RX Vega Review and benchmarks "leaked"

[MoonlightSylv]

So there's a Vega Review on HWBattle...

 

These are presumably true, but there's always a chance that they aren't.

 

TL;DR: Vega 64 trades blows with the 1080 in games and beats it in some synthetics while also using a lot of power.

 

Quote from r/AMD

Quote

516.24 Watt average on 3DMark with +50% power limit for Vega 64 liquid.

That was confirmed to be GPU only by the guy who wrote the article.

 

Benchmarks:

Spoiler

 

Personally I think Vega is good as long as the price is good and I'm happy that AMD is back in the high end GPU game. It's a little power hungry but to some people that doesn't matter. However it is late, Pascal came out in May 2016 and Vega which competes with it is only just now coming out. Hopefully Navi will be good enough to compete with Volta while coming out at a reasonable time.

 

Source: http://www.hwbattle.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=hottopic&wr_id=7333

[LienusLateTips]

wow

[RGProductions]

Oh look! Q single gpu setup that needs more than a 700 watt psu!

[vanished]

Quote

516.24 Watt average on 3DMark with +50% power limit for Vega 64 liquid.

 omg, wow... fail

 

So, considering it's around a 1080 and is about a year late (1080 launched a year ago) what would a fair price be for this?  Less than the 1080 obviously... any news on what it will actually be?

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, RGProductions said:

Oh look! Q single gpu setup that needs more than a 700 watt psu!

New bitwit build:

today we will have this great PSU, the EVGA N1 700W. It will be great for this system along with a 7900X.

[MoonlightSylv]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

 omg, wow... fail

 

So, considering it's around a 1080 and is about a year late (1080 launched a year ago) what would a fair price be for this?  Less than the 1080 obviously... any news on what it will actually be?

Vega 64 Reference: $499

Vega 64 LE: $599

Vega 64 Liquid: $699

 

That's MSRP.

[Liltrekkie]

500+ watts with a +50% power limit increase????

 

So what is that, 250+ watts normally? 

 

It's Hawaii all over again, come on AMD. 

[Glennieboyyy007]

the reviews will come somewhere today, so only a little bit longer before we can judge or congratulate amd

[vanished]

Just now, ShadowTechXTS said:

Vega 64 Reference: $499

Vega 64 LE: $599

Vega 64 Liquid: $699

 

That's MSRP.

So the same price as a 1080, same performance, but a year late and consumes twice the power.... GG

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, Liltrekkie said:

500+ watts with a +50% power limit increase????

 

So what is that, 250+ watts normally? 

 

It's Hawaii all over again, come on AMD. 

But Hawaii was actually a really strong arcetexture. This seems average at best

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

arcetexture

 I know I've heard Luke and a few others say it like that before but,... that doesn't make it right

[Liltrekkie]

1 minute ago, RGProductions said:

But Hawaii was actually a really strong arcetexture. This seems average at best

Hawaii was trading blows with the 780 while using a crap ton more power and creating more heat than the 780 was. This was my point. 

 

This is basically Hawaii 2.0 basically. 

[dizmo]

I find it very hard to believe it uses that much power for just the GPU, but I guess we'll wait and see what the reviews are like tomorrow. I also find it pretty pointless to show benchmarks without a resolution present.

However, if that proves to be true, then it looks like I'll be going with a 1070 ITX card unless the Nano is based on the Vega 64, and is reasonably priced.

[Liltrekkie]

Just now, dizmo said:

I find it very hard to believe it uses that much power for just the GPU, but I guess we'll wait and see what the reviews are like tomorrow. I also find it pretty pointless to show benchmarks without a resolution present.

However, if that proves to be true, then it looks like I'll be going with a 1070 ITX card unless the Nano is based on the Vega 64, and is reasonably priced.

 

I actually have no doubt it would if you increase the power limit to 50% like this leak suggests. Big power hungry hot GPU's have always been AMD's thing. It disappoints me knowing that Polaris was their attempt at efficiency. I was hoping they would learn from this and have made a 1080 competitor that didn't overload a power station. 

[goodtofufriday]

16 minutes ago, ShadowTechXTS said:

Vega 64 Reference: $499

Vega 64 LE: $599

Vega 64 Liquid: $699

 

That's MSRP.

 

14 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

So the same price as a 1080, same performance, but a year late and consumes twice the power.... GG

Thats msrp with the package deals on the liquid one. 

 

Supposed to be 600 once they end that or when AIBs make their versions available. 

 

Still to much IMO. And im a pretty severe amd fanboy

 

[Bouzoo]

Any info on what drivers it was tested with? Any announcement that Vega should be getting new drivers? I'm a bit out of the loop. 

[Bananasplit_00]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I find it very hard to believe it uses that much power for just the GPU, but I guess we'll wait and see what the reviews are like tomorrow. I also find it pretty pointless to show benchmarks without a resolution present.

However, if that proves to be true, then it looks like I'll be going with a 1070 ITX card unless the Nano is based on the Vega 64, and is reasonably priced.

Background says the resolution though

[Rune]

24 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

what would a fair price be for this?  Less than the 1080 obviously... any news on what it will actually be?

Um...... don't get your hopes up ._.

[Bananasplit_00]

Well 64 isn't too exciting for me, I wanna know how 56 preforms and if I can flash it

[juri-han]

from the wccf chart the RX 56 doesn't look that bad, knowing it has a lower TDP so were starting with less heat/power with a overclock its ahead of both stock 1080 and 64 for and $100 less

 

ryzen 1600/ vega 56 could be a nice value build  

[hammer3339]

I wouldn't say it was a good architecture if it had half the power efficiency of the competition. If they're priced similarly, you're still better off with Nvidia because it will save you money in the long run (unless you have a production workload and aren't specifically gaming)

 

Edit: it's also looking like Vega may come out of the gate priced higher than the 1080

[Fetzie]

30 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

So the same price as a 1080, same performance, but a year late and consumes twice the power.... GG

It will be interesting to see some undervoltage testing, because Polaris responded really well to reducing its voltage.

[MoonlightSylv]

2 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

because Polaris responded really well to reducing its voltage.

That's interesting to know, hopefully we can do this with Vega.

[Master Disaster]

So all the people who said Linus was wrong and jumped to AMD defense when he sat on WAN show and said that RX Vega won't be significantly better that Vega FE because its the same silicon were wrong.....

 

"They haven't enabled the full silicon" they said, "huge driver improvements to come" they said.

 

This should have come as a big surprise to exactly nobody and yet some people just refuse to see the truth when its standing right in front of them.

 

Vega is bad, its comparatively slow, requires huge power and as such runs hotter than the sun and barely competes with Nvidias 12 month old architecture, let alone Volta which shouldn't be too far away now.

 

Tbh I don't even see Vega as a good base to build up from, it almost as though AMD can't make good GPUs & CPUs at the same time. All the hard work they did throughout GCN building to the excellent RX 400 & RX 500 series has all been for nothing. (Yes I know Vega won't be replacing GCN anytime soon).

 

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, Slippery Vagoo said:

sadly NVIDIAs Geforce branded cards don't like virtual machines, and if gaming in a virtual machine is your thing Radeon is the place to go

That's simply not true as long as you're using a hypervisor. Linus used Nvidia hardware in his 2 gamers one CPU videos with no issues. (Yeah I know he used AMD in 7 gamers one CPU)