Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[DazQ87]

So vega is looking to be 1080 performance at 1080ti price, with a power draw that eclipses both. Not looking like a good start.

Or rather than let us all speculate some numbers would be fantastic. I don't think I've ever seen such incompetent marketing.

 

[WeSbO]

Enhanced sync doesn't seem to be available for 290/390 (x) cards

EDIt : Apparently not available on Fury either >_< ...

Footnotes

3.Compatible with: AMD Radeon™ RX 400 & 500 series GPUs. Supports: DirextX® 9, 11, 12 & Windows® 7/10.

 

[nashathedog]

I take it as an encouraging sign if Kyle Bennett isn't crapping on AMD given the opportunity. He wasn't too keen on Polaris before it was launched.

Of course he hasn't, he was given exclusive access for his channel and you can bet it included muted negative responses, especially with the way he focused on the same it's a bargain when you look at it as part of a bundle just like AMD was doing last week. The whole thing felt like a sell out to me.

 

[melmac]

They are both 100Hz panels - the 151 is khz for the horizontal scan.

However there is a telling difference and explains why people are commenting how they are - one is a response time boosted VA panel the other a slower IPS.............. surprise people notice a difference in motion clarity and perceived "smoothness" - which completely invalidates the whole video as far as any real comparison between GPUs goes.

Doesn't that mean the Gsync system should have had the advantage? There is a huge difference in price between the two monitors and any review that I have read has them nearly identical for response times and input lag. With the VA losing out on pixel responsiveness.

 

[Gerard]

Of course he hasn't, he was given exclusive access for his channel and you can bet it included muted negative responses, especially with the way he focused on the same it's a bargain when you look at it as part of a bundle just like AMD was doing last week. The whole thing felt like a sell out to me.

I think you'll find he gives both amd and nvidia a hard time when they deserve it, at the 1080 FE launch he was questioning the point of renaming the reference card "founders edition" basically crapping on their parade for it. He also was no fan of polaris, so i very much doubt he's selling out to anyone. Amd wanted him to test it against the 1080 and he basically gave them the finger and put it against a 1080 ti.

 

[Rezident]

I thought Vega was supposed to be a 4k card...4k this 4k that. So why are they dumbing down the demos to ultra wide 1440? Why not show its performance with the goal posts set at 60 fps in 4k? It is only recently that they started pulling the Freesync "experience" BS.

I would love to see the same test done, only with a Fury vs a Vega. See if their "it feels the same, why pay more?" line still stands up when it is their own products.

Cos the percentage of the market using 4k is insignificant. Way more people use 1440. 1440 is not dumbing down, its reality.

 

[opethdisciple]

Go on then. From what I've seen no G-sync monitor is only 60 or 70 quid more, If it is I'd like to know which and where as the way things are going Vega's a bust.

I can't link to competitor webpage. But I did a search for 144hz 27" either Gsync or Freesync and the difference is under £100.

When your sounding close to 1k on both a GPU and monitor I don't think less than £100 is much of a factor.

 

[Rroff]

Doesn't that mean the Gsync system should have had the advantage? There is a huge difference in price between the two monitors and any review that I have read has them nearly identical for response times and input lag. With the VA losing out on pixel responsiveness.

Thing is with VA - most pixel responses - especially with a panel like this one which is reasonably "boosted" are usually fast compared to IPS - where it falls down is some transitions especially from certain blacks which can be very very slow which can be annoying if you live with one every day but overall if you just sit down and quickly AB test the VA in this case will appear to have better clarity in motion:

There were some slight weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, but nothing we found particularly bothersome. Overall levels of perceived blur were increased slightly compared to a very fast 100Hz monitor (the S2716DG we were using as a reference, set to 100Hz, for example). But this was just due to a slight bit of extra trailing in places, a sort of ‘thin and powdery’ trail rather than the usual heavy smearing that some slower VA models produce. Akin to what we saw on high refresh rate AHVA models (such as the AOC AG271QG) for darker transitions, but affecting a broader range of transitions on the MX34VQ. The overclocked IPS UltraWides like the ASUS PG348Q also suffer similar trailing in places. Most users wouldn’t notice it or find it bothersome.

Also you have SMTT 2.0 results of around 6ms for the FreeSync panel and over 9ms for the G-Sync panel which will be noticeable to varying degrees to some people.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Lets be honest AMD supposedly wanted to do the test v a 1080 but Kyle wanted a 1080ti and got his way. If he was in AMD's pocket as some are making out then he wouldn't have been aloud the 1080ti in the first place. The test is what it is and you can take from it what you want. More numbers don't always mean a better experience. Nvidia's second top gaming card was used on a far more expensive G-Sync monitor which some around here say is meant to be better yet 3 liked the AMD setup more and only 1 Nvidia with the others not being able to tell the difference.

It's obvious why they are doing this as the numbers will or it looks like be on the 1080ti's side. They need to market this card for somehow else so gaming experience ain't a bad place to start. Those around here with a Freesync monitor now need to think about buying a 1080ti and using it on there Freesync monitor. They will have more fps but judging by this an inferior experience or go the whole hog and get a 1080ti plus a G-Sync monitor at a lot more expense to get a similar experience.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wait,wut I thought GSync was superior due to the higher cost and better panels,now all of a sudden a FreeSync monitor is now better for gaming?? Emm??

Edit!!

LOL,isn't the ASUS GSync monitor one of their fancy ROG range for gamers too??

 

[Rroff]

Wait,wut I thought GSync was superior due to the higher cost and better panels,now all of a sudden a FreeSync monitor is now better for gaming?? Emm??

Edit!!

LOL,isn't the ASUS GSync monitor one of their fancy ROG range for gamers too??

IPS is IPS regardless of whether its G-Sync or not - very much 3rd place if you actually care about motion clarity, etc.

VA is a hit and miss story but like the Eizo Foris in some implementations it isn't too bad in some respects though the poor transitions from certain values can be a major negative if you are using one every day for fast paced gaming.

 

[z10m]

It seems people in this test noticed lower input lag on system 2 but as we all know gsync when hitting max refresh rate of the monitor switches in to vsync mode which increases input lag.

 

[Gerard]

Lets be honest AMD supposedly wanted to do the test v a 1080 but Kyle wanted a 1080ti and got his way. If he was in AMD's pocket as some are making out then he wouldn't have been aloud the 1080ti in the first place. The test is what it is and you can take from it what you want. More numbers don't always mean a better experience. Nvidia's second top gaming card was used on a far more expensive G-Sync monitor which some around here say is meant to be better yet 3 liked the AMD setup more and only 1 Nvidia with the others not being able to tell the difference.

People are always gonna go "hardocp are biased", ignoring the fact he generally calls it like it is and is not afraid to slam either amd or nvidia. Generally that waffle just comes from people who don't agree with their findings, so the site is then "biased" for one company or the other.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

IPS is IPS regardless of whether its G-Sync or not - very much 3rd place if you actually care about motion clarity, etc.

I thought FreeSync was the poorer and crapper option according to the interwebz?? So basically its down to the individual monitor implementation then?? It makes me wonder whether all those pages and pages of arguments on what is better,was more a case of what was a better monitor,rather than a critique of the tech!

 

[Rroff]

It seems people in this test noticed lower input lag on system 2 but as we all know gsync when hitting max refresh rate of the monitor switches in to vsync mode which increases input lag.

That is the other thing - G-Sync (and also affected by whether you have FastSync on or not) can behave differently under different configurations - some games still see the best results for some reason if you run with V-Sync off and a framerate cap just below the refresh rate.

I thought FreeSync was the poorer and crapper option according to the interwebz?? So basically its down to the individual monitor implementation then?? It makes me wonder whether all those pages and pages of arguments on what is better,was more a case of what was a better monitor,rather than a critique of the tech!

In this context you aren't really comparing FreeSync versus G-Sync. Its like comparing 2 sports cars while hitching them to massive trailers full of weight.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

In this context you aren't really comparing FreeSync versus G-Sync. Its like comparing 2 sports cars while hitching them to massive trailers full of weight.

There have been dozens of pages and pointless threads deriding FreeSync based on one or two monitors,from each,so basically you are saying those were less a comparison of FreeSync and GSync and more a comparison of different monitors??

So if you are now backtracking and saying the results are down to basically a poorly implemented GSync monitor for gaming and a better FreeSync monitor for gaming,wouldn't that hold true for some of the other comparisons??

 

[Rroff]

There have been dozens of pages and pointless threads deriding FreeSync based on one or two monitors,from each,so basically you are saying those were less a comparison of FreeSync and GSync and more a comparison of different monitors??

So if you are now backtracking and saying the results are down to basically a poorly implemented GSync monitor for gaming and a better FreeSync monitor for gaming,wouldn't that hold true for some of the other comparisons??

Sorry but this is some twisted gibberish.

 

[D.P.]

I thought FreeSync was the poorer and crapper option according to the interwebz?? So basically its down to the individual monitor implementation then?? It makes me wonder whether all those pages and pages of arguments on what is better,was more a case of what was a better monitor,rather than a critique of the tech!

Roff is talking about the screen, not the VRR capability and you know full well.

 

[Rezident]

Nice to see that Vega is being compared to the 1080ti and not the 1080 in HardOCP's blind tests, that at least seems promising

Or optimistic! Hope springs eternal

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

IPS is IPS regardless of whether its G-Sync or not - very much 3rd place if you actually care about motion clarity, etc.

VA is a hit and miss story but like the Eizo Foris in some implementations it isn't too bad in some respects though the poor transitions from certain values can be a major negative if you are using one every day for fast paced gaming.

Sorry but this is some twisted gibberish.

Roof is tlakign about the screen, not the VRR capability and you know full well.

So first Rroff says the GSync monitor has poor gaming characteristics as its IPS and the FreeSync one is VA.

Hence he is saying the FreeSync monitor is better for gaming due to the panel type.

Yet all the other threads where he and is mate have derided FreeSync based on maybe one monitor compared to another one,that is not twisted gibberish,and now gets annoyed.