Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC 8G Review

By Igor Wallossek
published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Power Consumption

Power Consumption at Different Loads

We measured about 261W during our gaming loop using the driver's Balanced power profile. That's about 20W less than AMD's reference model using its default BIOS. Color us astonished. The BIOS modifications, including AMD's new power table, should work really well once they're made available more broadly. Given identical frequencies, this card's power consumption is very similar to what we measured from Gigabyte's lower-end Radeon RX Vega 56 Gaming OC. Not bad from a Vega 64-class board.

Switching into manual overclocking mode with a 50%-higher power limit pushes us beyond 330W, at which point the thermal solution is overloaded (unless you really crank the fans up). As a result, we decided not to get any more aggressive with our overclocking. Rather, we stuck with the driver's Balanced power profile for testing.

The corresponding voltages for our gaming loop and stress test at Gigabyte's stock settings are plotted in the following graph:

Load On The Motherboard Slot

At a peak of 2.4A through our stress test, Gigabyte's Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC 8G falls significantly below the 5.5A ceiling defined by the PCI-SIG for a motherboard's 12V rail. A mere 1.9A during the gaming loop is even more conservative. Overall, balancing is well-implemented, and the motherboard slot hardly ever experiences serious loads.

Power Consumption In Detail

The graphs below plot detailed power consumption and current readings in order to illustrate our findings.

Naturally, peaks in power consumption are highest during gaming. But spikes of up to 340W are still acceptable, since they're far too brief to cause a problem.

The same goes for the corresponding current measurements:

During our stress test, the short-term peaks are significantly less pronounced (even if the power consumption is slightly higher than during gaming workloads).

Again, our current readings follow the graph rather closely and show no abnormalities.


MORE: Best Graphics Cards


MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table


MORE: All Graphics Content

21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • g-unit1111
    I really wish we could buy these. I'd love to get a Vega 56. This GPU shortage is getting absolutely stupid.
    Reply
  • FormatC
    I personally hate this stupid mining. A waste of ressources, only to feed a big bubble.

    And to look forward:
    No VGA available means no sales of CPU, mainboards, memory etc.
    The kiddies will buy consoles... Totally bad for the PC market and periphery.
    Reply
  • BulkZerker
    No hash rate benchmarks? Disappointed:(
    Reply
  • barryv88
    Again, Toms is very tight lipped about these Vega cards consistently outperforming their competitors. Hardly anything mentioned about those gaming benchmarks and the fact that the V64 eats the 1080 especially at 2560 res. AND you get a great mining card. And a $200 cheaper monitor (instead of a Gsync comparable one) thanx to Freesync. I'm counting quite alot of wins here. If only the miners didn't spoil the party!
    Reply
  • Malik 722
    @formatc.rightly said i too hate this mining craze.
    Reply
  • rc1235
    Good power analysis. I wish there were comparisons against the 1080 though.
    Reply
  • FormatC
    20634804 said:
    Good power analysis. I wish there were comparisons against the 1080 though.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-graphics-cards,4725.html
    I made such a thing long time ago. Simply pick a card of your choice and compare it. The 1080 is in a few months old iron ;)

    No hash rate benchmarks? Disappointed:(
    It is a gaming card, not just another card to feed the mining bubble. The current market situation is the result of all this mining shit. Greed eats brain - not with me. Please don't ask me, how I got these both samples. You see any other reviews of this GB cards? :)

    Hardly anything mentioned about those gaming benchmarks
    Of course, I could have added a performance/watt curve as well. It has all some pros and cons. Sometimes it's just better to keep quiet. Everyone can read, what he prefer. :)



    Reply
  • rc1235
    Oh wow, thanks for the link - that is an amazing article for a number of reasons.
    Reply
  • pepar0
    Personally, I think the tech/gaming media should STOP reviewing graphics cards that cannot be purchased. Nor couldn't be afforded if they could be found. This is not out of wanting to punish the GPU makers, but is rather a practical and principals matter. Plus it might cause GPU makes to rethink their positions; gamers will be here if digital currencies evolve to where mining is not needed.
    Reply
  • g-unit1111
    20634712 said:
    Again, Toms is very tight lipped about these Vega cards consistently outperforming their competitors. Hardly anything mentioned about those gaming benchmarks and the fact that the V64 eats the 1080 especially at 2560 res. AND you get a great mining card. And a $200 cheaper monitor (instead of a Gsync comparable one) thanx to Freesync. I'm counting quite alot of wins here. If only the miners didn't spoil the party!

    I'd *LOVE* to buy a Vega 56 or Vega 64 especially to compare with my 1080, and the Vega platform is pretty solid. The GPU makers really need to start taking steps to end this madness. The GPU shortage is getting to be ridiculously stupid on every level.
    Reply