AMD RX Vega reviews

[Hunter259]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

dorion advocated not buying "semi-failed" product as a boycott to teach AMD a lesson, and compared it with not pre-ordering games. Since when do people buy hype with money?

No. That's not what he said that's what you are personally inferring. Preorders in themselves only sell due to Hype. You have no reviews of the product so how can you sell it? By saying it's amazing. He's saying not to buy into the hype AMD is saying.

[cj09beira]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

[Citation Needed]

I would also like to know what you think those features are and what they will do to performance. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Vega right now and I certainly don't want more people just parroting the hype train on /r/AMD.

didn't gamer nexus review show a 10-15% perf over fe though, that would sugest that some of it is indeed on right now, though i still wanna see a ipc test again 

[Agosto]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

 

 

It occurs to me that AMD promised more mature drivers at launch this time around, all the way back in like February. Since some of the game changing features are still missing my guess is that they're most likely going to fail on that promise as well.

 

But there might be some level of strategy here. Take this with as much salt as the dead sea but hear me out: Maybe those features are not switched on yet because they know they're behind the curve so they need em to do a "refresh" when Volta comes out and with that they'll be able to edge out more performance out of Vega (or rather Vega-refresh) in addition to the usual just better process gains.

 

I know we're all having fun laughing at their incompetence but maybe AMD is competent within their incompetence and prefer to have a middling launch right now than show their full hand today and give Nvidia enough room to maneuver Volta whereas they might be keeping performance gains via drivers in their backpocket to address the future too. 

This makes no sense, most of consumer buyers base their choice on launch reviews; it's just a bad idea to start with performance crippled on purpose, I don't think it's the case

I don't want to laugh a their incompetence, I really wanted Vega to be good since my Freesync UHD monitor is here waiting for a video card capable of driving it. All those architecture improvements, where are them? Vega performs like an overclocked Fiji (with bad scaling) despite having various improvements on both the hardware and software side, in theory. That's why I'm disapponted.

[sun2]

For me its kinda dissapointing results after so much time, especially with the power consumption of Vega. The RX vega 56 is nice though for its performance and price. But they basicly have finnaly overthrown the 980ti/1070 after all this time.

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, JediFragger said:

I don't get it, sometimes the 64 is only 15% ahead of the FuryX in DX12 performance. Seems a bit weak? I know it has a longer pipeline, but it makes me wonder what else is going on with it!

Netburst, AMD edition?

3 hours ago, dorin said:

So, it is ok to buy a semi failed product just to keep the company from bankruptcy? What would stop the company from doing the same thing over and over again knowing that the money will be there every time? I'm not saying that it will be better without AMD on the market, on the contrary. The product was nowhere near the hype AMD created regarding Vega. This is what we need to boycott: the hype that AMD is creating regarding one product and then under delivers with no consequences. Remember the game preordering boycott? 

What did you expect AMD to do?

 

"Our product is 1 1/2 years late, power hungry and overall 'meh'.  Please buy it?!"

 

Every company hypes their products before launch, that's how they build up interest and increase sales.  That's a no-brainer.

 

And as @The Benjamins already said, most of the hype was by us ('us' being a general term).

[lukart]

Not really excited about the AMD reference boards, always been bad.

Will be looking fw to see what PowerColor and the other boys bring.

[captain cactus]

14 minutes ago, lukart said:

Not really excited about the AMD reference boards, always been bad.

Will be looking fw to see what PowerColor and the other boys bring.

Though the reference cooler may suck, the VRM serup is among the best in the business, far better than most custom boards out there. It's the same as the Vega FE aka 12 phases clustered around the core for minimal voltage drop. That's for both the 64 and 56. Basically, get the reference boards and slap an aftermaket or liquid cooler on it. 

[The Owl]

I'm actually curious about the results from Tweaktown with that OCool aftermarket cooler.

[Bananasplit_00]

7 hours ago, crisro996 said:

Slim chances, I think most reviewers were rushing to get the results for the stock GPUs. I'm sure, however, that it will only take a few days to find out how a flashed 56 performs.

Yah well that's literally all that's in it for me, if I can buy Vega 56 and get 1080 performances it's worth it. 

 

7 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Gamers Nexus tried: No go they couldn't get a custom BIOS in. 

God damn it. That's Vega in the bin. 

 

7 hours ago, mikegray said:

Very interested in that question. My CF 290x rig is actually composed of two 290s that were bios flashed ...

