TR Forums

Newegg continues to get Radeon RX Vega in stock, but the available Radeon RX Vega 56 cards are in the bundle with Prey ($60 value) and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus ($60 value) for $550 now versus the $500 bundle price at launch. It's got to be discouraging for AMD and gamers to see the reseller marking up the bundles for additional profit.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductL ... ageSize=96

Naturally, with the markup on Vega so huge the bundles are going to follow.

Looked at Microcenter today, they apparently implemented a new order limit of two GPUs regardless of model or stock. The cheapest Vega 64 (stock air cooled) is priced at $699 and only two are in stock.

Anyone buying Vega with that kind of markup is not doing it for gaming.

Edit: I just realized, the price goes up if you buy two.

1 at $699.99 each
2+ at $799.99 each

It's edging into the territory where the Vega markup offsets the G-Sync tax...

Where I live, Vega RX 64 is surprisingly very available, but at the same price as the 1080. There don't seem to be any shortages at all. The RX 56 is nowhere in sight.

CScottG wrote:

Kougar wrote:

..The entire thing is a joke at this point.

I'd go much further than that.
I think that it's a clear deceptive practice, in the US and elsewhere.
AMD used just about every tech-reporting source (the "press") to convey an MSRP that isn't at all accurate. (..with some oh *h!t after-the-fact statement of: "well that's just an initial offering price" as an attempt to cover their asses legally.)

MSRP: Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price

Aside from refusing to supply them with cards (which would be extremely stupid, not to mention they also have a CPU business), AMD has no control over what the resellers do. They suggested a price, demand was higher than supply, resellers jacked up prices to make additional profit, and miners continue to happily pay those prices.

The Chinese government shut down the crypto currency exchanges in China. It's having an affect on the prices.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... cratering/

K-L-Waster wrote:

It's edging into the territory where the Vega markup offsets the G-Sync tax...

It depends. Maybe for the lower range. But when you get into 4k or 3440x1440p panels, G-sync models are generally considerably more than the delta in price between a 1080 and Vega 64. This is because G-sync selection is so sparse that they never go on sale, whereas, for example, the CF791 (a high end 3440x1440 Samsung 100Hz freesync) has been available for as low as $700. The cheapest 3440x1440 G-Sync is the 35" AOC for $900. If you want a brand name, however, (ASUS, ACER, etc), you're paying $1100+. Is the Acer Z35P really $300-$400 better than the CF791?

Also, you can get cheap Korean versions of the CF791 for <$600. This option obviously isn't available for G-SYNC.

cynan wrote:

K-L-Waster wrote:

It's edging into the territory where the Vega markup offsets the G-Sync tax...

It depends. Maybe for the lower range. But when you get into 4k or 3440x1440p panels, G-sync models are generally considerably more than the delta in price between a 1080 and Vega 64. This is because G-sync selection is so sparse that they never go on sale, whereas, for example, the CF791 (a high end 3440x1440 Samsung 100Hz freesync) has been available for as low as $700. The cheapest 3440x1440 G-Sync is the 35" AOC for $900. If you want a brand name, however, (ASUS, ACER, etc), you're paying $1100+. Is the Acer Z35P really $300-$400 better than the CF791?

Also, you can get cheap Korean versions of the CF791 for <$600. This option obviously isn't available for G-SYNC.

To be fair, UWS 1440P or 4K gaming screens are what..the upper 2% of sales? at 1080P and 1440P, the adaptive Syncs are much closer.

I bought an UWS GSync earlier this year and bought 2015 tech (X34), because the only newer options were *VA models with response time issues. Ditto for the CF791. I really want to see the Z35P review, to see if Acer finally shrugged off the *VA UWS ghosting problem.

My Sapphire Vega 56 ordered last month hasn't arrived yet.

Powercolor models have been in and out of stock but I'd rather have the Sapphire, based on experience of 200+ cards from each vendor. The only places in the UK with Vega 56 stock are selling them at 25% markup over MSRP or higher.

Chrispy_ wrote:

My Sapphire Vega 56 ordered last month hasn't arrived yet.

Powercolor models have been in and out of stock but I'd rather have the Sapphire, based on experience of 200+ cards from each vendor. The only places in the UK with Vega 56 stock are selling them at 25% markup over MSRP or higher.

Did you order at launch? If so, who with (unless you'd mind sharing or hinting who you ordered with)? I went for the Sapphire too, ordered from Scan around 1445 on the 28th. £316.66 ex VAT and it arrived on the 4th (I was out on the 2nd). It's in stock there still, but now £409.99 ex VAT with "FREE Wolfenstein & PREY with RX Vega"

Remember those heady days of yore when all GPU vendors would bundle in games for free? I got a fair few games like this over the last 10-20 years, a couple of Thief games including the latest, Starcraft II subscription for a month (long enough!), Mafia II, Sniper Elite 3, Watch Dogs, Alan Wake... those last 3 were on a coupon that let me choose 3 from a selection Bundling which is making us buy 2 specific games if we can't order a GPU in launch hour, games people might not even like, just to even be able to buy the GPU is the opposite of a good deal.

No, I was in the US at launch. I figured I'd wait until I got back, and that's turning out to have been a mistake

The Egg wrote:

CScottG wrote:

Kougar wrote:

..The entire thing is a joke at this point.

I'd go much further than that.
I think that it's a clear deceptive practice, in the US and elsewhere.
AMD used just about every tech-reporting source (the "press") to convey an MSRP that isn't at all accurate. (..with some oh *h!t after-the-fact statement of: "well that's just an initial offering price" as an attempt to cover their asses legally.)

MSRP: Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price

Aside from refusing to supply them with cards (which would be extremely stupid, not to mention they also have a CPU business), AMD has no control over what the resellers do. They suggested a price, demand was higher than supply, resellers jacked up prices to make additional profit, and miners continue to happily pay those prices.

MSRP from AMD is an advertisement. Their MSRP is deceptive. That's it's "suggested" is irrelevant.

Also note that the "suggestion" of MSRP is almost always a *maximum* price for a product. Of course this doesn't include value-added pricing - which is obviously creates an upward adjustment, though a reasonable one.

-basically it "boils-down-to" if the result is reasonable or not.

I think it's exceedingly obvious that the MSRP does not reflect current prices, value-added or not. (..and in fact they've said so themselves: that it was just an initial discount offer - AFTER REPRESENTING THEIR MSRP.)


Additionally: of course AMD has pricing controls.

They have contracts with all of their partners, and those partners have contracts with sellers. AMD does "reach through" the sales-channel to affect pricing. I mean, just how do you think the initial round of cards were priced at $399?

cynan wrote:

K-L-Waster wrote:

It's edging into the territory where the Vega markup offsets the G-Sync tax...

It depends. Maybe for the lower range. But when you get into 4k or 3440x1440p panels, G-sync models are generally considerably more than the delta in price between a 1080 and Vega 64. This is because G-sync selection is so sparse that they never go on sale, whereas, for example, the CF791 (a high end 3440x1440 Samsung 100Hz freesync) has been available for as low as $700. The cheapest 3440x1440 G-Sync is the 35" AOC for $900. If you want a brand name, however, (ASUS, ACER, etc), you're paying $1100+. Is the Acer Z35P really $300-$400 better than the CF791?

Also, you can get cheap Korean versions of the CF791 for <$600. This option obviously isn't available for G-SYNC.

I'd posit that the markup at the high end doesn't really matter, which is why it remains: if you're actually intending to run current games at those resolutions and refresh rates with higher settings, you're looking at an Nvidia GPU (or two!) regardless, so you're using G-Sync.

I don't know if that's true for everyone. I tend to spend extra on my monitors, keyboard and mice because i use them for many generations of PC hardware. Also, these devices are something that i directly interact with and see. I tend to splurge on monitors for that reason, too.

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

I'll do a mid-range video card every *2 years or so instead of spending 3 times that (or more) on the top tier video card at that time. Better still, I've tended toward great buys around Black Friday for those mid-range cards that bring them into the range of 1/4 or less the price of a top tier card.

My monitor on the other hand I've had for almost a decade now. (..and I'm not even on the "horizon" for a new monitor.)



*.. though in the past I've had one long stretch of time that bucked this trend.

CScottG wrote:

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

Functionally, it's the other way around though: I can't imagine I could get more than I paid for from selling any of my monitors, but I could from my GPU (possibly GPUs).

CScottG wrote:

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

I'll do a mid-range video card every *2 years or so instead of spending 3 times that (or more) on the top tier video card at that time. Better still, I've tended toward great buys around Black Friday for those mid-range cards that bring them into the range of 1/4 or less the price of a top tier card.

My monitor on the other hand I've had for almost a decade now. (..and I'm not even on the "horizon" for a new monitor.)

This used to be true for quite a long time, especially when the mid-range card of a new generation was faster than the high-end of the previous generation. Nowadays, the separation in price range (mid-range, like 1060 vs high-end 1080 Ti) is much bigger than the difference between generations. People buying a 1080 still have a very fast card even after the 1080Ti, after Vega and most likely even compared with the 1180.

On the other hand, monitors have been changing very, very fast these last years. From TFT LCD to LED, with many more IPS/PV panels. Color is now almost always 100% of sRGB, Free/G-Sync wasn't even available and high-refresh is becoming very common. And it's not yet over: there are at least two new hot "trends", ultrawide (which I personally don't care about) and HDR, which is quite impressive in real life. And if we start seeing OLED panels, we urge to upgrade will be even stronger. Also, don't forget the new 8K monitors (yeah, mostly useless but still).

So, in some ways the HP ZR24W (TFT IPS 60Hz 1920x1200) is looking much older than the Radeon HD 7950 I had when I bought it.

ptsant wrote:

On the other hand, monitors have been changing very, very fast these last years. From TFT LCD to LED, with many more IPS/PV panels. Color is now almost always 100% of sRGB, Free/G-Sync wasn't even available and high-refresh is becoming very common. And it's not yet over: there are at least two new hot "trends", ultrawide (which I personally don't care about) and HDR, which is quite impressive in real life. And if we start seeing OLED panels, we urge to upgrade will be even stronger. Also, don't forget the new 8K monitors (yeah, mostly useless but still).

So, in some ways the HP ZR24W (TFT IPS 60Hz 1920x1200) is looking much older than the Radeon HD 7950 I had when I bought it.

This is part of the point: because monitor technology is changing rapidly and because there are numerous advancements being developed for commercial production, saying that 'a good monitor is an investment' is no longer representative of the choice gamers and professionals face when choosing a monitor. Whatever you buy today will be quickly left behind by releases in the near future.

For a personal perspective, I still have my ZR30W: it looms next to my 27" Acer Predator, and reminds me that no one makes the monitor I actually want to buy. And that Predator is relatively new technology with with a low-persistence IPS panel, a 165Hz refresh rate, and G-Sync and ULMB. I picked it up as a gaming stopgap for high refresh rates and G-Sync.

And I'd still replace it if a monitor with the following specs were released:
-A 32"+ wide-viewing angle panel (IPS or better)
-4k
-120Hz+ with low persistence
-within-spec HDR
-At least 1000nits
-G-Sync/FreeSync, though likely the former with AMD's history

I'm also not interested in ultra-wide monitors, at least not yet. For productivity two monitors aren't enough so I'd need additional monitors anyway, and I'll always have at least two for gaming, and the width is wasted on media and not well-supported by games. Further, I don't have a gaming application that would really highlight its usefulness.

I'd be more interested in VR, at that point, and VR is even further behind, as is GPU technology to power it.

Monitors tend to outlast GPUs, so I fully agree with CScottG and is why I always spend more on the monitor. Got a Dell 2407 in 2006, it was amazing at the time. Still use it today after getting the power board repaired. Even my current 30" display outlasted the Titan Black powering it. People on tech forums seem to have GPUs fail within a few years, but it seems pretty rare to have a monitor go out before five years, let alone three.

Topinio wrote:

CScottG wrote:

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

Functionally, it's the other way around though: I can't imagine I could get more than I paid for from selling any of my monitors, but I could from my GPU (possibly GPUs).

Sure, but hardly anyone buying a GPU at today's inflated prices could say that, save the mere handful that got Vega at MSRP. Appreciation is the exception, not the rule. If I wanted to contribute to the problem I could've made the attempt to buy a few Vegas and flip them on ebay, the first week the cheapest Vega 64 cards were over $900 each. Today they're still $150 over launch day price. Progress I suppose?

ptsant wrote:

On the other hand, monitors have been changing very, very fast these last years. From TFT LCD to LED, with many more IPS/PV panels. Color is now almost always 100% of sRGB, Free/G-Sync wasn't even available and high-refresh is becoming very common. And it's not yet over: there are at least two new hot "trends", ultrawide (which I personally don't care about) and HDR, which is quite impressive in real life. And if we start seeing OLED panels, we urge to upgrade will be even stronger. Also, don't forget the new 8K monitors (yeah, mostly useless but still).

So, in some ways the HP ZR24W (TFT IPS 60Hz 1920x1200) is looking much older than the Radeon HD 7950 I had when I bought it.

Go back 12 years and you still had the TN vs IPS vs PVA debate, 6, 8, or 10-bit panels, 70-100% adobe RGB ranges. Today just replace CCFLs for LEDs, swap the 720p vs 1080p debate with 1440p vs 4K, and increase the bit number to 8/10 and sRGB range to 100-130%. Just add the new Free/Gsync premium and extended wide displays, and curved displays. The biggest change to me has been the drop in prices.

When someone takes the IPS U3014 and adds ≥120hz refresh rates, HDR, and drops the input lag then I'll be interested in upgrading again. Until then I'm keeping my U3011 until it kicks the bucket, CCFL's and all.

Kougar wrote:

Monitors tend to outlast GPUs, so I fully agree with CScottG and is why I always spend more on the monitor. Got a Dell 2407 in 2006. It seems pretty rare to have a monitor go out before five years, let alone three.

You may have a few more years left. My UltraSharp 2000FP failed at 16 years. Something went wrong in the electronics of my UltraSharp 2001FP that caused its resolution capability to be unidentifiable by the graphics card at 16½ years. No 16 year-old graphics card is useful for gaming.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Kougar wrote:

Monitors tend to outlast GPUs, so I fully agree with CScottG and is why I always spend more on the monitor. Got a Dell 2407 in 2006. It seems pretty rare to have a monitor go out before five years, let alone three.

You may have a few more years left. My UltraSharp 2000FP failed at 16 years. Something went wrong in the electronics of my UltraSharp 2001FP that caused its resolution capability to be unidentifiable by the graphics card at 16½ years. No 16 year-old graphics card is useful for gaming.

2405FPW still going strong (fiancée's screen now)...

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=34358

Ah back when the world was innocent.

2007WFP still soldiering on here.

Topinio wrote:

CScottG wrote:

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

Functionally, it's the other way around though: I can't imagine I could get more than I paid for from selling any of my monitors, but I could from my GPU (possibly GPUs).

Not "investment" as in hoping for a net gain with resale.

"Investment" as in: a larger expenditure held for a longer period of time with an expected *usefully long life. Ex. a house.

"Commodity" as in: a lower expenditure held for much less time with an expected short(er) *useful life. Ex. a piece of fruit. (..and of course both examples are extreme.)


*in the context of *useful* it's not simply that it can be continued to be used, but that it's still substantially useful to the user. Though I can still get low frame rates out of a mid-range card that's 2+ years old, its use (to me) becomes increasingly less useful for gaming as some of the newer games require more GPU. (..and I might transfer it over to another use - like basic desktop use on another computer with an even older card, or just keep it around as a backup video card.) Most display's however continue to be nearly as good as the day you bought it (and your continued "like" for the product very much depends on how nice the monitor was when purchased), and while the technology is improving the practical results are not (..the obvious exception to this is VR). Having more display-space (higher resolution) isn't that great an improvement in gaming, it also isn't at a point where you can push average high frame-rates with even the best video cards on the most difficult games/settings no matter how capable your monitor is. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have that, but I'm not willing to spend that much more in total in a failed attempt at "greatness".

ptsant wrote:

CScottG wrote:

I also tend to think that monitors are an investment where as video cards are more of a commodity.

I'll do a mid-range video card every *2 years or so instead of spending 3 times that (or more) on the top tier video card at that time. Better still, I've tended toward great buys around Black Friday for those mid-range cards that bring them into the range of 1/4 or less the price of a top tier card.

My monitor on the other hand I've had for almost a decade now. (..and I'm not even on the "horizon" for a new monitor.)

This used to be true for quite a long time, especially when the mid-range card of a new generation was faster than the high-end of the previous generation. Nowadays, the separation in price range (mid-range, like 1060 vs high-end 1080 Ti) is much bigger than the difference between generations. People buying a 1080 still have a very fast card even after the 1080Ti, after Vega and most likely even compared with the 1180.

On the other hand, monitors have been changing very, very fast these last years. From TFT LCD to LED, with many more IPS/PV panels. Color is now almost always 100% of sRGB, Free/G-Sync wasn't even available and high-refresh is becoming very common. And it's not yet over: there are at least two new hot "trends", ultrawide (which I personally don't care about) and HDR, which is quite impressive in real life. And if we start seeing OLED panels, we urge to upgrade will be even stronger. Also, don't forget the new 8K monitors (yeah, mostly useless but still).

So, in some ways the HP ZR24W (TFT IPS 60Hz 1920x1200) is looking much older than the Radeon HD 7950 I had when I bought it.

Well, for one thing I don't compare the 1080Ti to the 1060, instead it's the 1080 vs the 1060 because their release dates are much closer in time - and I compare each respective price at that time. By the time the 1080Ti version is released the 1060 is a much poorer value IF it remains near its MSRP.


Except for VR, monitors aren't really changing that much with respect to gaming. Better - sure, but not necessarily more useful (especially in context with higher resolution and video cards with newer games requiring more GPU). I like the new stuff that's out, but the truly great stuff for gaming is not only exorbitant in price, it's also going to be a sub-par experience let-down by even the best video card available (..as well as a host of other conditions).

CScottG wrote:

"Investment" as in: a larger expenditure held for a longer period of time with an expected *usefully long life. Ex. a house.

"Commodity" as in: a lower expenditure held for much less time with an expected short(er) *useful life. Ex. a piece of fruit. (..and of course both examples are extreme.)

Fair point, and I agree: I'm posting via a 1908FP.

Looking on ebay - it looks like prices for r9 390x, r9 fury, rx 480 and rx 580 (all have similar gaming performance) seem to stabilizing and are down a little after the latest mining news coming out of China.
Maybe I'll get a chance to buy an upgrade from 7870 at a decent price between now and X-mas.

Maybe the RX vega and Vega 56 prices will also come down a little soon.

CScottG wrote:

Except for VR, monitors aren't really changing that much with respect to gaming. Better - sure, but not necessarily more useful (especially in context with higher resolution and video cards with newer games requiring more GPU). I like the new stuff that's out, but the truly great stuff for gaming is not only exorbitant in price, it's also going to be a sub-par experience let-down by even the best video card available (..as well as a host of other conditions).

I can't say that's been my experience. I had one of the (very good) Korean IPS screens from 2011 using the same LG.Philips IPS panels in the Apple Cinema Display. It was glorious at the time and 2560x1440 with rich colours and relatively lag-free gaming was seemingly untouchable in the realm of nasty, overpriced TN gaming panels.

I've had Freesync IPS, G-Sync TN, Curved, ultrawide - all these variants in my hands over the last 2 years and honestly, even though I'm currently passing on VRR (because I'm using a 32" VA panel for a placeholder until the model I want is realeased and reviews okay), the quality of image and fluidity of gaming on a curved ultrawide with G-sync or Freesync is not to be understated. Expecially if it's using one of the newer AMVA panels with gobsmackingly deep black detail and 3000:1 contrast. Likewise, if you're more worried about high-refresh, then a strobing backlight is a complete game-changer. The difference in motion-tracking quality is night and day, and you'll have a hard time going back to screens without it.

