The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 & RX Vega 56 Review: Vega Burning Bright
by Ryan Smith & Nate Oh on August 14, 2017 9:00 AM ESTGrand Theft Auto V
The other veteran from our 2016 GPU game suite, GTA V is still graphically demanding as they come. As an older DX11 title, it provides a glimpse into the graphically intensive games of yesteryear. Originally released for consoles in 2013, the PC port came with a slew of graphical enhancements and options. Just as importantly, GTA V includes a rather intensive and informative built-in benchmark.
Like its previous appearances, we follow those settings, as GTA V does not have presets. To recap, for "Very High" quality we have all of the primary graphics settings turned up to their highest setting, with the exception of grass, which is at its own very high setting. Meanwhile 4x MSAA is enabled for direct views and reflections. This setting also involves turning on some of the advanced rendering features - the game's long shadows, high resolution shadows, and high definition flight streaming - but not increasing the view distance any further.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
213 Comments
View All Comments
Oxford Guy - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
This may be more of a shortcoming in the GloFo process than in the design of the chip. It would be very interesting to see how well it would do in PPW on TSMC's process.Exodite - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
Of course, I were talking about the noise. :)The power consumption is, as I mentioned, a disappointment.
I'd be interested in seeing how the cards do with undervolting and other tweaks, the 480 actually gained performance in some situations due to the lower power draw resulting in more headroom.
Oxford Guy - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
A vapor chamber is hardly "terrible" in terms of quality. But a high power draw + a blower = physics of noise.Oxford Guy - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
Also, if one wants to talk about terrible stock cooling one should never forget the GTX 480.mapesdhs - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
If one is in the UK, that would be a strange thing to do given it costs more than a 1080 Ti. It's priced 100 UKP higher than aftermarket 1080s with a 1759MHz base. Doesn't make sense. Factor in the power/noise, bit of a meh. If one is in the US where the price really is $500 (in the UK it's the equivalent of $750), well then maybe it's a bit more down to (irrational) brand loyalty, but still the power/noise issue doesn't make it an attractive buy IMO.The Vega56 looks far more interesting re price/performance and indeed performance, though it still has some power/noise issues. Perhaps aftermarket cooled versions will improve both cards, at least on the noise front.
mapesdhs - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
Rats, that was supposed to be a reply to IchiOni. Why can't we edit??xfrgtr - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link
You'd have to be a hard core AMD fan to buy this over a GTX 1080Glock24 - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link
Also people that care about heat and noise care about power consumption.FourEyedGeek - Tuesday, August 22, 2017 - link
Only poor people buy AMD Vega 64, buy 1080 Ti for better performance.tipoo - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
64 vs the 1080, yes.56 vs the 1070 is much more appealing, 100 dollars less for the same performance, plus a discount on Freesync monitors.