Ah I see, the only one cherry picking here is you, as you are blatantly dismissing benchmark results and gone to great lengths to dismiss Guru3d. How about you look at any recent Titan V, 1080Ti, 1070ti, or RX64 review from any other site? They all paint the same picture, a Vega 64 at BEST comparable to a GTX 1080, a card that has been out since May 2016. A card that uses less power, generates less heat, costs less, and a stop gap for the 1080Ti is actually where the RX64 is priced at.
But let us not ignore where your bias is coming from, after all you did state Nvidia is an evil corporation just like Intel? Therefore we know where your arguments lean and why.
You ignored it because the fact that a 1080 OC uses less power than a RX64 OC, generates less heat, costs less (barring mining prices), and is a much more efficient design while being FASTER than the 64 OC (liquid or air cooled) goes against your ideals of Nvidia being the "evil"corporation like Intel, amirite?
Sure.. okay buddy.
You dismissed Tom's Current results, and posted guru3D in rebutal, and I just proved to you, that your rebuttal (Guru3d) is flawed.. and I am bias and the cherry picker???? Question: how can one(me) using the results posted by others in this thread (toms/guru3d, with guru3d posted by you) be called a cherry picker? Please, explain this to me. I don't understand your connection.
Better design, as Shadow already pointed out, AMD is about future abilities, vs Nvidia who is not future proof.. So, yes, if you are stuck in the here and now, and not worried about Future tech, because it can't take advantage of any new technology or implementations in the future, then Nvidia is the best design if you are okay in having to purchase a new card to take advantage of new technology.
But if you would rather have a card that runs today's games great, maybe not being the top dog, but still great, and can take advantage and is designed to use the new technology and implementations coming out in the future, then AMD is the better design.
However, The Titan V ($3000), which is not designed for gamers, but is a business version of the Volta, all though seriously out performs the Vega 64, also uses 17 more watts (reference design) than the Vega 64 and a 135 watts more than the GTX 1080, 46 watts more than the GTX 1080ti, and is the ONLY Nvidia GPU that can take advantage of the same technology the Vega can.
https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-titan-v-volta-gv100-gpu-review?page=6
So.. is Vega a bad design?? Kind of appears that being able to run future stuff take a bit more power.. Hmm go figure.
Can the Vega be undervolted and Clock substantial higher and use less power.. YES!
We are talking about the same ball park as the GTX 1080 and GTX OC in power draw, yet being able to beat them both in the end. But I will give you credit, that is not stock off the shelf as the GTX 1080 is. (future proof the reason why??? could be) However, as new games come out using the new technology, Vega will run it perfectly, the GTX 1080/1080ti won't because it can't use the new technology, which means as time goes on, their performance will drop from not being able to take full advantage of all the games features, where the Vegas won't.
Now, I took you off my ignore list, because I hoped you had changed your ways, but you have quickly proven that not to be the case, as you are once again trying to rehash the Nvidia/Intel evil/can't be trusted crap again, and trying to make the discussion personal and call it a bias thing, when in fact, it wasn't. Proving your source as out dated has NOTHING to do with being bias.
You simply can't accept the very fact that You rebuttal used information that was flawed (guru3d), and it didn't take great lengths to prove it. I actually looked because Guru3d's numbers didn't look right as I get better numbers on my old 7 year old CPU/MB with PCI-E 2.0, than what they where showing.. And now we ALL know why, they are using release day numbers, for both the Vega and the GTX 1080. If the truth hurts, I am truly sorry, talk to Guru3d about it, but don't blame me.
IF AMD does a refresh using a smaller die, than the clock speeds, power draw, before undervolting will only improve. As this whole thread is about Vega refresh, IF it happens, which many believe not as AMD's road map shows nothing about a Vega Refresh.