For the same price: Vega 56 vs 1080?

[Gdourado]

Hello, how are you? 

I am looking for a new GPU as I am also going to be upgrading my monitor to 1440p 144hz.

With Vega prices still fluctuating, and rebates on nvidia cards here in Europe, I can get a reference Vega 56 for almost the same price as a KFA2 1080 EXOC. 

The 1080 is 40 euros more, but not a huge difference. 

So, for 1440p what is the better choice? 

 

Thanks. 

Cheers 

[Sakkura]

The 1080 is faster, quieter, and more power-efficient, so it's a pretty easy pick as long as pricing looks like that.

[Jurrunio]

1440p at 144Hz really needs a 1080ti. 1080 can do about 90-120 in AAA games at about high to very high settings.

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy13 said:

Not everyone plays AAA games, and I disagree that you need a 1080TI even for AAA games at 1440p@144hz Im doing just fine on my GTX 970 playing Destiny 2 at 120-130 FPS on high settings. Sure If i had a better graphics card I would be able to crank the settings to ultra, but is it fair to say that I NEED one to even be able to play the game. No. and a 1080 is leaps and bounds better than a 970.

Destiny 2 is not that demanding for a AAA game.

[xsimplyjosh]

8 hours ago, Gdourado said:

Hello, how are you? 

I am looking for a new GPU as I am also going to be upgrading my monitor to 1440p 144hz.

With Vega prices still fluctuating, and rebates on nvidia cards here in Europe, I can get a reference Vega 56 for almost the same price as a KFA2 1080 EXOC. 

The 1080 is 40 euros more, but not a huge difference. 

So, for 1440p what is the better choice? 

 

Thanks. 

Cheers 

You will need a 1080 Ti, I can speak for myself as I am using that duo combo; strix 1080ti and Asus ROG swift PG279Q.

 

Even on dishonored 2 as an example which to me looks less intensive in comparison to preyI'm mustering approx 120-130fps at 1440p on max , sure it's no 144Hz average but it's so smooth I hardly notice the differences.

[xsimplyjosh]

7 hours ago, RandomGuy13 said:

No but its the kind of demanding game that most people are playing, Something like PUBG, CSGO, DOTA are even less demanding. Sure if you are playing only the most unoptimised "AAA" game and need the ultra settings then maybe you would benefit from the 1080 TI. But realistically, the 1080 wont disappoint anyone on 1440p regardless of the game.

pubg is quite intensive afaik... csgo and dota i would agree though being less demanding*

[Columbo]

Fair to say even a 1080 is a waste of money because neither the vega 56 nor the 1080 can put up 60fps on AAA games @ 4K resolutions. The previous poster a few posts mentioned a GTX 970 still does quite well with current AAA titles which means more eye candy and complex graphics compared to less intensive titles as mentioned. 

 

If money is no object the sky is the limit. For value the 1070 or even the 1060 is probably a better bet. I buy components and pass them down to other builds that I have. I have a 7950 that was in this rig (my signature system) that was replaced by my current GTX 970 a few years ago. The 7950 on this 3570K could do 210-220FPS on CS:GO @ max settings 1080P. The GTX 970 will do up to 300FPS under the same settings in CS:GO which is the max FPS that the game shows. 

 

My 7950 with a kaby lake Pentium 4560 will do 120-170fps in CS:GO with max settings @ 1080p. 

 

FPS doesn't really matter when you are above 100FPS. Some would argue above 150FPS because there is no refresh rate beyond that. But FPS gives you the ability to crank up your settings in games and it basically shows you how much longer your current graphics card with last with upcoming and current generation DX12 games. 

 

BF1 is a good benchmark DX12 game because of it's sophisticated graphics engine. My GTX 970 does high 70's to 100FPS in BF1 with max settings @1080p on this rig. 

 

Obviously either the 1080 or the Vega 56 are far superior to a GTX 970 but they lack the horsepower to put up 60FPS minimum numbers in AAA titles @ 4K. So unless you want to see 150FPS+ @ 1080P or playable FPS @ 1440p settings in BF1 or games like it in terms of graphics demands. Obviously SLI or Crossfire could make 4k playable but that takes a lot of power and costs a ton and not all games work well or at all with SLI or Crossfire. 

 

Just an opinion but you always want the very best graphics card from the previous generation or equal performance. That is the sweet spot for value. I have gone back and forth between AMD and Nvidia over the years depending on who has the best graphics card or best value at the time. 

 

I personally thought that AMD would integrate the Ryzen architecture with the new AMD graphics cards to maximize performance. Perhaps they need to push out newer architecture in a shorter time. Moore's law of every 18 months a computers power doubles has not been true for many years. 

 

 

 

[EOZ]

.

[EOZ]

GTX 1080 is better than Vega 56 in almost every possible way. Even 64 is slower.

[Jurrunio]

34 minutes ago, EOZ said:

GTX 1080 is better than Vega 56 in almost every possible way. Even 64 is slower.

64 somehow is slower than an overclocked 56, so maybe AMD screwed up 64's drivers.