1.225GH/s251W0.005GH/W

C1141.076MH/s192W0.214MH/W

CNReverseWaltz994.64H/s168W5.92H/W

Chukwa91.046KH/s208W0.438KH/W

Chukwa232.403KH/s247W0. 131KH/W

ChukwaWRKZ130.553KH/s245W0.533KH/W

Cortex0.07H/s134W0.001H/W

CryptoNight0.873KH/s102W0.009KH/W

CryptoNightAlloy403.66H/s129W3.129H/W

CryptoNightArto690.928H/s189W3.656H/W

CryptoNightConceal1764.467H/s142W12.426H/W

CryptoNightFast1670.22H/s166W10.062H/W

CryptoNightFastV2H/sWH/W

CryptoNightGPU2310H/s177W13.051H/W

CryptoNightHaven1053. 5H/s139W7.579H/W

CryptoNightHeavy1055.25H/s171W6.171H/W

CryptoNightHeavyX405.097H/s147W2.756H/W

CryptoNightLiteV71.89KH/s125W0.015KH/W

CryptoNightR882.7H/s171W5.162H/W

CryptoNightSaber1011.72H/s181W5.59H/W

CryptoNightStelliteV4888.715H/s145W6.129H/W

CryptoNightStelliteV51354.338H/s148W9.151H/W

CryptoNightTalleo0.008MH/s133W0MH/W

CryptoNightTurtle7.466KH/s152W0. 049KH/W

CryptoNightUPX230.26KH/s140W0.216KH/W

CryptoNightV70.907KH/s133W0.007KH/W

CryptoNightV8880.06H/s162W5.432H/W

CryptoNightWOW875.67H/sWH/W

CryptoNightZLS1150.7H/s152W7.57H/W

Cuckaroo29S7.3H/s130W0.056H/W

Cuckaroo29b4.78H/s217W0.022H/W

CuckooBFC176.71H/s189W0.935H/W

CuckooCycle7.843H/s149W0.053H/W

Darkcoin2.143GH/s250W0. 009GH/W

Dedal10.259MH/s227W0.045MH/W

Eaglesong0.836GH/s129W0.006GH/W

Equihash0.697KH/s241W0.003KH/W

Equihash(125,4)52.04H/s234W0.222H/W

Equihash(144,5)71.5H/s251W0.285H/W

Equihash(150,5)38.12H/s244W0.156H/W

Equihash(192,7)39H/s226W0.173H/W

Equihash(210,9)326H/s243W1.342H/W

Equihash(96,5)28.685KH/s249W0.115KH/W

Equihash+Scrypt35. 696KH/s253W0.141KH/W

EquihashBTCZ70.5H/s185W0.381H/W

EquihashBTG72H/s240W0.3H/W

EquihashSAFE72H/s248W0.29H/W

EquihashZEL72H/s192W0.375H/W

Etchash50.676MH/s224W0.226MH/W

Ethash45.676MH/s210W0.218MH/W

FiroPoW24.812MH/s191W0.13MH/W

Globalhash38.283MH/s156W0.245MH/W

Groestl0.055GH/s118W0GH/W

HMQ17256. 189MH/s201W0.031MH/W

Handshake0.405GH/s209W0.002GH/W

HeavyHash457.16MH/s194W2.356MH/W

Hex20.304MH/s174W0.117MH/W

HoneyComb0.524MH/s71W0.007MH/W

Jeonghash7.625MH/s154W0.05MH/W

KAWPOW22.131MH/s278W0.08MH/W

KangarooTwelveMH/sWMH/W

Keccak1.266GH/s250W0.005GH/W

Keccak-C1.274GH/s253W0.005GH/W

LBRY0. 427GH/s157W0.003GH/W

Lyra2REv259.399MH/s200W0.297MH/W

Lyra2REv356.67MH/s179W0.317MH/W

Lyra2vc0ban52.738MH/s211W0.25MH/W

Lyra2z3.733MH/s119W0.031MH/W

MTP4.061MH/s216W0.019MH/W

Myr-Groestl0.062GH/s71W0.001GH/W

NIST50.055GH/s191W0GH/W

NeoScrypt1.502MH/s247W0.006MH/W

Octopus14.286MH/s191W0.075MH/W

PHI161244. 63MH/s261W0.171MH/W

PHI210.529MH/s196W0.054MH/W

Padihash0.262MH/s61W0.004MH/W

Pascal0.007GH/sWGH/W

Pawelhash7.382MH/s182W0.041MH/W

ProgPow20.832MH/s209W0.1MH/W

ProgPowSERO21.717MH/s184W0.118MH/W

ProgPowZ21.723MH/s280W0.078MH/W

Quark0.023GH/s154W0GH/W

Qubit0.021GH/s172W0GH/W

RandomKEVA828. 1H/s151W5.484H/W

RandomSFX822.936H/s174W4.73H/W

RandomX936.467H/s197W4.754H/W

SHA-256csm350.665MH/s70W5.009MH/W

ScryptSIPC799.7KH/s150W5.331KH/W

Skein0.88GH/s207W0.004GH/W

Skein2525.467MH/s255W2.061MH/W

Skunkhash57.359MH/s125W0.459MH/W

SonoA1.813MH/s247W0.007MH/W

Tellor0GH/s187W0GH/W

Tensority0. 005KH/s182W0KH/W

TimeTravel1042.909MH/s274W0.157MH/W

Tribus137.467MH/s211W0.652MH/W

Ubqhash41.428MH/s191W0.217MH/W

VerthashMH/sWMH/W

VerusHashMH/sWMH/W

X11k1.994MH/s170W0.012MH/W

X1311.373MH/s172W0.066MH/W

X1511.279MH/s241W0.047MH/W

X16R18.348MH/s256W0.072MH/W

X16RT38.929MH/s184W0. 212MH/W

X16RTVEIL11.15MH/s209W0.053MH/W

X16Rv234.226MH/s188W0.182MH/W

X16S31.337MH/s170W0.184MH/W

X1727.516MH/s243W0.113MH/W

X17R10.129MH/s186W0.054MH/W

X180.262MH/s79W0.003MH/W

X21S20.885MH/s178W0.117MH/W

X22i16.772MH/s187W0.09MH/W

X25X6.911MH/s250W0.028MH/W

X3317.124MH/s271W0.063MH/W

Xevan5. 499MH/s242W0.023MH/W

Zhash75.667H/s212W0.357H/W

bitcash7.614MH/s152W0.05MH/W

cuckARoo24201.66H/s298W0.677H/W

cuckARoo297.534H/s178W0.042H/W

cuckARood294.85H/s252W0.019H/W

cuckARoom294.2H/s217W0.019H/W

cuckARooz294.55H/s201W0.023H/W

cuckAToo311.405H/s160W0.009H/W

cuckAToo320.546H/s180W0.003H/W

cuckoo7. 67MH/s220W0.035MH/W

vProgPow10.385MH/s249W0.042MH/W

AMD RX Vega 64 Outperforms NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti By Up To 23% In DX12 Forza 7

In quite a shocking turn of events AMD’s RX Vega 64 manages to outpace NVIDIA’s GTX 1080 Ti by up to 23% in the upcoming DirectX 12 ready Forza 7. The racing game officially debuts next Tuesday, 3rd of October on PC but folks over at ComputerBase.de managed to get their hands on it early to run their usual graphics performance tests and the results were surprising to say the least. So without any further ado let’s dig into the numbers.

AMD RX Vega 64 Flexes DirectX 12 Muscles In Forza 7

The test system included an Intel Core i7 6850K overclocked to 4.3GHz, paired with 16GB of DDR4 memory running at 3000MHz in quad-channel mode. The drivers used were Crimson ReLive 17.93 for AMD and 385. 69 for NVIDIA. These drivers are officially optimized for Forza 7.
All graphics options were set to their maximum settings and 8 x MSAA was used in all three resolutions tested.

Source : ComputerBase

At 1080p AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 leads the pack followed by the RX Vega 56 and NVIDIA’s GTX 1080 Ti. The RX Vega 64 delivers no less than 23% more frames per second than the GTX 1080 Ti and the RX Vega 56 leads the GTX 1080 by 18%. This is by all accounts extraordinarily unusual. Ordinarily, the GTX 1080 Ti would enjoy a comfortable 30%+ lead over both Vegas and the GTX 1080.

In the middle of the pack we see the RX 580 leading the GTX 1060 by 7.5% and the R9 390 leading its GTX 970 competitor by no less than a whopping 38%.  The R9 380 leads its GTX 960 competitor by a similar margin.

99th percentile frametime analysis, which focuses on smoothness, shows the Radeons consistently out-smoothing their GeForce counterparts across the board, in some cases significantly so. For example, the RX 580 manages to deliver a measurably smoother framerate than the GTX 1080 and even the GTX 1080 Ti.

Source : ComputerBase

Upping the resolution to 2560×1440 shrinks the performance gap between the Radeons and the GeForces considerably. The RX Vega 64 still leads the pack with a 115 FPS average, 12% ahead of the GTX 1080 Ti.  The RX Vega 56 falls right behind the 1080 Ti but is still ahead of the GTX 1080.  In the middle of the pack the RX 580’s lead fades entirely and is now neck and neck with the GTX 1060.

Frametime analysis still shows the Radeons enjoying a comfortable smoothness lead over their GeForce counterparts. Although the hierarchy shifts slightly to the regular order that we’ve come to expect. The 580 is no longer smoother or even as smooth as NVIDIA’s top dogs and is much closer to its GTX 1060 competitor. At the high-end the Vegas still lead in smoothness.

Source : ComputerBase

At 4K we finally see things fall somewhat back to regular order. The GTX 1080 Ti finally retakes the lead, but is still far from its usual 30%+ advantage.  The RX Vega 64 still leads its competitor the GTX 1080 and the RX Vega 56 still significantly leads its competitor the GTX 1070. In the mid-range the GTX 1060 retakes the lead from the RX 580 and the Fury X simply runs out of memory and falls on its face.

But once again, frametime analysis shows the Vegas in the lead. Despite the GTX 1080 Ti’s average framerate advantage over the RX Vega 64 and 56, it delivers those frames in a slightly choppier manner.

Forza 7 Frametime Analysis via ComputerBase — Lower is better

ComputerBases’s frametime analysis at 4K demonstrates this, although they compare the RX Vega 64 to its direct competitor the GTX 1080. The RX Vega 64 manages to deliver both a consistently higher framerate and consistently lower frametimes than the GTX 1080. Which means it delivers more frames per second and does so in a significantly smoother cadence, with far less choppiness and considerably fewer lag spikes.

Wrapping Things Up — What Exactly Is Going On?

It goes without saying that the performance of NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards is quite unusual in Forza 7. Close inspection of the data indicates that the GeForce cards, especially at the high end, are running into a significant bottleneck while their Radeon counterparts are not, even though 8 x MSAA was applied across the board.

This explains how the performance gap consistently shrunk by upping the resolution and why the Radeons were consistently smoother. Even at 4K, the GTX 1080 Ti is showing signs of bottlenecking and is unable to deliver the same performance lead that it usually has over the GTX 1080.

ComputerBase reached out to NVIDIA and the company confirmed that the results were indeed accurate.

ComputerBase.de — Google Translation
«The ranking in Forza 7 is very unusual. Nvidia has confirmed ComputerBase, however, that the results are so correct, so there is no problem with the system in the editorial regarding GeForce. «

So it appears there’s some magical driver wizardry that AMD has done to take advantage of the multi-threaded nature of DX12 that NVIDIA has yet to replicate for Forza 7.

Is this merely an anomaly or perhaps a pattern that we could see repeated in future DirectX 12 games? Only time will tell. Although one thing’s for certain, Vega can really spread its wings in DirectX 12. Perhaps AMD’s partnership with Bethesda will expose more of what Vega can really do in DX12 games.

GeForce GTX 1080 Ti vs Radeon RX Vega 64



  1. Home
  2. VGA Benchmarks
  3. GeForce GTX 1080 Ti vs Radeon RX Vega 64
  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    123%

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    100%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
23% higher gaming performance.
75 watts lower power draw. This might be a strong point if your current power supply is not enough to handle the Radeon RX Vega 64 .
Supports PhysX
Supports G-Sync
Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty)
Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute
Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Pascal), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications
Reasons to consider Radeon RX Vega 64
Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute
Supports FreeSync
Supports ReLive (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty)
Supports TrueAudio
Based on an outdated architecture (AMD GCN), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications

HWBench recommends GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is the better performing card based on the game benchmark suite used (115 combinations of games and resolutions).

Core Configuration
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Radeon RX Vega 64
GPU Name GP102 (GP102-350-K1-A1) vs Vega 10 (Vega 10 XT)
Fab Process 16 nm vs 14 nm
Die Size 471 mm² vs 484 mm²
Transistors 12,000 million vs 12,500 million
Shaders 3584 vs 4096
Compute Units 28 vs 64
Core clock 1480 MHz vs 1250 MHz
ROPs 88 vs 64
TMUs 224 vs 256

Memory Configuration
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Radeon RX Vega 64
Memory Type GDDR5X vs HBM2
Bus Width 352 bit vs 2048 bit
Memory Speed 1376 MHz

11008 MHz effective
vs 945 MHz

1890 MHz effective
Memory Size 11264 Mb vs 8192 Mb
Additional details
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Radeon RX Vega 64
TDP 220 watts vs 295 watts
Release Date UNRELEASED vs 8 Aug 2017
  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    130. 20 GP/s

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    96.00 GP/s

GigaPixels — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    332.00 GT/s

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    384.00 GT/s

GigaTexels — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    484.00 GB/s

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    483.80 GB/s

GB/s — higher is better

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    10609.00 GFLOPs

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    12288.00 GFLOPs

GFLOPs — higher is better

High Quality Mode, 8 millon samples, 2xMSAA, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    106

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    92

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    53

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    48

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    131

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    113

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    98

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    89

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    64

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    49

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality TTA DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    109

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    84

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    120

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    81

FPS (higher is better)

Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    36

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    32

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    109

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    86

FPS (higher is better)

Highest quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    119

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    84

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    89

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    74

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality,DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    96

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    63

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra, TSSAA 8tx, ASync on, Vsync off, VULKAN, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    188

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    157

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,TTA,Melbourne,DirectX11,Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    137

