• 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

nashathedog said:
Fair enough. :)



I didn't (and still don't) understand why people would buy a Nano to add too a custom loop, Why not buy a Fury X and add that to a loop instead? I can't see size being an issue as the Fury X also used a small pcb and it was faster than it's asthmatic sibling. A Nano was power limited which held it back to around Fury Pro performance levels, a water block couldn't change that.
Click to expand...

When I bought the Nano (Jan 2016), FuryX was 50% more expensive and since I was using the Predator 360 it was still cheaper overall with the pre-filled block than buying the FuryX new.

It was with the stock tiny cooler and the single fan, that it wasn't getting the performance out, not the power. Clock for clock both cards were for same performance, if thermals weren't the issue.

Also both FuryX & Nano (only), saw a big increase in (8%) clock for clock performance with the April 2016 UEFI firmware AMD released, and higher overclocks on top.

Before that the Nano could do 1050/1000 after that 1100/1100. While the FuryX (second hand very cheap) got in November 2016, could do 1080/1050 with the stock BIOS and 1190/1100 with the UEFI. (again that was not a special modded bios, just AMD's own).
So the Nano was not that power limited as you think.
 
Panos said:
When I bought the Nano (Jan 2016), FuryX was 50% more expensive and since I was using the Predator 360 it was still cheaper overall with the pre-filled block than buying the FuryX new.

It was with the stock tiny cooler and the single fan, that it wasn't getting the performance out, not the power. Clock for clock both cards were for same performance, if thermals weren't the issue.

Also both FuryX & Nano (only), saw a big increase in (8%) clock for clock performance with the April 2016 UEFI firmware AMD released, and higher overclocks on top.

Before that the Nano could do 1050/1000 after that 1100/1100. While the FuryX (second hand very cheap) got in November 2016, could do 1080/1050 with the stock BIOS and 1190/1100 with the UEFI. (again that was not a special modded bios, just AMD's own).
So the Nano was not that power limited as you think.
Click to expand...

I remember the bios update, I was gutted they didn't do one for the Pro at the time. It's a shame no Nano results were ever posted here in the OCUK bench threads, I just had a look online & I can't find anything showing it ahead of the Pro and keeping up with the Fury X, that might be because I can't find anything that was done with the newer bios though.
 
Got to sell my Sapphire VEGA 64, sad to see it go what a great card !

Hopefully be a bit more flush at end of year and be able to get whatever AMD has out by then. If they have new stuff by then xD
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Back to the Greens then ey ;) :D
Click to expand...

Lol I'm gonna be using a spare GTX 1060 I have here in the meantime so yeah kinda. I won't buy brand new Geforce again though. Buying second hand Nvidia feels more er humane. Like buying an old fur coat instead of getting a new one made. You know it's wrong but it's better than buying brand new xD

Hopefully when AMD have something new out I'll be able to afford it ! Am skint right now lol.
 
nashathedog said:
I remember the bios update, I was gutted they didn't do one for the Pro at the time. It's a shame no Nano results were ever posted here in the OCUK bench threads, I just had a look online & I can't find anything showing it ahead of the Pro and keeping up with the Fury X, that might be because I can't find anything that was done with the newer bios though.
Click to expand...

The FuryPro came with UEFI bios from the start. Nano & FuryX did not came with UEFI bios, and I doubt any of the mainstream media ever patched the BIOS to those cards even today.

Also my fault. I was able to push the Nano to 1140 on benchmarks. Is 2 years since then and forgot :P
But I remember 1100 was 24/7 run.

But yes there are Nano & FX results mate here. Search for Panos

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/time-spy-standard-dx-12-bench.18740536/
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/firestrike-standard-bench-thread.18665940/

I had more play with the Time Spy over the years because is shorter than the Firestrike.

I would like to point out my 1080Ti Xtreme is missing. As I have wrote many times, it was a boring card to even overclock.
Standard factory OC was 2012, and couldn't go higher than 2063 on air. It was a powerful card but dull also.
And is one of the reasons I got the Vega 64. Plenty of hours of playing with voltage settings etc :P


GTX1080 Armor, was more interesting card for overclocking especially after watercooling it. :)
Many hours of fiddling with the curve pushing it to 2190 core holding the highest GTX1080 graphic scores on those benchmarks.
Beaten only by the 11gbps GTX1080s in 2017 :)
 
Panos said:
The FuryPro came with UEFI bios from the start. Nano & FuryX did not came with UEFI bios, and I doubt any of the mainstream media ever patched the BIOS to those cards even today.