Well that's just kinda what you do with AMD cards, you buy the second one down and flash it and supersede the performance of the top card

[Bananasplit_00]

3 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

Flashing the BIOS on a Vega card will brick it regardless of what you do, apparently. 

Yah, making Vega completely dead for me at least. God damn it AMD... 

[Doobeedoo]

Nice listed post with everything.
I definitely want to see custom cards how they will be priced as well once in retail. We all know mining craze is on so I wonder how prices will be with custom cards.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

Let's be honest, who actually  wants to buy a reference model? If you have waited this long for Vega and plan on buying  it you may as well buy a partner model that can overclock and have good cooling. In Paul's hardware's review he shows overclocking results and while it isn't stable yet if it does the performance gains is quite significant and make it preform better than a gtx 1070 basically across the board. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Let's be honest, who actually  wants to buy a reference model? If you have waited this long for Vega and plan on buying  it you may as well buy a partner model that can overclock and have good cooling. In Paul's hardware's review he shows overclocking results and while it isn't stable yet if it does the performance gains is quite significant and make it preform better than a ttc 1070 basically across the board. 

I don't mind having a 1070 Founders: Sure there's far better cards but 1) Not at the time I purchased it locally and 2) At 150 watts the blower fan is not as unreasonable or even noisy, given proper room temps and case I can manage just fine with it.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I don't mind having a 1070 Founders: Sure there's far better cards but 1) Not at the time I purchased it locally and 2) At 150 watts the blower fan is not as unreasonable or even noisy, given proper room temps and case I can manage just fine with it.

I mean the founders addition cards aren't bad but they aren't as good as third part cards unless you have a small case. Yeah if you are in that much of a hurry to get a card you can get the reference cards but it shouldn't be long before the third part cards come out. 

[WMGroomAK]

Just to toss another review out there, Techgage ran Vega 64 through some Workstation/Compute testing...

 

https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/

 

While still power hungry, some of the results on the workstation side appear to be stronger than NVidia cards for a lot cheaper of a price.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

Just to toss another review out there, Techgage ran Vega 64 through some Workstation/Compute testing...

 

https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/

 

While still power hungry, some of the results on the workstation side appear to be stronger than NVidia cards for a lot cheaper of a price.

It's interesting to see GCN doing well in compute because it seems like it is very hard to make it game well.  For quite some time now I have been wondering if the GCN architecture is not as pliable as nvidias.

[YoloSwag]

Soo, when's Volta coming out?

 

From what I know, some cards are already based on it so launch shouldn't be far ahead.

[EnergyEclipse]

11 hours ago, Humbug said:

Looks like Vega56 is the one to get. Faster than the GTX 1070.

And power consumption is reasonable (although higher than Pascal).

I still see no point in the VEGA 56 if it is intended to rival the GTX 1070. To me the GTX 1070 is just a marginally slower in games but less power consuming GTX 980ti. With a bit more VRAM. And currently a 980ti will go anywhere from to £290 to slightly higher than £300 >£340 used here in the UK so for me I really do not understand the point

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, EnergyEclipse said:

I still see no point in the VEGA 56 if it is intended to rival the GTX 1070. To me the GTX 1070 is just a marginally slower in games but less power consuming GTX 980ti. With a bit more VRAM. And currently a 980ti will go anywhere from to £290 to slightly higher than £300 >£340 used here in the UK so for me I really do not understand the point

 

1060 price, 1070 performance out of the box.  Not everyone likes buying secondhand. Only question is do you have to upgrade your PSU to use it?

[YoloSwag]

4 minutes ago, EnergyEclipse said:

I still see no point in the VEGA 56 if it is intended to rival the GTX 1070. To me the GTX 1070 is just a marginally slower in games but less power consuming GTX 980ti. With a bit more VRAM. And currently a 980ti will go anywhere from to £290 to slightly higher than £300 >£340 used here in the UK so for me I really do not understand the point

GTX 1070 is around $450 due to miners, while this Vega 56 is supposed to be $399 while also being slightly better overall in terms of performance.

 

I actually don't see a point in spending on either of them as Vega's launch was too late, GTX 1080/1070s were last year, and Volta's up next. Since Nvidia's one step ahead, more like more than a year actually, it's closer to launch which should have far better performance than Pascal.

[EnergyEclipse]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

1060 price, 1070 performance out of the box.  Not everyone likes buying secondhand. Only question is do you have to upgrade your PSU to use it?

Well, running my system through three power supply checkers (Newegg PSU calculator, Cooler Master's PSU calcaulator and another generic one), all on averts claimed my system as a whole under moderate load would only really consume 479w, if even that.

 

My fathers rig with an i7 7700, GTX 1060 6gb and 8gb of RAM is running perfectly fine on a Cooler Master GX 450W PSU we got for £14 (Fully tested in store to which was nice) in Cash Generators. Yes, £14 and tested  Ima proud of that purchase

 

...(I think mostly since they thought it was cooler of some description since the person at the till said oh yes the cooler and I said no, PSU, and they just looked perplexed) 

 

But the thing about second hand stuff is, like as soon as you've even just turned on the power switch to your computer the card you have just brought becomes used, and you're probably going to be using your computer often if you are buying a 1060 in the first place lol. 

 

With graphics cards there seriosuly isn't that many things to go wrong with the, if you kind of just leave them be and replacing maybe a dead fan would take

little time and little amounts. But that is mostly just my opinion 

 

Motherboard used are a no go as are coolers used. 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, EnergyEclipse said:

Well, running my system through three power supply checkers (Newegg PSU calculator, Cooler Master's PSU calcaulator and another generic one), all on averts claimed my system as a whole under moderate load would only really consume 479w, if even that.

 

My fathers rig with an i7 7700, GTX 1060 6gb and 8gb of RAM is running perfectly fine on a Cooler Master GX 450W PSU we got for £14 (Fully tested in store to which was nice) in Cash Generators. Yes, £14 and tested  Ima proud of that purchase

 

...(I think mostly since they thought it was cooler of some description since the person at the till said oh yes the cooler and I said no, PSU, and they just looked perplexed) 

 

But the thing about second hand stuff is, like as soon as you've even just turned on the power switch to your computer the card you have just brought becomes used, and you're probably going to be using your computer often if you are buying a 1060 in the first place lol. 

 

With graphics cards there seriosuly isn't that many things to go wrong with the, if you kind of just leave them be and replacing maybe a dead fan would take

little time and little amounts. But that is mostly just my opinion 

 

Motherboard used are a no go as are coolers used. 

 

If the claimed power consumptive is true, then I would have to buy a new PSU,   Running anything electrical close to it's rated performance is a sure way to reduce it's lifespan.

 

As for secondhand, it's got nothing to do with reliability, some of us just don't like buying pre used,  we like the smell of new goods when you crack the plastic wrap.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It's interesting to see GCN doing well in compute because it seems like it is very hard to make it game well.  For quite some time now I have been wondering if the GCN architecture is not as pliable as nvidias.

I think Nvidia just tailors their architecture better to the specific task it's likely to be used for, gaming. The Gx100 dies actually have slightly different designs than the Gx10x lesser dies, I think that might only be a recent thing though? Pascal onward.

 

AMD is a bit like the good old 'Jack of all trades but master at none' kind of thing.

 

I don't think everyone quite remembers just how big a leap Pascal was, and even that really wasn't made clear until 1080Ti. The original 1080 consumed less power than the 980Ti and far out performed it then the 1080Ti came long and basically crushed that again, huge performance increase for the same power as the 980Ti.

 

The Fury X during gaming didn't really use much more power than the 980Ti and we are talking about the same GPU architecture only scaled up in clock rate to increase the performance and the extra transistors required to do that need power so it must use more than Fury X. TBR is supposed to reduce power but it's unclear if it's actually on even for RX Vega but I'm going to have to assume yes since overall RX Vega is better in performance and power than Vega FE.

[Prox1ma]

1 hour ago, YoloSwag said:

Soo, when's Volta coming out?

 

From what I know, some cards are already based on it so launch shouldn't be far ahead.

Not anytime soon. Nvidia is not at all threatened by Vega.

[AnonymousGuy]

1 hour ago, YoloSwag said:

GTX 1070 is around $450 due to miners, while this Vega 56 is supposed to be $399 while also being slightly better overall in terms of performance.

 

I actually don't see a point in spending on either of them as Vega's launch was too late, GTX 1080/1070s were last year, and Volta's up next. Since Nvidia's one step ahead, more like more than a year actually, it's closer to launch which should have far better performance than Pascal.

I'll bet money no one is going to actually be able to buy a Vega card at anywhere near MSRP so it's pointless to even say "it's better value".

 

Basically AMD is going into a gun fight with a wet noodle with Vega vs. Volta.  They might not even survive long enough for Navi to come out.