Just another possible reason for AIB release delay. Apparently testers on a German website undervolted the RX Vega 64 and 56 cards yet achieved performance gains for both. Although RX Vega 64 performance increases were minimal the RX Vega 56 saw a system draw reduction of 73 watts, yet was able to outperform Nvidia's GTX 1080 FE. The following statement acknowledges in summary these findings:
Assessment of Undervolting
It is quite astonishing how much the gain by the undervoltings for the two cards fails. The Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 benefit greatly in terms of performance and savings in power requirements. It can be clearly seen that the Radeon RX Vega 64 is already quite close to the limit and there is little potential. In the Radeon RX Vega 56, on the other hand, we see a large scope, which should also be used by anyone who loves the building.
The results for the Radeon RX Vega 64 are as follows: In terms of performance, the GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition is quite clear. We have no values for an undervolting of the competition cards here, but take these values only as reference points. It would be unfair to compare a low-voltage card with one in the delivery state. At the same time, the undervolting of the Radeon RX Vega 64 means a significant reduction in power consumption, even if it is still part of the current single-GPU cards.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 is a little better. Here we see a significant reduction in the power requirement, which makes the GeForce GTX 1070 (again without undervolting) closer. The biggest jump, however, is at the same time as the performance, because despite a reduction in the voltage, we were able to significantly increase the cycle, or hold more stable at a high level. In the benchmarks, therefore, she moves the larger Radeon RX Vega 64 quite close to the Pelle and can also leave the GeForce GTX 1080 behind.
Currently, however, an undervolting is still quite complicated, since the software can not be trusted. Indicators for the clock do not have to be correct and if the voltage has been accepted, is only ensured by a glance at the consumption. A simple setting of the values in the software is not enough at the moment - everything has to be validated.
Link:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/44084-amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-und-...This is an interesting development which raises many questions as to why AMD set the voltage at higher than required levels and seemingly choked its own offspring. It could be to ensure stability of all cards, or could it have something to do with mining?
Also, as pointed out on various forums the issue of undervolting may not be so simple. Much like with the effort of overclocking during which an overvolt may be required, undervolting the card may decrease stability. Based on the silicon lottery some cards may not undervolt as effectively as others, if at all. Should this be the case, I'm holding out hope that ASUS's and other AIB's delay of their RX Vega renditions are a direct result of this finding, and are exercising every effort to produce stability at a reasonable voltage which allows, particularly in RX Vega 56's case, to compete with Nvidia's existing Pascal lineup where both petrol consumption and horsepower/torque are of concern.
Despite the above being nothing more than enthusiastic speculation, the timeline is legitimate. The hardwareluxx article was released on the 22nd of August of this year. ASUS originally planned the Vega release for mid September. With the most recent speculative release date being mid-October, it's not completely irrational to believe AIB's may be conducting further experiments to ensure their enhanced cooling interpretation of AMD's Vega has a fighting chance against Pascal before the reigns are passed on to Navi and Volta, respectively.
If the above is true, pricing (at least for the 56) will be appropriate. Otherwise AMD and their AIB partners will simply be selling an overpriced miners wet dream.
I'd like to deploy my troops in her country.