Also my fault. I was able to push the Nano to 1140 on benchmarks. Is 2 years since then and forgot :p
But I remember 1100 was 24/7 run.

But yes there are Nano & FX results mate here. Search for Panos

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/time-spy-standard-dx-12-bench.18740536/
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/firestrike-standard-bench-thread.18665940/

I had more play with the Time Spy over the years because is shorter than the Firestrike.
Click to expand...
I meant gaming results, I went though the Kaap's list yesterday and found none for the Nano which is a shame.
Panos said:
I would like to point out my 1080Ti Xtreme is missing. As I have wrote many times, it was a boring card to even overclock.
Standard factory OC was 2012, and couldn't go higher than 2063 on air. It was a powerful card but dull also.
And is one of the reasons I got the Vega 64. Plenty of hours of playing with voltage settings etc :p


GTX1080 Armor, was more interesting card for overclocking especially after watercooling it. :)
Many hours of fiddling with the curve pushing it to 2190 core holding the highest GTX1080 graphic scores on those benchmarks.
Beaten only by the 11gbps GTX1080s in 2017 :)
Click to expand...

I also had one of the 1080 Armor's, At the time it was the cheapest GTX 1080 here at OCUK and it was a really nice card, I was surprised by the quality but I suppose that was because my last MSI card had been the TFIV 290x Gaming which was a pos, I wish I'd kept my 1080 Armor.[/QUOTE]
 
nashathedog said:
I meant gaming results, I went though the Kaap's list yesterday and found none for the Nano which is a shame.


I also had one of the 1080 Armor's, At the time it was the cheapest GTX 1080 here at OCUK and it was a really nice card, I was surprised by the quality but I suppose that was because my last MSI card had been the TFIV 290x Gaming which was a pos, I wish I'd kept my 1080 Armor.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Armor was the cheapest 1080 when bought it also.

OK what games you want to be tested with the Nano & FuryX?
 
Panos said:
Yeah the Armor was the cheapest 1080 when bought it also.

OK what games you want to be tested with the Nano & FuryX?
Click to expand...

No particular games I was just noting that no-one ever posted Nano results in any of the OCUK game bench threads which is a shame. I get why we didn't do ROTTR results with the Fiji cards but there was plenty of others where memory wasn't an issue.
 
nashathedog said:
No particular games I was just noting that no-one ever posted Nano results in any of the OCUK game bench threads which is a shame. I get why we didn't do ROTTR results with the Fiji cards but there was plenty of others where memory wasn't an issue.
Click to expand...

Could you give me a list of games bench threads? I know Total War Warhammer 1 had one and I have posted FuryX results on it, comparing DX11 & DX12. And how FX lost 1 fps, while Nvidia 1080s were losing 10-15% of their FPS. (if remember correctly but we were pointing the drop is big).

If I have the game, I will install it and test the Nano & FuryX. Then also run a comparison with Vega 64 Nitro on air and water. :D
 
Gerard said:
The miners seem to be clearing house, 12 Vega FE and multiple 1600 watt psu's

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-Air-Cooled-16GB-HBM2-Graphics-Card-GPU-PCIe/223044093234?hash=item33ee76c532:g:z78AAOSwYUdbO~YX&_sacat=0&_nkw=vega+frontier+edition&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311.R1.TR10.TRC1.A0.H0.Xvega+frontier.TRS0
Click to expand...


At last some of the slaves will be freed now... :D
But he asks too much money imho. When new custom AIB cards going for $500 asking $700 is just stupid.
 
Panos said:
Could you give me a list of games bench threads? I know Total War Warhammer 1 had one and I have posted FuryX results on it, comparing DX11 & DX12. And how FX lost 1 fps, while Nvidia 1080s were losing 10-15% of their FPS. (if remember correctly but we were pointing the drop is big).

If I have the game, I will install it and test the Nano & FuryX. Then also run a comparison with Vega 64 Nitro on air and water. :D
Click to expand...

Gears of War 4's one, I put results from my Fury pro and Vega 64 in the 3440x1440 section
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/gears-of-war-4-bench-thread.18752893/

Alien Isolation's another, I did 1080p and 2560x1080 with my Fury pro, I wish I'd done some runs with Vega:(
I think I'll do some 3440x1440 with my 480 this weekend.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/alien-isolation-benchmark.18628462/

Here's a list with links to OCUK game benches a few posts down.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/links-to-benches-owners-threads.18774374/
 
nashathedog said:
Gears of War 4's one, I put results from my Fury pro and Vega 64 in the 3440x1440 section
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/gears-of-war-4-bench-thread.18752893/

Alien Isolation's another, I did 1080p and 2560x1080 with my Fury pro, I wish I'd done some runs with Vega:(
I think I'll do some 3440x1440 with my 480 this weekend.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/alien-isolation-benchmark.18628462/

Here's a list with links to OCUK game benches a few posts down.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/links-to-benches-owners-threads.18774374/
Click to expand...


I have few of those games.
Alien Isolation,
Ashes,
Civilization Beyond Earth,
Deus Ex,
Thief,
Tomb Raider,
TWW.

None installed though :/ Need to download them.

I am impressed there is no Prey, The Division or Doom on that list.

Since there only few games that make sense, Alien, Deus Ex and Tomb Raider it is.
I will put steam to get them overnight and run a quick benchmark on the Nitro+ on air.
And while I will be installing the waterblock on it, I will run Nano at stock & overclock (any preferable core speed?).
If time allows might drop in some FuryX benchmarks. Clock for Clock to Nano and max out overclock.
And the Nitro+ with it's waterblock.
 
Panos said:
I have few of those games.
Alien Isolation,
Ashes,
Civilization Beyond Earth,
Deus Ex,
Thief,
Tomb Raider,
TWW.

None installed though :/ Need to download them.

I am impressed there is no Prey, The Division or Doom on that list.

Since there only few games that make sense, Alien, Deus Ex and Tomb Raider it is.
I will put steam to get them overnight and run a quick benchmark on the Nitro+ on air.
And while I will be installing the waterblock on it, I will run Nano at stock & overclock (any preferable core speed?).
If time allows might drop in some FuryX benchmarks. Clock for Clock to Nano and max out overclock.
And the Nitro+ with it's waterblock.
Click to expand...

My results are overclocked so that's the best for a comparison, With Alien Isolation run the benchmark and then stop it after 20 seconds or so and run it again for a more accurate result. On the first run you'll notice it stutter right at the beginning while the texture pop in gradually which give very low lows, For me doing a second run has no pop in and better minimums, presumably due to the texture already being loaded (in the buffer?).
I just ran my 480 with Alien then I realised it wasn't going over 75 because of my limiter & Freesync so I'll do it again in the morning along with Tomb Raider, Which Tomb Raider have you got? I've got both so happy to add to both threads in the morning. I'll run Dues Ex as well :)
 
nashathedog said:
My results are overclocked so that's the best for a comparison, With Alien Isolation run the benchmark and then stop it after 20 seconds or so and run it again for a more accurate result. On the first run you'll notice it stutter right at the beginning while the texture pop in gradually which give very low lows, For me doing a second run has no pop in and better minimums, presumably due to the texture already being loaded (in the buffer?).
I just ran my 480 with Alien then I realised it wasn't going over 75 because of my limiter & Freesync so I'll do it again in the morning along with Tomb Raider, Which Tomb Raider have you got? I've got both so happy to add to both threads in the morning. I'll run Dues Ex as well :)
Click to expand...

Here is the Nano at 1080p
Tomb Raider
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31976939/

Alien.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31976959/

Didn't manage to download Deus Ex.


Somehow some benchmarks were running at 1100 while others at 1000. I have no idea why.
Wattman didn't allow me to overclock the card at all. -_- Had to use MSI AB which didn't allow me to OC the vram -_-

Here is TimeSpy
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4094501
Firestrike extreme
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/15965155

Also this are my old scores before wattman etc
Firestrike Extreme
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11881301
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom