Performance Summary & Conclusion

Performance summary charts 

Below are the summary charts of 28 games and 4 synthetic tests. The highest settings are always chosen and DX12 is picked above DX11 where available.  Specific game settings are listed on the charts and the benches were run at 1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3440×1440, and at 3840×2160.  All results, except for the synthetic benchmarks show average frame rates and higher is always better.  Minimum frame rates are shown when they are available, next to the averages but they are in italics and in a slightly smaller font.

The GTX 1080 stock results are presented in the first (dark green) performance results column next to the second (lighter green) GTX 1080 overclocked results; the overclocked RX Vega 64 LC results are in the first (lighter red) column, and the next (darker red) column represents the stock RX Vega 64 results.  The first yellow column represents the percentage performance increases of the overclocked GTX 1080 over stock, and the last yellow column represents the performance percentage increase of the overclocked RX Vega 64 over its stock-clocked results.  Finally the stock GTX 1080 Ti is shown in the last column for comparison.  Yellow numbers show “wins” between the GTX 1080 and the RX Vega 64.

The following charts may be easier to read when opened in separate tabs or windows.

The $549 stock-clocked GTX 1080 FE wins 61 individual game benchmarks to the $699 RX Vega 64 Liquid edition’s 49 games.  And even though both cards overclock decently, the overclocked RX Vega 64 only wins 41 game benchmarks with one tie, while losing to the overclocked GTX 1080 FE’s 68 wins and one tie.

The superior overclocking abilities of the GTX 1080 FE allow it to win in more games over the overclocked RX Vega 64 Liquid edition than it did at stock.  And the GTX 1080 FE costs $150 less, and uses a lot less power.

Let’s head to our conclusion.


This has been quite an interesting exploration for us, evaluating the overclocked $699 Gigabyte RX Vega 64 liquid cooled edition versus the overclocked $549 GTX 1080 FE.  Both cards overclock decently, with the RX Vega 64 gaining a very nice memory overclock which greatly increased its performance over stock.  However, the GTX 1080 FE is a stronger overclocker, and it gained more performance overall from overclocking than its Vega 64 competitor did.

Both cards appear to scale well with overclocking although the GTX 1080 FE overclocks further and uses significantly less power doing so than the RX Vega 64 LC.  At this point, using just performance as our primary metric, it becomes very difficult to recommend the RX Vega 64 over the GTX 1080 except perhaps in specific situations where the gamer already has a FreeSync display.  However, the real star of AMD’s Vega constellation appears to be the RX Vega 56 if it can maintain its $399 pricing versus the GTX 1070.

Next up, we are benchmarking a reference RX Vega 56 which we will overclock against the GTX 1070 FE in preparation for testing an aftermarket RX Vega 56 later this month.  Stay tuned.  In the meantime, if you have any comments or questions, feel free to post them in the comments section below, or on BTR’s Community forum.

Happy Gaming!



  1. So many things wrong with this benchmark comparison review 1) MSAA is currently has a massive performance hit bug on Vega 64, Try benchmarking Crysis 3, Dirt 4, Ashes using anything but MSAA and Vega would easily kill that OC 1080 2) Disabling Aysnc Compute knocking off a good 20% performance boost for Vega in Doom Vulkan 3 was stupid 3) Only show GPU score in 3Dmark testing and not show total score which represents the entire system CPU as well 4) Not buying your Battlefield 1 numbers everyone else showing Vega clearly killing the 1080 in that game 5) Don’t even waste your time trying to overclock Vega Liquid when its already at its max clocks (1677-1750), just going to blow up those watts for nothing, only overclock the memory which give a good 3% to 5% boost in performance without any increase to power, other than that considering this site is littered with Geforce ads all over the place, these results clearly do not surprise me.

    • 1) BTR has always used the same benchmarks at the same settings and we do not change settings with Crysis 3, DiRT 4, and AoTS to benefit one card that has issues with MSAA. 2) We did not disable Async Compute in DOOM Vulkan. 3) We always show the total score in 3DMark testing. 4)BF1 is tested in DX11 since OCAT began having issues with DX12. 5) This is an overclocking evaluation which means we had to settle for a 2% OC on the core; Power Draw is pretty high even without overclocking the core. 6) We accept ads from major tech companies. This current ad campaign ends in a few hours and will be replaced with Google ads.

    • AMD’s Optimized Tessellation is set to “Use application settings” as it is the only way to compare apples-to-apples with Nvidia settings.

      You got 300 more points in FireStrike extreme with a faster CPU.

      • I do not think an average user disables AMD optimized tesselation. You tested rather unusual settings for Vega.

        • We don’t really know what the “average user” does. However, to compare identical tessellation settings between AMD and Nvidia cards, it is necessary to let the application decide. As to the other settings, Vega has been “unleashed” by setting the power and temperatures limits to maximum and allowing the fan to spin up to 100% to prevent any throttling under overclocked settings. BTR has always tested games at these settings.

          The older AMD cards evidently had issues with ‘extreme’ tessellation used by some devs back in the days of the original Heaven benchmark which is why AMD created this setting. Each successive generation of Radeon graphics since Cypress (5800 series) has improved in regard to tessellation, and I am pretty sure that Vega has improved in this regard over Fiji and Polaris.

Comments are closed.