AMD RX Vega reviews

[VagabondWraith]

1 hour ago, dorin said:

This needs to stop. Waiting for the next thing needs to stop. AMD Radeon devision needs to be punished for over hyping and massively under delivering. I hope in compute Vega will be compatible, and those TFs are real [or "gigaflops" how JayzTwoCents knows them] and not another marketing BS.

I was mocking AMD fans for saying "wait for Navi," "wait for drivers," "wait for FineWine," "wait for DX12," "wait for Asynchronous Compute to be implemented," "wait for this," "wait for that," etc.  

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, VagabondWraith said:

I was mocking AMD fans for saying "wait for Navi," "wait for drivers," "wait for FineWine," "wait for DX12," "wait for Asynchronous Compute to be implemented," "wait for this," "wait for that," etc.  

Wait for a better GPU? 

[i_build_nanosuits]

ohh hell nah...so now what...wait for next gen cards?!

[VagabondWraith]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Wait for a better GPU? 

Then wait for Volta™  

[Devin92]

I remember when rx480 came out, AMD want to CF 2 of them and say its comparable with 1080. well 480 is about 160W (2 of them in CF is probly 300W) and now Vega 64 is 300W? I am just wondering what has AMD done for the past year to come up with this? Try to glue 2 480 together? 

Vega 64 do get better performance than 2 480 in CF, but that is marginal improvement imo. Wish AMD graphic apartment can come up with sth like ZEN that truly shack up the market.

[ScratchCat]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

In power consumption;)

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Devin92 said:

I remember when rx480 came out, AMD want to CF 2 of them and say its comparable with 1080. well 480 is about 160W (2 of them in CF is probly 300W) and now Vega 64 is 300W? I am just wondering what has AMD done for the past year to come up with this? Try to glue 2 480 together? 

Vega 64 do get better performance than 2 480 in CF, but that is marginal improvement imo. Wish AMD graphic apartment can come up with sth like ZEN that truly shack up the market.

Zen took them 5 years to develop and they came just short of matching intel which has been sitting on it's ass all this time...that's why it looks great right now.

Also, the liquid cooled Vega 64 is 385W out of the box...no overclocking no nothing...not 300W

Also, it cost the same as a GTX 1080, performs worse than a GTX 1080 overall, and consume well...a lot more power...it's aweful.

And even the die shrink that occured last year...nvidia pushed the GTX 1070/1080/1080ti out of it, all of which greatly destroy previous gen cards both in terms of performance and power consumption...AMD pushed RX 480 which is barely faster than an R9 290, a card that came out 4 years ago.

[mikegray]

29 minutes ago, StarsOfPaleidas said:

Do you think it is worth going to Vega from 290CF?

Why not Nvidia?

My 2 cents: 

- CF can be terrific - but it's also annoying to get setup, sometimes it's wonky, sometimes the game you've been waiting to play for the last 3 years doesn't end up supporting it. Theoretically, I'm guessing that a 290x CF system might even beat a Vega 64 system - but in practice ... meh. For example, with two recent games - Deus Ex MD and Andromeda - I had so much trouble with CF that I ended up dialing back the settings and playing in single GPU mode.

- As for the "why not Nvidia" thing: With me, it comes down to the "g-sync tax." My next GPU will be paired with a new screen, and my new screen will absolutely have adaptive sync. But there's just no way I'm willing to pay an extra $200 for a monitor with exact same specs. Granted a scenario where the AMD and NVIDAI GPUs have the exact same performance level, I'm just not giving Nvidia $200 more.

[TheUzu]

Still a Vega 64 and a freesync display is a hell of allot cheaper than a 1080 and a Gsync display.....

 

I bought a Vega 64 and a 4K freesync IPS display for £790, find me the same on Nvidia, hell I can even afford a 1000W power supply that I'll need to run it too!

[Devin92]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Zen took them 5 years to develop and they came just short of matching intel which has been sitting on it's ass all this time...that's why it looks great right now.

Also, the liquid cooled Vega 64 is 385W out of the box...no overclocking no nothing...not 300W

Also, it cost the same as a GTX 1080, performs worse than a GTX 1080 overall, and consume well...a lot more power...it's aweful.

And even the die shrink that occured last year...nvidia pushed the GTX 1070/1080/1080ti out of it, all of which greatly destroy previous gen cards both in terms of performance and power consumption...AMD pushed RX 480 which is barely faster than an R9 290, a card that came out 4 years ago.

i was talking abt the air cooled vega 64, but ya that one is underperforming compares to 1080. I really wanna see vega 64 x2, that will be a true toaster!

at least the vega 56 with 210W is at 1070 level. Guess with the right pricing, AMD is gonna survive FOR NOW.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

Thumbs up if you're waiting for Volta™.

 

[LAwLz]

So to summarize:

 

Vega 64 is slower than a 1080 at 1080p, a tiny bit slower at 1440, and a tiny bit faster at 4K.

Vega 56 is straight up faster than the 1070 by a significant amount (more so at 4K, but the difference is there at 1080p too).

 

Both of them use a hell of a lot of power compared to the performance you get (Vega 56 is a bit more reasonable but still a lot).

The stock coolers are not that great when it comes to noise but not terrible either. The reference cards will be quite a bit louder than the 1070 and 1080 reference cards though.

Overclocking seems impossible. Don't expect anything more than stock frequencies.

Mining performance is good but not ground breaking. With such a high power usage they will probably not be popular with miners though.

 

That's about it, right?

[RelyBedGrammer]

3 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Thumbs up if you're waiting for Volta™.

when is it coming anyways?

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

So to summarize:

 

Vega 64 is slower than a 1080 at 1080p, a tiny bit slower at 1440, and a tiny bit faster at 4K.

Vega 56 is straight up faster than the 1070 by a significant amount (more so at 4K, but the difference is there at 1080p too).

 

Both of them use a hell of a lot of power compared to the performance you get (Vega 56 is a bit more reasonable but still a lot).

The stock coolers are not that great when it comes to noise but not terrible either. The reference cards will be quite a bit louder than the 1070 and 1080 reference cards though.

Overclocking seems impossible. Don't expect anything more than stock frequencies.

Mining performance is good but not ground breaking. With such a high power usage they will probably not be popular with miners though.

 

That's about it, right?

Only other caveat is that the 1070 AIB cards narrow the gap with Vega 56 so I guess I'll introduce another "Wait for" here: Wait for AIB Vega 56.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

3 minutes ago, RelyBedGrammer said:

when is it coming anyways?

2018

[WereCat]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Overclocking seems impossible. Don't expect anything more than stock frequencies.

 

 

The Vega 56 has 300W power limit and looks like the 1700MHz is possible with good cooling on the Vega FE so let's wait for AIB cards... yaaaaay another waitiiiiing.

[Agosto]

24 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Zen took them 5 years to develop and they came just short of matching intel which has been sitting on it's ass all this time...that's why it looks great right now.

Also, the liquid cooled Vega 64 is 385W out of the box...no overclocking no nothing...not 300W

Also, it cost the same as a GTX 1080, performs worse than a GTX 1080 overall, and consume well...a lot more power...it's aweful.

And even the die shrink that occured last year...nvidia pushed the GTX 1070/1080/1080ti out of it, all of which greatly destroy previous gen cards both in terms of performance and power consumption...AMD pushed RX 480 which is barely faster than an R9 290, a card that came out 4 years ago.

Vega 64 pulls about 300W at stock, not 385. Peak values mean nothing.

I'm actually very interested in the power saving mode, cuts performance by only 5% but lowers consumption by 100W

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Agost said:

Vega 64 pulls about 300W at stock, not 385. Peak values mean nothing.

I'm actually very interested in the power saving mode, cuts performance by only 5% but lowers consumption by 100W

 

yeah, i'm interested in fairies and unicorns too.

[Agosto]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah, i'm interested in fairies and unicorns too.

TPU and Tom's showed about 100W lower consumption and a very slight performance impact.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Agost said:

TPU and Tom's showed about 100W lower consumption and a very slight performance impact.

it's okay to hang on to the hype train buddy, but once it's off the rails and down the clif you can just let go...

[dorin]

We really need to boycott AMD for this. From my personal point of view Vega is a fail release on all fronts.  I see absolutely no reason to buy Vega 56 or 64 now, AIBs will pump up the prices, you need a thermonuclear plant for power and with two Vega 64 Liquid Cooled you can heat up a Siberian house in winter with no problem.

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, Masada02 said:

Soooooo, Vega 56 is pretty much the only one worthwhile; and everyone should wait for the AIB models of it anyway. Hopefully it scales well with a nice cooler?

If it's peaking at 75c with a reference cooler, the temps with AIBs should be amazing. Low temps should theoretically mean better OC headroom. I also noticed the clocks were unstable in Hardware Unboxed benchmarks. That seems more like a driver issue though and not temps.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, dorin said:

We really need to boycott AMD for this. From my personal point of view Vega is a fail release on all fronts.  I see absolutely no reason to buy Vega 56 or 64 now, AIBs will pump up the prices, you need a thermonuclear plant for power and with two Vega 64 Liquid Cooled you can heat up a Siberian house in winter with no problem.

That would cause them to go bankrupt or stop high end GPU all together. which in turn Nvidia will have no competition which they can just sit back and trickle out a 5% improvement every year.

 

The whole reason AMD is doing so bad is some bad discussions from the higher ups (takes years to correct, Navi is the first GPU that is back on track from Raja) and that they have a small R&D budget. if sales tank say good bye.

[ivan134]

38 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Zen took them 5 years to develop and they came just short of matching intel which has been sitting on it's ass all this time...that's why it looks great right now.

Also, the liquid cooled Vega 64 is 385W out of the box...no overclocking no nothing...not 300W

Also, it cost the same as a GTX 1080, performs worse than a GTX 1080 overall, and consume well...a lot more power...it's aweful.

And even the die shrink that occured last year...nvidia pushed the GTX 1070/1080/1080ti out of it, all of which greatly destroy previous gen cards both in terms of performance and power consumption...AMD pushed RX 480 which is barely faster than an R9 290, a card that came out 4 years ago.

Lmao. Oh, man. You're such a sad person. Zen is only weaker in games because they need to be retro patched. In the games that have received Ryzen patches, performance is great. Ryzen is still beating Intel in professional software. 480/580 is faster than 390x and 980.

[ivan134]

14 minutes ago, dorin said:

We really need to boycott AMD for this. From my personal point of view Vega is a fail release on all fronts.  I see absolutely no reason to buy Vega 56 or 64 now, AIBs will pump up the prices, you need a thermonuclear plant for power and with two Vega 64 Liquid Cooled you can heat up a Siberian house in winter with no problem.

Their competitor has been engaging in all kinds of anti consumer and anti competitive practices for years, but yea, this is definitely a valid reason to boycott AMD.