TR Forums

Ok so I just got 100hz freesync ultrawide monitor. My current card is a HD7950(yes old). The problem is A. It doesn't support freesync. B. It is too slow for games not 5 or more years old.

So here lies my problem. I want a Vega 64, but obviously because of mining and such the price is just to crazy for me now. So I am gonna buy a lower end card for about a year or so.
While I know their other models are crazy as well, it is a lot easier for me to get lucky looking every other day to find the other models locally or online for a much more reasonable price.

So here is what I can't figure out. Taking the Vegas out of the equation. What is the actual hierarchy of their older models. It is hard to compare them via benchmarks because it seems as though I can't find any benchmarks testing them on the same games and same settings.

So I need a Freesync card meaning at least an R9 or RX card.
Is the RX480 and RX580 the same card? If not is there a big jump in performance?
Is the RX570 and RX470 better deals without losing a ton of performance?
Where do the R9 Fury and Fury X fit in comparison to these?

Are there any better freesync choices than these besides the Vega?

1) The RX 480 and 580 are identical GPUs, but the 580 is clocked higher. The RX 470 and 570 are also the same card with different clocks.

2) The RX 470 does have decently worse 99th percentile frametimes than the RX 580 according to TR.

3) The R9 Fury/ Fury X preform noticeably better than the RX 480/580, but are still slower than a GTX 1070 in most games.

4) Vega is currently the best GPU with Freesync support available.

Unfortunately, the GPU market is in a terrible place right now.

Good luck dude.

My advice: if you can wait, wait.

DrDominodog51 wrote:

Unfortunately, the GPU market is in a terrible place right now.

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.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductL ... ageSize=96

Wait until the inevitable coin crash if you can.

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.

I'd agree with Crispy, that card will fetch between 150-200 on ebay, so you can use that to offset the cost of a new card..

Your best bet is to network around and see if any friends are selling GPUs, you never know. Not everyone dumped GPUs onto fleabay the moment prices blew up so you might get lucky.

You can also try the Reddit Hardware Swap. This guy has a RX 480 for $300, but you will need to buy a dead 480 off fleabay and swap the HSF unless you plan to watercool.

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.

Thanks for the info. The thing with the RX 560 is even though it adds freesync, I don't believe it would work in my case. This monitor is 3440X1440 and the freesync range is 48-100hz. Meaning the 560 would not even allow me to use freesync. I have been trying to find benchmarks all day and it appears that in the 1440p range that the RX 570 actually gets double the fps as the RX560. In the last 2 days I have seen a few of them available under 300 locally. The 560 actually has gotten worse fps then my current card in a lot of games I have seen in the last few hours, though like I mentioned mine does not support Freesynce.
I haven't seen a lot of tests between the rx470 and rx570. I read above that they are the same with a slightly different clock. Are there any other differences between the two? Or would I be ok looking for either of those as basically equal options?

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.

I'm using an r9 fury at 2560x1440. I don't think it would be powerful enough to drive 3440x1440 at a reasonable framerate without dropping a lot of settings.

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.

Prob not gonna do that. I prefer one monitor and not multiples. And the immersion using the one screen is great. I have played a bunch of games using my hd7950 and I actually really like the monitor. I was just hoping to get a bit of an upgrade over my current video card.
My previous monitor was 4k 28" and I really didn't mind gaming on that with this card. I just changed because I have been wanting a ultrawide for a while.

If you're going to buy a GPU that's sub-par for your monitor resolution you might as well just hold on to your existing GPU. Not sure if this option is available for the 7950, but in AMD graphics settings there a setting called "Wait for Vertical Refresh" and one of the drop-down options is "Enhanced Sync" you can try and use that.

You're right in shooting for a Vega 56 or Vega 64 for that resolution.

Here's a helpful table for rough hierarchy.

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:

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

It isn't that I am intent on spending money, but currently a lot of the games I play are actually older and I am getting around 40-80 fps on them. That is why I was asking about the 470 and and 570. Just to last me through the year until I buy a Vega. I was hoping of picking up about 10 fps over my current card and add freesync. The only game in that list I am actually playing is BF1. Which I understand I will have to lower settings for.
Current games I am playing.... Please don't laugh.
Borderlands
Borderlands 2
Borderlands pre-sequel
Halo wars 1 & 2
Starcraft
Age of empires 3
Battlefield 1

Battlefield 1 is really the only hard one. Getting 30fps not on ultra.
The only other game I am not getting high fps on is Halo wars 2 where I get 50fps on ultra. So that is what I was hoping to get one of the older cards just to last a year.
Judging by the chart you posted for me earlier the RX 570 and RX 580 should be about double the power of my current card plus uses new tech.
I am not going to spend $500 on one of these cards, but I may be able to get one of them for under 300 and I just figured it would be fine so I don't have to put up over a grand for the Vega 64 at this moment. I only need this card to last me till next November.

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.

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.

When I started this thread there was one RX 570 new locally to me for 200 but instead of buying it I waiting to do research like an idiot and it is now sold.
Yea I because the games I play are older setting them at high instead of ultra is getting me decent fps even with this card so I only need to pick up about 10fps over my current card.

So Chrispy a few more questions if you don't mind.
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?
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?
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?

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?

There are no differences other than clocks/power consumption - it's the same chip for all four cards, If you increase the voltage on a 400-series card to match the voltage on a 500-series card it will likely reach the same clockspeeds, silicon lottery permitting. My experience with RX480 cards is that they are already close to their limit and they behave best when running them slightly slower at around 1200MHz on a reduced voltage. I don't think you have the luxury of that, given your 5MP screen - you'll likely want to eke out every MHz available.

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?

Yes, if the price difference isn't huge. The 480/580 are about 10% faster than the 470/570 respectively, and especially at higher resolutions that makes a 570 pretty close to a 480.

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?

Depends on the game. Many current AAA games still only use a little over 3GB of VRAM with everything on maximum settings. In saying that memory bandwidth becomes more of an issue as you increase resolution. I would guess that the 8GHz VRAM on the 8GB models is going to be a small but significant improvement over the 7GHz VRAM on the 4GB models. I'm not sure the price premium on the 8GB models is really worth the difference though - back at launch, the 8GB models were an extra 40 bucks, and that was worth spending. Now that the 8GB models are $80-120 more expensive, it's definitely not worth the extra unless you're mining.