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

[Stuka87]

actually planned on buying a 295x2 but it wouldn't have fit in my choice case... it's a truly massive card but I could have scoffed one around $400 several months back from a local CL seller. DEF should have bought it anyway. could have easily doubled my money when the mining thing hit, though I have trouble parting with great hardware.

i think I might just get a damn Vega because I got FSync and I didn't realize how far behind the RX 480 is in comparison to the 1070/1080. not buying right now though, that's for damn sure.

The 480 was always intended to be a 1060 competitor. ie: mainstream.

 

[AtenRa]

Really im very curious how VEGA Nano will perform, will it manage to be faster than Fiji ???

 

[tential]

What is going on? https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_s_rx_64_launch_pricing_was_only_for_early_sales/1

450 GBP for AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air Black (stand-alone) is only an introductory offer, which may be closed in the future, leaving only the 550-GBP Vega 64 Air Black packs available.

Although this info is coming from the same person (Overclockers UK Gibbo) that claimed very high Vega mining performance.

How is there still MORE negative news about this launch? This is bad on a level no one could have predicted. No one predicted this....

 

[PeterScott]

Give it a couple months after the initial demand slows down and supply catches up and you should see pricing at MSRP levels (or better). Last year I bought a RX 480 for $150 new after instant rebate...less than 6 months after launch. Also I can't seem to find a single 1070 for sale under $400 online.

You also can't find a RX480/580 for under $300 online either, so waiting is no guarantee.

Asus is rumored to be working on releasing a Vega 64x2 which would make it the most powerful graphics card ever released, trouncing the 1080 Ti.

So what? That's a pointless hack, that will bring all the ugly CF/SLI issues to the table and require a minimum 1 KW power supply. You could also just SLI two 1080s for the same result (or better) on less power, or even SLI two GTX 1080 Ti's.

 

[tamz_msc]

Guess you never followed how successful the 295x2 was? They were always sold out, performed incredibly well, and 4 years later STILL sell for $600-$700+ used.

Dual-GPU cards made sense from the standpoint of raw theoretical performance characteristics, only because there was a limit to how much you could fit into a die that was already on the limit of what the process nodes allowed back then. I'm not even talking about practical considerations like multi-GPU scaling, driver performance and game compatibility.

Today when you can fit a 1920 CUDA core GTX 1070 in 314mm^2 and literally twice that amount - 3840 in the Titan Xp in 471mm^2, there is absolutely no reason to make dual-GPU cards any more.

 

[FatherMurphy]

Still don't understand why there i so much negativity torwards AMD and Vega here. The only other company making competitive gaming GPUs just released a new set of cards going toe to toe and in some cases beating Nvidia's best offerings all at equal or lower pricing. Not to mention technologies in someway more advanced than what's available in an Nvidia GPU (HMB, better DX12/Vulkan support). . . . .

I guess I don't feel the love for HBM. By all accounts, it contributed to significant delays in Vega, possibly will contribute to supply shortages, still cannot meet JEDEC specs, and does not provide more bandwidth or appreciable power savings over a commodity memory, GDDR5X. The fact that it is "more advanced" should not be applauded in light of its immaturity and its contributions to AMD's market deficit. And, who really cares if it is "more advanced?" I'd rather have two on-die tater tots than an advanced memory protocol if the tater tots can supply the needed bandwidth at the right price and in the right volume.

 

[godihatework]

How is there still MORE negative news about this launch? This is bad on a level no one could have predicted. No one predicted this....

People predicted this. They were banned for trolling.

 

[Mercennarius]

Dual-GPU cards made sense from the standpoint of raw theoretical performance characteristics, only because there was a limit to how much you could fit into a die that was already on the limit of what the process nodes allowed back then. I'm not even talking about practical considerations like multi-GPU scaling, driver performance and game compatibility.

Today when you can fit a 1920 CUDA core GTX 1070 in 314mm^2 and literally twice that amount - 3840 in the Titan Xp in 471mm^2, there is absolutely no reason to make dual-GPU cards any more.

There is always a reason for a dual GPU. They require only one PCIe slot, so those that can't run two cards on their board have option to have the same performance. Also generally cheaper than buying two GPUs. And honestly, it just makes it one card that's very fast, and there is always a market for that.

 

[tential]

Give it a couple months after the initial demand slows down and supply catches up and you should see pricing at MSRP levels (or better). Last year I bought a RX 480 for $150 new after instant rebate...less than 6 months after launch. Also I can't seem to find a single 1070 for sale under $400 online.

Asus is rumored to be working on releasing a Vega 64x2 which would make it the most powerful graphics card ever released, trouncing the 1080 Ti.

I know you didn't just troll us with more wait for Vega comments...
Vega is getting negative comments because it's not a great product. You don't need to sit here and try to defend it just to have an opposite site.

John Oliver did a great skit on this regarding us always needing to have a split debate as if both sides are equal. Like those who believe the earth is round and those who believe the earth is flat should both get equal representation in a debate.

Vega just is bad in most respects. It's not negativity for negativity that's the reality of the situation.

Now we can get into the details like Vega 56 is better than Vega 64, is Vega 64 really the best option for freesync owners, etc. But it really won't change that Vega did bad.

Vega 64 will well at $600 after launch. Are you going to defend this too? (I've seen members here do this for Vega by saying at least it will be in stock....)

Blindly defending Vega is lame.

 

[Tweak155]

People predicted this. They were banned for trolling.

Good, I'd ban Ms. Cleo too.

 

[Mercennarius]

I guess I don't feel the love for HBM. By all accounts, it contributed to significant delays in Vega, possibly will contribute to supply shortages, still cannot meet JEDEC specs, and does not provide more bandwidth or appreciable power savings over a commodity memory, GDDR5X. The fact that it is "more advanced" should not be applauded in light of its immaturity and its contributions to AMD's market deficit. And, who really cares if it is "more advanced?" I'd rather have two on-die tater tots than an advanced memory protocol if the tater tots can supply the needed bandwidth at the right price and in the right volume.

Were still in the very beginning of HBM memory at the consumer level. There is a real possibility that it becomes the standard in a few years for all GPUs. And that, plus supporting innovation in the industry, give the current cards the chance to age better. Again, many people now run their GPU for 3-4 years (My 4 year old Hawaii still plays 99% of games on ultra settings).

 

[tential]

They were late to the game, They use too much power. However the performance is on par with the 1080 and 1070. The hate is going WAY overboard. Lets slap their wrists and move on. There are more important things in life to worry about. I too need to move on.

If you feel that way, then go do those important things.

Unless your now important thing is to get us to stop discussing Vega you aren't bringing anything to the conversation trying to convince people to stop talking about Vega and move on.

 

[Mercennarius]

I know you didn't just troll us with more wait for Vega comments...
Vega is getting negative comments because it's not a great product. You don't need to sit here and try to defend it just to have an opposite site.

John Oliver did a great skit on this regarding us always needing to have a split debate as if both sides are equal. Like those who believe the earth is round and those who believe the earth is flat should both get equal representation in a debate.

Vega just is bad in most respects. It's not negativity for negativity that's the reality of the situation.

Now we can get into the details like Vega 56 is better than Vega 64, is Vega 64 really the best option for freesync owners, etc. But it really won't change that Vega did bad.

Vega 64 will well at $600 after launch. Are you going to defend this too? (I've seen members here do this for Vega by saying at least it will be in stock....)

Blindly defending Vega is lame.

No. I'm not going to defend over paying for anything. But once supply catches up, what you simply have is 1080/1070 performance for roughly the same cost (or potentially less), and the only option for FreeSync monitors (making the combo certainly more of a bargain). And at the end of the day, this is the only competitor NVidia has...consumers should be glad there is now another option at the top end of the GPU realm that doesn't cost more and in some cases may perform better for less $. My point is simply the hate is way blown out of proportion. Really the only negative is that we all wanted this a year ago...big deal, it's here now. The day we no longer have AMD making competitive GPUs will be a sad day...feels like many "enthusiasts" are pushing for that too.

 

[nathanddrews]

Seriously, watch the AdoredTV review in its entirety. He compared the $699 RX Vega 64 Watercooled card against his 1080Ti and approached the comparison with a very "fair and balanced" perspective, even quoting Anand in the end "there are no bad GPUs, just bad prices" and the RX Vega 64 WC falls into the latter.

He benched it using balanced power mode (saves over 100W of power and loses only ~2% performance) and uses actual gameplay in addition to scripted benchmarks. He also touched on the FreeSync/GSync cost impact, which if you are going to get one or the other, the value proposition of Vega is actually realistic in the face of paying $200 more for the GPU and $200 more for the monitor. The fact that Vega is checking every box in regard to DX12/Vulkan features in addition to other very forward-looking technologies that Pascal lacks is also somewhat compelling. These are all valid arguments in favor of Vega that he made. Bottom line is that RX Vega 64 above $499 makes very little sense, but at or below that price, it's a good alternative.

 

[PeterScott]

There is always a reason for a dual GPU. They require only one PCIe slot, so those that can't run two cards on their board have option to have the same performance. Also generally cheaper than buying two GPUs. And honestly, it just makes it one card that's very fast, and there is always a market for that.

Sure... People in SFF cases with limited card slots need a reason for their 1200 Watt power supplies too.

There is no reason for such a bad product (dual GPU Vega card), except poor company management.

 

[tamz_msc]

There is always a reason for a dual GPU. They require only one PCIe slot, so those that can't run two cards on their board have option to have the same performance. Also generally cheaper than buying two GPUs. And honestly, it just makes it one card that's very fast, and there is always a market for that.

The industry has moved on from dual-GPU solutions. NVIDIA doesn't care, and neither does AMD. If they did they'd try to market how 2x Vega 56 would be better than Titan Xp, which they did with the GTX 1080 and RX 480. DX12 adoption is glacial, and for all it promises in improving the situation of alternate frame rendering over the traditional methods, developers in general are simply not interested.

 

[Mr Evil]

I'm in a quandry now. I wanted to buy the liquid cooled Vega 64, but unlike the Fury X it's a full length card, so it will be hard to find a place to fit the radiator. It will be a squeeze to fit it into 500W of power too, although the 2nd BIOS and "power save" mode should do it.

Alternatively I could wait for custom triple-fan models, but what if there aren't any I like, and by that time the reference cards are all sold out?

Still don't understand why there i so much negativity torwards AMD and Vega here...

It looks like there is a lot of negativity because of the large number of accounts being very negative, but the number of people hating on Vega is much less.

 

[Malogeek]

I'm in a quandry now. I wanted to buy the liquid cooled Vega 64, but unlike the Fury X it's a full length card, so it will be hard to find a place to fit the radiator. It will be a squeeze to fit it into 500W of power too, although the 2nd BIOS and "power save" mode should do it.

I'd really stay away from Vega 64, especially LC edition if you're limited to 500w. In power saving the system power was close to 400w with a 95w TDP CPU without seriously stressing the components.

I'd possibly look at Vega 56 or maybe wait for the Nano if you're bent on going Vega.

 

[Rifter]

I know you didn't just troll us with more wait for Vega comments...
Vega is getting negative comments because it's not a great product. You don't need to sit here and try to defend it just to have an opposite site.

John Oliver did a great skit on this regarding us always needing to have a split debate as if both sides are equal. Like those who believe the earth is round and those who believe the earth is flat should both get equal representation in a debate.

Vega just is bad in most respects. It's not negativity for negativity that's the reality of the situation.

