- Look at the part of your post I bolded: That is why you are hilarious. You think people are foolish because they are not buying what you think they should, and yet you seem to have some MASSIVE blinders on lol.
- I would say I am a tad more moderate then these people, but I have had a few friends who just built PC's for the first time: None of them even considered Nvidia after seeing the G-Sync situation. The prices are hilariously marked-up and the selection is even worse. No Samsung options and no LG options, and HDMI (or inputs in general) are non-existent. ASUS makes some nice stuff, but it literally costs up to $400 more than the Freesync option. If you buy G-Sync, 90% of the time you ARE buying second-rate stuff.
- So once you factor in G-Sync, it takes a mountain of a better cards to make many users consider the Green team. What is Nvidia's counterpart to Vega 64? A card that uses less energy, but is also weaker. For the same price. That isn't impressing anyone.
- I have been mining since college buddy. Vega is the best mining card BY FAR. 70-100 MH/s would have been insane, but 42 MH/s + excellent dual mining is the new gold standard. To put it in terms non-miners will understand: Vega costs twice as much as an RX 580 and uses roughly 50% more energy. However if you dual-mine it hashes 52% better, and only takes up 1 slot in a motherboard. Thus it is more efficient, you can fit twice as many in the same amount of space, and most importantly: they are in stock! As long as RX 580's are above $250, RX Vega's will be hard to find.
Ok, so it's gonna be one of those conversations...
I've explained why they're foolish in my first post here, based on objective reviews. On top of that, I'm hardly the only one saying this, strengthening my point. To summarize, the problems are: The
flagship Vega 64 has only GTX 1080-like performance after a very long 2 years of development - NVIDIA's 2nd tier card. It runs hot, power hungry and
very noisy to achieve this lacklustre performance and appears to be running overclocked to achieve it. The performance should
leapfrong the 1080 Ti with similar levels of power draw, heat and noise after all this time. The price isn't even competitive to compensate for this. So yeah, I'm calling them second rate based on solid evidence. What on earth is there to argue about?
You go on a lot about G-Sync as if adaptive sync is the number one reason to buy a graphics card. It's not. While it's nice to have and does an amazing job at improving smoothness when there are framedrops, ultimately you want a card that can sustain those high framerates without dropping them, or hardly ever. Yes, the CPU has to keep up, game coded efficiently etc I know this, so don't "correct" me on it.
I've also acknowledged that FreeSync has the advantage of having no price premium, but as AMD is touting this as the main advantage to buying Vega, can't you see that this is a problem? They should be touting straight up framerate performance, not compensation for the lack of it!
I do remember when the two systems were first tested, G-Sync was found to have the edge on performance, so the price did buy you better and is not only an "NVIDIA tax". With the evolution of FreeSync, I'm not sure how true that holds now. Ultimately, I just wish NVIDIA would move away from the proprietary route so adaptive sync would become a defacto feature for everyone, but that's not the situation now unfortunately, so we just have to put up with it.
That hash rate range of 32-36MH/s I quoted to you is from TPU's review, so where are you getting that 42MH/s from? I don't know what you mean by dual mining it, either?
The card takes up two slots, not one, as you've stated.
