Vega Thread

[SteelCrysis]

http://techreport.com/review/32391/amd-r...eviewed/12

Another reason for the performance deficit between the RX Vega 64 and the GTX 1080 in our initial standings is, I think, a lot simpler. The RX Vega 64 reference card seems to be running on the ragged edge of its voltage-and-frequency-scaling curve, and its factory fan profile doesn't allow the GPU to run at its peak clock speeds for extended periods, if at all. Our card was plenty happy to overclock with its blower cranked and a bunch of fans blowing on it, but the eyebrow-raising power draw and physically painful noise levels that ensued showed why AMD isn't pushing Vega over the shoulder of the voltage-and-frequency-scaling curve and into its ear.

Even at stock speeds, power consumption is the bane of the Vega GPU. Our system power draw with the RX Vega 64 installed exceeded that of even the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, at 408W for the RX Vega 64 and about 350W for the GTX 1080 Ti, and it peaked at over 500W for the Vega chip once we informally explored overclocking. For a more apples-to-apples comparison, installing the GTX 1080 Founders Edition caused our system to draw about 272W. Those extra watts mean more expensive power supplies, more robust cooling fans, potentially higher noise levels, and a need for better climate control in one's gaming den. The Power Saver Wattman profile goes a long way toward taming the RX Vega 64 for next to no performance cost, but there is no denying that performance-per-watt remains a challenge for AMD's architects.
...
The RX Vega 56 is a happier story for AMD. As was the case with the R9 Fury versus the R9 Fury X, losing eight of the full Vega 10 chip's compute units to the world's tiniest chainsaw just doesn't hurt the Vega 56 that much. Our indices of 99th-percentile frame times and average frames per second put the Vega 56 dead-on with a hot-clocked GTX 1070, and only 10% behind the Vega 64 in our FPS index. The 56 does draw much more power than a GTX 1070 in our test system, but not in the eye-popping way of the Vega 64.

The RX Vega 56 looks especially nice in light of the FreeSync monitor selection these days. One can get a 144-Hz IPS gaming display with a 30-Hz-to-144-Hz FreeSync range for just $500 now, compared to about $800 for a comparable G-Sync display. That $300 could go a long way toward more powerful components elsewhere in a system, or it could stay in one's pocket. It's not a stretch any longer to say that a variable-refresh-rate  display is the way to game, and the RX Vega duo complete a puzzle for FreeSync that's been unfinished for a long time. I could go on and on about how revelatory VRR tech still is for the gaming experience, and I'm happy to see it become potentially more accessible again for high-end gaming. Assuming you can tolerate the higher heat and noise levels of the Vega 56 compared to the Pascal competition, its FreeSync support makes it a strong contender for the entry-level high-end graphics card to get.

https://www.techpowerup.com/236129/proto...d-pictured

Another interesting bit this design has going for itself is the usage of 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, whereas AMD's reference design makes use of 2x 8-pin. Maybe AMD is being especially careful in their reference design after the RX 480's PCIe power hoggling?