• 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.

The RX Vega 64 Owners Thread

Bad day yesterday in that could only play 14 holes in golf due to storm Brian which meant I finished early and watched the whole Man Utd vs Huddersfield game and we got beat 2-1 FFS. Appalling performance.

Anyway I was mega pi**ed off so bought some cans of cider and decided to do a proper gaming session so for a laugh fired up COD:AW which I haven't played with my Vega card and cranked up the candy and wow wow wow. Blasted through four/five levels and the game play was awesome with my freesync monitor barely moving below 130mz it was so fluid.

On my old power supply and Fury Pro it would crash intermittently to make it almost unplayable so maybe my purchase of a new PSU was warranted. The thing with Vega is you have to tweak it to get the best results and for me that is Power +50, P6 1552, P7 1632, voltage 975 and fan 2600 rpm. Just about hear the fan crank up and that's it. I'm also using WFU with 17.9.3 drivers as I've heard a lot of BSOD stories from the new beta WFU driver so I'll leave that alone thank you
laugh.gif
TBF it does get hot in that the the GPU runs at 79/80c with the HBM and hot spot slightly higher, however it doesn't throttle and stays at a constant 1580 throughout so happy with that. TBH it's basically 50% faster than my Fury Pro in almost every game I play.
 
I don't understand why they launched it as it is at stock.

Out of the box it's pretty poor, tweaked I'm very happy.
It was the same as a 290x at default it just throttled.

I don't know why amd release cards which at completely default settings barely work.
 
I can only guess it was to improve yields but mine runs at 1050mv with the core averaging 1640Mhz in games with the HBM at 1100Mhz which seems pretty unexceptional looking around. The overclocking performance has improved with new drivers but if they could have released like this then the increased performance and decreased power use would have improved the initial reception.
 
The reason I've see for the high default voltage is that not all cards can run at the 900-1000mv range. So running at a guaranteed 1200mv is possible on all. With the large variance in performance though, we are seeing tweaking bringing the best out of these cards :)
 
TrixX said:
The reason I've see for the high default voltage is that not all cards can run at the 900-1000mv range. So running at a guaranteed 1200mv is possible on all. With the large variance in performance though, we are seeing tweaking bringing the best out of these cards :)
Click to expand...

But I'm running at 1075 so -125 just under 1600MHZ on the core and I'm getting better scores than reviews did, while being an all around more efficient card.
The card at these settings would have been reviewed differently to the card out of the box.

Given the card's don't really hit the proper clocks out of the box, I don't know why they were set that way.
 
Rushed out with minimal testing maybe and not knowing how the drivers would work with them, so playing safe WRT stability? It would be nice to see updated BIOSes appear with better stock settings. Then the AIB cards could be released with those and the day one results/reviews will look better. It would be a chance to get a fresh review/feeling out there.
 
Martini1991 said:
But I'm running at 1075 so -125 just under 1600MHZ on the core and I'm getting better scores than reviews did, while being an all around more efficient card.
The card at these settings would have been reviewed differently to the card out of the box.

Given the card's don't really hit the proper clocks out of the box, I don't know why they were set that way.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the mV you set as the total wattage used. Have a look at the total core only power used in GPU-Z. At 1075mV I would suspect you need to set +50% PL to maintain those ~1600 core clocks? If that is the case then the total power consumption will be beyond stock, from my tests those settings would consume ~250W on the core only according to GPU-Z and ~310W in total. It is only when you use ~1000mV that the AC V64 starts to use less total power for higher clocks and becomes more efficient.

I suspect AMD are having yield issues and setting 1200mV at stock increases the number of "stable" dies they can utilise. During my own testing I found it possible to get my V64 AC to match stock speeds at 900mV. This was ~153W, or around 70W less than stock for similar performance. At that point it would be ~210-220W total GPU power draw, still not 1080 Pascal levels but efficient none the less.

The problem with Vega is that getting to the max potential clocks requires excessive amounts of power. ~1650 on the core requires 325W core only power draw, about 400W give or take in total for the GPU. By contrast to achieve 1450 only 153W was required, or over double the power for ~11% performance increase and that's just insanely inefficient.

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

I can just imagine all those V64 owners who push for 1750+ core at 1250mV and almost 500W, sitting around their little rooms naked with all the windows open. :D
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
I can just imagine all those V64 owners who push for 1750+ core at 1250mV and almost 500W, sitting around their little rooms naked with all the windows open. :D
Click to expand...

And you imagine that regularly? :P
Seriously though, from running a compute application at 400W for a few days over the summer I don't doubt that to be the case!
 
ME Andromeda is a seriously unoptimised title. It's got wildly varying FPS area to area even on Nvidia's.

I'd give Rise of the Tomb Raider a run and while it's not consistent across the whole game each area is consistent in the benchmark and ingame from a testing viewpoint.
 
Martini1991 said:
Well Mass Effect Andromedia 2560x1080 maxed out and it can't sustain a full 60 FPS constantly. That's the type of stuff I feared given how "old" this level of performance is.
Click to expand...

Terrible game to analyse the performance of any card. It has issues on high end Nvidia cards too, several threads on Reddit complaining about low FPS.
 
Going to be an interesting week for vega with the release of Wolfenstein II

Vulkan
When we started development of Wolfenstein II, the choice of graphics API for PC was a simple one. DOOM had already set the stage for what could be done with Vulkan and we wanted to take it to the next level.

Using Vulkan when developing has allowed us to utilize the power of AMD's VEGA graphics chips in ways that were not possible before, giving us fine grained control over the performance and feature set of the GPU without having to sacrifice artistic intent. Combined with the flexibility of AMD's hardware, Vulkan gives us the artistic freedom to deliver Wolfenstein without compromise.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom