TR Forums

I have a Freesync monitor as well.

Still went with Nvidia. I would rather keep FPS above the low numbers where VRR technologies become truly valuable, than get a slower graphics card and rely on my monitor to bail me out.

Have a friend who was in the same boat and did the same thing. He desperately wanted to buy Vega and waited years to upgrade his system, clinging to an R9 290 that was just barely getting by in modern games on his 1440p Freesync monitor. Upgraded his system to a 1080 Ti and hasn't looked back. Doesn't even talk about settings or FPS any more, it's just not a concern.

There's nothing wrong with VRR technologies, I think they're great. Given graphics card prices lately though I wouldn't recommend Vega to anyone but miners. And 1080 is seriously old hat. I wouldn't spend $550+ on a GPU that came out 2+ years ago unless it was made of gold.

/my 2 cents

techguy wrote:

I have a Freesync monitor as well.

Still went with Nvidia. I would rather keep FPS above the low numbers where VRR technologies become truly valuable, than get a slower graphics card and rely on my monitor to bail me out.

Have a friend who was in the same boat and did the same thing. He desperately wanted to buy Vega and waited years to upgrade his system, clinging to an R9 290 that was just barely getting by in modern games on his 1440p Freesync monitor. Upgraded his system to a 1080 Ti and hasn't looked back. Doesn't even talk about settings or FPS any more, it's just not a concern.

There's nothing wrong with VRR technologies, I think they're great. Given graphics card prices lately though I wouldn't recommend Vega to anyone but miners. And 1080 is seriously old hat. I wouldn't spend $550+ on a GPU that came out 2+ years ago unless it was made of gold.

/my 2 cents

The Vega 64 is the same price as the 1080 currently and after the newest drivers benchmarks have it faster than the 1080.

Topinio wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

We're talking about gaming, not Linux.

¿por qué no los dos?

Srsly, though, card availability hasn't been that many days after the Linux kernel support, even if YMMV on getting decent gaming performance without booting Windows.

• Radeon RX 580 was 89
• Radeon Instinct MI25 was 87 and Radeon RX Vega 64 was 141
• today is 49 days and counting...

To clarify, I was referring to the possibility of a flop or two between Vega64 and whatever the next competitive GPU is, kind of the like the 290X->390X(LOL)->FuryX(LOLOL)->Polaris(LOL)->Vega64.

Gandolf wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

If you have the PSU and cooling to support a Vega64 AND plan on sticking with your monitor grab the Vega. I prefer Pascal, but adaptive sync is really nice. Just be aware that Vega could be the new Hawaii and you might not be able to ugprade for several years.

I have a corsair Obsidian 450D case and a Antec high current pro 850 power supply. My cpu is liquid cooled. Is this enough? My bottleneck could possibly be the case being too small?

Your PSU is adequate, assuming that it is in good shape. For a Vega64 you'll need to ensure that your case has a lot of big (not necessarily fast) fans to move all that damn heat from the Vega64. Your case has 16.9" of GPU clearance if you're not using the extra drive bay (or 11.5" with said drive bay). Perusing a few random triple slot Vega64 cards on Newegg suggests that you'll need about 13" to install.

I have a Viotek 34" UWQHD (3440 x 1440) 1800R curved monitor with 100Hz and Adaptive Sync/FreeSync running on GTX 1080 mobile...and a message will pop on the screen that it's running G-Sync; dunno why. Overall the gaming experience is good.

Kretschmer wrote:

Gandolf wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

If you have the PSU and cooling to support a Vega64 AND plan on sticking with your monitor grab the Vega. I prefer Pascal, but adaptive sync is really nice. Just be aware that Vega could be the new Hawaii and you might not be able to ugprade for several years.

I have a corsair Obsidian 450D case and a Antec high current pro 850 power supply. My cpu is liquid cooled. Is this enough? My bottleneck could possibly be the case being too small?

Your PSU is adequate, assuming that it is in good shape. For a Vega64 you'll need to ensure that your case has a lot of big (not necessarily fast) fans to move all that damn heat from the Vega64. Your case has 16.9" of GPU clearance if you're not using the extra drive bay (or 11.5" with said drive bay). Perusing a few random triple slot Vega64 cards on Newegg suggests that you'll need about 13" to install.

I don't have the extra drive bay installed so I currently should have the 16.9" for the gpu.
The case has 3 120mm fans. I am going to upgrade them to ones that have higher CFMs.
I am also considering a slot cooler of some type to move more air off the video card.

It is because G-sync for mobile Nvidia GPUs uses VESA’s VRR implementation over DisplayPort. Freesync 1 is the same thing, so any Freesync monitor can do VRR with mobile Nvidia GPUs.

Krogoth wrote:

It is because G-sync for mobile Nvidia GPUs uses VESA’s VRR implementation over DisplayPort. Freesync 1 is the same thing, so any Freesync monitor can do VRR with mobile Nvidia GPUs.

And this is why I hate that Nvidia won't do VESA VRR over Displayport (AKA Freesync 1) on desktop. I own a Freesync TV. I hook a GTX970 up to it.

WHY WON'T NVIDIA DO THE OBVIOUS THING THEY NEED TO DO?!

Gandolf wrote:

I have a corsair Obsidian 450D case and a Antec high current pro 850 power supply. My cpu is liquid cooled. Is this enough? My bottleneck could possibly be the case being too small?

This? http://store.antec.com/highcurrentpro/h ... tinum.html

Should be fine.

Get a blower card, then you don't need to care about the case, just it's placement.

Topinio wrote:

Gandolf wrote:

I have a corsair Obsidian 450D case and a Antec high current pro 850 power supply. My cpu is liquid cooled. Is this enough? My bottleneck could possibly be the case being too small?

This? http://store.antec.com/highcurrentpro/h ... tinum.html

Should be fine.

Get a blower card, then you don't need to care about the case, just it's placement.

A blower can only work with the ambient temperature of the case in question. I need to rehouse my 7700K/1080Ti system, as the current Node 304 with its paltry 92mm intakes gets toasty enough in the summer to throttle the GPU.

Chrispy_ wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

It is because G-sync for mobile Nvidia GPUs uses VESA’s VRR implementation over DisplayPort. Freesync 1 is the same thing, so any Freesync monitor can do VRR with mobile Nvidia GPUs.

And this is why I hate that Nvidia won't do VESA VRR over Displayport (AKA Freesync 1) on desktop. I own a Freesync TV. I hook a GTX970 up to it.

WHY WON'T NVIDIA DO THE OBVIOUS THING THEY NEED TO DO?!

This is maddening but won't change until the market punishes Nvidia. They should just call VESA VRR "GSync Lite" to mollify GSync monitor manufacturing partners and flog the incremental difference as a huge boon for "GSync Plus" to save face.

Kretschmer wrote:

A blower can only work with the ambient temperature of the case in question. I need to rehouse my 7700K/1080Ti system, as the current Node 304 with its paltry 92mm intakes gets toasty enough in the summer to throttle the GPU.

Well if the surrounding environment is inadequately cooled, any case can have issues.

Gandolf's case is all good, though, unless it's in a sauna. ETA: https://www.corsair.com/uk/en/Categorie ... 9011049-WW

Update: I ended up ordering the Vega 64. It should be here Saturday. I am going to check how hot it gets, I don't normally have the side of my case on. But if I have to I will be ordering different fans with higher airflow.

Kretschmer wrote:

Chrispy_ wrote:

WHY WON'T NVIDIA DO THE OBVIOUS THING THEY NEED TO DO?!

This is maddening but won't change until the market punishes Nvidia. They should just call VESA VRR "GSync Lite" to mollify GSync monitor manufacturing partners and flog the incremental difference as a huge boon for "GSync Plus" to save face.

That is actually a good idea that I haven't heard before.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Chrispy_ wrote:

WHY WON'T NVIDIA DO THE OBVIOUS THING THEY NEED TO DO?!

This is maddening but won't change until the market punishes Nvidia. They should just call VESA VRR "GSync Lite" to mollify GSync monitor manufacturing partners and flog the incremental difference as a huge boon for "GSync Plus" to save face.

That is actually a good idea that I haven't heard before.

It would be good for us, but Nvidia has decided otherwise. Honestly, I'm less concerned about the few hundred dollars GSync premium than I am about how few GSync monitors hit the market.

Kretschmer wrote:

Honestly, I'm less concerned about the few hundred dollars GSync premium than I am about how few GSync monitors hit the market.

I actually view that as a good thing. That keeps the quality high. It seems to me the specs are rigid enough that they are rejecting the low-end monitors that AMD is happy to through a freesync label on.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Honestly, I'm less concerned about the few hundred dollars GSync premium than I am about how few GSync monitors hit the market.

I actually view that as a good thing. That keeps the quality high. It seems to me the specs are rigid enough that they are rejecting the low-end monitors that AMD is happy to through a freesync label on.

I disagree, high quality can always find a niche.

And IMO it's not a case of a few hundred dollars, it's a case of another $0.5k every time I switch GPU vendors, which I am not going to spend because I have a nice £500 FreeSync monitor and a nice £400 GPU to go with it. I wasn't tempted by the GTX 1070 or GTX 1070 Ti, and won't be tempted by the GTX 1170 or whatever NVIDIA's next £400-500 card is, fundamentally because I am not interested in spending £900 in one go.

I want to keep this monitor for now, it is high enough quality and I have better uses for £500 than replacing a £500 2560x1440 144 Hz 40-144 Hz VRR with a different 2560x1440 144 Hz 40-144 Hz VRR. NVIDIA has priced itself out of my business, though I'm sure few of its employees give a toss.

Gandolf wrote:

techguy wrote:

I have a Freesync monitor as well.

Still went with Nvidia. I would rather keep FPS above the low numbers where VRR technologies become truly valuable, than get a slower graphics card and rely on my monitor to bail me out.

Have a friend who was in the same boat and did the same thing. He desperately wanted to buy Vega and waited years to upgrade his system, clinging to an R9 290 that was just barely getting by in modern games on his 1440p Freesync monitor. Upgraded his system to a 1080 Ti and hasn't looked back. Doesn't even talk about settings or FPS any more, it's just not a concern.

There's nothing wrong with VRR technologies, I think they're great. Given graphics card prices lately though I wouldn't recommend Vega to anyone but miners. And 1080 is seriously old hat. I wouldn't spend $550+ on a GPU that came out 2+ years ago unless it was made of gold.

/my 2 cents

The Vega 64 is the same price as the 1080 currently and after the newest drivers benchmarks have it faster than the 1080.

1) if what you say is true then it should be easy enough to demonstrate across a WIDE RANGE of games and not just DX12 - i.e., show me the link
2) even if it is true - big deal. Vega 64 needs 100W more than a 2+ year old GTX 1080 and it's just now, finally beating it? let me know when AMD has something that competes against Nvidia's fastest and I'll be interested again

techguy wrote:

1) if what you say is true then it should be easy enough to demonstrate across a WIDE RANGE of games and not just DX12 - i.e., show me the link
2) even if it is true - big deal. Vega 64 needs 100W more than a 2+ year old GTX 1080 and it's just now, finally beating it? let me know when AMD has something that competes against Nvidia's fastest and I'll be interested again

Quickie question: are you here to help Gandolf with his decision, or are you here to argue? The point of this topic, as far as I can tell, is to help Gandolf with his decision. Its not Gandolf's job to prove to you anything. If you want to flame war, I suggest trying reddit. There are plenty of people over there who like to argue.

In any case, Gandolf has already purchased a Vega64. So that debate has been settled. I think the extra heat issue is well known, and most of the recent messages in this topic are about heat management and proper fan locations in a case.

techguy wrote:

1) if what you say is true then it should be easy enough to demonstrate across a WIDE RANGE of games and not just DX12 - i.e., show me the link

Quick Google gives https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/as ... 520-3.html

Vega 64 looks competitive to me. (Not done a proper look.)

techguy wrote:

2) even if it is true - big deal. Vega 64 needs 100W more than a 2+ year old GTX 1080 and it's just now, finally beating it? let me know when AMD has something that competes against Nvidia's fastest and I'll be interested again

Fair enough, if you have the $$$ and/or a G-SYNC monitor.

Gandolf has a https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG-Strix-XG35VQ/ and isn't paying at the GTX 1080 Ti price level, so the Vega is a no-brainer really. To get at least the same performance as a RX Vega 64 and keep VRR would mean buying e.g. GTX 1080 Ti and PG348Q @ £1650 rather than spend £500 for the Vega.

Or a performance drop and losing VRR for a GTX 1080 and keep the monitor, @ £450.

Gandolf wrote:

Update: I ended up ordering the Vega 64. It should be here Saturday. I am going to check how hot it gets, I don't normally have the side of my case on. But if I have to I will be ordering different fans with higher airflow.

Your current card uses 200W, the Vega64 uses up to 295W but I'd recommend the power-save BIOS, and it'll perform at 95% of the normal speed but at closer to 225W, if Asus BIOSes are like the rest of them (only have experience with reference 56 BIOS, Sapphire 56 Nitro+ and Gigabyte 64).

Topinio wrote:

Vega 64 looks competitive to me. (Not done a proper look.)

Or a performance drop and losing VRR for a GTX 1080 and keep the monitor, @ £450.

How can you not have checked the benchmarks AND assert that the 1080 loses to a Vega64?

dragontamer5788 wrote:

techguy wrote:

1) if what you say is true then it should be easy enough to demonstrate across a WIDE RANGE of games and not just DX12 - i.e., show me the link
2) even if it is true - big deal. Vega 64 needs 100W more than a 2+ year old GTX 1080 and it's just now, finally beating it? let me know when AMD has something that competes against Nvidia's fastest and I'll be interested again

Quickie question: are you here to help Gandolf with his decision, or are you here to argue? The point of this topic, as far as I can tell, is to help Gandolf with his decision. Its not Gandolf's job to prove to you anything. If you want to flame war, I suggest trying reddit. There are plenty of people over there who like to argue.

In any case, Gandolf has already purchased a Vega64. So that debate has been settled. I think the extra heat issue is well known, and most of the recent messages in this topic are about heat management and proper fan locations in a case.

He already made his choice, no "help" left to provide at this point, it's all academic now.

Not looking for a flamewar, just stating my opinion.

I just want to say: Can't we all just get along in this thread?!?!

techguy wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

techguy wrote:

1) if what you say is true then it should be easy enough to demonstrate across a WIDE RANGE of games and not just DX12 - i.e., show me the link
2) even if it is true - big deal. Vega 64 needs 100W more than a 2+ year old GTX 1080 and it's just now, finally beating it? let me know when AMD has something that competes against Nvidia's fastest and I'll be interested again

Quickie question: are you here to help Gandolf with his decision, or are you here to argue? The point of this topic, as far as I can tell, is to help Gandolf with his decision. Its not Gandolf's job to prove to you anything. If you want to flame war, I suggest trying reddit. There are plenty of people over there who like to argue.

In any case, Gandolf has already purchased a Vega64. So that debate has been settled. I think the extra heat issue is well known, and most of the recent messages in this topic are about heat management and proper fan locations in a case.

He already made his choice, no "help" left to provide at this point, it's all academic now.

