damn 1750 max boost? that's pretty good then 1800 or so maybe max with an oc on that aio cooler

These clock speeds sound great, but performance from what we've seen so far is really rather lower than expected when say sat next to a Fury X at 1050MHz... Feels like it should be leagues ahead with it's 66% clock improvement, not just something (close to from memory) about 25% fps faster in games. That is without even bringing up the large time out for Dev and improved tech. Of ccourse I expect this will brighten up as games adapt (and drivers), but it should be ahead of the 1080Ti with such high clocks even before software tweaks. May well buy one, but will likely wait for later models with the faster HBM 2, as the current stocks of consumer HBM 2 have a reduced clock over what was promised and new inventory should be back up to the original higher spec speeds. Can't wait for HH's reviews ofc 😉

Vega FE was not the gaming card you were looking for. AMD really meant that because certain things on Vega FE were disabled but on RX Vega they are there and will boost performance. You cant really get an accurate idea of gaming performance from FE. One such feature disabled on Vega FE is draw-stream binning rasterization (DBSR). DBSR is a tile-based pixel-shading/rendering approach where the GPU can render more complex pixels very efficiently relative to previous generations. Vega also has a higher level of DX12 support than even Pascal so the fine wine strikes again. DX 11 support has added conservative rasterization which will help bridge the gap in those DX 11 titles with Nvidia. Now this is not to even touch the increased clock speeds, HB2 improvements and the new memory management. AMD is sandbagging hard with the blind tests because they know no matter what the performance somebody will try to marginalize it with FCAT. So they want to squash that immediately.

Vega FE was not the gaming card you were looking for. AMD really meant that because certain things on Vega FE were disabled but on RX Vega they are there and will boost performance. You cant really get an accurate idea of gaming performance from FE. One such feature disabled on Vega FE is draw-stream binning rasterization (DBSR). DBSR is a tile-based pixel-shading/rendering approach where the GPU can render more complex pixels very efficiently relative to previous generations. Vega also has a higher level of DX12 support than even Pascal so the fine wine strikes again. DX 11 support has added conservative rasterization which will help bridge the gap in those DX 11 titles with Nvidia. Now this is not to even touch the increased clock speeds, HB2 improvements and the new memory management. AMD is sandbagging hard with the blind tests because they know no matter what the performance somebody will try to marginalize it with FCAT. So they want to squash that immediately.

(Oh yea, there was also some gaming fps in BF1 slide too comparing the two cards): BF1 1080p 104 vs 131 = 25.9% BF1 1440p 81 vs 98 = 20.9% BF1 2160p 41 vs 55 = 34.1% Still, not long for real reviews now 🙂

I am wondering if the Vega XT with a hybrid WC cooler and XTX bios can do the same as the stock WC edition? I just don't like that stock air cooler (had 2x blower AMD GPUs) and it was super hot and loud at full load.

4K is unfortunately moot as the minimum quote for most enthusiasts isn't anywhere close to being met. Sync techonlogies or none. Surprisingly it is again however 4K where the card 'shines'. That power is not showing itself in 1080p/1440p. If the Fury is any indicator it may never really show up, either. I may be interested in Vega 56 depending on what the reviews mid August reveal to us. I am however not expecting any wonders of magical 50% performance increase due drivers and features. Well, if we're lucky the CU's aren't cut/defect either but simply disabled. Shader/CU unlocking in early batches of AMD cards isn't exactly too uncommon 🤓

Me Too. I just don't like their 120mm radiator. I already have a 240mm, 50mm thick radiator on my 290, and Its looking like I'll be just upgrading the GPU to a Vega 64. I don't want to have to get the WC version, and dump the block and the pumps that I don't need/want. And I'm not paying thru the arse for a custom card with WB already attached. Reference model, and Full cover EK WB should do fine.

I noticed that too, I was really hoping Vega could get me good 60fps 4K performance. The 1080Ti is pretty damn good for it, but even that is not fully there with demanding games. I'm going to at least wait for rev 2 Vega with the faster HMB2. Memory overclocking was surprisingly effectie for Fury (X), maybe Vega will step it's game up with faster memory too... I had planned to go water cooled GPU with the Fury, but I liked my Sapphire Fury Tri-X so much I stuck with its cooling solution. In my case with good airflow the fans almost never switch on during gaming (or even mining if the weather is not too hot) making it effectively passively cooled 😀 Don't see that working out with Vega this time out though from what we are hearing lol Will finally get to plumb a GPU into my 420x61mm rad which felt a bit overkill on only my CPU till now. Here's to hoping they all OC equally !

I'm worried that the power limits on the Aircooled cards will be lower than the Watercooled cards. Thats why I'd be happy if I could flash an Aircooled card with a Watercooled card's BIOS. That way, just a standard Sapphire Vega 64 would do the trick. 🙂

You'd have to be crazy to buy a Vega at this point. You can find 1080Tis for 600 and it's arguably superior in every way to vega.