Bavor

AMD RX Vega 56 and 64

44 posts in this topic

The AMD RX Vega 56 and 64 graphics cards launched today.  Most of the online retailers in the US who had them in stock are already sold out.  All the initial reviews seem to show they are good competition for the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080.  The game benchmark results show that some games they do better than the GCX 1070 and GTX 1080 while in other games they do worse than the GXT 1070 and GTX 1080.  Overall they seem to equally well when you look at the popular games from the past 2 years.  However, the RX Vega cards use significantly more power and they have a locked BIOS that doesn't allow the max power levels to be increased even though the VRM can handle more power.  Also some reviews state the RX Vega runs significantly hotter than the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 FOunders edition cards, which have some of the worst cooling for their series.

Anandtech's review said:

"The Vega 10 is a large, power-hungry GPU. Much larger and much more power hungry than NVIDIA’s competing GP104 GPU. And while this isn’t an immediate consumer concern – we pay what the market will bear, not what it costs AMD to make a chip with a nice gross margin on the side – from a technology and architectural perspective it indicates that AMD has moved farther away from NVIDIA in the last couple of years. Whereas the Radeon R9 Fury X was almost a win that AMD didn’t get, the RX Vega 64 doesn’t appear to be fighting in the weight class it was even designed for. Instead the power efficiency gap between AMD and NVIDIA has grown since 2015, and apparently by quite a bit."

Overall, I'm happy to see AMD making a competitive GPU again.  Maybe some of the custom PCB cards form other manufacturers will allow a custom BIOS or have a BIOS with a higher power level to have room for better overclocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern about them is their freaking power draw. Under load, they're significantly pulling in WAY MORE power than the 1070 and 1080's. Plus, fucking cryptocurrency asswipes will drive up their prices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not worth the extra powerdraw and beefier PSU which will cost you in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fulcrous said:

It's not worth the extra powerdraw and beefier PSU which will cost you in the long run.

Sadly, agreed. If power draws were similar Id jump the fuck all over them

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competitive? Not really!

A card that is ~1+ year late to the market (vs NV), with significant higher power draw (->heat/noise), driver performance wise all over the place, apperantly bad yields forcing AMD to overvolt even review samples (under volting nets higher performance/OC headroom - check Gamers Nexus).

AMD is really lucky that most reviewers still use Intel CPUs in their test beds or the numbers in some games would even be worse.

On the graphic side of things AMD seems to be heading  in the same direction were it was with Bulldozer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the cards been released a year ago, this is a different conversation I feel given their price points. But, the juice isnt worth the squeeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there is a large demand at launch time, but the few retailers I saw that had the RX Vega 56 and 64 in stock this morning had all of them marked up $100 or more over MSRP.

RX Vega 56's were listed at $499 WITHOUT the radeon pack.  That's the same price as the GTX 1080.  The cards listed at $399 were either not in stock or sold out withing seconds of launch time.

RX vega 64's were listed at $599 WITHOUT the radeon pack.  You can buy a water cooled factory overclocked GTX 1080 for $579. 

Water cooled RX Vega 64's were listed at $699.  That the same price as a factory overclocked GTX 1080 ti.  A factory overclocked water cooled GTX 1080 ti costs about $795.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty outdated architecture that gets it's power from tons of compute units and high base clocks.

I mean, the cards themselves are not bad, but the pricing is stupid. You can have 2 cards for similar price (64 is actually more expensive where I live) with similar power, but one has more power draw, runs hotter and will probably be louder because it needs more cooling... Why the hell would you go for Vega? And if Nvidia can always lower the prices if they'll feel like Vega is any kind of threat and Vega is completely outclassed. 

The prices should go down for Vega in theory but the reality is different ATM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 56 is competitive with the 1070, with slightly better performance in most reviews over the 1070 at the cost of increased power draw. We will probably see a bit more performance (single digit percentage I imagine) as drivers mature. I also think the 56 with a 1440p freesync monitor is a very attractive proposition. Personally, I'd be inclined to pick it up.

As for the 64, only if for some reason you live in an area where the 1080 costs more would I consider it, or you already have a good freesync monitor. Otherwise, skip it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vega 56 will be interesting with AIB cards if the partners can run their own custom bios on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ogopogo said:

The 56 is competitive with the 1070, with slightly better performance in most reviews over the 1070 at the cost of increased power draw. We will probably see a bit more performance (single digit percentage I imagine) as drivers mature. I also think the 56 with a 1440p freesync monitor is a very attractive proposition. Personally, I'd be inclined to pick it up.

As for the 64, only if for some reason you live in an area where the 1080 costs more would I consider it, or you already have a good freesync monitor. Otherwise, skip it.

 

Just be aware that regular cards from AIB partners in comparison to revied samples often draw between 20-50 W more power. Same applies to NV ofc, though normally with Maxwell/Pascall cards the jump isn't that big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, 64's are already on eBay for $800+ being sold as Etherium mining cards. 

 

Fuck. Those. Asshats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newegg still has the Radeon packs for MSRP with the usual radeon pack discounts and rebates.  You could sell the GPU for $800 and get a really cheap Ryzen motherboard and CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those thinking about Vega 64 - here is an arctice by the Igor Wallossek (the best when comes to testing GPUs in the german tech press). Often his articles also appear on TH main but not always thats why I put it here with google translate (works for german -> english). Imo he 's even better than Gamers Nexus in his power/thermal analysis.

 

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomshardware.de%2Fvega64-wasserkuhlung-benchmarks-temperaturen-ubertaktung%2Ctestberichte-242383.html&edit-text=

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

I wanted to buy a new monitor (either 27" IPS 144Hz 1440p or one of the curved ultra wides with 100Hz in the coming months) and was really hoping AMD gets their act together, so that I could avoid the G-Sync tax, but I sure as hell arn't going to buy an AMD card in the forseeable future (my GTX 970 ~ RX480/580 roughly - that would be a side grade). If I want an additional heater I can get that for a cheap 50€. I rather swollow the additional ~150€ for G-Sync than putting up with constant heat and/or noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, right now its all sizzle and no steak (literally if you're not careful), but the thing is, AMD has enough weight to iron out a lot of these kinds of problems in a year or so with the next few revisions.  The fact that they are in the game at all should be good for the whole sector both in quality moving forward and ultimately price - even if AMD is never able to fully hit the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Folterknecht said:

I rather swollow the additional ~150€ for G-Sync than putting up with constant heat and/or noise.

Thats where Im at. Was really hoping the Vega 56 would just absolutely push the 1070 and push it hard. Same thermals, power draw, etc. but lower cost. But, I think Im better off instead getting a 1070 and eventually a nice GSync 27in 1080p. Long run, given this failed venture and there being little/no reason for NVidea to push Volta it just makes more sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

0.12$ /kWh ... that would be nice, ~0.30€ here in germany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Folterknecht said:

0.12$ /kWh ... that would be nice, ~0.30€ here in germany

$0.07/kWH here. Power draw is one of the last things I look at when picking computer equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$0.10/kWh here and that's considered above average for where I live.

The 56 vs the 1070 looks like a similar situation to the 480 vs 1060, in which the 480 pulled ahead over time with newer drivers and better DX12 support.

On 8/14/2017 at 11:41 AM, Folterknecht said:

On the graphic side of things AMD seems to be heading  in the same direction were it was with Bulldozer.

I'm going to have to disagree with this a little. Yes, Vega runs hot and draws a shitload of power while having underwhelming performance, but the architecture/technology is actually innovative by comparison. Vega has HBM2 and it has the best DX12 support out of any card out at the moment.

ms-dx12levels-1.jpg

NVIDIA's real advantage right now lies in their insane performance per watt, which AMD simply can't beat right now. Unfortunately, outside of productivity and mining, Vega pales in comparison to contemporary NVIDIA cards. I'd honestly choose a 56 over a 1070 (assuming it's remotely possible to get one for its actual MSRP) because I'm confident that it'll get better over time, but I wouldn't even think of getting a 64 over a 1080, let alone a 64 Liquid Edition over a 1080/1080ti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xRightygamer said:

I'd honestly choose a 56 over a 1070 (assuming it's remotely possible to get one for its actual MSRP) because I'm confident that it'll get better over time, but I wouldn't even think of getting a 64 over a 1080, let alone a 64 Liquid Edition over a 1080/1080ti.

In regards to gaming, given the extra power draw, noise, thermals, and generally piss poor driver support, I still wouldnt say it's worth it.

Power draw may not matter as much for some but it will matter to most. Where I live, it's $0.0858CA/kwh for the first 1350kwh and ~$0.13/kwh. It will cost me ~ $12-$18 more dollars a year at TDPs at 236W and 161W respectively. These are low tdp estimates. Going by anandtech's reviews at 368W and 290W respectively, it would cost me $14-21 a year. Lasting around ~ 3-4 years an upgrade (for me), I'd be seeing as much as 63-84 more dollars spent for picking a vega 56. For people who have it as bad as $0.30/kwh, it's upwards to $50-60 a year extra.

Temps are also pretty bad. Using my card as a reference, I almost never hit past 60 under load, yet the 56 is well above 70C.

Driver support will always be an issue regarding AMD until it holds a greater market share because it's quite literally a secondary priority for most game developers. Of the games that were tested, I wouldnt be surprised if they were already optimized for the vega cards. Even if not, performance gains would be minimal.

Also in Canada, vega 56 costs $798 + 12% tax. A factory overclocked 1070 is $580 + 12% tax.

The only time vega cards would be worth it is if you buy the bundles and sell the vega cards to miners for profit. There's a reason Ryzen was hyped and Vega wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the TDP and temps, I find it absolutely lucrative that switching from Power Saver to Turbo mode on the Vega cards can increase their TDP by almost 200W, and with a difference of maybe 10 FPS. Of course, this means that the performance per watt goes up by 25-30% on average if you use Power Saver instead of Turbo. I don't think anyone would bother with Turbo mode, especially when you don't even gain anything above a 5% increase in performance.

83b85d5273-turbo-100731715-large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Necrophore said:

$0.07/kWH here. Power draw is one of the last things I look at when picking computer equipment.

 

5 hours ago, xRightygamer said:

$0.10/kWh here and that's considered above average for where I live.

 

2 hours ago, Fulcrous said:

In regards to gaming, given the extra power draw, noise, thermals, and generally piss poor driver support, I still wouldnt say it's worth it.

Power draw may not matter as much for some but it will matter to most. Where I live, it's $0.0858CA/kwh for the first 1350kwh and ~$0.13/kwh. It will cost me ~ $12-$18 more dollars a year at TDPs at 236W and 161W respectively. These are low tdp estimates. Going by anandtech's reviews at 368W and 290W respectively, it would cost me $14-21 a year. Lasting around ~ 3-4 years an upgrade (for me), I'd be seeing as much as 63-84 more dollars spent for picking a vega 56. For people who have it as bad as $0.30/kwh, it's upwards to $50-60 a year extra.

Mind switching place with me? 

My area is $0.1903/kWh. Not sure if the rate is correct. My electricity consumption is below the town average, but I'm paying more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.