Soldato
Exactly the problem i have with all the reviews out there. Most of them are performed by idiots who simply don't take the time to dig deep. I have no issue with Vega getting some minus points for "out of box" performance metrics cause that a valid point to consider as not every consumer will be tinkering. That said, as a reviewer, you should dig deep to get an understanding of why things are working the way they are and if you can do something to boost a performance metric. So few are doing it.
Not so long ago i had a guy over from school an he played a bit on my PC and was amazed by the fluidity. The same guy had a day earlier been saying that AMD and ATI (yes ATI) sucks. He had a hard time believing that all that was in my machine was a "measly" ryzen 2600 and "a poor mans graphics card" aka vega 64.
I agree with you. GURU3D is the prime example of such idiocy when he put 1200mv-1250mv as floor voltage and the card. Complaing the ref card cannot overclock.
Also you will find the complete lack of Nitro and Red Devil reviews. The only AIB ones used by the reviewers are Gigabyte (crap cooler) and Strix (no VRM cooling).
A much smaller site who tested all 4, including tweaking, is usually dismissed.
On that site it shows the difference between Strix and Nitro is over 15% out of the box. With tweaking goes to almost 30%. With the same tweaking even the reference performs 20% better than the Strix.
That 20% is the difference between losing to gtx1080 or beating it consistently by a a good margin.