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

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:2048 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):295 W

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 87% of models
Score components

40%

5.7

Technical score

25%

5.7

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 87% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 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 76% of models
Score components

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 76%
5.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.7/ 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 85% of models

5.7

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

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 85%
?

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
  • msi-radeon-rx-vega-64
msi-radeon-rx-vega-64
Where to buy
    N/A~ £110
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the MSI Radeon RX Vega 64

Based on 81 owners sharing their experience in online comments

60%positive18%mixed22%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and value, while stock cooling noise, heat, and high power draw frustrate them.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the blower fan is loud, and some find custom fan curves ignored, leaving it stuck at 1200 RPM.10
  • Owners report random freezes or crashes in some games, sometimes needing a restart, and a few cards failed.9
  • Owners say the card runs hot, with hotspot readings near 105°C, HBM memory heating up, and clocks dropping under load.7
  • Owners report the card drawing around 300 to 335 watts under load, though undervolting brings it down a lot.7
  • Owners say it struggles at 4K and in newer demanding titles, and can have trouble with ultrawide 1440p screens.6
  • On Linux owners report driver problems, with OpenCL compute reaching only about 8 TFLOPS instead of the expected 13, and stuttering after a while.3
  • Owners see flicker in full-screen games that stops in windowed mode, and on Linux some stutter starts after long play sessions.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI Radeon RX Vega 64

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

5.7
Reviews score
5.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
7,404 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 7,404 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 79.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
13,894 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 13,894 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 76.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,199 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,199 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 78.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
12.66 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 70.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
HBM2
This graphics card uses HBM2 memory, which is newer than on 56.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
2048 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 2048 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 99.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
483.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 483.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 53.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
1,890 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 1,890 MHz, which is slower than that of 98.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% 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
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
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
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
295 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 295 W, which is higher than that of 71.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
295 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 295 W under peak load, which is higher than 70.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
405 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 405 W, which is higher than that of 91.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
280x 127x 40 mm
Length
280 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 280 mm long, which is shorter than 51.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.4% of graphics cards.
Height
127 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 127 mm tall, which is taller than 54.2% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,090 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,090 g, which is heavier than 54.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 1,856 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (2048 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    2,048 bit vs 192 bit
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card 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
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 72 more TMUs
    This graphics card 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
    This graphics card 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
    This graphics card 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
  • 4.73x cheaper
    MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £520).
    £110 vs £520
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 4.73x cheaper
    MSI Radeon RX Vega 64 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £520).
    £110 vs £520
  • 24 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (64 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    64 vs 40
  • 72 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (256 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    256 vs 184
  • 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
  • 1,856 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (2048 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    2,048 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 8% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card 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.
    483.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card 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
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card 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
  • 37.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card 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.
    1,575 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card 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
    This graphics card 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.
    1,247 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 90.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card 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.
    1,890 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 20.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.7/ 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 85% of models

    5.7

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

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.7 vs 7.2
  • 26.9% lower sentiment score
    5.7 vs 7.8
  • 37.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card 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.
    1,575 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 35.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card 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.
    1,247 MHz vs 1,920 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
  • 33.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (107.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    107.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    August 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 44% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (12.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    12.66 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 38.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (13,894 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    13,894 points vs 22,638 points
  • 49.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (7,404 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    7,404 points vs 14,779 points
  • 67.2% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,000 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,000 points vs 9,148 points
  • 48.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,199 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,199 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card 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
  • 90.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card 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.
    1,890 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 46% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card 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.
    945 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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
  • 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 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 (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 68.4% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (495 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    495 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 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
  • 45.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (12,500 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    12,500 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 37.2% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (295 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    295 W vs 215 W
  • 84.1% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (405 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    405 W vs 220 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card 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.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 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
  • 18 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card 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.
    85 °C vs 67 °C
  • 9.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card 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.
    45 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 58.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card 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.
    19 W vs 12 W
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
25/08/2017
Benchmark test · Liquid cooling
Verdict
The Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled Edition is strong in some games like Battlefield 1 but trails rivals in others, such as Assassin's Creed Syndicate.
8.0
pc-gaming.it
≈ estimated
28/12/2018
Retrospective review · Custom card
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 Nitro+ is a large, heavy card that stays quiet and cools well undervolted, though its HBM2 memory still runs hot.

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 don't like 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.

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.

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

No results found