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    96

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    101

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    87

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    66

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    61

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    104

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    89

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Very High Settings

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    101

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    84

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    116

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    91

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    82

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    62

FPS (higher is better)

Very high Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    86

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    65

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF, 2xMSAA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    144

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    91

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,16:1 HQ-AF,DirectX 12, windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    130

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    107

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    101

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    94

FPS (higher is better)

Very high quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    74

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    60

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    57

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    49

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    37

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    28

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, HR Textures, DirectX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    89

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    72

FPS (higher is better)

UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    50

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    48

FPS (higher is better)

Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    104

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    92

FPS (higher is better)

Maximun Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    120

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    92

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Details, Pure Hair On, FXAA/HBAO+ enabled, 16x AF, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    121

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    90

FPS (higher is better)

Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    78

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    61

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    115

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    93

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    126

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    102

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    121

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    100

FPS (higher is better)

DX11,Max Details, 16:1 HQ-AF, +AA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    108

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    79

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    51

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    43

FPS (higher is better)

Main Leben! quality preset- Vulkan Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    99

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    92

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    66

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    60

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    161

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    149

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    123

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    115

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    91

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    66

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality TTA DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    134

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    108

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    160

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    101

FPS (higher is better)

Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    55

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    48

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    156

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    121

FPS (higher is better)

Highest quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    145

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    115

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    119

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    100

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality,DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    120

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    86

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra, TSSAA 8tx, ASync on, Vsync off, VULKAN, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    200

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    200

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,TTA,Melbourne,DirectX11,Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    164

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    127

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    119

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    106

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    89

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    82

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    116

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    114

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Very High Settings

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    118

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    103

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    164

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    139

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    116

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    88

FPS (higher is better)

Very high Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    105

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    80

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF, 2xMSAA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    170

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    126

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,16:1 HQ-AF,DirectX 12, windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    154

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    141

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    148

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    142

FPS (higher is better)

Very high quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    108

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    78

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    71

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    61

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    46

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    36

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, HR Textures, DirectX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    119

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    100

FPS (higher is better)

UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    64

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    60

FPS (higher is better)

Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    148

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    134

FPS (higher is better)

Maximun Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    186

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    141

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Details, Pure Hair On, FXAA/HBAO+ enabled, 16x AF, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    175

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    130

FPS (higher is better)

Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    115

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    90

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    143

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    126

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    149

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    132

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    168

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    137

FPS (higher is better)

DX11,Max Details, 16:1 HQ-AF, +AA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    140

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    103

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    69

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    58

FPS (higher is better)

Main Leben! quality preset- Vulkan Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    134

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    130

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    33

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    29

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    73

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    62

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    60

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    52

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    36

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    28

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality TTA DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    68

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    50

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    70

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    51

FPS (higher is better)

Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    18

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    16

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    61

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    47

FPS (higher is better)

Highest quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    71

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    50

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    46

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    38

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality,DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    57

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    37

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra, TSSAA 8tx, ASync on, Vsync off, VULKAN, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    98

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    79

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,TTA,Melbourne,Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    76

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    62

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    53

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    46

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    42

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    35

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    58

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    49

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Very High Settings

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    58

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    45

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    57

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    43

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    46

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    34

FPS (higher is better)

Very high Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    52

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    39

FPS (higher is better)

DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF, 2xMSAA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    78

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    49

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality,16:1 HQ-AF,DirectX 12, windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    78

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    62

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    55

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    48

FPS (higher is better)

Very high quality DirectX11 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    37

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    30

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    36

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    32

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    22

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    16

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, HR Textures, DirectX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    53

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    43

FPS (higher is better)

UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    31

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    31

FPS (higher is better)

Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    52

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    46

FPS (higher is better)

Maximun Quality, DX11, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    61

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    46

FPS (higher is better)

Very High Details, Pure Hair On, FXAA/HBAO+ enabled, 16x AF, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    60

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    46

FPS (higher is better)

Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    42

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    31

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    68

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    55

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra quality DirectX12 Windows10 x64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    68

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    55

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    71

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    61

FPS (higher is better)

DX11,Max Details, 16:1 HQ-AF, +AA

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    66

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    44

FPS (higher is better)

Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    29

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    25

FPS (higher is better)

Main Leben! quality preset- Vulkan Windows 10×64

  • GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    62

  • Radeon RX Vega 64

    54

FPS (higher is better)

VS
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GeForce RTX 2070 Super
VS
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Radeon RX 5700 XT
VS
Radeon RX Vega 64 Radeon RX 6650 XT
VS
Radeon RX Vega 64 GeForce RTX 2060 Super
VS
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti GeForce RTX 2080 Super
VS
GeForce RTX 2080 Super TITAN V

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMD RX Vega 64 vs. GTX 1080 & GTX 1080 Ti

AMD’s RX Vega, the gaming version of AMD’s long-awaited high-end GPU architecture, finally saw its release this month. While RX Vega 56, the smaller brother of the full Vega GPU, offered great price-to-performance compared to NVIDIA’s price-equivalent GTX 1070, the story is different with RX Vega 64 when comparing it to its price-equivalent, the GTX 1080.

Pricing

In a previous article comparing the Vega 56 against the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, no official statement from AMD was available regarding pricing of Vega GPUs. Now, AMD has stated multiple times that the company is doing its best to keep the RX Vega cards at the suggested retail price originally advertised: $399 for the RX 56 and $499 for the RX 64.

However, with the launch of RX Vega 56, the pricing problem has been reinforced even further, with close to no cards being available at the suggested prices. The issue cannot be blamed solely on AMD, as they can only suggest the prices retailers sell the cards at, but manufacturing partners (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc) and major distributors can easily set their own prices because they know there is high demand and the cards will sell either way.

The Radeon Packs that were introduced with the launch of RX Vega only make matters more complicated, which is why there is still no concrete conclusion to the pricing situation with RX Vega cards. Due to the fact that nobody knows when the prices will stabilize, we will compare the RX Vega 64 to both the GTX 1080 ($499 MSRP) and the GTX 1080 Ti ($699 MSRP).

Gaming performance

Steve from HardwareUnboxed and Techspot compiled a huge 32-game benchmark that we recommend for a deeper dive into the performance of all RX Vega cards. A few games will be used as an example of the general performance of the reference RX Vega 64 (worst case scenario: stock settings) and the liquid-cooled RX Vega 64 (best case scenario: close to maximum overclock).

It is important to note that even though the liquid-cooled version of RX Vega 64 does come at a price of $699, a highly overclocked and well-tuned aftermarket Vega 64 will most likely perform similarly for a comparable price to the GTX 1080 (when the prices actually stabilize).

