Radeon Rx Vega 64 Nvidia Equivalent

At a Glance

Expert'south Rating

Pros

Faster than the GTX 1070
FreeSync monitors are cheaper than G-Sync monitors
Cool under load

Cons

Loud fan
Uses more power than the contest

Our Verdict

AMD's Radeon RX Vega 56 manages to be slightly more than powerful than the GeForce GTX 1070 while generating less heat. It's a great pick for all gaming except 4K.

Best Prices Today: Radeon RX Vega 56

Not Available

Afterwards months of teases and delays, the wait for Vega is finally over. First, AMD launched its flagship Radeon RX 64 lineup: the $499 Radeon RX Vega 64 and the $699 liquid-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64, which is merely available as part of a convoluted "Radeon Aqua Pack" bundle. (Update:Afterwards the initial wave of availability, virtually all available air-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 cards are only available in $599 Radeon Packs equally well.) Then on Baronial 28, the $399 Radeon RX Vega 56 hit the streets. And for the first time in a long time—over a year, in fact—the Red Team is fielding high-finish graphics cards capable of challenging Nvidia'due south enthusiast-grade hardware.

These are the first loftier-terminate Radeon fries built using the 14nm engineering process, post-obit in the footsteps of AMD'southward mainstream-focused Polaris graphics cards. Does Radeon RX Vega wrest the performance crown from the ferocious GeForce GTX 1080 Ti? Spoiler alarm: Not even shut. Merely Vega provides an intriguing—and sometimes compelling—alternative to the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, fifty-fifty if it isn't the walk-off home run that AMD enthusiasts have been hoping for ever since Radeon marketing took a swipe at Nvidia's next-gen Volta graphics compages eight long months ago.

This won't be a short review. We're introducing AMD's new Vega graphics architecture as well as testing three different Radeon RX Vega graphics cards based on that compages. You can use the table of contents bar to the left to warp to the sections you're most interested in.

This review was originally published on August 14, 2017 with Vega 64's arrival but was updated with more than information for Vega 56'south August 28 launch.

Run into Radeon RX Vega 56 and RX Vega 64

AMD sent PCWorld every version of Vega for testing, including both the air-cooled and liquid-cooled versions of the Radeon RX Vega 64. While the pattern and cooling obviously differ, the two models share the same underlying hardware.

The water-cooled Vega 64 hits higher clock speeds (and thus college levels of operation) thanks to its embrace of liquid, but unfortunately we tin't recommend information technology. The card sure looks pretty merely it disappoints on pretty much every other front end, doubly and so because it's available simply in a pricey $699 "Radeon Aqua Pack" edition. We'll go into the details through the review, or you tin can cut straight to the chase in our Ownership Advice section.

Vega 64's applied science mirrors that of the Fiji GPU found inside older Radeon Fury X in many ways. Both GPUs pack 4,096 steam processors, with 64 compute units (hence the name), 256 texture units, and 64 ROPs. Likewise, the Radeon RX Vega 56's innards resemble those of the Fury X's similarly cutting-downward sibling, the Radeon Fury. But the compute units within Vega are "next-gen CUs"—more on that and other deep-level tech later—and Vega distinguishes itself in more obvious ways, too.

The Radeon Technologies Grouping tuned Vega to run at far higher clock speeds than its predecessor. While the Fury cards hovered around one,000MHz, the air-cooled RX Vega 64 baselines at 1,247MHz, with a rated boost clock speed of 1,546MHz. The liquid-cooled version pushes that even further, to ane,406MHz base and 1,677MHz boost. Vega 56, meanwhile, bottoms out at one,156MHz and boosts to 1,471MHz—or potentially more than. While the heave clocks of previous Radeon cards were a difficult maximum, AMD is mimicking Nvidia's methodology for Vega. The listed boost clocks for the Radeon RX Vega 56 and 64 "represents the typical average clock speed one might see while gaming" now, to quote AMD's reviewer'due south guide. Groovy.

Vega'due south memory capabilities took a turn for the improve, too. Like the older Fury cards, Vega uses cut-border loftier-bandwidth memory. But while the Fury cards utilized first-gen HBM that was limited to 4GB of capacity—and can now struggle in some high-terminate games because of information technology—the Radeon RX Vega lineup leans on a more than advanced HBM2 design with 8GB of onboard memory. At 484GBps, RX Vega 64's memory bandwidth is actually slightly less than the Fury 10's full (it hit 512GBps) due to the use of fewer HBM stacks on-dice, merely still far alee of the GTX 1080's 320GBps via 8GB of GDDR5X retentivity. The 11GB GeForce GTX 1080 Ti offers identical retentiveness bandwidth to Vega 64, while Vega 56 is slightly slower at 410GBps.

With 8GB of HBM2 you're unlikely to hitting a memory bottleneck anytime soon—that'southward doubly true thanks to an innovative new feature enabled by Vega's loftier-bandwidth cache controller. Again, more than on Vega'southward big new tech features afterwards.

The air-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 will be available in two forms: a basic version that looks similar the reference versions of the Radeon RX 400/500-series Polaris graphics cards, only longer, and a Express Edition with a brushed aluminum exterior. Limited Edition cards volition be sold only to initial RX Vega 64 buyers until supplies last, and AMD wouldn't say how many are beingness produced. All Vega cards include a backplate. We're reviewing the standard models but snagged a pic of the Express Edition at AMD's Vega announcement at Siggraph.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 looks similar to the standard RX Vega 64. While they both mime the Polaris reference cards at a quick glance, the Vega cards are longer (despite using space-saving HBM2 memory) and ditch Polaris'due south plastic crush for sturdier metal materials, including a backplate. The Radeon logo on the side edge of Vega cards glows red. More importantly, the Vega cards use a vapor-sleeping accommodation libation that improves upon the basic blower fan of Polaris. In the photo beneath, you tin compare the Vega 56 (at summit) to the Radeon RX 480 reference card (at bottom).

Nosotros're also reviewing the liquid-cooled version of the Radeon RX Vega 64. It bears the same brushed-aluminum design as the air-cooled Vega 64 Limited Edition, simply ditches the blower-way fan in favor of integrated water-cooling with a 120mm radiator, similar to the Fury Ten'south design. From its stark, unblemished face up to that ruby-colored "R" in the corner, the liquid-cooled Vega 64 is gorgeous—so much and so that my not-techie wife walked into my part, saw the menu in its box, stopped dead in her tracks and gasped, "God, that'south beautiful." That'south a showtime.

But whatsoever points this card gets for attractiveness are offset by the sick-conceived tubing for the liquid-cooling. The older Fury 10 featured shorter tubing that sprouted from the end of the card, providing simply enough length to install its 120mm radiator in the optimal fan spot at the rear of your case. By contrast, the liquid-cooled Vega 64 awkwardly sprouts its tubing from the very forepart edge of the card, but behind the I/O bracket—and directly underneath where your radiator will likely be installed in your case. That could've been okay with short tubing, simply Vega 64's liquid-cooling tubes are actually longer than the Fury Ten's (as you lot see below), yet too brusque to be able to comfortably route back effectually the end of the bill of fare.

The terminate outcome? We had to tuck the problematic package of liquid-cooling tubes underneath the card. It wasn't very attractive and would've likely caused some headaches if we'd had other PCI-E devices installed in our mid-belfry PC instance. Longer tubing is handy for installing reservoirs elsewhere in your example, but this design feels like it could be more refined.

Radeon RX Vega cards include a trio of DisplayPort 1.iv-ready outputs and an HDMI 2.0 port. The architecture'south updated display engine can back up up to two 4K/120Hz panels, or a trio of 4K/60Hz displays. That's a whole lot of pixels! And of course, Vega cards support AMD's FreeSync technology, which eradicates stuttering and screen-tearing on uniform monitors. It's a major factor in the value proposition that Radeon marketing is pushing for Vega.

Both versions of the Radeon RX Vega 64 also sport the nifty "GPU tachometer" feature that debuted with Fury. A line of LED lights above the ability connectors flash to life correlating with the GPU load. The harder yous put the pedal to the metallic, the more lights flare up.

Information technology's lightheaded, simply I adored it in Fury and I however admire it at present. There's just something satisfying about seeing the GPU tachometer start shining when you boot up a game.

Side by side page: Vega'southward customizable ability profiles

Radeon RX Vega power profiles

All Radeon RX Vega cards besides pack a pair of 8-pin power connectors, and for good reason. The air-cooled version of Vega 64 is rated for a whopping 295 watts of total lath power, and the liquid-cooled model pushes that all the way to 345W. By dissimilarity, Nvidia's GTX 1080 has a 180W TDP and just requires a single 8-pivot ability connector. Vega 56, on the other hand, has a less imposing 210W TDP.

AMD's liquid-cooled Vega 64 review box explicitly states that the card needs a minimum of a one,000W power supply, compared to the air-cooled version's 750W requirement.Hot damn. Y'all'll exist able to get past with a less-powerful PSU if y'all have a quality fourscore Plus-rated i, though.

AMD is combating those ability concerns past introducing six different power profiles for Radeon RX Vega. If you open the Global Wattman overclocking section of Radeon Software'due south settings, you lot'll find a new "operation profile" slider. By default, information technology's set to a Counterbalanced profile, which balances performance and energy/acoustic considerations. You can likewise opt to utilize a Ability Save profile, a full-throttle Turbo profile, or create a custom plan. (Don't forget to click Apply to make your decision stick.)

