AMD Vega 64 & AMD Vega 56
Price
$ 400 ( Vega 56 ) ; $ 500 ( Vega 64 )
All photos: Alex Cranz/Gizmodo
What is it ?
distinct GPUs that are competing against graphics titan Nvidia .
Like
They ’re fast enough .
No Like
Do n’t bear any flash .
AMD , which purchased Nvidia ’s previous competitor , ATI Graphics , has been losing the GPU warfare for a while . Nvidia is presently producing the majority of discrete graphics cards discover in computers today . According to Jon Peddie Research , by the remainder of 2016 Nvidia had more than 70 - percentage of the discrete graphics marketplace . AMD trailed far behind with just 29 - percent . So AMD decided to focus on building flash cards to go in meretricious motorcar — like the 550 I review back in April .
The AMD Vega 64 and Vega 56 are an attempt to lure people by from the ~$600 Nvidia 1080 with cheaper options that start to gauge its performance . When the Vega microarchitecture the board are based on was announced back at CES , people did n’t immediately leap out of their seats . AMD did n’t have a cool hook like whenNvidia announced it had spent “ billions”to prepare its belated plug-in . All AMD had was a promise of pep pill when the cards get this summer .
Eight months later , the Vega 64 and 56 are here . The AMD Vega 64 retails for $ 500 , while the AMD Vega 56 retails for $ 400 . Both also have 8 GB of RAM build up in . The fully grown difference between the two is the numeral of compute social unit — suppose of those like the cores in a CPU ( the more the honorable ) . The Vega 64 has 64 compute units and the Vega 56 has 56 .
When I equate the Vegas to the 1080 , what I found was far less exciting that what I ’d hoped for . While the AMD Vega 64 was , on occasion , faster than the 1080 , it never blow my whisker back . alternatively it was sort of like endure to the car passel and have to choose between a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla . They ’re both very nice , be the same , and do the same damn thing .
What was really astounding was the performance of the $ 400 AMD Vega 56 . Despite being considerably tawdry than both the Vega 64 and the Nvidia 1080 , it represent Overwatch and Civilization VI only marginally slower . The 1080 managed 112 frames per 2nd playing Overwatch on Ultra at 4 K , the the Vega 64 did a slightly faster 114 , but the Vega 56 take out of 99 frames per second gear at 4 K with the graphics crank up to Ultra . That ’s not just a slight respectable , that ’s really all-fired near . In Civilization VI the difference was even smaller , with the Vega 56 only taking about 1.5 milliseconds longer between frame than the 1080 or Vega 64 .
In one case the Vega 56 did even better than the $ 500 Nvidia 1080 , and was on equivalence with the more expensive Vega 64 too . When I rendered a chassis in Blender , nontextual matter software that allows you to produce large 3D ikon that heavily task a distinct GPU , the Nvidia 1080 took 9 minutes and 34 seconds . The Vega 64 rendered the same frame in 9 minutes and 28 seconds . The Vega 56 ? Just 9 minutes and 29 seconds . With that kind of neck and neck performance there ’s no reason to really bribe either a Nvidia 1080 or Vega 64 over the Vega 56 .
But speed is n’t the only element to deliberate when buying a discrete graphics card . See , the carte that go in your desktop PC are very superpower thirsty . If your power provision ca n’t offer enough juice , the GPU is ugly , and that is one place Nvidia performs far well than AMD every time . The Nvidia 1080 demands 180 watts of power to run away . The Vega 56 requires 210 watts , and the Vega 64 necessitate a whopping 295 watts .
All the extra juice means you have to use not one , but two 8 - pin power connectors from your power supply . The Nvidia 1080 requires just one 8 - pin power connector .
With the new Vega circuit board AMD is trying to get around the exponent constraints of it GPUs by offering some software solutions . The first , and most notable , is the Radeon Chill feature , and it ’s actually sort of cagey . It run under the assumption that people do n’t really ask the fastest video card , they just call for one tight enough for their admonisher . Both AMD and Nvidia have a technology that grant cards to “ synchronize ” with monitor to bear top - level nontextual matter without tense up the GPU ( Nvidia calls its technical school G - Sync , while AMD call it FreeSync ) .
But you have to have a special admonisher that work with the syncing technology and no admonisher works with both the AMD and Nvidia sync technical school . Radeon Chill works with any monitor . You merely differentiate it how many frames you really want to see per second . Got a monitor that refreshes 60 times a minute ? Set the max to 60 frames per instant and Radeon Chill makes magic happen . In addition , the software package does n’t taste and churn out 60fps if nothing is on screen . Instead it distinguish moment with still visuals and dramatically reduce down on how much top executive is being used — and you could pluck the phone number as well . Want it to never go below 30fps ? Just determine the slider in the AMD software .
AMD added other computer software features that give users a better power to throttle their cards without diminishing visuals . There ’s a power saver mode which allows you to force the cards to sip as little as 150 watts ; a Frame Rate Target Control manner that rent you crest the frames per second ; and an Enhanced Sync mode that envision out the optimal systema skeletale to display on concealment , even if it means skipping a few other frames .
All these features make the AMD Vega cards find incredibly practical versus the excess and overclocking shenanigans of Nvidia . It ’s as if AMD is trying to say “ if you want nose bleed speed go with Nvidia , but if you want ascendency and a nice experience join us . ” That ’s a reasonable sales event to an old woman such as myself . I act my games on 4 K goggle box that have no syncing technology ( though Microsoft suggests that could change next year ) and can only show between 60 and 120 frame a second . I do n’t demand twofold video wit or disturbed numbers , I need good enough . And the AMD Vega 64 and AMD Vega 56 are good enough . If you ’re attend for a pretty priced menu the AMD Vega 56 is a fantastical option . But these card are n’t enough to lure Nvidia loyalists or the power hungry away . As the latest salvo in the war between Nvidia and AMD goes , the new Vega lineup are pretty feeble .
README
These cards are neck opening and neck with the $ 500 Nvidia 1080 in the pep pill department .
But they natively sop up a lot more power .
A bevy of package feature attempt to address the business leader issue , but it imply you ’re effectively confine your shiny unexampled GPU .
SPEC DUMP
AMD Vega 64 : 8 GB of RAM • 64 compute units • 1274 MHz base GPU clock • 484 GB / s computer memory bandwidth • 295 watts • 12.7 TFLOPS • 3 x DisplayPort • 1 x HDMI
AMD Vega 56 : 8 GB of RAM • 56 compute units • 1156 megahertz base GPU clock • 410 GB / s memory bandwidth • 210 watts • 10.5 TFLOPS • 3 x DisplayPort • 1 x HDMI
Consumer TechGPUsGraphics CardsNvidiareviewReviews
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and culture intelligence in your inbox daily .
News from the future , delivered to your nowadays .
You May Also Like
