Reason instead of obesity: Gigabyte RX Vega64 Gaming OC in test

If there were enough Vega chips and thus a wide range of cards, the Gigabyte RX Vega64 in this form would probably be the ideal entry-level card, rather than a top-of-the-line model. But it really must always be the demonstration of what is technically feasible... Board layout As with the RX Vega56 Gaming OC, Gigabyte is extremely different from AMD's reference layout, which should also make the use of existing full-cover water coolers impossible. Also at the popular Raijintek Morpheus, the end of G... We have to put it in the first place that we actually had to double-benchmark all the games. At the last moment, Gigabyte incorporated AMD's new kernel from the source BIOS, which accommodates the custom models with a customized power table. D... Power consumption at different loads The power consumption in the gaming loop is at the measured approx. 261 watts in Balanced Mode about 20 watts below what could be measured at the reference in the default BIOS. This is all the more astonishing because... Overclocking and undervolting The conventional overclocking by means of an even higher power limit and more clock counteracts the current cooling concept, because the rather quiet cooler gets along quite well with what it has to dismount ex works. More on the other hand... Cooling system and backplate Of course, the generated waste heat is directly related to the recorded power, for which the cooling solution is responsible for optimum dissipation. And this is precisely where we are faced with various compromises, which are... Summary For the Gigabyte RX Vega56 Gaming OC we have already written a very detailed conclusion, which applies unreservedly to the bigger sister in the same forum. Butter-and-bread instead of lighthouse project and cost optimization for ...

We have to put it in the first place that we actually had to double-benchmark all the games. At the last moment, Gigabyte incorporated AMD's new kernel from the source BIOS, which accommodates the custom models with a customized power table. This has the average bar of the map by approx. 50 MHz and even saved a little power consumption.

Thus, the peculiarities of the benchmark results, as we were able to see in the review of the Sapphire RX Vega64 Nitro+, finally disappear completely and the maps finally do exactly what you expect from them.

Unfortunately, Sapphire has not yet released a new BIOS, but we are sticking to it. The request is still ongoing and if we find it, there will certainly be a follow-up test.

Benchmark results in 2560 x 1440 pixels (WQHD)

First, we test in the WQHD resolution, because we assume that with this card you will mainly use the medium high resolutions. At least AMD has these players firmly in mind as a target group. The lead in real clock compared to the reference map is usually very low and thus the performance increase is rather manageable. After all, the Gigabyte RX Vega64 is consistently faster – once more and once less.

Benchmark results in 3840 x 2160 pixels (Ultra-HD)

The overall picture does not change much, even if the Vega cards break in a little more in a few games. But then it almost doesn't matter if reference or board partner card. Shared suffering is half suffering, and there is never any real humiliation. A true Ultra HD card is not one of the cards, so for many of the benchmarks we have deliberately reduced the settings to such an extent that there are still playable frame rates.

Intermediate conclusion

So we will have to look elsewhere for the real benefits of the gigabyte card, whether it's power consumption or noise. That's where the criticisms of AMD's Vega almost always start. If this succeeds convincingly better, you won't have the much faster card on offer, but the cooler and quieter card. Reason can also exude a certain charm and it really does not always have to be the longest bar.

Pages: