Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Hyte Y60 chassis review
Radeon RX Vega to be Air and Liquid Cooled - XL XT and XTX models
So the title it actually nothing new, everybody knows that Radeon RX Vega will see air and liquid cooled parts, but over the weekend some new data surfaced on the web, detailing the different SKUs a little better in ther form of a flagship LCS AMD Radeon RX VEGA XTX, an aircooled XT and then also an XL version.
Basically the Vega XTX is the water-cooled edition of the air-cooled XT with a higher TDP. There now also is a rumored XL model with cut-down Vega, much like what AMD has been doing with the Fury series. XTX and XT will feature 8GB HBM2 memory. We do not think a 16GB model is planned. Here is the latest rumored table that shows the SKUs:
| SKU | Shader cluster | Storage | cooling | ASIC Power | Board Power | remark | Launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radeon RX Vega XTX | 64 shader clusters = 4096 shader units |
8 GB HBM2 | AiO (water) | 300W | 375W | Reference | (Presumably) early August |
| Radeon RX Vega XT | 64 shader clusters = 4096 shader units |
8 GB HBM2 | air | 220W | 285W | Reference | (Presumably) early August |
| Radeon RX Vega XL | 56 shader clusters = 3584 shader units |
? GB HBM2 | air | 220W | 285W | AIB design | (Presumably) at the end of August |
As you can see the XT and XTX are tagged at 64 shader units x 64 shares = 4096. The XL model gets 56 shader untis and thus 3584 shader units. The chart also is listing TDP and TDB powers. It is expected that a 1.7GHz GPU clock is likely what the boards will run at. If correct and with a Boost to say 1800MHz, Vega would get respectable performance and would put the card in the range of the GTX 1080.
AMD Radeon RX Vega series will be unveiled at SIGGRAPH Capsaicin on July 30th.
Gigabyte Adds Radeon RX 560 OC 4G Mini-ITX Graphics Card - 07/14/2017 08:29 AM
Gigabyte has added a new mini-ITX graphics card to its line-up, the Radeon RX 560 OC 4G. Engineered with ultra durable components, this compact graphics card (170mm length) is configured with 1024 Str...
AMD on the Road: takes Radeon RX Vega to the Gamers - 07/12/2017 08:18 AM
AMD will be showing the Radeon RX Vega in a bit of a road-trip. This information was posted at the AMD website, they'll take and show in Budapest, Hungary, then PDXLAN in Portland, USA and the final ...
Board Partner BIOS release schedule Radeon RX Vega leaks - 07/11/2017 02:34 PM
Right, it's a bit of a weird story to report on, but as the title states a BIOS release schedule for Radeon RX Vega has leaked onto the web. As you know AIB partners obviously are working on Vega fo...
Radeon RX Vega Benchmark Shows 3DMark 11 Performance just above GTX 1080 - 07/06/2017 08:46 AM
In the Futuremark online results browser new entries have been spotted for the Radeon RX Vega 3DMark 11. The results show the tested product to be in the GeForce GTX 1080 range....
AMD to launch Radeon RX 560D for Asia market - 07/05/2017 07:40 AM
AMD will launch the Radeon RX 560D, a new graphics card for the Chinese market. In essence a simplified Radeo RX 560. Compared with Radeo RX 560, the Radeon RX 560D has 896 streaming processors....
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5453159 Posted on: 07/17/2017 10:49 AM
Hopefully the XT and XTX variants will be physically identical, apart from the coolers.
that way if there is any BIOS limitations, it should be possible to flash an XT into an XTX (and slap a Waterblock on it
)
Hopefully the XT and XTX variants will be physically identical, apart from the coolers.
that way if there is any BIOS limitations, it should be possible to flash an XT into an XTX (and slap a Waterblock on it
)
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5453160 Posted on: 07/17/2017 10:59 AM
How come AMD always insist on putting liquid cooling on their high powered frying pans?
How come AMD always insist on putting liquid cooling on their high powered frying pans?
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 807
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 807
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5453165 Posted on: 07/17/2017 11:35 AM
Because they apparently can't make an air cooler powerful enough to run their power hungry cards without cutting them down.
Having two designs like this with different power and therefore performance profiles was always kinda dumb.
How come AMD always insist on putting liquid cooling on their high powered frying pans?
Because they apparently can't make an air cooler powerful enough to run their power hungry cards without cutting them down.
Having two designs like this with different power and therefore performance profiles was always kinda dumb.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5453171 Posted on: 07/17/2017 11:55 AM
Because they apparently can't make an air cooler powerful enough to run their power hungry cards without cutting them down.
Having two designs like this with different power and therefore performance profiles was always kinda dumb.
Like Nvidia's reference coolers are any less sh1t. Almost all reference coolers are garbage.
Nvidia's were especially bad during the Fermi period while AMD's during the 200 series. Hence the Thermi and 290x airplane/fryingpan/whatever jokes.
The only actually good one was the cooler on the Fury X, but you could say that it's technically not reference since it wasn't AMD who designed it.
Realistically, you usually get reference if you intend to watercool. AMD putting a watercooler on their high-end is a smart move, it saves you the trouble and you should pay less overall since they already have a contract with the cooling company, so they buy in bulk.
Because they apparently can't make an air cooler powerful enough to run their power hungry cards without cutting them down.
Having two designs like this with different power and therefore performance profiles was always kinda dumb.
Like Nvidia's reference coolers are any less sh1t. Almost all reference coolers are garbage.
Nvidia's were especially bad during the Fermi period while AMD's during the 200 series. Hence the Thermi and 290x airplane/fryingpan/whatever jokes.
The only actually good one was the cooler on the Fury X, but you could say that it's technically not reference since it wasn't AMD who designed it.
Realistically, you usually get reference if you intend to watercool. AMD putting a watercooler on their high-end is a smart move, it saves you the trouble and you should pay less overall since they already have a contract with the cooling company, so they buy in bulk.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 17562
Joined: 2009-02-25
So XT and XTX remains reference and the XL is the one getting third party designs but it will be a bit cut down (Unless it can be re-activated again.) with possibly different memory amounts as well, interesting.
Basically a improved Fury then, voltage or power limitations might lower the max attainable clock speeds though on all but the water cooled edition but even that might require some tweaking. (Increasing voltage wasn't all that effective on the Fury after a certain point though.)
EDIT: Will be interesting to see what the reviews for these will be, will also be fun to read what overclockers might try with them and if they can be modified at all when it comes to things like bios editing and what not.
The XL and the XT are probably going to be throttled by the reduced power configuration compared to the XTX but by how much and how that will hit performance remains to be seen. (And how the cuts to the XL compare to the XT in terms of performance.)