Subject: Graphics Cards | December 15, 2017 - 09:00 AM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: vega 64 liquid, vega 64, vega 56, Vega, sapphire, radeon, amd
SAPPHIRE has just launched a pair of custom cooled, factory overclocked, RX Vega-based graphics cards. As you might guess: the SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 64 chip with its 4096 stream processors, while the SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega 56 uses the Vega 56 chip and its 3584 stream processors. Both cards have 8GB of HBM2 memory (two stacks of 4GB). The cooler design uses three fans and vapor chambers, with separate heat pipes for the GPU+Memory (six pipes) and VRMs (two pipes).
It also has a back plate!
The clock rate is where it gets interesting. The NITRO+ RX Vega 64 will have a boost clock of 1611 MHz out-of-the-box. This is above the RX Vega 64 Air’s boost clock (1546 MHz) but below the RX Vega 64 Liquid’s boost clock (1677 MHz). The liquid-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 still has the highest clocks, but this product sits almost exactly half-way between it (the liquid-cooled RX Vega 64) and the air-cooled RX Vega 64.
The NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega 56, with its 1572 MHz boost clock, is well above the stock RX Vega 56’s 1471 MHz boost clock, though. It’s a clear win.
As for enthusiast features, this card has quite a few ways to keep it cool. First, it will operate fanless until 56C. Second, the card accepts a 4-pin fan connector, which allows it to adjust the speed of two case fans based on the temperature readings from the card. I am a bit curious whether it’s better to let the GPU control the fans, or whether having them all attached to the same place allows them to work together more effectively. Either way, if you ran out of fan headers, then I’m guessing that this feature will be good for you anyway.
The SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega 64 and 56 are available now.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 14, 2017 - 03:49 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: vega 64 liquid, vega 64, vega 56, rx vega, radoen, amd
The reviews of AMD's two and a half new cards are in and they have a lot to say about AMD's current focus for GPU development. They have not gone green with this new architecture; but be honest with yourself about how much think about the environment when absorbed in a gaming session on a 4k monitor. The Vega 64 and 56 do require far more energy than Pascal cards and do produce more noise, however keep in mind that third party air cooling or a better radiator may help mitigate the issue.
The real question is the price, while there will be some challenges with the two Vega 64 cards the Vega 56 is certainly a competitor to the GTX 1070. If the mining craze dies down to the point where the prices of these two cards approach MSRP AMD offers a compelling choice for those who also want a new monitor. Freesync displays sell at a significantly lower price than comparable G-Sync displays, even before you start to look at the new bundle program AMD has introduced.
Since we know you have already been through Ryan's review, perhaps you would be interested in what our framerating friends over at The Tech Report thought. If not, there are plenty of other reviews below.
"AMD's long-awaited Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 graphics cards are finally ready to make their way into gamers' hands. We go hands-on to see how they perform."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 @ [H]ard|OCP
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB @ Guru of 3D
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB @ Guru of 3D
- A Look At AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 Workstation & Compute Performance @ Techgage
- AMD Radeon RX Vega64 8GB (Air) @ Kitguru
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 @ Techspot
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8 GB @ techPowerUp
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB @ techPowerUp
- Radeon RX Vega On Linux: High-Performance GPUs & Open-Source No Longer An Oxymoron @ Phoronix
- GTX 1080 Ti Overclocking Guide @ OCCE
- A Look At NVIDIA’s Workstation Performance Boosting 385.12 TITAN Xp Driver @ Techgage
- PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8 OC Gaming 11GB @ Kitguru
- Bykski FOUR Founders GTX 1080 GPU Waterblock @ techPowerUp
A confusing market
I feel like I have been writing about AMD non-stop in 2017. Starting with the release of Ryzen 7 and following through last week’s review of the HEDT Threadripper processor, AMD has gone from a nearly-dormant state in 2015-2016 to a wildly active and successful organization with more than a dozen new product launches under its belt. Today we will reveal the company's first consumer products based on the new Vega GPU architecture, thrusting the Radeon brand back into the fight at the $400+ price segments.
At this point, with architecture teases, product unboxings, professional card reviews, and pricing and availability reveals, we almost know everything we need to know about the new Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 products. Almost. Today we can show you the performance.
I want to be honest with our readers: AMD gave me so little time with these cards that I am going to gloss over some of the more interesting technological and architectural changes that Vega brings to market. I will come back to them at a later time, but I feel it is most important for us to talk about the performance and power characteristics of these cards as consumers finally get the chance to spend their hard-earned money on them.
If you already know about the specifications and pricing peculiarities of Vega 64 and Vega 56 and instead want direct access to performance results, I encourage you to skip ahead. If you want a refresher those details, check out the summary below.
Interesting statistics from the creation of this review in a VERY short window:
- 175 graphs
- 8 cards, 8 games, 2 resolutions, 3 runs = 384 test runs
- >9.6 TB of raw captured video (average ~25 GB/min)
Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 Specifications
Much of the below is sourced from our Vega 64/56 announcement story last month.
Though the leaks have been frequent and getting closer to reality, as it turns out AMD was in fact holding back quite a bit of information about the positioning of RX Vega for today. Radeon will launch the Vega 64 and Vega 56 today, with three different versions of the Vega 64 on the docket. Vega 64 uses the full Vega 10 chip with 64 CUs and 4096 stream processors. Vega 56 will come with 56 CUs enabled (get it?) and 3584 stream processors.
Pictures of the various product designs have already made it out to the field including the Limited Edition with the brushed anodized aluminum shroud, the liquid cooled card with a similar industrial design, and the more standard black shroud version that looks very similar to the previous reference cards from AMD.
|RX Vega 64 Liquid||RX Vega 64 Air||RX Vega 56||Vega Frontier Edition||GTX 1080 Ti||GTX 1080||TITAN X||GTX 980||R9 Fury X|
|GPU||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||GP102||GP104||GM200||GM204||Fiji XT|
|Base Clock||1406 MHz||1247 MHz||1156 MHz||1382 MHz||1480 MHz||1607 MHz||1000 MHz||1126 MHz||1050 MHz|
|Boost Clock||1677 MHz||1546 MHz||1471 MHz||1600 MHz||1582 MHz||1733 MHz||1089 MHz||1216 MHz||-|
|Memory Clock||1890 MHz||1890 MHz||1600 MHz||1890 MHz||11000 MHz||10000 MHz||7000 MHz||7000 MHz||1000 MHz|
|Memory Interface||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||2048-bit HBM2||352-bit G5X||256-bit G5X||384-bit||256-bit||4096-bit (HBM)|
|Memory Bandwidth||484 GB/s||484 GB/s||410 GB/s||484 GB/s||484 GB/s||320 GB/s||336 GB/s||224 GB/s||512 GB/s|
|TDP||345 watts||295 watts||210 watts||300 watts||250 watts||180 watts||250 watts||165 watts||275 watts|
|Peak Compute||13.7 TFLOPS||12.6 TFLOPS||10.5 TFLOPS||13.1 TFLOPS||10.6 TFLOPS||8.2 TFLOPS||6.14 TFLOPS||4.61 TFLOPS||8.60 TFLOPS|
If you are a frequent reader of PC Perspective, you have already seen our reviews of the Vega Frontier Edition air cooled and liquid cards, so some of this is going to look very familiar. Looking at the Vega 64 first, we need to define the biggest change to the performance ratings of RX and FE versions of the Vega architecture. When we listed the “boost clock” of the Vega FE cards, and really any Radeon cards previous to RX Vega, we were referring the maximum clock speed of the card in its out of box state. This was counter to the method that NVIDIA used for its “boost clock” rating that pointed towards a “typical” clock speed that the card would run at in a gaming workload. Essentially, the NVIDIA method was giving consumers a more realistic look at how fast the card would be running while AMD was marketing the theoretical peak with perfect thermals, perfect workloads. This, to be clear, never happened.