Patriot Viper V765 Keyboard Review
Combo deal: Office 2016 Pro and W10 for $34
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: RTX and DLSS Update
ASUS RT-AX88U (AX6000) router review
The Division 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
URCDkey Spring Sale(up to 86% off) Windows 10 Pro $11
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming X review
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 VENTUS XS 6G OC review
Palit GeForce GTX 1660 StormX OC review
Corsair Crystal 680X PC 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 07:29 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 07:18 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 01:34 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 07:46 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 06:40 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: 901
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 901
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5453159 Posted on: 07/17/2017 09:49 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: 2060
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 2060
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5453160 Posted on: 07/17/2017 09:59 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: 436
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5453165 Posted on: 07/17/2017 10:35 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: 935
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5453171 Posted on: 07/17/2017 10:55 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.
Exascale
Senior Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 2017-06-09
Senior Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 2017-06-09
#5453173 Posted on: 07/17/2017 11:18 AM
Its not like using liquid cooling is a bad thing. The most advanced computers are liquid cooled.
How come AMD always insist on putting liquid cooling on their high powered frying pans?
Its not like using liquid cooling is a bad thing. The most advanced computers are liquid cooled.
Valken
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 2011-01-05
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 2011-01-05
#5453182 Posted on: 07/17/2017 11:52 AM
Cannot wait to see the performance of the XTX vs 1080Ti, both OC'ed to the max stable clocks in 4K. That is where these will shine.
Cannot wait to see the performance of the XTX vs 1080Ti, both OC'ed to the max stable clocks in 4K. That is where these will shine.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9089
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9089
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5453188 Posted on: 07/17/2017 12:27 PM
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.
Its not like using liquid cooling is a bad thing. The most advanced computers are liquid cooled.
They better improve VRM cooling this time around. FuryX had horrid VRM cooling when compared to GPU cooling.
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.
Its not like using liquid cooling is a bad thing. The most advanced computers are liquid cooled.
They better improve VRM cooling this time around. FuryX had horrid VRM cooling when compared to GPU cooling.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
#5453189 Posted on: 07/17/2017 12:32 PM
Well, at least some dumb AMD fanboys can't now deny 300W usage.
Still don't expect miracles from these cards, too hot, to hungry, requires HBM2.
Well, at least some dumb AMD fanboys can't now deny 300W usage.
Still don't expect miracles from these cards, too hot, to hungry, requires HBM2.
Exascale
Senior Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 2017-06-09
Senior Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 2017-06-09
#5453193 Posted on: 07/17/2017 12:50 PM
I was speaking generally about liquid cooling.
Tbh i dont really know of many consumer GPUs that have excellent VRM cooling. It usually seems like an afterthought in most designs, despite it being a common point of failure.
They better improve VRM cooling this time around. FuryX had horrid VRM cooling when compared to GPU cooling.
I was speaking generally about liquid cooling.
Tbh i dont really know of many consumer GPUs that have excellent VRM cooling. It usually seems like an afterthought in most designs, despite it being a common point of failure.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9089
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9089
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5453197 Posted on: 07/17/2017 01:03 PM
I was speaking generally about liquid cooling.
Tbh i dont really know of many consumer GPUs that have excellent VRM cooling. It usually seems like an afterthought in most designs, despite it being a common point of failure.
Yeah, it just annoyed me on the FuryX seeing how compact the whole PCB was it would have been nice had the water block covered the VRM not just stick a pipe over it with some thermal tape (honestly passive cooling may have worked better.)
I was speaking generally about liquid cooling.
Tbh i dont really know of many consumer GPUs that have excellent VRM cooling. It usually seems like an afterthought in most designs, despite it being a common point of failure.
Yeah, it just annoyed me on the FuryX seeing how compact the whole PCB was it would have been nice had the water block covered the VRM not just stick a pipe over it with some thermal tape (honestly passive cooling may have worked better.)
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 901
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 901
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5453207 Posted on: 07/17/2017 01:59 PM
I thought the Fury X had a heatpipe over the VRM's that connected to the Waterblock ? It should have been pretty cool, I would have thought...
Yeah, it just annoyed me on the FuryX seeing how compact the whole PCB was it would have been nice had the water block covered the VRM not just stick a pipe over it with some thermal tape (honestly passive cooling may have worked better.)
I thought the Fury X had a heatpipe over the VRM's that connected to the Waterblock ? It should have been pretty cool, I would have thought...
gerardfraser
Senior Member
Posts: 2275
Joined: 2008-03-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2275
Joined: 2008-03-08
#5453213 Posted on: 07/17/2017 02:18 PM
Well, at least some dumb AMD fanboys can't now deny 300W usage.
Still don't expect miracles from these cards, too hot, to hungry, requires HBM2.
Well thank god my GTX 1080TI only runs at 278 watts undervolted,and not frigging 300 watts I would never buy that card.
Well, at least some dumb AMD fanboys can't now deny 300W usage.
Still don't expect miracles from these cards, too hot, to hungry, requires HBM2.
Well thank god my GTX 1080TI only runs at 278 watts undervolted,and not frigging 300 watts I would never buy that card.
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5453218 Posted on: 07/17/2017 02:35 PM
All of these crybabies crying about TDP.
We are enthusiast, not green power users..
Crying about the power usuage of a gpu, but many of you have a heavily overclocked CPU. Yes while the power usuage is lower on a cpu, i find it hilarious irony.
And the Fury X had a heatpipe over the VRM that was part of the AIO.
There was no VRM issues on the Fury X. I had one.
All of these crybabies crying about TDP.
We are enthusiast, not green power users..
Crying about the power usuage of a gpu, but many of you have a heavily overclocked CPU. Yes while the power usuage is lower on a cpu, i find it hilarious irony.
And the Fury X had a heatpipe over the VRM that was part of the AIO.
There was no VRM issues on the Fury X. I had one.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5453223 Posted on: 07/17/2017 02:42 PM
Having high TDP is bad but not a deal breaker, at least for me. What really matters are the performance and the price of those things.
Also i really dislike the naming of them, what the hell are XL, TX and XTX supposed to mean??? Was somebody from AMD marketing watching a porn flick and thought those names are cool?...
Having high TDP is bad but not a deal breaker, at least for me. What really matters are the performance and the price of those things.
Also i really dislike the naming of them, what the hell are XL, TX and XTX supposed to mean??? Was somebody from AMD marketing watching a porn flick and thought those names are cool?...
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 15019
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.)