OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon Vega 8 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60VRAM:?Memory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon Vega 8 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon Vega 8
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 95% of graphics cards
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 85%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.2

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 91%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

4.3

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 93%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-vega-8
amd-radeon-vega-8
Where to buy
    N/A~ £60
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon Vega 8

Based on 2 · 6

Fine for office work and video playback, but opinions on gaming are split and overall performance feels limited.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon Vega 8

Based on 165 owners sharing their experience in online comments

37%positive20%mixed43%negative

Owners value its capable gaming and creative performance, but weak frame rates, memory limits, and setup failures leave many frustrated.

What owners dislike

  • Many owners on low-end laptops report very low frame rates in games like GTA 5, CS:GO and Minecraft, sometimes near 20-25 fps.30
  • Many owners say BIOS settings show only 512MB, 1GB or 2GB of graphics memory, and changes do not show in Windows.16
  • Some owners report no boot or no display after raising the UMA frame buffer size to 3GB or 4GB or turning on DOCP or Resizable BAR.15
  • Owners report sudden frame drops and stuttering in games like GTA 5, Dead by Daylight and Forza Horizon 4, even with stock settings.10
  • Some owners report crashes, freezes and blue screens, especially after allocating 4GB of graphics memory or updating drivers.9
  • Owners say most modern games only run well at 720p or lower resolution with low settings, such as Warzone or Valorant.7
  • Owners report CPU temperatures reaching 80-90°C under load, causing throttling and loud fan noise, even with a cooling pad.7
  • Owners on some laptops say AMD Software or Ryzen Master will not install, open, or show the Vega 8 driver.7
  • Some owners report visual problems such as pixelated graphics, colour dots, screen tearing, washed-out colours and display noise over VGA.7
  • Owners say Warzone often fails to launch, crashes on the opening screen, or runs at very low frame rates on this graphics chip.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon Vega 8

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.2

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,282 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,282 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
1,568 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 1,568 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 98.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
866 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 866 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.13 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.13 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
?
Memory type
DDR4
This graphics card uses DDR4 memory, which is older than on 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
38.4 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 2,400 MHz, which is slower than that of 98.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
?
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
15 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
25 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 25 W under peak load, which is lower than 99.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
250 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 250 W PSU, which is lower than that of 99.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
25 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 25 W, which is lower than that of 99.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
30 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 61.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (250 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    250 W vs 650 W
  • 88.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 8.67x cheaper
    AMD Radeon Vega 8 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£60 vs £520).
    £60 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 8.67x cheaper
    AMD Radeon Vega 8 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£60 vs £520).
    £60 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 61.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (250 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    250 W vs 650 W
  • 88.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • 84.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (300 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    300 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 44.9% lower sentiment score
    4.3 vs 7.8
  • 12.6% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon Vega 8 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.58 vs 7.4).
    6.58 vs 7.41
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 84.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (300 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    300 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 90.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (35.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    35.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 94.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (8.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    8.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 56 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (8 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    8 vs 64
  • 16.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2100 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,100 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 95% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.13 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 93.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (1,568 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    1,568 points vs 22,638 points
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    October 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 91.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,282 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,282 points vs 14,779 points
  • 92.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (866 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    866 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 85.4% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.07 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 91.3% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (2.6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    2.56 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,840 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (512 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    512 vs 4,352
  • 91.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (38.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 87.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (2,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • Older GDDR version
    This graphics card uses an older GDDR version than the average graphics card (DDR4 vs GDDR6).
    DDR4 vs GDDR6
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 78.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,940 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,940 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Edgy
≈ estimated
10/12/2024
Hands-on test · 19 games on a 2019 laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon Vega 8 handles everyday tasks and light gaming, but is not suited to demanding games or heavy workloads.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
13/07/2024
Hands-on review · 18 game tests and value
Verdict
AMD Radeon Vega 8 is decent for casual and older games at low settings, but only worth it at a discounted price.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
≈ estimated
27/11/2019
Laptop review · Built-in graphics
Verdict
The AMD Radeon Vega 8 is built into Ryzen 5 3500U laptops and handles office work and up to three screens, but it is too weak for demanding games.
8.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
≈ estimated
09/01/2019
Laptop review · Clock speed and memory
Verdict
The AMD Radeon Vega 8 in the Ryzen 5 2500U handles office and business work well, but it is too weak for demanding games or 3D design.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon Vega 8

  • Excellent value for money as an integrated solution
  • Capable of running popular eSports titles (e.g., CS:GO, League of Legends, Fortnite) at playable frame rates
  • Highly power efficient, leading to better battery life in laptops
  • Significant performance leap compared to older integrated graphics like Intel UHD 620
  • Compact and ideal for thin-and-light notebooks without needing a bulky cooling system
  • Supports modern features like DirectX 12 and upscaling technologies like AMD FSR

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon Vega 8

  • Not suitable for modern AAA games at high settings or 1080p resolution
  • Highly dependent on system RAM speed and dual-channel configurations for optimal performance
  • Lacks dedicated VRAM, consuming a portion of the system's available memory
  • Performance varies significantly depending on the laptop's thermal and power (TDP) limits
  • Missing advanced features found in newer dedicated cards, such as ray tracing
  • Struggles with demanding open-world games or heavy video editing/rendering tasks

Verdict

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 is an integrated graphics unit based on the 5th generation Graphics Core Next (GCN 5.0) architecture, featuring 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. Operating with a base clock of 300 MHz and boost speeds typically ranging from 1,100 MHz to 2,100 MHz depending on the specific Ryzen processor, it draws a maximum of 15–25 watts. Its primary strengths include exceptional energy efficiency for slim laptops, support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan, and the inclusion of AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) to enhance frame rates. However, it lacks dedicated VRAM, relying instead on shared system memory which can bottleneck performance, and it lacks hardware-accelerated ray tracing, making it unsuitable for demanding AAA titles or professional 3D rendering.

Compare AMD Radeon Vega 8 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon Vega 8 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found