OVERALL

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

ALTERNATIVES

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 Review | 118 Data compared

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

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 review. Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7

Good

5.7

Good

?

3.5
Gaming
Score components:
45.0%
2.9
Floating-point performance
25.0%
4.9
VRAM
20.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5.6
Video editing
Score components:
35.0%
7.0
AV1 encode
30.0%
4.9
VRAM
20.0%
2.9
Floating-point performance
15.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3.7
1080p
Score components:
55.0%
2.9
Floating-point performance
25.0%
4.9
VRAM
10.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3.4
1440p
Score components:
50.0%
2.9
Floating-point performance
30.0%
4.9
VRAM
15.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3.4
4K
Score components:
40.0%
2.9
Floating-point performance
35.0%
4.9
VRAM
20.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
7.6
PCI Express (PCIe) version

No image

No image

Best prices in UK

N/A~ £110

Best rankings

#235 in Best Budget Graphic Cards
#253 in Best MSI Graphic Cards
#336 in Best AMD Radeon Graphic Cards
#446 in Best 8 GB Graphic Cards
#1458 in Best Graphic Cards For Video Editing
#1565 in Best Graphic Cards For 1080p Gaming
#1690 in Best Graphic Cards For 1440p Gaming
#1708 in Best Graphic Cards
#1780 in Best Graphic Cards For Gaming

Verdict

The MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 is a high-performance graphics card built on the 14nm 'Vega 10' architecture, featuring 4,096 stream processors, 64 compute units, and a boost clock speed of up to 1546 MHz. A standout characteristic is its 8GB of HBM2 memory on a massive 2048-bit bus, delivering an exceptional 484 GB/s of bandwidth that excels in high-resolution 4K gaming and memory-intensive compute tasks. Its main pros include strong raw computational performance (12.7 TFLOPS), native support for DirectX 12 and Vulkan, and compatibility with cost-effective FreeSync monitors. However, it is notable for its high power consumption with a 295W TDP requiring a minimum 750W power supply, and reference-style blower models can often run hot and loud under heavy loads.

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI Radeon RX Vega 64

Overall score

5.7

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

4.4

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

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

5.2

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

7.6

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

8.3

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

7.6

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

75 W

Show more

Design

8.0

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

280 x 127 x 40 mm

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

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 vs the average graphics card

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

Show more

Hide

1,792 bit wider memory bus
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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
Supports ECC memory
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
What it is: Supports error-correcting code memory for higher reliability
When it matters: When stability and error correction matter more than pure gaming value.
Importance: LOW
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
72 more TMUs
MSI 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
MSI 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
0.5 slot/s slimmer design
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
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
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
2 more GPUs supported
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
What it is: Maximum number of GPUs supported in a multi-GPU setup
When it matters: When you are planning a rendering or compute setup with more than one card.
Importance: LOW
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.2 vs 0
4.82x cheaper
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).£110 vs £530
Supports multi-GPU linking
MSI 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
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
24 more compute units
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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.
Supports ECC memory
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
8% higher memory bandwidth
MSI 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.
2 more GPUs supported
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
Supports multi-GPU linking
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
0.5 slot/s slimmer design
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.

Platform & Features

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

Show more

Hide

37.1% lower boost clock speed
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,575 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
40 fewer ray tracing cores
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
No CUDA support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
35.1% lower base clock speed
MSI 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.
144 fewer AI cores
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
34.3% lower pixel rate
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (107.3 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
43.9% lower FP32 performance
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (12.7 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
38.7% lower PassMark score
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (13,894 points vs 22,653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,653 points.
49.6% lower gaming score
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (7,404 points vs 14,678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,678.5 points.
67.3% lower ray tracing score
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,000 points vs 9,166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,166 points.
48.7% lower compute score
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,199 points vs 12,074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,074 points.
4 GB less VRAM
MSI 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.
90.1% slower memory speed
MSI 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.
46% slower VRAM clock
MSI 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.
83.3% smaller L2 cache
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
87.5% smaller L1 cache
MSI 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
MSI 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.
No DLSS support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
No ray tracing
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
Older PCIe version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4.0).
6 older
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
August 2017
No mesh shaders
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
Worse SAM support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
Older encoder generation
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
Older Vulkan version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
Older DirectX version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
Older OpenCL version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3.0).
67.8% larger GPU die
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (495 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
Older shader model
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
45.4% fewer transistors
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (12,500 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
No AV1 encoding
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
No AV1 decoding
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
No DSC support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
Older DisplayPort version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
Narrower decode codec support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
Older HDMI version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
Narrower encode codec support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
Older HDCP version
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
No fan stop
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
37.2% higher TDP
MSI 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.
80% higher board power limit
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (405 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
15.4% higher PSU requirement
MSI 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.
15 °C lower thermal ceiling
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 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.
18 °C higher load temperature
MSI 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.
9.6 dB noisier under load
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (45 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
58.3% higher idle power draw
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (19 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
No RGB lighting
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
37.1% lower boost clock speed
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,575 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 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
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,575 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.1575 MHz vs 2505 MHz
40 fewer ray tracing cores
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
What it is: Number of dedicated ray tracing processing cores or units
When it matters: When you care about ray-traced lighting, reflections, and shadows in newer games.
Importance: HIGH
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 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
2.8x larger process node
MSI 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
MSI 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
No CUDA support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
What it is: Supports CUDA parallel computing platform
When it matters: When your apps or AI tools specifically depend on the CUDA software stack.
Importance: MEDIUM
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
4 GB less VRAM
MSI 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
MSI 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
35.1% lower base clock speed
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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
MSI 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
No DLSS support
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
What it is: Supports NVIDIA DLSS upscaling technology
When it matters: When you play NVIDIA-supported games and want better frame rates at higher settings.
Importance: LOW
MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.

Platform & Features

Connectivity & Media

Power & Cooling

Graphic comparison of MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 and other products in the Graphics cards category

Attribute category

Attribute

No results found

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI Radeon RX Vega 64?

Strong gaming performance at 1440p and competitive 4K frame rates.
High-speed 8GB HBM2 memory provides significant bandwidth for high-resolution textures.
Support for AMD FreeSync, offering a more affordable adaptive sync ecosystem than G-Sync at the time.
Innovative High-Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) allows for utilizing system RAM as additional VRAM.
Excellent compute performance, often outperforming rivals in non-gaming tasks and specific titles like Battlefield 1.

What customers dislike about MSI Radeon RX Vega 64?

Extremely high power consumption, often requiring at least a 750W high-quality PSU.
Significant heat generation and thermal throttling issues, especially with reference blower-style coolers.
Loud fan noise under heavy loads, which can be disruptive without headphones.
Lower performance efficiency compared to contemporary NVIDIA Pascal architecture cards.
Poor OpenGL support in certain legacy applications and emulators compared to NVIDIA counterparts.

Expert reviews

digitalfoundry.net

05/12/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review Would you like a comparison of this MSI card against its GTX 1080Go to product viewer dialogue for this item. competitors...

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 delivers competitive 1440p and entry-level 4K gaming performance, positioning itself directly against Nvidia's GTX 1080. Architecturally, it is packed with cutting-edge features and premium HBM2 memory. Its strongest pros lie in its DirectX 12 performance. For instance, in Battlefield 1 running under DX12, it secures a significant 11-frame lead over the GTX 1080 at 1440p. It even manages to eclipse the flagship GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p resolution in that specific title. Furthermore, it serves as an excellent pairing for smooth 40–60 fps gaming on budget-friendly 4K FreeSync monitors. However, the card suffers from glaring architectural inefficiencies and a high price point inflated by the cryptocurrency mining boom. Key cons include staggering power consumption—drawing 420W at the wall compared to the GTX 1080's 303W—and a restrictive reference cooler that leaves almost no thermal headroom for overclocking. Clock-for-clock testing against the older R9 Fury X reveals a measly 3% to 7% generational IPC improvement, indicating that current games fail to utilize Vega's new tech. Ultimately, the review concludes that the Vega 64 is eclipsed by...

hardwarecanucks.com

28/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD RX Vega 64 & Vega 56Go to product viewer dialogue for this item. Performance Review

The AMD RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 graphics cards represent AMD's high-stakes attempt to challenge NVIDIA’s high-end Pascal architecture, utilizing the new 12.5 billion transistor Vega 10 core with Infinity Fabric and 8GB of HBM2 memory. In terms of performance, both cards post competitive benchmarks; the flagship Vega 64 trades blows evenly with the NVIDIA GTX 1080, showing particular strength in DX12 and Vulkan applications, while the cut-down Vega 56 regularly outperforms the GTX 1070 and offers excellent value at its $399 price point. Additional architectural pros include the High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) for future-proof system memory caching and physical features like a stealthy aesthetic, dual 8-pin power delivery, and a useful GPU Tach real-time load indicator. However, these performance wins are heavily compromised by extreme physical and environmental drawbacks. The major cons center on a voracious appetite for electricity, with the Vega 64 drawing a shocking 117W more than the GTX 1080 under load, revealing that AMD pushed the core voltage and clock limits to the absolute ragged edge. This massive power draw results in severe thermal...

techadvisor.com

16/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review

Performance and Key Architecture The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 delivers a high-end graphics update that directly challenges the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 in both price and performance. Built on a 14nm process with 4,096 stream processors, a 1546 MHz boost clock, and 8GB of advanced HBM2 memory, it achieves a massive 484 GB/s of memory bandwidth. This architecture provides a 65% to 70% performance jump over the previous RX 580, offering ample power for virtual reality and 4K gaming on less demanding titles. Additionally, it supports DirectX 12.1 and utilizes a new High-Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) to efficiently pool system RAM, while comfortably driving up to three simultaneous 4K HDR displays. Pros and Cons Cons: Massive power consumption rated at 295W requiring a hefty 750W power supply; loud cooling fans under heavy loads; and unoptimized game code at launch. Furthermore, ultimate performance seekers will still find the Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti to be significantly faster.

gamespot.com

16/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Review

The GameSpot AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review characterizes the card as a strong competitor in the high-end market, launching at $499, which is $50 less than the Nvidia GTX 1080. It offers impressive performance-per-dollar, utilizing 8GB of HBM2 memory to excel at high resolutions and in FreeSync ecosystems. However, the card faces cons regarding high power consumption (295W TDP) and a late market entry, launching over a year after the GTX 1080. It runs notably warm and loud, failing to offer a definitive advantage over Nvidia's competing offering.

techradar.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64Go to product viewer dialogue for this item. review

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 marks a competitive return to the high-end graphics market, offering performance that directly rivals the Nvidia GTX 1080 at a slightly more affordable launch price. Built on AMD's Vega architecture, the card features 4,096 stream processors, 256 texture units, and 8GB of cutting-edge HBM2 video memory. In benchmarks and real-world gaming, the card excels in DirectX titles and keeps pace with its Nvidia counterpart in demanding 4K scenarios, backed by innovative features like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) which can dynamically leverage system RAM to bypass conventional VRAM limits. However, the card's impressive processing power comes with notable trade-offs in efficiency. A major con is its higher energy draw compared to Nvidia’s Pascal architecture, especially when pushed into its "Turbo Mode" which demands an extra 30 watts of power and increases fan noise to maintain stability. Under heavy benchmark testing, it reached peak temperatures of 81 degrees Celsius, running slightly hotter than the GTX 1080. On the positive side, the card's pros include impressive synthetic benchmark results, highly granular GPU tuning controls via...

techpowerup.com

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GBGo to product viewer dialogue for this item. Review

The TechPowerUp review positions the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8 GB as a high-end contender designed to compete with the Nvidia GTX 1080 at a $499 price point. Featuring 4,096 stream processors and HBM2 memory, the card excels in high-resolution gaming, supporting DirectX 12 and Vulkan with features like Enhanced Sync, while boasting a solid build with a metal backplate and dual-BIOS. Conversely, the card is heavily criticized for its extreme power consumption, exceeding 300W and requiring a 750W power supply, with no significant efficiency gains over older architectures. The reference blower cooler struggles under this load, reaching 85°C and generating excessive 45 dBA noise, while lacking an idle-fan-stop feature.

hardwareluxx.de

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 und RX Vega 56Go to product viewer dialogue for this item. im Test

Based on the Hardwareluxx review, the launch of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 represents AMD's highly anticipated attempt to challenge Nvidia's high-end dominance in the graphics market, riding on the momentum of their successful Ryzen processors. Built on a massive 484 mm² die with 12.5 billion transistors, the Vega 10 architecture features high-bandwidth HBM2 memory with memory interfaces spanning 2,048 bits. Key advantages highlighted in the specifications include a substantial raw compute performance—up to 13.7 TFLOPS for the liquid-cooled flagship—and a highly advanced architecture that incorporates a massive allocation of transistors specifically designed to push GPU clock speeds much higher than previous AMD generations. However, the architecture suffers from significant drawbacks regarding physical efficiency and power consumption when compared directly to its Nvidia GeForce counterparts. A major disadvantage is the high Thermal Design Power (TDP); the air-cooled Vega 64 requires 295 W and the Vega 56 demands 210 W, which vastly exceeds the 180 W and 150 W requirements of the competing GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. Additionally, despite matching the transistor complexity and large...

computerbase.de

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

Radeon RX Vega 64 & 56 im Test: Der helle Stern wirft lange Schatten - ComputerBase

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and Vega 56 arrive as AMD's long-awaited return to the high-end gaming market, targeting Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080 and 1070 rather than competing with the top-tier GTX 1080 Ti. Built on the 14nm FinFET Vega 10 architecture, these cards carry 8GB of HBM2 memory and match the core configuration of the older Fiji architecture with 4,096 ALUs, while introducing architectural enhancements like Rapid Packed Math for dual FP16 calculations and an improved pixel engine featuring a Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer. While the reference design scales clock speeds higher than previous generations and offers a highly efficient "Deep Sleep" desktop idle mode, the gaming performance fluctuates heavily by title. The smaller Vega 56 stands out as the more compelling option of the two, delivering competitive frame rates and better overall power efficiency relative to its price point. The review highlights a distinct mix of structural advantages and launch shortcomings for the new lineup. On the positive side (pros), the cards feature innovative tech like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller (HBCC) for virtual memory management, high-performance...

comptoir-hardware.com

04/09/2017

Summary of the review

Test • RADEON RX VEGA 64

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, launched in August 2017 to compete in the high-end enthusiastic market against Nvidia, features a large GPU architecture paired with advanced HBM2 memory. Tested across a refreshed benchmarking suite of 20 modern games, the review dives deep into its synthetic capabilities, power efficiency, thermal output, noise thresholds, and overclocking headroom. The main pros highlighting the card include its solid performance across a diverse range of 3D gaming engines and the long-term potential offered by its innovative High Bandwidth Memory. On the downside, the graphics card faces severe criticism for its significant power consumption, earning the review subtitle "And for a few more Watts!". The primary cons focus heavily on its poor energy efficiency, high operating temperatures, and loud cooling fan noise under heavy loads. While the card successfully introduces healthy market competition, its high power draw and loud acoustic profile prevent it from cleanly dethroning Nvidia’s dominant high-end solutions.

profesionalreview.com

24/08/2017

Summary of the review

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

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 review evaluates AMD's 2017 flagship graphics card, built on the 14 nm FinFET Vega 10 architecture with 8GB of high-bandwidth HBM2 memory. The testing bench utilized an Intel Core i9-7900X and 32GB of DDR4 RAM to benchmark the GPU across 1080p, 2K, and 4K resolutions. Performance results were highly positive, delivering excellent framerates across all tested resolutions, which earned the card a 100% score for gaming experience and an overall 81% rating. The review highlights excellent manual overclocking capabilities, allowing the core clock to reach 1800 MHz and memory to hit 1010 MHz for notable performance gains. Other positive design aspects include a dual-BIOS switch for safe recovery and a standard 2-slot thickness that ensures easy chassis compatibility. However, the card suffers from significant efficiency and thermal drawbacks. The primary disadvantages are its exceptionally high power consumption—drawing 397W at stock load and spiking up to 565.9W when overclocked—and high temperatures, which reached 82°C at stock and 91°C when pushed. This heat caused thermal throttling during heavy overclocking sessions. Additionally, the plastic blower-style reference cooler...

tvtech.it

12/08/2017

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 e Radeon RX Vega 56, finalmente! - TVTech

