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.

[Korth]

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

Described in the review text, and summarized in bullet form immediately underneath that statement:
"Excellent performance"
"Faster than the reference model"
"Draws more power and runs hotter than the competition"

Although "the competition" is vague, not named anywhere in the review.
Which competition? Another brand of Vega card? AMD's own Vega cards? NVIDIA cards?

I agree, the TechRadar review lacks detail and substance. Parrots all the public specs, a half-dozen benchmark graphs, lots of added textual fluff.

(ROG-STRIX-RXVEGA64-8G-GAMING)
ROG Strix RX VEGA64 8GB with Aura Sync RGB for best VR & 4K gaming
ASUS Republic of Gamers Announces Strix RX Vega64
AMD's Radeon RX VEGA gets the ROG STRIX treatment

(Some more reviews, better ones, because TechRadar is useless filler)
Guru3D - ASUS Radeon ROG RX Vega 64 STRIX 8GB review (25Sep2017) - (06Sep2017 review taken offline)
HEXUS - Review: Asus Radeon RX Vega 64 Strix Gaming
Wccftech - ASUS ROG STRIX Radeon RX Vega 64 Gets Reviewed
TweakTown - ASUS STRIX Vega 64 trades blows with reference Vega 64

AMD versions are reference. Can easily be compared vs clock speeds, cooler design, VRM design, power requirements, and other specs on ASUS (and any other) versions. Always easy to see what is (or will soon be) on the market with searches on sites like PCPartPicker, Newegg, Amazon, NCIX. ASUS is sadly arriving quite late to the Vega party.

[FaaR]

panzlock wrote:
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

Something is really screwy with that review. In most tests the Strix is either dead-on performance-wise with reference design Vega, or actually even SLOWER - which really is impossible, considering the vastly more capable, 2.5-slot cooler of the Strix version.

Hexus' Strix Vega review is much better, and much more accurate to the real thing I'll wager (meaning it shows actual speedups due to much more temp headroom) - Guru3D must have received either a dud card or one that has done the rounds amongst several sites already and been pulled apart repeatedly and not put back together particularly carefully again.

AMD has no voltage regulator so they put their cards on the market overvolted resulting in higher than required wattage.

This is not correct. All Vega boards - even AMD reference designs - have voltage regulators of course. Aux power connectors to GPUs deliver 12V, you'd fry your silicon to cinders in a millisecond pumping that level of DC into a GPU...

As standard, Vegas do run on comparatively rather high supply voltage, mostly because Global Foundries (AMD's chip supplier) doesn't have a modern high performance silicon process at the moment, so they're pushing a low-power process beyond its comfortable design parameters by pumping up the volts, leading to very high power consumption. This will be remedied when Global Foundries moves on to 7nm process next year.

[panzlock]

FaaR wrote:

This is not correct. All Vega boards - even AMD reference designs - have voltage regulators of course. Aux power connectors to GPUs deliver 12V, you'd fry your silicon to cinders in a millisecond pumping that level of DC into a GPU...

As standard, Vegas do run on comparatively rather high supply voltage, mostly because Global Foundries (AMD's chip supplier) doesn't have a modern high performance silicon process at the moment, so they're pushing a low-power process beyond its comfortable design parameters by pumping up the volts, leading to very high power consumption. This will be remedied when Global Foundries moves on to 7nm process next year.

You're right, and I shouldn't have said that Vega has no voltage control. What I read (can't remember where) was that the voltage controller was inefficient by comparison to Nvidia's design or something along those lines. I have to find the right article where this voltage reference was made. I want to see if anyone else can substantiate the claim made by that individual.

[panzlock]

FaaR wrote:
Something is really screwy with that review. In most tests the Strix is either dead-on performance-wise with reference design Vega, or actually even SLOWER - which really is impossible, considering the vastly more capable, 2.5-slot cooler of the Strix version.

Hexus' Strix Vega review is much better, and much more accurate to the real thing I'll wager (meaning it shows actual speedups due to much more temp headroom) - Guru3D must have received either a dud card or one that has done the rounds amongst several sites already and been pulled apart repeatedly and not put back together particularly carefully again.

I noticed that, too. But what I see is a disparity between cards, not reviews. Guru shows poor performance using less wattage when comparing ASUS to AMD's reference card. Hexus reveals the opposite which shows the ASUS card with better performance but using more power.

JayzTwoCents also reviewed the ROG 64 and came to a similar conclusion guru3d did regarding the Strix's performance when pitted against AMD's reference card. Seems like guru and Jayz received poorly binned GPU's, here. And according to guru ASUS was supposed to send them a replacement for additional testing but did not, hence guru's republication of the same review results.

I agree there might be something screwy with the review...but the reason for it is ASUS. Again, I'm watching this unfold with a degree of skepticism because I was hoping to purchase a Vega card for my current build and ASUS was at the forefront for a VGA tender but, the script thus far is filled with too much suspense for my liking. I need more character development, as it were.

[Korth]

See my above links for the Guru3D reviews.

Guru3d did an earlier review but took it offline 06Sep2017 - ASUS requested their sample back and requested the review be withdrawn/suspended because (for whatever reason) their media sample card wasn't the final production version, had wrong VBIOS, and was still a "work in progress".

Guru3D posted a revised review 25Sep2017 - noting in the introduction that they weren't able to comprehensively test a "final revision" sample so some of the benchmarks and observations were based on data from their earlier review.

[panzlock]

Korth wrote:
See my above links for the Guru3D reviews.

Guru3d did an earlier review but took it offline 06Sep2017 - ASUS requested their sample back and requested the review be withdrawn/suspended because (for whatever reason) their media sample card wasn't the final production version, had wrong VBIOS, and was still a "work in progress".

Guru3D posted a revised review 25Sep2017 - noting in the introduction that they weren't able to comprehensively test a "final revision" sample so some of the benchmarks and observations were based on data from their earlier review.

ASUS should have sent guru3d another card so their excuse could be corroborated. They're not doing themselves any favours.

Matter of fact, looking at the Hexus review doesn't exactly fill me with a sense of elation. Marginal fps gain at higher wattage isn't exactly the sort of trade off I was looking for, especially since the temperature is reduced by 10 degrees C. And we've yet to establish performance based on pricing.

I am hoping the reason ASUS delayed their RX Vega release was to rectify some operational issues, as opposed to the availability (or lack thereof) of HBM2. And I'm hoping there will be little issue with undervolting.

[Asmoranomar]

panzlock wrote:
ASUS should have sent guru3d another card so their excuse could be corroborated. They're not doing themselves any favours.

Matter of fact, looking at the Hexus review doesn't exactly fill me with a sense of elation. Marginal fps gain at higher wattage isn't exactly the sort of trade off I was looking for, especially since the temperature is reduced by 10 degrees C. And we've yet to establish performance based on pricing.

I am hoping the reason ASUS delayed their RX Vega release was to rectify some operational issues, as opposed to the availability (or lack thereof) of HBM2. And I'm hoping there will be little issue with undervolting.

Gamers Nexus did a tear-down and received a unmolded chip. The tear-down wasn't anything different than other tear downs and a report is still being done, but a few days later they posted a video that analyzed some of the parts on the board in comparison to the reference design to see how ASUS tried to improve it. This might help in identifying why it is apparent some tests aren't doing well in comparison to others, and how some might be able to adjust their settings in relation to the reference design to take advantage of the improvements that ASUS did make.

I only have very basic knowledge on electronic principles, so I can't say much on the improvements, but I can say that the video is pretty informative and, if you get a lucky batch, you should see a minor improvement on the card out of the box.

My un-educated guess is that this card specializes on a custom cooling solution (ie: liquid nitrogen), and taking advantage of the power hard points to give it even more juice to push the card past it's limits. It is ROG after all.

Perhaps with the limited design improvements they could take, they went the only way they could go - way extreme (but it comes with all the cool lights!).

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OAHTe7NyVuk

[Guyvergamingtv]

Wish Asus would let us know what is going on, they did this with the centurion headset, said early sep release or some thing then pre orders came like a month after and the headset arrived around Jan, all the time no info from Asus. they really suck at informing their fans/gamers of whats going on. The place i buy my PC gear from is the Asus dealer in the UK and they dont have a clue when they can take orders either. getting a little annoyed now with the communication

[Korth]

From what I can see, all the Vega cards have the same clocks, the same coolers, the same specs. It's reasonable to assume they all have the same VRMs built from (basically) the same parts. It looks like AMD is imposing very strict design parameters along with their licenses, not even allowing stylistic differences or heavy branding. Hopefully some (better) non-reference versions come out soon ... and hopefully ASUS isn't late to the party (again).

[panzlock]

Some action: https://www.techpowerup.com/237893/asus-rog-strix-rx-vega-64-clock-speeds-revealed

ASUS may have been among the first to unveil its custom-design Radeon RX Vega 64 graphics cards with the ROG Strix Radeon RX Vega 64 (model: ROG-STRIX-RXVEGA64-O8G-GAMING), but kept its clock-speeds under the wraps. The company updated its product page, revealing the clock speeds. Out of the box, the card is clocked at 1298 MHz core, with 1590 MHz boost, and an untouched 945 MHz memory, against AMD-reference clock speeds of "up to 1546 MHz" GPU clock for the air-cooled RX Vega 64. It still pales in comparison to the RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition SKU, which ticks at 1677 MHz core and 1750 MHz boost. The company is yet to update the product page of its ROG Strix RX Vega 56 O8G.