Amd radeon rx vega 64 liquid cooling
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled Power Profiles Exploration
I want to start this one off by ensuring that everyone is aware that this is not a review of the Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled Edition. What this is however is a look across 15 games the performance delta between the ‘balanced’ and ‘power save’ settings. RX Vega 64 launched two months ago as of the date of this publication on August 14, 2017. Having been available since then there are plenty of comprehensive comparative reviews, I urge you to seek those out if you’re looking for in depth comparisons.
One of the most critical aspects of Radeon RX Vega 64 has been its power consumption, which seems to be sensitively effected by clock rates, so we wanted to explore AMD’s built in solution to help reduce power draw. That is our main focus with these results.
The above images shows the four different power options available in Wattman: Power Save, Balance, Turbo, and Custom. This is where the ever popular undervolting solution is handled through the Custom setting. We however will be focusing on the ‘Balance’ and ‘Power Save’ to see how flexible RX Vega is when allowed to run own it’s predefined settings.
Above Shows the RX Vega Power Limits based on vBIOS switch and software settings and the highlighted segments are how we tested. The standard out of the box vBIOS and the Balanced Profile and we went to the secondary vBIOS Power Saver for those tests. One thing of important note here is the fact that our card is the liquid cooled model, air cooled variants will have different results because of varying thermals.
Test Methodology and Setup
For DX11 and OpenGL we utilized FRAPS for capturing performance during our runs. For our DX12 testing I wanted to take a moment and thank a friend of the site again for helping develop a tool that will now allow us to deliver the same level of results for DX12 and Vulkan as we have with DX11. DX12 tests were conducted with OCAT and once the runs are all completed three times the averages for average FPS, 1% low, and .1% low are taken and plotted. We use 1% and .1% lows rather than absolute minimum as the absolute minimum typically represents an outlier frame and doesn’t typically represent actual gameplay.
X370 Test Bench
|CPU||Ryzen 7 1700 3.9GHz|
|Memory||16GB G.Skill Flare X DDR4 3200|
|Motherboard||MSI X370 XPower Gaming Titanium|
|Storage||Adata SU800 128GB 2TB Seagate SSHD|
|PSU||Cooler Master V1200 Platinum|
Graphics Cards Tested
|NVIDIA GTX 1080 FE||Pascal||2560||1607/1733||8GB GDDR5X||10Gbps|
|RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled||Vega 10||4096||1406/1677||8GB HBM2||945Mbps|
It’s very important to note that the GTX 1080 FE is included in here as a point of reference for comparison, this is not a direct comparison of the two graphics cards. A better comparison for purchasing decisions would have been to use the RX Vega 64 Air Cooled, or to have compared the RX Vega 64 LC to the GTX 1080ti as the pricing is more in line. Needed to get that cleared up in case anyone is wondering about the inclusion of the GTX 1080.
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
AotS:Escalation was tested using the built in benchmark utility at the High preset using DX12. Interestingly is how close performance stays with the two RX Vega profiles at 1440p, but the disparity begins to show at 4K. This trend will continue more often than not, and be more noticeable on modern APIs.
Battlefield 1 was tested using the same scene as our performance review of the game using DX11 and the Ultra preset. Notice in DX11 there is very little performance difference between the two.
Dirt 4 was tested for a 60 second run on the opening track from inside the car using the Ultra Preset accompanied by 2xMSAA. Here again we see very little difference between the Balance and Power Save settings.
DOOM was tested using Vulkan and Ultra Preset while avoiding the use of AA, async compute is still functioning with no AA. Testing in The Foundry we finally see our biggest delta between the two settings, especially at 4K. DOOM appears to be a bit more sensitive to clock rates than anticipated, especially at 4K where the .1% metrics tank.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
DXMD was tested much like our performance review of the game using the built in benchmark tool utilizing the High preset and no AA. at 1440p the performance holds strong, but again at 4K with the new API we see a large tank on the .1% minimums.
For Honor is still using DX11 and pairing the Ultimate detail settings we see the PS holding tight with the Balanced profile, even at 4K.
Gears of War 4
GoW 4 was tested using the same method as our performance review of the game. Using the Ultra setting, and verifying the settings stayed consistent, we once again see the PS fall short at 4k, but hold fine at 1440p.
Grand Theft Auto V
GTA V is a favorite old one of readers so it had to be included. Testing using the built in benchmark we ran it at all ‘Very High’ settings but instead of any MSAA we opted for FXAA. Just as expected with DX11 we see no real difference in power profiles.
HITMAN was tested using the highest settings along with SMAA with the built in benchmark tool. This is the first DX12 titel that isn’t majorly impacted by the clock rate of the GPU. 4K sees a slightly lower average, but maintains the same minimums.
Prey was tested just like the performance review we did using the Very High with FXAA and once again we see very little change, at least on the minimums, the average dropped slightly with the PS.
Resident Evil 7
RE:7 saw a reprisal of our test run from our performance review of the title. Running at the Very High settings along with SSAO and FXAA show little change in the performance based of power profile as expected at this point from a DX11 title.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
RotTR was tested in DX12 using the High preset with no AA. Our run took us through the GeoThermal Valley. Surprisingly enough with this title we see fairly close performance between the power profiles in DX12.
The Witcher 3
The Witcher 3 is running on the High settings but with Hairworks disable for these tests. And just like previous DX11 games we see very little to no difference between the profiles.
Total War: Warhammer
TW:Warhammer was tested using a built in benchmark tool with the Ultra preset. Here again we see the 4K results taking a hit with the PS profile while 1440p remains similar.
Ghost Recon: Wildlands
GR:Wildlands tested the same way with tested for the performance review using the High preset. And once again we see the DX11 results falling in line with each other.
Power and Thermals
Power and thermal testing could likely have been towards the beginning of this article, but I wanted let the results sink in before we got to this point. Power and Thermal testing were all done on the built X370 system inside of a Cooler Master MasterCase Pro 5 with two 140mm intake fans at 1k RPM. The power levels were taken from the wall, so it’s a total system power draw. Ambient temperatures in the room were 22c. Measurements were taken after 30 minutes of cycling the benchmark run for Dirt Rally at 4K.
I could understand a little confusion around the thermals in the chart. Only 1c lower with the power save profile? True, it was only 1c lower, but the catch here was the fan speed. The Balanced profile saw a maximum fan speed of around 1600rpm while the Power Save never broke 1000rpm, and hovered around 950rpm rendering it dead silent.
Power draw is the most impressive change in all these charts. Performance delta was minimal at most, temperatures didn’t change much, but boy howdy did power levels. Sure it’s not down to GTX 1080 levels of power sipping bu over a 100w reduction from the was is nothing to shake a stick at, or complain about.
So, what does this all show. Easy, save some power and lose minimal performance on Vega. I understand wanting the strongest numbers your product can push out, but a part of me wonders how the narrative would have changed with RTG went with the Power Save profile as the default. I get the performance would have suffered a bit but wow at the power draw change. One thing it shows is that Vega really does have a wide band of consideration when discussing performance per watt. It’s still behind the GTX 1080 by a healthy margin in that regards, but the Power Save profile helps close that gap considerably. And if you’re running a RX Vega card on a Freesync monitor with a generous VRR window you’ll likely never know the difference between profiles. This is especially true if you’re on a 1440p panel, 4K seems to be a bit of a different story. I can really see where the freesync argument stands after exploring this.
RX Vega64 Liquid -- Possible HBM2 Downclocking / Upclocking / Black-Screen issue
i got a lot of problems with the Rx Vega64 Liquid edition
this is my 3rd Card (RMA the other 2 cards before this one).
The problem that i have is the Vega card randomly causes a Black-screen / Grey-screen. it doesn't matter what i do or what i play it does it random there is no pattern in the behavior.
I tried a lot of different drivers , did a clean install. updated the graphics card Vbios(is now 016.001.001.000.008774) as well the Bios of the Mainboard (is now 1801 ) but nothing is helping at this moment.
What i would like to know is this a compatibility issue with Vega and maybe the X99 chipset /or only this mainboard ?
or is this a serious driver issue that amd isn't aware of and is pretty rare ?
The blackscreen appears sometimes within 2 hours , but it can sometimes takes up to around 4 to 6 hours..
the other 2 Vega LC that i had displayed the same problem so it is almost impossible that the card is defective.
what i tried
i disabled the Hardware acceleration if Firefox Quantum
Use DDU 17.8.1 for each driver switch
Nothing above here fixed it
Now i tried something out as those black-screen/grey-screen got me thinking that it could be Graphics card memory related
specially because my desktop has the same grey background color as the crash does so,
after watching the HBM2 down/Up clocking constantly 167mhz-500mhz-800mhz-945mnhz,
i locked the HBM2 Memory on 945mhz and it can't down-clock anymore and stays static on 945mhz (with Wattman).
The HBM2 Memory doesn't down volt it always stays static on 1.356V so i don't have to change that and Wattman also doesn't have the ability to do so.
only problem that this creates is that the idle voltage of the GPU is now 0.950V instead of 0.800V but i don't mind that at the moment
This seems to have fixed my Issue that i was working on for 8 weeks. I'm still testing it though but i already have more success with this tweak then i have at default and system is stable for 2 days already without fail/blackscreen.
Maybe this can fix the blackscreen problem for other people too.
I hope that the AMD Driver/Vbios Team can take a look into this issue
RX Vega 64 Liquid edition
- Desktop or Laptop System
- Operating System
- Windows 10 64bit Version 10.0.16299.125
- Driver version installed
- Currently on Radeon Software edition Adrenalin 17.12.2 Beta, but tested a lot of other drivers before this one.
- Display Devices
- Dell UltraSharp UP3216Q 3840x2160 @60Hz Connected through DP
- Denon AVR X3300W Connected through HDMI 2.0
- Motherboard + Bios Revision
- Asus Rampage V Edition 10 (Bios tested for this issue is 1503/1701/1801 working on 1801 for now)
- Intel I7 6900K @ 4.2GHZ / Also tested this issue at Stock settings
- Power Supply Unit Make, Model & Wattage
- G Skill TridentZ F4-3200C14-8GTZ X4 Quad channel (32GB) / Also tested this issue at Stock settings (2133mhz)
AMD RX Vega 64: The Right Cooling Solution
AMD thinks that the small 120mm radiator on its Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled Edition can get you through a hot summer day. We'd debate whether water temperatures of approximately 60°C (or more) are acceptable. However, it’s clear that there isn’t any significant thermal headroom left in AMD's design. That's why we're starting with a basic 120mm-based version of our own, then checking to see if it can be improved by adding a second fan or a larger radiator.
Our measurement results don’t include the active backplate, since we had to take it off for accurate infrared readings. According to the sensors we temporarily stuck in, the difference amounts to an average of 4°C for the voltage converters and up to 15°C for the phase doublers under our most aggressive overclock. We manually set the fans to run at 1300 RPM in order to avoid measurement fluctuations.
120mm Radiator with One Fan (Push), Turbo Mode
We start with a small radiator and one fan. Using Turbo mode in AMD's driver results in a power consumption of approximately 316W throughout the test scene, and the thermal outcome is barely acceptable. If we drop the fan speed to 1000 RPM or less, then we find ourselves beyond the 60°C mark. There's just no way to enjoy cool temps and quiet acoustics with this configuration.
According to our curve, the HBM2’s temperature is approximately 4 to 5°C higher. Overclocked to almost 1 GHz, this delta rises all the way to approximately 8°C.
The driver's Turbo mode allows frequency peaks of up to 1630 MHz, though throttling all the way down to 1401 MHz kicks in time and again. These fluctuations are symptomatic of what happens when the card is forced under its power limit over time. Across the benchmark run’s 30 minutes, we record an average clock rate of approximately 1526 MHz.
120mm Radiator with Two Fans (Push/Pull), Turbo Mode
This next experiment requires only that we install a second fan on the other side of the radiator and have it suck in air at the same speed. As expected, temperatures fall a little, while the noise level rises considerably.
At least we keep the GPU under 50°C at the same 316W of power consumption. The HBM2 also runs cooler.
Unfortunately, the clock rate isn't really affected by any of this. According to our measurements, the 30-minute average lands right around 1528 MHz, which is within the margin of measurement error.
240mm Radiator with Two Fans (Push), Turbo Mode
The quick-release fittings open and close, and we have a 240mm radiator installed using the same fans at the same speeds. Naturally, more cooling surface yields significantly better thermal performance.
The GPU stays under 42°C continuously. That's a great result for an all-in-one liquid cooler at the wattages we measure. A reading of 45°C tells us the HBM2 is also doing well.
The average clock rate rises to 1535 MHz. It's suddenly looking like there may be some room for overclocking.
The boost frequency gains attributable to lower GPU temperatures aren’t as high as those enjoyed by Nvidia's current GeForce cards. A comparison test with the cooler providing a constant water temperature of 20°C didn’t yield any improvements beyond what we saw at 40°C.
MORE Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Overclocking GeForce GTX 1080 Ti To 2.1 GHz Using Water
MORE: How To: Optimizing Your Graphics Card's Cooling
MORE: AMD Radeon Vega RX 64 8GB Review
MORE: AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 16GB Review
AMD Radeon RX Vega review: Vega 56, Vega 64, and liquid-cooled Vega 64 tested
After 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 only available as part of a convoluted “Radeon Aqua Pack” bundle. (Update: After the initial wave of availability, virtually all available air-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 cards are only available in $599 Radeon Packs as well.) Then on August 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-end graphics cards capable of challenging Nvidia’s enthusiast-class hardware.XFX Radeon Rx Vega 64 8GB HBM2 3xDP HDMI Graphic Cards RX-VEGMTBFX6
These are the first high-end Radeon chips built using the 14nm technology process, following in the footsteps of AMD’s mainstream-focused Polaris graphics cards. Does Radeon RX Vega wrest the performance crown from the ferocious GeForce GTX 1080 Ti? Spoiler alert: Not even close. But Vega provides an intriguing—and sometimes compelling—alternative to the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, even 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 architecture 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 architecture. 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 information for Vega 56's August 28 launch.
Meet Radeon RX Vega 56 and RX Vega 64Brad Chacos/IDG
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 design and cooling obviously differ, the two models share the same underlying hardware.
The water-cooled Vega 64 hits higher clock speeds (and thus higher levels of performance) thanks to its embrace of liquid, but unfortunately we can’t recommend it. The card sure looks pretty but it disappoints on pretty much every other front, doubly so because it’s available only in a pricey $699 “Radeon Aqua Pack” edition. We'll get into the details through the review, or you can cut straight to the chase in our Buying Advice section.AMD
Vega 64’s technology 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 cut-down sibling, the Radeon Fury. But the compute units inside 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 Group tuned Vega to run at far higher clock speeds than its predecessor. While the Fury cards hovered around 1,000MHz, 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 1,406MHz base and 1,677MHz boost. Vega 56, meanwhile, bottoms out at 1,156MHz and boosts to 1,471MHz—or potentially more. While the boost clocks of previous Radeon cards were a hard 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’s guide. Groovy.Brad Chacos/IDG
Vega’s memory capabilities took a turn for the better, too. Like the older Fury cards, Vega uses cutting-edge high-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-end games because of it—the Radeon RX Vega lineup leans on a more advanced HBM2 design with 8GB of onboard memory. At 484GBps, RX Vega 64’s memory bandwidth is actually slightly less than the Fury X’s total (it hit 512GBps) due to the use of fewer HBM stacks on-die, but still far ahead of the GTX 1080’s 320GBps via 8GB of GDDR5X memory. The 11GB GeForce GTX 1080 Ti offers identical memory bandwidth to Vega 64, while Vega 56 is slightly slower at 410GBps.
With 8GB of HBM2 you’re unlikely to hit a memory bottleneck anytime soon—that’s doubly true thanks to an innovative new feature enabled by Vega’s high-bandwidth cache controller. Again, more on Vega’s big new tech features later.
The air-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 will be available in two forms: a basic version that looks like the reference versions of the Radeon RX 400/500-series Polaris graphics cards, only longer, and a Limited Edition with a brushed aluminum exterior. Limited Edition cards will be sold only to initial RX Vega 64 buyers until supplies last, and AMD wouldn’t say how many are being produced. All Vega cards include a backplate. We’re reviewing the standard models but snagged a pic of the Limited Edition at AMD’s Vega announcement at Siggraph.Brad Chacos/IDG Gordon Mah Ung/IDG
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’s plastic shell 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-chamber cooler that improves upon the basic blower fan of Polaris. In the photo below, you can compare the Vega 56 (at top) to the Radeon RX 480 reference card (at bottom).Brad Chacos/IDG Brad Chacos/IDG
We’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, but ditches the blower-style fan in favor of integrated water-cooling with a 120mm radiator, similar to the Fury X’s design. From its stark, unblemished face to that ruby-colored “R” in the corner, the liquid-cooled Vega 64 is gorgeous—so much so that my non-techie wife walked into my office, saw the card in its box, stopped dead in her tracks and gasped, “God, that’s beautiful.” That’s a first.Brad Chacos/IDG Brad Chacos/IDG Brad Chacos/IDG
But any points this card gets for attractiveness are offset by the ill-conceived tubing for the liquid-cooling. The older Fury X featured shorter tubing that sprouted from the end of the card, providing just 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 front edge of the card, just 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, but Vega 64’s liquid-cooling tubes are actually longer than the Fury X’s (as you see below), yet too short to be able to comfortably route back around the end of the card.
The end result? We had to tuck the problematic bundle 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-tower PC case. Longer tubing is handy for installing reservoirs elsewhere in your case, but this design feels like it could be more refined.Brad Chacos/IDG Brad Chacos/IDG Brad Chacos/IDG
Radeon RX Vega cards include a trio of DisplayPort 1.4-ready outputs and an HDMI 2.0 port. The architecture’s updated display engine can support 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 compatible monitors. It’s a major factor in the value proposition that Radeon marketing is pushing for Vega.Brad Chacos/IDG
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 power connectors flash to life correlating with the GPU load. The harder you put the pedal to the metal, the more lights flare up.Brad Chacos/IDG
It’s silly, but I adored it in Fury and I still adore it now. There’s just something satisfying about seeing the GPU tachometer start shining when you boot up a game.
Next page: Vega’s customizable power profiles
Gordon Mah Ung/IDG EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G3 80 Plus Gold power supply
All Radeon RX Vega cards also 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 board power, and the liquid-cooled model pushes that all the way to 345W. By contrast, Nvidia’s GTX 1080 has a 180W TDP and only requires a single 8-pin power 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 1,000W power supply, compared to the air-cooled version’s 750W requirement. Hot damn. You’ll be able to get by with a less-powerful PSU if you have a quality 80 Plus-rated one, though.Brad Chacos/IDG
AMD is combating those power concerns by introducing six different power profiles for Radeon RX Vega. If you open the Global Wattman overclocking section of Radeon Software’s settings, you’ll find a new “performance profile” slider. By default, it’s set to a Balanced profile, which balances performance and energy/acoustic considerations. You can also opt to use a Power 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’s not all. Radeon RX Vega also 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 even less power—significantly so, in the case 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 various power profiles extensively. AMD says activating Turbo mode in the default BIOS adds just 2 to 3 percent more performance across several games, but didn’t declare how much power it uses. Conversely, the company says activating the Power Save profile improves performance-per-watt significantly, though its materials don’t directly show the mode’s effect on overall frame rates. Here’s a look at what’s in AMD’s reviewers guide (and my email address), on a Core i7-7700K system with 16GB of Corsair’s 3,000MHz Vengeance LPX DDR4 memory:AMD AMD
AMD is also (rightfully) keen to point out the power-saving features baked into its Radeon Software. The Radeon Chill feature introduced in Radeon Software Crimson ReLive can greatly reduce overall power use by detecting your inputs and intelligently ramping down the GPU when you’re idle. Unfortunately, it’s off by default and limited to whitelisted games, but that list is up to almost 40 of the most popular games around, like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Battlefield 1, Skyrim, GTA V, Rocket League, and all the major e-sports titles. If you play any of the games, be sure to enable Chill for it in Radeon Settings.AMD
Radeon Software also includes a Frame Rate Target Control feature that lets you cap your target frame rate manually to save even more power and reduce noise output. If you have a 60Hz monitor, for example, you could set FRTC to 60fps and prevent your GPU from pumping out frames that would go unseen. You might not want to do that in Twitch-based games where keeping latency to a minimum takes priority, though. You can enable FRTC in the Global Settings section of Radeon Software’s Gaming tab.
But enough about the basics. Let’s dig into Vega’s most noteworthy new technical features.
Next page: Vega’s new tech
AMD's Radeon RX Vega 56 manages to be slightly more powerful than the GeForce GTX 1070 while generating less heat. It's a great option for all gaming except 4K.
- Faster than the GTX 1070
- FreeSync monitors are cheaper than G-Sync monitors
- Cool under load
- Loud fan
- Uses more power than the competition
AMD's Radeon RX Vega 64 is an excellent graphics card for 1440p gaming. It uses a lot more power than rival GeForce GPUs and runs very loud in its reference form, however.
- Great 1440p and basic 4K performance
- FreeSync monitors are cheaper than G-Sync monitors
- Very high power usage
- Loud fan
- GTX 1080 launched 15 months ago with similar performance
The liquid-cooled Radeon RX Vega 64 is gorgeous, but it suffers from design flaws and drastically underperforms for its price tag.
- Gorgeous aesthetics
- Very cool temperatures
- Comes with two games
- Only available in a very pricey bundle
- Significantly underperforms similarly priced GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
- Very, very high power demands
- Poor liquid tubing design
RX Vega-64LC (Liquid Cooled)
The number of benchmark samples for this model as a percentage of all 20,444,994 GPUs tested.
|RX Vega-64LC (Liquid Cooled)AMD £570Bench 98%, 2,164 samples||1x|
|EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER||Value: 45% - Average||Total price: £1,097|
Welcome to our freeware PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best upgrades.
UserBenchmark of the monthGaming Desktop Workstation CPU GPU SSD HDD RAM USB
How it works
- - Download and run UserBenchMark.
- - CPU tests include: integer, floating and string.
- - GPU tests include: six 3D game simulations.
- - Drive tests include: read, write, sustained write and mixed IO.
- - RAM tests include: single/multi core bandwidth and latency.
- - Reports are generated and presented on userbenchmark.com.
- - Identify the strongest components in your PC.
- - See speed test results from other users.
- - Compare your components to the current market leaders.
- - Explore your best upgrade options with a virtual PC build.
- - Compare your in-game FPS to other users with your hardware.
- - Share your opinion by voting.
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid and Limited Edition GPUs Pictured
First pictures of AMD’s Radeon RX Vega graphics cards including the Limited Edition and the Liquid Cooled edition have been unveiled. As confirmed previously, the Radeon RX Vega will have three variants that will be unveiled during the Capsaicin Siggraph event tomorrow.
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled and Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited Edition Get Pictured
The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited Edition and Liquid cooled models were pictured by Expreview at the AMD Siggraph event. Both cards are powered by AMD’s Vega 10 GPU which houses 64 NCUs with 4096 cores. Details of both models are provided below.
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited & Liquid (Image Credits: Zolkorn)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited Edition (Image Credits: HardwareLuxx)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled (Image Credits: HardwareLuxx)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 Graphics Card Lineup:
|GPU||Fiji XT||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10||Vega 10|
|Process Node||28nm||14nm FinFET||14nm FinFET||14nm FinFET||14nm FinFET||14nm FinFET|
|Texture Mapping Units||256||TBD||224||256||256||256|
|Clock Speed (Base)||1000 MHz||TBD||1156 MHz||1247 MHz||1247 MHz||1406 MHz|
|Clock Speed (Max)||1050 MHz||TBD||1471 MHz||1546 MHz||1546 MHz||1677 MHz|
|FP32 Compute||8.6 TFLOPs||TBD||10.5 TFLOPs||12.6 TFLOPs||12.6 TFLOPs||13.7 TFLOPs|
|FP16 Compute||8.6 TFLOPs||TBD||21.0 TFLOPs||25.2 TFLOPs||25.2 TFLOPs||27.4 TFLOPs|
|Memory (VRAM)||4 GB HBM1||8 GB HBM2||8 GB HBM2||8 GB HBM2||8 GB HBM2||8 GB HBM2|
|Memory Bus||4096 bit||2048 bit||2048 bit||2048 bit||2048 bit||2048 bit|
|Bandwidth||512 GB/s||TBD||410 GB/s||484 GB/s||484 GB/s||484 GB/s|
|Price||$649||TBD||$399 ($499 US Actual)||$499 ($599 US Actual)||$599||$699|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited Edition
The Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited edition is very similar to the Radeon RX Vega 64 reference edition in terms of PCB design and clock speeds. The only difference is the more elegant cooler design that makes use of premium material for the shroud which looks great. There’s the Vega logo on the top and a Radeon “R” square in the corner which emits LED light, similar to the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition. This model will cost slightly more than the reference edition and since it’s a limited edition, it won’t be available for the entire lifespan of the Vega lineup.
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition
The third model is the Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid edition which as the name suggest will feature liquid cooling. The Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid cooled model looks very similar to the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Liquid which has already been launched and will come with higher / stable clock speeds compared to the air cooled variants and better cooling potential. The card ships with the 120mm radiator and the internal cooling assembly will be the same as Radeon Vega FE. We can also expect a premium price point for the liquid cooled model.
Both cards look very premium and nicely designed with the whole brushed silver texturing. The Radeon RX Vega 64 graphics cards are powered by dual 8 pin power connectors and will require beefy power supply units to keep them fed under heavy gaming loads.
AMD Radeon RX Vega Lineup Specifications – The 4096 Core GPU Utilizing 8 GB HBM2 and HBCC
The graphics chip will be utilizing the latest 14nm GFX9 core architecture which is based on the NCU (Next Compute Engine) design. The graphics card will feature 64 Compute Units or 4096 stream processors. AMD plans on increasing the throughput of the chip through increased clock speeds. This will allow AMD to pump numbers better than the Fiji GPU which is based on the 28nm GCN 3.0 architecture and comes with the same number of cores, 4096 SPs.
We can expect the clock speeds to be beyond 1600 MHz to deliver increased gaming and graphics performance compared to the Frontier Edition. There’s also 8 GB of HBM2 VRAM which comes in two stacks (4 GB per stack). The graphics card has a total rated bandwidth of 480 GB/s which is lower than 512 GB/s on Fiji. It also features a pixel fill rate of 90 GPixels/s. AMD will be launching all three variants of the Radeon RX Vega 64 graphics card at Capsaicin Siggraph so make sure to stay tuned for more details.