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.

Page 13 of 24:

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III (DirectX 11)

Dialing in Warhammer’s highest detail settings imposes a substantial performance penalty. Its own tooltips claim that the High Anti-Aliasing option (which supplements FXAA by rendering to a higher-res off-screen buffer) can reduce frame rates by 50 to 100%.

Image 1 of 6

Vega proves its mettle once again in Dawn of War III, essentially matching a GeForce GTX 1080’s frame rate and demonstrating lower frame time variance. Through our benchmark, you’re looking at roughly 17%-higher performance than EVGA’s overclocked GeForce GTX 1070.

Image 1 of 6

That lead shrinks to ~14% at 3840x2160.

Even Radeon R9 Fury X is faster than GeForce GTX 1070 in this AMD-sponsored title, despite its 4GB of HBM.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Current page: Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III (DirectX 11)

Prev Page Tom Clancy’s The Division (DirectX 12) Next Page The Witcher 3 (DirectX 11)

See more GPUs Reviews

TOPICS

Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.

Sabrent's USB Type-C M.2 SSD Enclosure reduced to just $22 at Amazon

'World's first' AMD GPU driven via USB3 — Tiny Corp tests eGPUs on Apple Silicon, Linux and Windows also supported

Sandisk teases 'dynamite' new SSD controller dubbed Stargate

See more latest

69 Comments Comment from the forums

kjurden

What a crock! I didn't realize that Tom's hardware pandered to the iNvidiot's. AMD VEGA GPU's have rightfully taken the performance crown!
Reply
rwinches

Just when on sale Newegg and Amazon $399... Gone!
Reply
Martell1977

Vega 56 vs GTX 1070, Vega goes 6-2-2 = Winner Vega!

Good job AMD, hopefully next gen you can make more headway in power efficiency. But this is a good card, even beats the factory OC 1070.
Reply
Wisecracker

Thanks for the hard work and in-depth review -- any word on Vega Nano?

Some 'Other Guys' (Namer Gexus?) were experimenting on under-volting and clock-boosting with interesting results. It's not like you guys don't have enough to do, already, but an Under-Volt-Off Smack Down between AMD and nVidia might be fun for readers ...

Reply
pavel.mateja

No undervolting tests?
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/44084-amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-und-vega-64-im-undervolting-test.html&edit-text=
Reply
thomas.moore.ii

Yawn....... It's 4am here at the party.....you just now showing up Vega?
Reply
10tacle

20112576 said:
What a crock! I didn't realize that Tom's hardware pandered to the iNvidiot's. AMD VEGA GPU's have rightfully taken the performance crown!

Yeah Tom's Hardware does objective reviewing. If there are faults with something, they will call them out like the inferior VR performance over the 1070. This is not the National Inquirer of tech review sites like WCCTF. There are more things to consider than raw FPS performance and that's what we expect to see in an honest objective review.

Guru3D's conclusion with caveats:

"For PC gaming I can certainly recommend Radeon RX Vega 56. It is a proper and good performance level that it offers, priced right. It's a bit above average wattage compared to the competitions product in the same performance bracket. However much more decent compared to Vega 64."
Tom's conclusion with caveats:

"Even when we compare it to EVGA’s overclocked GeForce GTX 1070 SC Gaming 8GB (there are no Founders Edition cards left to buy), Vega 56 consistently matches or beats it. But until we see some of those forward-looking features exposed for gamers to enjoy, Vega 56’s success will largely depend on its price relative to GeForce GTX 1070."
^^And that's the truth. If prices of the AIB cards coming are closer to the GTX 1080, then it can't be considered a better value. This is not AMD's fault of course, but that's just the reality of the situation. You can't sugar coat it, you can't hide it, and you can't spin it. Real money is real money. We've already seen this with the RX 64 prices getting close to GTX 1080 Ti territory.

With that said, I am glad to see Nvidia get direct competition from AMD again in the high end segment since Fury even though it's a year and four months late to the party. In this case, the reference RX 56 even bests an AIB Strix GTX 1070 variant in most non-VR games. That's promising for what's going to come with their AIB variants. The question now is what's looming on the horizon in an Nvidia response with Volta. We'll find out in the coming months.
Reply
shrapnel_indie

We've seen what they can do in a factory blower configuration. Are board manufacturers allowed to take 64 and 56 and do their own designs and cooling solutions, where they can potentially coax more out of it (power usage aside)? Or are they stuck with this configuration as Fury X and Fury Nano were stuck?
Reply
10tacle

No, there will be card vendors like ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI who will have their own cooling. Here's a review of an ASUS RX 64 Strix Gaming:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/109078-asus-radeon-rx-vega-64-strix-gaming/
Reply
pepar0

20112412 said:
Radeon RX Vega 56 should be hitting store shelves with 3584 Stream processors and 8GB of HBM2. Should you scramble to snag yours or shop for something else?

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB Review : Read more
Will any gamers buy this card ... will any gamers GET to buy this card? Hot, hungry, noisy and expensive due to the crypto currency mining craze was not what this happy R290 owner had in mind.
Reply