Is vega 64 worth it?

[Chake]

I've weighing up the options for graphics cards and I've come to the conclusion that I'd prefer AMD for the adaptive functionality at a reduced price over g sync.

 

 I'll be playing most games at 1440p resolution, but I'm struggling to decide whether saving money with the vega 56 or waiting for the vega 64 card will really be worth it in the long run. I'm interested to hear anyone's opinions and how their vega cards perform at that resolution.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Princess Luna]

 

[johnukguy]

Nope. Not remotely worth it at current prices.

[SwingLifeAway92]

I have a vega 64 it's a solid card beats the 1080 decently at a much higher power drain and you can finally find them at msrp so they're not as bad as a value as before. However, the 56 is the much better deal unless you don't like fiddling with overclocking and bios flashing overall they're solid cards and I recommend them to people who want something a little different or have/planning to get a freesync monitor

[Morgan MLGman]

Get the Vega 56 if you want to buy an AMD card for FreeSync, it offers MUCH better value than the Vega 64 and draws significantly less power.

[SwingLifeAway92]

2 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

Nope. Not remotely worth it at current prices.

You can get 64 at msrp fairly easy

[Trulop]

If price's were normal and not inflated, then it would be a pretty decent buy. At the moment, its a bit hard to recommend over Nvidia's offerings due to performance per dollar comparisons. I think the real question here would be, "is it better to spend a bit more money on Vega 64 for freesync capabilities over raw performance from Nvidia". Would having a somewhat smoother experience due to freesync be worth the cost difference for just a bit less performance? 

[SwingLifeAway92]

1 minute ago, Trulop said:

If price's were normal and not inflated, then it would be a pretty decent buy. At the moment, its a bit hard to recommend over Nvidia's offerings due to performance per dollar comparisons. I think the real question here would be, "is it better to spend a bit more money on Vega 64 for freesync capabilities over raw performance from Nvidia". Would having a somewhat smoother experience due to freesync be worth the cost difference for just a bit less performance? 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202300&cm_re=vega_64-_-14-202-300-_-Product Prices have changed.... 

[johnukguy]

Even at MSRP, none of the Vega cards are worth it. They were over priced to begin with and will be obsolete within a few months anyway.

[SwingLifeAway92]

Just now, johnukguy said:

Even at MSRP, none of the Vega cards are worth it. They were over priced to begin with and will be obsolete within a few months anyway.

The 1080 is the same price... It trades blows with the 1080 where's your logic?

[Trulop]

1 minute ago, SwingLifeAway92 said:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202300&cm_re=vega_64-_-14-202-300-_-Product Prices have changed.... 

Ah i stand a bit corrected then. 

 

4 minutes ago, Trulop said:

If price's were normal and not inflated, then it would be a pretty decent buy.

Since prices are not inflated anymore it seems, then it would be a pretty decent buy

For more details on how the GPU's perform, definately check out some benchmarks. From what i've seen, depending on if your using intel or AMD hardware, Vega's numbers can change a bit in results so find out what the testers are using and see if it lines up with your system.

[Technomancer__]

3 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

and will be obsolete within a few months anyway.

? If they become obsolete 10 series will become as well

[johnukguy]

Not really as the market is entirely different so cards like the 1060 for example hold their relevance for longer generally.

[PCGuy_5960]

21 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Get the Vega 56 if you want to buy an AMD card for FreeSync, it offers MUCH better value than the Vega 64 and draws significantly less power.

And if you overclock it, performance isn't much worse than a Vega 64  

 

@Chake I wouldn't recommend Vega 64 though, get a 1080 instead.

Edited November 13, 2017 by PCGuy_5960

[Chake]

At the moment in the UK I can pick up the 64 card for just under £480, which is £20 cheaper than the cheapest 1080 (all be it an aftermarket card) and only £80 more than the 56 card.

 

It's the freesync that has me focused on AMD. If I'm playing a demanding game (pubg for example) freesync will at least help alleviate the issue of lower frame rates. 

[SwingLifeAway92]

Just now, johnukguy said:

Not really as the market is entirely different so cards like the 1060 for example hold their relevance for longer generally.

The guy was talking about 1440p the 1060 is a solid 1080p card which can run 1440p but it's not going to be able to keep up as long as any gpu 1070/vega 56 and up.

[Chake]

Just now, SwingLifeAway92 said:

The guy was talking about 1440p the 1060 is a solid 1080p card which can run 1440p but it's not going to be able to keep up as long as any gpu 1070/vega 56 and up.

This is true but I know what he was trying to say. That being said I'm dead set on 1440p resolution on a 27 inch monitor as it looks phenamol for gaming and will provide so much real estate when I'm using it for day to day use.

[SwingLifeAway92]

Just now, Chake said:

This is true but I know what he was trying to say. That being said I'm dead set on 1440p resolution on a 27 inch monitor as it looks phenamol for gaming and will provide so much real estate when I'm using it for day to day use.

Yeah I currently have a curved ultrawide 1440p monitor and love it 1440p is by far the best resolution atm since the difference between it and 1080p is very noticeable but, it's not nearly as demanding as 4k.

[Chake]

10 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And if you overclock it, performance isn't much worse than a Vega 64  

 

@Chake I wouldn't recommend Vega 64 though, get a 1080 instead.

This leads on to another conversation about monitors and g sync. I'm not really willing to plunge another £100+ into a monitor with g sync if I can purchase a free sync variant for less money. 

[Chake]

10 minutes ago, SwingLifeAway92 said:

Yeah I currently have a curved ultrawide 1440p monitor and love it 1440p is by far the best resolution atm since the difference between it and 1080p is very noticeable but, it's not nearly as demanding as 4k.

Ooh, I'm jealous of the 1440p ultrawide! How does it perform with your card? 

[Mooshi]

31 minutes ago, SwingLifeAway92 said:

The 1080 is the same price... It trades blows with the 1080 where's your logic?

If all things were equal, Nvidia wins on driver support alone. Last Radeon I had was a 480 and that got RMA'd quickly. Last card before that was when ATI was a separate company. Gave 'em a chance and went back to Nvidia. Lower power draw also helps.

[SwingLifeAway92]

1 minute ago, Mooshi said:

If all things were equal, Nvidia wins on driver support alone. Last Radeon I had was a 480 and that got RMA'd quickly. Last card before that was when ATI was a separate company. Gave 'em a chance and went back to Nvidia. Lower power draw also helps.

How does driver support go with an RMA? To be honest AMD usually has the better long term driver support just look at the 780ti and r9 290x if you want proof of that.

[Darkseth]

Not worth, even if it's a Custom at the same price as Nvidia GTX 1080.

 

- Vega 64 gets beaten by 1080 in average over dozens of modern Games by a few %: GTX 1080 is faster

- Vega 64 is more expensive. Here in Germany, Vega 64 costs 550€+ as Reference. You can get Custom 1080s for 500€~

- Vega 64 consumes around 300w. GTX 1080 consumes 180-200w, depending on Custom model. vega Custom might even break 300w by a few 10 additional w.

- availability, price, and nonexistent Customs make it pretty damn uninteresting.

 

There is 1 single objectively valid Argument for the Vega: Freesync Monitors are cheaper than G-Sync ones, might save you a few bucks today.

 

However:

- G-Sync > Freesync. G-Sync does have more strict guidelines, while Freesync often doesn't perform as well across all Freesync monitors. On some, it's good, on others it doesn't work as well. And G-Sync does have LFC included all the time, which allows G-Sync to work below 30 Hz too (frame doubling).

However, let's ignore this technical difference for now (it was simply worth mentioning).

 

- Vega 64 consumes 100-120 Watt more than a slightly faster GTX 1080.

While you save 100 bucks with a Freesync Monitor, you will pay more for your electricity bill, negating the price difference over time slowly. With the huge difference in Power consumption today, simply saying Freesync is cheaper than G-Sync is not true anymore. If you use it long enough, G-Sync can even save you Money, because Nvidia consumes much less power - if you game enough.

That much just.. for this argument.

 

Like i said. Freesync is literaly the only Reason, why you could recommend a Vega.

But wait for Customs, as the Reference models are garbage.

[Verrm]

Id buy vega if I have freesync monitor or i plan to buy one. Otherwise youre better of with geforce 1080. This is because even if they cost the same the vega is ultimately more expensive in terms of electricity bill. And 1080 is very slightly better in performance. The 1070ti is also a great choice.

I dont know if i would wait for aib version of vega if i want to buy one. The newest announced by sapphire has 3x 8pin power connectors input lol.