DOOM, AMD’s best case scenario, shows what the company’s hardware is actually capable of. The RX 580 is 17% faster than the GTX 1060, its direct competitor, but the RX Vega 64 is at the same level of performance as the GTX 1080. This means either the game isn’t optimized for Vega yet, or the new architecture is that much different from Polaris. The performance of the top-of-the-line overclocked RX Vega 64 would be around 8% faster than a GTX 1080. Source: Techspot.com

 

GTA V, still one of the most popular games today, shows Vega’s worst case scenario. Even the liquid-cooled Vega 64 falls noticeably behind the reference GTX 1070. Driver optimizations are clearly needed for GTA V, but no one knows when or if these optimizations will appear. Source: Techspot.com

 

PUBG, the most popular game on Steam right now, is also an example of very poor optimization for the Vega architecture. The top-of-the-line liquid-cooled RX Vega 64 is merely on par with the reference GTX 1070. Source: Techspot.com

 

Titanfall 2, a game that more often favors AMD graphics cards, shows the state of RX Vega’s drivers. Even though the RX 580 is slightly faster than its direct competitor, the GTX 1060, stock RX Vega 64 falls behind the reference GTX 1080. The liquid-cooled Vega 64 can barely match an overclocked GTX 1080 from MSI. Source: Techspot.com

 

Total War: Warhammer running in DX12 mode is an example of good driver optimization for Vega. Just like the RX 580 vs GTX 1060, the reference version of Vega 64 is able to outperform an overclocked GTX 1080 from MSI, with the highly overclocked liquid-cooled version being almost 15% faster than the competition. Source: Techspot.com

Power consumption

By far the biggest gripe of Vega is not only it being very late to the market, but also its power consumption.

Overclock3D manually overclocked their RX Vega 64 as high as it would go and the total power consumption of the Vega system was actually comparable to a system with two GTX 1080 Ti cards in SLI. A single RX Vega 64 running in the pre-determined Turbo mode consumes a similar amount of power to an overclocked R9 390X or two highly overclocked ASUS Strix GTX 1080s in SLI. Even though it is possible to under-volt RX Vega cards, very few media outlets actually tested that with RX Vega 64. Source: overclock3d.net

Conclusion

Vega was hyped as being AMD’s best GPU architecture yet (as it happens with all new microarchitectures). Unfortunately, the Radeon Technology Group heavily underdelivered this time. Even though Vega 10 (the fully unlocked Vega 64 GPU) is of comparable performance to NVIDIA’s GP104 GPU (the fully unlocked GTX 1080 chip) in terms of gaming, it is still a year late to the market and is a much larger chip, making it more expensive to produce.

Judging by Vega 10’s size (484 mm²) it should be competing with the GP102 (471 mm²), the chip in Titan X Pascal and GTX 1080 Ti. And Vega does beat out GP102 in certain compute benchmarks, but in gaming it can barely compete with the much smaller GP104 (314 mm²). Even then, judging by the benchmarks presented by many media outlets, we can confirm that the drivers for RX Vega are still nowhere near where they should be. In some games where the RX 580 is able to beat the GTX 1060, Vega 64 falls behind a non-overclocked GTX 1070. In other games, overclocked Vega 64 can actually step on the toes of the GTX 1080 Ti. The drivers look to be a mess and it is not known when and if they will improve.

In conclusion, RX Vega 64 may be a good buy only if it’s cheaper than the GTX 1080 and is paired with a FreeSync monitor. Otherwise, accounting for the extreme power consumption, poor driver optimizations in many games and current lack of aftermarket cards and competitive pricing, we currently recommend an aftermarket GTX 1080 over the RX Vega 64. If the price of the AMD card is comparable to the GTX 1080 Ti, then there is absolutely no reason to get AMD. The 1080 Ti card is ~30% faster in all scenarios and consumes less power.

Sources:

  • Techspot. com / HardwareUnboxed
  • overclock3d.net

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z








AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the graphics cards, with AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 on one side and MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z on the other side. The first is dedicated to the laptop sector, it has 4096 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,4 GHz, its lithography is 14 nm. The second is used on the desktop segment, it includes 3584 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,7 GHz, its lithography is 16 nm. The following table also compares the boost clock, the number of shading units (if indicated), of execution units, the amount of cache memory, the maximum memory capacity, the memory bus width, the release date, the number of PCIe lanes, the values ​​obtained in various benchmarks.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specifications:

Graphics card

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64

MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z
Market (main)

Laptop

Desktop
Release date

Q2 2017

Q2 2017
Model number

Vega 10 XT 215-0894200

GP102-350-K1-A1, V366
GPU name

Vega 10

GP102
Architecture

GCN 5. 0

Pascal
Generation

Radeon Pro Mac Vega Series

GeForce 10
Lithography

14 nm

16 nm
Transistors

12.500.000.000

11.800.000.000
Bus interface

PCIe 3.0 x16

PCIe 3.0 x16
GPU base clock

1,25 GHz

1,58 GHz
GPU boost clock

1,35 GHz

1,70 GHz
Memory frequency

786 MHz

1.390 MHz
Effective memory speed

1,6 GB/s

11,1 GB/s
Memory size

16 GB

11 GB
Memory type

HBM2

GDDR5X
Memory bus

2048 Bit

352 Bit
Memory bandwidth

402,4 GB/s

489,3 GB/s
TDP

250 W

250 W
Cores (compute units, SM, SMX)

64

28
Shading units

4. 096

3.584
TMUs

256

224
ROPs

64

88
Cache memory

4 MB

2,8 MB
Pixel fillrate

86,4 GP/s

149,2 GP/s
Texture fillrate

345,6 GT/s

379,7 GT/s
Performance FP16 (half)

22,1 TFLOPS

189,8 GFLOPS
Performance FP32 (float)

11,1 TFLOPS

12,2 TFLOPS
Performance FP64 (double)

691,2 GFLOPS

379,7 GFLOPS
Amazon


eBay


Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two graphics cards.

Performances :

Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.





FP32 Performance in GFLOPS
MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z

12.150
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64

11.060

The difference is 10%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these graphics cards, you may get different results.

Single precision floating point format, also known as FP32, is a computer number format that typically occupies 32 bits in PC memory. This represents a wide dynamic range of numeric values that employs a floating point.

See also:

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X

Equivalence:

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 Nvidia equivalentMSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z Nvidia equivalentMSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z AMD equivalent

Disclaimer:

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.

Information:

We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer’s website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.

0026 vs 10.6 TFLOPS

  • 63.8 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels?
    395.8 GTexels/s vs 332 GTexels/s
  • 1696bit wider memory bus?
    2048bit vs 352bit
  • 512 more stream processors?
    4096 vs 3584
  • 32 more texture units (TMUs)?
    256 vs 224
  • 0.8 newer version of OpenCL?
    2 vs 1.2
  • Smaller semiconductors 2nm?
    14nm vs 16nm
  • Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti better than AMD Radeon RX Vega 64?

    • GPU frequency 233MHz higher?
      1480MHz vs 1247MHz
    • 31. 26 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
      130.2 GPixel/s vs 98.94 GPixel/s
    • 75W below TDP?
      220W vs 295W
    • 431MHz faster memory speed?
      1376MHz vs 945MHz
    • 9118MHz higher effective clock speed?
      11008MHz vs 1890MHz
    • 35.8% more VRAM?
      11GB vs 8.1GB
    • 24 more ROPs?
      88 vs 64
    • Supports 3D?

    What are the most popular comparisons?