Now we can get into the details like Vega 56 is better than Vega 64, is Vega 64 really the best option for freesync owners, etc. But it really won't change that Vega did bad.

Vega 64 will well at $600 after launch. Are you going to defend this too? (I've seen members here do this for Vega by saying at least it will be in stock....)

Blindly defending Vega is lame.

Couldn't agree, more.

Anyone looking at this objectively will realize Vega is a complete flop, its going to end up with a street price above the 1080, power usage significantly above the 1080, and at best trading blows with the 1080 performance wise. And all this OVER A YEAR late in comparison to the 1080. And then there is the 1080Ti which wipes the floor with it. Its a joke.

Maybe the 56 will hold some value if its price is right for freesync monitor owners. But anyone not already invested in freesync is just plain better off going Nvidia this time around.

This is the reality of the situation to anyone not looking at this through fanboy tinted shades.

 

[EXCellR8]

I'm still onboard for the 64... reluctantly for the most part but I'll wait on availability.

I'd also settle for the 56 I suppose, but I don't like having a cut down model

 

[tential]

And at the end of the day, this is the only competitor NVidia has...consumers should be glad there is now another option at the top end of the GPU realm that doesn't cost more and in some cases may perform better for less $. My point is simply the hate is way blown out of proportion. Really the only negative is that we all wanted this a year ago...big deal, it's here now. The day we no longer have AMD making competitive GPUs will be a sad day...feels like many "enthusiasts" are pushing for that too.

With your logic if amd put out a gpu that didn't play games I should be happy they are around because it's a competitor.

If amd is no longer competitive and dies that's not a sad day in my book. That's capitalism. And Nvidia would be broken up under antitrust, amd could be split up and auctioned off, amd may stay together and sell off the gpu division, it may split its company into 2 companies held by a parent company, possibilities are endless.

Instead you're still stuck in a narrative where you need to defend everything a company does just in the false hope that there will be competition that really isn't there.

 

[Malogeek]

I'm still onboard for the 64... reluctantly for the most part but I'll wait on availability.

I'd still wait for AIB versions, reference blowers are usually horrible in comparison.

 

[EXCellR8]

yea that was always the plan anyway... can't wait to see the upcharge on those models though

 

[tential]

Couldn't agree, more.

Anyone looking at this objectively will realize Vega is a complete flop, its going to end up with a street price above the 1080, power usage significantly above the 1080, and at best trading blows with the 1080 performance wise. And all this OVER A YEAR late in comparison to the 1080. And then there is the 1080Ti which wipes the floor with it. Its a joke.

Maybe the 56 will hold some value if its price is right for freesync monitor owners. But anyone not already invested in freesync is just plain better off going Nvidia this time around.

This is the reality of the situation to anyone not looking at this through fanboy tinted shades.

I'm the person who posted here that it didn't matter how bad Vega was that freesync would save it.
I posted this for 9 months.
I was wrong.

I've got a lot of reviews to reread but at $600 for Vega 64 if the launch price to retail pricing holds true... Why don't you pay more for the 1080ti and give up freesync?

This is the review I want to see. Get Vega to 48 minimum fps at 4k (freesync range) and see how it does vs a 1080ti.

With that test I could confirm my beliefs but welll... Definitely not happening on launch day. No one is going to potentially piss off the supplier of launch day review cards

 

[Mr Evil]

I'd really stay away from Vega 64, especially LC edition if you're limited to 500w. In power saving the system power was close to 400w with a 95w TDP CPU without seriously stressing the components.

I'd possibly look at Vega 56 or maybe wait for the Nano if you're bent on going Vega.

The power consumption is definitely putting me off, due to limiting myself to a fanless PSU. There is a 600W fanless PSU from Seasonic that I could get, but that's extra expense.

I don't want to get a reference Vega 56 because blowers are too noisy. Waiting for the new Nano seems like a good idea, but... more waiting Anyone know when it's supposed to be available? Fortunately my Fury is still holding up well.