• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

On or off the hype train?

  • (off) Train has derailed

    Votes: 207 39.2%

  • (on) Overcrowding, standing room only

    Votes: 100 18.9%

  • (never ever got on) Chinese escalator

    Votes: 221 41.9%
  • Total voters
    528
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it say comes out on par with the GTX 1080 and AMD price it at £450.

Nvidia which has almost definitely recouped all R&D costs for Maxwell/Pascal will surely just undercut it again.

I don't see how AMD can win here unlike with Ryzen where AMD priced it at a level Intel were never going to cut to.
 
It seems like there is some credence to the Vega FE getting feature locked earlier in the year. It seems to be running drivers that are older than some seen at the end of march.

yu42zjc.png


Choo choo? :P
 
JediFragger said:
Had an MG279Q too. Forget I said anything, I'll leave you to your own devices :)
Click to expand...
It requires a driver modification which requires a third party application, but the MG279Q supports a FreeSync range of 57-144 Hz, and since LFC was implemented by AMD long ago, that effectively means 0-144 Hz.
 
muon said:
If it say comes out on par with the GTX 1080 and AMD price it at £450.

Nvidia which has almost definitely recouped all R&D costs for Maxwell/Pascal will surely just undercut it again.

I don't see how AMD can win here unlike with Ryzen where AMD priced it at a level Intel were never going to cut to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that will be enough for AMD (On par with 1080 and only £50 cheaper).

Yes it gets them competitive again and at a cheaper price but a year late.

They will need something else to sweeten the deal. People looking for that sort of performance already bought 1070s and 1080s over the last 12 months.

(Except for me :p)
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
What makes you say Gsync is better than Freesync?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a lot of Freesync monitors do not offer as good an experience as a G-sync model does because they do not support adaptive sync very well, When Freesync first released it was inferior to G-sync, That was because G-sync monitors had a way to handle framerates going below 30 fps which Freesync didn't, That has changed and Freesync's had the ability to do the same thing with lower framerates for quite a while now, It's called LFC, Low Framerate Compensator and it works in the same way as Nvidia's G-sync's solution does. Unfortunately a lot of monitor companies have been slow to implement it in their Freesync monitors, One of the biggest offenders is LG who with over 20 models only use it on 2. For a Freesync monitor to support LFC it needs it's highest working range to be over twice what the minimum working range is, That's because LFC doubles up on the used framerates when the fps dips below 30. The data on the tech say's it needs to be 2 and a half times the minimum but I've since seen a couple of models that have it at about 2 and a quarter times the minimum. You tend to find that the people who've had a poor experience with Freesync had it with non LFC models. Before LFC it was inferior. A Freesync monitor with full support gives an experience that's every bit as good as the G-sync experience. It's the companies like LG that have marketed a monitor with Freesync while not offering the complete fature set that have caused AMD to take control of Freesync with the Freesync 2 moniker which means companies that don't support it properly will no longer be able to market their monitors as Freesync 2 models.


TNA said:
G-Sync having better ranges probably. That is the only difference these days. His huge ultrawide LG had very poor Freesync range.
Click to expand...

And no LFC. LG's support has been a joke from the start, some of LG's first Freesync ultrawides only had a working range from 48 to 60 hz.
 
nashathedog said:
Unfortunately a lot of Freesync monitors do not offer as good an experience as a G-sync model does because they do not support adaptive sync very well, When Freesync first released it was inferior to G-sync, That was because G-sync monitors had a way to handle framerates going below 30 fps which Freesync didn't, That has changed and Freesync's had the ability to do the same thing with lower framerates for quite a while now, It's called LFC, Low Framerate Compensator and it works in the same way as Nvidia's G-sync's solution does. Unfortunately a lot of monitor companies have been slow to implement it in their Freesync monitors, One of the biggest offenders is LG who with over 20 models only use it on 2. For a Freesync monitor to support LFC it needs it's highest working range to be over twice what the minimum working range is, That's because LFC doubles up on the used framerates when the fps dips below 30. The data on the tech say's it needs to be 2 and a half times the minimum but I've since seen a couple of models that have it at about 2 and a quarter times the minimum. You tend to find that the people who've had a poor experience with Freesync had it with non LFC models. Before LFC it was inferior. A Freesync monitor with full support gives an experience that's every bit as good as the G-sync experience. It's the companies like LG that have marketed a monitor with Freesync while not offering the complete fature set that have caused AMD to take control of Freesync with the Freesync 2 moniker which means companies that don't support it properly will no longer be able to market their monitors as Freesync 2 models.
Click to expand...

Another big reason is due to the added cost of adding G-sync, so it is often only found on top end panels. While freesync ends up in a range of panels. But you often won't be able to tell the difference between two of the same panels, one with Freesync and the other with G-sync.
 
Mauller said:
Another big reason is due to the added cost of adding G-sync, so it is often only found on top end panels. While freesync ends up in a range of panels. But you often won't be able to tell the difference between two of the same panels, one with Freesync and the other with G-sync.
Click to expand...

If companies like LG weren't selling their Freesync monitors as premium models at premium prices I'd agree, What's good is that AMD know what's been going on and are putting a stop to it by having conditions placed on using the name Freesync2. I expect a lot of monitors that don't support it very well will start being branded as adaptive sync monitors rather than Freesync 2 monitors, but that's good as it tell's us which ones to avoid.
 
Am cool with freesync monitor having all different ranges it keeps the price down for people that might not need high refresh rates and higher prices.

I could easy get by using something like 48/60hz just vsync the game keeping Freesync always working and adjusting graphics settings to always remain inside 50/60fps
Smooth gaming.
 
TNA said:
At this point for £400 I would be either waiting for Vega or Volta. Pascal is old news now and Volta is not far away.
Click to expand...

Is there any indication of what the specs for gaming level Volta cards are? Is there any indication that they will be released this year? You can pay US$150,000 for a workstation using Volta GPUs (although I don't know if they're actually shipping yet), but that doesn't mean much to anyone looking for a graphics card to game on, since those don't exist and won't have the same specs anyway. nVidia aren't even talking about Volta for gaming yet.

It's always possible to wait for the next generation...and then wait for the next generation...and then wait for the next generation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom