PowerColor Radeon RX Vega 64 Red Devil Available Soon, Overclocked, £590

[Crustybeaver]

Sorry your bias shows, many have given an answer, however you're too blind paying the nvidia tax to see. You'd be great buddies with notb.

By the way welcome to the ignore list.

Ah it hurts that you'd ignore me, after all I was really hoping to seek your approval. As for any comments about being blind to paying Nvidia tax for Gsync, it's a trade off for running the fastest GPUs. I could have opted to buy a FreeSync monitor which is clearly better value however the trade offs are well known. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that "bias"

 

[medi01]

No, £590 for this custom vega was from a fairly typical UK e-tailor.

Well, good for you. I have yet to see custom Vega in stock in DE.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Let'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.

We 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.

 

[Kanan]

We 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.

I've pretty much covered that in my post. What I didn't cover are a lot of Freesync Monitor owners who simply waited for Vega to be released to buy a frickin high end card. Gsync monitors are expensive and relatively rare, but a lot of users get Freesync monitors nowadays because it's simply for free as the name suggests. This leads to those considering to buy AMD more in the future. A lot of them are using Geforce cards but may be tempted to switch. It's a strategy AMD is going, kinda similar to what they are doing on consoles, but more practical. More sales through dominance, even if it's just the monitors or the consoles.

 

[xpusostomos]

Considering 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?

Well, 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.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Well, 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.

FreeSync on TVs is ultimately inevitable, as is Nvidia enabling their cards to one day work with FreeSync (or any similar universal hybrid)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

TV 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).

 

[Crustybeaver]

TV 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).

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

Indeed. It's possible but there is implementation costs and TVs, for the most part, are all about the cheap. Being limited in refresh rate is one of the reasons why they're so much cheaper than comparable monitors.


Unboxing video:

Card is gigantic (three slot, extends past bracket).

 

[Kanan]

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

Pretty much bull. Any halfway new TV I know of is capable of multiple resolutions and multiple different Hz settings. I also know of Korean 4K/HD TVs with Freesync, it's nothing special - if the market wants it, it will come. One thing is for certain: TV's are more limited than monitors regarding Hz frequency.

 

[Ubersonic]

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

It's more a case of why would you buy a Vega 64 for mining when a Vega 56 gives the same performance for 50w less.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Only in memory bandwidth limited applications. Vega really needs a 4096-bit bus.