ASUS ROG Strix RX Vega 64/56 Release Date???

[panzlock]

As per thread title, has anyone heard anything other than "September" for release of the RX Vega Strix? With GPU prices increasing and corporate greed taking advantage of the current cryptomining infatuation I want to know how much this new variant will cost. The reference RX Vega 56 has already seen a price increase which makes it around $50 CAD more expensive than existing GTX 1070 stock. In the past reference card models have typically been more expensive than AIB partner cards, however I'm still concerned that the 56 in particular will be sold at GTX 1080 prices given that the 64 is already priced where the 1080 Ti sits.

I picked the wrong time to assemble a new build. Although prices on other components have been reasonable with rebates, the price of new VGA's really nullifies the savings I've been able to achieve thus far. Again, I've heard little about the ROG Strix Vega other than September release date, some pictures and a respectable performance review which i can no longer find. And guru3d also took down their review due to an ASUS error which found the wrong card in guru3d's hands:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/review-asus-radeon-rog-rx-vega-64-strix-8gb.html

Lets get it together, people.

[Mitsukiba]

I sure did read all of that. It spiraled out of control the further it went.

[panzlock]

https://www.techpowerup.com/237156/custom-design-radeon-rx-vega-cards-by-mid-october

Delay caused by cryptominers, allegedly. Supply issues, etc...

[panzlock]

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.

[panzlock]

Looks like ASUS will be the first with a custom Vega PCB. XFX and Sapphire are delaying indefinitely. PowerColor hasn't received the DRAM yet. Gigabyte indicated they MAY release a custom Vega but could not support this possibility with certainty. MSI may be skipping Vega altogether. ASUS confirmed release push back from September to Early October.

So what gives? Sources tell us that there is too much variance in the quality of the chips AMD is providing. AIB partners are unable to figure out a stable overclocked GPU frequency that works for all cards, and therefore cannot provide any sort of warranty on factory-tuned cards.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-vega-custom-graphics-cards-problems,35514.html

I'm not sure AMD can generate any revenue with this product. Seems to be a bit of a cripple. I'm guessing here, but based on what I've read ASUS will release Vega at reference clocks if they can't sort the issue by the time they release. Not sure there's much point to that. Cooling may be better but by how much when related to pricing? AMD is losing credibility with gamers.

On top of that, I saw an ASUS ROG Strix RX Vega 64 review by JayzTwoCents which ahd the ASUS VGA performing worse than AMD's reference design. (Can't post link now as I'm at work and Youtube is blocked, etc...)

[panzlock]

Correction. Gigabyte will in fact release RX Vega cards. Possible delay until late October:

Yesterday news broke the web coming from Tom's Hardware that Gigabyte would not be releasing custom RX Vega cards. That information contradicts with what we have been hearing from Gigabyte.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/gigabyte_will_release_custom_radeon_rx_vega_64_cards.html

[Guyvergamingtv]

Any more news on the Asus Vega64? Really need a new card and been waiting for the vega cards for a while now.

[panzlock]

Read through this review if you haven't already: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-rog-rx-vega-64-strix-8gb-review,1.html

If I were you I'd wait for better news about ASUS's Vega 64 rendition before committing to a purchase. It's performance was the same as the reference Vega with cooling not much better. A while back guru3d were requested by ASUS to remove their review because ASUS sent the card with the wrong BIOS and they needed time to send the proper card. guru3d obliged but after some time they posted the review on their site again since ASUS failed to provide them with another card sporting the correct BIOS. I'd watch further development with skepticism. I'm also talking notice of this faux pas and if they experience the same issues with the 56 I will not buy an ASUS Vega.

And I'll recommend looking into the 56 as an alternate. This VGA seems to be getting better and better by the day. Also, look into the undervolting performance gain some have been discussing and implementing. AMD has no voltage regulator so they put their cards on the market overvolted resulting in higher than required wattage.

[Druinthor]

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/asus-rog-strix-gaming-radeon-rx-vega-64-oc

"Asus is yet to decide on the price and availability for the card and we will update this review to reflect that once the details are in"

[panzlock]

Druinthor wrote:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/asus-rog-strix-gaming-radeon-rx-vega-64-oc

"Asus is yet to decide on the price and availability for the card and we will update this review to reflect that once the details are in"

This review lacks comparisons. That's what needs updating. It also lacks substance.

Our Verdict

The Asus variant of the RX Vega 64 hits all the right notes, even if there are a few wrong ones

So, does it hit ALL the right notes? Or are there a few wrong ones???

[Druinthor]

panzlock wrote:
This review lacks comparisons. That's what needs updating. It also lacks substance.



So, does it hit ALL the right notes? Or are there a few wrong ones???

Sorry, more a comment on what was said about release date since that was the OPs question.

Edit: oh you are the OP 😛