Associate
Same here.
-
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.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Well it's valid just as much as saying 6 months ago you could get a 1070 at £300 and a 1080 at £400
Well you'll be waiting for quite a bit if you want a lower priced 4K@60 card, because AMD under delivered, Nvidia don't feel the need to release a new GPU
http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidias-next-gen-volta-gaming-gpus-arent-arriving-anytime-soon/
They can't be overpriced and bad and selling out at the same time.
Doesn't have to be miners wanting the cards.
It's the best overall at compute: https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/5/
Match it with the right task and it's the best performing and amazing value compared to the rivals its against there.
Would be interesting to see how the pro version -Vega FE stacks up vs the regular Vega 64 when the author updates it.
Doesn't have to be miners wanting the cards.
It's the best overall at compute: https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/5/
Match it with the right task and it's the best performing and amazing value compared to the rivals its against there.
Would be interesting to see how the pro version -Vega FE stacks up vs the regular Vega 64 when the author updates it.
Soldato
AIB Vega 56 will be the price to performance king. With the Achilles heel of higher power requirements and heat than ideal.
That's the positives. The negative is, I've never seen such a more poorly received GPU release by reviewers.
Oh and at current prices for Vega 64. Hell no!
That's the positives. The negative is, I've never seen such a more poorly received GPU release by reviewers.
Oh and at current prices for Vega 64. Hell no!
Wow, the prices now are absolute trash, no way Vega 64 is worth £550, even £450 was just about acceptable and no more. The AIO ones are silly money for the performance. Though in AMDs defence this is pure price gouging by retailers as the true MSRP in sterling should be ~£460 at best.
In the retailers defence, they're selling out so who can really tell them they're overpricing it.
Gamers?
The ones selling don't care who it goes to just that it goes. They're making bank on vega.
Soldato
This suits me just fine as I have just upgraded to a 1080.
Cheers for the link but I imagine they'll still release Volta in Q1/2 next year.
What they don't want to do is tell everyone when Volta is coming as some people like myself are prepared to wait rather than pay over the odds.
Sales-wise, it looks like AMD haven't done them any harm that's for sure.
Looks like I've got another 6 months or so of gaming at 1080P with my 480 for now unless Vega64 drops to £400.
Soldato
Does anyone here have any opinions on this "adaptive sync" thingy that I've seen mentioned in a few reviews? It appears, to me anyway, that you don't need a freesync monitor to have the option to prevent tearing, etc while gaming and seems to be a sort of poor man's freesync. I'd have thought if it works even fairly well in increasing image quality while gaming, then thats a gotta be a fairly big plus for the 56/64.
Thats about the only positive aspect I can think of with both the 56 and 64, again, too little, too late and too much.
Thats about the only positive aspect I can think of with both the 56 and 64, again, too little, too late and too much.
I agree, retailers do have the right to price at what the market allows. My post does seem like an attack on retailers but it was more to remind people true MSRP is what we need to go by, not gouged prices.
Yeah, its the HBM decision that has limited their adjustability on price.
It is pretty clear to me from the reviews that if you are looking at a 1070 class card that you are better off buying a Vega 56.
The 56 reviews are a reminder of the limitations of the 1070 card, especially when you get closer to the metal, where the 56 card gets close to the 1080 and in the case of Doom, actually beats the stock 1080 whilst pumping out over 100fps at 1440p. This is a clear indicator of the future performance of the card, no doubt the result will be repeated with Star Citizen and the new Wolfenstein game.
The 1080/64 decision is much harder because the 1080 AIB coolers are so good, no doubt the AIB 64 cards are in the wings but really it looks like Vega needed the extra cooling from day-1 due to the noise output.
At the priced retailers are asking the RX 64 is not even a viable option. I am locked into Freesync (I don't mean that in a bad way) and got an RX 64 at £450 which I felt was fair enough. At £550 for pre-order I would be sticking with my Fury X.
Adaptive Sync is the proper name for what AMD refers too as FreeSync.
Associate
No you see the 1080Ti is clearly mid range because the Titan Xp is the only top end card up in that exclusive bracket.
The 1080 is high end. The 1070 is borderline.
Soldato
My decision was based on:
Noise and heat from Vega would be too much for me. I have a case with average airflow and cooling.
I have an aging PSU, still going strong, but the 1080 is more efficient and a drop in replacement for my current card and the Vega 64 would require some modifications to my setup.
I'm also not sold on FreeSync and like the security of knowing that Gsync is a known quantity and meets a high standard.
Then comes history and reputation. Nvidia deliver year on year improvements. buying in to the ecosystems means I have the security that there will be some epic cards to come over the next few years.
AMD on the other hand are a lot more unreliable.
Associate
Higher frame rates still tear. More so in my experience. Freesync is about getting rid of tearing.
I dont follow your point.....
.
Sorry to snip your post but this last part needs to be qualified a bit IMHO. At stock settings AMD have pushed Vega well beyond it's peak efficiency. The fact that lowering the TDP in Wattman gives 95% of the performance for a significant reduction in Watts proves this.
From 214 W average gaming power using Powersaving mode, to 292 W at stock is a massive efficiency hit for only ~5% performance gains. It looks even worse when comparing lowest TDP settings at 200W compared to 316 W at turbo settings, all for less than 10% extra performance. Using the lower TDP settings also improve heat and noise levels.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/29.html
I feel AMD missed a trick and should have had the default setting at powersaving mode in Wattman. Then anyone clicking on higher TDP settings are choosing to kill efficiency in the name of performance. The reviews would IMHO have been far more forgiving at a GPU that was 5% slower but consuming ~90 W less power.
Typical AMD to be honest.
A Vega blower isn't going to be noticeably noisier than a 1080 blower.