AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and 56 Reviews [*UPDATED* Aug 28]

[Gikaseixas]

Pairing Vega 56 with a Freesync monitor is a good match, that even GTX1070 plus a Gsync monitor cannot touch due to lower prices. Vega 64 on the other hand needs a price cut. GTX 1080 is a better card overall.

Sent from my SM-C9000 using Tapatalk

 

[nathanddrews]

Pairing Vega 56 with a Freesync monitor is a good match, that even GTX1070 plus a Gsync monitor cannot touch due to lower prices. Vega 64 on the other hand needs a price cut. GTX 1080 is a better card overall.

Sent from my SM-C9000 using Tapatalk

Totally agree on the V56, but like a lot of the reviews indicate, it's probably not worth buying either of them until custom AIB cards arrive. My Windforce 290 (3-fan) was a great card that greatly improved over the stock garbage 290 performance.

 

[railven]

Still going through some reviews, but hachimachi! I'm so glad I didn't wait. Sad to see how Vega64 is performing. The power consumption to just barely beat out a GTX 1080 FE. Vega56, definitely looks better, but when your bigger sibling is roasting chestnuts, it isn't saying much.

If the mining bubble ever pops, I wonder how $450 GTX 1080 would affect $400 Vega 56's. Not sure if AMD can even price cut these cards, but I won't be surprised if 3-4 months from now they start slashing the prices. Time to put more quarters in the piggie bank, NV is going to have a field day with Volta.

 

[PeterScott]

From Anandtech's review:

It depends on the conditions and the games used, so reviews swing back and forth. I like this graph of all the games that techspot does, which gives a better idea overall what is going on. They have Vega 56 as 2% faster.

This certainly gives us a much better picture of what’s going on and how well Vega 56 really stacks up. First, there is that suspicious win in Dirt 4 but even if you remove that result from the equation, Vega is still 1% faster. Not exactly a pantsing but at least it’s not slower.

It comes down to pricing, and power usage for some.

 

[nathanddrews]

Tom's Hardware added to first post. Ethereum Mining performance... not great:

 

[Mopetar]

Better cooling will certainly help, but it isn't going to result in better performance to any large degree. Vega is already past the peak of its efficiency curve.

I expect that as with Polaris a lot of people will go for an undervolt to keep similar performance, but at significant power savings.

 

[Stuka87]

I want to know what power consumption will be if you enable Chill mode (Any reviews show this?) Losing 5-10% performance for half the power consumption would be worth it in most cases.

 

[psolord]

Tom's Hardware added to first post. Ethereum Mining performance... not great:

1070 faster than 1080?

 

[Sweepr]

So all they managed from move to FinFET and a supposedly new architecture (NGCN) is 7-23% better perf/watt compared to Fury X. And if we compare it to R9 Nano, Vega 64 actually regresses and Vega 56 barely matches it (perf/watt). I guess 'Paxwell' doesn't look that bad after all with its 56% better perf/watt relative to the GTX 980.

 

[tential]

Pairing Vega 56 with a Freesync monitor is a good match, that even GTX1070 plus a Gsync monitor cannot touch due to lower prices. Vega 64 on the other hand needs a price cut. GTX 1080 is a better card overall.

Sent from my SM-C9000 using Tapatalk

In the end it was a bad idea to wait for Vega as mining would have recovered any gsync tax. In retrospect this was the most decisive win yet for Nvidia.
Pascal beat out 2 generations of amd gpus and Volta will stand uncontested. Amd has nothing to change the landscape for a long time.

 

[khon]

I want to know what power consumption will be if you enable Chill mode (Any reviews show this?) Losing 5-10% performance for half the power consumption would be worth it in most cases.

This review includes performance at various power settings:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/32.html

And yes, the performance/watt is much better in the power save mode.

 

[Bouowmx]

1070 faster than 1080?

It's been known for a while that GDDR5X in NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 reduces Ether performance, compared to GDDR5 in GeForce GTX 1070.

 

[Rifter]

This has been the most disappointing GPU launch in a decade.

 

[DiogoDX]

2 years for 30% performance. Really patetic show for RTG.

 

[krumme]

That ends one of the weirdest and clearly most stupid marketing campaings ever. Clown show.

The card is just flat out to slow.
Lisa said back january or so zen would be fast and vega very fast.
Well i guess she need an extra talk with Raja.

Perhaps after 10 years they will come to realize they cant do it all at the same time. How to spread 3000 people too thin.

 

[PeterScott]

Tom's Hardware added to first post. Ethereum Mining performance... not great:

That is actually a good thing if you want buy to play games. More imporatant is how the Vega 56 stacks up against the GTX 1070 in mining.

If you want a Vega 56 to play games, hope that mining falls or takes a lot more power than GTX 1070.

 

[LTC8K6]

From Anandtech's review:

8% faster using 20-25% more watts?

 

[railven]

Just got through the Anandtech review....am I the only one that feels the conclusion doesn't line up with the rest of the review (ie the charts)? AMD aggressively priced their cards against the competition? AMD is trying to sell the LC version for $700 and it gets spanked by even the worst GTX 1080 Ti. The Vega 56 isn't even out yet and it's only "aggressively" priced against inflated GTX 1070s. Where is the aggression!?

 

[tential]

Still going through some reviews, but hachimachi! I'm so glad I didn't wait. Sad to see how Vega64 is performing. The power consumption to just barely beat out a GTX 1080 FE. Vega56, definitely looks better, but when your bigger sibling is roasting chestnuts, it isn't saying much.

If the mining bubble ever pops, I wonder how $450 GTX 1080 would affect $400 Vega 56's. Not sure if AMD can even price cut these cards, but I won't be surprised if 3-4 months from now they start slashing the prices. Time to put more quarters in the piggie bank, NV is going to have a field day with Volta.

When the best card is the card that competes with gtx 1070 level performance. Great for the amd crowd that cared but amd completely left the high end crowd in the dust. That's the complete abandonment of those of us who wanted to game at 4k. This is 1440p level performance.

If Volta launches in January - March I think some people will wish they held out a little longer when they see their gpu is a low midrange gtx 2060.
Less efficient gtx 1070/1080s aren't that appealing this late in the cycle

Come Volta I'll join the main people with Nvidia gpu and freesync monitor.

 

[krumme]

That is actually a good thing if you want buy to play games. More imporatant is how the Vega 56 stacks up against the GTX 1070 in mining.

If you want a Vega 56 to play games, hope that mining falls or takes a lot more power than GTX 1070.

Or that Epyc will not sell on servermarket and r7 and tr market will colapse.
Gf is capacity constrained and a 2000 usd epyc is probably cheaper to make than a vega.

Perhaps its good vega is not 20% faster so we would have to complain about capacity or miners. Lol.

 

[Qwertilot]

Linus said as much, basically stating toward the end of the video that Vega finally answered Maxwell. Since the 1070 is more in line with what I typically buy, I'm looking forward most the Vega 56, Volta 2070, Navi RX770, whatever...

Well, talking of that (and being slightly depressing) - have they finally got past the very fastest custom 980ti's?

 

[guachi]

Vega 56 looks good. A little better than a 1070 and a good pairing with a cheaper-than-GSync 1440 Freesync monitor.

Vega 64 is just... ok. It's best use case is with a 4k Freesync monitor. Which is basically what Lisa Su said "smooth 4k gaming". Even the atrocious GTA V results look better when you look at the 99th %ile results.

I have a 4k Freesync monitor ($300 less than the GSYNC version) and I'll probably wait for a non-blower version and sell my 480 to a miner.

I had hoped for better, but it's basically what I've been expecting for several months now.

 

[railven]

When the best card is the card that competes with gtx 1070 level performance. Great for the amd crowd that cared but amd completely left the high end crowd in the dust. That's the complete abandonment of those of us who wanted to game at 4k. This is 1440p level performance.

If Volta launches in January - March I think some people will wish they held out a little longer when they see their gpu is a low midrange gtx 2060.
Less efficient gtx 1070/1080s aren't that appealing this late in the cycle

Come Volta I'll join the main people with Nvidia gpu and freesync monitor.

NV is just going to continue to milk people. With what AMD dragged out to represent their side for basically the remainder of 2017 and probably all of 2018, I won't be surprised if the G-Sync tax also inflates.

Well, guess the wait to see what AIBs can do but those aren't even expected until freaking September. Fury didn't do this bad and AMD ditched that name. I can only imagine how they'll try to distance themselves from Vega.

 

[Gideon]

But then- about 25% average perfomance increase with increased power draw as well is dissapointing to say the least. Vega is almost 20% slower per clock compared to Fiji witch itself had regression in that regard compared to Hawaii. Something went terribly wrong with this architecture.

My thoughts exactly. The IPC loss vs Fury is indeed astonishing and something else is bottlenecking the architecture on top of that. I'm pretty sure that it isn't just simple things people like to through out like Bandwidth, ROP count or geometry engines ...

I mean, sure, Vega scales well with additional bandwidth, but it already has insane amounts of it. After all, a RX Vega 56 has nearly 60% more bandwidth than a GTX 1070, but performs only about 8% better. The same holds true for ROPs, TMUs and geometry performance. In synthetic tests Vega 64 is at least 30% better in everything, with double the tessellation performance compared to Fury X, yet overall it still loses greatly per-clock.

 

[Phynaz]

I hope AMD's future in graphics isn't dependent upon Vega.