AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Review

[ddferrari]

Been away for a day and can see that the conversation here hasn't improved much.

From someone who has a 1080TI yeah it is a great 2K card but not a great 4K card. If we call out other cards to say that they must have 100+FPS then the 1080TI is not even close.

I have a two 2K monitor which it runs amazingly well on but looking at reviews (why I didn't go 4K) it is still only 60-70FPS and sometimes even as low as 50FPS at 4k.

The TI is very close to the first true 4K card but isn't quite there.

Can we please also not post reviews etc from the launch week of products as gospel just to emphasis our point, we can all do better than that and have reasonable comparison of products.

@AntiShill - No one is disputing that the 7700K isn't the fastest CPU, but buying one may not be the best spend of money. Cannot ignore they run a at almost 100 degrees at 4.9, voids your warranty as you need to de-lid the CPU to overclock, really most don't actually get to 4.9GHz and the socket is going to go end of life.

Seems like you hate AMD just for the fact they are AMD (new account on here so wondering if it is just for this purpose or maybe)

The 1080 Ti is "there" for 60 fps @ 4K if one's e- pe en will allow them to move a few settings from Ultra to Very high, which in most cases has no discernable visual impact. And using AA at 4K is just not necessary in most cases.

"...the conversation here hasn't improved much...Can we please also not post reviews etc from the launch week of products as gospel..." Have you appointed yourself as moderator now?

Launch week? So the AMD apologists are at it again. Let's not rehash that whole "fine wine improves with age" baloney. AMD has convinced its fans that the cards keep improving over time, when the reality is that they release unfinished products and complete the work down the road. Not the same thing. You're not getting "more", you're getting what you paid for up front in installments. Nvidia's products are ready to roll right out of the box, and all the magical drivers in the world aren't going to bring Vega 64 up to 1080 Ti level. Fury X looks like a beast on paper too, but in the real world, not so much.

 

[AntiShill]

Yes, on 1080p it's 9 frames behind on a 1080ti and it costs 200€ less. Oh, the horrors. But how about the 7800x? You were talking about "overpriced" AMD, did you notice the 7800x failed to outperform the 1600? It cost 3 times the price of the 1600 platform and it absolutely failed. So, what's overpriced again?

The pricing of the 7800x is a strawman, but I figure like your name, you be naturally attracted to stuff like that. We are not trying to pay more for less. Being cheaper than something massive overpriced is still overpriced. Need to significantly cheaper than something that is already good value to be the best bang-for-the-buck. Come on get with the program. The 1600 price is too high because there are even better bang-for-the-buck options. See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-1600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/3919vs3930

95% the effective performance of the 1600 for nearly 50% of the price makes the 1600 overpriced.

And similarily 75% the effective performance of the 7600k for nearly 50% of the price makes the 7600K overpriced. See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/3885vs3930

If the 7700k didn't stand out as the unrivaled gaming performance king, where there are no option if you insist on having that performance, then even the 7700k would be overpriced.

But the choices are really stark, it is quantum jump, pay 3x more for the top performance, or try to maximize your savings. Everything in between is the muddle middle. That $200 saving on the 1300x vs a 7700k is video card. There is no way to splice that $200 for lesser GPU and more CPU that will yield you a better gaming experience. Going half-way will only leave you with a half-a___ed system.

 

[Puiu]

So Game Developers could actually avoid doing any optimizations for RYZEN with out AMD signing marketing deals, and paying for those optimizations? if the Games run fine on an intel cpu why optimize at all. is there something wrong with the Ryzen CPU? that it would need the game developers to volunteer to do optimizations for FREE?

only a handful of games use it? though NVidia is supporting more and more titles all the time .NVidia sponsored titles use NVidia API's,

just as AMD is sponsoring titles..

you do realise that you have the games which use what I said with a simple google search right? you even have how they use it. there are fewer than 80 games that implemented PhysX (or will launch with it) since 2005 and now, most being small games. if we're talking about physics engines, just the MS owned Havok (excluding other solutions) has almost 10 times as many titles.
before trying to sound smart with me at least do your research. comparing a CPU with a proprietary API is just childish on your part and it's not even a valid comparison. it's like saying that you should not eat white bread because some cars are red.
PhysX is something that even devs that need to use it hate it.

 

[Flebbert]

Been away for a day and can see that the conversation here hasn't improved much.

From someone who has a 1080TI yeah it is a great 2K card but not a great 4K card. If we call out other cards to say that they must have 100+FPS then the 1080TI is not even close.

I have a two 2K monitor which it runs amazingly well on but looking at reviews (why I didn't go 4K) it is still only 60-70FPS and sometimes even as low as 50FPS at 4k.

The TI is very close to the first true 4K card but isn't quite there.

Can we please also not post reviews etc from the launch week of products as gospel just to emphasis our point, we can all do better than that and have reasonable comparison of products.

@AntiShill - No one is disputing that the 7700K isn't the fastest CPU, but buying one may not be the best spend of money. Cannot ignore they run a at almost 100 degrees at 4.9, voids your warranty as you need to de-lid the CPU to overclock, really most don't actually get to 4.9GHz and the socket is going to go end of life.

Seems like you hate AMD just for the fact they are AMD (new account on here so wondering if it is just for this purpose or maybe)

The 1080 Ti is "there" for 60 fps @ 4K if one's e- pe en will allow them to move a few settings from Ultra to Very high, which in most cases has no discernable visual impact. And using AA at 4K is just not necessary in most cases.

"...the conversation here hasn't improved much...Can we please also not post reviews etc from the launch week of products as gospel..." Have you appointed yourself as moderator now?

Launch week? So the AMD apologists are at it again. Let's not rehash that whole "fine wine improves with age" baloney. AMD has convinced its fans that the cards keep improving over time, when the reality is that they release unfinished products and complete the work down the road. Not the same thing. You're not getting "more", you're getting what you paid for up front in installments. Nvidia's products are ready to roll right out of the box, and all the magical drivers in the world aren't going to bring Vega 64 up to 1080 Ti level. Fury X looks like a beast on paper too, but in the real world, not so much.

Not a moderator at all just like decent intelligent conversion, rather than blind sheep fanboy commentary that seems to be the common practice these days. There could be some meaningful conversation around the tech in these products but it is all a pissing contest instead.

I can see that you didn't read any of my previous posts or read anything I have written about Vega as I am not a fan or defending it.

My comment around the release week reviews were due to the fact that for some reason all the AMD haters want to drag Ryzen into the comment section of an article that is around AMDs GPU offering and rather than using up to date information when they do they would rather cherry pick articles from the 7th of March .

I think tech is so simple at the moment to define as there are really so few blurred lines around what to get.

Fastest gaming = 7700K (Money no object)
Best value (+-5-10%) = 1600/1600x

Best GPU = 1080TI (Money no object)
1080P = 480 or 1060 doesn't really matter they are basically the same
1440p = to be fair this I think is the hard one at the moment as is really bad time to buy a GPU in this segment

Best whisky = Lagavulin

Agree you can get 60fps on a TI if you drop the settings down which is perfectly fine, but you cannot have it both ways and say that is ok for a TI to play at 60FPS at 4k where it is unsuitable/crap for a card to only be getting 90fps in games at 1080p.

Either 60fps is ok at any resolution or none.

 

[Puiu]

How am I contradicting myself? You don't understand that AMD 1300x has failed to bench better that my 6 years old i5-2500K. What is there to not understand. The CPU can bottleneck GPU, and ryzen has demonstrated this fact on the GTX1080ti already. You need be prepared to replace your Ryzen 2 years from now, when faster GPUs become available.

Because you have no idea how to compare products. What you are saying is that something old can't outperform something that is sold as low end today which is clearly true no matter how you try to slice it and you have so many examples.
Your highly OCed 2500K outperforms even the Intel i3 CPUs at that price point.
it's the same as saying that the GTX 1050 should not be weaker than something like the GTX 680, but it is.

And from the benchmarks that I've seen online a 4.5GHz 2500K is basically equal or just slightly better than an OCed 1200. The 2500K launched at double the price and with no cooler included.

 

[AntiShill]

Because you have no idea how to compare products. What you are saying is that something old can't outperform something that is sold as low end today which is clearly true no matter how you try to slice it and you have so many examples.
...

Umm.. See:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/619vs3930

I know very well not all newer stuff is better just because they are newer. But there should be no reason why the 1300x can not or should be par with a i5-2500k. I am only got a mild 4.0 Ghz overclock on the 2500k because I prefer cool, quiet and stable over highest performance possible.

And here are the corresponding benches for the systems on userbenchmark:
The 1300x: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4603369
The old 2500K: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4681505

The issue of ryzen bottlenecking GPU, obviously game dependent to some degree is undeniable. The results I see in my tests are not encouraging for ryzen.

 

[ddferrari]

Not a moderator at all just like decent intelligent conversion, rather than blind sheep fanboy commentary that seems to be the common practice these days. There could be some meaningful conversation around the tech in these products but it is all a pissing contest instead.

I can see that you didn't read any of my previous posts or read anything I have written about Vega as I am not a fan or defending it.

My comment around the release week reviews were due to the fact that for some reason all the AMD haters want to drag Ryzen into the comment section of an article that is around AMDs GPU offering and rather than using up to date information when they do they would rather cherry pick articles from the 7th of March .

I think tech is so simple at the moment to define as there are really so few blurred lines around what to get.

Fastest gaming = 7700K (Money no object)
Best value (+-5-10%) = 1600/1600x

Best GPU = 1080TI (Money no object)
1080P = 480 or 1060 doesn't really matter they are basically the same
1440p = to be fair this I think is the hard one at the moment as is really bad time to buy a GPU in this segment

Best whisky = Lagavulin

Agree you can get 60fps on a TI if you drop the settings down which is perfectly fine, but you cannot have it both ways and say that is ok for a TI to play at 60FPS at 4k where it is unsuitable/crap for a card to only be getting 90fps in games at 1080p.

Either 60fps is ok at any resolution or none.

Well we can definitely agree on the Lagavulin. I think your assessment of CPUs/GPUs is on point as well. I did buy a 1080 Ti for 1440p but my monitor is 120Hz. I think it's a perfect match; a little overkill sometimes and not able to reach 120 fps in a few games. The Ti seems to be the only card that is still selling at its "regular" price.

 

[Flebbert]

Not a moderator at all just like decent intelligent conversion, rather than blind sheep fanboy commentary that seems to be the common practice these days. There could be some meaningful conversation around the tech in these products but it is all a pissing contest instead.

I can see that you didn't read any of my previous posts or read anything I have written about Vega as I am not a fan or defending it.

My comment around the release week reviews were due to the fact that for some reason all the AMD haters want to drag Ryzen into the comment section of an article that is around AMDs GPU offering and rather than using up to date information when they do they would rather cherry pick articles from the 7th of March .

I think tech is so simple at the moment to define as there are really so few blurred lines around what to get.

Fastest gaming = 7700K (Money no object)
Best value (+-5-10%) = 1600/1600x

Best GPU = 1080TI (Money no object)
1080P = 480 or 1060 doesn't really matter they are basically the same
1440p = to be fair this I think is the hard one at the moment as is really bad time to buy a GPU in this segment

Best whisky = Lagavulin

Agree you can get 60fps on a TI if you drop the settings down which is perfectly fine, but you cannot have it both ways and say that is ok for a TI to play at 60FPS at 4k where it is unsuitable/crap for a card to only be getting 90fps in games at 1080p.

Either 60fps is ok at any resolution or none.

Well we can definitely agree on the Lagavulin. I think your assessment of CPUs/GPUs is on point as well. I did buy a 1080 Ti for 1440p but my monitor is 120Hz. I think it's a perfect match; a little overkill sometimes and not able to reach 120 fps in a few games. The Ti seems to be the only card that is still selling at its "regular" price.

Yeah agree, NFI why AMD did what they did with Vega.

Love the Ti at 1440p

Lagavulin so great, got popular here about 12 months ago and went from $70 to around $114 a bottle which really is way worse than anything AMD or Intel have done.

 

[ddferrari]

Yeah agree, NFI why AMD did what they did with Vega.

Love the Ti at 1440p

Lagavulin so great, got popular here about 12 months ago and went from $70 to around $114 a bottle which really is way worse than anything AMD or Intel have done.

Wow- that's highway robbery (the Lagavulin, I mean). Hovers around $52 USD here in the USA. We always seem to get the lowest prices. Not fair, but no complaints. Oban is another fave but also very pricey. Balvenie Double Cask is a nice middle-ground too, along with Redbreast. I even grew to love Laphroaig for its "campfire" smell and flavor over time. But that's a very acquired taste for sure.

Vega is certainly a solid card, although I think most people were expecting more after the loooong wait, especially since on paper the 64 should have actually exceeded the 1080 Ti. The Fury X was a monster spec-wise too but still didn't live up to the goods either. I just think that matching 15-month-old tech with less efficiency is not so impressive. But YES- this has nothing to do with Ryzen. AMD has both victories and defeats to contemplate.

I still can't convince myself to go 4K either since I like higher frame rates and IPS monitors (don't do any online/multiplyer games at all). "Reaction time is not a factor" for single player campaigns.I want beauty AND the beast. So for now, 1440p it is.

 

[hahahanoobs]

The worst product and one of the worst product launches of all time.
AMD should seriously consider dropping RTG entirely.