The video review published by TVtech (the video channel of Hardware Upgrade) on August 12, 2017, evaluates the highly anticipated retail launch of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and Radeon RX Vega 56 graphics cards. The review highlights their market positions as direct commercial responses to Nvidia's lineup. The flagship Vega 64 is priced to directly challenge the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, while the lower-tier Vega 56 shares the same core GPU architecture but is stripped down to target the GeForce GTX 1070 at a list price that is $100 USD cheaper than its bigger sibling. The core pros identified in this review center on strategic market positioning and pricing flexibility, specifically for the Radeon RX Vega 56, which offers excellent value by delivering premium architectural DNA at a heavily discounted entry price. However, the critical cons focus heavily on the Radeon RX Vega 64, which faces intense performance pressure and direct competition from Nvidia's pre-existing options in that price tier. Ultimately, the review frames the launch as a long-awaited shakeup in the high-end hardware space, presenting consumers with...

multiplayer.it

15/08/2017

Summary of the review

Radeon RX Vega 64 - Multiplayer.it

The Radeon RX Vega 64 (air-cooled version) launched as AMD's high-end competitor to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, delivering 12.66 TFLOPs of single-precision power, 4,096 stream processors, and 8GB of advanced, high-bandwidth HBM2 memory with a 484GB/s bandwidth. Built on a 14nm process, the card performs best at QHD (1440p) resolution, achieving over 70 FPS in The Witcher 3 and nearly 130 FPS in DOOM. In terms of performance trends, the Vega 64 tends to outperform the GTX 1080 in DirectX 12 and Vulkan API benchmarks, but falls slightly behind NVIDIA's card in older DirectX 11 environments and specific titles like Overwatch. The primary pros of the card include its competitive raw computing power, solid build quality, and a launch price (€499 standalone or €599 in a bundle) that aligns evenly with the GTX 1080 Founders Edition. However, the review highlights critical cons, most notably its massive typical power consumption of 295W, which demands a minimum 750W power supply unit and causes the blower-style fan to become heavily noisy under stress as temperatures quickly climb to 81°C. Additionally, the GPU...

nl.hardware.info

14/08/2017

Summary of the review

Benchmarks: Rise of the Tomb Raider (DX12) op Hardware Info Would you like a comparison of the thermal performance or power consumption specifically f...

The Hardware Info review of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and Vega 64 highlights a competitive return for AMD to the high-end gaming market, though it arrives with notable efficiency trade-offs. In terms of performance, both cards position themselves effectively against Nvidia's line-up. The lower-tier RX Vega 56 (featuring 3584 cores) serves as a direct, value-driven answer to the GTX 1070, consistently outperforming it in DirectX 12 titles like Rise of the Tomb Raider. Meanwhile, the RX Vega 64 (boasting 4096 cores) sits comfortably between the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080. As gaming resolutions scale up to WQHD and Ultra HD (4K), the Vega cards close the gap significantly, with the Vega 56 managing completely playable frame rates on medium-to-ultra presets. The primary advantages outlined in the review center around competitive pricing, strong high-resolution gaming capabilities, and advanced technical features like the Vega 10 GPU architecture and High Bandwidth Cache memory. However, the review is equally critical of the substantial downsides, as reflected in its title, "fewer euros, more watts". The core disadvantages include significantly higher power consumption compared...

tweakers.net

07/09/2017

Summary of the review

AMD's RX Vega Liquid getest: de Vega-lineup compleet op Tweakers

The Tweakers review of the AMD RX Vega Liquid Cooled Edition identifies it as a faster alternative to the standard Vega 64, offering strong competition to the Nvidia GTX 1080, particularly at 1440p and 4K resolutions. The liquid cooling system provides superior thermal performance and lower noise levels compared to the air-cooled reference models. However, the card's significant power consumption, labeled its "Achilles' heel," makes it less efficient than the Nvidia Pascal architecture. Additionally, the high price point and inability to catch the GTX 1080 Ti limit its appeal to specific users maximizing FreeSync ecosystems.

Video reviews

Best alternatives

ASUS ROG Strix RX Vega 64 Gaming OC

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 G1 Gaming

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 WINDFORCE OC

Graphics cards

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080

Graphics cards

MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming X

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

Graphics cards

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1080

Graphics cards

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB

Graphics cards

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 Special Edition

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon RX 590

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 Gaming 8GB

Graphics cards

Compare MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 with other products in the Graphics cards category

Compare