AMD RX Vega 56 to Vega 64 BIOS Flash - No Unlocked Shaders, Improved Performance

[eidairaman1]

I have seen some benchmarks and I was wondering. If you flash vega 64 bios to 56 and it works and as we can see it does. What happens with the Power consumption then? Also from what it's worth vega 56 can OC better than 64 due(my assumption would be) less cores? I wonder if the OC potential of vega 56 when flashed with bios from 64 can alter the OC potential of Vega 56 compared to it's own bios. Or it doesn't matter at all.

BTW. Does Vega 56 have 2xBIOS'es just like Vega 64?
When you flash the bios you do just one at a time?
If you flash just one and it's broken can you use other one instead and it's all good then you can do roll back to previous bios?

Shader and tmu deficit

 

[Raevenlord]

What is this? How am I supposed to know what that means?

View attachment 91618

Oh...I'm not supposed to know. I'm supposed to navigate to another site for a definition. Convenient.

Really? Honestly, I thought it was pretty clear myself. Some trouble decifering the "Vega 56" moniker under www.chiphell, but other than that...

 

[P4-630]

Do people forget you can OC Vega 64 as well!?
If you OC Vega 64, I'm sure it will be faster than any OC'd/flashed Vega 56....

 

[Boosnie]

This is good news.
There is much room to work on and 3rd party cards will be stellar.

 

[Hokum]

I think we need to see how this scales with resolution. I wonder if the 64 is being bottle necked somewhere. But a 56 at 64 speeds being the same speed as a 64 does suggest inefficient usage.

 

[dyonoctis]

Do people forget you can OC Vega 64 as well!?
If you OC Vega 64, I'm sure it will be faster than any OC'd/flashed Vega 56....

From what I'm understand, they just put the vega 56 at the same clock as the vega 64, and vega 56 still tied despiste having less core, that's what ppl are getting upset about, those 2 cards are awfully close, this result isn't logical, meaning that vega 64 isn't performing as well as it could. Even if you can oc vega 64 further, it doesn't change the fact that clock for clock vega 56 is just as good.

The only "good" thing is that not everyone will try this mod, fearing to brick their cards so vega 64 25% higher price over 56 won't upset people.

 

[Hokum]

The only "good" thing is that not everyone will try this mod, fearing to brick their cards so vega 64 25% higher price over 56 won't upset people.

Isn't there a BIOS switch on the Vega like my Fury? Just flash one and if you balls it up just flick the switch... There is little to lose...

 

[Durvelle27]

Even if the 56 isn't immediately bricked, it definitely will lower the lifespan of the cards. The 64s are the creme-DE-la-creme of the chips - the 56s are not. They are not supposed to be taking it that hard. Push it and you get what you deserve.

Dude it will not decrease the life span any more than Overclocking would

 

[bug]

This lends more credibility to the hypothesis Vega (and Fiji before it) is ROP limited. Something AMD has denied in the past (or at least claimed they "had no indication of").
A bit of information only useful to us, hardware freaks.

 

[SKD007]

Undervolting and upping the power limit will lower temps and allow much higher clocks for long time me thinks. It has been tested elsewhere and works as well as with reference RX480, offering clearly better performance.

I already tried that my friend. No luck for me.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Yep, if AMD could dynamically reduce the cores running to increase clock speeds when needed, that would be awesome. Kinda like with CPU's having an all core boost and a 2-4 core boost.

Would that help though? in CPUs it helps because programs will often use either multiple slow or few fast cores.

Graphics scale with parallel cores much better then programs scale with CPU cores. I dont see how upping the clock rate and reducing core count would help in something that benefits from parallel processing.

 

[Nabarun]

Dude it will not decrease the life span any more than Overclocking would

No. Changing the default firmware increases the voltage limits. That's the ONLY reason for anyone to try this. Feeding it more voltage than what AMD thinks is OK is what reduces the lifespan more than normal OC.

 

[Durvelle27]

No. Changing the default firmware increases the voltage limits. That's the ONLY reason for anyone to try this. Feeding it more voltage than what AMD thinks is OK is what reduces the lifespan more than normal OC.

Not enough of an concern when most users don't even keep GPUs more than 5 years

I myself upgrade yearly

 

[lightofhonor]

Would that help though? in CPUs it helps because programs will often use either multiple slow or few fast cores.

Graphics scale with parallel cores much better then programs scale with CPU cores. I dont see how upping the clock rate and reducing core count would help in something that benefits from parallel processing.

With Vega, a card held back by its own power and heat requirements, I think it would.

 

[Totally]

No. Changing the default firmware increases the voltage limits. That's the ONLY reason for anyone to try this. Feeding it more voltage than what AMD thinks is OK is what reduces the lifespan more than normal OC.

There isn't any difference between the dies their all the same the only thing separating the 56/64 is the gpu die itself, Thee 56 dies are most likely ones that initially didn't pass QA and have a defective CU likewise 64s are dies that didn't make the cut as an FE. The pcb and all other components are exactly the on both the Vega56 and Vega64. You are talking out your ass. It's clearly and painfully evident that the 56 is clocked lower because at the same clocks it performs nearly the same as the 64 and would cannibalize sales and make the 64 pointless.

 

[Nabarun]

There isn't any difference between the dies their all the same the only thing separating the 56/64 is the gpu die itself, Thee 56 dies are most likely ones that initially didn't pass QA and have a defective CU likewise 64s are dies that didn't make the cut as an FE. The pcb and all other components are exactly the on both the Vega56 and Vega64. You are talking out your ass. It's clearly and painfully evident that the 56 is clocked lower because at the same clocks it performs nearly the same as the 64 and would cannibalize sales and make the 64 pointless.

"talking out your ass" - Nice way to prove your intelligence. In the same sentence you admit the 56 is shittier than the 64 and yet claim it can handle more torture than it's supposed to. Just because you turned your 480 into 580 and haven't burnt it yet doesn't mean your ill-advice won't eat up others' cards. And BTW, a few MHz doesn't make a world of difference in gaming. Only difference it does make is significantly higher power usage, heat, noise and reduced lifespan of NOT ONLY the gpu but other components too- since the heat also affects other components in the case. IMHO, totally not worth it. But to each his own....

 

[Totally]

"talking out your ass" - Nice way to prove your intelligence. In the same sentence you admit the 56 is shittier than the 64 and yet claim it can handle more torture than it's supposed to. Just because you turned your 480 into 580 and haven't burnt it yet doesn't mean your ill-advice won't eat up others' cards. And BTW, a few MHz doesn't make a world of difference in gaming. Only difference it does make is significantly higher power usage, heat, noise and reduced lifespan of NOT ONLY the gpu but other components too- since the heat also affects other components in the case. IMHO, totally not worth it. But to each his own....

I'm sorry I was trying to communicate with you on your level because you are making some very wrong assumptions based on misconceptions. A defective CU does not necessarily have any effect on the voltage/current tolerances. "56 is shittier than the 64" no shit Sherlock, I was pointing out the obvious that seems to be oblivious to you. If you believe 64s are golden samples you are sorely mistaken as those are reserved OC editions or professional grade (i.e FE) where tolerances are tighter. Vega for gamers is the chaff, it pointless to bin it any further beyond a simple pass/fail. In regards to voltage, if the chip can't handle it at a certain point it won't stable, clearing that hurdle it's just a matter of cooling.

 

[Nabarun]

0

I'm sorry I was trying to communicate with you on your level because you are making some very wrong assumptions based on misconceptions. A defective CU does not necessarily have any effect on the voltage/current tolerances. "56 is shittier than the 64" no shit Sherlock, I was pointing out the obvious that seems to be oblivious to you. If you believe 64s are golden samples you are sorely mistaken as those are reserved OC editions or professional grade (i.e FE) where tolerances are tighter. Vega for gamers is the chaff, it pointless to bin it any further beyond a simple pass/fail. In regards to voltage, if the chip can't handle it at a certain point it won't stable, clearing that hurdle it's just a matter of cooling.

Stability is not a guarantee of longevity. And temps don't kill - voltage does. May be not always immediately, but surely in time. It's up to the user to decide how much long he wants that to be. Cooling is not a solution for excessive voltages that sub-par chips are not built to handle. By your logic no chip should ever fry under Nitrogen. That's not the case, is it? Use some brains when you try to "communicate at the level of" a total stranger who you know nothing about.

