• 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.

To Vega or Not To Vega

calken

calken

calken

Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2017
Posts
70
Location
Hudds, UK
I've had the LC Vega 64 in my basket twice and bottled it - I want a better Vive experience and currently run an original blower RX480 and an overclocked i5 3570K.

My only real question is, are the LC Vega chips and HBM of a higher quality or did AMD not bother binning?
 
But already have a Freesync monitor ... to sell and replace with Gysync, dunno what a LC 1080 is, but that plus monitor costs would outstrip the Vega LC costs ..
 
Yes , i'm in a similar boat, Fury Pro running at 1440p. I'm trying to justify spending on a LC Vega i probably dont need but sort of want, wouldn't pay the AIB prices for air cooled.
 
If your priority is VR, the NVidia consistently deliver better performance. They also have a bunch of clever optimisations in the pipeline that will give decent little boosts in perf when implemented in engines. Not the insanely optimistic 2-3x+ increases that people keep claiming, but >50% based on recent whitepapers that NVidia released.

AMD on the other hand don't even have ATW or ASW over their range, LiquidVR is MIA and their UE4 engine performance is still absolute crap.

My setup: Vive + Fury X (regret)
 
If its for VR, then Nvidia is what you want, as they can't be touched.

I bought one last week to replace my 2x Fury pros, and don't regret it one bit, its a cracking card, at only £599 now, id be snapping them up before they're gone, and the more expensive, slower custom cards, are the only ones you're able to get.
 
Last edited:
Vega is much better than the reviews show. With a few simple tweaks they use less power and perform much better. The Liquid cool version is a pretty good buy at £599 and would buy one before prices go back up.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
If its for VR, then Nvidia is what you want, as they can't be touched.
Click to expand...

Not sure this is true anymore. I have compared Vega 64 with my 1070 and have found the Vega 64 to be much better. As VR performance is most important to me, I am keeping the Vega card and selling the 1070. I can use much higher SS rates than before and everything plays smoother.
 
melmac said:
Vega is much better than the reviews show. With a few simple tweaks they use less power and perform much better. The Liquid cool version is a pretty good buy at £599 and would buy one before prices go back up.
Click to expand...

I was surprised by how poorly it did against the 1080 in Jokers review and he was overclocking both which is probably why seeing as AMD cards aren't great overclockers anymore..
 
I got the Sapphire, as always bought Sapphire cards, and never had any problems with any of them.


On old drivers as well there, but still looks pretty good to me, oc'd custom 1080 performance, only really loses in the Nvidia games that are known to run terrible on AMD, like Watch Dogs etc...

I havn't even touched mine, no need, very happy with it as is :D
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
Last time i checked out VR, which was a while ago now, and before Vega was in sight, AMD couldn't even touch the little 1060.
Click to expand...

Polaris was particularly bad at VR, I was recommending everybody to go Nvidia if they wanted a good VR experience. While they might not have caught all the way up, I can safely say that Vega gives a good VR experience. At least now people with Freesync screens and who want VR can get both from AMD.
 
melmac said:
Were you happy with your Fury X?
Click to expand...

Yes i guess I am, it was a Sapphire Tri-X Pro rather than a Fury X, but whilst not amazing value at the time and despite probably similar arguments when I bought it, re the 970s or whatever the Nvidia equivalent was being faster and similar priced, it seemed like the logical upgrade.

Its still mostly coping fine with 1440p at reasonably high settings, but would like a bit more oomph and probably the extra memory more than anything for newer GPU hogs.

Been with AMD for quite a while, partly price around 9500pro days and then mainly for Eyefinity triple screens from 5870 onwards as it took Nvidia a while to catch up on that and am big into Racing Sims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom