OVERALL

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

ALTERNATIVES

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price in UK: ~£110
Avg. price in US: ~$100
VRAM: 8 GB
Memory bus width: 2048 bit
Thermal Design Power (TDP): 295 W

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review. Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how it ranks among graphics cards and if it is worth buying.

5.4

Good

5.2

Good

6.6

Good

4.3
Gaming
Score components:
45.0%
2.8
Floating-point performance
25.0%
2.8
VRAM
20.0%
?
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5.0
Video editing
Score components:
35.0%
7.0
AV1 encode
30.0%
2.8
VRAM
20.0%
2.8
Floating-point performance
15.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3.8
1080p
Score components:
55.0%
2.8
Floating-point performance
25.0%
2.8
VRAM
10.0%
?
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3.8
1440p
Score components:
50.0%
2.8
Floating-point performance
30.0%
2.8
VRAM
15.0%
?
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4.1
4K
Score components:
40.0%
2.8
Floating-point performance
35.0%
2.8
VRAM
20.0%
?
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version

Best prices in UK

£?

Best rankings

#14 in Best AMD Graphic Cards
#138 in Best Budget Graphic Cards
#236 in Best AMD Radeon Graphic Cards
#255 in Best 8 GB Graphic Cards
#714 in Best Graphic Cards For Gaming
#726 in Best Graphic Cards For 1080p Gaming
#751 in Best Graphic Cards For 1440p Gaming
#766 in Best Graphic Cards For Video Editing
#959 in Best Graphic Cards

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is a high-end graphics card built on the 14nm FinFET process, featuring 4,096 stream processors, 64 compute units, and 8GB of advanced HBM2 memory on a massive 2048-bit bus that delivers 484 GB/s of bandwidth. With a base clock of 1247 MHz and a boost up to 1546 MHz, the card provides exceptional performance in DirectX 12 and Vulkan titles, making it ideal for enthusiast-level 1440p gaming and compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL rendering. Its main pros include massive memory bandwidth, strong legacy driver maturation, and smooth FreeSync compatibility. However, its significant cons include an excessively high 295W TDP that requires a robust power supply, high operating temperatures, and loud cooling fans on reference blower models.

Technical Specifications of AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

Overall score

5.4

Show more

Hide

Popularity

What it is: An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.

When it matters: When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.

Performance

4.8

Show more

Hide

3DMark Time Spy benchmark score

What it is: Benchmark result from 3DMark Time Spy, a synthetic DirectX 12 test often used as a quick gaming-performance reference.

When it matters: When you need a fast rough performance sort before digging into game-specific reviews and frame-rate data.

Importance: LOW

?

3DMark Port Royal score

What it is: Benchmark result from 3DMark Port Royal, a synthetic test focused on ray tracing performance.

When it matters: When ray tracing matters in the games you actually play and you want one quick way to separate stronger and weaker RT cards.

Importance: LOW

N/A

PassMark (G3D) result

What it is: Overall GPU performance score in PassMark G3D benchmark

When it matters: When you need one broad score to sort cards into rough performance tiers.

Importance: LOW

?

PassMark (DirectCompute) result

What it is: PassMark score for DirectCompute performance tests

When it matters: When compute workloads matter alongside gaming performance.

Importance: LOW

?

Floating-point performance

What it is: Theoretical floating-point compute performance of the GPU.

When it matters: When rendering, AI, or heavy compute work needs strong single-precision throughput.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Memory

4.2

Show more

Hide

VRAM

What it is: Total video memory available on the graphics card

When it matters: When you play at high settings, use texture mods, or work with large creative projects.

Importance: HIGH

Memory type

What it is: Type of graphics memory used (GDDR6, HBM2e, etc.)

When it matters: When memory technology is part of the buying decision because it affects bandwidth class, power use, and product positioning.

Importance: LOW

HBM2

GDDR version

What it is: Generation of GDDR memory used by the graphics card.

When it matters: When you want to separate older memory generations from newer ones before comparing bandwidth, power behavior, and market tier.

Importance: LOW

?

Memory bus width

What it is: Width of the memory interface bus in bits

When it matters: When you care about steadier performance at higher resolutions, heavier texture settings, or ray-traced workloads that stress memory traffic.

Importance: HIGH

Maximum memory bandwidth

What it is: Maximum data transfer rate between GPU and its memory

When it matters: When 4K gaming, ray tracing, or creator work can choke a slower memory subsystem.

Importance: HIGH

Show more

Platform & Features

6.2

Show more

Hide

PCI Express (PCIe) version

What it is: Version of PCI Express interface supported

When it matters: When you are pairing the card with an older motherboard and want to avoid leaving bandwidth or future compatibility on the table.

Importance: LOW

PCIe lanes

What it is: Number of PCI Express lanes used for communication

When it matters: When limited lane width could bottleneck the card in some systems.

Importance: LOW

DirectX version

What it is: Highest supported DirectX API version

When it matters: When you play newer Windows games that depend on the latest graphics features.

Importance: LOW

?

Vulkan version

What it is: Highest supported Vulkan API version

When it matters: When modern games, emulators, or creative apps lean on Vulkan support.

Importance: LOW

OpenGL version

What it is: Highest supported OpenGL API version

When it matters: When older games or pro apps still depend on OpenGL compatibility.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Connectivity & Media

8.1

Show more

Hide

Max displays supported

What it is: Total number of external displays supported simultaneously

When it matters: When you run a multi-monitor desk for sim racing, trading, or editing.

Importance: LOW

Max digital resolution

What it is: Maximum supported digital display resolution

When it matters: When you plan to drive 4K or 8K panels at their native resolution.

Importance: LOW

?

DisplayPort outputs

What it is: Number of DisplayPort video outputs

When it matters: When your setup needs several high-refresh monitors without adapters.

Importance: LOW

DisplayPort version

What it is: Version of DisplayPort standard supported

When it matters: When your monitor setup depends on newer DisplayPort features for higher refresh rates, higher resolution, or better cable flexibility.

Importance: LOW

DisplayPort link rates

What it is: Supported data link rates for DisplayPort connections

When it matters: When you are pushing high resolution and refresh rate over DisplayPort.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Power & Cooling

5.4

Show more

Hide

Thermal Design Power (TDP)

What it is: Typical power consumption under full load (TDP)

When it matters: When you need a realistic idea of power draw before choosing a PSU or case.

Importance: MEDIUM

Power consumption while under peak load

What it is: Peak power draw of the graphics card under maximum load.

When it matters: When transient-heavy gaming loads could stress your power supply.

Importance: LOW

Recommended PSU wattage

What it is: Recommended wattage of the system power supply

When it matters: When you are checking whether your current power supply is enough.

Importance: LOW

Board power limit

What it is: Maximum configurable power limit for the GPU board

When it matters: When you care about how far the card can be pushed through tuning or factory power settings.

Importance: LOW

?

PCIe power spec

What it is: PCIe power delivery specification followed

When it matters: When you are checking whether the slot and external cables match the card's intended power-delivery standard.

Importance: LOW

?

Show more

Design

9.0

Show more

Hide

Size

What it is: Physical size of the GPU card

When it matters: When you need the card to fit a compact case without blocking nearby hardware.

Importance: LOW

?

Length

What it is: Physical length of the GPU card

When it matters: When front radiators or drive cages leave only limited GPU clearance.

Importance: LOW

Height

What it is: Physical height of the GPU card

When it matters: When side panels, brackets, or tight case layouts reduce vertical clearance.

Importance: LOW

Slot width

What it is: Number of PCIe slots occupied by the card

When it matters: When you need room for another PCIe card or better airflow under the GPU.

Importance: LOW

Weight

What it is: Total weight of the graphics card

When it matters: When sag, bracket support, or shipping stress matters in your build.

Importance: LOW

?

Show more

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs the average graphics card

Why is AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 better than the average graphics card?

Show more

Hide

1,792 bit wider memory bus
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (2048 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
What it is: Width of the memory interface bus in bits
When it matters: When you care about steadier performance at higher resolutions, heavier texture settings, or ray-traced workloads that stress memory traffic.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (2048 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.2048 bit vs 256 bit
24 more compute units
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
What it is: Total number of shader multiprocessors or compute units
When it matters: When you want a better sense of the GPU's overall parallel hardware resources before relying on game benchmarks alone.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.64 vs 40
Includes dual BIOS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 includes dual BIOS, the average graphics card does not.
What it is: Includes dual BIOS for redundancy or overclocking profiles
When it matters: When you want a safer recovery path after tweaking fan curves or overclock settings, or you need separate quiet and performance profiles.
Importance: LOW
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 includes dual BIOS, the average graphics card does not.
72 more TMUs
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more TMUs than the average graphics card (256 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
What it is: Total count of texture mapping units on the GPU
When it matters: When texture-heavy gaming performance matters and you want extra hardware context behind texture-rate claims.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more TMUs than the average graphics card (256 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.256 vs 184
16 mm lower card height
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 127 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 127 mm.
What it is: Physical height of the GPU card
When it matters: When side panels, brackets, or tight case layouts reduce vertical clearance.
Importance: LOW
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 127 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 127 mm.111 mm vs 127 mm
4.82x cheaper
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).£110 vs £530
Better FP64 ratio
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
What it is: Ratio of double-precision (FP64) to single-precision (FP32) performance
When it matters: When you need to know whether FP64 is merely present or genuinely useful.
Importance: LOW
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).1:16 vs 1:64
Supports multi-GPU linking
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
What it is: Supports NVIDIA SLI or AMD CrossFire multi-GPU setup
When it matters: When you still run legacy multi-GPU gaming or rendering workflows.
Importance: LOW
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
24 more compute units
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
72 more TMUs
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has more TMUs than the average graphics card (256 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
Better FP64 ratio
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
1,792 bit wider memory bus
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (2048 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
8% higher memory bandwidth
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (483.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
Supports multi-GPU linking
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
Includes dual BIOS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 includes dual BIOS, the average graphics card does not.
16 mm lower card height
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 127 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 127 mm.

Platform & Features

Power & Cooling

Why is AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 worse than the average graphics card?

Show more

Hide

38.2% lower boost clock speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,546 MHz vs 2,500 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,500 MHz.
35.1% lower base clock speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,247 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
40.1% lower pixel rate
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (98.9 GPixel/s vs 165.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s.
44.6% lower FP32 performance
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (12.7 TFLOPS vs 22.86 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.86 TFLOPS.
90.1% slower memory speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1,890 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
4 GB less VRAM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
46% slower VRAM clock
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (945 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
87.5% smaller L2 cache
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 32 MB). The average graphics card has 32 MB L2 cache.
87.5% smaller L1 cache
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
2.8x larger process node
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher process node than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
Older PCIe version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4.0).
6 older
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
No mesh shaders
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
Older Vulkan version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
Older OpenCL version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3.0).
No sampler feedback
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
62.7% larger GPU die
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (495 mm² vs 304.25 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 304.25 mm².
Older shader model
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.4 vs 6.8).
No AV1 encoding
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
No AV1 decoding
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
No DSC support
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
Older DisplayPort version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
Older HDMI version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
Older HDCP version
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
2 fewer fans
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
37.2% higher TDP
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (295 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
15.4% higher PSU requirement
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
18 °C higher load temperature
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (85 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
7 °C lower thermal ceiling
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 93 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 93 °C.
38.2% lower boost clock speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,546 MHz vs 2,500 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,500 MHz.
What it is: Maximum boost frequency the GPU can reach under load
When it matters: When you want a rough idea of peak advertised frequency, while knowing real sustained clocks still depend on cooling and power limits.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,546 MHz vs 2,500 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,500 MHz.1546 MHz vs 2500 MHz
2 fewer fans
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
What it is: Total number of cooling fans
When it matters: When you compare cooler designs and want one more clue about thermal potential.
Importance: MEDIUM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).1 vs 3
2.8x larger process node
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher process node than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
What it is: Size of the manufacturing process in nanometers
When it matters: When process node differences may affect power, heat, and overall efficiency.
Importance: MEDIUM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher process node than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.14 nm vs 5 nm
35.1% lower base clock speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,247 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
What it is: Base operating frequency of the GPU core under standard conditions
When it matters: When you want to understand the card's guaranteed starting frequency instead of looking only at optimistic boost figures.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,247 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.1247 MHz vs 1920 MHz
90.1% slower memory speed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1,890 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
What it is: Effective memory data rate combining clock and bus width
When it matters: When you compare how quickly each card can push data through its memory subsystem.
Importance: MEDIUM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1,890 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.1890 MHz vs 19000 MHz
4 GB less VRAM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
What it is: Total video memory available on the graphics card
When it matters: When you play at high settings, use texture mods, or work with large creative projects.
Importance: HIGH
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.8 GB vs 12 GB
40.1% lower pixel rate
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (98.9 GPixel/s vs 165.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s.
What it is: Number of pixels the GPU can render per second
When it matters: When you play at high resolutions or care about older raster-heavy games.
Importance: MEDIUM
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (98.9 GPixel/s vs 165.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s.98.94 GPixel/s vs 165.2 GPixel/s
No AV1 encoding
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
What it is: Supports hardware encoding of AV1 video codec
When it matters: When you stream or export video and want efficient AV1 encoding on the GPU.
Importance: LOW
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.No vs yes

Platform & Features

Connectivity & Media

Power & Cooling

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and

Attribute category

Attribute

No results found

Third-party reviews

United Kingdom

United States

(Reviews last updated: June 2026)

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX Vega 64?

Competitive performance with the Nvidia GTX 1080, particularly at 4K resolution
Strong performance in DirectX 12 and Vulkan-based games
High memory bandwidth (483 GB/s) thanks to 8GB of HBM2 memory
Support for FreeSync, which offers a more affordable variable refresh rate ecosystem than G-Sync
Forward-looking features like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC)
Includes a dual BIOS feature with a dedicated 'Power Save' profile

What customers dislike about AMD Radeon RX Vega 64?

Extremely high power consumption, requiring at least a 750W power supply
Reference air-cooled models run very hot and are excessively loud under load
Performance often falls behind the GTX 1080 in older DirectX 11 titles
Late market release compared to the competition (over a year after the GTX 1080)
Significant thermal throttling on reference designs without manual fan curve adjustments
Does not compete with the higher-tier GTX 1080 Ti despite high power draw

Expert reviews

digitalfoundry.net

05/12/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review | Digital Foundry

The Digital Foundry AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review positions the graphics card as a powerful but flawed enthusiast-level offering that brings the fight directly to Nvidia's second-tier card, the GeForce GTX 1080, rather than the flagship GTX 1080 Ti. A major pro highlighted in the review is the GPU's state-of-the-art architecture, which includes the most fully featured DirectX 12 implementation available on the market and a premium HBM2 memory system. In terms of real-world gaming, the card delivers excellent performance at 1440p and highly capable 4K gameplay when paired with FreeSync displays. The Vega 64 shows impressive results in titles optimized for AMD strengths, such as Battlefield 1 running under DX12, where it outpaces the standard GTX 1080 and occasionally pushes further ahead. Conversely, the cons are substantial enough to hurt the card's overall value proposition. The flagship is incredibly power-hungry, consuming a massive 420W peak system power from the wall—significantly higher than the GTX 1080 (303W) and even the faster GTX 1080 Ti (384W). This extreme power consumption generates high heat that strains the reference air-cooling solution, leaving...

hardwarecanucks.com

28/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD RX Vega 64 & Vega 56 Performance Review

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 graphics cards launch as AMD's attempt to challenge NVIDIA’s high-end dominance, with the flagship Vega 64 targeted directly at the GTX 1080 and the cut-down Vega 56 priced at $399 to rival the GTX 1070. Built on the 12.5 billion transistor Vega 10 core using Next Generation Compute Units and innovative HBM2 memory, these cards perform admirably within a bubble. The review highlights that both GPUs deliver competitive gaming frame rates, trading blows evenly with their NVIDIA counterparts and proving particularly strong in DirectX 12 and Vulkan applications. Additionally, features like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC)—which allows the GPU to use system RAM as extra cache—and integrated Wattman power profiles provide unique flexibility and forward-looking value for tech enthusiasts. However, these performance wins are severely undermined by disastrous power efficiency, excessive heat, and extreme noise levels. The architecture requires immense voltage to stay competitive, resulting in the Vega 64 consuming a shocking 117W more than the GTX 1080, while the Vega 56 draws roughly 100W more than the GTX 1070....

techadvisor.com

16/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review - Tech Advisor

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is a high-end graphics card that serves as a competitive alternative to the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, significantly outperforming previous "Fury" models and the RX 500-series. Built on a 14nm process with 4096 stream processors, it features 8GB of HBM2 memory and a new High-Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) designed to improve data efficiency by treating system RAM as video memory. It supports DirectX 12.1 and can drive up to three 4K HDR displays at 60Hz simultaneously. The card’s primary strengths include its forward-looking architecture, which offers potential for performance gains as developers optimise for its new features, and its compatibility with more affordable FreeSync monitors. However, it has notable drawbacks, specifically its high power consumption and noise; it is rated at 295W (requiring a 750W PSU) and its air-cooled reference design can become quite loud under load. While it matches the GTX 1080 in many benchmarks, it remains slower than the more expensive GTX 1080 Ti, making it a solid choice only if your power supply can handle the demand. Are you looking to...

gamespot.com

16/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review - GameSpot

The GameSpot review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 highlights its position as an enthusiast-level GPU, featuring Vega architecture, 8GB HBM2 memory, and 64 compute units, aimed at competing with the Nvidia GTX 1080. Praised for excellent performance at 1440p and 4K resolutions, the card offers competitive value with a $499 launch price. YouTube · However, the review details significant drawbacks, including a high 295W TDP that requires a 750W power supply and results in excessive noise from the blower fan under load. While the liquid-cooled option improves thermals and acoustics, it eliminates the value advantage, ultimately making the air-cooled card a powerful but hot and loud performer.

uk.pcmag.com

15/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 - Review 2017

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review Summary The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is an air-cooled flagship graphics card that brings AMD back into the high-end gaming market, offering performance that goes toe-to-toe with Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080. Built on the AMD Vega 10 processor with 8GB of second-generation High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM2), the card is designed for high-resolution gaming at 1440p, ultra-wide, and 4K resolutions. In real-world gaming benchmarks, it delivers exceptionally smooth frame rates at high resolutions, even outperforming the GTX 1080 in newer DirectX 12 titles like Tom Clancy's The Division and Hitman (2016). Furthermore, its compatibility with FreeSync monitors offers gamers a variable-refresh-rate ecosystem that typically costs less than Nvidia's competing G-Sync displays. However, the card falls short when it comes to efficiency, arriving decidedly late to the party over a year after Nvidia's comparable lineup. Its massive power requirements are a primary drawback; the Vega 64 features a 295-watt thermal design power (TDP) and demands at least a 750-watt power supply with two 8-pin connectors, compared to the GTX 1080's much leaner 180-watt TDP and 500-watt...

hothardware.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

Radeon RX Vega 64 And RX Vega 56 Review: AMD Back In High-End Graphics

However, the architecture comes with notable cons regarding efficiency and physical design. Both reference cards are characterized by high board power targets, with the air-cooled Vega 64 demanding 295 Watts and the Vega 56 drawing 210 Watts—requiring dual 8-pin PCIe power connectors. This heavy power draw translates directly into significant thermal and noise penalties, as the reference blower fans are louder than rival NVIDIA options, pushing noise levels between 50db and 53db on an open bench while exhausting a massive amount of heat. Additionally, despite their high-tech design, the cards lose ground to NVIDIA in older DirectX 11 or heavily green-optimized titles like Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, meaning real-world gaming performance remains highly dependent on software ecosystem adoption.

bit-tech.net

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 Review

The bit-tech review evaluates AMD's re-entry into the high-end GPU market with the 14nm FinFET Vega 10 architecture, focusing on the standalone RX Vega 64 ($499/£499) and RX Vega 56 ($399/£399) reference cards. The pros of this launch center on the architectural advancements and performance-per-dollar value, particularly for the lower-end SKU. Both cards feature second-generation High-Bandwidth Memory (8GB HBM2), an innovative High-Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) to pool system memory, and seamless integration with AMD's budget-friendly FreeSync ecosystem. Performance-wise, the RX Vega 56 emerges as the standout winner of the review; it earns a "Recommended" award by rivaling Nvidia's GTX 1070 at stock speeds, offering massive 12% to 17% overclocking gains that can surpass a stock Vega 64, and operating with better thermal and noise efficiency than its bigger sibling. Conversely, the cons highlight severe efficiency and market-timing drawbacks that hold the flagship model back. The RX Vega 64 struggles to escape the reality that Nvidia's competing GTX 1080 launched over a year prior and remains significantly more power-efficient than AMD's new flagship. The reference blower cooler design leaves a lot...

techradar.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 marks AMD's competitive return to the high-end graphics market, offering performance that is highly comparable to the Nvidia GTX 1080 at a slightly more affordable launch price of $499. Featuring 4,096 stream processors and 8GB of scalable HBM2 video memory, the card matches or exceeds its Nvidia rival in several synthetic and gaming benchmarks, demonstrating particular strength in titles like Total War: Warhammer and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided at 4K resolution. A standout architectural highlight is its High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC), which allows users to effectively allocate system memory as extra VRAM to bypass conventional graphical limits and boost frame rates. A major advantage highlighted in the review is the impressive benchmark results and the minute GPU tuning control available to users, backed by solid design choices like a metal backplate and a useful built-in GPU tachometer. However, these benefits come with a significant downside: the Vega 64 suffers from a much higher energy draw compared to Nvidia’s Pascal architecture. When pushed into its "Turbo Mode" to maximize frame rates, the card demands...

techpowerup.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB Review

The TechPowerUp review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB, based on a 14 nm FinFET architecture with 4,096 stream processors and 8 GB of HBM2 memory, shows the card matching or exceeding the NVIDIA GTX 1080, providing strong performance for high-refresh-rate gaming and entry-level 4K. Pros include robust build quality, a dual-BIOS switch for power limits, and features such as Radeon WattMan profiles and Enhanced Sync. However, the review highlights significant cons regarding efficiency, with the reference card showing a maximum power draw near 295W and requiring a 750W PSU. The blower-style cooler struggles with this heat, leading to temperatures of 85°C and loud 45 dBA fan noise, while the card lacks an idle-fan-stop feature.

mmorpg.com

07/01/2018

Summary of the review

AMD Vega 64 Reference Edition - Was the Hype Worth the Wait?

The ⁠MMORPG.com review characterizes the AMD Vega 64 Reference Edition as a powerful, yet underwhelming, entry that failed to fully meet immense hype. Boasting 8GB of HBM2 memory, 4,096 cores, and a 1440p-ready performance profile, the card offers a significant architectural upgrade over Polaris, aiming to compete directly with Nvidia’s GTX 1080 at a $499 MSRP. However, the card is heavily marred by a high 295W TDP and substantial, confusing bundle requirements that inflated the overall cost. Furthermore, intense demand from cryptocurrency miners led to severe, long-term stock shortages, hindering consumers from purchasing the card at its intended price point. MMORPG.com

tomshardware.com

25/01/2018

Summary of the review

Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC 8G Review

The Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC 8G is a compact, understated gaming graphics card designed to offer a lighter, more streamlined alternative to heavy third-party implementations like the Sapphire Nitro+. Weighing 1006 grams and measuring 27.8 cm in length, it sheds nearly 600 grams compared to heavier competitors, making it much easier to fit into standard PC chassis. It handles 2560x1440 resolution gaming exceptionally well and stands out by offering a unique layout of six simultaneous display outputs, including three HDMI 2.0 and three DisplayPort 1.4 ports. Gigabyte utilizes a well-implemented heat pipe direct touch cooler alongside dual 9.5cm counter-rotating fans with a specialized blade shape to optimize airflow, further supported by an improved fan speed profile from recent BIOS updates. However, the card struggles heavily with market availability and physical constraints. Severe GPU supply shortages from AMD limited mass production, making the card incredibly rare and leaving it with uncertain pricing. On a technical front, the budget-oriented cooler design leaves zero thermal headroom for overclocking. Even though Gigabyte advertised significant frequency boosts, the maximum boost clocks are...

pcgamer.com

18/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review - PC Gamer

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review Summary The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is a fast but heavily power-hungry graphics card that marks AMD's return to the high-end GPU discussion, trading performance blows directly with Nvidia’s GTX 1080. Tested on a high-end X99 system at 1440p using the default "Balanced" WattMan profile, the air-cooled reference card delivers a great gaming experience, especially when paired with a FreeSync monitor. It features a forward-looking architecture and runs remarkably quiet under stock operation. Additionally, the GPU shows decent results across various cryptocurrency mining algorithms when utilizing AMD's dedicated blockchain compute driver, pulling in a net profit of around $2.60 per day. However, the card's greatest drawback is its extreme power consumption and late arrival, launching 15 months after Nvidia's highly efficient Pascal architecture. At stock settings, the Vega 64 consumes 478W (system total), and manually pushing the card to its maximum 50% power limit raises system power draw to an astronomical 585W—well over 350W for the GPU alone. Beyond its poor performance-per-watt efficiency, the DX11 drivers are not as well-tuned as Nvidia's, leading...

pcmag.com

15/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review - PCMag

The PCMag review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 identifies it as a high-performance, enthusiast-grade graphics card featuring 8GB of HBM2 memory, aiming to compete with Nvidia’s GTX 1080 at a $499 MSRP. Key advantages include strong, stable performance at high resolutions and a high-bandwidth architecture ideal for demanding workloads. Conversely, the review notes the card's delayed market entry and high power consumption, resulting in significant heat production. Furthermore, the Vega 64 generally falls slightly behind the GTX 1080 in raw frame rate performance. YouTube

techspot.com

31/08/2022

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon Vega 64 Revisited One Last Time: Did It Age Better Than Pascal? Would you like me to find reviews for custom partner cards (like ASUS Strix...

The ⁠TechSpot review of the AMD Radeon Vega 64 five years post-release highlights its surprising longevity, noting improved performance in modern, low-level API titles like Cyberpunk 2077. While the GCN architecture proved relatively future-proof, the card is heavily hampered by severe power inefficiency and high operational costs. Ultimately, while the Vega 64 became more competitive over time, its high power consumption and the inconsistent benefits of user-driven optimizations like undervolting make it a challenging option compared to newer alternatives.

rockpapershotgun.com

31/01/2018

Summary of the review

AMD RX Vega 64 review: A GTX 1080 killer?

In this Rock Paper Shotgun review, James Archer evaluates the Asus ROG Strix RX Vega 64 OC Edition to determine if AMD can successfully challenge the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080. Equipped with 8GB of HBM2 memory, a three-fan air cooler, and a slightly overclocked core (1298MHz base / 1590MHz boost), the card delivers a resounding "yes" when it comes to competing at 1440p and 4K resolutions. A major pro highlighted in the review is its flawless performance at 1080p and 1440p, tearing through Doom, Hitman, and Wolfenstein II without stutters or framerate drops. Furthermore, it handles Assassin's Creed Origins smoothly at ultra-high settings all the way up to 4K. On the hardware side, the dual HDMI ports act as an excellent pro for VR users, and the IP5X dust resistance offers valuable peace of mind. However, the card struggles with several notable cons, primarily centered around high-intensity 4K workloads, extreme fan noise, and market issues. Performance hits are visible in Middle-earth: Shadow of War at 4K, while Rise of the Tomb Raider becomes "dicey" due to heavy foliage or particle...

techspot.com

25/08/2017

Summary of the review

The Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid, Vega 64 & Vega 56 Test

The TechSpot review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 highlights a mixed performance, where the liquid-cooled variant competes with the GTX 1080 and excels in DirectX 12/Vulkan titles like Battlefield 1 and Sniper Elite 4, driven by 8GB HBM2 memory. However, the standard air-cooled model struggles, offering lower performance, higher noise levels, and significantly higher power consumption than the GTX 1080. Key drawbacks (cons) include extreme power consumption—labeled a "power pig" by the reviewer—resulting in a 24% higher system power draw than a faster GTX 1080 Ti. Furthermore, the review advises against purchasing reference cards at launch due to high prices and poor availability, marking a disappointing debut against Nvidia’s lineup.

pcper.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

The AMD Radeon RX Vega Review

The 2017 AMD Radeon RX Vega review evaluates the architecture's first consumer entries: the Vega 56, the air-cooled Vega 64, and the Vega 64 Liquid. The testing positions the cards against NVIDIA's highly popular Pascal generation, specifically slotting the $399 Vega 56 against the GTX 1070 and the $499 Vega 64 against the GTX 1080. Architecturally, AMD shifted its marketing metrics to list a realistic, typical "boost clock" experienced during actual gaming workloads rather than an unattainable theoretical peak. To combat cryptocurrency mining inflation and incentivize ecosystem upgrades, AMD bundled the cards into "Radeon Packs" that include two free games and discounts on FreeSync monitors and Ryzen hardware platforms. Pros and Cons Pros: Exceptional raw compute power that beats premium workstation cards like the $5,000 Quadro P6000 in specific rendering benchmarks like LuxMark. The Vega 56 offers strong overclocking potential and excellent performance-per-dollar value, earning it a Gold Award. Forward-looking architectural features like the High-Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) allow the graphics card to address up to 512TB of virtual memory using system RAM. Strong competitive scaling in newer DX12 and...

bit-tech.net

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 Review

The bit-tech.net review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 reference cards highlights a shared, minimal black-and-red design that measures 270mm in length and utilizes dual eight-pin PCIe connectors. A standout feature is the GPUTech LED alignment on the PCB that indicates real-time current levels. Architecturally, the cards incorporate vapor chamber cooling with a single radial fan, a trio of DisplayPort 1.4 headers supporting 4K 120Hz HDR screens, and dual BIOS profiles linked with software-managed power states (Power Saver, Balanced, and Turbo). Performance-wise, the Vega 56 emerges as the far more compelling product, delivering roughly 90% of the flagship's performance at a 20% lower price point, easily challenging a stock or heavily overclocked Nvidia GTX 1070 while yielding massive 12–17% gains when overclocked. Conversely, the flagship Vega 64 struggles to consistently surpass the older GTX 1080 unless heavily overclocked. The primary pros of this lineup include the superb performance-to-price ratio of the Vega 56, excellent responsiveness to manual tuning/overclocking, and extensive feature additions like Enhanced Sync and FreeSync support. FreeSync remains a critical asset due to...

hardwareluxx.de

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 und RX Vega 56 im Test

Here is a specific summary of the Hardwareluxx review for the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 graphics cards: The review marks the final evaluation of AMD’s highly anticipated Vega 10 architecture, built on a 14 nm process with 12.5 billion transistors and utilizing advanced High Bandwidth Memory (HBM2). Positioned as direct competitors to NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 respectively, the air-cooled RX Vega 64 features 4,096 shader units with a boost clock up to 1,630 MHz, while the cut-down RX Vega 56 offers 3,584 shader units with a 1,590 MHz boost clock. Both variants carry 8 GB of HBM2 over a wide 2,048-bit interface, delivering high memory bandwidths of 484 GB/s and 410 GB/s. AMD notably pushed these final clock speeds higher than originally announced in late July to maximize out-of-the-box performance. A major pro highlighted in the review is the implementation of cutting-edge hardware features, such as Vulkan API integration and the theoretical performance advantages of HBM2. Additionally, AMD provides competitive pricing at launch (ranging from €499 for the air-cooled Vega 64 to €405...

hardwareluxx.de

26/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 im mGPU-Test

The Hardwareluxx review evaluates the multi-GPU (mGPU) performance of two AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 graphics cards, utilizing the ASUS ROG Strix Radeon Vega 64 OC Edition alongside a reference model, made possible by the release of the Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition 17.9.2 driver. This driver officially unlocked mGPU functionality—the term AMD now uses instead of CrossFire. The setup is straightforward, with the driver automatically configuring the dual-card ecosystem or allowing manual activation under global game settings, which can then be verified via software like GPU-Z or the physical GPU-Tach LEDs on the reference card. A notable advantage highlighted in the review is the performance potential in select titles that AMD specifically optimized for multi-GPU scaling. Additionally, custom partner models like the ASUS ROG Strix offer superior cooling solutions compared to the reference design, which helps manage the intense thermal demands of a dual-Vega setup. However, the review identifies significant drawbacks, including highly inconsistent game support where the mGPU setup simply refused to work depending on the title. Furthermore, AMD's historically neglectful attitude toward CrossFire/mGPU technology means optimization is...

tomshardware.fr

05/03/2018

Summary of the review

Test : Asus Radeon RX Vega 64 STRIX OC

The Asus ROG Strix Vega 64 OC is a custom graphics card built around the 484 mm² Vega 10 GPU, featuring 4,096 shaders, 8 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2,048-bit bus width, and a 295W TDP. Tested on an Intel Core i7-6900K system with an open/closed Lian Li chassis, the card delivers a 10% boost clock advantage over the AMD reference model, resulting in a 5% to 7% gaming performance gain in QHD (2560x1440) resolution. Pros highlighted in the review include its well-balanced design out of the box, improved gaming performance over the Nvidia GTX 1080 thanks to updated BIOS/drivers, and the inclusion of dual 4-pin PWM headers to control external case fans directly from the GPU. Additionally, it maintains a highly regular and quiet 34.8 dB acoustic profile when tested on an open-air bench. However, the card struggles significantly with thermal management due to major design flaws in the cooling subsystem, leading the reviewer to ultimately withhold a purchase recommendation. Cons include a critical lack of passive cooling on the rear of the PCB; Asus opted for an...

hardwarecooking.fr

01/09/2017

Summary of the review

Radeon RX Vega 64 : de l’annonce à la pénurie

The HardwareCooking review profiles the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 during its launch phase, outlining a mixed performance reception heavily undermined by market logistics. In terms of performance pros, the card is established as AMD’s most powerful graphics card at the time, delivering solid DirectX 11 benchmarks that allow it to comfortably run modern 3D engines. It positions itself securely between Nvidia's GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 in both 1080p and Ultra HD resolutions, maintaining respectable frame rates without concessions on most titles. Structurally, its advanced architecture integrates cutting-edge HBM2 memory directly onto the GPU via an interposer rather than utilizing a classic PCB layout. However, the review details prominent cons regarding efficiency, design, and market availability. Environmentally and acoustically, the reference model falls short compared to Nvidia’s options, running louder and consuming significantly more power. Performance-wise, it lags behind the GTX 1080 Ti by 20% in Full HD and up to 40% in Ultra HD, requiring compromising adjustments on demanding 4K titles. Crucially, severe and persistent retail shortages—caused by complex HBM2 manufacturing and poor stock forecasting—drove market prices up...

hardware.fr

28/12/2017

Summary of the review

Sapphire RX Vega56 et RX Vega64 Nitro+ en test

Here is a summary of the hardware review from Hardware.fr: Review Summary The review evaluates the power consumption, clock frequencies, and energy efficiency of the custom Sapphire RX Vega56 and RX Vega64 Nitro+ graphics cards compared to AMD's reference models. Sapphire’s custom design lifts the factory power limits, allowing both cards to sustain higher real-world frequencies, with the Vega64 gaining 60 to 80 MHz and the Vega56 pushing an impressive 180 to 200 MHz boost. While the Vega64 variant limits its power increase to an acceptable 12-watt surplus thanks to a premium 14-phase power delivery system, the Vega56 model is tuned with a significantly higher target TDP, driving its total power draw up to roughly 300 watts to maintain those elevated clock speeds. Pros and Cons Pros: Excellent hardware engineering featuring a robust, well-regulated 14-phase power delivery system; noticeable real-world clock frequency gains over the stock reference design; and a flexible dual-BIOS system that allows users to optimize settings. Cons: Drastically increased power draw on the Vega56 model; overall reduced practical energy efficiency across both cards because performance gains do...

profesionalreview.com

24/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review en Español (Análisis completo)

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review Summary The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is a flagship graphics card powered by the Vega 10 architecture built on a 14nm FinFET process, featuring 8GB of high-performance HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit interface. Operating at a base clock speed of 1247 MHz and a turbo clock speed of 1546 MHz, it offers excellent performance across Full HD, 2K, and 4K resolutions. In testing, the card demonstrated high overclocking potential, manually reaching up to 1800 MHz on the core and 1010 MHz on the memory, resulting in notable performance gains. Architecturally, it is equipped with 256 texture mapping units (TMUs), 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs), and an innovative dual-BIOS switch for user-modified backups. Connectivity includes three DisplayPort outputs and one HDMI port. Pros and Cons The card has distinct strengths and weaknesses: Pros: It features significant technological advancements, very strong overall gaming performance, and quiet operation under standard loads. It also provides dual-BIOS stability and solid overclocking headroom. Cons: It suffers from incredibly high power consumption, reaching 397W at stock and 530W when overclocked,...

ct.nl

21/12/2018

Summary of the review

Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC review

The Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 Gaming OC is a compact graphics card designed to run games smoothly at WQHD resolution (2560×1440) with maximum details, or at 4K with lower graphical settings. Measuring 27.4 cm long, it is notably shorter than many competing Vega 64 cards, making it an excellent choice for space-constrained pc builds. A key feature is its rich array of connectivity options, which includes three DisplayPort 1.4 slots and three HDMI 2.0 ports. This allows the card to simultaneously drive up to six 4K monitors at 60 Hz, or run a single 5K display at 60 Hz and 4K at 120 Hz. Performance-wise, it competes closely with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 and pairs ideally with high-refresh-rate FreeSync monitors to eliminate stuttering. While the card successfully avoids the hassle of dual performance/silent BIOS switches found on other models, it comes with a few prominent drawbacks. Its custom cooling solution uses two large 100 mm fans that blow hot air directly into the PC chassis, demanding excellent case ventilation. It is also thick enough to block three PCIe expansion...

Video reviews

Best alternatives

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 WINDFORCE OC

Graphics cards

ASUS ROG Strix RX Vega 64 Gaming OC

Graphics cards

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1080

Graphics cards

MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming X

Graphics cards

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080

Graphics cards

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon RX 590

Graphics cards

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 Special Edition

Graphics cards

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 580 8GB

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon RX 580

Graphics cards

MSI Radeon RX 580 Armor 8GB

Graphics cards

Compare AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 with

Compare