AMD is shipping AMD RX Vega 64 graphics cards with different GPU designs on the graphics cards that have been submitted for review, which is quite rare.
The problems for AMD do not end with the new AMD RX Vega 64 and is that everything said so far is not very good, but some have detected something else, something strange. They have found that the Vega 10 GPUs used in the RX Vega 64s differ between models, not only in physical characteristics, but also differ in height. Moreover, a Guru3D user has detected this difference and has noticed this and has published it in the forum of this website, asking if they had detected it.
From Guru3D they have compared the sample for the review and the one used for the graphics card they have analyzed and indeed, there is a slight difference. They have gone further, checking other web pages, they have realized that the Vega GPUs that use other media, also differ from those of this medium. They weren't the only ones to notice this problem, the Dutch at Tweakers.net have noticed it too. This seems to be that the GPUs for the RX Vega would be manufactured in two different plants and for this reason there are differences between both GPUs.
If we see the GPU that AMD has shown in different images, given by themselves, as a sample and the one shown by Guru3D, taken by themselves from a graphics card that they have for review, we see that the difference is quite obvious. If you haven't noticed, there is a black polymer that covers the gaps, something that doesn't appear in the Guru3D image and we don't know why. The black element that is in the first image is not in the second, which reveals a plate that apparently looks like copper.
There is another image in which the GPU of the graph that TechPowerUp colleagues have had is seen and it is the same as the first model. The most interesting thing comes to know that Tweakers and Hardware.info, media owned by the same owner and sharing an office, have two different GPUs, as you can see in the image, something that is quite amazing. Apparently there is also some slight difference in the height of both chips, with a little more space between the GPU and the HBM2 memories compared to the SMD fuses soldered on the PCB.
Nobody knows why this difference between graphics cards is due and if this really influences something, the only thing that seems to make it clear is that AMD is having problems and that some models are more 'beautiful' because they have been manufactured for longer and now AMD I would be taking graphics at full speed to meet the demand. It is the first time that we remember that this happens.
And this is news? Is it something important? I think it doesn't matter exactly the same, better find out why this card is so in demand, apparently it is not a great graphic, but I have read and apparently, there are many people who know something else that the common public does not know.
For example, I still don't see her performing on the "ZEN" platform, maybe that's where it's going, there's something they still don't tell us.
Yes, it is something important, because it could be that some models are assembled in a hurry so that there is stock. More than is being said and talked about these graphs, it is going to be complicated.
Just a couple of nice things from the author of this post... What kind of professional is this guy? He looks like a teenager.
And to run a web page that is something public you are unpleasant and arrogant, nothing professional.
What a shame... you throw shit at AMD and nonsense but you're happy paying exorbitant prices from Intel and Nvidia... with that face, what can you expect?
Abusive nvidia prices ... xD
Yes, something else is happening now with the mining shit
Well, I think there are two types of vram HBM2 and because of that it has that space, maybe one is bigger than the other
Memory from two different vendors and with different mounting points?
Fiji had the hbm1 without that extra covering anything.
They recently published that Samsung was making 2gb hbm8, one from Hinyx the other from Samsung.
Regarding the other little to say, the Radeon 56 is a 1070 killer, the 225 watts compared to the 170 watts of the 1070 FE make the difference in consumption funny because the fps window where it oscillates and the performance in dx12 leaves it closer 1080 than 1070.
Regarding the Radeon 64 it is similar to the 1080 but they have sought a stability in 4k game at the fps level above this.
More consumption yes, but it works above the gaming experience that the 1080 provides, little more to say, it is a better product and with the custom ones this matter will be clearer.