Therion_INo, £590 for this custom vega was from a fairly typical UK e-tailor.

JackOneLet's make a simple math calculation, every idiot can understand:

GTX 1080 500 bucks + 700 bucks for a Gsync monitor. That's 1200 bucks.

Vega 64 custom (eg this one) 600 bucks + 500 bucks for a Freesync monitor = 1100 bucks.

And Vega 64 custom is faster too and new games/DX12 games show better scaling on Vega than on Pascal architecture. This is all fact btw, yes the price difference between Gsync and Freesync too.

The only downside to buying Radeon is power consumption as always. If you don't care about that, it's a fairly easy decision. Another possibility is, if someone doesn't care about Freesync/Gsync, then it's basically 500 vs. 600 on the GPU, that's to be decided on the games he plays. If he plays games where AMD is showing better performance it's Vega, if not, then 1080. I'm gonna admit, without the Freesync / Gsync price difference, AMD is looking pretty much bad atm. you have to be a fan to buy AMD if you're not going for Freesync, unless you bet on future performance, which is always a gamble. IMO, Vega 64 is better long term and Freesync is the better product compared to Gsync, due to prices. That said, I'm a 1080 owner myself.

CrustybeaverWe can't base all GPU sales on a link to their optimum Sync partners because it just won't be a consideration to everyone purchasing a GPU. Some people won't consider upgrading their monitor, some just don't even know about sync tech and some might not even notice any tearing for it to be a consideration. This is apparent if you look at builds uploaded to PC Part Picker. It's probably fair to assume that most monitor purchases will outsee GPU upgrades meaning that you'd be locked into either an AMD/FreeSync or Nvidia/G-Sync contract. So if it is a consideration it's one based on more than just which is cheaper and then other factors come into play. Factors such as previous brand performance and how their future cards will stack up against the competition. Considering that AMD have just released their latest high end Radeon cards which offer no real performance gains over a 1080 (across a suite of games) it's hard to see them competing with Nvidia over the coming one to two years. After all a Titan and 1080Ti card already offers a considerable step up in game frame rates.

CrustybeaverConsidering that Nvidia cards offer better price to performance gains over the Vega 64 how would it be the same argument? Sure FreeSync is cheaper when compared to G-Sync, but it's also inferior tech. My question remains, what reasons would you have for buying a Vega 64 over an Nvidia card other than wanting a FreeSync monitor?

xpusostomosWell, AMD drivers are open source, so it's better for running Linux. And being the same hardware as Macs, some people like to run Mac OS on them. And freesync might be a little bit inferior, but they are probably going to bring freesync to TVs, which is kind of a big deal for gamers.

FordGT90ConceptTV content has a fixed framerate. Adaptive sync has no value displaying it because they can already compensate for it in the decoders (pumps it up to 50 Hz or more).

CrustybeaverBut Sync tech in TVs would have a purpose when paired with a game consoles graphics card.

FordGT90ConceptBeing limited in refresh rate is one of the reasons why they're so much cheaper than comparable monitors.

PatriotNewegg sold 700+ vega64s for $465ea. last week. We are back around msrp... the mining craze has dipped.