-
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.
Poll: The Vega Review Thread.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
TL;DR - Vega 64 is an alright card... at £450 it was probably worth picking up if you need a decent upgrade or have a FreeSync monitor. At £550 it is probably not worth it. It's power draw is easily remedied but it does run hot and loud. Wait for custom cards and re-evaluate (drivers might even improve performance).
This seem to sum up the release?
I am sitting on a 144mhz 1440p Freesync monitor currently running a RX480. So an upgrade is not urgent however I would like to get the most out of my monitor soon.
Might even put one under water in a new build. £700 for the AIO was mind boggling however... Can pick up a 1080ti for that.
This seem to sum up the release?
I am sitting on a 144mhz 1440p Freesync monitor currently running a RX480. So an upgrade is not urgent however I would like to get the most out of my monitor soon.
Might even put one under water in a new build. £700 for the AIO was mind boggling however... Can pick up a 1080ti for that.
Soldato
Whilst I accept that Adored has done about everything he can not to make Vega look terrible he does have some good points. I initially bought a G-Sync monitor, then changed to a Fury X. It was a nightmare. Not just because I had no adaptive sync but because I had a green shadow around everything. Any way, I figured I would get a monitor for what I needed it for and got a 32" HP Envy. It has Freesync, but that isn't why I bought it. It does 70hz over DP on both Nvidia and AMD and that is more than enough for me (was a bit of a luxury coming from 60hz). Any way, I have had no issues whatsoever using Adaptive Vsync. Maybe because of the sheer power I am hurling at that 70hz cap (Titan XM then Titan XP) but yeah, I get no tearing, my gaming experience is more than good enough and I love the monitor.
IIRC the original Vsync was only bad because of low FPS and input lag. If you eliminate that as much as you can then Adaptive Vsync is a luxury. In the type of games I play I do not need eye bleeding HZ or FPS. 70 is more than enough. I don't know why, but Freesync (when I had the Fury X in the DP) made everything really juddery. I disabled Vsync in game too, so it wasn't that.
IIRC the original Vsync was only bad because of low FPS and input lag. If you eliminate that as much as you can then Adaptive Vsync is a luxury. In the type of games I play I do not need eye bleeding HZ or FPS. 70 is more than enough. I don't know why, but Freesync (when I had the Fury X in the DP) made everything really juddery. I disabled Vsync in game too, so it wasn't that.
Associate
It's the lack of tearing that makes G-sync (same for freesync) invaluable to me. When I had a 60hz monitor even with capped fps and software adaptive V-sync there would be some tearing which would irritate the crap out of me. The other option was the lower fps/stutter associated with V-sync. Even when running well below 144hz, around 60-80 G-sync ensures no tearing and that is beauty of adaptive sync in my experience.
Soldato
I liked G-Sync at 4k. But then I would have, wouldn't I? I was running a pair of Titan Blacks and mainly saw 50 FPS if I was lucky. Most of the time it hovered in the low 30s to high 20s and thus G-sync was invaluable to me.
However, I did not have unlimited funds to keep buying £600 monitors go go with £1400 worth of GPUs. So I bought a all round display (32" Envy Bang and Olufsen). It's 70hz, so by throwing a Titan XM and then Titan XP at the problem I get no lag and Adaptive Vsync keeps me at 70 FPS. And that is how it will stay. My screen is excellent for photo work, multi tasking, watching videos etc. I do that far more than I do gaming, but my gaming is silky smooth with Adaptive Vsync.
Personally I feel that if you had a 1440p display with a reasonable refresh rate the '64 with Freesync would be a great match. Well, once it comes back down to £450 any way. Yeah the 1080 is faster, but G-sync is a £200 premium. I would rather take smooth gameplay than stupid FPS.
Sorry but your argument does hold true. These are specific and approved settings selected at the driver level using Wattman, and or via the BIOS switch. In short these lower TDP settings are officially approved and supported by AMD on the RX Vega and by definition should be attainable by every Vega 64 sold. This is not an individual going in to Wattman and lowering voltages to unrealistic levels where the card becomes unstable.
