The Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid, Vega 64 & Vega 56 Test: 32 Games Benchmarked

[Asd91]

AMD Ryzen - success.

AMD Vega - fail.

I already said it some time ago, Vega arrived on the market late so it should have been something spectacular, however, I don't see anything amazing or outstanding about this card at all.

If Vega had launched at the same time as Nvidia launched their 1080 graphics card, then probably I would say that it's all about preference on which chip manufacturer you want to support, yet 1080 still have somewhat edge in this.

But right now, all the power consumption, pricing and general performance of Vega, easily shifts my choice towards green team.

With Ryzen though, AMD did a really great job, Ryzen is very competetive CPU, compared to Intel and I would gladly go with red team on CPU decision, considering that I would be ''better futureproofing'' with more cores than with Intels quad-core setup.

I don't take those Ryzen bottlenecks too seriosly, for me, I still see it as better CPU than Intels. Unless, you are truly 110% into gaming and nothing else, then I would see your point in sticking with Intel, otherwise - Ryzen would be better choice.

And hey! We all gain from this battle between AMD and Intel - cheaper products for us!

Amazon:
Cheapest 21:9 3440x1440 freesync monitor is ~$530, cheapest 21:9 3440x1440 gsync is ~$900 Both a vega 56 and a gtx 1070 respectively are good enough for this monitors. With one build you'd save near $400. For those who umderstand the pricing it's a no brainer. Freesync is also better than Gsync except at 100+fps
If you look at the steam current statistics 1st - gtx 1060, then 750ti, 960, 970, 1070...
So to the majority of gamers out there it doesn't matter if vega is a win or a failure, in my opinion it's a great card that can match greatly the before mentioned monitor which I think is the best gaming experience you'd get.
Oh and with this 3440x1440 resolution it doesn't matter anymore if it's a 7700k or a 1700x cpu

 

[HardReset]

Oh, and by the way, look at this video, and think about it.

I find this extremely hilarious.

True, CPU temps look funny. 15 degrees more in 1 second.

 

[patzo35]

AMD Ryzen - success.

AMD Vega - fail.

I already said it some time ago, Vega arrived on the market late so it should have been something spectacular, however, I don't see anything amazing or outstanding about this card at all.

If Vega had launched at the same time as Nvidia launched their 1080 graphics card, then probably I would say that it's all about preference on which chip manufacturer you want to support, yet 1080 still have somewhat edge in this.

But right now, all the power consumption, pricing and general performance of Vega, easily shifts my choice towards green team.

With Ryzen though, AMD did a really great job, Ryzen is very competetive CPU, compared to Intel and I would gladly go with red team on CPU decision, considering that I would be ''better futureproofing'' with more cores than with Intels quad-core setup.

I don't take those Ryzen bottlenecks too seriosly, for me, I still see it as better CPU than Intels. Unless, you are truly 110% into gaming and nothing else, then I would see your point in sticking with Intel, otherwise - Ryzen would be better choice.

And hey! We all gain from this battle between AMD and Intel - cheaper products for us! [/QUOTE

AMD have no good driver for Vega , lets wait some months to see sorry for my bad english!

 

[andy06shake]

I can see Nvidia refining Pascal in there next iteration of cards to somewhat retake the crown.

Fact is more was expected from Vega, power requirements are through the roof which can be an issue if one wishes to run a multiple card setup.

Have to wonder how much heat a couple of these new Vega 56/64 generate whilst running in CrossFire on air?

 

[Blakey]

I can see Nvidia refining Pascal in there next iteration of cards to somewhat retake the crown.

I dunno if you saw from the benchmarks, but they still hold the crown, for price, performance, power consumption. and they hold it with cards that are over a year old.

 

[Burty117]

True, CPU temps look funny. 15 degrees more in 1 second.

@HardReset ! You're here! My favorite on everything AMD! How's it been? Long time since I've been told everything AMD is "Future Proof" from you! Go on, tell me once more, for old times sake

 

[Blakey]

Freesync is also better than Gsync except at 100+fps

errm, where are you getting this info from? they are about the same, if not Gsync pulls ahead as it covers a wider refresh range which is what you would expect from something with a preparatory module and more expensive.

here is a techspot article on it, no where does it say freesync is "better" https://www.techspot.com/article/1454-gsync-vs-freesync/

 

[andy06shake]

I dunno if you saw from the benchmarks, but they still hold the crown, for price, performance, power consumption. and they hold it with cards that are over a year old.

The way im reading it is that the Vega 56 has around a 3-5% advantage over the stock 1070 with the water cooled Vega 64 being around 15% faster than the 1080Ti.

Not exactly a major leap forward over the Nvidia Pascal architecture by any manner or means.

Fact is I will be sticking with my 1070 short of 3rd party vendors working miracles with Vega, after coolers and over clocks.

 

[Burty117]

the water cooled Vega 64 being around 15% faster than the 1080Ti.

You clearly are struggling to read. Vega 64, even on water, Can't get close to the 1080Ti...

 

[Blakey]

The way im reading it is that the Vega 56 has around a 3-5% advantage over the stock 1070 with the water cooled Vega 64 being around 15% faster than the 1080Ti.

Not exactly a major leap forward over the Nvidia Pascal architecture by any manner or means.

Fact is I will be sticking with my 1070 short of 3rd party vendors working miracles with Vega, after coolers and over clocks.

What on earth are you talking about did you read the final page putting everything together?

I strongly suggest you go back and read the whole roundup page..

For example this is from the techspot score.

"Pros: Vega 64 is slightly slower than the GTX 1080, while the liquid cooled version wins more than it loses against the GTX 1080."

"Cons: Poor availability and thus pricing. AMD's air-cooled RX Vega 64 reference card is ~5% slower than the GTX 1080 FE despite being hotter, louder and using more power (though we have high hopes for custom cards)."

Edit: also "after overclocks" AMD have never been good for overclocking compared to Nvidia and have you seen how much power Vega uses, jesus it should come with a fire safety warning before you overclock, maybe they should do a bundle with a fire extinguisher and separate power supply while you're at it..

 

[HardReset]

@HardReset ! You're here! My favorite on everything AMD! How's it been? Long time since I've been told everything AMD is "Future Proof" from you! Go on, tell me once more, for old times sake

Vega drivers are still at beta stage so Vega is quite future proof indeed.

 

[andy06shake]

What on earth are you talking about did you read the final page putting everything together?

I strongly suggest you go back and read the whole roundup page..

For example this is from the techspot score.

"Pros: Vega 64 is slightly slower than the GTX 1080, while the liquid cooled version wins more than it loses against the GTX 1080."

"Cons: Poor availability and thus pricing. AMD's air-cooled RX Vega 64 reference card is ~5% slower than the GTX 1080 FE despite being hotter, louder and using more power (though we have high hopes for custom cards)."

My bad somehow managed to think the 64 was 15% than the 1080. LoL

Im on a wee phone.

 

[Burty117]

Vega drivers are still at beta stage so Vega is quite future proof indeed.

Ah there it is! Even after all these years of continuously being proven wrong, you're still certain anything AMD is future proof. Never let me down HardReset... Never Let Me Down...

 

[Blakey]

Vega drivers are still at beta stage so Vega is quite future proof indeed.

I'm sure you say that about everything AMD, dunno if you can see how bad their previous real flagship is doing now (Fury X), had a quick look back through lots of the benchmarks results, few times beat a 1070 which is not bad at all (not by much though) but also got beat by a 1060 a few times (not by much either) hardly future proof, we know the 1060 performs similar to the GTX 980 and GTX 1070 similar to the 980ti so overall it's between a 980 and 980ti but it was released after a 980ti and was more expensive (at least here in the uk) also consumed a little more power if I remember correctly than a 980ti.. Sounds familiar eyy? that's because this seems to be the same scenario as 2 years ago unfortunately. which one was more future proof then? the 980ti certainly seems so.

PS: would have been nice to see the GTX 980ti in this to see how previous flagship Nvidia compares in this too, Maybe next time pretty please?

Addition to my previous post about pricing (UK) of the cards for those reading comments, the cheapest Watercooled GTX 1080 is £540 thats £160 cheaper than the Watercooled Vega RX 64..

Edit: releasing new cards beta drivers is stupid, who wants to buy a new graphics card and be forced to be a guinea pig beta tester for months till they release a real driver. pretty sure Nvidia doesn't do that, at least I haven't seen any new Nvidia driver on new GPU releases labeled as beta and I opt out of the Beta drivers. can you opt out of this driver as AMD? oh wait it's your only choice

 

[Burty117]

Addition to my previous post about pricing (UK) of the cards for those reading comments, the cheapest Watercooled GTX 1080 is £540 thats £160 cheaper than the Watercooled Vega RX 64..

Not to mention that the watercooled 1080 has considerably higher clocks over stock and any performance extra the Vega card had would be gone or very little...

 

[HardReset]

Ah there it is! Even after all these years of continuously being proven wrong, you're still certain anything AMD is future proof. Never let me down HardReset... Never Let Me Down...

You're welcome. I said what you asked for

I'm sure you say that about everything AMD, dunno if you can see how bad their previous real flagship is doing now (Fury X), had a quick look back through lots of the benchmarks results, few times beat a 1070 which is not bad at all (not by much though) but also got beat by a 1060 a few times (not by much either) hardly future proof, we know the 1060 performs similar to the GTX 980 and GTX 1070 similar to the 980ti so overall it's between a 980 and 980ti but it was released after a 980ti and was more expensive (at least here in the uk) also consumed a little more power if I remember correctly than a 980ti.. Sounds familiar eyy? that's because this seems to be the same scenario as 2 years ago unfortunately. which one was more future proof then? the 980ti certainly seems so.

What games you looked at? Mostly DirectX 11? Released 2009, DirectX 11 is already 8 years old. On Vulkan/DirectX 12 titles Fury is generally much better than on DirextX 11 games (excluding Nvidia optimized ones, of course). And it's easy to expect that more and more games will use Vulkan/DirectX 12 in the future so Fury and Vega are more future proof than any Nvidia cards right now in that way.

 

[Adhmuz]

If this was an nVidia article, I would be trolling, or maybe you misunderstand the term. Trolling is when you troll of one product within another product's articles. Anyway, I clicked on post and then the post did not appear, so I posted again, shoot me for that...

So you acknowledge your own trolling at least, that's a positive. Because after all you're the one posting about another product in this products review article, this article was never about compute performance.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Comprehensive review Steven ,thankyou. Answered my recent question as well,regarding the recent driver from AMD,and while it did help in some situations ,it still leaves the Rx VEGA too late ,too much power,,and not enough Performance for the price, to sway many other than the die hard fan.

I guess the Professional's with the deep pockets can have them.I play games mostly,as well a little video editing.
if a card is gonna burn juice like that it had better be paying for itself..IMO.

 

[Burty117]

What games you looked at? Mostly DirectX 11? Released 2009, DirectX 11 is already 8 years old. On Vulkan/DirectX 12 titles Fury is generally much better than on DirextX 11 games (excluding Nvidia optimized ones, of course). And it's easy to expect that more and more games will use Vulkan/DirectX 12 in the future so Fury and Vega are more future proof than any Nvidia cards right now in that way.

YES HardReset! YES! Spew the same garbage you've been spewing for at least 2 years on Techspot now! Probably much longer, just not on Techspot

EDIT: Think about it like this HardReset, you've been saying that for over 700 days. Definitely longer than that as well, and we're still not seeing this "future proofing" and it is now the future

 

[Boilerhog146]

Sorry if this is off topic ,does the RX vega fans stop.? when not gaming, I find this to be a big plus ,mainly, I have pets ,I don't live in a doctors office ,so I notice the card is going to stay cleaner for longer ,so stay running cooler for longer when it is gaming...Rx Vega is too HOT! I bet for even an after market cooler to allow that?

Future is never coming,or is allways coming, ,glass half full ,glass half empty.neither view is acceptable ,now is now. save the marketing,fanboy shite,facts right now, are facts,those numbers are right on the money, right now. argue the a-sync compute,new future proofing BS, all you like, I want to GAME @ 2560 x 1600 ,max everything now,,and I want to do it efficiently, I had to buy an NVIDIA GPU to make it happen.

 

[Daithi]

What games you looked at? Mostly DirectX 11? Released 2009, DirectX 11 is already 8 years old. On Vulkan/DirectX 12 titles Fury is generally much better than on DirextX 11 games (excluding Nvidia optimized ones, of course). And it's easy to expect that more and more games will use Vulkan/DirectX 12 in the future so Fury and Vega are more future proof than any Nvidia cards right now in that way.

DX12 has been around 2 years and hasn't seen nearly the same uptake as DX11 has had in that time. By the time it's anywhere near a standard, nvidia will probably have caught up and whatever "future proof" GPUs we have now will be relics by comparision.

 

[Blakey]

What games you looked at? Mostly DirectX 11? Released 2009, DirectX 11 is already 8 years old. On Vulkan/DirectX 12 titles Fury is generally much better than on DirextX 11 games (excluding Nvidia optimized ones, of course). And it's easy to expect that more and more games will use Vulkan/DirectX 12 in the future so Fury and Vega are more future proof than any Nvidia cards right now in that way.

haha, that's cute. By the time all games are using Vulkan/DX12 properly, cards like the Fury X won't be powerful enough for anything for the fancy graphics in the years to come, it's hardly doing much fight against the equivalent Nvidia cards now in DX12 so the future is irrelevant. Graphics cards are hard to ever consider "future proof" can one really ever be future proof. I hope to see these in benchmarks in 2-3 years to call you on your "Future Proofing".

Only Performance related computer hardware that has been proven to be live up to being future proof after all these years is those old intel CPUs like Sandy Bridge CPUs as seen in the Techspot article the other day, 6 years old and still keeping up, have you seen a benchmark for a GPU from 6 years ago that were optimised for DX11? how are they doing in DX 11 now? oh yeah thats right not really playable.

 

[HardReset]

DX12 has been around 2 years and hasn't seen nearly the same uptake as DX11 has had in that time. By the time it's anywhere near a standard, nvidia will probably have caught up and whatever "future proof" GPUs we have now will be relics by comparision.

Just like Nvidia fans thought GTX970 was future proof? After that, they realized Nvidia and future proof don't belong on same sentence

haha, that's cute. By the time all games are using Vulkan/DX12 properly, cards like the Fury X won't be powerful enough for anything for the fancy graphics in the years to come, it's hardly doing much fight against the equivalent Nvidia cards now in DX12 so the future is irrelevant. Graphics cards are hard to ever consider "future proof" can one really ever be future proof. I hope to see these in benchmarks in 2-3 years to call you on your "Future Proofing".

Only Performance related computer hardware that has been proven to be live up to being future proof after all these years is those old intel CPUs like Sandy Bridge CPUs as seen in the Techspot article the other day, 6 years old and still keeping up, have you seen a benchmark for a GPU from 6 years ago that were optimised for DX11? how are they doing in DX 11 now? oh yeah thats right not really playable.

2-3 years is not long time to own graphic card.

Sandy Bridge is still OK but it just proves how slowly Intel develops better CPU's. 6 year old GPU like Radeon HD 7950 (or same GPU with different name, Radeon R9 280) is still OK card.

 

[JohnnyStone]

So you acknowledge your own trolling at least, that's a positive. Because after all you're the one posting about another product in this products review article, this article was never about compute performance.

You know what, it is for sure a waste of time trying to argue with nVidia fanboys. I respect nVidia's products and believe they are a formidable company and at this stage a much stronger company than AMD. They have a much better line-up of products at this stage. If I was trolling, I would not agree to this. This was not my point.

The point was made that Vega was a failure, that was not my statement, was it? I was reacting to that statement. The person did not say Vega RX, but Vega and now that I pointed the mistake out, I am trolling. This must be wonderful logic?????????

I simply wanted to show that Vega as a product is not a failure and nobody, I repeat, nobody in this comment section has provided any proof of it as of yet, except calling people names and belittling people. The person who said that Vega is a failure has not even apologised for it. This is trolling.

 

[JohnnyStone]

YES HardReset! YES! Spew the same garbage you've been spewing for at least 2 years on Techspot now! Probably much longer, just not on Techspot

EDIT: Think about it like this HardReset, you've been saying that for over 700 days. Definitely longer than that as well, and we're still not seeing this "future proofing" and it is now the future

See what I mean Burty, just belittling people. This is a sure sign of insecurity and immaturity. Why do you enjoy doing this? What do you get out of it? Can't you follow an argument like a grown-up?