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    AMD Radeon R9 290X

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    0003

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    AMD Radeon Vega 8

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    VS

    NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2060

    AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64

    VS

    NVIDIA GTX 1650 9000 9000

    NVIDIA GEFORCE GTORCE TI0004 vs

    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    AMD Radeon RX 9 AMD

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    vs

    0003

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    10. 0 /10

    1 reviews of users

    Functions

    reviews still not

    9.0 /10

    1 VOTES

    reviews are not yet

    9.0 /10

    1 Votes

    reviews yet not

    10.0 /10 9 9 9 9

    1 Votes

    Fan noise

    Reviews not yet

    10.0 /10

    1 VOTES

    Reliability

    Reviews are not

    10.0 /10 9000

    1 VOTES 9000 9

    1.GPU clock speed

    1247MHz

    1480MHz

    The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

    2.Turbo GPU

    1546MHz

    1582MHz

    When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

    3.pixel rate

    98.94 GPixel/s

    130.2 GPixel/s

    The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    4.flops

    12.6 TFLOPS

    10.6 TFLOPS

    FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.

    5.texture size

    395.8 GTexels/s

    332 GTexels/s

    Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    6.GPU memory speed

    945MHz

    1376MHz

    Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.

    7.shading patterns

    Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.

    8.textured units (TMUs)

    TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.

    9 ROPs

    ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.

    Memory

    1.memory effective speed

    1890MHz

    11008MHz

    The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.

    2.max memory bandwidth

    483.8GB/s

    484GB/s

    This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

    3.VRAM

    VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

    4.memory bus width

    2048bit

    352bit

    Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.

    5. GDDR memory versions

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

    Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as faster data transfer rates, which improve performance.

    6. Supports memory debug code

    ✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

    Functions

    1.DirectX version

    DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

    2nd version of OpenGL

    The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

    OpenCL version 3.

    Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.

    4. Supports multi-monitor technology

    ✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.

    5. GPU temperature at boot

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)

    Lower boot temperature — this means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.

    6.supports ray tracing

    ✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.

    7.Supports 3D

    ✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).

    8.supports DLSS

    ✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.

    9. PassMark result (G3D)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)

    This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.

    Ports

    1.has HDMI output

    ✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to an attached display.

    2.HDMI connectors

    More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.

    3rd HDMI version

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 64)

    HDMI 2.0

    New versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, resulting in higher resolutions and frame rates.

    4. DisplayPort outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.

    5.DVI outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DVI.

    Mini DisplayPort 6.outs

    Allows connection to a display using Mini DisplayPort.

    Price Match

    Cancel

    Which graphics cards are better?

    AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti comparison which is better?

    %
    General information

    Value for money

    The sum of all device benefits divided by its price. The more%, the better the quality per unit price in comparison with all analogues.

    41.9%

    41.65107296% (16732.2%) better than

    0.248

    Architecture

    GCN 5.0 Pascal

    Codename

    Vega 10 GP102

    Type

    Desktop Desktop

    Release price

    499 $

    -200 $ (-28.6%) better than

    699 $

    Number of shaders

    4096

    512 (14.3%) better than

    3584

    Core clock

    1630MHz

    149 MHz (10.1%) better than

    1481 MHz

    Boost frequency

    1546 MHz 1582 MHz

    36 MHz (2.3%) better than

    Number of transistors

    12. 500 million 11.800 million

    Process

    14 nm

    -2 nm (-12.5%) better than

    16 nm

    Interface

    PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16

    Power Demand (TDP)

    Calculated thermal power indicates the average heat dissipation in load operation,
    the larger the value, the more the requirements for cooling and power consumption increase.

    295W 250 W

    -45 W (-15.3%) better than

    Length

    279 mm 26.7 cm

    Additional power connectors

    2x 8-pin 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

    G-SYNC Ready

    NVIDIA G-SYNC technology delivers a smooth gaming experience with variable refresh rates and the elimination of visual artifacts.

    SLI support

    n/a +

    3D Vision

    n/a +

    GPU Boost

    n/a +

    Vulkan

    NVIDIA’s Vulkan technology allows developers to gain low-level access to the GPU to optimize graphics commands (better than OpenGL and Direct3D APIs).
    It is an open, free, cross-platform standard available for all platforms.

    n/a +

    CUDA

    The CUDA architecture enables applications that are optimized for
    parallel computing. For example, for the development and design of neural networks.

    Maximum temperature

    n/a 91 °C

    Recommended power supply

    n/a 600 Watt

    Multi-monitor support

    n/a 1

    Ansel

    Virtual Reality

    n/a +

    Decred / DCR (Decred)

    n/a 4. 6 Gh/s

    Siacoin / SC (Sia)

    n/a 2.96 Gh/s

    Zcash / ZEC (Equihash)

    n/a 1 Sol/s

    Video connectors

    1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort

    DirectX

    12 (12_1) 12 (12_1)

    Floating point performance

    13.353 gflops 11.340 gflops

    Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto)

    31.5 Mh/s 35 Mh/s
    Memory

    Memory type

    HBM2 GDDR5X

    Maximum memory

    Large video memory allows you to run demanding games with lots of textures,
    use high resolution monitors, provide more opportunities for cryptocurrency mining.

    8 GB 11 GB

    3 GB (37.5%) better than

    Memory bus width

    The wider the video memory bus, the more data is transferred to the GPU per unit of time and the better performance in demanding games.

    2048 bit

    1696 bits (481.8%) better than

    352 bit

    Shared memory

    Memory frequency

    A high memory frequency has a positive effect on the speed of a video card with a large amount of data.

    1890 MHz 11008 MHz

    At 9118 MHz (482.4%) better than

    Memory bandwidth

    The higher the data transfer bandwidth, the more effective RAM the PC can use.

    483.8 484.4

    0.59999999999997 (0.099999999999944%) better than

    it’s hard to be the first GECID.

    com. Page 1

    ::>Video cards
    >2019
    > AMD Radeon VII versus RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080, RX Vega 56 and GTX 1080 Ti: it’s hard to be first

    06/29/2019

    Page 1
    Page 2
    One page

    AMD was the first to bring to market a 7nm GPU for discrete graphics cards. This happened back in November 2018 with the release of the Radeon Instinct MI60 and MI50 graphics accelerators. They are designed for use in deep learning systems and neural networks.

    Then, in January 2019, AMD announced the Radeon VII, also based on a 7nm GPU. But it’s already aimed at gamers and content creators.

    It is based on the Vega 20 XT GPU based on the GCN 5.1 microarchitecture. The transition to a thinner process technology reduced its area by 33% and increased the number of transistors by 6% compared to the 14nm Vega 10 XT, which is based on the Radeon Vega 64 graphics card.

    Thanks to this, there is room on the substrate for two more 4 GB stacks of HBM2 memory. In addition, the memory frequency increased slightly and the bus width increased by 2 times, so the throughput increased by 112%.

    But there are fewer computing units in the Vega 20 structure compared to Vega 10: the number of stream processors has been reduced to 3840, and texture units to 240. But the second generation of the Vega architecture can boast of higher frequencies and lower latency, faster ROP -blocks and improved performance when processing integer and floating point operations.

    All this promises a performance boost. For example, 27% faster color grading and editing 8K video in DaVinci Resolve 15, 29% faster 8K video editing in Adobe Premiere. Rendering 3D objects in Blender is also 27% faster.

    Gamers are promised consistently comfortable gameplay in modern blockbusters in 4K resolution and the ability to stream games in parallel without feeling a drop in performance.

    Fast 16 GB HBM2 memory plays a significant role in achieving these results. Think it’s too much? Everything depends on the tasks. Encoding 4K video in Adobe Premiere will require about 10 GB, while 8K video needs 11.5 GB.

    Game developers are also not shy about asking for more and more video memory. The same Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 will require about 12 GB at maximum settings, Far Cry 5 — almost 13 GB. In the Resident Evil 2 menu, it says that more than 12 GB is needed, but at first 10 was occupied during the passage. In any case, the 8 GB buffer is already not enough for passing blockbusters at maximum settings.

    Not only the size is important, but also the speed characteristics of the memory. For example, the frame time graph in Radeon VII in Far Cry 5 is smoother and more stable than in the GeForce RTX 2080. This should improve the statistics of very rare events and the comfort of the gameplay.

    One last important thing to note: the Vega 20 crystal contains 2 times more temperature sensors than the Vega 10. This improves the accuracy of temperature monitoring. In addition, the junction temperature is now used to detect throttling and automatically control the speed of the cooling fans. This has a beneficial effect on the dynamic overclocking of the GPU and improves the overall level of performance.

    We got our hands on the reference version of the Radeon VII from AMD. We did not disassemble it, so as not to damage the thermal pad on the GPU. But we know for sure that she received a 10 + 2 + 2-phase power subsystem controlled by two IR35217 controllers.

    The power consumption of the graphics card is 300W, so the cooler must be very efficient. It includes a vapor chamber, five copper heat pipes, an aluminum heatsink, and three 75mm axial fans. There is also a special frame that supports this entire overall structure and transfers heat from the power elements of the power subsystem to the main radiator.

    In tests, the GPU temperature rose to 78°C. AMD traditionally does not indicate the maximum temperature, so it is difficult to say how close it is to a critical level. But there was no throttling.

    As far as clock speeds go, we’ve become accustomed to the fact that NVIDIA graphics cards usually operate at higher speeds than specified in GPU-Z. With AMD, it’s a different story — 1800 MHz dynamic frequency is a peak value that can be seen very rarely. Basically, the speed fluctuates in the range of 1400 — 1750 MHz.

    Now let’s move on to the opponents. The main competitor for the Radeon VII is the RTX 2080. Both cards have a recommended price tag of $699. On our market, the Founders Edition can be found on average for $750, while the Radeon VII will set you back $820.

    The RTX 2080 GamingPro OC from Palit is tested. She received a small factory overclocking of the dynamic frequency of the GPU and a dual-fan cooler.

    You can also find the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti on sale with an even lower price tag. If you are planning to upgrade your PC, then do not forget to take it into account. In this case, the model used is the series MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti ARMOR with a factory overclocked GPU, 11 GB of GDDR5X memory and an efficient 2-fan cooler.

    The third opponent is top in every respect ASUS ROG Strix RTX 2080 Ti OC . By default, it uses the Gaming profile, in which the dynamic frequency of the GPU is 7% higher than the reference one, but there is also an OC mode in reserve with additional overclocking. It is also notable for a reinforced power subsystem, almost a 3-slot cooler and support for a number of proprietary technologies.

    Internal opponents for Radeon VII are RX Vega series video cards. We had a stock SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega56 with a 3-fan cooler and factory overclocked GPU from 1471 to 1550 MHz.

    From past tests, we remember that RX Vega 64 is 10-15% faster. Therefore, to complete the picture, we added the calculated indicators of this video card to the graphs by increasing the results of Vega 56 by 15%.

    The following stand was used for testing:

    • Intel Core i9-9900K
    • Vinga CL3008B
    • ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming SLI
    • 2 x 8GB DDR4-3400 Patriot Viper 4
    • Apacer AS2280P2 M.2 NVMe 480 GB
    • Apacer Panther AS340 960GB
    • Seagate Barracuda Pro 4TB ST4000DM006
    • Vinga VPS-1200Pl
    • Vinga Ark

    Gameplays recorded by an external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K, i.e. without performance loss. The program FPS Monitor was used for monitoring.

    Let’s start the test session with a flight around the world Metro: Exodus in Full HD at ultra settings. Here the main rival for the Radeon VII is the GTX 1080 Ti: according to the statistics of rare and very rare events, AMD is better, and NVIDIA is better in terms of average speed. The advantage of the RTX 2080 reaches 13%, and the RTX 2080 Ti goes ahead by at least 23%.

    After switching to 4K, the Radeon VII, RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 Ti give approximately the same results. The lead of the RTX 2080 Ti is slightly reduced, but still holds above 20%.

    In Shadow of the Tomb Raider , at maximum settings, the test card can only cope with its internal opponents without problems. A confident advantage over the GTX 1080 Ti is observed only according to the 1% Low statistics. The rest of the competitors do not leave her a chance to win.

    In Ultra HD, Radeon VII feels more confident. For example, the RTX 2080’s lead drops to a maximum of 29%, while it was as high as 52% in Full HD. And when compared with Vega 56, on the contrary, there is an increase in the advantages of the new AMD flagship from a maximum of 33 to 40%. 9They wanted to test 0003

    Strange Brigade in Vulkan mode, but during the test the load on the video card constantly changed from 0 to 100%. Therefore, the final figures turned out to be 40-70% lower than in DirectX 12 mode. It’s not clear what this is connected with, but we decided to use the API from Microsoft for the test.

    The Radeon VII feels so good in it that even in Full HD at ultra preset for the first time outperforms the RTX 2080 by 10%. However, only on the average frame rate. But according to the statistics of rare and very rare events, all NVIDIA video cards were better.

    But in 4K, no one can dispute the second place of Radeon VII. It outperforms the GeForce RTX 2080 and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti by at least 20%. Only the RTX 2080 Ti was ahead, but its lead does not exceed 12%.

    Battle of the flagships. Comparison of GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, GeForce RTX 2080, GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and Radeon RX Vega 64

    Battle of the flagships. Comparison of GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, GeForce RTX 2080, GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and Radeon RX Vega 64

    Wednesday, 30 January 2019

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

    (8 votes)

    Video cards

    Author

    Alexander

    With the release of the GeForce RTX generation, NVIDIA has ushered in a new era of gaming graphics. New accelerators extend the power of traditional rendering with support for ray tracing and deep learning technologies. The Turing architecture also has a number of other advantages, which are detailed in a special review. Therefore, the new GeForce RTX show a good increase in performance in any task, and older models raise the overall performance bar to a new level. We have already devoted separate materials to the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and GeForce RTX 2080. Now we will supplement them with new tests, expanding the number of test applications and test modes. Let’s compare the older GeForce RTX with the old flagship GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and Radeon RX Vega 64 at high resolutions of 2560×1440 and 3840×2160. Let’s find out who is better in confronting the GeForce RTX 2080 and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, and what advantage does the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti have.

    Reference video cards or similar models will take part in the comparative testing.

    Let’s briefly mention the main features of the reference versions of the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and GeForce RTX 2080. These video cards belong to the Founders Edition product line and are officially sold through the NVIDIA website.

    GeForce RTX 2080 (Ti) Founders Edition comes in a box of two halves, where the device itself is securely fixed inside.

    A DisplayPort/DVI adapter cable is included with the graphics card. This is an important accessory, because older models do not have a DVI connector, and someone may need such a connection. There is also a multilingual manual.

    GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition and GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition are absolutely identical in appearance and design. Their length is 27 cm. Cooling of the new design — instead of the «turbine» is the usual scheme with a radiator in the entire area of ​​the board and two blowing fans.

    A detailed description and photos of cooling are presented in the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition review. To repeat, we note that the new cooler maintains the operating temperatures of the flagship video card in the range of 82-84 °C, which can be called the standard temperature regime for NVIDIA’s top reference design solutions.

    The simpler GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition with the same cooling is cooler and quieter, with operating temperatures below 80°C. Our familiarity with such a model was extremely limited, so in testing it will be replaced by the ASUS DUAL-RTX2080-O8G, which is absolutely identical to the Founders Edition in terms of frequency characteristics.

    It is worth mentioning that the Founders Edition of the new series work with a slight Boost acceleration relative to standard specifications, and such factory overclocking is regulated by NVIDIA itself. This does not hurt to form a general opinion about the potential of video cards. Also on the market there are many non-reference models with even more factory overclocking.

    The old generation is represented by the standard GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition.

    In comparison, there is a reference video card AMD Radeon RX Vega 64. This model is weaker and cheaper than all the other participants. But at the time of testing, AMD had no other options. The announcement of the Radeon VII took place recently, and the availability of new items after the release is a big question.

    You can read about the temperature and noise characteristics of each video card in separate reviews. For now, we’ll just focus on performance.

    The technical data of the participants are given in the table below.

    Characteristics of test participants

    GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition

    GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition

    GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Radeon RX Vega 64

    Architecture

    Turing

    Turing

    Pascal

    Vega

    Core

    TU102

    TU104

    GP102

    Vega 10

    Number of transistors, million pieces

    18600

    13600

    12000

    12500

    Technical process, nm

    12

    12

    16

    14

    Core area, sq. mm

    754

    545

    471

    486

    Number of CUDA stream processors

    4352

    2944

    3584

    4096

    Number of tensor cores

    544

    368

    Number of cores RT

    68

    46

    Number of texture units ROP

    272

    184

    224

    256

    Number of render units

    88

    64

    88

    64

    Core clock (Base/Boost), MHz

    1350-1635

    1515-1800

    1480-1582

    1274-1546

    Memory bus bit

    352

    256

    352

    2048

    Memory type

    GDDR6

    GDDR6

    GDDR5X

    HBM2

    Effective memory frequency, MHz

    14000

    14000

    11016

    1890

    Memory size, GB

    11

    8

    11

    8192

    Interface

    PCI-E 3. 0

    PCI-E 3.0

    PCI-E 3.0

    PCI-E 3.0

    Power TDP, W

    260

    225

    250

    295

    The official data for Boost are indicated, which characterize the average frequency level. The graphs with the results show the full range of GPU operating frequencies — from the base value to the peak Boost.

    Test bench

    • Processor: Intel Core i7-6950X @4.2 GHz
    • motherboard: MSI X99S MPOWER
    • memory: DDR4 HyperX Predator HX432C16PB3K4/32 (4×8 GB), 3200 MHz
    • system drive: SSD Kingston A400 SA400S37/240G
    • optional drive: Hitachi HDS721010CLA332, 1 TB
    • power supply: Seasonic SS-750KM
    • operating system: Windows 10 Ultimate x64
    • GeForce driver: NVIDIA GeForce 416. 34
    • Radeon Driver: AMD Adrenalin Edition 18.11.1

    Tested at 2560×1440 and 3840×2160. Only 4K mode is enabled in CPU-intensive games. Synthetic benchmarks come first, games are listed in alphabetical order. At the bottom of the diagram, the results of video cards at standard frequencies are shown, at the top after overclocking. On the right side — the average frame rate, on the left — the minimum fps.

    More in this category:

    « GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition review and testing

    Review and testing of the compact version of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti from ASUS »

    More in this category:

    « GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition review and testing

    Review and testing of the compact version of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti from ASUS »

    Radeon VII vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Radeon VII vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti — Th200

    Contents

    1. Introduction
    2. Features
    3. Tests
    4. Games
    5. Key differences
    6. Conclusion
    7. Comments

    Video card

    Video card

    Introduction

    We compared two graphics cards: AMD Radeon VII vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. On this page, you will learn about the key differences between them, as well as which one is the best in terms of features and performance.

    The AMD Radeon VII is a Vega II (Radeon VII) generation GCN 5.1 graphics card released Feb 7th, 2019. It comes with 16GB of HBM2 memory running at 1000MHz, has a 2x 8-pin power connector and consumes up to 165 W.

    The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a Pascal-based GeForce 10 generation graphics card released on Mar 10th, 2017. It comes with 11GB of GDDR5X memory running at 1376MHz, has a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector, and consumes up to 165 watts.

    Characteristics

    Graphics Card

    Name

    AMD Radeon VII

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 TI

    Release date

    FEB 7TH, 2019

    Mar 10TH, 2017

    0003

    26.88 TFLOPS (2: 1)

    177.2 GFLOPS (1:64)

    FP32 (FLOAT) Performance

    13.44 TFLOPS

    11.34 TFLOPS

    FP64 364 3. 364 3.364 3.364 3.36

    354.4 GFLOPS (1:32)

    CLOCK Speeds

    Basic frequency

    1400 MHz

    1481 MHZ

    Maximum frequency

    1750 MHZ

    1582 MHZ 9,0004 9000 MHO 9,0000003

    Render Config

    Shading Units

    3840

    3584

    Texture Units

    240

    224

    Raster Units

    64

    88

    SM Count

    28

    Compute Units

    60

    Graphics Features

    DirectX

    12 (12_1)

    12 (12_1)

    Opengl

    4.6

    4.6

    OpenCl

    2.1

    9000 3.00004 CUDA

    6.1

    VULKAN

    1.2

    1.2

    Board Design

    Heating

    295W

    250W

    9000 Slot Width

    Dual-slot

    Dual-slot

    Benchmarks

    3DMark Graphics

    3DMark is a benchmarking tool designed and developed by UL to measure the performance of computer hardware. Upon completion, the program gives a score, where a higher value indicates better performance.

    AMD Radeon VII

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
    +12%

    Blender bmw27

    Blender is the most popular program for creating 3D content. It has its own test, which is widely used to determine the rendering speed of processors and video cards. We chose the bmw27 scene. The result of the test is the time taken to render the given scene.

    AMD Radeon VII

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
    +31%

    Th200 RP

    Th200 RP is a test created by Th200. It measures the raw power of the components and gives a score, with a higher value indicating better performance.

    AMD Radeon VII
    +22%

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

    Games

    1920×1080, Ultra

    Game Radeon VII GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
    Anno 1800
    Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
    Battlefield V
    Cyberpunk 2077
    DOOM Eternal
    Far Cry 5

    +10%

    Hitman 2
    Hitman 3
    Metro Exodus

    +8%

    Red Dead Redemption 2
    Shadow of the Tomb Raider
    The Witcher 3

    +105%

    Average 109. 74 fps 110.04 fps

    2560×1440, Ultra

    Game Radeon VII GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
    Anno 1800
    Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
    Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
    Battlefield V
    Cyberpunk 2077
    DOOM Eternal
    Far Cry 5
    Hitman 2
    Hitman 3
    Metro Exodus

    +5%

    Red Dead Redemption 2
    Shadow of the Tomb Raider
    The Witcher 3

    +2%

    Average 87. 97 fps 84.40 fps

    3840×2160, Ultra

    Game Radeon VII GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
    Anno 1800
    Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
    Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
    Battlefield V
    Cyberpunk 2077
    DOOM Eternal
    Far Cry 5
    Hitman 2
    Hitman 3
    Metro Exodus

    +3%

    Red Dead Redemption 2
    Shadow of the Tomb Raider
    Average 51. 78 fps 47.91 fps

    Key differences

    Why is AMD Radeon VII better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti?

    Newer — released 1 year later

    Has 22% higher performance

    Has 5% higher average FPS in games at 1440p — 87.97 FPS versus 84.40 FPS

    Has 9% higher average FPS in games at 2160p — 51.78 FPS versus 47.91 FPS Has a slightly larger memory bus

    Has a 112% higher bandwidth — 1,024 GB/s vs 484.4 GB/s

    Has a 19% higher texture fill rate — 420.0 GTexel/s vs 354.4 GTexel/s

    Has more shading units +16

    Has 256 more shading units

    Why is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti better than AMD Radeon VII?

    Has 1% higher average FPS in games at 1080p — 110.04 FPS versus 109.74 FPS GPixel/s

    Has more raster blocks +24

    Conclusion

    Which is better Radeon VII or GeForce GTX 1080 Ti?

    The Radeon VII delivers 22% better performance, consumes up to 18% more energy and holds 5 GB more memory. Based on our research, Radeon VII 3990X is more powerful than GeForce GTX 1080 Ti.

    Is Radeon VII good today?

    Radeon VII has 16 GB memory and shows an average of 87.97 FPS in 10 games at 1440p, making it an excellent choice for games in 2022.
    This graphics card will give you a good experience in every game on reasonable graphics settings.

    What AMD graphics cards is equivalent to Radeon VII?

    The Radeon RX 6800 is AMD’s closest competitor to the Radeon VII. It is 13% more powerful, uses 16% less energy, holds the same amount of memory, and has higher average FPS in games at 1080p, 1440p, 2160p.

    What NVIDIA graphics cards is equivalent to Radeon VII?

    The GeForce RTX 3080 is NVIDIA’s closest competitor to the Radeon VII. It is 8% more powerful, uses 9% more energy, holds 6 GB more memory, and has higher average FPS in games at 1080p, 1440p, 2160p.

    How does Radeon VII perform compared to GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and other graphics cards?

    Relative performance

    Total performance

    Bench performance

    Compare AMD Radeon Pro Vega II and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)

    Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro Vega II and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop) video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
    Video card performance analysis by benchmarks: Geekbench — OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T -Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), PassMark — G2D Mark, PassMark — G3D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) , CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.

    AMD Radeon Pro Vega II

    versus

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)

    Benefits

    Reasons to choose AMD Radeon Pro Vega II

    • Newer graphics card, release date difference 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
    • 6% more: 1574 MHz vs 1481 MHz

    • 9% more Boost core clock: 1720 MHz vs 1582 MHz
    • 1242. 4x more texturing speed: 440.3 GTexel/s vs 354.4 GTexel/s
    • 14% more shader processors: 4096 vs 3584
    • A newer manufacturing process for the video card makes it more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 7 nm vs 16 nm
    • The maximum memory size is 2.9 times larger: 32 GB vs 11 GB
    • About 42% more performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 86528 vs 61026
    • About 8% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 16149vs 15019
    • About 8% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 16149 vs 15019
    Release Date Dec 2019 vs 10 March 2017
    Core clock 1574 MHz vs 1481 MHz
    Boost core clock 1720 MHz vs 1582 MHz
    Texturing Speed ​​ 440. 3 GTexel/s vs 354.4 GTexel/s
    Number of shaders 4096 vs 3584
    Process 7 nm vs 16 nm
    Maximum memory size 32 GB vs 11 GB
    Geekbench — OpenCL 86528 vs 61026
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 16149 vs 15019
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 16149 vs 15019

    Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)

    • About 90% less power consumption: 250 Watt vs 475 Watt
    • 6.8x more memory frequency: 11008 MHz vs 16023 MHz performance about 20% more performance in GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) benchmark: 3716 vs 3100
    • About 20% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) benchmark: 3716 vs 3100
    • About 19% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark: 3357 vs 2813
    • About 19% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) benchmark: 3357 vs 2813
    • about 13% more in PassMark — G2D Mark: 937 vs 827
    • Performance in PassMark — G3D Mark about 25% more: 18394 vs 14738
    250 Watt vs 475 Watt
    Memory frequency 11008 MHz vs 1612 MHz
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3716 vs 3100
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3716 vs 3100
    GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3357 vs 2813
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3357 vs 2813
    PassMark — G2D Mark 937 vs 827
    PassMark — G3D Mark 18394 vs 14738

    Benchmark comparison

    GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro Vega II
    GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)

    Geekbench — OpenCL
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    PassMark — G2D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    PassMark — G3D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    Name AMD Radeon Pro Vega II NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)
    Geekbench — OpenCL 86528 61026
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 16149 15019
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 16149 15019
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3100 3716
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3100 3716
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 2813 3357
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 2813 3357
    PassMark — G2D Mark 827 937
    PassMark — G3D Mark 14738 18394
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 205.837
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 2406.499
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 19.591
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 25.833
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 1002.573
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 9899

    Performance comparison

    conveyors

    AMD Radeon Pro Vega II NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Desktop)
    Architecture GCN 5. 1 Pascal
    Codename Vega 20 GP102
    Production date Dec 2019 March 10, 2017
    Place in the rating 87 86
    Type Laptop Desktop
    Price at first issue date $699
    Price now $826.98
    Price/performance ratio (0-100) 27. 48
    Boost core clock 1720 MHz 1582 MHz
    Number of Compute 64
    Core clock 1574 MHz 1481 MHz
    Process 7nm 16nm
    Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance 880.6 GFLOPS (1:16)
    Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1)
    Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance 14. 09 TFLOPS
    Number of shaders 4096 3584
    Pixel fill rate 110.1 GPixel/s
    Texturing Speed ​​ 440.3 GTexel/s 354.4 GTexel/s
    Power consumption (TDP) 475 Watt 250 Watt
    Number of transistors 13230 million 11,800 million
    Floating point performance 11.340 gflops
    Maximum temperature 91 °C
    Video connectors 1x HDMI, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
    G-SYNC support
    Multi-monitor support
    Interface PCIe 3. 0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
    Recommended power supply 850 Watt 600 Watt
    Additional power connectors None 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
    Width Dual slot
    Length 10.5″ (26.7cm)
    DirectX 12.1 12.0 (12_1)
    OpenCL 2.0
    OpenGL 4. 6 4.5
    Shader Model 6.4
    Vulcan
    High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
    Maximum memory size 32GB 11GB
    Memory bandwidth 825.3 GB/s 484.4 GB/s
    Memory bus width 4096bit 352 Bit
    Memory frequency 1612 MHz 11008MHz
    Memory type HBM2 GDDR5X
    Shared memory 0
    Unified Video Decoder (UVD)
    Video Code Engine (VCE)
    3D Vision
    Ansel
    CUDA
    GPU Boost
    HDMI 2.

    2022 © All rights reserved