xsimplyjosh

I know the pain haha, for me the 1080ti strix & pg279Q alone set me back 1870aud [1000 card + 870 monitor thru eBay 20% off promo] 
just those two components alone made up 2/3rds of my entire rig upgrade cost... x_x
 
that being said, if u can wait around a bit there probably will be another 20% off incoming sooner or so. there are a few monitors i can think of the top of my head if u want gsync... if not disregard this comment onwards: Viewsonic xg2703-gs , cheapest rrp so far for a monitor of that kind , acer prdator Xb271hu , PG279Q...
 
comparing base values. these monitors range between 900-1100aud as of now but if you do get one, expect it to last very long. 
 
- asthetics wise, PG279Q wins followed by predator, followed by Viewsonic. viewsonic if they had red accents instead of green i would have picked that immediately.
- price wise, viewsonic cheapest [900au] with pg279q most exp [1100au] n predator in between.
since all 3 use same panel as AU-Optronics, they are bound to have some degree of backlight bleed, but as long as u dont stare at a black screen 95% or think too hard its there, you'll be fine.
 
mine has a bit of blb on the top right n bottom right corners, but that minor con didnt put me off the experience i got with the monitor; smooth 1440p gameplay at 120-150hz. IPS is a huge bonus as i do photoediting alongside the gaming so that maters.
 
if you don't mind the slight dip in contrast and less color vibrancy for some savings, a TN panel is good. altho im kinda biased to IPS despite the higher cost, i tend to run monitors over a lifespan of at least 8+ years... as i don't play the constant upgrade game,
 
it doesn't make sense for PC desktop users, given the durability of these components & cooling potential far surpass that of inferior laptops [which i DESPISE].

Well forget I said anything gentleman. As you were and top of the morning to you. 

would be a waste to use it with air only if you ask me. only buy it if you know you gonna water cool it. because it is not a cheap card. gl

Can agree with this. Got a strix 1080ti oc for 550£ (1000aud) no vat due to overseas buyer. When it retails for 1399aud here. Huge difference.
 
you just needa do a sh*t ton of research im afraid. Thats the route i took when looking for my new graphics card.

or maybe the "reviewer" got lucky... and got offered the best haha
[not saying its a sht move by companies for positive reviews but eh im okay with a few compromises here and there no product was ever perfect to begin with]

agree. given amd had so much time to devise a product to 
companies should be getting more efficient in terms of power usage when related to better performance... not the other way round.
 
even from what i'm seeing now it's increased power for same performance. which is contradictory to how technology should move, most companies strive to devise products that use less or equivalent power for same performance [less power] OR greater performance [equivalent power]...
 
not to mention the refernce blower cards from vega released here... almost cost more than the strix 1080ti i got... which means amd is kinda flopping it in the australian market. Sure theres the HIS at 150$ lesser but I'm generally not a fan of blower cards i hate them, prefer open air cooler... and that being said with 900aud for a blower card that just matches a 1080 [40$ less than the 1080 aib strix].... vega is not enticing. paired that with the atrocious power consumption it demands and its clear nvidia has "the edge" with optimization. sure it does lose on a fair bits in some aspect vs vega but this is almost 14-15 month of progress.... and the prices dont entice either.
 
for those saying power is high, if the card ain't efficient. all it does is output more heat, which is wasted power => wasted costs...
i would bank personally on nvidia due to their sheer optimization of their chips. not being a fanboy but amd on a physical scale is a total joke in the radeon department... this is more of a downgrade [power use alone] rather than a step up after many months!

It was around night at the time I wrote it, so by mistake I wrote / instead of x for some portions. Anyways, maybe my formula was wrong, as my formula was usually the one told around mining forums for calculating power costs. But my point was that I dont understand why people are arguing over power costs for a gtx 1080 vs vega 64, when instead they should be doing gtx 1080ti vs vega 64, since they both cost the same, but the gtx 1080ti is more powerful.

Short answer: because they could not. 
 
Long answer: You have to understand what you are buying. It's this 
 
and they are made on these wafers
 
30mm-450mm-Silicon-Wafer-635x382.jpg
 
Now there are 2 ways you can make a GPU more powerful. You can either make the GPU die bigger, which means you can increase transitiors, or you make the architecture more efficient so the same GPU size is more powerful.
 
The disadvantage of making the GPU larger is you can make less wafer and it increases power consumption. Hence AMD would have beat the 1080 Ti in terms of FPS but it would come at the cost of insanely high power usage. Their architecture just isn't efficient enough to compete against Nvidia and even the 56 and 64 have more power usage than 1070 and 1080. 
No
 
Buy 1080 Ti  

AMD wanted an all purpose architecture for servers and pro users to use with their epyc CPUs, so they are not targeting the 1080 ti.
If they were targeting the 1080 ti then they would have put a lot more ROPs, vega is crippled by lack of ROPs and AMD doesn't seem to want to do much more than 4096 cores. A large portion of the die is taken up by the HBCC which means that the die size is similar to the 1080ti despite having gtx 1080 levels of compute units and graphics features.
EDIT: vega would only be able to beat the 1080 ti if the games are heavily utilising shaders (e.g. compute heavy workload)

No one is advertising against multi GPU setups. You are getting confused here. People reccomend going with the single highest end card you can over two lower tier cards. 

it's normal my graphics does the same thing also. But that being said what game are you playing?

doubt it. most cases only capable i think holding 4 max...
unless you can double up  or else a server rack is better.

doubt it. most cases only capable i think holding 4 max...
unless you can double up  or else a server rack is better.

you can still play you just don't get the freesync [or equivalent] advantage that's all... whether the tearing issue is a major priority for u to take care depends on your needs.
it will function as normal but the refresh rates will remain consistent so you might have some micro tearing in between some frames depending on the variability.

1060 or 1070 should be fine... would go for the former if i were you... 1070 was more designed for 1440p60 gaming in mind if not nearly.
if u can find a good deal on the 1070 over 1060 then do spring for it... if not then i'd most likely say the 1060 should suffice
 

Those are factory overclocks, but gpu boost brings it higher than the usual amount as seen on your gpu tweaking program.. If i leave it on OC mode standard @ 1708MHz [according to asus], GPU boost 3.0 brings it abit up to 1936MHz+... its just that.
 
the silicon lottery is there but to be honest it depends on how much you expect on your card. I'm perfectly fine operating at a max stable clock of 2050MHz which i've experimented, despite the fact I've seen some go higher [2100MHz] but would i notice the extra 50MHz not really i guess.
 
msi lightning z is another option i guess, if you are averse to water cooling. but that one spans nearly 1500aud here and is 3 slot.
 

The thing is, if you're rich enough to afford any of the competing top-of-the-line cards, IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER. STOP USING POWER DRAW IN GPU VALUE ARGUMENTS

These aren't 1080ti's or Titan X's. They are 2nd tier cards. Cost matters. If someone was Mr. Money bags then they wouldn't be buying these cards. Value matters. $100 over the course of a GPU lifespan is not an insignificant amount of money. It isn't HUGE, but it's worth considering. If someone lives in Australia where price is 4x as expensive, that's almost 50% of the GPU cost. Just in EXTRA power. That's not a small jump. I'm sorry that you don't care about money over time. Some people do, and to some people it matters. 

You get more performance with a 1080 over a 1060. You get clearer images with a 4k monitor over a 1080p monitor. You get nothing by paying higher prices for the same performance. 

Before the mining craze 1070's were going for $350 barely used and 980 TI's were going for $290'ish. Bought my Asus Strix 980 TI for $293.

not at all, if your electricity bill is low and vega 56 is cheaper than a gtx 1070 in your area, go for it, its better than a gtx 1070 in terms of raw performance and on games. 
remember it will be better after driver updates. 

Compare benchmarks for the workload you plan to put it through.
but in general, Vega is a spectacular flop.

agree. given amd had so much time to devise a product to 
companies should be getting more efficient in terms of power usage when related to better performance... not the other way round.
 
even from what i'm seeing now it's increased power for same performance. which is contradictory to how technology should move, most companies strive to devise products that use less or equivalent power for same performance [less power] OR greater performance [equivalent power]...
 
not to mention the refernce blower cards from vega released here... almost cost more than the strix 1080ti i got... which means amd is kinda flopping it in the australian market. Sure theres the HIS at 150$ lesser but I'm generally not a fan of blower cards i hate them, prefer open air cooler... and that being said with 900aud for a blower card that just matches a 1080 [40$ less than the 1080 aib strix].... vega is not enticing. paired that with the atrocious power consumption it demands and its clear nvidia has "the edge" with optimization. sure it does lose on a fair bits in some aspect vs vega but this is almost 14-15 month of progress.... and the prices dont entice either.
 
for those saying power is high, if the card ain't efficient. all it does is output more heat, which is wasted power => wasted costs...
i would bank personally on nvidia due to their sheer optimization of their chips. not being a fanboy but amd on a physical scale is a total joke in the radeon department... this is more of a downgrade [power use alone] rather than a step up after many months!

if vega was gonna beat 1080ti amd woulda been bragging already
good thing i bought my 1080ti b4 the card market went to hell lol
and now the miners know vega is the mining king the prices are gonna be as over inflated as buying nvidia anyway