To Vega or Not To Vega

[melmac]

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.

 

[calken]

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.

Will it save the settings once I've rebooted though?

 

[Tute]

I think you've got to be off your rocker to buy a LC Vega 64. It's far too close in price to a 1080Ti which wipes it all over the floor.

Either go with a stock cooler one or get a 1080Ti imo.

 

[Tute]

Okay, where have all the stock Vegas gone?

 

[JediFragger]

Okay, where have all the stock Vegas gone?

Too expensive to produce, no more being made.

 

[Wrinkly]

If its for VR, then Nvidia is what you want, as they can't be touched.

What VR games make use of Nvidia features?

Never mind, I just saw Brazo's link above.

 

[Geck0]

Forget the lights, I'm chasing the elusive wantiteveryday.exe extension that some say is available.

I think it's vaporware personally.

 

[Panos]

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)

Most incorrect and misleading post in this forum I have ever seen.......

Fury and 290/390 support ASW since March 2017. 4xx since October 2016.
Vega supports since it came out......

And also Vega is shown much greater performance than the NVidia offerings on the VR benchmarks.

And if we go to monitors, because I have a 1080ti, there is no good Gsync monitors that you will buy and not have issues. The 35" VA ones, have issues with the gsync modules and panel.
34" IPS someone has to replace numerous times a £1000 monitor to find a good one. And pray the the gsync module doesn't fail him.
There are only couple of good 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and still ain't worth compared to the Freesync offerings.

Let alone the cost. Someone could buy a Vega 64, and a waterblock for it, and a 32" freesync monitor (2560x1440), for the price of a 1080Ti.....

 

[rs155]

Most incorrect and misleading post in this forum I have ever seen.......

Fury and 290/390 support ASW since March 2017. 4xx since October 2016.
Vega supports since it came out......

And also Vega is shown much greater performance than the NVidia offerings on the VR benchmarks.

And if we go to monitors, because I have a 1080ti, there is no good Gsync monitors that you will buy and not have issues. The 35" VA ones, have issues with the gsync modules and panel.
34" IPS someone has to replace numerous times a £1000 monitor to find a good one. And pray the the gsync module doesn't fail him.
There are only couple of good 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and still ain't worth compared to the Freesync offerings.

Let alone the cost. Someone could buy a Vega 64, and a waterblock for it, and a 32" freesync monitor (2560x1440), for the price of a 1080Ti.....

This +1

 

[0h_no_not_again]

Most incorrect and misleading post in this forum I have ever seen.......

Fury and 290/390 support ASW since March 2017. 4xx since October 2016.
Vega supports since it came out......

And also Vega is shown much greater performance than the NVidia offerings on the VR benchmarks.

And if we go to monitors, because I have a 1080ti, there is no good Gsync monitors that you will buy and not have issues. The 35" VA ones, have issues with the gsync modules and panel.
34" IPS someone has to replace numerous times a £1000 monitor to find a good one. And pray the the gsync module doesn't fail him.
There are only couple of good 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and still ain't worth compared to the Freesync offerings.

Let alone the cost. Someone could buy a Vega 64, and a waterblock for it, and a 32" freesync monitor (2560x1440), for the price of a 1080Ti.....

No ATW on the HTC Vive for non-RX480 cars, no ASW on the HTC Vive for any cards. Promises about a year ago for ATW on the Vive over the entire range, and it's nowhere to be seen.

VR Benchmarks are garbage. The only thing that matters is in game performance, and the following reviews do not paint a pretty picture:
https://babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/4/ For summary, see: https://babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/6/
Here is an optimised Unity game: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-rx-vega-56,review-33997-15.html

And yes, AMD UE4 performance is awful!

Further, where is AMD's attempts at Lens Matched Shading and Simultaneous Multi-Projection? Nothing announced, and probably nothing in the pipeline. LMS is looking particularly important in near-future optimisations.

We're not talking monitors. We're talking VR. I like FreeSync, I hate the premium that comes with GSync, but I don't convince myself that AMD are currently competetive in VR space.

Also, Nice Ninja Edit.

EDIT: To be clear, I own a Fury X and was a 3 minute HTC Viver. I worked with the Vive at my old job. I want AMD to be competetive, but their performance is spurious. These are the facts. There are multiple benchmarks new and old to back this up.

Also, if you're going to say something like "Most misleading post ever" you should really back it up with some evidence.

 

[Panos]

No ATW on the HTC Vive for non-RX480 cars, no ASW on the HTC Vive for any cards. Promises about a year ago for ATW on the Vive over the entire range, and it's nowhere to be seen.

Last time checked Vive doesn't support ATW. So that is not issue with the AMD.

AMD promised ASW and projection, which have been implemented even for the R9 290

 

[Wrinkly]

No ATW on the HTC Vive for non-RX480 cars, no ASW on the HTC Vive for any cards. Promises about a year ago for ATW on the Vive over the entire range, and it's nowhere to be seen.

VR Benchmarks are garbage. The only thing that matters is in game performance, and the following reviews do not paint a pretty picture:
https://babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/4/ For summary, see: https://babeltechreviews.com/rx-vega-64-liquid-10-vr-games-vs-the-gtx-1080-gtx-1080-ti/6/
Here is an optimised Unity game: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-rx-vega-56,review-33997-15.html

And yes, AMD UE4 performance is awful!

Further, where is AMD's attempts at Lens Matched Shading and Simultaneous Multi-Projection? Nothing announced, and probably nothing in the pipeline. LMS is looking particularly important in near-future optimisations.

We're not talking monitors. We're talking VR. I like FreeSync, I hate the premium that comes with GSync, but I don't convince myself that AMD are currently competetive in VR space.

Also, Nice Ninja Edit.

EDIT: To be clear, I own a Fury X and was a 3 minute HTC Viver. I worked with the Vive at my old job. I want AMD to be competetive, but their performance is spurious. These are the facts. There are multiple benchmarks new and old to back this up.

Also, if you're going to say something like "Most misleading post ever" you should really back it up with some evidence.

Are there any games that make use of Nvidia's VRWorks or AMD's LiquidVR?

VR Benchmarks show what is actually possible with modern code paths. What we are seeing in current games is legacy code.

Just wondering, if AMD is so bad, why is PSVR the most used form of VR by far?

Edit - AMD 17.11.4 optimized for Doom VFR. The gameplay looks terrible, but perhaps this will be a good indication of AMD's and Nvidia's strength in VR.

 

[0h_no_not_again]

Last time checked Vive doesn't support ATW. So that is not issue with the AMD.

AMD promised ASW and projection, which have been implemented even for the R9 290

Vive supports ATW on NVidia cards and RX AMD cards. Presumably Vega as well. It is a good exmaple of why AMD are behind Nvidia, with patchy support for essential (IMO) functionality.

Are there any games that make use of Nvidia's VRWorks or AMD's LiquidVR?

VR Benchmarks show what is actually possible with modern code paths. What we are seeing in current games is legacy code.

Just wondering, if AMD is so bad, why is PSVR the most used form of VR by far?

I agree to some extent, but AMD haven't improved their VR performance noticably since the Vive release, so you might be waiting a long time. Also, the games in existance are unlikely to jump on the updated engines as it can be quite difficult to do. Raw Data is an example of a UE4 game that moved to the forward render, apparently at great cost, but it didn't improve AMD performance noticably.

PSVR is a slightly difference case, where the games are highly optimised for the custom uarch. You can get huge performance benefits if you're write software for a single target processor, and that is PSVR in a nutshell.

I dislike NVidia for their opportunistic approach to VR (VRworks/ Gameworks, etc) and their pricing. But if you go into the detail, which I have over the last 1.5 years of being a Vive user, you can't deny they're way ahead of AMD. What worries me is AMD don't appear to be doing anything to catch up, so NVidia are likely to get further embedded into engine updates and AMD will be left with significantly less performance.

EDIT: On a side note, It is awesome to see the DOOM VFR minimum requirements are for a 1070 or RX480. I just hope other engines/games studios take heed to DOOMs success and opt to a well-optimised Vulkan.

 

[ubersonic]

Most incorrect and misleading post in this forum I have ever seen.......

I dunno I still think:

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

From earlier in the thread is a strong contender XD

 

[DragonQ]

If prices weren't silly I'd consider a nice aftermarket Vega 56 with a great cooler and undervolt it to tame the power usage and temperatures. But I'm talking like £350 max for that, and right now they don't even exist, let alone at anywhere near that price.

 

[henson0115]

so much BS in this thread, makes me think non of the peopel who spout this bs have actually tried vr in the first place, never mind the hardware they are discussing.

 

[Brazo]

I dunno I still think:

​

From earlier in the thread is a strong contender XD

But you failed to understand I was talking about VR. But I think you really know that and are just being obtuse.

 

[ubersonic]

But you failed to understand I was talking about VR.

It was probably a side affect of you not mentioning VR...

 

[melmac]

But you failed to understand I was talking about VR. But I think you really know that and are just being obtuse.

and yet still just as misleading even when talking about VR.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

Am in the same boat. Been patiently waiting on AIB's but, now that pre-orders are up, I could get a 1080ti for a little bit more on this week's deal. Alternatively, the 1070ti is much cheaper and probably beats the Vega 64 too...

Don't know whether to switch to Team Green now, or hang on for actual Vega AIB reviews