• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shmee said:
If priced properly, and with driver refinement/CF profiles, AMD could take the lead back with Vega CF. For a high end system, and possibly still saving some cash on the GPUs, this could make sense, if done properly. 3x vega could outperform 2x 1080Ti for similar price, remember CF is generally better than SLI recently. We will have to see, it will come down to drivers/price to determine if Vega is competitive.
Click to expand...
And have 1200watts of heat blasting out of its rear end from vegas alone 🙂 .. What kind of PSU(s) would you use to drive such a triple-fire setup anyway? 🙂.
 
raghu78 said:
imo Vega is the worst GPU architecture ever. It has regressed from Fiji in every aspect - perf/sq mm , perf/watt and looks like even perf/clock. I have never seen such a bad GPU failure from AMD or Nvidia in 2 decades of PC GPUs.
Click to expand...

lol, Fermi says hi.
 
Shmee said:
If priced properly, and with driver refinement/CF profiles, AMD could take the lead back with Vega CF. For a high end system, and possibly still saving some cash on the GPUs, this could make sense, if done properly. 3x vega could outperform 2x 1080Ti for similar price, remember CF is generally better than SLI recently. We will have to see, it will come down to drivers/price to determine if Vega is competitive.
Click to expand...
Except all indications point to AMD putting less effort into CF and not more...
Remember their most recent comments at siggraph?
So combined with the fact that the power draw is insane, it really just doesn't make sense to hope that CF will be the saving grace.

Me, I had budgeted for CF VEga and AMD's lack of enthusiasm for CF indicates they're starting to focus on single card as well just like Nvidia.

At this point, CF/SLI really is on life support.

Unless you took something completely different from Siggraph, this is the first time I'm negative on CF support moving forward.

Edit: I'd need a new PSU for Vega CF I think. We need reviews to confirm.
This is also given you believe the latest "early leaks" of review power consumption numbers.
 
Last edited:
mohit9206 said:
Fermi was better than Vega. Vega is worse than Fermi.
Fermi was on time, and the performance was also competitive. The only thing was high power consumption.
Click to expand...
Fermi was late by 9 months. ATI had the first DX11 card, the HD5870, out against the 30-40% slower warmed over DX10 GTX 285.

The HD5870 was only $379 at the time. ATI still didn't come anywhere close to equal market share.
 
Last edited:
Paratus said:
Fermi was late by 9 months. ATI had the first DX11 card, the HD5870, out against the 30-40% slower warmed over DX10 GTX 285.

The HD 5870 was only $379 at the time. ATI still didn't come anywhere close to equal marketwise.
Click to expand...
Ok my bad. But Vega is a bigger failure than Fermi. But if they had managed the efficiency and it had launched by end of last year or early this year then Vega wouldn't be worse than Fermi.
Despite all that Vega 56 and 64 are going to be instantly sold out as soon as they go on sale because miners and freesync monitor owners are going to lap it up.
 
Just checked my newegg email blast, just like Frys they also priced Vega64 at $599. If Vega64 trades blows with 1080, why would you buy awful blower Vega64 for $600 when you can buy aftermarket 1080ti for just $50 more? Either this card is going to be a total failure given the price, or it's going to pull a Houdini and knock competition out of the park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IEC
cytg111 said:
Aaaaand GO
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/14/amd_radeon_rx_vega_64_video_card_review
Click to expand...

Tential: I'm waiting for Vega to play GTA 5 in UHD!!!!
90083.png

I'm bad at this -.-

Edit: WOAH,
From the AT review after looking at all the benches, Vega is NOT for 1080p. It completely gets wrecked there. But if you up the resolution, things completely change. At 4k, Vega 56 is a "deal" if you want to play at reduced settings. Vega Air indeed does trade blows with the 1080FE. At 4K, from a glance granted I probably am biased, Vega Air looked better than 1080FE. This is at 4K.

Edit2:I skimmed hardocps quickly after. I wouldn't use it from a skim. Compared to anandtech, it's literally 25% of the work. The results just don't give a full picture, from a glance it just wasn't anywhere near as good as anandtechs. They only test 1440p. That really doesn't tell the full story of Vega as when you see 4K +1080p it's far more interesting. Personally it just wasn't as high quality as anandtech's content. But well... I think that's par for the course.
1502704801jynro0altk_16_1.png

90110.png


Weird that their gaming wattage is higher than anandtech's LOAD wattage.....
I can't see anandtech's setup though.
 
Last edited:
mohit9206 said:
Ok my bad. But Vega is a bigger failure than Fermi. But if they had managed the efficiency and it had launched by end of last year or early this year then Vega wouldn't be worse than Fermi.
Despite all that Vega 56 and 64 are going to be instantly sold out as soon as they go on sale because miners and freesync monitor owners are going to lap it up.
Click to expand...

It looks like it's a combo of the HD2900XT.

The 2900XT was supposed to be as fast as the 8800GTX but was only as fast the next fastest 8800GTX 640.

In this case top end Vega is as fast/faster than the 1080 which was their target. However they took so long like the GTX480 that the 1080 is now the second fastest (or third or fourth depending on how you want to count).
 
Well .. all this we allready knew, it just got confirmed now.

2017 AMD score card : 1 win 1 loss.
I eagerly await the next bout 🙂.
 
Vega 56 isn't too bad. I might get that or the 1070... but I can't seem to find a reason to sell my 480 (no, I don't mine anymore). @tential Can you please just stop, it's annoying and really detracts from the thread, and is useless babble.
 
Really impressed with Vega 56..in many benchmarks its only slightly behind the Vega 64 and ahead of the 1070 in most tests that i've seen.
 
mohit9206 said:
Ok my bad. But Vega is a bigger failure than Fermi. But if they had managed the efficiency and it had launched by end of last year or early this year then Vega wouldn't be worse than Fermi.
Despite all that Vega 56 and 64 are going to be instantly sold out as soon as they go on sale because miners and freesync monitor owners are going to lap it up.
Click to expand...

Sorry But whatever you want to say,I'm sure you say this, base on Your level of Hate toward AMD , Fermi is one of worse GPUs in the History because :

1) Temperature
2) Lack of DX12 Features
3) Power Draw
4) Compatibility With DX 12

There is still potential performance inside Vega that AMD will pull it soon.Remember R9 290 Vs 780 , Now look where R9 290 stands.no one care about 780 but only R9 290/390.
Vega is a failure because :

1) 15 Month
2) for same performance , It needs to draw more power

But It's not worse than Fermi.Go google it,there are ton of memes about Fermi.
 
Vega 56 - not bad. Vega 64 - let down.

56 - worth the money depending on situation.
64 - not worth the money at all.
 
Well, after all the talk about CPU power consumption, I hope those same folks don't dismiss GPU power consumption...

You can't bitch about one and calmly accept the other...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top