But wait! That'southward non all. Radeon RX Vega too includes dual BIOSes, swappable via a tiny toggle switch on the edge of the card, over the "Radeon" branding. The secondary BIOS uses the same performance profiles as the first, but uses fifty-fifty less ability—significantly so, in the instance of the Turbo profile. Here are the GPU power limits for each profile on the air- and liquid-cooled Vega 64 cards, per AMD:

AMD

Unfortunately, time constraints prevented us from testing the diverse power profiles extensively. AMD says activating Turbo mode in the default BIOS adds just 2 to 3 percent more operation across several games, but didn't declare how much power it uses. Conversely, the visitor says activating the Power Save profile improves performance-per-watt significantly, though its materials don't directly prove the mode's effect on overall frame rates. Here's a expect at what's in AMD'due south reviewers guide (and my email address), on a Core i7-7700K arrangement with 16GB of Corsair'southward 3,000MHz Vengeance LPX DDR4 memory:

AMD

AMD is also (rightfully) nifty to signal out the ability-saving features baked into its Radeon Software. The Radeon Chill feature introduced in Radeon Software Crimson ReLive tin can greatly reduce overall power use past detecting your inputs and intelligently ramping down the GPU when you're idle. Unfortunately, it's off by default and limited to whitelisted games, merely that listing is up to well-nigh 40 of the nearly popular games effectually, like Witcher 3, Fallout iv, Battleground 1, Skyrim, GTA V, Rocket League, and all the major eastward-sports titles. If you play whatever of the games, be sure to enable Arctic for information technology in Radeon Settings.

Radeon Software also includes a Frame Rate Target Control feature that lets you cap your target frame rate manually to relieve even more power and reduce racket output. If you accept a 60Hz monitor, for example, you lot could gear up FRTC to 60fps and prevent your GPU from pumping out frames that would get unseen. You might not desire to do that in Twitch-based games where keeping latency to a minimum takes priority, though. You tin enable FRTC in the Global Settings section of Radeon Software'south Gaming tab.

But enough about the nuts. Let's dig into Vega's virtually noteworthy new technical features.

Adjacent page: Vega's new tech

Radeon RX Vega: New tech features

block diagram vega — A block diagram of RX Vega's GPU design.

Few of Radeon RX Vega's new underlying features come as a surprise, as AMD already pulled back the curtain on the key details during the Vega technical preview at CES in January. We'll embrace the highlights that volition most probable brand a difference to everyday gamers here, but hit that link for more details, or check out this white newspaper on Vega's compages.

Most interesting might be Vega'southward revolutionary new high-bandwidth cache and high-bandwidth cache controller, which creates what Radeon boss Raja Koduri calls "the world'due south most scalable GPU memory architecture."

As we wrote in the technical preview, the high-bandwidth cache replaces the graphics carte's traditional frame buffer, while the cache controller provides fine-grained control over data and supports a whopping 512 terabytes—not gigabytes, terabytes—of virtual address space. Vega'south HBM design can expand graphics memory beyond onboard RAM to a more heterogeneous memory organization capable of managing several memory sources at once.

That sounds like a feature best suited to data center workloads—and AMD is indeed rolling out Radeon Instinct cards for machine learning based around the Vega architecture—but a new Radeon Settings feature makes it useful for gamers, too. If you open Radeon Software's Gaming tab and head to the Global Settings, y'all'll see a new "HBCC Memory Segment" section.

hbcc mode — See the "HBCC Retentivity Segment" slider at the bottom?

That slider lets you allocate a portion of your system'southward main RAM to gaming, combining with RX Vega'south 8GB of onboard HBM2 to create a larger memory pool. "The high-bandwidth cache controller will monitor the utilization of bits in local GPU retentivity and, if needed, move unused bits to the slower organisation retention space, effectively increasing the size of the GPU's local memory," AMD explains.

That sounds clumsily intriguing, and information technology could theoretically prevent stuttering and slowdowns in extremely taxing games. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented us from testing the characteristic, and to exist honest, using more retention than the native 8GB of HBM2 tin can handle might prove difficult. Color me excited though, especially considering AMD says the HBCC can likewise improve overall retentiveness utilization in games, raising minimum frame rates.

Vega besides includes revamped "adjacent-gen compute units" that can perform 2 16-bit ops (aka FP16) simultaneously, which isn't possible in previous AMD GPUs. AMD calls the feature "rapid packed math," every bit you can see in the video higher up. Rapid-packed math wouldn't work with all aspects of a game, but functions that can utilize information technology (like some lighting, procedural, and mail service-processing furnishings) can essentially be doubled, every bit demonstrated in February Vega demo where enabling RPM immune a system to return 1,200,000 hair strands per second, as opposed to 550,000 with RPM disabled.

