• 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

neil473 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have a Freesync screen and have the money, the Vega LC well be a big upgrade from the Fury. It will be quiet, have 8GB of Ram and better performance in newer games.

If you don't have a Freesync screen, then you could buy a 1080ti for not much more money.
 
melmac said:
I was waiting for someone to roll out that old review. That's not the case anymore. Vega 64 is faster than the 1070, I know that for a fact.
Click to expand...
Old it’s barely three months! Has vega gained plus 50% in that time? Care to share a ‘newer’ review?
 
Brazo said:
Old it’s barely three months! Has vega gained plus 50% in that time? Care to share a ‘newer’ review?
Click to expand...

haha, why prove anything to you? Even, the article you linked to states that the 1070 and V64 trade blows, but, you, as always, made it sound way worse for AMD by claiming it only trades blows with the 1060. And you can't even get the dates right either. It's over 3 months since that article was done.

Just like your claims, VEGA is EOL in the other thread, and then when it was pointed out that this is always the case with AMD and reference cards, you changed your tune to Reference cards cannot be bought. LOL which people already told you, but you wanted to make a big drama out of it. Epic fail btw.
 
JediFragger said:
I'd also be interested in this, and the massive gains.
Click to expand...

Ian Evey said:
Me too, I might get vr next year.
Click to expand...


I never claimed massive gains. Brazo is the one that made up the 50% plus figure. But that's because he says the 1060 and the V64 have the same VR performance. Even the article he linked to states that the 1070 and Vega 64 have about the same performance.

All I said was that the article was old and now Vega 64 is faster than the 1070. And I have just tested this for the last few days as I have just spent the last few days testing both the 1070 and Vega 64 in VR with the intention of keeping the fastest. Vega 64 was easily quicker.
 
melmac said:
haha, why prove anything to you? Even, the article you linked to states that the 1070 and V64 trade blows, but, you, as always, made it sound way worse for AMD by claiming it only trades blows with the 1060. And you can't even get the dates right either. It's over 3 months since that article was done.

Just like your claims, VEGA is EOL in the other thread, and then when it was pointed out that this is always the case with AMD and reference cards, you changed your tune to Reference cards cannot be bought. LOL which people already told you, but you wanted to make a big drama out of it. Epic fail btw.
Click to expand...
So a load of hot air, attacks and no links to benches or reviews to factually back up your comments...
 
Brazo said:
So a load of hot air, attacks and no links to benches or reviews to factually back up your comments...
Click to expand...

Straight from the latest VR benchmark. No point in looking at the orange room as it's cpu limited. The Cyan test is the only dx12 test in there i believe and AMD show up well here.

Cyan Blue

  • Score 10668, GPU TitanXP @2088/3102, FPS Score 232.55, CPU 6950X @4.4, Post No.0014, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.13
  • Score 9933, GPU TitanP @2101/2772, FPS Score 216.53, CPU 6950X @4.4, Post No.0007, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.13
  • Score 9471, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/2980, FPS Score 206.46, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0026, kitfit1 - Link Drivers 388.13
  • Score 8809, GPU Vega64 @1802/1140, FPS Score 192.04, CPU 1950X @4.125, Post No.0012, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  • Score 7559, GPU 1080 @2144/2750, FPS Score 164.79, CPU 4930k @4.7, Post No.0031, TTomax - Link Drivers 388.31
  • Score 7347, GPU 1080 @1807/2702, FPS Score 160.15, CPU 1230V2 @3.3, Post No.0028, CAT-THE-FIFTH - Link Drivers 388.13
  • Score 6041, GPU 1070 @2113/2275, FPS Score 131.69, CPU 8700k @4.7, Post No.0033, AthlonXP1800 - Link Drivers 388.31
  • Score 5343, GPU 1070 @1860/2127, FPS Score 116.47, CPU 6700 @3.9, Post No.0030, Bagnaj97 - Link Drivers 388.13
  • Score 4983, GPU RX580 @1425/2600, FPS Score 108.63, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0019, thebennyboy - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  • Score 4735, GPU 290P @1100/1400, FPS Score 103.23, CPU 4790k @4.8, Post No.0034, MadMatty - Link Drivers 17.11.2
1 GPU Blue Room

  1. Score 3747, GPU TitanXP @2025/3152, FPS Score 81.69, CPU 6950X @4.4, Post No.0014, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.13
  2. Score 3516, GPU TitanP @2088/2772, FPS Score 76.66, CPU 6950X @4.4, Post No.0009, Kaapstad - Link Drivers 388.13
  3. Score 3384, GPU 1080 Ti @2025/2980, FPS Score 73.76, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0027, kitfit1 - Link Drivers 388.13
  4. Score 2568, GPU Vega64 @1802/1140, FPS Score 55.99, CPU 1950X @4.125, Post No.0012, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  5. Score 2560, GPU 1080 @2144/2750, FPS Score 55.82, CPU 4930k @4.7, Post No.0031, TTomax - Link Drivers 388.31
  6. Score 2413, GPU 1080 @1807/2702, FPS Score 52.61, CPU 1230V2 @3.3, Post No.0028, CAT-THE-FIFTH - Link Drivers 388.13
  7. Score 1774, GPU 1070 @1860/2127, FPS Score 38.67, CPU 6700 @3.9, Post No.0030, Bagnaj97 - Link Drivers 388.13
  8. Score 1246, GPU RX580 @1425/2600, FPS Score 27.17, CPU 1700 @3.8, Post No.0019, thebennyboy - Link Drivers 17.11.2
  9. Score 1180, GPU 290P @1100/1400, FPS Score 25.73, CPU 4790k @4.8, Post No.0034, MadMatty - Link Drivers 17.11.2
 
Last edited:
melmac said:
All I said was that the article was old and now Vega 64 is faster than the 1070. And I have just tested this for the last few days as I have just spent the last few days testing both the 1070 and Vega 64 in VR with the intention of keeping the fastest. Vega 64 was easily quicker.
Click to expand...

So I'm just guessing that VR wasn't a priority upon release for Vega? Makes sense I suppose, but it's crazy how immature the drivers were. I always joke about the size of AMD's driver team but damn!!
 
Brazo said:
That is a dx12 bench thread though.

Nvidia are significantly ahead of vega in actual games. 64 trades blows with a 1060.

https://babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/6/
Click to expand...

Really not sure what is going on here. I doubt that's how it really looks as fury X and the 480 look to be doing fine. My guess is they were having issues some where. Those results for Vega look stupid so without more proof i would write them off until Vega is clearly working properly.
 
Brazo said:
So a load of hot air, attacks and no links to benches or reviews to factually back up your comments...
Click to expand...

But, your own link proves you wrong. You state that the 1060 and Vega 64 has the same performance in VR. The very link you posted shows that's not the case and even says that the 1070 and Vega 64 basically trade blows.

Vega 64 performance has improved across the board with driver updates since launch. According to the benchmarks you linked to, Vega 64 and the 1070 gave the same VR experience, three months ago. Is it really too hard for you to accept that VR performance might have improved as well in that time?

My own testing of both Vega 64 and the 1070 has shown me that Vega 64 is faster now. It's why I am keeping the Vega card and selling the 1070 because VR is most important to me.
 
So m
melmac said:
But, your own link proves you wrong. You state that the 1060 and Vega 64 has the same performance in VR. The very link you posted shows that's not the case and even says that the 1070 and Vega 64 basically trade blows.

Vega 64 performance has improved across the board with driver updates since launch. According to the benchmarks you linked to, Vega 64 and the 1070 gave the same VR experience, three months ago. Is it really too hard for you to accept that VR performance might have improved as well in that time?

My own testing of both Vega 64 and the 1070 has shown me that Vega 64 is faster now. It's why I am keeping the Vega card and selling the 1070 because VR is most important to me.
Click to expand...

So most people aren't questioning the 64 being faster than a 1070, but the fact that it is even being discussed is quite worrying for vega. We all know it's not where it should be, but people are still buying it and are genuinely happy with it so each to their own
 
JediFragger said:
So I'm just guessing that VR wasn't a priority upon release for Vega? Makes sense I suppose, but it's crazy how immature the drivers were. I always joke about the size of AMD's driver team but damn!!
Click to expand...

It's why I had no interest in Vega at launch, VR performance was only as good as what I had, I was basing my decision off that same article that Brazo linked to. But, when Nashathedog put his up for sale I took a chance and bought it. I was either going to sell the 1070 or Vega 64 based on VR performance. If I kept the 1070, my plan was to sell the Vega card and my Freesync monitor and buy a Gsync monitor. But, since I kept the Vega card, I am going to sell the 1070 and put the money towards an Xbox one X instead :D

And yeah, The driver team were on the ball with Polaris and Ryzen. They haven't been as quick with Vega.
 
Last edited:
arby1 said:
So most people aren't questioning the 64 being faster than a 1070, but the fact that it is even being discussed is quite worrying for vega. We all know it's not where it should be, but people are still buying it and are genuinely happy with it so each to their own
Click to expand...

VR performance has come on a lot since launch though. Look at the Cyan benchmark TheRealDeal posted above. The general performance of Vega has been better than what I was expecting based on reviews. Maybe, that's why people are happy with it?
 
Thanks for all the input. I've told the Mrs and pulled the trigger. I had to explain what a graphics card was, why I needed it and why I deserved it etc. but one will be heading to West Yorkshire soon.

In regard to some of the advice, I've always used AMD/ATi cards and they have always served me well. I understand the savings in electricity that the NVidia cards offer me but wife waste more energy than that with having the heater to high, leaving windows open and turning on ever single light switch, that it makes the argument invalid.

Being a software engineer type person, I'm also well aware how long it can take to develop things, adopt new techniques and master new hardware.

Fingers crossed that the December driver update will make me an even happier man :)
 
calken said:
I understand the savings in electricity that the NVidia cards offer me but wife waste more energy than that with having the heater to high, leaving windows open and turning on ever single light switch, that it makes the argument invalid.

Fingers crossed that the December driver update will make me an even happier man :)
Click to expand...
Good news, according to the patch notes for the December update:
  • Fixed an issue where lighting toggles set by wife.exe were not resetting after the correct timer interval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom