VEGA 56 New 279$ MSRP to combat 1660 Ti (250GBP & 285EUR)

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 1660Ti doesn't even compete in the same price range, 1440p is a weird test when IMO anyway, there is more chance someone buying it will game at 1080p.

Then just skip back to the previous graph of 1080p showing the same thing, well 7% slower but w/e. Price wise obviously the 1660Ti is a better buy but to say the Vega 56 is slower just isn't factually correct unless it's about a specific game or set of games where that is true. We all have a set of games we actually care about so it wouldn't be a wise purchase to get a GPU for games that preference the other GPU vendor.

 

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

But personally I wouldn't want to make a card consume 600w alone, at 600w watts either card would be a loud space heater, with much higher chance of failure with no warranty, any money I'd save over a vega64 would just go into buying a high end PSU

Well I don't run any GPU without being water cooled and with 3x 480mm rads 4 600W GPUs would be fine, so 1 or 2 (I'd buy 2, case aesthetics. Yea I just said that) would be extremely quiet. I currently game with 2x 290X +50% power target passively until the loop gets too warm which take hours then I turn on 1 or 2 fans at low rpm to drop the water temp back down below 40C.

 

Plus I don't mind the heat, it's cold 80% of the year here and I have used furmark or eth mining as a heater overnight or all day so when I get home the room is warm.

[Spotty]

Just checked PCPP. It's AUD$600 ($430 USD) in Australia for the cheapest Vega56 - A blower style MSI Air Boost card. In comparison the new GTX1660Tis start at AUD$480 ($340 USD), almost $100 USD cheaper.

So compared to the GTX1660Ti the Vega56 performs ±5% in games^[1], is almost $100 more expensive, uses almost twice as much power, runs hotter, and has a worse cooler.

I mean... If you were in the market for a Vega56 and you had already made up your mind that was the card you were going to buy, then I guess Nvidia forcing the prices down on Vega56 cards (that's if other cards drop prices too and are actually available) it would be a good thing. Though, for everyone else it just makes more sense to buy the 1660Ti (or something else).

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Though, for everyone else it just makes more sense to buy the 1660Ti (or something else).

I wouldn't get one of the silly 1660Ti's though, like the Strix cos you might as well just buy an MSRP 2060 card of your AIB brand choice.

[Spotty]

Just now, leadeater said:

I wouldn't get one of the silly 1660Ti's though, like the Strix cos you might as well just buy an MSRP 2060 card of your AIB brand choice.

I normally don't recommend the premium models for mid range cards anyway. If you're spending $1000+ on a 2080ti then sure, but for a $300 card spending an extra $100 for a mild factory overclock, a better cooler and some RGB isn't worth it. Normally the sweet spot for mid range cards is around the model or two up from the cheapest, might cost $20 extra but comes with a better cooler type deal.

[Dylanc1500]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I wouldn't get one of the silly 1660Ti's though, like the Strix cos you might as well just buy an MSRP 2060 card of your AIB brand choice.

Heck, there are 1660Ti's already selling below MSRP.

[Spotty]

16 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't really think this is AMD doing it considering it's one MSI card, and AMD would have no control over that.  Secondly, the Vega 56 came out to rival the 1070 quite some time ago.  Also, you have to remember that part of the cost of Vega cards is the HBM2.

Didn't AMD send out a statement to reviewers a few days before the 1660Ti launch saying that there was a promotion on Vega56 card(s) and that you could buy a Vega56 for the same price as the 1660Ti? Jayz2cents stated that AMD emailed him telling him about the deal before he released his review on the GTX1660Ti. So AMD is definitely trying to compete against the 1660Ti with the Vega56. By offering this price drop and contacting reviewers about it days before the release of the 1660Ti they are asking reviewers and customers to make the comparison between the Vega56 and 1660Ti.
AFAIK AMD would be able to offer rebates to MSI if they discounted the card, so they can somewhat control pricing from AIB partners.
HBM2 is largely useless for gaming. Like I said if you had already decided on buying the Vega56 and were never considering the 1660Ti in the first place (ie if you're doing computational work that would benefit largely from HBM2 memory) then a price drop would be nice from AMD, but for everyone else wanting a gaming graphics card, you'd be better off with the 1660Ti.

 

3 hours ago, TheSLSAMG said:

Spoiler

It appears that the price drop is temporary and only applies to that single card. So no, the MSRP isn't being dropped to $279. At this point, whether new stock will be available or not is even up in the air it seems. I disagree with Jay's point that no one got the card for that much, but the pricing also hasn't been pushed to a majority of cards (or literally any other cards for that matter).

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, Firewrath9 said:

TLDR: Vega 56 will be 280$, to combat 1660 ti. 2060 performance for 70$ less. 

The MSI Blower VEGA56 was 259€ like last week - and didn't sell that well for obvious reasons.

Right now there is a Gigabyte VEGA 56 for 299€ and the Sapphire Pulse was that price yesterday, today its +10€

 

The thing is that they might want to kill off their stock right now because NAVI might be coming sooner than later and they have a date for that...

Same with Ryzen Hardware (Boards + CPUs), they are also on sale in the "Sale Sections" called "Mindstar" of the German etailer Mindfactory.

 

That, to me, looks like they are already preparing for Ryzen 3000 and NAVI.

[TheSLSAMG]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

Didn't AMD send out a statement to reviewers a few days before the 1660Ti launch saying that there was a promotion on Vega56 card(s) and that you could buy a Vega56 for the same price as the 1660Ti? Jayz2cents stated that AMD emailed him telling him about the deal before he released his review on the GTX1660Ti. So AMD is definitely trying to compete against the 1660Ti with the Vega56. By offering this price drop and contacting reviewers about it days before the release of the 1660Ti they are asking reviewers and customers to make the comparison between the Vega56 and 1660Ti.

They did send an email out to reviewers a few days before on this topic.

 

However, the OP states that the Vega 56 (in general) will be going down to $279, and the article implies this by comparing the Vega 56's "price drop" to the GTX 1660 Ti's $279 MSRP, when in reality only a single card is being offered at that price point and it is not even in stock.

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, TheSLSAMG said:

However, the OP states that the Vega 56 (in general) will be going down to $279,

So all Vega56s will see a significant price drop, not just this crappy MSI that's out of stock? That's good news for anyone wanting a Vega56.

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

So all Vega56s will see a significant price drop, not just this crappy MSI that's out of stock? That's good news for anyone wanting a Vega56.

Or... it was just a bait and switch. 280 dollars is well below the cost to make just the GPU. Let alone the finished card. 

[IAmAndre]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

For some people, that's pennies.

Still not good for the planet...

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I mean it was a card designed to rival a 1070 at best.  Only MSI is dropping one of their worst models to rival it in terms of pricing.

Even the 1070 is way more power efficient 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Vega 56 performs worse than the 1660Ti you say?

 

Not to harp on or anything but would be nice if statements about products were more factually correct. Power, sure, performance, no.

 

On a personal note I couldn't give a damn if the Vega 56 used 600W alone, in fact I'd apply the mods that allow it to. I'd do the same to an Nvidia card if they'd let me.

You read the graph backwards The 1660 Ti is the one on top. Check the article here (same source): https://www.techspot.com/review/1797-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-ti/ 

Is that factual enough?

[IAmAndre]

4 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Heck, there are 1660Ti's already selling below MSRP.

Any link?

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Then just skip back to the previous graph of 1080p showing the same thing, well 7% slower but w/e. Price wise obviously the 1660Ti is a better buy but to say the Vega 56 is slower just isn't factually correct unless it's about a specific game or set of games where that is true. We all have a set of games we actually care about so it wouldn't be a wise purchase to get a GPU for games that preference the other GPU vendor.

 

Well I don't run any GPU without being water cooled and with 3x 480mm rads 4 600W GPUs would be fine, so 1 or 2 (I'd buy 2, case aesthetics. Yea I just said that) would be extremely quiet. I currently game with 2x 290X +50% power target passively until the loop gets too warm which take hours then I turn on 1 or 2 fans at low rpm to drop the water temp back down below 40C.

 

Plus I don't mind the heat, it's cold 80% of the year here and I have used furmark or eth mining as a heater overnight or all day so when I get home the room is warm.

Yeah I'd agree the vega 56 is really the better buy, especially if you power mod and OC it, the 1660Ti prices are too close to the rtx 2060 especially the overkill  3 fan strix card. The 1660Ti would be better if it had 8gb vram, GamersNexus took apart the EVGA XC and it had 2 empty spaces for VRAM.

I guess i'm biased since I don't even OC the gpu, having a near silent build is nice but I don't trust water cooling, maybe a cpu and gpu kit or an AIO gpu bracket though.

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

Still not good for the planet...

Even the 1070 is way more power efficient 

Spoiler

 

You read the graph backwards The 1660 Ti is the one on top. Check the article here (same source): https://www.techspot.com/review/1797-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-ti/ 

Is that factual enough?

The power draw is a concern if you're on a budget, power draw isn't bad on a stock vega 56, but as mentioned Vega is more of a content creation card that also works for gaming. In that source the vega 56 does beat the 1660Ti on quite a few games.

[IAmAndre]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

The power draw is a concern if you're on a budget, power draw isn't bad on a stock vega 56, but as mentioned Vega is more of a content creation card that also works for gaming. In that source the vega 56 does beat the 1660Ti on quite a few games.

I get that many people don't care about power consumption (hence my original question) but I'm personally bothered by the fact that you could power up another system, or even a console maybe with the power draw difference by choosing the 1660Ti over the Vega card, and still get a better gaming performance at the same price or less. So I can't consider the power draw of the Vega 56 as "not bad."

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

Even the 1070 is way more power efficient 

Nobody cares if its on their side.

So I find those mentions of power consumptions really hypocritical, especially from people who promoted the Fermi Cards.

 

And on one hand people complain about the power consumption of the GPU, on the other hand they have an i9-9900K in their signature - yeah, right. That does not compute...

 

Quote

Still not good for the planet...

(Cow) Farts are not good for the planet.

 

And if we go to the extremes, the existance of every living beeing is not good for the planet. 

So where do YOU stop with "good for the planet"??

Where does it start?? Where does it stop??

What do YOU do to better the planet? Do you buy once, use until it dies??
OR do you replace your cards every year or two??

 

Because those people that bought the Radeon HD7970 and replaced it with RX480 or VEGA are better for the Planet than those who bought the GTX680, 780, 980, 1080 and so on...

 

Because manufacturing of the cards is worse than using it.

[IAmAndre]

11 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Nobody cares if its on their side.

So I find those mentions of power consumptions really hypocritical, especially from people who promoted the Fermi Cards.

 

And on one hand people complain about the power consumption of the GPU, on the other hand they have an i9-9900K in their signature - yeah, right. That does not compute...

I'm not sure what you're talking about.... I never mentioned any of these.

 

12 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Cow) Farts are not good for the planet.

 

And if we go to the extremes, the existance of every living beeing is not good for the planet

Not sure who's going to the extremes here. I'm not getting into an ecological / ideological debate.

[IAmAndre]

15 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't think the first part was aimed at you, but a lot of people who complain about GPU power efficiency do not use power-efficient CPUs.  But, you did bring up how it is not good for the planet.  I'm pretty sure you do worse things to the planet as do most people.

I'm not talking about me or saying that I have a perfect behavior or even judging anyone's behavior. All I did was point out tangible numbers, which do effectively have an impact on the environment but that wasn't even my main point.

[IAmAndre]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

What was your main point?  I only saw the mention of it having higher power consumption and how it was bad for the planet.  I think only one other person was arguing about power consumption originally, though.

Yes, comparing the power consumption of two graphic cards, not debating on how green each person's lifestyle is or how we are ruining the planet.

[GoldenLag]

9 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

And not many are going to mess with undervolting stuff,most just turn the OC sliders up and wonder why their card is hot.

Its literally a 1 click thing to do. It will autoundervolt and lower powerdraw. Its in the Adrenaline Software. 

 

Why reviewers arent promoting it is beyond me.

[Sir Asvald]

10 hours ago, justpoet said:

Not sure if linking other channels vids here is ok or not

You can as they are affiliated with LTT. As long as you don't link yours (self advertising)

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

You read the graph backwards The 1660 Ti is the one on top. Check the article here (same source): https://www.techspot.com/review/1797-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-ti/ 

Is that factual enough?

I am unshure if i understood correctly. You are saying the 1660ti is faster, meanwhile showing evidence for the opposite?

[IAmAndre]

12 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't think that's really a fair comparison, though considering AMD didn't really focus on power consumption with vega.  Vega was focusing primarily at rivaling the 1080 and the 1070 in terms of last gen performance.  The only comparison now with this card and the 56 are pricing and performance.  Vega 20's Radeon VII is apparently more efficient than the 64, not sure about the 56, while having quite the performance gain over it.  If you want power efficiency and performance gains Vega 20 and Navi are where they're tuning that.

I don't think it's fair to ignore a criteria just because it wasn't the concern of the manufacturer.

That said, I Iunderstand that AMD is doing its best to compete and they do it by sacrificing power efficiency. Now as you said we'll see what the next gen has fr us.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

You read the graph backwards The 1660 Ti is the one on top. Check the article here (same source): https://www.techspot.com/review/1797-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-ti/ 

Is that factual enough?

No I didn't read it backwards, it's comparing the 1660Ti to the Vega 56 hence the percentage is relative the thing thing you are comparing it to. Check your own sources you linked, the Vega 56 is faster in almost all the tests, it would of only taken 2 minutes to verify what you were going to say to make sure it was actually correct to prevent yourself from looking a little bit silly.

 

So no the 1660Ti is not faster than the Vega 56 but it's still the better buy due to the lower price, similar performance and not requiring to apply OC optimizations to get the best out of it.

 

If I were to buy either the Vega 56 or 1660Ti I...... wait I wouldn't buy either.

[IAmAndre]

6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I am unshure if i understood correctly. You are saying the 1660ti is faster, meanwhile showing evidence for the opposite?

You didn't understand the chart . You can check the actual benchmarks.

Quote

 

 

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

You didn't understand the chart . You can check the actual benchmarks.

I did. In the tests the vega 56 was faster.

 

The quote you showed said the same. Meanwhile you said the vega 56 was slower. Am i missing something here