Vega 56 &/or HBM2 - pro's & con's.

[Eighjan]

I get that we're in the middle of a GPU drought, so this isn't about replacing/upgrading.

 

In the simplest possible terms, why should I still be using a Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56... particularly the make/model I have?

Were they ever seriously intended to be gaming cards?

Was it a mistake to swap out a GTX 1050 ti for it?

What graphics card would've made better sense for ~£250 I paid for the Vega 56 (in May, '19)?

 

My monitor, at the time, was a Philips 241E with at best a DVI-D connector; my 1050 ti had HDMI & (I believe) Displayport & my main goal at the time was to get a monitor that had 'newer' connections.

Long story short, I ended up with said Vega 56 feeding a 32" 1440p/144 monitor (via a 28" 4K/60 unit, now sat in its box, in my bedroom, barely used).

 

I no longer have the 1050 ti...

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

why should I still be using a Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56.

if it suits your needs

 

3 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

Were they ever seriously intended to be gaming cards

yes

 

4 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

Was it a mistake to swap out a GTX 1050 ti for it?

not if the performance increase was satisfactory

 

4 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

What graphics card would've made better sense for ~£250 I paid for the Vega 56 (in May, '19)?

 

a new, non-blower card for that price was reasonable at the time.

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

Were they ever seriously intended to be gaming cards?

afaik, yea they're okay for gaming

 

2 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

Was it a mistake to swap out a GTX 1050 ti for it?

idk, too many factors, such as how many meals you have to miss to upgrade etc etc

if raw performance alone, isnt it much better?

 

3 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

What graphics card would've made better sense for ~£250 I paid for the Vega 56 (in May, '19)?

uhh... i think not much from my memories

$250 for vega 56, which iirc was slightly slower than a 2060? and 2060 costed a lot more i think

 

why are you regretting your purchase?

[Eighjan]

8 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

afaik, yea they're okay for gaming

 

idk, too many factors, such as how many meals you have to miss to upgrade etc etc

if raw performance alone, isnt it much better?

 

uhh... i think not much from my memories

$250 for vega 56, which iirc was slightly slower than a 2060? and 2060 costed a lot more i think

 

why are you regretting your purchase?

I kind of did from day one; HBM2 was the main reason, but I stuck with it based on recommendations I now question more than I did at the time.

 

2060's were a bit too new to be affordable & 1070's were a bit too steep, too; a 1060 or 1650 didn't seem to be much of an upgrade.

 

9 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

not if the performance increase was satisfactory

Well I 'upgraded' my display from 1080p/60 to 1440p/144... so I doubt the 1050 ti would've been able to handle that.

[Moonzy]

4 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

I kind of did from day one; HBM2 was the main reason

kinda weird reason

it's like if i were to buy a 3090 just because it uses gddr6x, doesnt matter in the end unless i somehow can benefit from it

 

5 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

I stuck with it based on recommendations I now question more than I did at the time.

buyer's remorse is a bish, but if you bought it, and it's not bad, then it's a good purchase

 

5 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

2060's were a bit too new to be affordable & 1070's were a bit too steep, too; a 1060 or 1650 didn't seem to be much of an upgrade.

yea, so for that price it's quite good actually

[Jurrunio]

Vega 56 isnt a bad choice. It might have enough issues to feel like this card was pushed to customers because AMD didn't have anything else to compete with Nvidia's high end 10 series and lower end 20 series and not because it's "the weapon to end NVidia's rule", but the performance honestly isnt bad and towards the end of the life cycle can be found cheap.

[Eighjan]

The ONLY good aspect was the value, but it's the hottest card I've ever had; that worries me (not used to it, even if it IS normal) and I can't help wondering if there are better (thermally) Vega 56's.  I did toy with the thought of watercooling it, but the core card only has ONE block available for it (all other Vega 56's use cards that have more blocks available) & would take a MONTH to arrive, from the Far East when I last looked.

[JogerJ]

I say it's alright. I paid about the same during that time for a ASUS Arez Strix Vega 56 OC.

You should try undervolting that card to get the most out of it. They're almost always too hot and draws lots of power. I had a Vega 56 before and just undervolt (no overclocking) made about 10% performance increase and runs few degrees cooler and less power. It pretty much stopped throttling. There's also the flashing it with Vega 64 bios hack but I didn't go for it because I didn't want stability issues.

[Eighjan]

5 minutes ago, JogerJ said:

There's also the flashing it with Vega 64 bios hack but I didn't go for it because I didn't want stability issues.

I'm aware that was common but knowing my luck; I'd brick my card.

 

I could REALLY do with getting off my behind and transplanting the guts of my machine into the Meshify C I've had sat in its box for close on a year... that may help the thermals a bit, before I try getting brave with any tweaking.

 

Last year was a bad year to get anything like that done... and I'm not the most highly motivated of people at the best of times...

[Mark Kaine]

16 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

kinda weird reason

People made a huge deal out of hbm2 back then. Just another marketing ploy though. in hindsight.

 

[Moonzy]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

People made a huge deal out of hbm2 back then. Just another marketing ploy though. in hindsight.

wasnt it proved pointless on the fury cards already though?

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

wasnt it proved pointless on the fury cards already though?

Maybe, i do remember the hype about it for Vega cards specifically though!  Theyre good cards just not as good as thought and hbm2 doesnt have any particular advantages. Im just saying i see how someone could fall for it, and in the end they really werent bad cards just needed a bit of undervolting iirc.

[Eighjan]

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

People made a huge deal out of hbm2 back then. Just another marketing ploy though. in hindsight.

 

The main source of weirdness for me was how it 'worked' compared to GDDR for the sake of performance comparison... aside from Nvidia & Radeon chips essential being incomparable at that level, as it is.

[Eighjan]

26 minutes ago, JogerJ said:

You should try undervolting that card to get the most out of it.

What would you recommend...?  That's over the last 5 hours.

 

Dunno if this helps...

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Eighjan said:

What would you recommend...?  That's over the last 5 hours.

only 79C on the hot spot, you can probably reduce the fan speed if you are concerned about noise. The temps are reasonable.

[Eighjan]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

only 79C on the hot spot, you can probably reduce the fan speed if you are concerned about noise. The temps are reasonable.

I can barely hear it, as it is... the heat I can feel...

 

Idle is perfect... & pretty much what I've been used to under load (I think) until I got the Vega 56.

[Eighjan]

I think I need to do as I said, above... get the case swapped & see if it hasn't been the P280 that was the bigger issue in the first place - I WAS using an Antec Nine Hundred before that...

[Fasauceome]

6 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

I can barely hear it, as it is... the heat I can feel...

 

Idle is perfect... & pretty much what I've been used to under load (I think) until I got the Vega 56.

well any more powerful GPU will output more heat than that 1050 ti

[-rascal-]

The Vega 56 was AFIAK better performing than a GTX 1050 Ti for sure.

A buddy of mine is running a MSi blower style Vega 56, driving his 4K/60Hz display as we speak.

 

Yes it was a gaming card, but it wasn't marketed well enough.

That and, as already mentioned, AMD did not have anything that could compete with the GTX 1080 and up.

 

If I had the choice to choose between a Vega 56, GTX 1060, and GTX 1050 Ti, I would've picked the Vega 56.

Pretty simply choice between the three.

 

At the time of launch, I don't think you would have been memory capacity limited.

The card was more targeted towards 1080p and 1440p, rather than 4K gaming.

Boasting 8GB of VRAM, wouldn't be an issue.

 

I had 2x R9-Fury's running in Crossfire back in the day, and those only has 4GB of HBM1 per card.

I've only done some extensive testing in BF4, using VSR.

With VSR enabled, the GPU rendered the game at 3840x2400 (which is higher than "standard" 4K), and down-sampled it back to 1920x1200.

Graphics Quality in BF4 max'ed out, I was still sitting at around 50 ~ 60 FPS.

I know BF4 is rather old now, but even a 4GB HBM1 GPU, I did not run in VRAM related performance limitations.

(Screenshots I took from back in 2016 by the way)

Spoiler

 

 

That said, from what I read, a HUGE chunk of the cost of the graphics card was due to the HBM2 memory.

Supposedly a single 4GB of HBM2 memory chip costs about $80 USD each.

Vega 56 having 8GB of HBM2, the memory ITSELF would have costed AMD $160 USD.

Factor in the cost of the interposer, were talking about 1/2 the card's MSRP is due to the HBM2 memory.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3032-vega-56-cost-of-hbm2-and-necessity-to-use-it

Quote

...

...

Let’s start with HBM2 and interposer pricing, as that’s what we’re most confident in. Speaking with David Kanter of Real World Tech, the analyst who broke news on Maxwell’s tile-based rasterization and who previously worked at Microprocessor Report, we received the following estimate: “The HBM2 memory is probably around $150, and the interposer and packaging should be $25.” We later compared this estimate with early rumors of HBM2 pricing and word from four vendors who spoke with GamersNexus independently, all of which were within $5-$10 of each other and Kanter’s estimate. This gave us high confidence in the numbers. Taking his $175 combined HBM2 + interposer figure, we’re nearly half-way to the MSRP of the Vega 56 card, with the rest of costs comprised of the VRM, GPU, and dime-a-dozen electrical components. It’d cost a “normal person,” for instance, about $45 to build the VRM on Vega – that’d include the $2.70 per-phase cost of the IRF6894s and IRF6811 hi- and lo-side DirectFETs, about $8.80 for all six of the IR3598 drivers, and roughly $4 on the IR35217 (from public sellers and datasheets). AMD is a large company and would receive volume discounts. Even as individuals, we could order 10,000 of these parts and drive that cost down, so these numbers are strictly to give an idea of what it’d cost you to build the VRM.

...

...

Regardless, we’re at about $150 on HBM2 and $25 on the interposer, putting us around $175 cost for the memory system.

 

But as far as what to do? Now?

Stick with the Vega 56 for now, until things (hopefully) goes back to normal.

