Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[JediFragger]

Heh, to some extent this is why I no longer listen to the people that say overkill! I remember them saying 16GB ram is overkill a few years ago. As well as anything over 850watt is overkill. Yet where are we?

1000w Coolermaster Silent Pro Gold for me. This ****er has run an overclocked 4770k and 290X Tri-Fire with ease

 

[B12B6]

Missing the point. Why buy an AMD card that offers same price/performance a year late knowing that nvidia will be making another big jump in price/performance relatively soon. That doesnt mean "only buy a 1080ti" it means whatever price bracket you are at, AMD arent offering a compelling upgrade path to the same timescales. People wanting 1080ti performance at 1070 prices are going to get that level sooner than waiting on AMD going by the last few years of what we've seen, so amortising the cost of a gsync monitor over a typical lifecycle of a monitor (5 years? More?) The difference in cost of the monitor becomes negligible.

Well that is not what he said. And if you want to buy Volta or need more performance than what Vega can give ofcourse then there is no point. But how many people need that? 10? 1000? A lot of people are gaming old slower cards so why not buy freesync? Like I said already, its very few people who need that cind of performance. Not everyone can drop 500£ on gfx card. So when they buy card + monitor, that gsync/freesync difference might be what matters. Not to mention in tech there is always tommorrow when new and better is right around the corner. If you want to wait, you can, if you dont, you buy whats sold today.

 

[WeSbO]

Yeah colour calibration has been a "problem" for Nvidia for a long time for some reason, it's been pointed out quite often on screenshots. Now is that because Nvidia set their colours to be more realistic translating into something less vibrante ? Don't know, but I know I'm not necessarily looking for "real life" colours in a game personally.

 

[V F]

Yeah colour calibration has been a "problem" for Nvidia for a long time for some reason, it's been pointed out quite often on screenshots. Now is that because Nvidia set their colours to be more realistic translating into something less vibrante ? Don't know, but I know I'm not necessarily looking for "real life" coulours in a game personally.

Hmm? I've not seen those problems with 5870 and 1080. They look near identical before and after calibration.

 

[Kaapstad]

Yeah colour calibration has been a "problem" for Nvidia for a long time for some reason, it's been pointed out quite often on screenshots. Now is that because Nvidia set their colours to be more realistic translating into something less vibrante ? Don't know, but I know I'm not necessarily looking for "real life" colours in a game personally.

Nothing wrong with either NVidia or AMD colours, they just look slightly different from each other. People should go with which ever one they prefer better.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Trouble is, if you buy FreeSync, and you're one of those who say they can't go to Nvidia because of it, then you're going to spend the next couple of years, turning settings down, missing out on games etc..., while waiting for your next card, which when arrives, will be around the same performance as cards from Nvidia, that were released a couple of years ago, and at performance that we've already surpassed.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Nothing wrong with either NVidia or AMD colours, they just look slightly different from each other. People should go with which ever one they prefer better.

In my case all 5 of us thought the AMD screen looked way better as it was night and day. 3 were kids and just go with there eyes as they have no technical knowledge. I knew AMD was always said to be better here but when i seen them side by side one had colour and the other looked way plainer almost like the brightness had been turned up too high so washed away the colour. On the Amd side black was black and not grey and all other colours seemed to pop. Could be a mixture of things that made the difference so big but it was there.

 

[old gamer]

Nothing wrong with either NVidia or AMD colours, they just look slightly different from each other. People should go with which ever one they prefer better.

Yep just slight differences, I found with bf4, in outdoor areas amd looked better and nvidia looked better indoor darker areas but not enough of a big deal to worry about, I think if I was being picky then amd would be my preference, just about

 

[TNA]

Trouble is, if you buy FreeSync, and you're one of those who say they can't go to Nvidia because of it, then you're going to spend the next couple of years, turning settings down, missing out on games etc..., while waiting for your next card, which when arrives, will be around the same performance as cards from Nvidia, that were released a couple of years ago, and at performance that we've already surpassed.

So, you are buying Volta for your freesync monitor then (like what I will most likely do)?

In my case all 5 of us thought the AMD screen looked way better as it was night and day. 3 were kids and just go with there eyes. I knew AMD was always said to be better here but when i seen them side by side one had colour and the other looked way plainer almost like the brightness had been turned up to high so washed away the colour. On the Amd side black was black and not grey and all other colours seemed to pop. Could be a mixture of things that made the difference so big but it was there.

I notice it straight away. I prefer AMD's default colours. But once I switch over to Nvidia, after a while you forget and everything looks fine anyway. Plus I calibrate my monitor also which helps

 

[melmac]

Trouble is, if you buy FreeSync, and you're one of those who say they can't go to Nvidia because of it, then you're going to spend the next couple of years, turning settings down, missing out on games etc..., while waiting for your next card, which when arrives, will be around the same performance as cards from Nvidia, that were released a couple of years ago, and at performance that we've already surpassed.

Really? You buy Vega and you are going to be missing out on games? That's rubbish and you know it. Read the "unenthused with gaming and hardware" thread Modern games look great even when you turn down settings, a lot of people in the thread admitted that they couldn't see a difference between high and ultra settings.

look on steam, the majority of people that are playing games are using graphics cards lower than the 970 GTX. You think game companies are going to make the games that are only playable by people with 1080ti's? They aren't even a blip on the market. Game play isn't going to change just because you can turn on an extra setting or two.

And don't forget that have freesync/gsync means you can use higher settings than your card would normally allow.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

So, you are buying Volta for your freesync monitor then (like what I will most likely do)?

Yes, but quite a few on here have said, they can not go to Nvidia, because they have FreeSync, so their only option is to turn settings down for a couple of years, and miss out on games, as they have to wait for their next card, theres already people on here, that have done that already, they've already spent the last couple of years doing that, as they've had to wait for Vega.

 

[chroniclard]

Vega seems fine for max settings on 1440p at least. Cant see anyone being particularly unhappy with a Vega card.

 

[opethdisciple]

Yes, but quite a few on here have said, they can not go to Nvidia, because they have FreeSync, so their only option is to turn settings down for a couple of years, and miss out on games, as they have to wait for their next card, theres already people on here, that have done that already, they've already spent the last couple of years doing that, as they've had to wait for Vega.

You are right. Nvidia build products for today and AMD build for tomorrow. It's always been like that. I think it comes down to budget. AMD have to hedge their bets wisely so bet on tech that will be valuable tomorrow.

For example bulldozer. At the time the market needed IPC not cores! So it was poor. BUT.... it paved the way for Ryzen.

Nvidia have huge RnD budgets. No doubt Volta will be a beast. But Vega.... AMD don't have the resources to do now and tomorrow so from what I see have thought let's to a card for tomorrow at least it will stretch out for some time.

Is the market ready for Vegas features? Nope. No games need HBCC, FP16 etc.... Heck not many games actually use DX12 or Vulkan properly and yet Vega is much better in these regards than the 1000 series.

I'm sure Volta will fix a lot if these issues. But I imagine as HBCC is hardware if they don't already plan to release a gaming cards with such tech it won't be coming in the next series. (If it even takes off)

 

[Martini1991]

Bulldozer didn't pave the way for Ryzen
Bulldozer was just crap and was deemed a failure.

 

[chroniclard]

Claiming its a card for tomorrow is nothing but a gamble though. While AMD may have optimised drivers somewhat in the past its not indication that Vega will be the same or there will be some magic features that make it better.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Claiming its a card for tomorrow is nothing but a gamble though. While AMD may have optimised drivers somewhat in the past its not indication that Vega will be the same or there will be some magic features that make it better.

It's been called a gamble for years now yet it's proven to be no gamble at all. GCN keeps on giving while older Nvidia arch stays the same or because it does not have the features needed in some games falls away badly. It's not like AMD cards are even bad at current games either so there is no gamble. You have a current card that's still fast that has features that will be used in the future making the card still current. That's all the 290x really was at the time a very fast card that had a lot of future looking tech on board and it's still soldiering away competitively with the cards in the mid range. That's pretty good for a card that will be 4 years old at the end of the year. Vega looks to be the same.

 

[opethdisciple]

Bulldozer didn't pave the way for Ryzen
Bulldozer was just crap and was deemed a failure.

Crap maybe. but I would argue it was their first iteration of building an 8 core chip.

they may have changed the design but the foundations where learnt through Bulldozer/piledriver and excavator.

 

[opethdisciple]

AMD have always been first to market with features:

1. 2Gb Vram. My 5870 had it, which is why I bought it over the GTX 470.
2. Eyefinity, first iteration of proper multi monitor support.
3. DX 10.1 again AMD first.
4. Vulkan in the guise of Mantle developed by AMD.
5. DX12 feature sets more support by AMD than Nvidia.
6. Now we have HBCC and FP16 hardware support.

 

[chroniclard]

It's been called a gamble for years now yet it's proven to be no gamble at all. GCN keeps on giving while older Nvidia arch stays the same or because it does not have the features needed in some games falls away badly. It's not like AMD cards are even bad at current games either so there is no gamble. You have a current card that's still fast that has features that will be used in the future making the card still current. That's all the 290x really was at the time a very fast card that had a lot of future looking tech on board and it's still soldiering away competitively with the cards in the mid range. That's pretty good for a card that will be 4 years old at the end of the year. Vega looks to be the same.

But then most of the nvidia cards are still competitive in their brackets.

Any claims it will only get better are just hopeful. Hopefully it might improve with time and development but its not a given. Nobody is claiming they are bad either.

 

[opethdisciple]

The companies AMD have partnered with are impressive tho. And I doubt it will stop with just Far Cry 5 and Wolfenstein.