The RX Vega 64 Owners Thread

[shankly1985]

I'd be interested to see if other Vega users can get the following clock, hbm and voltage settings stable, while using whatever the lowest amount of voltage is required to achieve stability. I'd be interested to know what voltage is required to achieve these clocks from AC and LC samples if possible.

With this particular Vega 64 XTX I'm using at the moment, i have achieved the following which is 24/7 stable.

Stock core clocks, but core undervolted 0.075mv. State 6 core clock increased to 1702Mhz.
HBM overclocked to 1070Mhz.


That results in a constant core clock between 1702-1752Mhz.

What voltage would 0.075 show on wattman? I see your core voltage is showing 1100/1125

Atm I have my GPU stock core, voltage 900/950 memory 945 voltage 1025

This keeps my core around 1500 and Temps below 80/75

 

[LtMatt]

Stock is 1.2v, undervolt by 0.075mv would be 1.125mv.

 

[nashathedog]

The AIO cooled Vega 64 is priced against the AIO cooled 1080, both are noticeably cheaper than AIO cooled 1080ti's.

Just days before Vega's release Overclockers had EVGA 1080 Hybrid's on offer for £500, They no longer sell them but at the time I almost folded and bought one and when Vega released I wish I had.

 

[Feoilban]

I'd be interested to see if other Vega users can get the following clock, hbm and voltage settings stable, while using whatever the lowest amount of voltage is required to achieve stability. I'd be interested to know what voltage is required to achieve these clocks from AC and LC samples if possible.

With this particular Vega 64 XTX I'm using at the moment, i have achieved the following which is 24/7 stable.

Stock core clocks, but core undervolted 0.075mv. State 6 core clock increased to 1702Mhz.
HBM overclocked to 1070Mhz.

Timespy crashes straight away on these settings MSI AC 64

 

[LtMatt]

Timespy crashes straight away on these settings MSI AC 64

Try upping by 0.025mv.

 

[Feoilban]

Try upping by 0.025mv.

Im running

1550/1650
1100 mem
975/1025 core
50%

Stable

 

[gupsterg]

+1 with your take on it all.
For 460-480 you can get an Aib 1080, and destiny 2 is Inc which if you want reduces the price to 420-440. Which then makes the 1070ti price points even more pointless.

+1, .

Vega AC can maintain better than stock performance while consuming considerably less Watts over stock. Still not 1080 levels of efficiency but better much improved over the out of box experience.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...king-undervolting-information-guide.18793012/

I do not disagree , I think I posted a well rounded/explanatory point that you quoted, so won't go into it again .

Vega is a decent GPU, nowhere near the hype but neither is it a total failure.

I agree not a total failure. I can not help but feel performance should have been greater. If I put aside what I expected as performance then I can't help but feel it should have been released sooner.

On the other flipside, having now owned VEGA and seeing how voltages/frequency work, etc. I believe it was a larger tech/implementation leap then say other past recent GPUs. Perhaps these were the causes for delay besides HBM2 development, etc.

I wouldn't hold out much hope, I believe the "AMD fine wine" meme is mostly unwarranted. Both AMD and Nvidia improve drivers and performance over time. There is also the fact that the last few drivers released from AMD for Vega owners have been quite poor. Losing overclocks/undervolts on almost every reset, game profiles not working, display corruption in GUI etc.

Overall I am happy with Vega and do not regret getting one (especially at the £450 release price).

I too am happy with VEGA, if I could have asked for one thing to be better that would be improved power usage with increased frequency/some voltage being better.

I can't say I lose settings in WattMan, I have now what I call my primary tweaked profile. This is solid for sure in my uses, gaming, f@h and bionic, I have done plenty of hours of test cases now.

I have only had display corruption of WattMan if I resize it normal way. If I only resize it vertically I actually have no issues. So far game profiles for what I have used work, exception only being Wolfenstein 2.

As an example on say driver/game improvements, I saw this today. I use Mein Leben! preset @ 1440P I think I get higher than 92FPS, I noted on the test setup page of Guru3D it doesn't have Async Compute. Perhaps screenie was from nVidia GPU setup, but I use AC, as am on beta branch. Next GPU Culling is off, I have this On as it's recommended on AMD GPU. If when I test tonight these settings make a difference and/or I have higher FPS than that review it does paint VEGA incorrectly.

I'd be interested to see if other Vega users can get the following clock, hbm and voltage settings stable, while using whatever the lowest amount of voltage is required to achieve stability. I'd be interested to know what voltage is required to achieve these clocks from AC and LC samples if possible.

With this particular Vega 64 XTX I'm using at the moment, i have achieved the following which is 24/7 stable.

Stock core clocks, but core undervolted 0.075mv. State 6 core clock increased to 1702Mhz.
HBM overclocked to 1070Mhz.

Spoiler

That results in a constant core clock between 1702-1752Mhz.

Before I even try it I know this would be a total fail on my current VEGA sample.

HBM 1070MHz it would do with ease, as I've been using 1100MHz for several days and with increased GPU clocks I only need 975mV on memory slider (testing lower soon).

GPU Clocks of DPM6: 1702MHz 1100mV and DPM7: 1752MHz 1125mV would be epic fail.

I need for DPM6: 1557MHz 975mV and DPM7: 1652MHz 1125mV, any lower on DPM 7 voltage I have issues over several case situations. To make
DPM6: 1587MHz I need 1000mV and DPM7: 1682MHz needs 1150mV. If I use 975mV in DPM 6 it is a fail, if I go 1137mV for DPM7 it is a fail. I have passed ~1hr loop of 3DM FS Demo for this profile so far. I will do ~1hr each of Heaven/Valley and then some runs of SP 4K. Then several hours of gaming and at least ~12hrs f@h/Bionic. Then it qualifies as a "solid" profile for me.

Stock is 1.2v, undervolt by 0.075mv would be 1.125mv.

I think members will think the 1.2V when they move to manual voltages is stock for their particular GPU. It is not IMO, due to ASIC profiling/ACG/AVFS.

Here is "stock" SP 4K on my card, straight after placing WB on card. I will do HML file at some point as the graph is nicer for viewing. We see VDDC min 0.756V, aver. 0.910V and max 1.087V.

Here is SP 4K with tweaks, min 0.756V, aver. 1.030V and max 1.069V.

Then I know on my card if I use:-

DPM6: 1557MHz 975mV
DPM7: 1652MHz 11xxmV
HBM: 1100MHz 975mV
PowerLimit: 65%

And only change DPM 7 to 1100mV or 1112mV or 1125mV then I still use ~1.075V under load.

1100mV will work for clocks, but every so often some 3D load will have an issue. 1112mV works well, but 1125mV seems right to have. As all 3 of these mV settings I always still get same voltage under load, I believe monitoring is not quick enough to show ACG/AVFS fully in action. I believe this from how the increased values gain, me stability, but monitoring shows no change in voltage.

 

[megatron]

Older driver limited SOC clock to 1107MHz, SOC clock acts as a limit for HBM clock. I on OCN posted a SOC Clock mod, link. I had spoken to Martin Malik via PM to expose SOC Clocks so when we "played" with it to see what would happen, he posted an update ASAP, link. As I had no card at the time, others tried it and gained higher HBM on drivers prior to v17.10.2, link.

After driver v17.10.2 if HBM was pushed past 1107MHz then SOC automatically went to ~1200MHz, so the mod wasn't needed.

As W1zzard follows that thread on OCN, he private messaged me, future release of GPU-Z will also show SOC Clock.

Found this post on google after searching what SOC clock was as its new in GPU-z 2.5.0

 

[heartburnron]

I'd be interested to see if other Vega users can get the following clock, hbm and voltage settings stable, while using whatever the lowest amount of voltage is required to achieve stability. I'd be interested to know what voltage is required to achieve these clocks from AC and LC samples if possible.

With this particular Vega 64 XTX I'm using at the moment, i have achieved the following which is 24/7 stable.

Stock core clocks, but core undervolted 0.075mv. State 6 core clock increased to 1702Mhz.
HBM overclocked to 1070Mhz.


That results in a constant core clock between 1702-1752Mhz.

These are the same clocks I run with 24/7 although I have voltage set to 1125 and 1200 on states 6 & 7 and HBM at 1075. This has been really stable with exception of Dead by Daylight which produces artefacts with the memory clocked over 1040. On the latest drivers this keeps my clocks above 1700 in Time Spy, NBA2K17 and the ROTR benchmark but I still think the clocks more generally sit at around 1690 although I've been playing The Evil Within 2 a lot recently which doesn't fully utilise the GPU. Will run a few more tests now out of curiosity and try your voltages....

Ok so I ran a couple of ROTR benchmarks, turns out my clock wasn't staying above 1700 at current settings:

1702/1125, 1752/1200 and 1075 HBM - clock ranges from 1679 to 1715
1702/1100, 1752/1125 and 1070 HBM - clock ranges from 1685 to 1706

On average the boost clock sat about 6Mhz higher across the benchmark at the lower voltages. The performance for both was within the margin of error. It does seem that lower voltages produce a more steady clock speed but, as I found when experimenting on earlier drivers, having a higher voltage on state 7 allows the clock to boost a bit higher. It was seem that in terms of performance, one offsets the other as both settings produce similar performance. That's what I've concluded anyway.

 

[acraftygnome]

So, just received my vega 64. Got it installed and ran a quick couple of furmark tests. GPU-z is reporting max core clock was 1150 with wattman set on turbo. I'm assuming that its because my PSU is a measly 600w (though a decent one). Just thought I'd check if anyone else agrees that there is probably throttling going on because of the low watt psu before I pony up for a new one. I knew it would be a risk with my PSU before I bought the vega but was quite willing to chance it and buy a higher wattage if needed!

 

[gupsterg]

Found this post on google after searching what SOC clock was as its new in GPU-z 2.5.0

Sweet .

So, just received my vega 64. Got it installed and ran a quick couple of furmark tests. GPU-z is reporting max core clock was 1150 with wattman set on turbo. I'm assuming that its because my PSU is a measly 600w (though a decent one). Just thought I'd check if anyone else agrees that there is probably throttling going on because of the low watt psu before I pony up for a new one. I knew it would be a risk with my PSU before I bought the vega but was quite willing to chance it and buy a higher wattage if needed!

Furmark maybe detected by driver as power virus. Run something that is inline with normal usage before you plough £££ into PSU. If you state what PSU you got perhaps another member who has it can share experience .

 

[heartburnron]

So, just received my vega 64. Got it installed and ran a quick couple of furmark tests. GPU-z is reporting max core clock was 1150 with wattman set on turbo. I'm assuming that its because my PSU is a measly 600w (though a decent one). Just thought I'd check if anyone else agrees that there is probably throttling going on because of the low watt psu before I pony up for a new one. I knew it would be a risk with my PSU before I bought the vega but was quite willing to chance it and buy a higher wattage if needed!

Furmark isn't very kind to GPUs. I too used it when I first got my Vega and it throttled big time but this was caused by temperatures and not the PSU. Use Time Spy or other 3DMark for better benchmarking. Also increase your fan RPM as the default setting on turbo will allow the temperatures to hit the maximum target and cause throttling. You'll definitely get better clock speeds than that regardless of your PSU which you should just get away with anyway.

 

[AmateurExpert]

So, just received my vega 64. Got it installed and ran a quick couple of furmark tests. GPU-z is reporting max core clock was 1150 with wattman set on turbo. I'm assuming that its because my PSU is a measly 600w (though a decent one). Just thought I'd check if anyone else agrees that there is probably throttling going on because of the low watt psu before I pony up for a new one. I knew it would be a risk with my PSU before I bought the vega but was quite willing to chance it and buy a higher wattage if needed!

Which Furmark test are you running? With the standard settings (1024*768, no AA) the GPU stress test ran with core clocks ranging from 1550-1570MHz on my V64. The 1080 Preset benchmark ran with a core clock around 1300MHz (8750 points, 146FPS). With either of these, my system power draw (measured at the wall) was 540W, similar to what I see with Unigine SP but less than peaks I see with 3DMark TimeSpy. My Vega64 is the reference air edition with a full cover waterblock; I've overclocked it to 1732MHz core & 1170MHz HBM with max (+50%) power limit on. I have a 600W PSU and have an overclocked Ryzen 1700; if your CPU or platform is more power-hungry you may need a bigger PSU.

 

[AmateurExpert]

I'd be interested to see if other Vega users can get the following clock, hbm and voltage settings stable, while using whatever the lowest amount of voltage is required to achieve stability. I'd be interested to know what voltage is required to achieve these clocks from AC and LC samples if possible.

With this particular Vega 64 XTX I'm using at the moment, i have achieved the following which is 24/7 stable.

Stock core clocks, but core undervolted 0.075mv. State 6 core clock increased to 1702Mhz.
HBM overclocked to 1070Mhz.


That results in a constant core clock between 1702-1752Mhz.

I've had a go (AC V64 from week 33 (OE)/34 (AIB), with EK waterblock) - I couldn't run my P7 higher than 1737MHz without crashes regardless of voltage. On the 17.11.1 drivers after a driver crash & recovery (without rebooting) I could set P7 between 1742-1752 and not crash, but the actual achieved clocks were about 20MHz lower than normal and TimeSpy performance was off by ~200 points. I had to reboot to get the true clocks and performance back.

Taking that into account - I was able to run (tested a single run, not sure this is stable 24/7):
P6/P7: 1702/1737 (clocks in 1710-1738MHz range for TS)
Vcore: 1125/1200
HBM: 1070
mem V: 975
PL: +50

I got a TS score of 8077 (7962 graphics).

My preferred settings for 17.11.1 are:
P6/P7: 1632/1732 (clocks in 1720-1732MHz range for TS)
Vcore: 1080/1200
HBM: 1170
mem V: 1025
PL: +50

With these I get a TS score of 8219 (8136 graphics). This is a little bit higher than taking the previous settings and upping HBM to 1170MHz & memV @1025mV.

 

[Aricin]

Are we ever going to see any cards with non-reference coolers for either Vega 56/64? I don’t want "more" performance, I just would like quieter version and maybe even one that OCed/undervolted or whatever out of the box. For us non-enthusiasts that don’t feel comfortable doing that.

 

[AmateurExpert]

Are we ever going to see any cards with non-reference coolers for either Vega 56/64? I don’t want "more" performance, I just would like quieter version and maybe even one that OCed/undervolted or whatever out of the box. For us non-enthusiasts that don’t feel comfortable doing that.

There's been no news yet on availability of the Asus RX Vega 64 Strix, and the only other card which has been teased as far as I know is XFX's (probably will come in 56 and 64 variants) but there's no launch dates on that either. The XFX has an interesting cooler design, making use of Vega's small footprint to have a short PCB that allows the cooler to blow through the backplate. Would love to see how this stacks up to the Strix.

 

[ubersonic]

There's been no news yet on availability of the Asus RX Vega 64 Strix

Guess they're having supply issues or something.

 

[Ree]

well it arrived just had a quick blast of destiny 2 and max temps were 72 and 77 on the hbm i was expecting higher if am honest.

 

[JediFragger]

i was expecting higher if am honest.

See you in June

 

[Ree]

See you in June

will have aio well before then