Most reviews I have read barely mention the lower TDP settings and one review even went as far as only testing Turbo mode and getting obviously crap TDP. AMD setting RX Vega to lower TDP of 214 W for ~5% less performance and 80 W less consumption would have made TDP look far more attractive. These numbers are not made up, check out the TPU review.
I'm not defending how poor stock TDP is and do feel AMD messed up their priorities. At stock OOB the Vega 64 has horrendous performance per watt, but it's wrong to ignore there are other TDP setting that paint a much better image.
Caporegime
Thats massive drop in power from Turbo to Balanced, yet it only equates to about 2/3 frames difference, so id just stick to Balanced.
Soldato
So the liquid cooled Vega is a ridiculous purchase, it costs the same as 1080Ti, but is around 30% slower hmmmm
It's really made me regret buying a freesync ultrawide a few months ago, wish I had waited or just stumped up the cash for a UW g-sync instead
It's really made me regret buying a freesync ultrawide a few months ago, wish I had waited or just stumped up the cash for a UW g-sync instead
Soldato
Great Review.
That is crazy, who in their right mind would do that apart from Amd and maybe Intel with the Cpu's, talk about shooting yourself in the foot again.
Its similar to the turbo mode on the 6990, the power usage jumped up with only a couple fps difference, its really nothing new and a dumb idea to say the least.
Associate
I see what you're saying Andy. Also I absolutely agree that at £450 the 64 is fine with a Freesync 1440p monitor. The 980 Ti drives most games fine at that res so with a decent amount of extra power the 64 should give a good experience. The issue is the £550 being asked for it now.
The 56 looks the way to go as it's mostly still faster at 1440p than a 1070/980 Ti and considerably cheaper than the 64.
The 56 looks the way to go as it's mostly still faster at 1440p than a 1070/980 Ti and considerably cheaper than the 64.
Good review. I like his analysis. Pretty much how I feel.
Great looking card, overpriced for what it is and only 2 years warranty. If in the next couple of weeks AMD do decide to do the pre-order special deal on the Liquid Edition again with a partner other than Sapphire and PowerColor which offer additional warranty, I may yet still reconsider.
Sadly I do not see AMD lowering prices, as they will likely be selling them as quick as they can make them. Not because they are excellent cards, but because there are a lot of people with Freesync monitor's finally looking to upgrade and of course miners. I expect that by the time demand is mostly filled and prices come down to an acceptable level, it will be too late as Volta will be around the corner.
If the 56 was fast enough for someone, it looks good, in fairness. But if I was going to get anything, it would have to be faster, and preferably better value - so still nothing for me on the whole high-end gpu market! Maybe next year
megasadface
I like the cards, problem is they are late and pricing as a result does not seem very good. If you watched the Adored review, right at the end he quoted Anandtech guy. There is not such thing as a bad graphics card, only bad pricing. Now if I want to buy a Vega card right now, can you seriously tell me the pricing is good and therefore I would be getting an excellent card? Nope don't think so.
I think the card that AMD got right is the Vega 56. Even though it is late, it is a better purchase than a 1070 imo. That for £350 would be a good card, even though it is late.
Soldato
I saw the price as £640 for the Vega AIO, was that what you meant by launch price? If so, even with an AIO it wouldn't touch the £640 Gigabyte 1080Ti that gibbo had on pre-order.
The point I was getting at was that even with an AIO it gets nowhere near a similar priced 1080Ti and then only just about beats an AiB 1080 costing over £100 less
It doesn't seem to be that way from the reviews I've seen. To be fair though it's a 300W or more card.
It'll be interesting to see how the custom cards perform.
And the point I was making was you can't just compare a AIO card to random cards, you have to compare it to other AIO cards otherwise what's the point of comparing the AIO instead of the reference. And at it's original price before retailers went trolololol the Vega AIO was cheaper than a 1080 AIO and £150+ cheaper than a 1080ti AIO. It was a good deal, but not at £780 haha.
I see, in honesty my prediction was based on the Vega reference fan being the same one as Polaris, which was noticeably better than the one in Pascal. That combined with both cards having vapor chambered heat sinks lead me to assume that even with the extra heat of Vega it would still be comparable noise wise as it can move significantly more air at the same volume.