Not looking for a flamewar, just stating my opinion.

Yea I wasn't trying to start any arguments here either. I was just going buy Tomsguide review posted above. And it has the Vega 64 as being faster in almost every game they tested. And I just figured that plus the freesync would be the best way for me to go.

Kretschmer wrote:

Topinio wrote:

Vega 64 looks competitive to me. (Not done a proper look.)

Or a performance drop and losing VRR for a GTX 1080 and keep the monitor, @ £450.

How can you not have checked the benchmarks AND assert that the 1080 loses to a Vega64?

WTH, you quote me and in doing so remove the link I provided to support the statement, in order to try a BS claim that I haven't supported the statement?? You're not on reddit right now, give it a rest will you?

Topinio wrote:

Quick Google gives https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/as ... 520-3.html

Vega 64 looks competitive to me. (Not done a proper look.)

[...]
Fair enough, if you have the $$$ and/or a G-SYNC monitor.

Gandolf has a https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG-Strix-XG35VQ/ and isn't paying at the GTX 1080 Ti price level, so the Vega is a no-brainer really. To get at least the same performance as a RX Vega 64 and keep VRR would mean buying e.g. GTX 1080 Ti and PG348Q @ £1650 rather than spend £500 for the Vega.

Or a performance drop and losing VRR for a GTX 1080 and keep the monitor, @ £450.

Gandolf wrote:

Yea I wasn't trying to start any arguments here either. I was just going buy Tomsguide review posted above. And it has the Vega 64 as being faster in almost every game they tested. And I just figured that plus the freesync would be the best way for me to go.

Yeah. To be fair to techguy, there's lots of different reviews with contradictory results. Techguy's point was that Vega 64's performance wins are mainly in the DirectX12 realm. NVidia's GPUs tend to perform better under DirectX 11, which is far more common right now. There's an expectation for the overall market to shift towards DirectX12, but its way slower this time around than previous shifts. So there's a reasonable expectation that the game industry will remain DX11 for an extended period of time.

@ Techguy: my overall issue was the tone of of your post, as opposed to your points. We all need a reminder every now and then about tonality, so no hard feelings. I definitely get into a more flamewar feeling state of mind if I visit Reddit for too long. Normal forums like these are good, because we get to enjoy a slower pace of conversation.

This thread is kind of a dumpster fire. I hope it ends soon now that Gandolf has his decision.

This:

NVidia's GPUs tend to perform better under DirectX 11, which is far more common right now.

.. and this:

There's an expectation for the overall market to shift towards DirectX12, but its way slower this time around than previous shifts.

... may be causally linked. Game publishers want to maximize sales, so when they see that NVidia has a larger install base they tailor their games to attract that larger market.

Not "fair" or "forward thinking", of course, but understandable that they want to go after the largest pool of customers.

K-L-Waster wrote:

This:

NVidia's GPUs tend to perform better under DirectX 11, which is far more common right now.

.. and this:

There's an expectation for the overall market to shift towards DirectX12, but its way slower this time around than previous shifts.

... may be causally linked. Game publishers want to maximize sales, so when they see that NVidia has a larger install base they tailor their games to attract that larger market.

Not "fair" or "forward thinking", of course, but understandable that they want to go after the largest pool of customers.

Well, that's not technically the condition needed to cause game developers to stick to DX11. Although it plays a role. The condition is more appropriately shown with this benchmark: https://images.hardocp.com/images/artic ... bA_7_2.png

While AMD cards benefit from DirectX12, NVidia cards may regress in performance. So the game developers see that NVidia is more popular, that NVidia performs better on DX11. So the choice is more obvious to favor DX11.

Full article here: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03 ... _review/11

So not every game has this issue. But the idea of putting forth effort to port to DX12 and maybe lose performance?? That's too much risk. Its much easier to stick with what you know, with older tools (already working in DX11) and stay the course.