AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Video Card Review @ [H]

Presbytier said:
The MSAA issue appears in other games as well not just this one game.
Click to expand...


I don't think its an engine or game issue, as you said it happens in multiple games, just think about Fiji's MSAA problem, then take Vega which has right around the same bandwidth and extrapolate then against these newer games.......

Vega will show a worse hit because newer games already push the bandwidth limits higher then add in MSAA, well that bottleneck gets hit so hard it overshadows anything else.
 
So, when everyone saw it had similar specs to the fury and claimed it would have a similar release were kind of right.

Released late
Drew lots of power(although the Fury did draw less then it's other cards)
Sucked in AA
Cool looking package

The AA issues are unsurprising, I anticipate this won't be a huge issue but could affect resolution in future games.

Well at least AMD got something out finally.
 
Trimlock said:
So, when everyone saw it had similar specs to the fury and claimed it would have a similar release were kind of right.

Released late
Drew lots of power(although the Fury did draw less then it's other cards)
Sucked in AA
Cool looking package

The AA issues are unsurprising, I anticipate this won't be a huge issue but could affect resolution in future games.

Well at least AMD got something out finally.
Click to expand...
Actually the AA issue probably would not be a big deal at higher resolutions as AA is no longer needed. Up until all the textures are the same or greater resolution of 4k that is, but at that point we will be a few years past this.
 
Presbytier said:
At that size is it comparable to how bad 1080 looks without AA?
Click to expand...
No. Not even close. I usually like to push low 2XAA to get the hard edges off the jaggies if I can, but certainly it changes title to title. But I would not say that AA is not needed at 4K. Surely though, a 28" 4K screen might be a whole other story. Your PPI is going to be a lot smaller on a smaller screen of course.

All that said, I kept my old 24" panels for over 6 years waiting for an acceptable gaming 4K screen this size, and I friggin LOVE IT. Great for work and great for gaming.
 
The AA issue is interesting though. Obviously some sort of bug or issue but it could also explain why some reviews were more favorable to Vega, depending if they used MSAA or TXAA (or other shader based AA).

I used to always leave AA disabled, because it's a pretty easy way to boost performance, but now I almost always want it (even with a 4K TV). However, shader AA looks good enough for me and still performs well.
 
Even if 4K isn't super playable I'd like to see it go against a 1080 to see if there's a big difference there. I have a feeling there is.
 
The heavy power draw could be a blessing in disguise. May make it less appealing to miners.
 
razor1 said:
I don't think its an engine or game issue, as you said it happens in multiple games, just think about Fiji's MSAA problem, then take Vega which has right around the same bandwidth and extrapolate then against these newer games.......

Vega will show a worse hit because newer games already push the bandwidth limits higher then add in MSAA, well that bottleneck gets hit so hard it overshadows anything else.
Click to expand...
Well it also happens in Polaris like I mentioned and he shows in the vid.
So it is not just Vega or Fiji.
You might as well say it is a bug/GPU design limit with most of GCN then if people really feel something is untoward beyond Dirt4 and 8x MSAA in general

But seriously and mentioning more generally, how freaking often does anyone on this forum actually play at 8x MSAA in their games.
It is mostly a non-issue (apart from a benchmark caveat) in my book considering 4x MSAA is actually fine in Dirt4.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Presbytier said:
The MSAA issue appears in other games as well not just this one game.
Click to expand...
Could you link any of those other reviews with said games please.
I did a quick look and not sure where I can find any reviews using 8x MSAA beyond Dirt4.
Cheers
 
tikiman2012 said:
Looks like Newegg jacked the price of the 1070 in light of this debacle.
Click to expand...
I think it is more mining related because the GTX1080 custom cards are still a lot cheaper than the Vega 64.
Also could be argued the Vega56 would force the 1070 to be cheaper as it is competitive purely from an fps perspective.
Cheers
 
Vega 64 looks like a dud, except that Freesync users might want it if the price drops a bit.

Vega 56, OTOH, looks like a solid win for AMD vs. the 1070.

So nothing has really changed since Polaris. AMD remains competitive and has a price/performance win in the mid-range, but drops the ball at the high end. But AMD will sell piles of GPUs anyway, because miners.

Disappointing, though, that AMD's GPU people just don't seem as on the ball as the CPU folks.
 
CSI_PC said:
Well it also happens in Polaris like I mentioned and he shows in the vid.
So it is not just Vega or Fiji.
You might as well say it is a bug/GPU design limit with most of GCN then if people really feel something is untoward beyond Dirt4 and 8x MSAA in general

But seriously and mentioning more generally, how freaking often does anyone on this forum actually play at 8x MSAA in their games.
It is mostly a non-issue (apart from a benchmark caveat) in my book considering 4x MSAA is actually fine in Dirt4.
Cheers
Click to expand...


Well if the option is available to me I always use 8x MSAA.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Vega 56, OTOH, looks like a solid win for AMD vs. the 1070.

So nothing has really changed since Polaris. AMD remains competitive and has a price/performance win in the mid-range, but drops the ball at the high end. But AMD will sell piles of GPUs anyway, because miners.
Click to expand...

Vega 56 would have been really impressive last June/July when the 1070 had only been out for a month or so, not within 6 months of nVidia potentially dropping the next generation of video cards. AMD's had 13 months to hit the goalposts already cleared with the Pascal release.
 
Algrim said:
Vega 56 would have been really impressive last June/July when the 1070 had only been out for a month or so, not within 6 months of nVidia potentially dropping the next generation of video cards. AMD's had 13 months to hit the goalposts already cleared with the Pascal release.
Click to expand...

Well, AMD certainly took their sweet time, didn't they?

There are times I wonder if their purchase of ATI was a huge mistake.
 
At that time ATi was about to get hit by the r600 screwup and the gen after so ATi probably would have been up shits creek if it wasn't for that buyout.
 
CSI_PC said:
Well it also happens in Polaris like I mentioned and he shows in the vid.
So it is not just Vega or Fiji.
You might as well say it is a bug/GPU design limit with most of GCN then if people really feel something is untoward beyond Dirt4 and 8x MSAA in general

But seriously and mentioning more generally, how freaking often does anyone on this forum actually play at 8x MSAA in their games.
It is mostly a non-issue (apart from a benchmark caveat) in my book considering 4x MSAA is actually fine in Dirt4.
Cheers
Click to expand...
I was originally under the impression the issue was there with any MSAA on, which we can all agree would be a real issue, but understandably 8x MSAA is usually too high to run in most games anyway, but I still am curious as to why that borks performance so badly.
 
Looks like there is truth to those AMD pricechnages according to Gamer Nexus

In speaking with different sources from different companies that work with AMD, GamersNexus learned that “Gibbo is right” regarding the AMD rebate expiry and subsequent price jump. AMD purportedly provided the top retailers and etailers with a $499 price on Vega 64, coupling sale of the card with a rebate to reduce spend by retailers, and therefore use leverage to force the lower price. The $100 rebate from AMD is already expiring, hence the price jump by retailers who need return. Rebates were included as a means to encourage retailers to try to sell at the lower $499 price. With those expiring, leverage is gone and retailers/etailers return to their own price structure, as margins are exceptionally low on this product.
Click to expand...
 
Presbytier said:
Looks like there is truth to those AMD pricechnages according to Gamer Nexus
Click to expand...

Chimpee said:
Hmm that is shit if true.
Click to expand...
He just backtracked on all of this and took that video down since he did not have any actual direct information but was rather just commenting on other rumors.

AMD has not changed any MSRPs to my knowledge.

It is illegal for AMD to force the channel to deliver a price point in the USA...PERIOD.
 
CSI_PC said:
You just had to be different :)
Seriously though the performance hit is not usually worth it IMO.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Usually not worth it but looks noticeably better to me on power lines and such (1440p/27"). Definitely happy to use it when I can afford it.
 
CSI_PC said:
You just had to be different :)
Seriously though the performance hit is not usually worth it IMO.
Cheers
Click to expand...


I like turning everything up as much as possible lol, granted if its going to drop my performance down under 60 fps, then I don't do it, but then again its all game dependent.
 
This figure very much summarizes

Radeon-RX-Vega-64-56.png
 
This is blowing up in AMD's face, they need to respond asap, just got emails form 3 youtubers, uploaded new videos about this.....
 
Can't imagine GN fabricating a blatant lie like this. My bets are on that AMD pulled some shenanigans
 
Well, if true in some form or fashion, I'm sure there will be an amendment to the conclusion page in the review, rescinding the point that AMD is now competitive at the $500 price point.
 
razor1 said:
This is blowing up in AMD's face, they need to respond asap, just got emails form 3 youtubers, uploaded new videos about this.....
Click to expand...

Yea, without reading the terms of their agreement, it is really hard to say if it is true or not. Shit if true, shit if not true since it is still bloody high price.
 
Here is some juicy news about AMD deceptive pricing .................t seems the Vega 56 and 64 cards will cost more than the gtx1070 and 1080.

“£449 is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum”.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-gibson-clears-up-rx-vega64-pricing-disaster/


Quote:
"
This has been a turbulent week for AMD to say the least. RX Vega is officially here, which is positive news but unfortunately, pricing fluctuations have swiftly dirtied the waters and shifted the story. We initially assumed that low stock was the cause of Vega jumping well past MSRP but that doesn’t seem to be the case after all. Today, KitGuru has been scouring for answers and from what we know now, it seems that AMD has created quite the messy situation by not properly disclosing RX Vega pricing and effectively blindsiding consumers and journalists.

At the end of July, KitGuru was one of the publications invited to SIGGRAPH 2017, during which, AMD finally unveiled RX Vega to the world. At the time, we were given a $499 MSRP for the RX Vega64, which we were told should work out at around £450 here in the UK. What AMD failed to disclose was that this was intended as a ‘launch day only’ price, causing undue confusion for buyers, putting unnecessary blame on retailers for ‘price hikes’ and even potentially skewing the conclusions of early reviews

So what exactly is going on with Vega’s pricing? We got in touch with Andrew Gibson at Overclockers UK who gave us the full breakdown:

“Launch price was $499 with NO games for the Black card, as outlined to us by AMD as a launch only price. AMD allowed us to sell a set amount at this price, which was several hundred, clearly not enough as they were sold out in approximately 15 minutes. After this the regular price was $599 with FREE games for both the black and silver cards, $699 for the aqua card plus taxes.”

Gibson’s claims are corroborated by an additional source too, as Norwegian tech retailer, komplett.no, also spoke out, telling the site tek.no that the cheaper launch price for RX Vega64 was limited to just 275 cards to allow it to appear more favourable at launch. Here is the full quote translated:

“Komplett.no today confirms to Tek.no that the price of just over 5,000 kroner was limited to a limited edition of 275 graphics cards, as the company – as one of AMD’s “selected” online stores – was allowed to sell at a favourable price at launch. The RX Vega 64 version we had for sale was in a limited edition of this price and will unfortunately not be put up for sale again. When these were sold out, we had to remove this product from our pages”.

As part of the presentation sent out to press following SIGGRAPH this year, AMD included a slide (pictured above) that very clearly shows the Radeon RX Vega64 listed with a $499 price tag. AMD even went as far as to label the card the “new GPU king under $500”. At no point was ‘temporary’ or ‘limited’ pricing ever communicated to journalists or the public. This has led to retailers like Overclockers UK taking a lot of flack from potential customers, as many are of the mind that retailers are just choosing to sell above MSRP. Unfortunately in reality, retailers are simply abiding by the pricing AMD set for them, but did not communicate to the rest of us.

Gibson has told us that with the new MSRP now in place and stock levels fluctuating, we could see RX Vega64 sell for anywhere between £549 and £649, with the £449 price tag being ruled out entirely:

“£449 is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum”.

“Unfortunately AMD did not make the launch pricing plan clear at all to the press or the consumer, which has caused a lot of confusion, if we could sell cards at £449 and make money, they’d be at that price. If that was the case we probably would have sold around 5,000 units now at OcUK, whereas the reality is we’ve sold a little over 1000”.

For now, we have no idea if AMD will support the the price it originally announced again. We also can’t tell you AMD’s ‘side of the story’, as company reps are just emailing a generic response that they will have more information to release within a couple of days. In any case, we shall update you all if and when that changes.

KitGuru Says: This has honestly been quite a shocking turn of events and it is something AMD really needs to address. With everything AMD’s marketing team has been up to these last 8 months, I think it is clear that going forward, they need a new strategy. "
 
Do you plan to do an overclocking review?
I'm really interested how Vega competes in performance when pushed to the maximum.
 
happymedium said:
Here is some juicy news about AMD deceptive pricing .................t seems the Vega 56 and 64 cards will cost more than the gtx1070 and 1080.

“£449 is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum”.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-gibson-clears-up-rx-vega64-pricing-disaster/


Quote:
"
This has been a turbulent week for AMD to say the least. RX Vega is officially here, which is positive news but unfortunately, pricing fluctuations have swiftly dirtied the waters and shifted the story. We initially assumed that low stock was the cause of Vega jumping well past MSRP but that doesn’t seem to be the case after all. Today, KitGuru has been scouring for answers and from what we know now, it seems that AMD has created quite the messy situation by not properly disclosing RX Vega pricing and effectively blindsiding consumers and journalists.

At the end of July, KitGuru was one of the publications invited to SIGGRAPH 2017, during which, AMD finally unveiled RX Vega to the world. At the time, we were given a $499 MSRP for the RX Vega64, which we were told should work out at around £450 here in the UK. What AMD failed to disclose was that this was intended as a ‘launch day only’ price, causing undue confusion for buyers, putting unnecessary blame on retailers for ‘price hikes’ and even potentially skewing the conclusions of early reviews

So what exactly is going on with Vega’s pricing? We got in touch with Andrew Gibson at Overclockers UK who gave us the full breakdown:

“Launch price was $499 with NO games for the Black card, as outlined to us by AMD as a launch only price. AMD allowed us to sell a set amount at this price, which was several hundred, clearly not enough as they were sold out in approximately 15 minutes. After this the regular price was $599 with FREE games for both the black and silver cards, $699 for the aqua card plus taxes.”

Gibson’s claims are corroborated by an additional source too, as Norwegian tech retailer, komplett.no, also spoke out, telling the site tek.no that the cheaper launch price for RX Vega64 was limited to just 275 cards to allow it to appear more favourable at launch. Here is the full quote translated:

“Komplett.no today confirms to Tek.no that the price of just over 5,000 kroner was limited to a limited edition of 275 graphics cards, as the company – as one of AMD’s “selected” online stores – was allowed to sell at a favourable price at launch. The RX Vega 64 version we had for sale was in a limited edition of this price and will unfortunately not be put up for sale again. When these were sold out, we had to remove this product from our pages”.

As part of the presentation sent out to press following SIGGRAPH this year, AMD included a slide (pictured above) that very clearly shows the Radeon RX Vega64 listed with a $499 price tag. AMD even went as far as to label the card the “new GPU king under $500”. At no point was ‘temporary’ or ‘limited’ pricing ever communicated to journalists or the public. This has led to retailers like Overclockers UK taking a lot of flack from potential customers, as many are of the mind that retailers are just choosing to sell above MSRP. Unfortunately in reality, retailers are simply abiding by the pricing AMD set for them, but did not communicate to the rest of us.

Gibson has told us that with the new MSRP now in place and stock levels fluctuating, we could see RX Vega64 sell for anywhere between £549 and £649, with the £449 price tag being ruled out entirely:

“£449 is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum”.

“Unfortunately AMD did not make the launch pricing plan clear at all to the press or the consumer, which has caused a lot of confusion, if we could sell cards at £449 and make money, they’d be at that price. If that was the case we probably would have sold around 5,000 units now at OcUK, whereas the reality is we’ve sold a little over 1000”.

For now, we have no idea if AMD will support the the price it originally announced again. We also can’t tell you AMD’s ‘side of the story’, as company reps are just emailing a generic response that they will have more information to release within a couple of days. In any case, we shall update you all if and when that changes.

KitGuru Says: This has honestly been quite a shocking turn of events and it is something AMD really needs to address. With everything AMD’s marketing team has been up to these last 8 months, I think it is clear that going forward, they need a new strategy. "
Click to expand...

This is a clusterfuck, i keep reading conflicting reports.

Good job Roy Taylor!
 
Archaea said:
It already is pushed to the ragged edge with stock drivers from what I've seen. The overclock mode in the settings uses 90 more watts for 2% performance gain.
Click to expand...
The air version probably, but it looks like the liquid cooled one can get to ~1750 Mhz. Plus overclocking the memory helps quite a bit apparently.
 
Archaea said:
Watch this.
Click to expand...


The guy has a long track record of bad predictions and generally AMD shillery.

He claimed there was a new better performing Polaris revision. Nope.

Claimed Polaris would compete with 1070. Nope.

Claimed NV was doomed and would be overtaken within a few years. Remember that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, I don't mean to say he is being paid by AMD to publish favorable videos. He just caters to the lowest common denominator of the PC community; fanboys.

If he changed tone over the years it's because he felt he needed to maintain decent viewership.
 
happymedium said:
..............

KitGuru Says: This has honestly been quite a shocking turn of events and it is something AMD really needs to address. With everything AMD’s marketing team has been up to these last 8 months, I think it is clear that going forward, they need a new strategy. "
Click to expand...

Fire them all, every single one of them, Product managers who came up with this "pricing plan" and any one that approved it. They just took a product Vega 54 that probably would have sold well because of the lack of 1070's and now priced it to oblivion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top