Chrispy_ wrote:

CScottG wrote:

Except for VR, monitors aren't really changing that much with respect to gaming. Better - sure, but not necessarily more useful (especially in context with higher resolution and video cards with newer games requiring more GPU). I like the new stuff that's out, but the truly great stuff for gaming is not only exorbitant in price, it's also going to be a sub-par experience let-down by even the best video card available (..as well as a host of other conditions).

I can't say that's been my experience. I had one of the (very good) Korean IPS screens from 2011 using the same LG.Philips IPS panels in the Apple Cinema Display. It was glorious at the time and 2560x1440 with rich colours and relatively lag-free gaming was seemingly untouchable in the realm of nasty, overpriced TN gaming panels.

I've had Freesync IPS, G-Sync TN, Curved, ultrawide - all these variants in my hands over the last 2 years and honestly, even though I'm currently passing on VRR (because I'm using a 32" VA panel for a placeholder until the model I want is realeased and reviews okay), the quality of image and fluidity of gaming on a curved ultrawide with G-sync or Freesync is not to be understated. Expecially if it's using one of the newer AMVA panels with gobsmackingly deep black detail and 3000:1 contrast. Likewise, if you're more worried about high-refresh, then a strobing backlight is a complete game-changer. The difference in motion-tracking quality is night and day, and you'll have a hard time going back to screens without it.

Fair enough.

To me a higher refresh rate (with a capable card) does make a modest difference with certain games. Std. motion blur is meh, I've been conditioned by it over the past 2 decades. Of course if I was a competitive 1st person gamer I'd probably strongly agree.

The worst IMO is that dropped frame stuttering (beyond unacceptably low frame rates from insufficient GPU), but I find that's pretty rare with most games.


Black levels make a much larger difference to me with movies, not games (..also a conditioned response). In fact in really dark scenes I'll often crank up the back-lighting to the point of light-bleed (..just so that I can see small objects).


-honestly, while I don't think very high resolution is all that important, I'd say it's more important to me than most of the above owing more to desktop space relating to strategy games. (..it's a HUGE thing for productivity though if you have a panel size large enough to make it usable - and cheap 42" "4"k TVs are damn near perfect for this.)



So to me most improvements for gaming is relatively small, and much of it was available by at least 2014 - so with exception to black levels and HDR (..which really isn't a "thing" yet for PC gaming), most of it's not terribly new.


Was HAS made a difference to me is the **size of the panel. (..and with 1080P 42" monitor from circa '08 I have "pixels" most would consider dish-plates.) The greater the field of view relative to my peripheral vision - the more immersive the experience. I'm assuming the "closed-off" experience of VR would enhance that further (..though they really need to improve the lateral field of view over what's currently offered.)

**walking into a Sam's Club and seeing a newer curved 65" Samsung TV and moving forward to about 2 feet in front seemed just about ideal to me, where I could barely notice anything but screen to the sides (..and almost as good vertically). THAT's what I'd really view as an improvement, provided of course I could play anything at acceptable frame-rates and with low input lag.

Aranarth wrote:

Looking on ebay - it looks like prices for r9 390x, r9 fury, rx 480 and rx 580 (all have similar gaming performance) seem to stabilizing and are down a little after the latest mining news coming out of China.
Maybe I'll get a chance to buy an upgrade from 7870 at a decent price between now and X-mas.

Maybe the RX vega and Vega 56 prices will also come down a little soon.

You can find several 580's for not much more than a 25% increase over original MSRP. The problem of course is that it's "old" technology - more than a year old (..considering that the 580 and 480 are basically the same with the same drivers).

The Vega.. I don't think prices will be lowering much anytime soon. Supply is artificially low and I suspect that the 56 will become a unicorn until it too is considered old technology (where upon it will receive something as cheesy as bump in numbering a'la: 480 to 580). Note: as yield improves for these processors, most are desired (by AMD) to go into Epyc Servers as compute cards - because that's where the real money is.

Newegg's auto-notify system mailed me a few times today as Radeon RX Vega 56 graphics cards came back into stock (and then sold out again).