• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Radeon VII

It's a 2.5 year old late to the party Gp102 on a 7nm process, reintroducing the £600-£700 pricepoint again after 2 years.It's not the 64cu, it's die harvesting at a 60Cu. Yeah it may compete with a 2 year old Pascal or a mid range Turing, but it's not going to sell, it won't help matketshare and it's yet another poor execution among the many other failed Amd projects.

Rx590 failed to utilise faster memory, or to incorporate an extra 4cu's. Yet redrawn on the 12nm process it is shockingly bad at power/performance and refreshes the pricepoints up again.

It's not progress it just shows how severe thr Gpu department has been. Once we get through Navi and onto the next Gen then hopefully we might see some progress.
But you cannot deny how poor the gpu department have been over the last few years.

Let not my critiscm confuse you for being anti Amd, i have x2 v64's and rx470/570.
My viewpoint is ''Where's the progress'.

Edit 2.5 year
No it's not, it's here now to perform against the current Turing card that's one level below Nvidia's Turing flagship, the 2080, Last gen's flagship matching that performance doesn't suddenly make AMD's new card obsolete because it offers around the same level of performance, We've all known that Radeons been in a rut for several years and we weren't expecting anything just yet, & what we are expecting is only a Polaris (Navi)replacement.
AMD harvesting cores that didn't make the cut for the pro cards isn't a bad thing, If it compares to an RTX 2080 as we are being told it performs it means we now have a Radeon card that you need to spend a grand or more to beat on Nvidia's side, ie a 2080ti. You can buy 2080's from £650 so as long as the VII doesn't exceed that it's a great alternative.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring all of that did you miss the part where I mentioned stock for stock 5percent hence not worth the 100quid. Believe what you want. Theres loads of us running 56s at these speeds without issues. Unervotin is key.
httcall//www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=basic&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpuname/spy/P/AMD%20Radeon%20RX%20Vega%2056&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20RX%20Vega%2056&gpuCount=0
My point still stands there is barely any performance between a 56 an 64.
I do and will enjoy it thank you I always enjoy testing gpu, hope you enjoyed your little tantrum.

I'm not having a tantrum .....
Why did you link me a 3 vegas in crossfire 3dmark score?

If you change it to 1 card you get this

Vega 56 top score 7981 pts
Vega 64 top score 10378 pts

My maths aren't great but that doesn't look like 5 percent

3dmark is an anomaly with Vega, I can push much higher clocks when running a Firestrike bench than I can when gaming. If you want to compare a 56 to a 64 it needs to be a like for like test and when you do that the 64 will always be ahead, whether that edge is worth the extra money is down to the individuals choice.
 
So back on topic, @Gibbo or anyone, can you tell me, on the 7th of Feb will i be able to actually purchase a vega 7 for delivery on the next day? Or will it be pre order on the 7th for when they arrive at some undetermined point after that?

I guess the better question might be failing the above, are they in the overclockers warehouse or soon to be, ready for the 7th ?
 
No it's not, it's here now to perform against the current Turing card that's one level below Nvidia's Turing flagship, the 2080, Last gen's flagship matching that performance doesn't suddenly make AMD's new card obsolete because it offers around the same level of performance, We've all known that Radeons been in a rut for several years and we weren't expecting anything just yet, & what we are expecting is only a Polaris (Navi)replacement (Navi).
AMD harvesting cores that didn't make the cut for the pro cards isn't a bad thing, If it compares to an RTX 2080 as we are being told it performs it means we now have a Radeon card that you need to spend a grand or more to beat, ie a 2080ti. You can buy 2080's from £650 so as long as the VII doesn't exceed that it's a great alternative.

Yes it is here to perform against a die harvested RTX 2080 that I agree, but only because the market has been manipulated to allow it to happen. Artifical price fixing in effect is why everytime nvidia release a **104 part each gen, people don't understand how it can be possibly mid range.

Yep as we both know Navi is just a Polaris/Vega Replacement effectively it will be Amd's equivalent to Gp104, without the manufacturing expense of Vega.

But I'm afraid yes the V7 is a failed execution of which it's a third occurrence in a row, Fiji,-Vega,-V7.
We all know the battle of Bankruptcy Amd has had to fight against.
I guess value is down to personal budget, for me it's too late, and too expensive to justify selling my Vega's and jumping onto.
All that has happened is Nvidia and Amd assisted one another in price fixing the tiers. Now I hope Amd will deliver in the next generation but simply respinning on new process's, just show's that in the last 3 years they have lost the capability to build a new architecture, and suffered the effects of this
 
Depends on the base clock of the HBM, the vega 56 has 850mhz HBM but mine will do 1100+, thats 250mhz or >25% overclock. In terms of performance that also adds up to a significant performance gain. Also consider that the GDDR clock might be high to start with so say for example 1750mhz, so with even a 400mhz overclock your still less than 25% in terms of overclock. Personally I think this is the answer, in terms of % rather than raw mhz figures the OC is roughly the same.

My own Vega 56 won’t do 940 on memory without crashing. I noted a big perf jump from stock to 940 so 1100 must be a lovely oc. Does show the disparity between the chips though, a huge performance ‘range’. A ‘good’ Vega isn’t bad at all!
 
My own Vega 56 won’t do 940 on memory without crashing. I noted a big perf jump from stock to 940 so 1100 must be a lovely oc. Does show the disparity between the chips though, a huge performance ‘range’. A ‘good’ Vega isn’t bad at all!
Have you tried using a 64 bios to achieve 1000+ hbm clocks? (vince has that on his 56 hence the 1100mhz) I think thats the only way to get above that threshold of a 56 due to the volts of the different bios's
 
My own Vega 56 won’t do 940 on memory without crashing. I noted a big perf jump from stock to 940 so 1100 must be a lovely oc. Does show the disparity between the chips though, a huge performance ‘range’. A ‘good’ Vega isn’t bad at all!

Im running 64 bios on mine as Illuminist points out, its an early reference card with the moulded core, so a goodun. With the 64 bios and 1650/1100 clocks the 56 is a potent little card :) Literally the first thing you should do with a 56 before even bothering to run a benchmark is flash the thing with a 64 bios. After that powerplay tables, undervolting etc and your within 5 to 10% of a properly set up 64 so mostly slugging it out with roughly 1070ti to 1080 levels of performance. But yea vega is a great little card to play with which is why @Gibbo should stop teasing us with what I thought was a pre order post for 7 when it was actually more vega fun :(
 
My own Vega 56 won’t do 940 on memory without crashing. I noted a big perf jump from stock to 940 so 1100 must be a lovely oc. Does show the disparity between the chips though, a huge performance ‘range’. A ‘good’ Vega isn’t bad at all!

Have you tried to save the bios, and flash with a V64 one?
 
I'm not having a tantrum .....
Why did you link me a 3 vegas in crossfire 3dmark score?

If you change it to 1 card you get this

Vega 56 top score 7981 pts
Vega 64 top score 10378 pts

My maths aren't great but that doesn't look like 5 percent
for the clock speeds... the scores are irrelevant. as already stated fire strike and time spy arent real performance comparison indicators.
anyway as you say back OT.
 
Im running 64 bios on mine as Illuminist points out, its an early reference card with the moulded core, so a goodun. With the 64 bios and 1650/1100 clocks the 56 is a potent little card :) Literally the first thing you should do with a 56 before even bothering to run a benchmark is flash the thing with a 64 bios. After that powerplay tables, undervolting etc and your within 5 to 10% of a properly set up 64 so mostly slugging it out with roughly 1070ti to 1080 levels of performance. But yea vega is a great little card to play with which is why @Gibbo should stop teasing us with what I thought was a pre order post for 7 when it was actually more vega fun :(
now increase it to 1750 and your in front of the 64. :)
 
now increase it to 1750 and your in front of the 64. :)

I think you know as well as I do that on the stock cooler it will never happen. Yes If I want to do a suicide run at 100% fan then yea 1750 core and 1150 memory is a probable target, even 1800 core is possible if I didn't value my ears. Even with a drastic undervolt it's just too much heat at these sort of clocks. :(
 
I think you know as well as I do that on the stock cooler it will never happen. Yes If I want to do a suicide run at 100% fan then yea 1750 core and 1150 memory is a probable target, even 1800 core is possible if I didn't value my ears. Even with a drastic undervolt it's just too much heat at these sort of clocks. :(
true, but for those people who stuck on an aio or put it in a loop. i personally run my fan at around 3k rpm. i have no issues with that noise level. were headphones anyway.
actually heat has never been as issue for me on 56. maybe i got lucky
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom