Review: AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 08/14/2017 01:59 PM | source: | 188 comment(s)

The 4096 Shader processor enabled Radeon RX Vega 64 with 8GB graphics memory is being reviewed in this article. The new AMD graphics card has arrived, is released and we'll take you through the architecture and the performance numbers. Was it worth the wait?

You can read the full article right here.

Related Stories

Review: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB - 08/14/2017 01:56 PM
We review that Radeon RX Vega 56 with 8GB graphics memory. At 399 bucks this is the what could be affordable AMD graphics card in that new Vega range. It quite honestly might actually be the better pr...

Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - 08/10/2017 02:01 PM
In this article we review the sixteen core and 32 threaded Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. It is the flagship processor and product that will get a 3.4 GHz base frequency with the ability to precision boost...

Review: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 08/10/2017 02:01 PM
AMD also releases their Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, which we review and test. This this is the 12-core part, the base clock is a notch higher at 3.5 GHz and the precision boost is also 4.0 GHz. With 24 ...

Review: ASUS ROG Zenith X399 Extreme - 08/10/2017 02:01 PM
A new thread ripping processor will need to be paired with a proper motherboard, join us in this review of the X399 chipset based ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme. A motherboard loaded with features and high-e...

Review: PrimoChill Praxis WetBench - 08/08/2017 09:27 AM
Chassis you can find in many models and designs, chassis for modding, chassis for the DiY enthusiast and testing however are more scarce. Hence I was looking for an easy to use chassis where we can po...

13 pages 1 2 3 4 > »

AlmondMan
Senior Member

Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-09-03

#5462691 Posted on: 08/14/2017 01:58 PM

OMG not yet available 3 minutes I CANT WAIT

rm082e
Senior Member

Posts: 521
Joined: 2014-12-11

#5462695 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:02 PM

Exactly what most of us expected.

:/

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 16441
Joined: 2012-05-18

#5462697 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:03 PM

Ok let's see this mofo :nerd:

Edit: at least its not so hot.. but overall, well meh.. its ok for its money though, wonder what custom version will oc.

bemaniac
Senior Member

Posts: 263
Joined: 2009-03-17

#5462701 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:10 PM

eww. Ryzen though

omni_gamer
Member

Posts: 20
Joined: 2014-05-28

#5462707 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:19 PM

wow!

I really wanted this card to be something that it's clearly not. Anyway you slice it, it's a failure. 12 months late to the party with sub-par performance. The only reason I would go this route would be A) I'm a miner or B) I don't want to shell out the extra $300 for a gsync monitor. I think all the R&D $$ went to the CPU department this year.

moab600
Senior Member

Posts: 6115
Joined: 2004-09-30

#5462708 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:25 PM

nVidia won big time, at best 56 and 64 outpace 1070 and match 1080, too late with zero added value.

NVIDIA was clearly so far ahead, that even one year later the GTX 1080 reigns supreme, not talking about 1080TI, nvidia will lower prices of 1070, oced 1070 will offer even better value outside of mining.

But at least AMD tried, that still could mean something.

Weecka
Senior Member

Posts: 300
Joined: 2007-12-10

#5462710 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:27 PM

This is quite disappointing to say the least. I was expecting it to at least be in between 1080 and the ti version (well closer to or on par with ti) but it is basically on par with 1080. Looking at the fact that they are 1 year late, i do hope it is as good for crypto-currency mining as the rumour said. We (consumers) need competition to stop the prices going thru the roof as nvidia at the moment can put their high end gpus for whatever price they want as there is no competitors. I love Ryzen cpus and i think they deserve a praise, something i can't say about vega. Sad...

Denial
Senior Member

Posts: 12416
Joined: 2004-05-16

#5462716 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:33 PM

Well if AMD had money like nvidia+intel have i am sure they would do better soo stop whinning it's ok only they need to tweak prices like for example:

Vega 56=300$
Vega64=400$

And then they would sell like cookies.

No they wouldn't because the market is already saturated by Nvidia. They'd sell more but it probably wouldn't offset the margin loss on cards that already have way lower margins then what Nvidia is selling.

Ricepudding
Senior Member

Posts: 492
Joined: 2017-02-17

#5462725 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:40 PM

Thought, hey this is better than expected... trades blows with the 1080... wonder what the cost is... oh its £100 more? what! why would anyone spend that much more for the same performance... and a hotter and more power hungry card (almost as much as 1080sli), is HBM2 that expensive for them ?

These cards should be cheaper, Liquid cooled one is going for around 650-700 pounds here, the same price as a 1080ti... Very confusing why they would price them so high... only reason i can see them doing this is because of the cyptocurrency??

Also somehow 499USD = £599

UK always getting screwed with pricing

Netherwind
Senior Member

Posts: 6934
Joined: 2009-11-13

#5462726 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:40 PM

It's striking that AMD fails at power efficiency over and over...will they ever learn?

schmidtbag
Senior Member

Posts: 4580
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5462727 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:40 PM

I'm shocked how much of a power difference there is with the 64 vs the 56. Seems to me the 56 is the real winner and the recommendable option; the 64, not so much.

I'm also a bit surprised how well the Fury X has aged.

I really wanted this card to be something that it's clearly not. Anyway you slice it, it's a failure. 12 months late to the party with sub-par performance. The only reason I would go this route would be A) I'm a miner or B) I don't want to shell out the extra $300 for a gsync monitor. I think all the R&D $$ went to the CPU department this year.

You and a lot of people had woefully unrealistic expectations for this card. I would argue this performed better than expected. However, better than expected still isn't quite good enough - the power consumption, noise level, delayed release, and price combined make this a tough choice. The Vega 56 is overall a better choice than a GTX 1070.

H83
Senior Member

Posts: 2753
Joined: 2009-09-08

#5462732 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:43 PM

Nice cards with nice prices and very nice performance but unfortunately they are to late for the party... Nvidia won this round by default...
Also the power consumption is scary to say the least...

Well if AMD had money like nvidia+intel have i am sure they would do better soo stop whinning it's ok only they need to tweak prices like for example:

Vega 56=300$
Vega64=400$

And then they would sell like cookies.

I don´t think that AMD can afford to sell the cards so cheap like you suggest... But if the prices were like that, i would gladly sell my 1070 and buy a custom Vega64!

Prince Valiant
Senior Member

Posts: 694
Joined: 2014-02-23

#5462738 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:47 PM

Another launch where AMD could've done nicely if they got it out much sooner

.

I'm quite impressed by the thermals considering the power usage.

FM57
Senior Member

Posts: 162
Joined: 2016-12-28

#5462739 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:48 PM

Great review HH but not so great for AMD. Well, crap in fact.

My 980ti will last 6 more months then. 200 bucks well spent.

cryohellinc
Senior Member

Posts: 2763
Joined: 2014-10-20

#5462740 Posted on: 08/14/2017 02:48 PM

I think we need power bill charts comparison to be included into benches these days - buy a cheaper but more hungry card, or get a more expensive card buy get smaller bills down the road!

Other then that, finally AMD released it.

13 pages 1 2 3 4 > »

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.