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

[AtenRa]

Im sure they will launch VEGA NANO at $599 and performance close to GTX1070

 

[Mercennarius]

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.

How did you deduct that?! I said we, as consumers, should be happy AMD released a very competitive product. There were many games where Vega 56/64 were ahead of the 1070/1080...and this is with launch drivers and a factory board/cooler/clocks...aftermarket companies and better drivers will only improve performance from here. I'm saying consumers should be glad there is another viable option...something we may not have one day if enthusiasts trash AMDs launches for not releasing a product significantly better for less money.

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.

Except AMD is still competitive...very competitive and in fact out performing Nvidia in some software/games for less money. And things will likely get even better with time.

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.

No. All I hoped for Vega was 1070/1080 performance for equal or lower pricing. And that's what AMD has delivered. I'm happy with Vegas performance. And I expect future games/software to make better use of Vegas architecture than Nvidia's Pascal...so for $400 i'd opt for a Vega 56 over a Nvidia 1070 10 out of 10 times, especially if i'm keeping the card for 2-3 years.

Many here seem to only consider AMDs products a success if they out perform a comparable Nvidia card in every way for less money. The only real negative is the delayed launch for Vega...power usage is kind of pointless as I don't know anyone considering a $500 GPU that doesn't have a PSU capable of powering Vega.

I'm not saying praise Vega for simply being here, or saying it's way better than Nvidia's products. I'm only here saying it's a competitive card, at a competitive price, and i'm happy we have real competition.

 

[krumme]

Not sure, but these things put out Bugatti-level heat with the horsepower of a Dodge Charger. I'd wait for the AIB cards with superior coolers. Now, I'm going SFF, so a blower would theoretically be best for me, but I'm starting to think a Tri-X would still be better. Even if the 56 is far more efficient than the 64, it is going to reach those same power levels if you ever hope to OC it.

The 1070fe trades less noise for higher temp vs. Rx56

I think its a better trade off. So therefore i would set temp target 10c higher. It really helps a lot in my experience.

Secondly. If you dont undervolt to the max overclocking even a rx56 in a sff is bound to fail. To much noise.

For the games i care about rx56 is near 1080 level so there is room to compensate for power and noise. A 5% perf decrease solves 90% of the power problems. And if you undefvolt like gamers nexus you can probably have it all.

Working with vega is more an undervolting job. We have to think differently.

All this asumes you have or intend to use fresynch and prices is like 1070/1080. Otherwise its clearly meaningless
In the case for newer titles with the highend engines like doom/vulcan/bf1 the vega cards is attractive today and i am sure it will only improve in time.
I think doom is a huge hint. And wait for wolfenstein. I think it will surprise. Fp16 anyone?

But under all circumstances as a power user we need to work on the voltages if we want to keep power in check. And mining to stay low.

 

[PeterScott]

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.

Where did Anand Say that? It seems like a poor thing for technology site to claim.

There are bad architectures/products, pricing doesn't solve that, there are some obvious ones off the top of my head:
Intel Pentium 4
AMD Bulldozer
NVidia FX 5800 Ultra
AMD Vega

Vega is too big(die size), consumes too much power, relies on expensive memory. Simply selling it at fire sale prices doesn't change that. It costs more to build a Vega card, than a Titan/1080Ti, and AMD has to sell 1080/1070 prices simply to move it to a few people who will go out of their way trying to find a reason to buy one.

It's a failure, and AMD is struggling to put lipstick on this pig.

 

[Mercennarius]

Where did Anand Say that? It seems like a poor thing for technology site to claim.

There are bad architectures/products, pricing doesn't solve that, there are some obvious ones off the top of my head:
Intel Pentium 4
AMD Bulldozer
NVidia FX 5800 Ultra
AMD Vega

Vega is too big(die size), consumes too much power, relies on expensive memory. Simply selling it at fire sale prices doesn't change that. It costs more to build a Vega card, than a Titan/1080Ti, and AMD has to sell 1080/1070 prices simply to move it to a few people who will go out of their way trying to find a reason to buy one.

It's a failure, and AMD is struggling to put lipstick on this pig.

You're incredibly biased. Vega matches Nivida performance for equal or lower pricing. That is not lipstick on a pig. Bulldozer did not compete with Intel's chips at the time like Sandy Bridge. Comparing Vega to Bulldozer shows incredible bias or a lack of understanding.

