AMD Vega 56/64 Launched

Reviews:

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-official-launch-review-roundup/

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/1.html

Faster than a GTX 1080/FE, Slower than GTX1080 Ti.

It's not really faster than 1080, they trade blows however this performance comes for Vega for much greater power consumption. If anything, Vega 56 seems to be far more interesting than 64.

300 WHAT?

1.21 Gigawatts!

Glad I didn't wait for Vega to release before getting a 1080ti..

They are not good for crypto mining either ... Vega 64 has a max 40MH/s for ETH for a good amount of electric power, while the RX580 has a rate of almost 30MH/s (with some fine tuning ) at a significant lower power consumption.

The rumors before were estimating almost double rates then the real ones. Well, this is more like a calculated move from AMD to not let these high-end GPUs to go into mining applications.

All in all... nice graphic cards, but a bit late to the party. I am curios how the 2000 series from Nvidia which will debut early next year will perform.

Well, this is more like a calculated move from AMD to not let these high-end GPUs to go into mining applications.

Why would AMD, or any vendor, care why someone purchases the card? A sale is a sale. The revenue generated is the same.

Why would AMD, or any vendor, care why someone purchases the card? A sale is a sale. The revenue generated is the same.

Mining Drives Prices of the GPUs up for sale, and they are abused for a few months, then put on re-sell market (ie Ebay).

Drives the Cost of GDDR and HBM2 Up as well.

They dont get any marketshare or any share of the gaming market if the cards all end up in mining rigs.

Mining Drives Prices of the GPUs up for sale, and they are abused for a few months, then put on re-sell market (ie Ebay).

 

They dont get any marketshare or any share of the gaming market if the cards all end up in mining rigs.

100% percent true !!!

Both Nvidia and AMD already have mining dedicated cards, which cannot be used for gaming, just to be sure their market revenues will be future proof. In mining the most important component is the VRAM, while all the functions needed for display are useless. Even the GPU itself is not so critical. So that, the mining cards have no display output and a fraction smaller price comparing to their full features counterparts.

Currently best ROI option for mining are RX580 and GTX 1070... Between the two of them RXs are better on raw power, while 1070 can be resaled more easy.

Initial rumors said that VEGA cards can mine 3x faster than 580... Now think about how the market would be flooded with used 580 of o price of almost nothing. Would be able AMD to sell any other midtier GPUs?

The limit cap stay somewhere in drivers, making it almost impossible to unlock it.

Above aspects together with a high power consumption and comparable but still lower performances then Nvidia makes new VEGA cards look already a bit overdue.

In short imho: Too expensive for the power it got, too high power consumption.

Right now prices are like such that a 1080 is cheaper than a 64, makes a simple choice.

AIB cards will heat up your case with 300+W heat !!! Watercooling might be the only way to keep it all cool.

Some more informed people blame GlobalFoundries and their inferior 14nm fab as the reason why this thing needs so much power. The cure "may" come next year with the 7nm process line. IF that works out better than their 14nm oven.

The 56 might be worth a look, more than the 64 imho. Drop the price by 50€ and it might be worth it.

im in the market for a new personal heater, lol

the 56 actually has decent power, the 64, they mustve ran the clocks and power consumption up to get 1080 performance.

some reviews I saw linked tried undervolting. Didnt look too bad with uv'ing the 64.

Still, this thing is foremost a heater !

i net I can undervolt it easily, and itnwont crash, one site already went back and did it because they figured the voltage was too high when looking at furyx and 580X specs and evolution of GCN

Vega 56 is the way to go for a mid to high end card.

If your in the market for a higher end card then NVIDIA is sadly the only way to go. The RX 64 flagship is just not worth the money (put a 1000W PSU on top of that) maybe except for the most fundamentalist of the fans.

AMD's New Drivers Cripple Mining on Retail Gaming Cards..

YES!!! AHAHAHAHAHA

They Also made a Beta Driver for Mining Only.... SMH...

Guru3d.com has an interesting article about different dies used on Vega.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-rx-vega-10-chips-differ-physically-and-quite-significantly.html

Maybe of importance, who knows...

AMD's New Drivers Cripple Mining on Retail Gaming Cards..

 

YES!!! AHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

They Also made a Beta Driver for Mining Only.... SMH...

Yes, here it is.

They boost mining around 5%.

Guru3d.com has an interesting article about different dies used on Vega.

 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-rx-vega-10-chips-differ-physically-and-quite-significantly.html

 

 

Maybe of importance, who knows...

One Chip is manufactured in Korea, the Other In Taiwan.

One Uses Clear Glue to Protect the Substrate, One uses Dark Grey Glue

One Chip is manufactured in Korea, the Other In Taiwan.

 

One Uses Clear Glue to Protect the Substrate, One uses Dark Grey Glue

and some use no substrate at all, I saw 3 or 4 different Vega GPUs on one site, either guru or hardocp I guess. That's not really an issue, an issue rather is that HBM2 dies have a different height on a few of those boards, at least 2 different height boards are out there that I have seen on pics. Waterblock makers will have to work with that issue. The difference in height could be overcome by a thermal pad or such, but that's inferior to direct copper plate contact. Those HBM2 do get hot and no cooling is no option as far as I have read.

edit: a different height compared to the surface of the actual GPU die on the tray. A level surface across all 3 dies would make it easier to place a cooler plate across all 3 of them, across all die&tray makers.

There seem to be different boards with different heights between main gpu die and hbm2 dies next to it. That could be an issue for AIB partners as well of their coolers suddenly have a gap between die and plate ;(

I take that back, Taiwan is making the Vega64, Korea the 56.

The Packages w/ Clear or no Filling on the Substrate were early production chips.

AMD has Since filled in the gaps w/ the Grey Glue to protect the substrate.

I doubt any retailers will get the unfilled chips, as they were early production chips, used to make review kits and test cards.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-3.html

some reviews I saw linked tried undervolting. Didnt look too bad with uv'ing the 64.

Still, this thing is foremost a heater !

There are some benchmarks here, albeit in German.

Undervolted, Vega 56 drops down to 1080 power levels, just not sure if all the 56's can be undervolted by the same amount.

the 64's can hit the 400w AMD Driver Limit Easily on water cooling, hahaha

Is there somebody that has new vega card and tried it in dcs? Impression, performance and comparsition? Thanks

this thing needs a nuclear reactor allocated just for itself. damn

Well TBH the power consumption isn't that high compared to last generations cards, Pascal just made a huge leap forward in terms of efficiency. Also undervolting helps with performance and power consumption. Sure it is ~100W more than a GTX 1070, but in my case PC's total consumption goes from 450-> 550 Watts, roughly.

I have a Vega 64 running in custom waterloop but I haven't had much time to play DCS yet. Performance seemed worse than with GTX 1070 with my ~30mins of playing. FPS seemed to drop below 45 everytime I maneuvered, but if I flew straight FPS would go over 90 with VR (Rift) even if I moved my head around. This seemed weird and needs more testing when I have the time. GPU usage seemed to fluctuate between 40-90% with GPU clocks jumping between 400-1200 mostly, where max settings were at 1700 Mhz. Seems like DCS doesn't push the GPU nearly as much as it could be used, compared to GTX 1070 that I had previously. I hope Vega drivers improve in near future and there would be some performance leaps.

DCS is certainly flyable with the Vega, but just not as smooth as it was with a Pascal card. I don't know if my monitor change from 1080p 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz had something to do with performance, as VR copies the image to monitor too. Don't really think it should matter.

I opened another thread for Vega performance as I somehow missed this Hardware section totally. Could have just posted here instead of opening a new one.