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

Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 review: 117 specs compared

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

Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 13 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% 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

▼Worse than 86% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

▼Worse 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

9.1

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

▼Worse 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models

5.7

Mark 7.9 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%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (13)
10 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 3 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.
▼Worse 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
  • sapphire-radeon-rx-vega-64
sapphire-radeon-rx-vega-64
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64

Based on 10 · 3

Reviewers praise the looks and solid performance, but almost everyone complains the card is huge and heavy.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64

Based on 105 owners sharing their experience in online comments

49%positive15%mixed36%negative

Owners like its gaming performance and image quality, while power use, cooling noise, and stability problems are the biggest drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report random crashes and restarts, especially in DX12 games, and say the problems often persisted even after upgrading to a larger power supply.13
  • Owners report the card needs a high-wattage power supply, with some getting black screens or shutdowns on 550W to 750W units under load.12
  • Owners say the blower-style reference cooler is loud at high fan speeds, and hotspot temperatures can reach around 100°C or more.9
  • Owners report black screens, flickering, or lost signal, often during driver installs or under load on units with marginal power supplies.8
  • Owners report driver problems, including crashes after updates, failure on Linux, and incompatibility with some motherboards.7
  • Owners say the card runs behind the RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 Ti in frame rates, with some games running around 40 fps at 1440p.4
  • Owners say the RGB lighting and fan LEDs do not work, or the Nitro Glow option is missing from the TriXX software.4
  • Owners say the card struggles at 4K and with high refresh rate monitors, falling short of smooth frame rates at those settings.3
  • Owners say the software controls are unreliable, with custom Wattman settings resetting periodically.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

7.6

Features

5%

9.1

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
7,600 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 7,600 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
13,956 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 13,956 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 76.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,684 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,684 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 79.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
What reviewers say
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
484 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 484 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 53.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% 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
385 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 385 W under peak load, which is higher than 91.4% 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
295 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 295 W, which is higher than that of 68% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
295 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
272x 112x 40 mm
Length
272 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 272 mm long, which is shorter than 55.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% 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
1,361 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,361 g, which is heavier than 68.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

Sapphire 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
  • 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
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 4.73x cheaper
    Sapphire 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
    Sapphire 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
  • 8% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (484 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    484 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 36.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,580 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models

    5.7

    Mark 7.9 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%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    10 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    5.7 vs 7.2
  • 26.9% lower sentiment score
    5.7 vs 7.8
  • 36.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,580 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
  • 38.7% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (98.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    98.94 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    December 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
  • 38.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (13,956 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    13,956 points vs 22,638 points
  • 48.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (7,600 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    7,600 points vs 14,779 points
  • 52.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,684 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,684 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
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 34.1% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (295 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    295 W vs 220 W
  • 75% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (385 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    385 W vs 220 W
  • 4.4 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (39.8 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    39.8 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
  • 34.2% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,361 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,361 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

9.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
04/03/2018
Hands-on review · cooling, Looking Glass and performance
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 is worth the premium over MSRP and a strong choice for Linux virtualisation.
5.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
15/12/2017
Hands-on review · performance, overclocking and pricing
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 beats the reference Vega 64, but at current pricing it is not worth it.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
15/12/2017
Benchmark review · Triple-fan card
Verdict
The Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ is a fast, cool and quiet version of AMD's card, though it is huge, heavy and hard to buy.
7.5
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
15/12/2017
Hands-on test · Triple-fan design
Verdict
The Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ improves on AMD's reference card, peaking at 68C, but draws about 40W more power and is not as quiet as GTX 1080 cards.
7.5
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
15/12/2017
Hands-on test · Performance and heat
Verdict
The Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ runs faster and cooler than AMD's reference card, but the GTX 1080 still gives higher frame rates and draws less power.
5.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
28/08/2017
Lab test · Reference design card
Verdict
The Radeon RX Vega 64 matches the GTX 1080 in games and leads in OpenCL work, but its high power draw under load makes it a poor pick for ordinary gamers.
9.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
03/01/2018
Lab test · Cooling and noise
Verdict
The Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ tackles the overheating of earlier Vega cards with a strong cooler, but it is long, heavy and needs a support bracket.
6.0
hardware.fr
≈ estimated
28/12/2017
Lab test · Oversized triple-fan card
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 is a powerful but very large card, best for owners with roomy cases and three free 8-pin power cables.
9.5
hwready.it
≈ estimated
15/12/2017
Hands-on test · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 is a powerful but very large card, best for owners with roomy cases and three free 8-pin power cables.
7.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
02/01/2018
Lab test · Custom Vega cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 runs cooler than AMD's reference model, is only slightly faster, and needs a large case.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
19/12/2017
Lab test · Heavy custom cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 is a well-built card whose BIOS switch offers a lower-power mode, but its weight and layout limit airflow.
8.0
pc-gaming.it
≈ estimated
28/12/2018
One-year review · Vapor-chamber cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 Nitro+ cools well and is quiet at light load, but its huge 31cm body and hot HBM2 memory are its main limits.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64

  • Competitive high-end performance similar to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, especially at 1440p and 4K resolutions.
  • Superior build quality and thermal design on custom models like the Sapphire Nitro+, which features a robust vapor chamber and triple-fan cooling.
  • Significant performance benefits for compute-heavy tasks and professional workloads due to high HBM2 memory bandwidth.
  • Excellent driver support for Linux and features like AMD FreeSync for smooth, tear-free gaming.
  • High potential for performance optimization through undervolting and overclocking (tweaking).
  • Aesthetic appeal with features like illuminated logos and LED load indicators.

What customers don't like about Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64

  • Extremely high power consumption, often requiring a high-wattage power supply (750W–1000W recommended).
  • Reference 'blower' models are reported to be excessively loud and prone to thermal throttling under heavy load.
  • Large physical footprint; custom Sapphire cards are often '2.5 slot' designs and very heavy, sometimes requiring the included support bracket.
  • Noticeable coil whine reported by some users, particularly at high frame rates.
  • Requires manual 'undervolting' and tuning to reach its full efficiency and performance potential, making it less 'plug-and-play' than competitors.
  • Runs significantly hotter than contemporary NVIDIA equivalents.

Verdict

The Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 is an enthusiast-level graphics card based on the 14nm Vega 10 architecture, featuring 4,096 stream processors, 64 compute units, and a 2048-bit memory interface. It is equipped with 8GB of second-generation High Bandwidth Memory (HBM2) clocked at 945 MHz, delivering 484 GB/s of bandwidth, with factory-overclocked boost speeds reaching up to 1611 MHz on the Nitro+ model. Main characteristics include a robust 14-phase digital power design, dual UEFI BIOS for switching between performance and efficiency modes, and Sapphire’s Tri-X cooling system with a vapor chamber and three dual-ball bearing fans. Key pros are its excellent 1440p and 4K gaming performance, high build quality, and significantly improved thermal management over reference designs. However, main cons include extremely high power consumption (often requiring an 850W PSU and three 8-pin connectors), a massive triple-slot form factor, and noticeable fan noise under heavy turbo loads.

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

No results found