Return to

The VEGA 56 / 64 Cards Thread! General Discussion



Too early to say but unlikely.

Expensive and power hungry plus HBM which doesn't do as well with most mining.

I mean they may just because that's all they seem to do it buy anything regardless but less than 580s


Yeah something is very wrong here.


I'm going to TLDR what I have been saying for a good while now.
Going to Polaris we saw about 10% increase in perf clock for clock, pretty moderate.
Going from Fiji to Vega we can at least expect 20% gain clock for clock, anything other than that is pretty obviously due to driver related problems.

Right now the drivers aren't really working fully for workloads you'd see on a typical gaming card, lots of the more advanced features are disabled.
On the FE card it's mostly meant for tasks other than gaming, and with the very demanding reliability and stability those task demands it's not really surprising that we're not seeing the more consumer optimized drivers yet.

I'm amused by all the headless chickens running around though, Vega being similar if not slightly worse than Fiji clock for clock should speak volumes about the current state of their drivers, and even more so when considering when taking the strange minimum/low frame percentages into account.


@Fouquin i borrowed the picture you have posted above,
to do a vrm overview of the card.

Used purple text to show what those 3 additional vrm´s in the yellow block are for.
It doesnt really go that well in mspaint lol.
Still not too bad for a first attempt i think.

Radeon RX Vega 56 and Vega 64 Retail Editions: First Benchmarks (Games, Mining, Impressions) | Level One Techs



And limit yourself to an old kernel?
And driver problems?
And low performance?


How is that different than any other release, ever, for any manufacturer?

I'd chance that it will work great 90% of the time, and the last bit is being worked on now.

The initial vega support was 17.2, they are now at 17.6. Progress!


It's not different from any other AMD release. All I'm saying is that the proprietary driver is useless.
As for other vendors: nvidia is much faster in supporting newer versions and intel doesn't even have a proprietary one.

I remind you that my response was to

Besides AMDGPU-PRO is not a new driver, yet it's still not as fast as AMDGPU for other cards. And that one is still behind the windows driver.


Exactly my thoughts.

Probably because the drivers for Vega are Fiji drivers with some tweaks (GN stated that at least).
AMD had to throw something-Vega on the market so the internet would not get flooded with the "product xyz is late"-style of videos. Now we this card that excells in productive tasks.
Just look at this:

It is Fiji on steroids! Ignoring the snx-02, Vega is at least 20% faster on average. Now this just needs to translate into gaming performance... Either RX Vega does exactly that and competes with the GTX1080 or RX Vega is "worthless" to gaming-only applications.


Two, bitch!

And it looks horrible.


maybe i got this wrong but as far as i understand the whole driver thing is, that the amdgpu driver is the opensource one in the kernel object and that works pretty good. the amdgpu-pro driver is amds proprietary driver that doesnt work as good the as amdgpu.

im speculating that amd pushes a lot of code into the kernel but will to release a front end with some more code such as maybe the display code.

mostly i dont know and speculate from information of knowledge that may not even be true.


Mostly, yes. In some games the closed driver does perform better as far as I know.


I hate saying this but if this doesn't show adequate value for money I may have to look at a 1070 or 1080.

I have tried supporting amd as much as possible but I will not buy a crap product with my hard earned cash out of pity,

I am going to wait for the proper rx reviews and if its poop then I am off to nvidia land


What is your current GPU?


8gb 390x


Some recent AMDPUG-PRO vs. Mesa benchmarks:

Mesa usually comes out faster, and when it doesn't the difference is tends to be minor. So one is interested in specific games which happen to work better with the proprietary driver Mesa is the way to go.

There have also been a few games/ports now that - at least officially - only support mesa.

I'm also getting the impression that the mesa driver continues to improve, while AMDGPU-PRO improvements have slowed down. I have no data to back this up though.


Yeah, it felt the same to me. It was all the hype first with ubuntu 16.04 I think and after that not much happened.

Hmm, yeah. Depending on resolution there is not much of an upgrade out there for you. Fury is still a bit faster and any half well made game is fine with 4GB on 1080p high settings. But if you want more... not much you can do.
Anyway, right now you are not buying any card. So lean back and let's hope AMD can fix their shit.


Ironically, that card is worth about as much as a 1080/ti here in the states. If I were in your shoes, I'd either sell before Vega, or mine with it :grin:


I have two reaaaallly nice benq 144hz 1440p screens that arent being used to their full potential.


to paraphrase what a friend who knows more than me said @DerKrieger :

I'm pretty sure that the Draw Space Binning Rasterizer on Vega isn't working yet
Basically it will improve performance and lower power usage
Unsure how much more performance it will give though
Basically it will only render what is in front of you
no point in rendering what you can't see
atm, Vega is rendering EVERYTHING which hinders performance
Maxwell and Pascal have similar tech
Fiji and Polaris don't have it

after some testing, sheer compute does EPIC on FE crossifre

gaming not so much but not bad either (only was able to test gaming benches due to time restraints but still )