Hitman III: PC graphics perf benchmark review
TeamGroup CX2 1TB SATA3 SSD review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 FTW3 Ultra review
Corsair 5000D PC Chassis Review
NZXT Kraken X63 RGB Review
ASUS Radeon RX 6900 XT STRIX OC LC Review
TerraMaster F5-221 NAS Review
MSI Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming X TRIO Review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6800 NITRO+ review
Corsair HS70 Bluetooth Headset Review
ASUS Radeon ROG RX Vega 64 STRIX 8GB review
Posted by: on: 09/25/2017 11:14 AM [
97 comment(s) ]
We review the ASUS Radeon ROG RX Vega 64 STRIX 8GB Gaming. ASUS finalized it's all custom product, we'll take you through the product, its architecture and the performance numbers. Will custom cooling make all the difference?
Read article
Advertisement
pages « 3 4 5 6 > »
nashathedog
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 09/06/2017 05:12 PM
Hello,
I'm sorry if I missed it in the review as I admittedly light read parts but I didn't find any mention of which revision of the Vega 64 chip it uses. I bought an AIO on release which used the C0 chip and it was faulty, several members of my local forum also got faulty AIO's on release so the usual conspiracy theories started (call me guilty) about why the reference Vega 64 blower used the C1 variant, That in turn got given weight by the rumour we all heard about a delay and a new stepping a couple of months ago. To me that could gain more weight if the Strix uses a C0 chip as it would give a reason for why the temps and noise are barely better than the reference blower.
Since I returned my Vega AIO I've waited for more info on the Strix variant and as nobody can deny the numbers are very disappointing, The question is Why?
Is there a gpu shot available for the Strix you can get the revision details from please?
Cheers, David.
Hello,
I'm sorry if I missed it in the review as I admittedly light read parts but I didn't find any mention of which revision of the Vega 64 chip it uses. I bought an AIO on release which used the C0 chip and it was faulty, several members of my local forum also got faulty AIO's on release so the usual conspiracy theories started (call me guilty) about why the reference Vega 64 blower used the C1 variant, That in turn got given weight by the rumour we all heard about a delay and a new stepping a couple of months ago. To me that could gain more weight if the Strix uses a C0 chip as it would give a reason for why the temps and noise are barely better than the reference blower.
Since I returned my Vega AIO I've waited for more info on the Strix variant and as nobody can deny the numbers are very disappointing, The question is Why?
Is there a gpu shot available for the Strix you can get the revision details from please?
Cheers, David.
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Posted on: 09/06/2017 06:44 PM
another job well done HH, aside from predictable outbreaks of snark.
what has me excited is what this card represents - a full scalable gpu. the very first.
now, when the miners see the next new shiny object we may see decent pricing, but to me that's the time when this card will actually be mature drivers -wise. and developers will know a lot more about vega.
but to me navi is the sweet spot. that will be my 1080ti replacement. the fact that gpu chip size will no longer be a factor in performance and for AMD to really get after power consumption - the lion's share will go with the die shrinkage. i also predict that navi may only come with a water-block or aio...unless they work wonders with the heatspreader...like threadripper.
now vega 56, if available, may go to replace my old htpc (Q6600, GTX 970), as i still have cannibal parts from my last build.
another job well done HH, aside from predictable outbreaks of snark.
what has me excited is what this card represents - a full scalable gpu. the very first.
now, when the miners see the next new shiny object we may see decent pricing, but to me that's the time when this card will actually be mature drivers -wise. and developers will know a lot more about vega.
but to me navi is the sweet spot. that will be my 1080ti replacement. the fact that gpu chip size will no longer be a factor in performance and for AMD to really get after power consumption - the lion's share will go with the die shrinkage. i also predict that navi may only come with a water-block or aio...unless they work wonders with the heatspreader...like threadripper.
now vega 56, if available, may go to replace my old htpc (Q6600, GTX 970), as i still have cannibal parts from my last build.
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Posted on: 09/06/2017 06:53 PM
Gamers buy them too, and they aren't neccessarily Fans, or Miners, or "Productivity" people. It really pisses me off to be called that.
I bought it, because I wanted to upgrade my card, and stay AMD.
Thats it. Not an AMD Fan, just happy to give them some money, and I think its worth it (once watercooled).
Great review Hilbert. I was expecting the Strix to clock much higher, due to the beefy cooler.
These really seem to need to be watercooled for Max performance.
Sounds like a fan to to me! Ha, but it doesn't matter, you can be a fan if you want, who cares. I'm sure I've seen a review of a water cooled Vega64, and the conclusion was that it's not worth the extra cost & hassle for the small performance increase - Vega64 is already pretty much pushed to it's limits on the voltage-frequency curve.
EDIT: oh yeah, here's the review of a watercooled Vega64, they conclude not worth it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-rx-vega-64-water-cooling,5177.html
Gamers buy them too, and they aren't neccessarily Fans, or Miners, or "Productivity" people. It really pisses me off to be called that.
I bought it, because I wanted to upgrade my card, and stay AMD.
Thats it. Not an AMD Fan, just happy to give them some money, and I think its worth it (once watercooled).
Great review Hilbert. I was expecting the Strix to clock much higher, due to the beefy cooler.
These really seem to need to be watercooled for Max performance.
Sounds like a fan to to me! Ha, but it doesn't matter, you can be a fan if you want, who cares. I'm sure I've seen a review of a water cooled Vega64, and the conclusion was that it's not worth the extra cost & hassle for the small performance increase - Vega64 is already pretty much pushed to it's limits on the voltage-frequency curve.
EDIT: oh yeah, here's the review of a watercooled Vega64, they conclude not worth it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-rx-vega-64-water-cooling,5177.html
StuST220
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Posted on: 09/06/2017 07:23 PM
I was really hoping the non-reference partner cards would have a little extra performance over the reference cards and be a little more efficient on power but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I've been hanging on for quite a while now whilst deciding what to upgrade my MSI R9 290 to which is still great at 1080p which is pretty much what I game at, but now it seems nVidia is going to be the most sensible option for me out of the two.
I was really hoping the non-reference partner cards would have a little extra performance over the reference cards and be a little more efficient on power but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I've been hanging on for quite a while now whilst deciding what to upgrade my MSI R9 290 to which is still great at 1080p which is pretty much what I game at, but now it seems nVidia is going to be the most sensible option for me out of the two.
pages « 3 4 5 6 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Ok, so main thrust of the article, as in the only real difference to reference Vega64 - this GPU is a bit quieter than the reference version, well that's something, I suppose it makes Vega64 bearable!
EDIT: I heard many accounts of Vega performs better with overclocking the HBM VRAM, and doing so also doesn't really increase power demands (so is like free performance!), so overclocking would probably have been painted in a better light if that had been included in the review.