Far Cry 5 will support rapid packed math. In the video above, Steve McAuley, the game's 3D technical atomic number 82, says the game will run faster, at a college frame rate, and at a more than stable frame rate as well.Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossusvolition likewise support RPM in some fashion.

Vega has a couple of other features designed to improve performance by working smarter, not harder. Rendering a scene is a circuitous procedure. A new programmable geometry pipeline can use primitive shaders to identify polygons that aren't visible to the player and cull them rapidly, allowing the GPU to start rending the geometry you tin can really see faster. Yay, efficiency!

Vega's pixel engine introduces a "draw stream binning rasterizer" that also improves efficiency and, hence, performance. After the geometry engine performs its (already reduced amount of) work, Vega identifies overlapping pixels that won't exist seen past the user and thus don't need to be rendered. The GPU then discards those pixels rather than wasting time rendering them. DSBR should also reduce the load on RX Vega'southward memory. It's similar to the tile-based rendering that helped requite Nvidia'southward GeForce graphics cards a tremendous heave in efficiency starting with the Maxwell architecture, though it remains to be seen whether AMD's solution is equally effective.

And get this: Vega is fully compliant with Microsoft's DirectX 12 level 12.1 features.

Next page: Radeon Packs and our examination system details

RX Vega Radeon Pack bundles

Before we dive into functioning testing, it'southward worth noting the unconventional way Radeon RX Vega is being sold. Certain, y'all can buy standalone versions of the air-cooled Radeon RX Vega 56 and RX Vega 64 at their corresponding $399 and $499 price points, but AMD's also selling the graphics cards at a $100 markup with "Radeon Packs" that offering bundled games and another $300 in discounts on Ryzen and FreeSync hardware. The liquid-cooled RX Vega 64 is only bachelor as part of the $699 Radeon Aqua Pack. You can't buy it standalone.

It sounds unproblematic enough, but the situation's actually somewhat complex. (You don't really have to buy the extra hardware if you pick up a Radeon Pack edition of a Vega menu, for case.) Caput over to PCWorld's RX Vega Radeon Pack explainer for a full breakdown. One crucial tidbit: Information technology remains to be seen how much Vega stock gets allocated to standalone versions and how much gets set aside for Radeon Packs. Hither'due south what AMD says about the situation:

"Nosotros can't break out volumes, merely we're working to ensure ample quantities of both standalone cards and the Radeon Packs and so that gamers tin can go exactly what they're looking for."

Update:Very, very few standalone cards seemed to be available for Vega 64's launch, with the vast majority of stock allocated for Radeon Packs. Standalone cards disappeared quickly and pricing for all models leaped up by $100 or more than at retail mere hours afterwards release. Radeon RX Vega 56 cards disappeared instantaneously on August 28 also.

Enough talk. Let's benchmark!

Our test system

We tested the Radeon RX Vega 64 on PCWorld's dedicated graphics bill of fare benchmark system. Our testbed's loaded with high-end components to avoid bottlenecks in other parts of the system and prove unfettered graphics operation. Some secondary details differ from prior reviews, notwithstanding, as we're in the process of upgrading to a more mod testing system. The case, power supply, and SSD model have inverse, but the cadre aspects remain the same as before, and nosotros retested all of the cards

Intel'southward Core i7-5960X with a Corsair Hydro Series H100i closed-loop h2o cooler ($110 on Amazon)
An Asus X99 Deluxe motherboard
16GB of Corsair's Vengeance LPX DDR4 memory ($148 on Amazon)
EVGA Supernova chiliad G3 power supply ($200 on Amazon)
A 500GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD ($175 on Amazon)
Corsair Crystal Series 570X case, deemed Full Nerd'south favorite example of 2016 ($180 on Amazon)
Windows x Pro ($180 on Amazon)

I'd hoped to perform more extensive testing on Radeon Vega, going so far as to prepare a Ryzen 1800X system ahead of time to provide benchmarks on both AMD- and Intel-based systems. I'd also hoped to test the cards' hash rates for mining. Unfortunately, some hardware failures in our main test rig and an extremely tight testing window (AMD shipped the Vega cards to us painfully close to the deadline) prevented me from doing more than than standard games testing. A version of Wattman that enabled Vega overclocking arrived over the weekend, so I wasn't able to dabble in that, either.

The express testing time and hardware failures also affected our lineup of tested graphics cards. Nosotros're reviewing the $399 Radeon RX Vega 56, $499 air-cooled RX Vega 64, and $699 liquid-cooled RX Vega 64, of course. All were benchmarked using the Balanced power contour on the stock BIOS. We weren't able to retest the Fury X, Vega's HBM-packing predecessor. The card was a bit slower than the GTX 1070 when Nvidia's menu launched in May 2016.

Nosotros as well retested the cards' natural competitors, the (theoretically) $350 Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 and $500 GTX 1080. We're also including the reference $700 GTX 1080 Ti, with performance results from April drivers. Our Founders Edition bill of fare suffered an early decease shortly thereafter, and so we weren't able to retest information technology with Nvidia'due south latest drivers only wanted to include the numbers every bit a reference signal.

Considering we've added a couple of new games to our suite for this review, we're also including results from the $735 PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8, a GTX 1080 Ti variant with a custom cooler, a slight overclock, and a very modest markup over the reference version. We endeavour not to mix reference and custom models in reviews, but it felt warranted in this case—especially considering the liquid-cooled Vega 64's price tag.

Each game is tested using its in-game benchmark at the mentioned graphics presets, afterward disabling VSync, frame rate caps, and all GPU vendor-specific technologies—like AMD TressFX, Nvidia GameWorks options, and FreeSync/Chiliad-Sync. Given the capabilities of these cards, nosotros tested the Vega 64, GTX 1080, and GTX 1080 Ti at 1440p and 4K resolution. The Vega 56 and GTX 1070 were tested at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. They're versatile!

Next folio: The Partition benchmarks

Radeon RX Vega: Benchmarks galore

The Division

The Sectionalization, a gorgeous third-person shooter/RPG that mixes elements ofDestinyandGears of War, kicks things off with Ubisoft'due south Snowdrop engine. Nosotros exam the game in DirectX xi mode.

Vega 56 trounces the GTX 1070 Founders Edition past roughly 13 per centum across all resolutions. Chalk that up as a solid win for AMD. The air-cooled Vega 64 and GTX 1080 Founders Edition substantially trade blows, with the liquid-cooled Vega getting a decent 7 to 9 percent uplift from its cooler temperatures and higher clock speeds. The similarly priced GTX 1080 Ti blew abroad all comers though, and—spoiler warning again—will continue to exercise then without testing.

Minimum frame rates aren't listed in this review. Nosotros tend to mention that metric only when information technology'south an event, and it wasn't. All of these cards pump out smooth gameplay in the games nosotros tested.

Next page: Ghost Recon: Wildlands

Ghost Recon: Wildlands

Next up: Ghost Recon: Wildlands, a driblet-dead gorgeous and notoriously punishing game based on Ubisoft's Anvil engine. Non fifty-fifty the GTX 1080 Ti put in a decent showing at Ultra graphics settings at 4K, and then we dropped downwardly to Very High, which "is targeted to high-end hardware." Information technology's a game that includes some Nvidia GameWorks features, merely once more, we exam with those disabled.

Unless yous're running a GTX 1080 Ti or willing to reduce graphics settings below what we tested here—and for reference, dropping down to the Loftier preset merely added 3fps of operation to the air-cooled Vega 64—this game is much ameliorate suited to 1440p than 4K. The Vega 56 draws even with the GTX 1070 at those resolutions in this Nvidia-leaning game, though the GeForce card opens the lead a bit at 1080p.

Likewise, the GTX 1080 maintains a 5 percent lead over both Vega 64 models at 4K, which only amounts to a couple of frames per 2d in exercise. It keeps that advantage over the air-cooled Vega 56 at 1440p, though the liquid-cooled version closes the gap.

The PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8 still carries the functioning torch, with a 32 percent operation advantage over the GTX 1080 at 4K, and 26 percentage performance advantage at 1440p. The GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition would likely be roughly 5 percent slower.

Side by side page: Deus Ex: Flesh Divided

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

At present information technology'south time for another graphically punishing game, but this one favors AMD hardware. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided replaces Hitman in our test suite because its Dawn engine is based upon the Glacier Engine at Hitman's heart. We dropped all the way down to the Loftier graphics preset for this one and notwithstanding struggled at 4K. We tested in DirectX 12, equally that mode raises all operation boats regardless of which make'southward GPU sits at the centre of your graphics menu.

No surprise hither: AMD wins beyond the board. Once again, Vega 56 surpasses the GTX 1070 Founders Edition past 12 to 13 percent depending on resolution. Vega 64 especially dominates the GTX 1080 at 1440p resolution, and the liquid-cooled version's college clock speeds give information technology a sizeable 8 percentage heave over the air-cooled model. The liquid-cooled version delivers 17.v percent more than functioning than the GTX 1080 Founders Edition at that resolution.

Even the overclocked, custom-cooled PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8 fails to come anywhere near the 60fps golden standard at 4K. The GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition would probable be roughly five percent slower.

Next page: Rise of the Tomb Raider

Ascension of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raidertends to perform ameliorate on GeForce cards, on the other hand. It's utterly gorgeous and i of the start games to receive specific optimizations for AMD'southward new Ryzen processors (not that information technology matters hither).

Vega 56 manages to hang blow-for-blow with the GTX 1070 even in this best-instance scenario for GeForce cards—impressive indeed. Vega 64 churns out decent frame rates of its own, just isn't as fast every bit the GTX 1080 Founders Edition, even with a decent performance boost in liquid-cooled form. The gap is nigh noticeable with everything cranked at 1440p resolution, where the air-cooled Vega 64 lags the GTX 1080 by 15 percent. Yet, Vega 64'south 90fps average is nothing to sneer at.

The $700 GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition outpunches the $700 Vega 64 liquid-cooled edition by about 33 percentage. That is something worth raising an countenance over.

Side by side folio: Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Fundamental

Far Cry Centralis all the same some other Ubisoft game, but it's powered by the latest version of the long-running and well-respected Dunia engine. We criterion the game with the optional Ultra Hard disk texture pack enabled for loftier-end cards like these.

Both the Vega 56 and Vega 64 beat Nvidia'due south GeForce equivalent cards here, though the GTX 1070 manages to eke slightly ahead if you go all the way downward to Loftier settings at 1080p. That's not a scenario you'd ever really want to use, though.

The GTX 1080 Ti's solid lead hither makes it the merely card capable of flirting with 4K/60fps.

Next page: Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity, running on Oxide'south custom Nitrous engine, was an early standard-bearer for DirectX 12, and many months later it'swithal the premier game for seeing what side by side-gen graphics technologies have to offer. Nvidia drivers have profoundly improved GeForce performance in Ashes over the past several months. We examination the game using the High graphics setting, as the wildly strenuous Crazy and Extreme presets aren't cogitating of real-world usage scenarios.

Vega 56 beats the GTX 1070 across the lath in DirectX 12 style. The GTX 1080 and air-cooled Vega 64 are evenly matched at 4K, with the more potent liquid-cooled version opening a 9.25-percent lead over the GeForce menu. AMD's hardware starts pulling ahead at 1440p resolution, though.

At to the lowest degree in DirectX 12: Nvidia'south cards trounce Vega in DirectX 11. That's worth noting because DX12 is bachelor simply in Windows ten. Ashes is a definite victory for AMD for Windows 10 users, while Nvidia is the articulate victor for everybody else—though the bulk of PC gamers have migrated to Windows ten, according to the Steam hardware survey.

Next page: Power, estrus, noise, clock speeds

Power, heat, noise, clock speeds

Power

Nosotros exam power under load by plugging the entire organization into a Watts Upwards meter, running the intensiveSectionalization benchmark at 4K resolution, and noting the elevation power draw. Idle power is measured after sitting on the Windows desktop for three minutes with no extra programs or processes running.

Holy hell, Vega 64 uses a lot of juice. And that's not even in Turbo mode.

AMD spent a lot of time talking up Vega's power efficiency, but it's articulate the company actually cranked on the clock speeds to bring performance in line with the GTX 1080, particularly when you consider the power savings that HBM offers over traditional memory. At 347 watts of total arrangement power draw, the air-cooled Vega 64 uses 106W more power than the GTX 1080 Founders Edition—heck, even the mightily overclocked EVGA GTX 1080 FTW only used 248W. The liquid-cooled model draws an astonishing 402W. That's roughly 100W more than than even our overclocked GTX 1080 Ti XLR8 requires.

A silverish lining for AMD? Vega's sky-high thirst for ability makes the 60W gap betwixt the GTX 1070 and Vega 56 expect far less imposing.

While we didn't measure it here, Radeon Chill can indeed bring down your power employ and temperatures significantly—but only in the whitelisted games, and yous take to enable it manually (which yous should practise)! Frame Charge per unit Target Control tin can also assist reduce GPU load. Seeing these Vega ability results, information technology becomes more than clear why AMD invested so much in power-saving software features in recent months.

Heat and noise

Nosotros examination heat during the same intensiveSegmentation benchmark at a strenuous 4K resolution, by running SpeedFan in the groundwork and noting the maximum GPU temperature in one case the run is over.

Despite using and then much more than ability than the GTX 1070 Founders Edition, the Vega 56 actually runs much libation, topping out at 66 degrees Celsius. The air-cooled Vega 56 hits the same 82-caste Celsius max as the GTX 1080 and 1080 Ti Founders Edition cards. AMD'due south blower-manner reference libation gets awfully loud nether load though, vapor chamber or no.

Speaking of loud, our liquid-cooled Vega 64 suffered from a buzzing coil whine when sitting on menus or the Windows desktop. It goes away in-game, simply it isn't very pleasant. The carte hovers between 55 degrees Celsius and its max of 60 degrees Celsius during testing. That's slightly warmer you'd expect from a liquid-cooled card; the older Fury X never topped 56 degrees Celsius in our benchmarks. It'south likewise worth noting how that 60-caste-Celsius maximum for the liquid-cooled version isn't much chillier than the PNY GTX 1080 Ti XLR8's triple-fan solution, and that GeForce card delivers a whole lot more than operation for roughly the aforementioned cost.

Given Vega's wild ability draw, the liquid-cooled model probably would've been more effective with a 240mm radiator rather than the included 120mm version.

Clock speeds

All of these cards hold their rated boost speeds pretty consistently, with some slight, temporary bumps upward or down in operation. Here are screenshots of Radeon Wattman graphs of each carte'southward performance during Deus Ex: Mankind Divided benchmark runs. You can click on them to enlarge each, with the orange line indicating clock speeds.

The Vega 56 varies between i,474MHz and 1,312MHz steps.

The Vega 64 usually sticks to its 1,536MHz heave speed.

The liquid-cooled Vega 64 is by and large rock solid at i,668MHz, just it sometimes dips to ane,560MHz and spikes as loftier as ane,750MHz.

Next page: The FreeSync variable

Radeon RX Vega: The FreeSync variable

During pre-launch promotions for Radeon RX Vega, AMD fix blind "taste tests" at fan events. PC gamers got to play Battleground i on 100Hz, 3440×1440 monitors, with one setup using the GTX 1080 and a Thou-Sync monitor, and another using Vega 64 with a like FreeSync monitor that cost $300 less.

vega taste tests — Radeon's Vega "blind taste exam" in Budapest.

"Though the Radeon RX Vega + FreeSync (left system) came out on elevation for most gamers, they said the differences were minimal and couldn't really tell the difference," AMD said in the aftermath.

A sizeable chunk of AMD's Radeon RX Vega reviewers guide is also dedicated to touting FreeSync'due south benefits and cost advantage versus G-Sync, with expected operation results in games being boxed inside "FreeSync ranges" in AMD's charts. And just in case I didn't get it, AMD also sent along a Viewsonic XG2700-4K display ($550 on Amazon) so I could test FreeSync'southward benefits firsthand.

It'due south no wonder AMD'south chirapsia this pulsate and so difficult. Once you've enjoyed the stutter- and violent-free experience an adaptive-sync monitor provides, it's painful to become dorsum to a normal monitor. Heck, many Radeon 290/390/Fury-wielding enthusiasts have refused to pick up a GTX x-series menu just considering Nvidia hardware isn't FreeSync-uniform.

amd freesync — Screen tearing is gross. FreeSync (and G-Sync) eliminate information technology.

As nosotros discuss in PCWorld'south comprehensive FreeSync vs. Chiliad-Sync explainer, FreeSync's open nature means in that location are many more FreeSync monitors available than G-Sync monitors, and the AMD-friendly displays tend to price much less. Nvidia views G-Sync as a premium add-on for premium monitors and requires display vendors to use a proprietary hardware module. FreeSync is congenital atop the DisplayPort 1.2 adaptive sync standard, and AMD doesn't fifty-fifty charge certification or licensing costs. FreeSync was made to spread far and broad, and cheaply. On Newegg right now, G-Sync monitors kickoff at $600, while but two FreeSync monitors price more $600.

FreeSync indeed tends to be cheaper, but ownership a FreeSync monitor requires a bit more than legwork than with Thousand-Sync due to its variability. Colour accuracy isn't certified. FreeSync monitors support adaptive sync only within of specified refresh charge per unit ranges, and some are awfully tiny. If you fall outside that range, tearing and stuttering returns. That's an easy thing to do at 4K, because many 4K FreeSync monitors kick in at 40Hz, and Vega has troubles hitting a consistent 40fps in our 4K Deus Ex, Ghost Recon, and Partitioning tests. A FreeSync characteristic called Low Framerate Compensation (LFC) combats the issue and behaves similarly to G-Sync'south solution, merely it's optional and a lot of monitors don't accept it. The ViewSonic monitor AMD sent forth doesn't, in fact.

Fortunately, AMD'southward FreeSync page includes a Monitors tab in a chart at the bottom that lets you lot meet the supported FreeSync ranges of every FreeSync display before you purchase. FreeSync'southward price advantage tin diminish on exceptionally high-end monitors. Practice your homework!

Next folio: Buying communication and big picture

Radeon RX Vega: Buying advice

And then was the wait for Vega worthwhile? It's complicated, fabricated more then by the fact that cryptocurrency miners take greatly inflated today'due south graphics carte prices—and Nvidia'due south next-gen Volta chips loom in the about future.