 

I was planning to upgrade the GTX 1070 in my secondary system... along with the ancient i5-4690K...but decided to hold onto it for a bit longer.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, -rascal- said:

The Vega 56 was AFIAK better performing than a GTX 1050 Ti for sure.

This isnt even comparable, it beat a 1070 and was close to a 1080.

Both Vega (56, 64).cards were meant to be "Nvidia killers" and they nearly succeeded.

Due to AMDs stubborness to use hbm2 and therefore miss the holiday season , and other things like generally running "too hot" it didnt and was only a mild success, if that.

Doesnt change that they really performed well and even today arent really "outdated" 

 

PS: there were also theories that AMD didnt actually want to sell too many of them because of the high cost of hbm2 memory, ironically.

 

Thats also where the "wait for big Navi" meme originates iirc.

[AdvocateOfNyx]

On 5/19/2021 at 7:07 PM, Eighjan said:

I get that we're in the middle of a GPU drought, so this isn't about replacing/upgrading.

 

In the simplest possible terms, why should I still be using a Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56... particularly the make/model I have?

Were they ever seriously intended to be gaming cards?

Was it a mistake to swap out a GTX 1050 ti for it?

What graphics card would've made better sense for ~£250 I paid for the Vega 56 (in May, '19)?

 

My monitor, at the time, was a Philips 241E with at best a DVI-D connector; my 1050 ti had HDMI & (I believe) Displayport & my main goal at the time was to get a monitor that had 'newer' connections.

Long story short, I ended up with said Vega 56 feeding a 32" 1440p/144 monitor (via a 28" 4K/60 unit, now sat in its box, in my bedroom, barely used).

 

I no longer have the 1050 ti...

No, I don't think you made a mistake in upgrading.  The 1050ti is not usually capable of running a 1440p monitor at high refresh rates.  The Vega 56 can do that, and the Pulse model is considered one of the best Vega 56 cards (usually only behind the Nitro, which was incredibly overpriced).  Maybe you're not getting high frame rates in AAA games, but definitely in more situations than a 1050ti. 

 

The best comparison to a Vega 56 in terms of performance is usually a 1070, 980ti, or sometimes a 2060.  As far as I can tell, Vega has probably aged the best of all of these cards.  While at the time a 1070 is faster, a properly undervolted and overclocked Vega 56 seems to beat a 1070 in a lot of situations.  That being said, the 1070 does better in DX11 titles, emulation, and consumes a lot less power while doing it.  There are also general advantages to going NVIDIA, like NVENC for example, but in pure FPS in modern games it seems like Vega is a fine choice.  It does struggle in DX11, but DX12 and Vulcan are smooth sailing for the card, making it perform better in newer games than in older ones sometimes...  which is really weird.  Keep in mind this is just from my experiences using one and reading/watching online reviews.  I'm sure it does not represent 100% of real world scenarios.

 

Typically I would suggest overclocking, undervolting, and maybe even VBIOS flashing to get the absolute most out of your Vega card.  However, due to the fact that we are in a GPU shortage at the moment, I don't want to suggest anything that could damage your card.  If in the future you are unhappy with the performance of your card, I suggest some overclocking and undervolting before you upgrade.  Generally, undervolting is safe to do and will just save you a little on your power bill while reducing heat, but do keep in mind the slight risk.

[Imglidinhere]

On 5/19/2021 at 7:07 PM, Eighjan said:

I get that we're in the middle of a GPU drought, so this isn't about replacing/upgrading.

 

In the simplest possible terms, why should I still be using a Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56... particularly the make/model I have?

Were they ever seriously intended to be gaming cards?

Was it a mistake to swap out a GTX 1050 ti for it?

What graphics card would've made better sense for ~£250 I paid for the Vega 56 (in May, '19)?

 

My monitor, at the time, was a Philips 241E with at best a DVI-D connector; my 1050 ti had HDMI & (I believe) Displayport & my main goal at the time was to get a monitor that had 'newer' connections.

Long story short, I ended up with said Vega 56 feeding a 32" 1440p/144 monitor (via a 28" 4K/60 unit, now sat in its box, in my bedroom, barely used).

 

I no longer have the 1050 ti...

At launch, the Vega 56 was about the level of a GTX 1070. Nowadays, the Vega offering is around the level of a 1080 because AMD slowly manages to tweak the drivers better and better over time. At least from what I've seen.

 

Yes, they are meant to be gaming cards, whoever told you that they weren't is dumb and wrong. The only cards not meant for gaming are Firepro and Quadro. Firepro is AMD's workstation offering and Quadro is Nvidia's workstation offering.

 

$250 for that card in May of 2019 was a reasonable price. They always held a bit of a premium over comparable Nvidia parts, but they generally performed a touch better in later years comparatively, in my experience. Only other card that would have made better sense might've been a GTX 1080 as it technically performs better in UE4 titles, and there are a LOT of those out nowadays.

 

The card should be able to handle 1440p no issue, though I doubt you'll push 144hz to maximum except on older titles.

 

TL;DR It's a solid card even today. No one sane would dispute that. I was running a 1070 until I just swapped for a scalper's 1080.