DrDominodog51 wrote:That's an understatement. The GPU market has been destroyed by the crazed mining bubble. I bought a Sapphire Radeon RX Vega64 for $499.99 MSRP on October 30. Now, if you can find one, they're more than double that.Unfortunately, the GPU market is in a terrible place right now.
Chrispy_ wrote:Whist not 100% accurate, GCN is pretty consistent in its performance, with only minor differences in gaming performance between generations.
That means you can gauge rough performance by looking at shader count and clocks.
Your card = 1792 * 800
R9 280 = no freesync support (rebadged HD7950)
R9 280X = no freesync support (rebadged HD7970)
R9 285 = 1792 * 918
R9 290 = 2560 * 947
R9 290X = 2816 * 1000
R9 380 = 1792 * 918 (rebadged R9 285)
R9 380X = 2048 * 970
R9 390 = 2560 * 1000 (rebadged R9 290)
R9 390X = 2815 * 1000 (rebadged R9 290X)
R9 Fury = 3584 * 1000
R9 Fury (others) = Don't touch. Used Nano too rare, Used Fury X has old CLC.
RX 460 = 896 * 1200
RX 470 = 2048 * 1206
RX 480 = 2304 * 1266
RX 560 = 1024 * 1275
RX 570 = 2048 * 1244
RX 580 = 2304 * 1340
RX Vega = Unobtainium. $1000 if you're lucky, and you won't be.
All the numbers are on Wikipedia, but those are the relevant ones for you.
I think it's fair to say that the 470, 480, 570, 580 and Vega are ruined by miners because they're so power-efficient compared to everything else, making them silly-profitable for mining. Even older cards like the 290X are in demand, because they seem to have 4GB of GDDR5, but you can find them for under $400 which is still terrible value, but it's definitely better than anything else.
My advice would probably be to sell your 7950 on ebay since it's a good mining card. If you're lucky you'll manage $200+ after fees, maybe you'll get lucky and get more for it, but I don't think anyone's gonna buy the $500 ones listed on ebay somehow.
Don't buy anything good with your wealth though, just get yourself an RX 560 4GB for about $140. It'll be cheap and quiet, it'll let you play with Freesync, it'll have more RAM to power your presumably higher-resolution monitor, and the newer architecture will allow it to match your old card.
I know it's not a great answer, but unless you want to spend ridiculous money on a Vega56, you're better off trying to make a sidegrade that gets you Freesync and gives you a hundred bucks in your pocket.
Kretschmer wrote:You'd probably be better off returning that 3440x1440 monitor for a 27" 1440P FreeSync gaming monitor and 27" 1440P office monitor. Better gaming features, more productivity space, and fewer pixels to drive.
I've tried a 3440x1440 screen with a 580-class card, and it's a pretty miserable experience.
Chrispy_ wrote:If you're intent on spending money, modern games are going to require an RX Vega to hit your freesync range at that resolution.
The two framerates I'm talking about here are typical for the majority of the open-world gaming. It'll be higher indoors and the corners of multiplayer maps, but you get the idea. Just search youtube for <game name> Vega64 3440 and you'll find plenty of playthroughs.
Witcher 3 Ultra 3440x1440 runs at around 45-55fps
Battlefield 1 Ultra 3440x1440 runs at around 50-80fps
Destiny 2 Ultra 3440x1440 runs at around 25-60fps (the tiny tutorial map only gets 55 or so in the open areas!)
PUBG Ultra 3440x1440 runs at around 40-60fps (menus run at a horrible 25fps thanks to the horrible gameworks soft-focus filters)
Dirt Rally Ultra 3440x1440 runs at around 50-85fps
I'm not talking about minimum framerates here, I'm talking about areas in the game where you'll be seeing the low values there as average frame rates!
Vega56 is a good card for 2560x1440p60
Vega64 is a good card for 2560x1440p75
As much as it pains me to say it, you're going to need to forget about freesync at that resolution and just buy a 1080Ti to run it at 100Hz with fast-sync, or no vsync at all.
Your only alternatives are to wait patiently or suck up a Vega64 for $1100-1400 and spend 15 minutes in every game working out which details you can drop to get your average framerate comfortably into your freesync range
Chrispy_ wrote:Sounds like you're happy to compromise on image quality, so a 570/580 ought to be a decent stopgap. The RX480 I had was pretty decent at medium settings in newer games at 2560x1440.
Good luck hunting for one at sensible prices. Pre-ordering might actually be useful here - you can cancel if the prices drop, but you get you GPU (eventually) at the price you paid if you can wait for stock to arrive.
Gandolf wrote:Is the difference between the 470/480 series and 570/580 series noticeable or worth paying any more for the slightly higher clocks? For example is it worth it buying a 580 over a 480?
Gandolf wrote:Is there a decent different between the 70-and 80 of each of those models? For example is it worth it to buy a 580 over a 570?
Gandolf wrote:And last question. I see a lot of these cards have both 4GB and 8GB versions available. Will they make a difference at the resolutions I am using?