KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
The first aftermarket Vega 64 card to come through our labs, the Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ Limited Edition is undoubtedly a great improvement over the reference card.
It delivered faster frame rates across the board when compared to the reference Vega 64, thanks to its ability to hold its boost clock at consistently higher frequencies. Where our reference card would flit between 1400 and 1500MHz, the Nitro+ held steady at around 1570MHz right out of the box.
That extra performance does come at the cost of increased power consumption, though that is not really surprising when we remember that this card has a whopping three PCIe power connectors, something which is almost unheard of in this modern era of efficient GPUs.
The actual card itself is very good-looking, though, with a lovely monochrome backplate that adds some interest without causing an issue for those with colour-coordinated systems. It is massive, though, measuring 310 x 133 x 54mm, so it is perhaps not a card for any Mini-ITX system builders out there.
Sapphire's three fan cooling configuration provides excellent results, too, as we saw a peak temperature of just 68C for the Nitro+, using AMD ‘Turbo' profile no less. The card isn't as quiet as other GTX 1080 or 1070 Tis we have tested recently, but it isn't raucous either so we were happy enough with overall noise emissions.
The main problem for the Nitro+ comes when we consider pricing and the card's competition. Sapphire hasn't yet told us a firm price for the Nitro+, but based on current pricing for other aftermarket Vega 64 cards, it is hard to see it costing less than £650.
That is obviously a big problem for Vega 64 when we consider the fact that GTX 1080s can be had for as little as £499.99. The obvious question is, then, why would anyone buy a Vega 64 card when it is slower, more power-hungry and about £150 more expensive?
And the fact is, I struggle to answer that question. There is a slight possibility that someone who saved a decent bit of cash by going for a FreeSync monitor (instead of a G-Sync one) may consider buying Vega, but even then, a GTX 1080 will still output more FPS for less money. It's certainly a very difficult time for any AMD fans out there.
All-in-all, the Sapphire RX Vega 64 Nitro+ Limited Edition is undoubtedly a fine aftermarket Vega 64 card, delivering significantly better performance and lower temperatures than the reference design. If you simply must have an AMD graphics card in the high end, you will get no better and its worth considering. However, pricing is just not competitive at all – for £150 less, a GTX 1080 will give you better performance, making it a no-brainer unless you really must have FreeSync support for your monitor.
We don't yet have pricing or availability confirmed for the Nitro+, but we will update this review with a buy link when we have one.
Update 16/12/17: The Nitro+ is available from Overclockers UK for £749.99 HERE.
Pros
- Significantly faster than reference Vega 64.
- GPU core peaks at just 68C.
- Good-looking card with a colour-neutral design.
- Would work well with a 1080p or 1440p FreeSync monitor.
Cons
- Costs more than GTX 1080 – despite being slower and more inefficient.
- Very power-hungry and requires three 8-pin PCIe power connectors.
KitGuru says: While we are waiting for firm pricing and availability information from Sapphire, Vega 64 is a very tough sell at the minute – no matter how good the aftermarket card, GTX 1080s can be found for significantly less money while offering increased performance and efficiency. Even the lure of FreeSync support is not enough to justify the extra cost – ultimately, the price-to-performance ratio is just not good enough.
Seems like a no brainer to skip the early vegas cards and stick to a 1080GTX if you want performance for the money. The 1080TI absolutely runs the vegas architecture in its current form into the ground, but at the extra cost, the 1080GTX looks like the best thing going.
…better than GTX1080?
TL;DR Nope!
Not sure why latest driver’s weren’t utilised? I’m pretty sure UK has internet! 😉
i can’t see the ” better performance ” of gtx 1080.-
It really depends on the game and card settings
A 1070 can beat a Vega 56 sometimes
Undervolt, oc and raise its power limit and within like 5 minutes it trades blows with the 1080 and Vega 64
Throw that same card into gta and it gets floored
The Vega cards are a really weird series overall
Also this is crimson not adrenalin
Still considering getting a VEGA, looks to me the better future proof card. But I’m thinking the PowerColor Red Devil instead of the Sapphire one, looks better and that cooler also seems to cool things down more.. waiting for the reviews.
I would say the same thing amd likes prolonging cards, eg the hd 7000 series still getting updates
I would say let them refine vega first before diving in though
Even with the latest Adrenalin drivers this card’s performance is inconcistent, where sometimes its even slower than the reference card. It seems to be the same kind of issues that plagued Powercolor Red Devil at the beginning, and they fixed it with the driver later on.
ahahhahahahahahah, good one!
Unless they review it before they came out!
Sadly miners will pick all of them!
Faster than a 1080 on every other site.
I would stay away from powercolor. I kid you not comparing the powercolor to a sapphire is like comparing a kit car of a lambo to a real lambo.
the weird thing is vega looks better than nvidia in gta5.(its like the amd driver has its own sort of msaa happening with out the game being told to do so.) also it is a smoother game to play on vega. nvidia cards have weird rubber banding that happens when driving fast in some area’s.