I did not read all the reviews. Just a few from sites I'm most familiar with.

Some reviews were objective, some were not in how they described things. Lots of anti-AMD ranting and raving in one I read (at least by my standards).

To me, "Competitive" means "wins some loses some" or is "too close" to tell one from the other in a "blind test" -- so, that's how I use the word. As has been posted many times in this thread, RX Vega seems "competitive" to me, based my reading of the reports (that I read).

Here are links to two reviews that seemed to objectively present their results.

They find that RX Vega models are "competitive" with their GTX1070 and GTX1080 counterparts -- in FPS, measured operational temperatures, correctly measured sound levels, price. But, RX Vega uses more power. They assume performance will improve over time -- as card-makers learn to use some of the more advanced hardware features and drivers are optimized.

RX Vega 56 Review

RX Vega 64 Review


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro