• 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.

Poll: The Vega Review Thread.

What do we think about Vega?

  • What has AMD been doing for the past 1-2 years?

  • It consumes how many watts and is how loud!!!

  • It is not that bad.

  • Want to buy but put off by pricing and warranty.

  • I will be buying one for sure (I own a Freesync monitor so have little choice).

  • Better red than dead.

Results are only viewable after voting.
WeSbO said:
You people do realize that the whole point of each brand having their sync tech is to lock you into a brand right if you want to use that said tech? Just that Nvidia started it before and set the tone for the future market, and didn't want to adopt an industry standard (which isn't a good thing by any means) but it doesn't change the fact that you are locked in if you want to use a sync tech, and to be honest AMD are probably very happy that Nvidia won't support the industry standard otherwise they would be f'ed
Click to expand...

The only people doing the locking are forum enthusiasts. Nobody is forcing you do so. Its a false equivalence argument.

So again for my mate who I did a budget build,if I found a Nvidia card,I should have ignored that monitor I asked him to get,since it had FreeSync. So basically I should have got a WORSE monitor for his budget gaming rig instead??

Really??

Edit!!

So if Nvidia suddenly dropped the GTX1080TI down to £450,even if you had a FreeSync monitor would that means you go "no" I won't bother.

Even adaptive sync is not a magic panacea for lack of GPU grunt - it helps,but if you throw enough GPU grunt at a game,beyond a certain level adaptive sync won't save you.
 
Last edited:
Card is great IMO. Loving gaming on it at the moment, doesn't hit 40c under hours of load in gaming, not one black screen or system hang. Making mince meat of 1440p gaming and goes lovely with my Freeysnc.

It's not 1080ti levels of perf, but it's still super fast in games, that's what matters to me. I'm more than happy with 80fps+ in a 12 game average test at 1440p with high graphic settings any day of the week. For £449 and coming from 390 crossfire, I'm very happy with it.
 
Jono8 said:
This. I won't be buying any adapative display monitor until the lock out with one manufacturer or another is gone..
Click to expand...

That is exactly the same reason why I didn't invest in VR because they were locking out games, with not being able to travel into the future it made the choice to dodgy
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The only people doing the locking are forum enthusiasts. Nobody is forcing you do so. Its a false equivalence argument.

So again for my mate who I did a budget build,if I found a Nvidia card,I should have ignored that monitor I asked him to get,since it had FreeSync. So basically I should have got a WORSE monitor for his budget gaming rig instead??

Really??

Edit!!

So if Nvidia suddenly dropped the GTX1080TI down to £450,even if you had a FreeSync monitor would that means you go "no" I won't bother.

Even adaptive sync is not a magic panacea for lack of GPU grunt - it helps,but if you throw enough GPU grunt at a game,beyond a certain level adaptive sync won't save you.
Click to expand...

If the person isn't interested in using the tech, the choice of the GPU is irrelevant, which means you do not consider yourself locked in because you aren't bothered (like myself) what you friend does is irrelevant, we are talking about people who said "they bought X gpu because they considered themselves to have little choice because they wanted to use the sync tech. Not the same a person saying I only want to invest this much into a monitor because if you are on a budget you can't be picky, the choice is irrelevant when you are constraining your self to a small budget you are automatically limiting your choices, this isn't what we are talking about, now down the line if he "forces" himself to buy an AMD (that could have a bad perf/price ratio compared to the competition) because he wants to use his freesync (that he "only" invested 150£ in) that is an entirely different problem, and is definitely a problem, and would have been exactly the same problem if he had a gsync monitor.
And in your friends case the 570 was a better choice than a 1060 (if the 570 was priced sensibly of course) on the perf/price ratio, but now if we are talking about a vega 64 vs 1080, no, no one should be buying a 64 over a 1080 just because they have freesync and that is where the problem arises (and where AMDs marketing did well) :
People who want to use a sync tech are locked in to a brand there are no 2 ways around it, and there has been enough customer feedback be it on AMDs of Nvidia's side that proves that, now that is all fine and dandy being locked in if the brand is brining out good solutions priced correctly and that make sense, but when they aren't well these are the type of discussions that start ;)

Euh Nvidia will not drop the price of a Ti down to 450 so that question is irrelevant because exagerated, because it will not happen, that being said people have bought a 64 instead of a 1080 because they had freesync so I imagine people would also buy a 64 instead of a1080ti because they have freesync, heck people forked out 50£ less than a Ti (+ a new PSU)for a 64 because they had freesync. But yes I would buy a 1080ti at 450£ even if I had a freesync monitor but i'm part of those people who purchase depending on a sync tech because I don't care for the tech.
 
Last edited:
TonyTurbo78 said:
Card is great IMO. Loving gaming on it at the moment, doesn't hit 40c under hours of load in gaming, not one black screen or system hang. Making mince meat of 1440p gaming and goes lovely with my Freeysnc.

It's not 1080ti levels of perf, but it's still super fast in games, that's what matters to me. I'm more than happy with 80fps+ in a 12 game average test at 1440p with high graphic settings any day of the week. For £449 and coming from 390 crossfire, I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, sounds like a great switch for some people tbh! And that £449 price is probably its natural price-point :)
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
Card is great IMO. Loving gaming on it at the moment, doesn't hit 40c under hours of load in gaming, not one black screen or system hang. Making mince meat of 1440p gaming and goes lovely with my Freeysnc.

It's not 1080ti levels of perf, but it's still super fast in games, that's what matters to me. I'm more than happy with 80fps+ in a 12 game average test at 1440p with high graphic settings any day of the week. For £449 and coming from 390 crossfire, I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...

Good to see you happy, crossfire was not helping your gaming experience what so ever. Freesync and the 64 is a really good combo for 1440p especially under water where the reference cooler might have been a downer. Still some fine wine to come most likely :D:D:D:D:D.
 
Yeah the Vega 64 is perfect for the ultimate gaming experience resolution (IMO) just now: 3440x1440. Vega comes in to it's own at this resolution as demonstrated by this quite brilliant review:
 
ubersonic said:
TBH they're not really relevent, anyone with a brain will know they will be higher, he just benchmarked the two VEGA cards plus their Nvidia counterparts.
Click to expand...
But Vega 64 is AMD's top card, 1080 is Nvidia's 3rd from top card.
The Vega 64's price goes up to the same as some 1080Tis (well the Vega 64 LC) and the power usage is closer.
The only reason to compare it to (just) the 1080 is to make the results closer, thus making AMD look better. It seems like a lot of AMD bias if you're not at least including Nvidia's top card in charts showing AMD's top card. Have these sites always been biased or have AMD started paying off more of them?

Also, when AMD had their dual GPU cards 295x2 and Radeon Pro Duo (that was the dual Fury cards right?), where they not shown in graphs that had single GPU Nvidia (and AMD) cards in? Hardly counterparts but still shown in the same graphs. I guess that was ok though because it didn't make AMD look bad?

I guess you could argue:
Nvidia 600 series = AMD 7000 series
Nvidia 700 series = AMD 200 series
Nvidia 900 series = AMD 300 series and Fury cards
Nvidia 1000 series = AMD 400 series
Nvidia 1100 (?) series = AMD 500 series and Vega cards

So the 1080Ti and Vega cards not being the same gen probably gives a reason not to compare them, although that makes the 1080 comparison seem even more unfair. It also means AMD got the 500 and Vega cards out WAAAAAAAAAAAY before Nvidia got their next gen out!
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
Card is great IMO. Loving gaming on it at the moment, doesn't hit 40c under hours of load in gaming, not one black screen or system hang. Making mince meat of 1440p gaming and goes lovely with my Freeysnc.

It's not 1080ti levels of perf, but it's still super fast in games, that's what matters to me. I'm more than happy with 80fps+ in a 12 game average test at 1440p with high graphic settings any day of the week. For £449 and coming from 390 crossfire, I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't hit 40c under hours of gaming? Seriously? You under water? Even then I find it hard to believe.
 
spikerules said:
Doesn't hit 40c under hours of gaming? Seriously? You under water? Even then I find it hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Yes water cooled look in sig.

Here's a vid with overlay, 39c seems to be where my card sits at the most, which is the same for games and benches. At times it will flick to 40c but no sooner it does, it drops back down to 39c again.

 
Last edited:
TonyTurbo78 said:
Card is great IMO. Loving gaming on it at the moment, doesn't hit 40c under hours of load in gaming, not one black screen or system hang. Making mince meat of 1440p gaming and goes lovely with my Freeysnc.

It's not 1080ti levels of perf, but it's still super fast in games, that's what matters to me. I'm more than happy with 80fps+ in a 12 game average test at 1440p with high graphic settings any day of the week. For £449 and coming from 390 crossfire, I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...
Great to hear and great temps bud. 1080Ti is pretty much overkill (if there is such a thing) and my older 1080 would have coped just swell at 3440x1440 in truth, so your Vega 64 should be blitzing games :)
 
ubersonic said:
TBH they're not really relevent, anyone with a brain will know they will be higher, he just benchmarked the two VEGA cards plus their Nvidia counterparts.
Click to expand...
1080ti is a direct competitor to vega64 LC

Not in performance no, not even close but yes on price. Two similar priced cards should be compared.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
But Vega 64 is AMD's top card, 1080 is Nvidia's 3rd from top card.
The Vega 64's price goes up to the same as some 1080Tis (well the Vega 64 LC) and the power usage is closer.
The only reason to compare it to (just) the 1080 is to make the results closer, thus making AMD look better. It seems like a lot of AMD bias if you're not at least including Nvidia's top card in charts showing AMD's top card. Have these sites always been biased or have AMD started paying off more of them?
Click to expand...
Surely the most sensible comparison is to cards that cost the same. Everyone knows a 1080ti is faster but unless he was reviewing the liquid cooled Vega then it doesn't fall within the same price range.
 
B12B6 said:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...vega-56-und-vega-64-im-undervolting-test.html
Click to expand...

Hi, Thanks for the link as it's an interesting read, I didn't come away thinking the Vega 56 is faster than GTX 1080 though, Your posting 3 games in which the Vega 56 is faster in 2, The GTX 1080 used is a stock Founders model while the Vega's had both the undervolting stuff along with some memory overclocking so I can't see the Vega 56 averaging as faster than a 1080 in the real world, If it does once we get AIB's I'll be jumping on one (price dependant) but it won't, I think it's going to take AMD months to sand off the rough edges.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Sorry but I don't agree you are locked in anything - I did a budget build a few months ago. One of the best budget gaming monitors happened to have FreeSync on it. So are you telling me for £100 I should not specify that monitor if I used a Nvidia card instead??

The only other alternative would be a non-FreeSync monitor which might have been worse for gaming looking at the reviews.

That makes no sense dude.

In the end you should always make sure the monitor you are looking at is a solid monitor first and then the FreeSync/Gsync part is an added extra on top.
Click to expand...

Exactly, My monitor will also be an easier sell on the secondhand market when I replace it due to having Freesync.

Buying a monitor that doesn't have any type of sync is a mistake in this day and age. Until I can buy a decent Vega I won't be able to use Freesync but it's not that big a deal when Freesync doesn't put a big mark up on the pricing, Yes it would be nice to use it and I will when AMD get there act together but for now I have Fast sync enabled for what it's worth.
Unfortunately I think things are going to change with Freesync 2, I don't think it will be as high a mark up as G-sync adds but I'm pretty sure monitor makers like LG will use it as an excuse to increase a monitors price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom