Anybody else thinking VEGA is just a waste of time?

[Subtle Corruption]

Let's be real here, the power consumptions is just abusive in this day and age, AMD took the piss out of NVidia and their Fermi stuff which was well deserved, yet they themselves shovel this ridiculously power hungry card that in all honesty should not exist, all to answer the question "Where is AMD's top end to face GTX 1000 series?"

 

Why would anyone with at least two working brain cells buy VEGA? It's already crippling hard to live with a GPU that outputs 300+ watts of heat in summer.. i know i owned Fermi, two in SLi in fact.

 

I can only understand this purchase if you find deals on VEGA like i did for Fermi and Fiji.

[vanished]

There's this underground movement of using them on Linux and I've heard that in some cases vega 64 can actually stomp 1080 Ti, but it's pretty niche and super DIY for the moment

[Evolution.]

no vega is okay. keep in mind not everybody is a gamer

[iamdarkyoshi]

I've been considering swapping my 1080Ti ftw3 for vega solely due to drivers. This is my first nvidia card and I regret it...

[SkilledRebuilds]

5 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I've been considering swapping my 1080Ti ftw3 for vega solely due to drivers. This is my first nvidia card and I regret it...

Each to their own... you see and hear this all the time...
 

Ive been with Nvidia for about 4 years now, beyond a single driver screwing me (fixed in 5mins) it has never given me an issue, shadowplay works everyday, no bsod from a driver change or any performance negatives...
 

I was getting severe flickering on multiple AMD cards in multiple systems, their drivers were broken for a time...

I went from the R9 290 to GTX970 and haven't looked back once.

 

Many examples of the opposite are also out there...

PC's are just weird, usually a software conflict of some sort.

[SkilledRebuilds]

26 minutes ago, VenomZ_ said:

no vega is okay. keep in mind not everybody is a gamer

If you don't game,... why get Vega?

Compute..? (Surely there is better price to perf options)

[dragoon20005]

I wouldnt say Vega is a waste of time

 

nVidia will not release any new GPU like the GTX 1070Ti if AMD didnt release the Vega 56 which was the GTX 1070 killer

 

early drivers will not be perfect and you can see that the AMD GPU drivers improve as the months goes by and like the RX580 vs the GTX 1060 6GB and you see the performance now overtakes the GTX 1060 and in case widen the gap

 

so for the case of the Vega 56 vs the GTX 1070 and the Vega 64 vs the GTX 1080

 

you will see the performance gap close in as the driver matures

 

[dragoon20005]

also wait for the XFX or Sapphire or Powercolor version of the Vega cards for better power delivery and cooling than the reference version

 

 

Skip the Asus Strix as it suck balls and worse than the reference

[xg32]

1 hour ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I've been considering swapping my 1080Ti ftw3 for vega solely due to drivers. This is my first nvidia card and I regret it...

I'd be using amd cards for a long time if not for the drivers, it's weird how it's different for everyone.

[aisle9]

21 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

nVidia will not release any new GPU like the GTX 1070Ti if AMD didnt release the Vega 56 which was the GTX 1070 killer

Well, no, it really wasn't.

[dragoon20005]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

Well, no, it really wasn't.

based the not crazy prices

 

Vega 56 and GTX 1070 are evenly matched

[RyanEsau]

Well, it's an option for AMD fanboys...

 

I've also thought about it a little bit (RX Vega 64) for if I do buy a GPU for my upcoming build and there is nothing around the corner since I'll be getting a FreeSync monitor. I'd imagine some others might consider for the same reason, they happen upon a freesync monitor and naturally want to make use of that feature. If anything, I'd at least like to see more aftermarket variants when the time comes for me to buy.

[dragoon20005]

6 minutes ago, RyanEsau said:

Well, it's an option for AMD fanboys...

 

I've also thought about it a little bit (RX Vega 64) for if I do buy a GPU for my upcoming build and there is nothing around the corner since I'll be getting a FreeSync monitor. I'd imagine some others might consider for the same reason, they happen upon a freesync monitor and naturally want to make use of that feature. If anything, I'd at least like to see more aftermarket variants when the time comes for me to buy.

Powercolor, Sapphire and XFX are the go to brands for the aftermarket Vegas

 

Asus version sucks balls when JaysTwoCents and Guru3D reviewed the Strix version

 

in fact it performs way worse than the reference version

[aisle9]

16 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

based the not crazy prices

 

Vega 56 and GTX 1070 are evenly matched

"Evenly matched" at the same price point with enough power consumption to light up the runway at JFK hardly makes the Vega 56 a "1070 killer".

 

But I digress. Not going to accidentally turn this into an AMD vs NVIDIA thread, no matter how ridiculous some of the claims made in it are.

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

If you don't game,... why get Vega?

Compute..? (Surely there is better price to perf options)

Actually vega is a steal when it comes to certain compute tasks.

[RyanEsau]

46 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

Powercolor, Sapphire and XFX are the go to brands for the aftermarket Vegas

 

Asus version sucks balls when JaysTwoCents and Guru3D reviewed the Strix version

 

in fact it performs way worse than the reference version

Well, it never hit consumer market (released) right? So maybe they're working on sorting the issues that occured...

 

So if it happens to be released by the time I go to look, hopefully it's all golden.

[dizmo]

I think it makes sense in certain instances, for example a monitor with FreeSync over GSync. I'd get a Vega card for that.

[Uzume]

I have built a Seti@Home box around a TR and 2x MSI Vega 64 LCs. Have another 2x of them ready to slot in once I get a second power supply.

 

Each one chews 265-266watts at full utilisation (stock). They can't output 300+ watts heat if they don't draw 300+ watts of power. If you need to exaggerate to prove your point, then it detracts from your point.

 

I run the 2 GPUs at full load, and the 1950X at 75% load, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and two pedestal fans are all that is required to remove the heat from the room. This is in Australia, in a room without air con. Maybe you just need to take a spoonful of cement and harden up a bit?

[Phate.exe]

3 hours ago, dragoon20005 said:

also wait for the XFX or Sapphire or Powercolor version of the Vega cards for better power delivery and cooling than the reference version

 

 

Skip the Asus Strix as it suck balls and worse than the reference

This.

 

The cards really just have a bad case of being poorly-tuned out of the box.  Just like the RX 480 did.  I'm interested to see if any of the aftermarket cards are tuned better, and if not at least I'd be able to start with a quiet cooler.

 

Vega is obscenely efficient if you keep the clockspeeds sane (and adjust voltage accordingly), but when you get to a certain point they become power hungry monsters.  A Vega 64 running at R9 Fury X speeds (which happens to perform pretty similarly to a Fury) uses about as much power as an RX 470.  Performance-wise, they're extremely competitive in a world where the 1080ti doesn't exist (so basically if it didn't get delayed).

 

Because it didn't perform quite as well as they wanted it to, AMD pushed clockspeeds (and voltage) in order to get better looking benchmarks, just like they did with Polaris, and then we end up with everybody talking about ridiculous power draw.

 

Saying "They're quite good if you're willing to spend a few minutes screwing around with the card" is absolutely not an excuse for how they perform out of the box, but just dismissing the architecture completely isn't quite fair either.

[dragoon20005]

10 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

This.

 

The cards really just have a bad case of being poorly-tuned out of the box.  Just like the RX 480 did.  I'm interested to see if any of the aftermarket cards are tuned better, and if not at least I'd be able to start with a quiet cooler.

 

Vega is obscenely efficient if you keep the clockspeeds sane (and adjust voltage accordingly), but when you get to a certain point they become power hungry monsters.  A Vega 64 running at R9 Fury X speeds (which happens to perform pretty similarly to a Fury) uses about as much power as an RX 470.  Performance-wise, they're extremely competitive in a world where the 1080ti doesn't exist (so basically if it didn't get delayed).

 

Because it didn't perform quite as well as they wanted it to, AMD pushed clockspeeds (and voltage) in order to get better looking benchmarks, just like they did with Polaris, and then we end up with everybody talking about ridiculous power draw.

 

Saying "They're quite good if you're willing to spend a few minutes screwing around with the card" is absolutely not an excuse for how they perform out of the box, but just dismissing the architecture completely isn't quite fair either.

for the case of the RX480 reference

 

it was blown out of proportions because of the power gate issue with the 6 pin and the overdrawing of power from the PCI-E slot killing cheap mobo in the process.  But that is with the power limit crank over 100% with Afterburner.

 

 

The aftermarket version were improved as they use the 8 pin PCI-E power plugs.

 

 

The first gen Polaris were indeed hotter and runs into some issue with OC

 

AMD address those issue with the refreshed RX 580



HBM is suppose to reduce power draw, and it actually shows when the GPU is at the stock speed settings

 

of course when you start cranking voltages for the GPU and memory and power limit to 400 watts

 

the power draw will skyrocket just for one card alone

 

 

 

The only reason I will get the RX Vega 64 not because i can buy cheaper Freesync monitors

 

but also I want to make use of 3 or 4 way Crossfire RX Vegas to push 4K and 8K res with VR gaming