One matter's for certain: The $399 Vega 56 volition exist the best buy of the bunch when it launches on August 28. Information technology runs libation than the GTX 1070 Founders Edition and delivers more than performance than Nvidia's card in many games, hanging tight even in titles that favor GeForce hardware. Sure, it uses more than power, but not remarkably so. The Vega 56 is likewise a huge step up over the (theoretically) $240 8GB Radeon RX 580, delivering between 25 percent and 45 per centum more performance depending on the game and resolution you lot're looking at. The value of FreeSync is alluring indeed if you're looking to go into 1440p or 1080p/144Hz gaming without breaking the banking company.

Speaking of which, current street prices for GTX 1070 cards are another indicate in Vega 56'southward favor, as the cheapest GTX 1070 currently bachelor on Newegg is the MSI GTX 1070 Gaming, for $470. That'southward a whopping $120 over the GTX 1070'southward $350 MSRP. Fingers crossed miners don't similarly jack up Vega prices after launch. Because how big the GPU die is, and how limited HBM2 product appears to be, I don't expect in that location to be abundant supplies floating around to combat demand past miners and pent-up gamer demand for Vega.

The $500 air-cooled Vega 64 is a trickier proposition now that GTX 1080 prices are finally starting to settle down around the menu's $500 MSRP. Vega 64 trades blows with the reference GTX 1080 depending on the game you're playing, only it uses a ton of electricity to do then. The just real reason to purchase Vega 64 over a GeForce GTX 1080 is if y'all plan to pair it with a FreeSync monitor for 1440p or ultrawide gaming at a loftier refresh rate (like the superb, hassle-free Nixeus EDG 27), or 4K gaming (often sub-60fps).

Affordable adaptive sync or vastly superior power efficiency? Pick your pleasance. There'southward no incorrect answer… unless y'all choose Vega anddon't become a FreeSync monitor.

We can't recommend the liquid-cooled Vega 64 no matter how gorgeous information technology looks. The card's performance results leave me very interested in seeing what overclocked Vega 64 cards with custom cooling solutions can do in the futurity, but at this time the liquid-cooled Vega 64 has too many strikes confronting it. The coil whine isn't guaranteed to affect every unit of measurement, all the same even taking that off the table, the awkward tubing, wild power depict, essentially GTX 1080-level performance, and the fact that it'south limited to a $699 "Radeon Aqua Pack" edition render information technology undesirable for the most part. It'd be much easier to swallow if it were available in a standalone version for $100 less. Equally-is, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti blows it away in operation for roughly the same price.

In fact, give the Radeon Pack editions of all these cards a hard pass unless y'all already planned to selection up both Preyand Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus (a $120 value) at full toll, build a swanky Ryzen 7 system with a premium motherboard, or want a swanky $950 Samsung monitor (that blows away FreeSync's value proposition) for $750—and all merely at select retailers, as part of a single massive purchase. Again, our Radeon Pack explainer dives into the details, but the bundles don't actually brand sense for near buyers the way they're configured, and the $100 surcharge pushes the Vega cards into the "not worth it" range unless you plan to put the extras to good employ.

Radeon RX Vega: The big picture

Taking a pace back, it's smashing to see AMD finally render to enthusiast-class graphics cards. Dedicated FreeSync owners finally have worthy high-cease gaming options to bulldoze their displays! Competition is back!

But it's hard not to feel a scrap permit down by Vega on the gaming front.

Nvidia launched the Pascal GPU-based GTX 10-series 15 months agone, in May 2016. Information technology'southward taken AMD this long to release graphics cards that just compete with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, and Vega needs a far larger die size (486mm vs. 314mm) and far more power to practise even that. The Titan Xp and GTX 1080 Ti nevertheless reign comfortably supreme in performance. This is after AMD mocked Nvidia'due south forthcoming Volta GPU architecture during a video revealed at CES in January, stoking hopes that Vega would be an utter fauna.

Eight months after, Vega tin only boxing with the aging GTX ten-serial, and Nvidia's already showed off Volta in its ultimate-data-center form. Volta-based GeForce graphics cards tin can conceivably drop at whatever point and ruin Vega'due south fun, though Nvidia may expect until the new year. Vega 56 and Vega 64 concur up pretty well in raw performance confronting Nvidia's graphics cards today, but you have to wonder how they'll manage when fresh Volta cards arrive.

Taking a step even farther back, AMD'southward Vega architecture works in important features—like FP16 and the technically stunning high-bandwidth cache controller—that seem potentially interesting for gaming in the future but designed more than to earn the company a foothold in data centers and auto-learning scenarios. That'southward where the real money is these days, so the focus at that place makes sense. Nvidia creates different GPUs for different market segments, but the much smaller AMD merely can't afford to do then.

Radeon RX Vega ain't bad, but it ain't mind-blowing despite some nifty tricks, and it'south awfully tardily to the game. Here'due south hoping its successor, Navi, will be able to push the gaming envelope in 2018…and that the look won't be as excruciatingly long as it's been for Vega.

Best Prices Today: Radeon RX Vega 56

Not Available