AMD Vega Hardware Reviews

Not necessarily, because most games are built using a game engine, such as Unreal, Frostbite, Unity, etc.

Those Engines can be built/played using DX12.1, or Vulkan, so under RX Vega can easily yield greater gaming results. Additionally, if those engines convert to 16bit (something that Nvidia has to emulate, & can not do natively) you will see 200% increase in those operations, which can effects frames by as much as 30%.

Vulkan, DX12 and 64bit Windows are bringing in a new era of Gaming and it seems to me that AMD is on top of it using advanced hardware. I can easily see RX Vega getting updates (over years) that increase performance in games engines.


We'll know general performance of RX in a few minutes/hours. But given what we already know, Vega looks to be a hit, even if it's performance is not max.

 

£450 for the RX Vega 64 8GB on overclockers.co.uk

 

Reviews are up, you will see Vega 64 giving 1070 like performance in DX11 games. It's a slaughter house.

 

wont matter if your main game you play is dx11 for years to come.
then its Navi time or whatever
Vega as a gaming card is dead on arrival.
dead

 

Anandtech seems pleased with performances (they're raving about Vega 56, while I find it being way to close to Fury X), but yeah, powerdraw is crazy... The gap between amd and nvidia is getting bigger and bigger. It's troubling. 2 years since Fury X, faster clock speed, a looooot of news under the hood new tech, for this ? It's not right, not right at all.

In a vaccum it's ok, but something is very wrong at RTG

 

HFR preview conclusion view things like I do, AMD is in trouble.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/968-17/conclusion.html

"Il n'en reste pas moins que du point de vue purement technique et dans le domaine ludique visé par ces RX, Vega déçoit, ce qu'AMD doit compenser par un prix au plus juste malgré un coût de fabrication plus élevé que Nvidia. Une spirale négative dont on espère voir AMD sortir avec Navi, qui n'est malheureusement pas attendu au mieux avant fin 2018, voire 2019 en 7nm, alors que pendant ce temps Nvidia va bien entendu continuer d'avancer."

 

So .... when is this "wonder driver" coming out?

 

Eehhmmm... nope. As everybody could imagine, if you did not live in a giant AMD RDF.

 

The Vega 56 seems like the only star worth looking at. Although a used Fury would fare nearly as well ... unless limited by the 4GB frame buffer.

 

List of launchreviews: https://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=11460155&postcount=45

 

Regarding the powerdraw and settings discussed earlier, there's some funky stuff going on.
In our tests +50% powerdraw actually led the card to throttle down to lower than what it throttles to at default clocks with default profile, and trying to OC led to even lower throttle clocks (this is while the fan was set to "auto" in Wattman, and yes, we used the Beta6 drivers which actually make the OC'ing supposedly work)

 

The reviews I'm reading are not good at all. I'm not talking about the product, but the reviews themselves. No deep drive anywhere. At least HFR had the gut to name their a "preview" (they're blaming AMD and themselves, with Damien leaving their new protocol is not ready yet. Or Damien left without telling anyone what he was doing and how...). I don't know if it was a strategy by AMD, leaving reviewers such a short time with the cards or what but... It's kind of sucks.

 

So quite decent performance in DX12 titles, decent in 4k under DX11, and "horrible" at 1080p at DX11. Kinda as expected. I wonder how much undervolting help the card, polaris atleast had nice gains that way.

 

Vega is beta hard- and software. So of course: The less time, the less bugs to be found. Crysis for example runs shitty on Vega (FuryX is faster).

So, yeah, it is a total failure on AMDs part. I don't know if Raja can hold his post. I think it is totally possible that there will be some slaughter on executive level.

 

One thing that needs explanation more than anything else: European prices.
Scouring through several sites, cheapest listed one is in Finland at 769€ including 24% VAT - that's 620.16€ without VAT, which is 731.14 USD. And that's the cheapest one anywhere so far.
edit: and it's the same price for both limited & basic models, watercooled is more expensive at 899€ inc VAT, 725€ ex VAT = 854.74 USD

 

If Vega 64 would have launched not too long after GTX1080 and power consumptions would be quite a bit lower, this would not have been a bad chip. We have to keep in mind also that it is using GloFo and not TSMC, with the effects that might have. Shame. All in all I think Fury X had still the worst launch, especially since it was meant to be AMD's answer to Titan while only having 4GB VRAM. This one maybe an interesting foundation for Navi, if they manage to get what went wrong (just like NVidia did when they launched GTX580). I do not agree that Raja should get the whip.

 

Did any reviewers look at mining benchmarks?

I've been betting Vega is worse than the 1070 at mining which gives AMD an opportunity to grab gamer share if 1070 shortages persist and AMD pricing is right.

 

GamersNexus has a good review of Vega 56, focusing on power draw, overclocking and importantly, undervolting. Looks like Vega 56 uses substantially less power and performs better with a whopping >1.5v undervolt.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3020-amd-rx-vega-56-review-undervoltage-hbm-vs-core







Ignore the first section, apparently Wattman sucks and they used an alternative tool to undervolt properly.

 

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/968-14/benchmark-civilization-vi.html

 

Just order from ocuk...