ASUS ROG Radeon RX Vega 64 STRIX Gaming review 25th september

Pieter3dnow

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-rog-rx-vega-64-strix-8gb-review,1.html

The card hovers in that 75~78 Degrees C range cooling wise under heavy stress. It was a little higher then expected with such a massiver cooler though. The card is a notch more silent under stress compared to the reference air-cooled version, but here again isn't getting the label silent.
Click to expand...

Overall power consumption is without doubt spicy, the reference cards are rated as having a 295 Watt TDP, depending on the workload. We measure numbers in the 320 Watt range (peak) with gaming on the STRIX. That number varies a bit per game title and resolution of course.
Click to expand...

Enjoy ;)
 
The idiots took off the cooler and put it back on without reapplying the thermal paste.
 
Ocellaris said:
The idiots took off the cooler and put it back on without reapplying the thermal paste.
Click to expand...

This is his response:

Whenever people see something they do not like it is always the media outlet that is suspect. BTW your IP traced back awfully close to the AMD Markham Canada HQ? Is that a well educated observation to make or an incredible coincidence?

1) The disassembly photo-shoot of the card was done AFTER all performance tests had been done, ergo the card is tested in it's default state. The remark was made due to the fact i still needed to use the card for pending FCAT tests. I also make the photos like that so that people can see how TIM is applied. But I'll rewrite that a bit to make it more clear.

2) We tested in a final configuration. All other previews you refer to are just that, based on preview / non-final early sample cards, some media had quick access to a card for merely an hour or so as ASUS dropped by to show them. No-body tested with long duration temps and DBa measurements with the card properly warmed up, we did. Other future media reviews will back the temps we are seeing, unless our sample had an isolated problem of course.

3) The performance differential in-between reference and the ASUS card is 100% based on throttling, and VEGA64 sure is throttling up and down a lot causing small FPS differences.

But you know what - I hope it is an isolated issue on our side, I honestly doubt it, but I do hope it. But be glad we do not cover up our findings and post results as they are measured here in the lab.
Click to expand...
 
noko said:
Still, you would do a fresh application of the TIM before reassembling the card since it was put back together for use. Take all of 5 min if that to do it right.
Click to expand...
If it was still wet it dont matter!:wtf: He got better things to do right? The next person to get it be wondering why its throttling so bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Yesterday Guru3D Published the Radeon RX 64 STRIX review from ASUS. As everybody had noticed card performs awfully similar towards the reference Radeon RX 64 card. This morning I received a phone call from ASUS, asking us if we’d be willing to take down the article for a few days as they have made a mistake. The sample we received did not get a final BIOS for its final clock frequencies and fan tweaking. Ergo, the sample we received carries a default reference BIOS.

It’s a colossal mistake, but as such the end-results in the review are not representative enough for the final product. ASUS will get the finalized BIOS over once they have finished (likely a day or two) after which we will re-test the card with that final BIOS and thus republish the review. All this explains why the STRIX card was so incredibly close to Vega 64 performance. Apologies for the inconvenience, but this mistake was not one coming from us.
Click to expand...
 

makes a bit more sense but guru3D better make sure the bios they get from asus ends up being the exact same bios that comes with the retail card because if it's not they and ASUS will never be able to live this down.
 
Uh-oh!

The article you are trying to access does not exist or is not yet public.
Please click here to locate the article you tried to access. We are sorry for this minor inconvenience.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
He's right though.
Click to expand...
How so?

The author could not even ask ASUS or representative why the performance was exactly the same before publishing? Did he even show ASUS what he was going to publish to get a response and to double check that that was what was expected from the card? HardOCP is at such a higher level here, constant contact with manufacturer if needed, multiple tries if needed (a.k.a ASUS CH6 motherboard review) and probably the most important I've learned is an utterly independent, as much as possible, assessment and review over it so the findings are as truthful and uncontaminated as possible.

He had no TIM material on hand? WTF

The article was so right that it had to be pulled.
 
Last edited:
So there was this aftermath of the article not being very helpful and performance not that shocking but this is where Guru3D forum has some extra bit:
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/r...-vega-64-strix-8gb.416698/page-4#post-5470359

No, I am awaiting a new BIOS. Interesting fact though, after re-assembling it for the component photo-shoot I applied a drop of new TIM. The card runs 3 degrees cooler and is definitely more silent. I will re-examine and re-test everything once the final BIOS arrives.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Quick unboxing and OC testing by JayzTwoCents.



Seems like the card has some problems. They're getting higher clocks by undervolting, and pretty much instantly crash if they try to push the core speed higher at all.
 
Sextron said:
Quick unboxing and OC testing by JayzTwoCents.



Seems like the card has some problems. They're getting higher clocks by undervolting, and pretty much instantly crash if they try to push the core speed higher at all.
Click to expand...

actually worse then limited edition off the get go......figures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top