 

[Vayra86]

Do people forget you can OC Vega 64 as well!?
If you OC Vega 64, I'm sure it will be faster than any OC'd/flashed Vega 56....

Not when the 64 does not come with any headroom and the 56 does... Especially because of temps. And then there is a signficant price gap between these cards as well, in other words, the OC gain on the 64 does not pay off and the cheaper one does.

I'm sorry I was trying to communicate with you on your level because you are making some very wrong assumptions based on misconceptions. A defective CU does not necessarily have any effect on the voltage/current tolerances. "56 is shittier than the 64" no shit Sherlock, I was pointing out the obvious that seems to be oblivious to you. If you believe 64s are golden samples you are sorely mistaken as those are reserved OC editions or professional grade (i.e FE) where tolerances are tighter. Vega for gamers is the chaff, it pointless to bin it any further beyond a simple pass/fail. In regards to voltage, if the chip can't handle it at a certain point it won't stable, clearing that hurdle it's just a matter of cooling.

A cooler chip on high volts is still a chip on high volts that will degrade faster, VRM gets pushed harder too. Remember there is a board around a chip as well.

This lends more credibility to the hypothesis Vega (and Fiji before it) is ROP limited. Something AMD has denied in the past (or at least claimed they "had no indication of").
A bit of information only useful to us, hardware freaks.

This has always been my take on it too.

Would that help though? in CPUs it helps because programs will often use either multiple slow or few fast cores.

Graphics scale with parallel cores much better then programs scale with CPU cores. I dont see how upping the clock rate and reducing core count would help in something that benefits from parallel processing.

I do. Graphics go through a pipeline - if you saturate only some resources in the pipeline, while a portion of shaders is doing nothing but still running at high clock, you waste power. If you reduce the core clock globally, the entire pipeline slows down, even though you'd just want to touch the shaders. Alternatively, you could also build a more well balanced GPU to begin with (read: like Nvidia tightly balancing VRAM throughput with core performance and continuously shuffling around resources in the GPCs).

 

[EarthDog]

Some interesting theories here... lol

 

[SKD007]

I just flashed AIO sapphire bios to my AIr 64 and it sits at 70c all day stuck at 1300 to 1400.. but when I turn on the system when the card is cold, it hits 1750 and runs at 1640 something till it reaches 69 then bam it sits at 1300 to 1400 throttling for targeted 70c on the bios. So a custom liquid loop will help me go higher with air bios than the AIO bios I guess.

 

[ratirt]

I just flashed AIO sapphire bios to my AIr 64 and it sits at 70c all day stuck at 1300 to 1400.. but when I turn on the system when the card is cold, it hits 1750 and runs at 1640 something till it reaches 69 then bam it sits at 1300 to 1400 throttling for targeted 70c on the bios. So a custom liquid loop will help me go higher with air bios than the AIO bios I guess.

Did you try lowering the voltage with same technique as with Vega 56?

 

[SKD007]

Did you try lowering the voltage with same technique as with Vega 56?

Ya the problem is thermal limit. For LC bios, the thermal limit is 70 instead of 85 of AIr. It’s better to flash Air bios on LC and try Overclocking it. And may be I better wait for custom cooler bios from sapphire or Asus to try and flash that.. if I succeed then would buy ekwb water block and loop it to my h100i

As soon as card hits 69c then it drops from 1630 to 1300..

 

[ratirt]

Ya the problem is thermal limit. For LC bios, the thermal limit is 70 instead of 85 of AIr. It’s better to flash Air bios on LC and try Overclocking it. And may be I better wait for custom cooler bios from sapphire or Asus to try and flash that.. if I succeed then would buy ekwb water block and loop it to my h100i

As soon as card hits 69c then it drops from 1630 to 1300..

Did you try those 2 Bios options? I know there's been 2 of them. Maybe one is better than the other in terms of thermal's?

 

[SKD007]

Did you try those 2 Bios options? I know there's been 2 of them. Maybe one is better than the other in terms of thermal's?

Which 2 options ?