The performance of the AMD RX Vega 64 is not surprising in the first filtered reviews, but what is surprising is the consumption, which could reach up to 500W in the RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition
The first benchmarks of the new AMD RX Vega 64 graphics cards have begun to jump and the truth is, the surprises begin, in this case, bad, because the consumption of the Vega can exceed 500W. The RX Vega 64 would have four operating modes, being able to reach a mode that increases the limit power by 50%, something like an extreme overclocking mode beyond the turbo mode and at that point consumption becomes truly crazy, going from the 500W in the AMD RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition.
The leaked benchmarks show that the AMD RX Vega 64 over the air are on par with the NVIDIA GTX 1080 and the AMD RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition would be below the NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti, these graphs from the green company are The Founders Edition or what is the same, with the blower heatsink, with the basic frequencies and without any customization or modification by any of the manufacturers that work with the company. This is nothing new and falls within the more or less normal and expected parameters.
Now, madness is consumption. We see how the Vega 64 by air consumes a minimum of 234W in the 3DMark with the energy saving mode and goes up to 340W in the extreme mode that increases the power of the graphics by 50%, it would be something like freeing the beast. In the Metro Redux, curiously, in the balanced mode of a result of 327W. The one that has left us stunned is the Vega 64 Liquid Edition, which starts from 293W in energy saving mode and goes up to 516W in the mode that increases power by 50%. This makes it clear that Gigabyte's advisory for the power supply is no accident.
To maintain the system, in the case of the RX Vega 64, we will need at least 650W and if we want to go more than enough or we intend to overclock the processor, we should already go to 750W. If we go for the RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition, which will hardly sell, we should go straight to a 1000W power supply. The consumption of these AMD graphics cards are a real aberration, much higher than the consumption of NVIDIA graphics and the expected price for these graphics does not seem to justify the purchase, especially, given how energy inefficient they are.
Source: HWbattle
We all expected more for the sake of the competition but ... not for price, not for performance. A shame! It will be that he screwed up with that of the HBM2 and has not been able to compete at least on price.
Do not forget the consumption, which almost triples the consumption of NVIDIA. Two years for this?
for moderator better accommodate the name and put nvidia fanboy. You generalize when you say that, and you lie because the only model that consumes up to 500w is the vega 64 with liquid cooling, on the other hand, the vega 64 with air cooling consumes 320w almost 170w less, and the vega 56 is in order. of the 250-270w performing with immature drivers 7-10% more than the gtx 1070.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ4Exiban2w&t=2s
Another multi-account 😀 mate, stop spewing bile and enjoy.
Good but they give you gifts for the purchase, that's what matters.
I honestly think that if Nvidia lowers its prices a bit, which it should be able to afford, AMD isn't going to sell shit.
Between the Chill mode and the normal mode the difference in consumption is really gigantic, and from now on we tell you that the performance is not affected at all. And, why do we want to have 250 FPS in Overwatch with a 60 Hz monitor? With Chill the performance drops, but following the example of Overwatch in our test the FPS never went below 90 in Full HD resolution, and in return we have lowered the consumption by 115 watts, which is not exactly small.
It is not for nothing Alex, but you have invented that Chill mode, because NOBODY has mentioned it in the Vega 64. Lowering these graphics cards 115W means making an impossible underclock since the graphics, according to TechPowerUp, are blocked against overclocking ( and therefore underclock).
that's a lie, find out a little more before saying anything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PftkOaKfik&t=725s In this review and in several others, they can be done undervolt and quite aggressively while maintaining and even raising the oc, the same could and can be done with the fury x generation from which vega is inspired . It is likely that this consumption will decrease as the drivers are updated, and it happened with Polaris and probably it will happen with Vega.
Do I need to say something or is this good for you?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d25362a637832691ac67cf9981e07167ab89a30e320567a3682be262fabd262.png
And what does this have to do with it? We're talking about Undervolt here. The comment you quote only refers to the OC, or did the translator fail you? And it would be the only one, because all the reviews on YouTube and several pages, including TomsHardware, do tests with OC. Another thing is to say that AMD graphics don't ocean much, and that's always been the case. Even Polaris always said the same thing. AMD performs better clock-for-clock than NVIDIA, it's a matter of architecture.
You buy a mid/high-end graphics card to play Overwatch: 😀 Let's see if you have the balls to do the same thing playing Crysis 3 or some game that asks for requirements that this type of graphics card is intended for, to play Overwatch you buy an rx560 or gtx1050.