• 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.

Am I Missing Something? GTX vs Vega

Associate
Joined
26 Nov 2008
Posts
52
So, with the OC price drop for the GFX cards i'm gonna bite the bullet and upgrade, been using my AMD 7970s for years now and have been rock solid.

Was going to look at Vega 54 or 64 because my 7970s served me so well, but comparing performance / price against the 1080Ti and 1070Ti, for the life of me i cannot see why you would pick the VEGA over the GTX 1070/80 Ti cards? What am i missing?
 
Last edited:
A perfect storm of crypto-mining, memory shortages and greed.

Vega just cannot compete at GTX 1080 level or higher. The Vega 56 beats the 1070 but at a cost of power consumption and heat.

AMD cards are also preferred for mining so what little stock there is has been gobbled up already.

For gaming your ONLY option right now is Nvidia and that's a bad thing for all of us.
 
mining, short supply and gouging put the price through the roof, i got my 64 for £488 from here just before bitcoin did its thing.
 
OK that kinda of makes sense the price is way too high for the performance given, when atm you can get a GTX 1080ti within £50 of the VEGA64 (even with massive OC price drop on EVGA), where from what i have seen from comparison charts the 1080Ti uses less power (thus less heat?), and completely out performs the VEGA based on price point.

Seems the only option is the Nvidia Cards...

This FreeSync Vs GSyn thing is that really worth it? never had a monitor to support either? Is it really worth having you main monitor be GSync if you have a Nvidia card?
 
Compute performance also matters if you use the card for other things besides gaming. Rendering for example. I'd go AMD *if* prices were equivalent.
 
It was a shame really. Vega wasn't bad, it just wasn't good enough and it needed lot's of power to do it's thing.

At the time the Vega 56 had the GTX 1070 beat but we just couldn't get hold of them in enough quantity and it took too long for the 3rd party cards to hit the shelves.

This was all after marketing speil that suggested AMD had loads of partners lined up and ready to be knocking out cards
 
OK that kinda of makes sense the price is way too high for the performance given, when atm you can get a GTX 1080ti within £50 of the VEGA64 (even with massive OC price drop on EVGA), where from what i have seen from comparison charts the 1080Ti uses less power (thus less heat?), and completely out performs the VEGA based on price point.

Seems the only option is the Nvidia Cards...

This FreeSync Vs GSyn thing is that really worth it? never had a monitor to support either? Is it really worth having you main monitor be GSync if you have a Nvidia card?
I had a 1080p G Sync monitor until it got a bunch of dead pixels. I loved it, but at the time I couldn't spring another £400+ for a monitor so went with a reasonably priced 1440p instead. I wished I had just ponied up and bought another G Sync.

That said, I wouldn't recommend binning a perfectly good monitor JUST so you can have G Sync or Freesync
 
Vega spanks the 10XX series in Blender for example, which I use a lot for work. So frustrating.
 
If you are in the market for a new graphics card AND a new high end monitor then it might, just might, pay off to pay the difference for a Vega card and save money on the Freesync monitor.

Nvidia G Sync comes at a heavy premium but I'm not sure how it would all add up. Its not a great time to be in the market for a new gpu
 
It was a shame really. Vega wasn't bad, it just wasn't good enough and it needed lot's of power to do it's thing.

At the time the Vega 56 had the GTX 1070 beat but we just couldn't get hold of them in enough quantity and it took too long for the 3rd party cards to hit the shelves.

This was all after marketing speil that suggested AMD had loads of partners lined up and ready to be knocking out cards

I use a Vega 56 and when I activate the iChill option, it drops the power draw by 50-100 watts. Nvidia are faster cards but I prefer AMD do to the better long term driver support (Before any fanboy accusations, I've owned plenty of Nvidia cards over the years going back to the 8800GT)

Nvidia card and Gsync pairing are generally more expensive than Vega and Freesync
 
Better visuals, better built cards if you buy the reference and under an AIO or full water they go just fine and are quiet. My 290 lasted quite a few years and I only replaced it due to having to go UW 1440 for work purposes. Sold the card to a guy in Ipswich on Gumtree and he's still using it.

My Vega56 is now under the same AIO as the 290 was (NZXT is good stuff), using less power and running cooler than the 290 was and running everything faster. I jumped in before the blowout and again I have a ref card built like a tank. I play games on it casually and use it for work. It's capable and the software is very low stress.

Is it as quick as a 1080? in some respects no, in some yes and faster. Am I suffering from low frame rates and having an awful experience? Not at all. I don't seem to have the same sensitivity that some of you appear to have with frames - they just need to be smooth and the visuals acceptable. Mind you this FS Sammy 100Hz UW 1440 quantum dot is pretty good. Not as good as the old QNIX was in terms of fidelity though.

Each to their own but I think my purchase was a damn good one.
 
The banter above gave me a chuckle. :D

In terms of price for performance under the current climate then it has to be the GTX cards, unless there's a specific task (maybe work related) which performs better on Vega.

I also prefer the IQ of AMD/ATi cards though I don't think there's as much in it as there once was.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom