Rx Vega 64 vs RTX 2060

[Stefan Payne]

13 minutes ago, Slaviak said:

Ah,  I still don't actually know,  which one to get. I just want that future proof. 

There isn't really one.

BUT:
From experience we know that AMD Cards age a bit better

 

VEGA Cards have something called "HBCC", wich can mitigate too high VRAM Consumption and still offer good fps/a good experience.

13 minutes ago, Slaviak said:

The RTX is newer,  however the amd  cards tend to be like the wine - they perform better as times goes on and nvidia are not like that but still they will keep the rtx up to date because it is their diamond series

Well, ask in 2 years or so

But the DLSS is some stuff where you need "Compatibility Tables" because it only works under certain conditions for certain cards for whatever reason.

 

And the disadvantage of all RTX Cards is the rediculously low Amount of VRAM for the price...

 

And the new Console Generation comes next year or so wich will increase the VRAM demand of games as that is the lead plattform.

 

So the +2GiB VRAM and HBCC might give the VEGA a bit longer life than the 2060 with only 6GiB VRAM, wich is already on the low side, especially for a 300€ Card.

[Slaviak]

33 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

There isn't really one.

BUT:
From experience we know that AMD Cards age a bit better

 

VEGA Cards have something called "HBCC", wich can mitigate too high VRAM Consumption and still offer good fps/a good experience.

Well, ask in 2 years or so

But the DLSS is some stuff where you need "Compatibility Tables" because it only works under certain conditions for certain cards for whatever reason.

 

And the disadvantage of all RTX Cards is the rediculously low Amount of VRAM for the price...

 

And the new Console Generation comes next year or so wich will increase the VRAM demand of games as that is the lead plattform.

 

So the +2GiB VRAM and HBCC might give the VEGA a bit longer life than the 2060 with only 6GiB VRAM, wich is already on the low side, especially for a 300€ Card.

Still I am first going to stick with 1080p for some time and then change. 6GB are enough for 1080p in the future but for 1440p probably not. 

The only cons in the vega is the power consumption but I think with a nice under volt I will be able to lower it. Not like Watts matter to me.  

IMO I think that the vega is a better choice but what about just 1080p gaming,  I am going to be with a 1080p monitor for 1 more year

[Slaviak]

I dunno 

[Stefan Payne]

15 minutes ago, Slaviak said:

Still I am first going to stick with 1080p for some time and then change. 6GB are enough for 1080p in the future but for 1440p probably not. 

That's the same stuff people thought about 2GiB vs. 3GiB VRAM back in the day.

Ahh, 2GiB is enough for 720p/1080p. 3GiB don't matter.

 

Well, that was back in 2012 and 2013, so about the time the PS4 came around. And after the release, a year or two later, the 2GiB were total shit and a serious disadvantage....

 

Another thing to think about:
The resolution isn't that much. We are talking about a couple of Gigabytes of VRAM.

1920x1080 are around 63,28125MiB per picture

2560x1440 are about 112,5MiB per picture

Although its about double, even with 3 Pictures we're talking about 337,5MiB for 1440p vs. 189,84375MiB.

 

That's a difference of only ~148MiB. 

With 6GIB vs. 8 GiB VRAM, that's negligable.

 

So that is really NOT the issue. Its the Texture and how the game works/uses the VRAM.

 

Often a Game puts all the Textures and other stuff of a level into the memory and loads as needed.

 

Wich is said to cause serious problems in Geothermal Valley in the second Tomb Raider Reboot.

Or rather: ~10GiB VRAM Demand under max Settings and certain situations...

 

Remember that Consoles are what really dictates the content. It can be more on PC but (almost) every game you can purchase today has to run well on Consoles.

 

That said, this gen consoles are limited to 8GiB RAM total, wich is shared between CPU and GPU.

In the last ~6 Years, the VRAM demand drastically increased - up until the amount that is reasonable on the Consoles. Wich is around 6-8GiB.

 

The first time a mainstreamish GPU came with 8GiB VRAM was ~4 Years ago with the R9-390

 

With that said: With 8GiB VRAM you have 33% more VRAM than with 6...

 

Quote

The only cons in the vega is the power consumption but I think with a nice under volt I will be able to lower it. Not like Watts matter to me.  

The beauty of VEGA is that its everything you want it to be.

If you want a very efficient card and are willing to sacrifice a bit of performance, you can have that.

If you want max. performance, that's possible too.

 

I fiddled with my VEGA 64 (Ntiro+) a bit and got it to work with a 400W PSU easily.

Quote

IMO I think that the vega is a better choice but what about just 1080p gaming,  I am going to be with a 1080p monitor for 1 more year

If you read all the shit I've written (condolences for that ;)), I'd say the resolution doesn't matter that mich with the amount of VRAM we have.

What really matters is the Content of the game (=Textures) and how the game manages the VRAM...

 

 

But with the next gen Consoles close I'd rather be safe and have a bit more VRAM...

 

[Slaviak]

5 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

With that said: With 8GiB VRAM you have 33% more VRAM than with 6...

 

The beauty of VEGA is that its everything you want it to be.

If you want a very efficient card and are willing to sacrifice a bit of performance, you can have that.

If you want max. performance, that's possible too.

 

I fiddled with my VEGA 64 (Ntiro+) a bit and got it to work with a 400W PSU easily.

If you read all the shit I've written (condolences for that ;)), I'd say the resolution doesn't matter that mich with the amount of VRAM we have.

What really matters is the Content of the game (=Textures) and how the game manages the VRAM...

 

 

But with the next gen Consoles close I'd rather be safe and have a bit more VRAM...

 

Well 8GB are preferable. And what about the Vega 56. Now i started paying attention to it and how does it perform compared to the Vega 64.

Here there is a much cheaper model - the msi air boost(blower style) - around 353euros

There is also the Asus rog Strix Vega 56 - around 380euros

 

Is the MSI Air boost Vega 56 a better options in terms of value compared to the Asus Rog Strix Vega 64. And what about the performace difference between the vega 56 and vega 64. I see it is around 6 fps in most of the games so it is not that much I think.

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, Slaviak said:

And what about the Vega 56. Now i started paying attention to it and how does it perform compared to the Vega 64.

Slightly slower, obvious, as it does only come with 

3584/224/64 instead of:

4096/256/64

 

And a far lower TDP of only 210W instead of 295W...

4 hours ago, Slaviak said:

Here there is a much cheaper model - the msi air boost(blower style) - around 353euros

AVOID AT ALL COST!

Blower Cards are not good, they are loud, very hot and don't have reason to exist today.

4 hours ago, Slaviak said:

There is also the Asus rog Strix Vega 56 - around 380euros

 

Is the MSI Air boost Vega 56 a better options in terms of value compared to the Asus Rog Strix Vega 64. And what about the performace difference between the vega 56 and vega 64. I see it is around 6 fps in most of the games so it is not that much I think.

No, if you get a VEGA Card, get one with a custom cooler, not the reference blower one. That one is said to be really loud and really not good.

 

The difference is not that big, but you get a cheaper and a bit more efficient card.

 

And the 27€ for the better cooler are totally worth it.

[maartendc]

12 hours ago, Slaviak said:

Ah,  I still don't actually know,  which one to get. I just want that future proof. 

The RTX is newer,  however the amd  cards tend to be like the wine - they perform better as times goes on and nvidia are not like that but still they will keep the rtx up to date because it is their diamond series

The Vega 64 is already faster by 12%, and like you said, the AMD cards tend to age better. Go for the Vega for sure! In 2 years time, the Vega will be like 20% faster.

 

Look at the RX480 RX 580 and GTX 1060. They used to be on par. But already now, only 2 years later, RX580 beats it easily in most games by a pretty wide margin (10%+). Check Hardware Unboxed latest version on this topic. 

 

The only reason to get an RTX 2060 would be Ray tracing. But then again, the RTX 2060 is not fast enough to run everything on Ultra with Raytracing on, so you will likely never use it anyway. So better go for the Vega 64.

 

Be aware than Vega will use (way) more power. But that should not be a big deal if you get a good quality PSU and a good cooler. Asus Strix are good cards usually.

[Slaviak]

15 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Look at the RX480 RX 580 and GTX 1060. They used to be on par. But already now, only 2 years later, RX580 beats it easily in most games by a pretty wide margin (10%+). Check Hardware Unboxed latest version on this topic. 

Ah I remember when the gtx 1060 was destroying the rx 480, 570 and 580 in most of the games.

46 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The difference is not that big, but you get a cheaper and a bit more efficient card.

You know what, f*ck efficiency I will go for the Vega 64 - powerful == better

 

And when I think about it my room is small and in the winter instead of burning woods, I can save them with playing games with the Vega. So a small part of the money for the electricity will be for warming up the flat

[Slaviak]

23 minutes ago, maartendc said:

The only reason to get an RTX 2060 would be Ray tracing. But then again, the RTX 2060 is not fast enough to run everything on Ultra with Raytracing on, so you will likely never use it anyway. So better go for the Vega 64.

I think that the rtx 2060 is useless and it is a waste of money because you can get a 1070ti for 80 eur less than both v64 and 2060

[maartendc]

16 hours ago, Slaviak said:

I think that the rtx 2060 is useless and it is a waste of money because you can get a 1070ti for 80 eur less than both v64 and 2060

Yeah the RTX cards are really only better if you want the new functions such as Raytracing, but it is all pretty much a gimmick IMO at this point. Not enough games support it, and it comes at too big a performance penalty. Maybe in 2-3 generations time, we will see.

 

If you want a RTX 2080, you are better off with a used 1080Ti: same performance, way cheaper used

If you want a RTX 2070, you are better of with a used 1080: a little bit slower, but way cheaper used

If you want a RTX 2060 you are better off with a used 1070Ti or a new Vega 64: faster and cheaper.

 

Only the 2080Ti makes sense, if you want the absolute fastest.

 

This whole 20 series pricing / performance is a big joke.

[LienusLateTips]

22 hours ago, Slaviak said:

And when I think about it my room is small and in the winter instead of burning woods, I can save them with playing games with the Vega. So a small part of the money for the electricity will be for warming up the flat

This does actually work, with my Vega.

[Vejnemojnen]

6 hours ago, maartendc said:

Yeah the RTX cards are really only better if you want the new functions such as Raytracing, but it is all pretty much a gimmick IMO at this point. Not enough games support it, and it comes at too big a performance penalty. Maybe in 2-3 generations time, we will see.

 

If you want a RTX 2080, you are better off with a used 1080Ti: same performance, way cheaper used

If you want a RTX 2070, you are better of with a used 1080: a little bit slower, but way cheaper used

If you want a RTX 2060 you are better off with a used 1070Ti or a new Vega 64: faster and cheaper.

 

Only the 2080Ti makes sense, if you want the absolute fastest.

 

This whole 20 series pricing / performance is a big joke.

actually 2060 is pretty good from a price to performance point of view. Costs a tiny more than 1660ti, or RX590, but offers far better performance.

 

feel free to check the comparisons in the article above. I'd call it nice performance, esp that it costs less than a non-TI 1070 and waay cheaper than vega64

[MeatFeastMan]

1 minute ago, Vejnemojnen said:

actually 2060 is pretty good from a price to performance point of view. Costs a tiny more than 1660ti, or RX590, but offers far better performance.

 

feel free to check the comparisons in the article above. I'd call it nice performance, esp that it costs less than a non-TI 1070 and waay cheaper than vega64

Oh, nobody is hating on the performance of the 2060. The big fat glaring problem with it is the fact that on a card that powerful, you only get a measly 6gb VRAM. It's madness, it really is.

 

The whole plan from Nvidia here is to force you to do one of two things:

A. Buy the 2060, suffer a year or two down the line due to lack of vram, then buy Nvidia's next generation because you can't bare the stuttery mess anymore.

B. Pay crazy money for the 2070, for just 10% better performance over the 2060 and 2gb more vram.

 

It's a choice Nvidia force you into. Either your performance suffers, or your wallet does. Take your pick.

 

And that's why Vega is there to save the day. If you want RTX 2070, you get Vega 64 instead for cheaper. Better cooler design for the price (Usually Nitro+), 8gb VRAM + HBCC.

 

I bought Radeon VII and I will never regret it. I refused to buy a 4k capable card with 8gb vram, I hope others do the same.

[Stefan Payne]

20 hours ago, Vejnemojnen said:

actually 2060 is pretty good from a price to performance point of view. Costs a tiny more than 1660ti, or RX590, but offers far better performance.

as @MeatFeastMan mentioned, no its not.

Because at the tiny amount more than 1660ti, you can also get VEGA56 or even 64 on sale, wich is no worse and has 8GiB VRAM, not just 6.

 

Quote

feel free to check the comparisons in the article above. I'd call it nice performance, esp that it costs less than a non-TI 1070 and waay cheaper than vega64

There are other benchmarks that are not ~6 Months old, with ~6 Month old drivers, that show that VEGA56 can compete pretty well with the 2060 as well.

 

And way cheaper than VEGA64??

350 vs. 380€ is not really wayy cheaper...

250 vs 350€ is wayy cheaper. 350 vs. 380€ is only slightly cheaper...

[Vejnemojnen]

@Stefan Payne Thanks for clearing that up. I must admit, I only browsed through prices locally, and, 2060 is cheaper by far, not to mention, that Vega64 here only available as Strix Asus, which I always find overpriced. So i was a bit restrictive with my scope.

 

As I knew, RTX2060 also had driver updates, which optimized-improved performance, this is esp. seen against 1070-1070ti comparisons. Of course AMD cards "age better", ie.: the 570-580 is performing now vastly over that what was the case after introduction.

 

Right now in my native country, the best-buy graphics cards nowadays: RX570, GTX1060, GTX1660 (sans Ti), Vega 56 and GTX2060. The rest are a bit overpriced. RX580 was a very fine choice up until a few weeks ago, but now the prices climbed a little. Same for 1660Ti, hardly worth it (basically almost as much as 2060 or Vega56, but performance-wise the latter two is clearly superieur.)

 

I'll be eager to see, how will 6GB VRAM suffice in the next few years to come. Esp for QHD-2K.

[maartendc]

17 hours ago, Vejnemojnen said:

actually 2060 is pretty good from a price to performance point of view. Costs a tiny more than 1660ti, or RX590, but offers far better performance.

 

feel free to check the comparisons in the article above. I'd call it nice performance, esp that it costs less than a non-TI 1070 and waay cheaper than vega64

I dont really understand how you can call it good price to performance. Sure, if you leave out certain cards, it looks good. And it is one of the better RTX cards.

 

But fact of the matter is still that a Vega 64 is $380 USD right now, and RTX 2060 $350. But Vega 64 is faster by about 10% depending on the game, and the difference will probably grow over time. Likewise, the GTX 1070Ti can be found for $290 on Ebay used, and beats the RTX 2060.

 

Of course everything depends on local pricing as you say. But still locally, you should be able to pick up a 1070Ti cheaper used than a RTX 2060. Which would be my choice in that case.

[Stefan Payne]

5 hours ago, Vejnemojnen said:

As I knew, RTX2060 also had driver updates, which optimized-improved performance,

Not really, as always with nVidia. The Performance doesn't change too much.

But what they have is driver issues - in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands for example.

Wich had a crash on inventory situation - wich wasn't fixed until just recently.

People say that now it crashes randomly...

 

Quote

Right now in my native country, the best-buy graphics cards nowadays: RX570, GTX1060, GTX1660 (sans Ti), Vega 56 and GTX2060. The rest are a bit overpriced.

Its the same in many countrys
RX580 is a bit more than RX570 but only 10-20€, same with the 590.

 

Quote

I'll be eager to see, how will 6GB VRAM suffice in the next few years to come. Esp for QHD-2K.

Well, Problem is:
Next gen Consoles are to be released soon™, wich then in turn will increase the VRAM demand.

 

It was the same with this gen consoles. With them to be released, the VRAM demand on PC increased quite a bit....

Also: 8GiB VRAM for higher end was released back in 2014...

[Master Disaster]

Well I played around with undervolting my Vega today. I'm pretty sure Asus have already messed with the power profiles OOTB as mine was clocked higher from stock than most of the guides I used achieved after undervolting but I carried on anyway.

 

I managed to push it from 1620Mhz to 1660Mhz by lowering voltage to 1100mv, increasing power limit to 30% and increasing the fan curve to compensate for the extra heat. I also managed to push the RAM up to 1000Mhz from 600Mhz.

 

The results were impressive, my score in 3D Mark went from 7400 to 7600, considering I was aiming for anywhere north of 7500 that's a result. My temps were also lower post undervolt meaning I gained performance and lost some heat, the tradeoff is more noise under load which I can live with.