Performance summary chart

Here is the summary chart of 27 games and 4 synthetic tests. The highest settings are always chosen and DX12 is usually picked above DX11 where available, and the settings are ultra or maxed.  Specific settings are listed on the performance charts.  The benches were run at 1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3840×1440, and at 3840×2160.

All game results show average framerates and higher is always better. Minimum frame rates are shown next to the averages when they are available, but they are in italics and in a slightly smaller font.  In-game settings are ultra or fully maxed out, and they are identical across all platforms.

The GTX 1080’s results are in the first performance results column (in white) and the RX Vega 64 LC results are shown in the second performance results column (in black).  The 3rd performance results column represents the GTX 1080 Ti results in white.  The first and the last performance differences columns in yellow show the percentage differences between the RX Vega 64 Liquid edition and the other two video cards.

It appears that the RX Vega 64 Liquid edition basically trades blows with the GTX 1080 Founders Edition, but it falls way short of the GTX 1080 Ti in every single game that we benchmarked.  Neither the RX Vega 64 nor the GTX 1080 are particularly well-suited for maxed out 4K gaming.  And something else that we noted is that games that use MSAA – like Crysis 3 and DiRT 4 – really tank the Vega’s performance.

Let’s head for our conclusion.

7 COMMENTS

  1. Dear PCmasterRACE, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a52063dad5eee3042abd5c3f7dc105343dc4c19f2b386a679f6882b494a8f994.jpg
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b3be401085e815f9458d063bce80bdf3463a55cffdd2ddc160a801f4242712bc.jpg
    Omg so disappointed!!! I guess it’s really Navi + InfinityFabric that AMD is really heavily investing it’s R&D on. Perhaps they plan on combining 2x Rx580 on a single die in order to create a near 1080 Ti level performance card and sell at a cheaper price like the Ryzen ThreadRipper. ? Wadda ya guys think? And thank you so much for the wonderfully detailed review btw, God Bless!

    Best Regards,
    Sifat

  2. Why do reviewers never factor in that high-end g-sync displays cost several hundred dollars more than their freesync counterparts? In my case it’s a $300 increase for an identical g-sync counterpart. The $699 vega 64 liquid card gives me better price for performance than both the 1080 and 1080ti because of the g-sync tax, albeit lame the +$100 bill for the stupid “free” games. Folks who jumped on the $200 off a freesync ultrawide with vega bundle certainly got a great deal, assuming they wanted the monitor upgrade.

    I look forward toy our VR performance review.

    • Thanks for that clarification. I updated my conclusion:

      “However, the $699 RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition only trades blows with a $499 GTX 1080 (Updated note: the Founders Edition is $549) . . . “

  3. The FE cards have the worst performance per dollar at stock. Is it possible to include an overclocked column in the results?

  4. The way I see it, Vega is a much better choice moving forward.

    AMD also has better support in games now, things have changed. I see why RX Vega cost a premium, because it offers the latest technology. Just can’t find any to buy at MSRP.

Comments are closed.