 

[krumme]

AdoredTV review with the low power profile has brought back a little bit of faith for me.

But UK prices need to change.

I wouldnt hope for msr prices.
I still wonder why they bring those cards to the market. Ryzen is on top of retail sales list. Tr ans epyc is booting up and looks like even more attractive products. Why gf should use capacity on vega is beyond my understanding.
Well it looks like a snapped one rx 64 up at 10% below 1080 price but imo there cant be many.
Secondly i have a feeling they keep mining perf back just to have a miniscule presense in the high end gaming market. Either way i dont think it really matters. Miners gf capacity hbm2 supply inmature drivers. An inefficient slow arch is just another factor here.
Its uphill for gamers until amd boots up tsmc again and get a better arch. And mining colapse.
What is the chance of all that happening. Zip.

 

[PeterScott]

Your incredibly biased. Vega matches Nivida performance for equal or lower pricing. That is not lipstick on a pig. Bulldozer did not compete with Intel's chips at the time like Sandy Bridge. Comparing Vega to Bulldozer shows incredible bias or a lack of understanding.

Really, who is biased here?

Pretty much every review I have seen, says the GTX 1080 is faster overall, and I just checked Newegg, all the Vegas are $599+, there are many GTX 1080's priced less than that.

So the opposite of what you claim.

 

[AtenRa]

Where did Anand Say that? It seems like a poor thing for technology site to claim.

There are bad architectures/products, pricing doesn't solve that, there are some obvious ones off the top of my head:
Intel Pentium 4
AMD Bulldozer
NVidia FX 5800 Ultra
AMD Vega

Vega is too big(die size), consumes too much power, relies on expensive memory. Simply selling it at fire sale prices doesn't change that. It costs more to build a Vega card, than a Titan/1080Ti, and AMD has to sell 1080/1070 prices simply to move it to a few people who will go out of their way trying to find a reason to buy one.

It's a failure, and AMD is struggling to put lipstick on this pig.

As consumers we dont care if VEGA is bigger or more expensive to manufacture than GP104. Vega 56 is faster than GTX1070 at lower MSRP vs GTX1070 FE.
I would also like to see a review of Vega 56 with Chill enabled vs GTX 1070.

If you want to talk Technically about die size etc etc, you dont involve consumers.

 

[Mercennarius]

Really, who is biased here.

Pretty much every review I have seen, says the GTX 1080 is faster overall, and I just checked Newegg, all the Vegas are $599, there are many GTX 1080's priced less than that.

So the opposite of what you claim.

Because the GPUs released 24 hours ago and the supply is tiny compared to Nividas while the demand is much higher at the moment. Give it 2-3 months when things should normalize and you will have at least equal pricing. We know the MSRPs with normalized supply/demand ($399/$499), and if its anything like Polaris was last year we will likely see rebates on aftermarket branded Vegas even lower priced within 3-6 months.

 

[Crumpet]

You're incredibly biased. Vega matches Nivida performance for equal or lower pricing. That is not lipstick on a pig. Bulldozer did not compete with Intel's chips at the time like Sandy Bridge. Comparing Vega to Bulldozer shows incredible bias or a lack of understanding.

Not in my country it doesn't..

1080 prices are £70 cheaper....

Hell on some websites I can get a Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1080 for £110 less than Vega 64.

 

[PeterScott]

Because the GPUs released 24 hours ago and the supply is tiny compared to Nividas while the demand is much higher currently. Give it 2-3 months when things should normalize and you will have at least equal pricing. We know the MSRPs with normalized supply/demand ($399/$499), and if its anything like Polaris was last year we will likely see rebates on aftermarket branded Vegas even lower priced within 3-6 months.

You are not using facts.

You are playing the waiting for Vega game again, but now on pricing. We can't predict where pricing will go in the future.

NVidia could decide to cut GTX 1080 prices by $100 in that time (and still make bigger margins).

Today, a GTX 1080 is the better deal. It costs less and performs better.

The future remains unknown.

But IMO waiting games are pointless, and you certainly can't make claims about better price/performance based on your assumptions about the future.

 

[Mercennarius]

You are not using facts.

You are playing the waiting for Vega game again, but now on pricing. We can't predict where pricing will go in the future.

NVidia could decide to cut GTX 1080 prices by $100 in that time (and still make bigger margins).

Today, a GTX 1080 is the better deal. It costs less and performs better.

The future remains unknown. But IMO waiting games are pointless.

It's not a waiting game when we know what the MSRP is. What your witnessing is just a side effect of supply/demand, not AMD pricing failures.

 

[railven]

Im sure they will launch VEGA NANO at $599 and performance close to GTX1070

The sad part is, this may pan out and people will defend it because of SFF and how it's a premium product. *cough* Fury Nano *cough*. Hopefully AMD agrees with them and doesn't price cut it a few months after release.

As consumers we dont care if VEGA is bigger or more expensive to manufacture than GP104. Vega 56 is faster than GTX1070 at lower MSRP vs GTX1070 FE.
I would also like to see a review of Vega 56 with Chill enabled vs GTX 1070.

You aren't the first person I've seen say something similar, comparing GTX 1080 FE MSRP to Vega 64 MSRP, but odd in other conversations the time the GTX cards were on the market or their current MSRP doesn't matter because "this is now, that was then."



On the topic of hating on Vega. I don't personally hate it, just seriously disappointed. The future article of what happened will be an interesting read. The tech in AMD is impressive. It might outlive Pascal (as previous AMD products have) but it seems AMD just can't learn from it's own mistakes and it's remaining vocal supporters are fine with it.

What I mean is, AMD is a corporation that badly needs funding. They can't compete with out it. But for years, a good chunk of their vocal supporters don't support AMD with their money. They seem to exploit AMD more than anything else. You can probably count on one hand the number of Pro-AMD posters who buy AMD GPUs at original MSRP outside of those using them with the intention of mining (their goal is to make money not to promote AMD - classic example huge raving AMD promoter used his mining profits to buy SLI 1070's for his gaming rig ). HD 7970 got lashed at for being too expensive. 290X wasn't as highly recommended until AIBs and then after the mining bubble popped it no one was rushing to buy "expensive" new models gobbling up used models. How many posters here actual own Fury outside of the ones that bought them after the huge discounts?

And the kicker was basically an AMD salesman promoting future miracle gains and then "I wasn't even planning on buying" confession. It's just comical.

 

[Mercennarius]

Not in my country it doesn't..

1080 prices are £70 cheaper....

Hell on some websites I can get a Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1080 for £110 less than Vega 64.

That's unfortunate...AMD really needs to work on better international pricing to stay competitive...obviously I was talking about US pricing.

 

[Bouowmx]

Wait for Vega, to wait for Vega. 6 months from now is 2018-02-15. That date sounds ripe for NVIDIA GeForce Volta rumors and leaks, and announcement in March (estimate). Haste is important for AMD Radeon RX Vega (specifically Radeon RX, not Pro or Instinct).

 

[nathanddrews]

Where did Anand Say that? It seems like a poor thing for technology site to claim.

A brief history for those that are not long time AT readers:

Spoiler: AT Mantra

RX Vega:
"A maxim we embrace here at AnandTech is that “there’s no such thing as a bad card, only bad prices”, reflecting the fact that how good or bad a product is depends heavily on how it’s priced. A fantastic product can be priced so high as to be unaffordably expensive, and a mediocre product can be priced so low as to be a bargain for the masses. And AMD seems to embrace this as well, having priced the RX Vega cards aggressively enough that at least on a price/performance basis, they’re competitive with NVIDIA if not enjoying a small lead."

GTX 1080 FE:
"And this means that if you want one of the first GTX 1080s, then you’re going to have to pay $699 for the Founders Edition card. Which is not to say that it’s a bad card – far from it, it’s probably NVIDIA’s finest reference card to date – however it pushes the card’s price north of 980 Ti territory, some $150 higher than where the GTX 980 launched in 2014. For those who can afford such a card they will not be disappointed, but it’s definitely less affordable than past NVIDIA x80 cards."

R9 Fury X:
"To that end the R9 Fury X is by no means a bad card – in fact it’s quite a good card – but NVIDIA struck first and struck with a slightly better card, and this is the situation AMD must face. At the end of the day one could do just fine with the R9 Fury X, it’s just not what I believe to be the best card at $649."

GTX 780:
"This doesn’t make GTX 780 a bad card, and on the contrary it’s probably a better card than any x80 card before it, particularly when it comes to build quality. But it’s $650 for a product tier that for the last 5 years was a $500 product tier. To that end no one likes a price increase, ourselves included. Ultimately some fraction of the traditional x80 market will make the jump to $650, and for the rest there will be the remainder of the GeForce 700 family or holding out for the eventual GeForce 800 family."

7750/7770GHE:
"Wrapping things up, I once had someone comment to me that they can gauge my opinion of a product based solely on the first paragraph of the final page. If I say “there’s no such thing as a bad card, only bad prices” then it’s likely not a favorable review. That statement is once more being validated today, if only in a meta context."

5830:
"At any rate, I had been expecting something that would consistently be to the north of the 4890 in performance, but the performance is what it is – there’s no bad card, only a poorly priced card."

DDR GeForce 1:
"All in all the ERAZOR X2 isn’t a bad card, if you’re in the market for a DDR GeForce it’s a perfect candidate, but it won’t be the cheapest and is unfortunately a little harder to find in North America when compared to competing DDR products from Creative Labs and Hercules."

Riva TNT V550:
"Overall, Diamond has another quality product on their hands, unfortunately it isn't enough to win a recommendation over Canopus for the price, or over Creative Labs because of the low cost ($169) of their Graphics Blaster TNT. If the Viper V550 is all that is available, then it isn't a bad card, although there are competitors out there that can offer you a bit more."

 

[PeterScott]

It's not a waiting game when we know what the MSRP is. What your witnessing is just a side effect of supply/demand, not AMD pricing failures.

You can't have it both ways, claim MSRP when convenient, claims street price when convenient.

GTX 1070 MSRP is $349, when know that't better, we know it's an older card, so we must be able to buy it for that.

Or how about $199 AMD RX 480 MSRP, certainly we can buy those for that?

Your future assumption are meaningless in a pricing debate.

GTX 1080 costs less today, and that is what matters.

 

[krumme]

I take a rx64 over a 1080 any day. Yes it suits my gaming profile now. But i am pretty sure i am not the only one looking at the cards performance and thinking this will clearly be faster than 1080 in a year. I care far less how it runs dx9 derivatives. Actually i dont care.
Excuse me but it screams out loud it got performance potential.
And i am also pretty sure thats why this card is sucked up fast and way to expensive many places. To expensive imo. But then dont buy. Simple.

 

[Phynaz]

I said we, as consumers, should be happy AMD released a very competitive product

Except they didn't

 

[Mercennarius]

Except they didn't

They didn't? They didn't release a GPU that matches or beats 1070/1080 performance in most scenarios at $399/$499 MSRP? Weird..I thought that's what all the reviews showed.

 

[railven]

Except they didn't

Well, they definitely released something for AMD specific buyers, or for FreeSync owners. However, I see that being a small market, at least until Vega56 comes out and we see where price puts it.

As it is now, that AdoreTV review did a wonderful job showcasing WTH is wrong with AMD. A $700 card loses by ~17% in a heavily one sided bench suite (yes, I'm sure he was pressed for time) to another ~$700 card. I'm glad he through the disclaimer at the end, but AMD is trying to compete with GTX 1080 Ti while sort of ripping off their supporters.

feelsbad.jpg

 

[AtenRa]

Except they didn't

Yes they did, Vega 56 is very competitive against GTX1070 both in performance and performance/$. Im sure if you enable Chill, Vega 56 will also be competitive in Perf/watt as well.

 

[Phynaz]

Excuse me but it screams out loud it got performance potential.

The blower on it sure does!

 

[krumme]

That's unfortunate...AMD really needs to work on better international pricing to stay competitive...obviously I was talking about US pricing.

I could order the rx64 two places in my country today. One place was clearly below 1080 price the other it was way way above 1080ti. Double price. Crazy stuff.
I think retailers dont know how to price this card and its probably due to mining. Nearly all polaris is gone and the few on stock is just a tad below 1070. Amd is doing really good. Lol.

 

[Stuka87]

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.

Run it in power saving mode and you would most likely be fine. It cuts ~100W of power out, and you lose less than 5% performance.

I swear AMD should have just shipped them with power saving mode as the main mode. The 5% extra performance is NOT worth the huge power hit.