Liquid Vega 64 - 4K Testing?

[ch3w2oy]

So I'm kind of interested in the Radeon VII coming out next month, but I like literally just bought my new LC Vega. I'm trying to decide if it's worth keeping, but I don't have many games yet and don't feel like just buying them to test them out. Not yet anyway. I just built my PC and my budget is tight. I plan on using the 3 game codes that came with it (Division 2, Resident Evil 2, Devil May Cry 5), but only one comes out this month, the other two are due in March. 

 

Anyway... I can't tell from benchmarking software if this card is enough. I just installed Gta V and I get a solid 60fps on my 4k 60hz maxed out. Is this game good enough to be the deciding factor? I know it's an old game at this point. Which is why I need help. 

 

My superposition score at 1080p Extreme was 5,138. 

 

What other things can I do to tell if it will perform as I would like it to? What benchmarks are similar to real life games? 

 

I don't want to download a new game sometime this year and not be able to play it comfortably. I know to reduce a few settings here and there that aren't really needed, but if it's sacrificing too much, I would rather get rid of it while it's still worth something..

 

Any ideas, thoughts? I really don't want Nvidia. And if the VII really competes with the 2080 than I would say that's more future proof anyway.

 

How can I tell if this is good enough for my 4K 60hz needs? I might upgrade to a faster monitor (don't know if they exist) or go with an ultrawide 1440p 100hz+, but probably not for a while.

 

I know this is a great card but I just feel like I might end up stuck with something thats going to lose its value once AMD releases its other cards, and I don't think the VII will be the only one. If it plays fine and can hold its own then I probably won't have a problem holding on to it. I more less bought this card because it was a great deal and didn't want the 2070.

 

Also, why does GTA V limit my fps to my monitors refresh rate? Like it didn't drop below 60 the whole time playing at 4k and it looks amazing but I would like to know what fps I'm actually getting, there's no way it just stays consistent at 60fps.. Ideas? 

 

Thanks for any feedback or ideas! 

[riklaunim]

Wait for Navi or what/if Nvidia could drop by the end of year, although big Navi was rumored for 2020 not 2019. It's easy to order a new GPU and you can do that only when actually needed, especially when Radeon 7 isn't the "best value" and while there are no third party benchmarks of it (especially vs Vega 64 and FE). Without any OC I get Superposition 1080p Extreme: 4540 with 1920X and Vega 64 (air-based so with lower power limit and base clocks) - both on custom AiO.

 

Quote

Also, why does GTA V limit my fps to my monitors refresh rate?

vsync, explicit framerate limit in game or in radeon settings.

[pstarlord]

First party benchmarks always need to be taken with a grain of salt.  Wait until reviewers get the card and find a general consensus that way.  You Vega 64 LC is and will be a very solid option for GPU.  Maybe not at 4K on every game, but when it really comes down to it 1440p and 4k are almost indistinguishable on a standard monitor and gaming distance used by a majority of gamers.  I know I'm not alone when I say FPS over resolution.  The Vega 64 will get you great performance at 1440p.  

[Bananasplit_00]

Just keep the Vega untill it doesn't perform well. It's still a nice card

[Madgemade]

3 hours ago, ChewToy! said:

My superposition score at 1080p Extreme was 5,138. 

That's a pretty decent score. The record on hwbot is 5447. I'm guessing you haven't overclocked at all so your card is probably a good sample, it is the LC edition after all. Might be interesting to see what the ASIC score in GPU-Z is. If it turns out to be a good overclocker then you can always do that later to make it last longer.

 

In benchmarks Vega 64 is pretty much on par with stock RTX 2070 in most games or only a little behind. As you have the liquid cooled card you will be scoring higher than seen in benchmarks.

 

The Radeon 7 is probably going to be around 20% faster on average which puts it about with the RTX 2080 in benchmarks. Your card is probably already 5% faster than stock air cooler Vega 64 and with overclocking I imagine it can get to 10% faster so really there will only be a 10% difference between your card OC'd and the Radeon 7 stock. If radeon 7 overclock really well then that might change things, but I doubt it will because otherwise AMD would have increased the stock clocks to get a ahead of Nvidia.

[andrewmp6]

When it comes to games some just like nvidia or amd better.Like gta 5 likes nvidia better is why you see benchmarks higher that way.But some games like bf1 you will see maybe 80fps 4k.bf5 last time i checked a vega 64 would be mid 50s fps on mid settings,No clue if any updates made this any better.Mid 50s fps would keep it in freesync range if you have a freesync monitor.To me as a gamer i rather play 1440p at 100fps on a amazing 1440p ultra wide monitor.4k is cool to watch on a tv but gaming on it to a frame rate id like is more money then id spend to get it.

[ch3w2oy]

7 hours ago, pstarlord said:

 

 

 

8 hours ago, riklaunim said:

 

So it's worth holding on to? I know I can always change the resolution as well, I just don't want to feel like I'm losing out when something better is just around the corner..I think that's my biggest issue with all this.

 

Is 70fps 4k good in GTA V? I get high 60s low 70s after I disable vsync. I don't care about going over 60 as it's out of my freesync range, but like I said I might eventually get a better monitor.. When I ask about this being good, I don't mean for GTA, because that is good lol, I just don't know how that compares to other games at 4k. I know games vary, but just kind of want an idea..

 

5 hours ago, Madgemade said:

I'm guessing you haven't overclocked at all so your card is probably a good sample, it is the LC edition after all. 

Actually that's with me undervolting and overclocking just the memory. I also had to lower the core clock to increase the mem clock.

[Madgemade]

37 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

Actually that's with me undervolting and overclocking just the memory. I also had to lower the core clock to increase the mem clock.

Nice, upping memory is a good plan for Vega 64 because it is supposed to be bandwidth starved.

70fps at 4K in GTA V is pretty good. If it's already capable of going out of your Freesync range then I don't think you have anything to gain at all by upgrading. All that would happen is you might get better power use for the same capped 60 fps.

 

Yesterday there was someone asking about upgrading for Cyberpunk 2077. You should just wait now until you need to upgrade. Upgrading straight away means that you will pay the highest prices. Wait and the prices will fall. if you wait over a year then AMD might have released their next gen high end GPU. Big Navi or whatever the rumors are, plus Nvidia will have released some new stuff by then too.

[pstarlord]

2 hours ago, ChewToy! said:

 

So it's worth holding on to? I know I can always change the resolution as well, I just don't want to feel like I'm losing out when something better is just around the corner..I think that's my biggest issue with all this.

 

Is 70fps 4k good in GTA V? I get high 60s low 70s after I disable vsync. I don't care about going over 60 as it's out of my freesync range, but like I said I might eventually get a better monitor.. When I ask about this being good, I don't mean for GTA, because that is good lol, I just don't know how that compares to other games at 4k. I know games vary, but just kind of want an idea..

 

If your monitor peaks at 60hz, that should be you next upgrade, not a new GPU.  

 

Here's my two cents on 4K gaming, and I don't think my rationality is out of the ordinary for many gamers.  1440p, ultra settings, with anti aliasing on, at 144Hz, is a MUCH better experience than 4K, high settings, no anti aliasing and 60Hz.  144Hz gaming just feels and responds better than 60.  On a static image, you can't tell the difference, but once the action starts in a game, seeing how much more fluid the character moves at higher FPS just makes the gaming experience that much better.  Not to mention, the actual advantage you get while playing against other people online. 

 

Just do a quick youtube search for any card you're interested in and you can find a 1080/1440/4k comparison of them.  You can watch a demo of the Witcher III at 4K, all settings maxed out, and for the most part its running around 80ish FPS, but once a battle starts and you NEED that FPS it dips to low 60s.  Don't get me wrong, that's still impressive as hell, and isn't a terrible gaming experience.  But I'd still take 1440p at 90+ FPS during those fights. 

 

And to touch quickly on your "I just don't want to feel like I'm losing out when something better is just around the corner"  There will always be something better just around the corner.  When you have a card on the 1070/Vega 56 level and higher (as you do) you are going to be able to use that for quite a while before you need to upgrade.  Until a revolutionary new tech is introduce AND implemented into games, you won't be missing anything exciting.  Seems like Ray Tracing is quite a ways off from being not only useful, but incorporated into enough games to even matter, so you aren't really missing anything there.  The Radeon VII card that's coming out soon may very well be a solid upgrade to your current Vega 64, but you should wait until there are reviews out and what not to make a final decision on that.  If you feel that spending $700 on how ever much of an upgrade it ends up being is worth it to you, then by all means, go for it.  

[riklaunim]

3 hours ago, ChewToy! said:

So it's worth holding on to?

Yes, one minor generation over Vega 64 doesn't really gives that expected generation performance uplift. At least gen +2 is needed. And if you overdo with 4K gaming then your only option will be one or for some games two RTX 2080Ti. If you go with 1440p or sane 4k framerate Vega 64 will be good for current and most if not all future games within few upcoming years.

[Madgemade]

1 hour ago, pstarlord said:

1440p, ultra settings, with anti aliasing on, at 144Hz, is a MUCH better experience than 4K, high settings, no anti aliasing and 60Hz. 

I wouldn't necessarily agree that anti aliasing off at 4K makes it much worse. I play BF1@4K on my old system without AA and I really don't notice it much. At 4K it's much less noticeable. This does vary game to game and there are some games out there which are poorly designed and look terrible without it on, but more games it is not a deal breaker in and my opinion it is one of the last things you want to turn on at 4K considering the affect on FPS that it has. I notice the OP has a 32" 4K Acer probably the same model that I have but on a smaller monitor like the 24" that you can buy AA is probably even less noticeable.

 

It's very true about the fights when you need FPS and that's usually when it drops. I notice this a lot if Battlefield and so I always target 20% over 60 fps when out of battle so that you get a lot of explosions etc. you still have 60fps on tap.

[ch3w2oy]

2 hours ago, pstarlord said:

If your monitor peaks at 60hz, that should be you next upgrade, not a new GPU.  

 

Here's my two cents on 4K gaming, and I don't think my rationality is out of the ordinary for many gamers.  1440p, ultra settings, with anti aliasing on, at 144Hz, is a MUCH better experience than 4K, high settings, no anti aliasing and 60Hz.  144Hz gaming just feels and responds better than 60.  On a static image, you can't tell the difference, but once the action starts in a game, seeing how much more fluid the character moves at higher FPS just makes the gaming experience that much better.  Not to mention, the actual advantage you get while playing against other people online. 

 

Just do a quick youtube search for any card you're interested in and you can find a 1080/1440/4k comparison of them.  You can watch a demo of the Witcher III at 4K, all settings maxed out, and for the most part its running around 80ish FPS, but once a battle starts and you NEED that FPS it dips to low 60s.  Don't get me wrong, that's still impressive as hell, and isn't a terrible gaming experience.  But I'd still take 1440p at 90+ FPS during those fights. 

 

And to touch quickly on your "I just don't want to feel like I'm losing out when something better is just around the corner"  There will always be something better just around the corner.  When you have a card on the 1070/Vega 56 level and higher (as you do) you are going to be able to use that for quite a while before you need to upgrade.  Until a revolutionary new tech is introduce AND implemented into games, you won't be missing anything exciting.  Seems like Ray Tracing is quite a ways off from being not only useful, but incorporated into enough games to even matter, so you aren't really missing anything there.  The Radeon VII card that's coming out soon may very well be a solid upgrade to your current Vega 64, but you should wait until there are reviews out and what not to make a final decision on that.  If you feel that spending $700 on how ever much of an upgrade it ends up being is worth it to you, then by all means, go for it.  

You're definitely right and I'm just over thinking it. I should be fine. I really just didn't want to have to upgrade my GPU for a few years as I'm already updating to Zen 2 like once it comes out. But in reality, I should be just fine. Even if I go to 1440p ultrawide at around 100+hz..