Poll: The Vega Review Thread.

[Lokken86]

The review seemed to completely miss out the 1080Ti results...

Who cares...

 

[nashathedog]

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.

You're missing the big difference, Wanting to use Freesync is not the same as having to or feeling like you have to because you spent a lot of extra money on a monitor so it would have an adaptive sync tech.
Yes I wanted to stay with a Freesync capable gpu because my monitor supports Freesync but because Vega's not a product I'm happy buying at this point I ended up buying a 1080 which doesn't support Freesync, If the roles were reversed and I had bought a G-sync monitor which cost an additional 3 figure sum because of the G-sync tech used in it and I then had to run that without using G-sync that would bother me.

I hate that film more so the sequel with the dog. Yes it is a film but still a horrible sight to see and imagine.

Ooh I'll have to go and watch that...

 

[Blackjack Davy]

The review seemed to completely miss out the 1080Ti results...

And you managed to completely miss the point... Freesync, plus you're not comparing like for like at this price point.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

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.

It's the same card though, with a factory overclock and different cooler. You don't count every card with a different cooler and factory overclock as a different card. Unless in this instance you're trying desperately to make AMD look better. I've never seen people say it's pointless putting the Asus Strix card in the same graphs as a non-Strix card because they're different.

Who cares...

Me obviously!
I guess I should be used to the AMD bias on the forum by now!

And you managed to completely miss the point... Freesync, plus you're not comparing like for like at this price point.

The 1080 doesn't support Freesync either, so why is it on the graphs?
And there are Vega 64 up to the £800 price point, which includes 1080Tis.
Or because it's an AMD card do we apply special rules of "has to be the cheapest available cards only" or "The price has to be within <insert range that suits our argument>"?

 

[Hotwired]

Me obviously!

It is known that a 64 has been known to trade with a 1080 since before launch. Also that a 1080Ti beats both by a large amount.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

And there are Vega 64 up to the £800 price point, which includes 1080Tis.

An unfortunate necessity to indicate that you're making that claim on the forum of an etailer where this very day you can buy a 64 for £470, 1080 for £480 and 1080Ti for £680.

You should write to the reviewers and insist they extend their graphs X and Y another 50% to put the 1080Ti results in.

Make sure they understand it's for health reasons as it's stopping you sleeping.

 

[JediFragger]

It is known that a 64 has been known to trade with a 1080 since before launch.

That's more the AiO version though tbf.

 

[melmac]

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!

wow, you really come out with some completely contrived crap. I bet shortly you are going to come out with a statement saying these forums are AMD biased.

Vega 64 is competing against the 1080, Vega 56 is competing against the 1070. A guy does a review comparing the 1080 to the vega 64 and you are saying there is some kind of agenda because they didn't compare it to the 1080ti. If Vega 64 can barely keep up with a 1080, anyone with half a brain will know that the 1080ti is much faster.

Do you also forget that there are water cooled 1080's that are the same price as 1080ti's too.

Your posts are pure nonsense, making mountains out of molehills.

I guess I should be used to the AMD bias on the forum by now.

hahaha, look, as expected. When someone points out how wrong your posts are, you resort to this line. This forum is AMD Biased.

 

[AmateurExpert]

many are probably overspeccing their PSUs

Not in my build! I'm running a Vega64 (air) overclocked with +50% power limit on a Be Quiet! 600W PSU. Haven't set anything on fire yet .

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

wow, you really come out with some completely contrived crap. I bet shortly you are going to come out with a statement saying these forums are AMD biased.

Vega 64 is competing against the 1080, Vega 56 is competing against the 1070. A guy does a review comparing the 1080 to the vega 64 and you are saying there is some kind of agenda because they didn't compare it to the 1080ti. If Vega 64 can barely keep up with a 1080, anyone with half a brain will know that the 1080ti is much faster.

Do you also forget that there are water cooled 1080's that are the same price as 1080ti's too.

Your posts are pure nonsense, making mountains out of molehills.




hahaha, look, as expected. When someone points out how wrong your posts are, you resort to this line. This forum is AMD Biased.

My original point was that "heartburnron" said that the Vega 64 comes into it's own at 3440x1440 resolution, it seems this is only true if you exclude the cards that do it better.

Your point about there being 1080s the same price as some 1080Tis seems like another reason the 1080Ti could've been included in that graph.

It is known that a 64 has been known to trade with a 1080 since before launch. Also that a 1080Ti beats both by a large amount.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.



An unfortunate necessity to indicate that you're making that claim on the forum of an etailer where this very day you can buy a 64 for £470, 1080 for £480 and 1080Ti for £680.

You should write to the reviewers and insist they extend their graphs X and Y another 50% to put the 1080Ti results in.

Make sure they understand it's for health reasons as it's stopping you sleeping.

Well what they put in the review is up to them, posting that review in this thread was up to that poster, which is why I replied to that poster. I'm sorry if this confusing for you.

I'll let everyone go back to patting each other on the back that AMD have released something that might edge out a 16 month old Nvidia card.

 

[Gregster]

wow, you really come out with some completely contrived crap. I bet shortly you are going to come out with a statement saying these forums are AMD biased.

Vega 64 is competing against the 1080, Vega 56 is competing against the 1070. A guy does a review comparing the 1080 to the vega 64 and you are saying there is some kind of agenda because they didn't compare it to the 1080ti. If Vega 64 can barely keep up with a 1080, anyone with half a brain will know that the 1080ti is much faster.

Do you also forget that there are water cooled 1080's that are the same price as 1080ti's too.

Your posts are pure nonsense, making mountains out of molehills.




hahaha, look, as expected. When someone points out how wrong your posts are, you resort to this line. This forum is AMD Biased.

Googaly has a point though. When the Vega 64 was launched, a 1080 Ti could be had for the same money (and less in some instances), so a fair comparison would be seeing how Vega 64 fairs against the same (ish) priced 1080Ti. Whilst many of us knew that Vega was coming, price and performance was unknown, so a random guy looking to buy who isn't so clued up on what is what might have X amount of pounds to spend and wants to know what card is best for his money.

Saying Googaly comes out with some complete contrived crap is silly and what he said makes good sense.

 

[nashathedog]

LOL.

This joke just keeps getting funnier.

AMD/RTG employ thousands of people. They have more than one driver guy. First we had "oh, they're just Fiji drivers, when the real Vega drivers are released we could have +30% perf!". Then it was "There are loads of features that aren't working/enabled yet". Now "The drivers aren't ready and are fully of bugs."

All from a couple Tweets by Raja, interpreted very, very loosely to mean whatever people want them to mean.

But if you just read what AMD have said and don't try to put any spin on it, there's little reason to believe new drivers will deliver massive improvements in Vega.

I think we will see some big improvements over the coming months but based on how things have been with Vega so far it taking 6-12 months wouldn't be a surprise which is why I didn't buy another Vega and instead went with a 1080. I'll watch how things progress and consider Vega again in a few months time.

 

[nashathedog]

liking the 56 so far, spent the last couple of days just tweaking and benching but last night gave a it a proper gaming session, ran doom on max settings @3840x1600, i didnt limit the fps as i wanted to see if and when it went above and below the freesync range.
working out pretty good so far and did not drop below the 55 range and was getting mid 70's 80's most of the time and a few highs of 100 and odd so im going to need to limit the fps to 74.
i knew doom would be the best case scenario so going to try rise of the tomb raider later as i think this will be worse case scenario

Hi, Have you played around with undervolting at all?
Also what psu do you have?

 

[heartburnron]

My original point was that "heartburnron" said that the Vega 64 comes into it's own at 3440x1440 resolution, it seems this is only true if you exclude the cards that do it better.

Your point about there being 1080s the same price as some 1080Tis seems like another reason the 1080Ti could've been included in that graph.


Well what they put in the review is up to them, posting that review in this thread was up to that poster, which is why I replied to that poster. I'm sorry if this confusing for you.

I'll let everyone go back to patting each other on the back that AMD have released something that might edge out a 16 month old Nvidia card.

It does perform particularly well at 3440x1440 though - the review clearly shows that at 1080p an overclocked Vega 64 and an overclocked 1080 are evenly matched. However at 3440x1440 the Vega 64 pulls ahead. Surely it's fair to say that the 'Vega 64 comes in to it's own' at this resolution based on that? It is the standard reference card 64 he is reviewing and therefore he is comparing it to it's direct competitor both in price and performance, the 1080. I agree that it would be fair to compare the liquid cooled Vega 64 to the 1080Ti given they are both similarly priced but he isn't reviewing the liquid cooled Vega in the review, nor does he reference it. I think if he was trying to make AMD look good, as you're alluding to, he would have included the liquid cooled version. But he didn't. It's also fair to assume that the only card available significantly better at 3440x1440 is the 1080Ti so yes, this card has been excluded because it doesn't compete with the reference Vega 64 on either price of performance. The fact the Vega came out 16 months after Nvidia's 1000 series is certainly printed on a big stick to beat Vega with, but that doesn't actually take anything away from the experience or happiness of Vega owners, now that it's here, it doesn't matter.

 

[old gamer]

Hi, Have you played around with undervolting at all?
Also what psu do you have?

I have a corsair hx850, so far I've raised the memory to 950, power to 50%, core clock 2.5% and lower the voltage to 1050.
I've up the fan speed to 2800rpm and temps are holding 70ish

 

[Hotwired]

It is known that a 64 has been known to trade with a 1080 since before launch. Also that a 1080Ti beats both by a large amount.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

I'll let everyone go back to patting each other on the back that AMD have released something that might edge out a 16 month old Nvidia card.

Probably for the best.

It's obviously upsetting you that it's not 24/7 abuse of AMD failing to beat Nvidia in here. You're waving this massive brush around at "everyone" now.

 

[melmac]

Googaly has a point though. When the Vega 64 was launched, a 1080 Ti could be had for the same money (and less in some instances), so a fair comparison would be seeing how Vega 64 fairs against the same (ish) priced 1080Ti. Whilst many of us knew that Vega was coming, price and performance was unknown, so a random guy looking to buy who isn't so clued up on what is what might have X amount of pounds to spend and wants to know what card is best for his money.

Saying Googaly comes out with some complete contrived crap is silly and what he said makes good sense.

What point does he have? It's putting drama where there is no drama. It's putting AMD bias where there is no AMD bias. Saying that that reviewer has paid by, really? And that makes good sense Greg? It's making mountains out of molehills. And your post makes no sense either. The video he is complaining about came out after Vega launched, all the reviews came out after Vega launched, so why would a guy make his purchasing decision based on knowing nothing. There are loads of reviews out there now.

Besides Did you even watch the video? He mentions all of the faults. The only positive spin he puts on it, is that it's good for Freesync owners to finally have a more powerful card to upgrade to. So tell me what exactly is wrong with that? Googaly is complaining that it's AMD biased because it doesn't have a 1080ti in it. It's not competing against the 1080ti. It's a mid range card at same tier as the 1080/1070 The Titan and 1080ti are in the tier above it. There are several reviews that don't compare it to the 1080ti, look at the hardocp one, only compare it to the 1080 and 1070.

And When Vega 64 launched prices were gouged, when the 1080 was launched prices were gouged. It always happens at launch. It's been the same for every launch for years. If you compare launch prices of the 1080 and Vega 64 they are about the same. In fact Vega 64 is much cheaper than the 1080 launch price. Remember back when the 1080 launch and people were giving out about prices? You (and D.P. and others) kept saying that you can't use UK launch prices because of the price of the pound, gouging, etc and we should look at MSRP only. So why aren't we using MSRP for the AMD cards? and that price is $499. You can buy cards right now for £469. If you want to do stupid comparisons, shouldn't we just take the most expensive watercooled 1080 and say that the 1080 and 1080ti are on the same tier and should be compared directly and that most expensive watercooled 1080 is a baseline for 1080 prices. No, we wouldn't because it's idiotic.

And no, his post makes no sense what so ever.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

It does perform particularly well at 3440x1440 though - the review clearly shows that at 1080p an overclocked Vega 64 and an overclocked 1080 are evenly matched. However at 3440x1440 the Vega 64 pulls ahead. Surely it's fair to say that the 'Vega 64 comes in to it's own' at this resolution based on that? It is the standard reference card 64 he is reviewing and therefore he is comparing it to it's direct competitor both in price and performance, the 1080. I agree that it would be fair to compare the liquid cooled Vega 64 to the 1080Ti given they are both similarly priced but he isn't reviewing the liquid cooled Vega in the review, nor does he reference it. I think if he was trying to make AMD look good, as you're alluding to, he would have included the liquid cooled version. But he didn't. It's also fair to assume that the only card available significantly better at 3440x1440 is the 1080Ti so yes, this card has been excluded because it doesn't compete with the reference Vega 64 on either price of performance. The fact the Vega came out 16 months after Nvidia's 1000 series is certainly printed on a big stick to beat Vega with, but that doesn't actually take anything away from the experience or happiness of Vega owners, now that it's here, it doesn't matter.

Why do people keep acting like the Vega 64 LC is a different card to the Vega 64 air-cooled?
It's just an overclock and a different cooler isn't it? We don't class every 3rd party card with a different cooler and a factory overclock as a different card do we?
Vega 56 and Vega 64 are different, but how is the liquid cooled Vega 64 any different than the air cooled Vega 64?

 

[shankly1985]

Meanwhile I just enjoy playing games with much better performance

 

[Gregster]

What point does he have? Snip

Well I explained it all but you have chosen not to see it for some odd reason. Anyways, your choice and I am not fussed.

 

[Martini1991]

Meanwhile I just enjoy playing games with much better performance

So were the 1080 owners 16 months ago.

While I maintain my stance and stick to my 290x