Nvidia RTX 2060 for $350 or AMD Vega 64 for $370 on a mid-tier gaming machine?

Nvidia RTX 2060 for $350 or AMD Vega 64 for $370

  • Total voters
    112
Archaea

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,826
Last edited:
I was thinking Vega 64 because of the native support for Freesync, and it's a bit faster generally than the 2060.

However my brother thinks it's a no brainer to go for the 2060 because of Nvidia's better reputation with GPU drivers and being that it's a new product they may yet be able to wring additional performance out of the card + potential for DLSS support or low settings of ray tracing. I'm second guessing myself now on the video card selection. I originally told him he should just buy a used 1080TI for $500, but that much money apparently isn't in the budget.

Vega 64 for $370
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerColor...h=item591ccc8a73:g:eQ8AAOSwHIlZ0Oi9:rk:1:pf:0

All the RTX 2060 cards are $350-$370 and they have better coolers/would be quieter than the blower on the Vega 64. (not to mention they use half the power - which is only of concern because of heat/noise generation)
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Archaea said:
I chose Vega 64 because of the native support for Freesync, and it's a bit faster generally than the 2060.

However my brother thinks it's a no brainer to go for the 2060 because of Nvidia's better reputation with GPU drivers and being that it's a new product they may be able to wring additional performance out of the card + potential for DLSS support or low settings of ray tracing. I'm second guessing myself now on the video card selection. I originally told him he should just buy a used 1080TI for $500, but that much money isn't in the budget.

Vega 64 for $370
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerColor...h=item591ccc8a73:g:eQ8AAOSwHIlZ0Oi9:rk:1:pf:0

All the RTX 2060 cards are $350-$370 and they have better coolers/would be quieter than the blower on the Vega 64. (not to mention they use half the power - which is only of concern because of heat/noise generation)
Click to expand...

Tell your brother he's uninformed. AMD's drivers have come a long way, I use my RX 580 on a daily basis an the drivers are excellent. I hear that these Vega 64's can be undervolted to deal with excessive heat.

If you're concerned about performance, I highly recommend you read Kyles review here at [H] on the 2060. That should sway your opinion.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/20/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2060_performance/
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Personally, I'd wait 2 weeks to buy anything and see if the new AMD cards cause any changes to the market when they launch.
 
Krenum said:
Tell your brother he's uninformed. AMD's drivers have come a long way, I use my RX 580 on a daily basis an the drivers are excellent. I hear that these Vega 64's can be undervolted to deal with excessive heat.

If you're concerned about performance, I highly recommend you read Kyles review here at [H] on the 2060. That should sway your opinion.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/20/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2060_performance/
Click to expand...
That review is not a performance review of the 2060 and not fully applicable here. To whit, that review is purely a review of the 2060s ray tracing capabilities in all one game supporting. (Spoiler; poor)

In fact ignoring DX12 and DXR performance numbers DX11 shows the 2060 as a quite capable GPU in that game.......once again though. Sample size of one. Point is, don’t try and point to that review as being entirely relevant in this discussion.
 
Nolan7689 said:
That review is not a performance review of the 2060 and not fully applicable here. To whit, that review is purely a review of the 2060s ray tracing capabilities in all one game supporting. (Spoiler; poor)

In fact ignoring DX12 and DXR performance numbers DX11 shows the 2060 as a quite capable GPU in that game.......once again though. Sample size of one. Point is, don’t try and point to that review as being entirely relevant in this discussion.
Click to expand...


So basically you're saying that the [H]OCP review of its RTX Performance isn't relevant? Well shit sheriff, why did they even bother then?! Seems relevant to a lot of people including myself when making a purchase decision, maybe not you.

Also, while were on the topic, I linked OP to the review because he mentioned Ray Tracing in his post had you bothered to read his post instead of jumping on me you could have saved your fingers some work. And since reading isn't fundamental to you, the Hardforum review has PERFORMANCE in its title.
 
Last edited:
Krenum said:
So basically you're saying that the [H]OCP review of its RTX Performance isn't relevant? Well shit sheriff, why did they even bother then?! Seems relevant to a lot of people including myself when making a purchase decision, maybe not you.
Click to expand...

It's relevant at this current time, but better DX12 implementation along with DLSS will likely improve its performance... meaning the review will be inaccurate and irrelevant in the near future. Let's get real, nobody is purchasing a 2060 for the ray tracing performance at the present day. I would purchase one over a 1070 or 1070ti. In fact, I plan on doing so unless AMD's releases Navi in June and gives a compelling reason not to purchase the 2060. I don't give a rat's ass about raytracing performance with the 2060 because I don't plan on using the feature.
 
Last edited:
Here OP, another review if you plan on playing BFV with the Vega 64, it trades blows with the 2080 according to this video,

If this video is correct, I'd say you did pretty damn good at $370 for BFV performance. Considering the 2080 is more than double that.

 
Last edited:
thomps33 said:
It's relevant at this current time, but better DX12 implementation along with DLSS will likely improve its performance...
Click to expand...

Its funny to hear someone talking this way about an Nvidia card, when people for years made fun of that same example when people talked about AMD cards, "Just wait" Drivers & software will improve. :rolleyes:
 
Krenum said:
So basically you're saying that the [H]OCP review of its RTX Performance isn't relevant? Well shit sheriff, why did they even bother then?! Seems relevant to a lot of people including myself when making a purchase decision, maybe not you.

Also, while were on the topic, I linked OP to the review because he mentioned Ray Tracing in his post had you bothered to read his post instead of jumping on me you could have saved your fingers some work. And since reading isn't fundamental to you, the Hardforum review has PERFORMANCE in its title.
Click to expand...

No. No it isn’t entirely relevant because it is performance of a single game and specifically they focus on the ray tracing performance of the card. (Hint: that’s why the word performance is in the title.)

And once again, (louder for the people hard of learning) A SAMPLE SIZE OF ONE IS NOT A TRUE PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF A VIDEO CARD. Ahem, excluding of course the ray tracing performance since it’s the only game to sample.

I get that it’s fun and all to link to [H] reviews since they are the best, but if you want to sway someone’s opinion on performance maybe use a review with more than a single game, or if it’s a single game review....perhaps the game that is mentioned. (Though I’m sure BFV is probably on their radar just as PubG is).



But yes, continue attempting to insult me as if I don’t put thought into my posts. It gives me a chuckle.




On to the actual topic, Vega 64. Undervolt it with no OC and it’ll run fairly cool and fast while sucking less power than stock. It’s not a bad purchase. 2060 is probably better in everything but raw performance (plus technically has more useable features). But it’s priced way above what it’s bracket should be and personally I can’t condone that type of purchase.
 
Cherry picking single games for comparison of GPU performance is never a way to go. Games can be all over the place in performance. Best look at a cross section of games and engines benchmarks and then reach your own conclusion. A performance summary of many games showing how 2060 fares against V64:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

They are about equal. Just that Vega 64 draws over a 100w more power and of course is hotter and noisier. These factors should be more of a deciding factor since performance is about same.
 
Archaea said:
I was thinking Vega 64 because of the native support for Freesync, and it's a bit faster generally than the 2060.

However my brother thinks it's a no brainer to go for the 2060 because of Nvidia's better reputation with GPU drivers and being that it's a new product they may yet be able to wring additional performance out of the card + potential for DLSS support or low settings of ray tracing. I'm second guessing myself now on the video card selection. I originally told him he should just buy a used 1080TI for $500, but that much money apparently isn't in the budget.

Vega 64 for $370
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerColor...h=item591ccc8a73:g:eQ8AAOSwHIlZ0Oi9:rk:1:pf:0

All the RTX 2060 cards are $350-$370 and they have better coolers/would be quieter than the blower on the Vega 64. (not to mention they use half the power - which is only of concern because of heat/noise generation)
Click to expand...


That is a perfect example of what my friends think. Nothing against your brother. Its a general bias towards Nvidia. Also tell your brother Nvidia usually have fairly good drivers. I have never really seen nvidia release a driver that magically improved the card over time.

Honestly I would go for more Vram anyday at this point. You will get stutter or random dips in texture heavy games or games that are running ultra settings.

I would actually recommend this Vega 56 with aftermarket cooler and free three games for $340 brand new. VEGA 56 should be averaging less then 220w. Not a deal breaker and I think he will be better of with 8GB of HBM2 at that resolution.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...=vega 56&cm_re=vega_56-_-14-131-740-_-Product
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
amenx said:
Cherry picking single games for comparison of GPU performance is never a way to go. Games can be all over the place in performance. Best look at a cross section of games and engines benchmarks and then reach your own conclusion. A performance summary of many games showing how 2060 fares against V64:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

They are about equal. Just that Vega 64 draws over a 100w more power and of course is hotter and noisier. These factors should be more of a deciding factor since performance is about same.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about those reviews though. All they do is go by average FPS. Thats why I recommend reading reviews here that actually give you gameplay experience. I honestly wouldn't buy a card for 350+ with 6gb of ram.
 
thomps33 said:
It's relevant at this current time, but better DX12 implementation along with DLSS will likely improve its performance... meaning the review will be inaccurate and irrelevant in the near future. Let's get real, nobody is purchasing a 2060 for the ray tracing performance at the present day. I would purchase one over a 1070 or 1070ti. In fact, I plan on doing so unless AMD's releases Navi in June and gives a compelling reason not to purchase the 2060. I don't give a rat's ass about raytracing performance with the 2060 because I don't plan on using the feature.
Click to expand...

i have the shitty performance of the 2060 today and the blind hope that rtx becomes mainstream in one hand and something that wipes the floor with it in the other that supports freesync.

OP get the vega its rock solid. look at my rig i do 1440p gaming on my 144hz freesync monitor on ultra/high all day long no issues.
 
NKD said:
I don't really care about those reviews though. All they do is go by average FPS. Thats why I recommend reading reviews here that actually give you gameplay experience. I honestly wouldn't buy a card for 350+ with 6gb of ram.
Click to expand...
There is only one game [H] tests the 2060 on and thats BFV. And so far, only one condition not existing in any other games where its 6gb vram may be holding it back and thats ray tracing. No other non-RT game has exhibited this. TPU tested over 20 of the most graphically demanding games across all res's and no reports of vram holding back performance. Some may in the future, but then again, its the old 'dont-buy-whats-good-today' but buy for how it may be in the future. The old fine-wine argument for both drivers and hardware :rolleyes:. Having said that, at 4k I would expect Vx64 to be a better choice for the job. At lower res, the 2060 with half the power draw, lower heat and noise makes a more compelling case.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Vega is even limited at 8gb due to the High Bandwidth Cache Controller which works well.
 
Just reading your build thread, I would find it very hard to spend money on a CPU/Motherboard now knowing that 7nm parts are on the way. Especially if I planned on keeping my computer for a long time.

Would you consider upgrading him in stages? Get a 2070 and Monitor now, then further down the line when Zen 2 has been released upgrade the rest. Or maybe if he thinks he might be able to save some money, get a 2080 or Vega II.

The only check to make before you do this is to make sure that the x58 motherboard will support the new GPU.

Sure there will be bottlenecks but it would still be some performance jump and on the new monitor too, it would feel like a massive upgrade to your friend.

$1600 is a lot of money all at once. But, $900 now and $900 in 6-7 months is easier to handle. He gets a much longer last system that way.
 
amenx said:
Cherry picking single games for comparison of GPU performance is never a way to go. Games can be all over the place in performance. Best look at a cross section of games and engines benchmarks and then reach your own conclusion. A performance summary of many games showing how 2060 fares against V64:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

They are about equal. Just that Vega 64 draws over a 100w more power and of course is hotter and noisier. These factors should be more of a deciding factor since performance is about same.
Click to expand...
I looked at that review. The AMD cards were using Catalyst drivers meaning old.

They left a lot of performance on the table not updating their benchmark set for Vega since Adrenalin driver update has been out.

It’s not a fair comparison at all. I get not wanting to retest everything but it’s a bit of a disservice to compare that way. When you look at newer benchmarks using the newest drivers for AMD Vega64, the Vega pretty much beats the 2060 on most everything.
 
Archaea said:
I was thinking Vega 64 because of the native support for Freesync, and it's a bit faster generally than the 2060.

However my brother thinks it's a no brainer to go for the 2060 because of Nvidia's better reputation with GPU drivers and being that it's a new product they may yet be able to wring additional performance out of the card + potential for DLSS support or low settings of ray tracing. I'm second guessing myself now on the video card selection. I originally told him he should just buy a used 1080TI for $500, but that much money apparently isn't in the budget.

Vega 64 for $370
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PowerColor...h=item591ccc8a73:g:eQ8AAOSwHIlZ0Oi9:rk:1:pf:0

All the RTX 2060 cards are $350-$370 and they have better coolers/would be quieter than the blower on the Vega 64. (not to mention they use half the power - which is only of concern because of heat/noise generation)
Click to expand...

I would never buy that horrible blower version of the Vega. Why even offer something like that to a family member? You must not like him. Because the Vega you seem to be selecting totally sucks I have no other choice but to pick the 2060.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I will strongly suggest you top get vega 64. Might be 2060 is new gen GPU but in terms of performance vega 64 is ahead of 2060
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
A couple people in the thread have now referenced a Vega 56 vs. a Vega 64. I don't personally understand that from my own experience? Simply noise concerns? I wouldn't pick a reference blower card, or Power Color brand if there were similar priced options, but if you look for Vega 64 - the rest of the options start at $500-$600 range, and I'm not willing to spend $500-$600 on a Vega 64 in this build, at the sacrifice of something else like the 8 core processor to a 6 core or 4 core, or a lesser monitor. Considering the total experience here, and the expectation of longevity, and the strict $1600 budget cap - I think the cheaper standard reference Vega is is the way to go if I go with Vega.

Furthermore.

I had a couple Vega 56 (tried crossfire) and individually a Vega 56 compared to the Vega 64 watercooled I bought to try as well and the difference wasn't minimal.

I won't consider a Vega 56 when I'm still in question whether a Vega 64 will handle the performance this machine needs to have a 3440x1440. Sure a Vega 56 MIGHT overclock to nearly Vega 64 performance levels, but then you aren't guaranteed, and it's still missing some of the hardware sharders of the Vega64 even if you can get the clock speeds to the same level.

I couldn't overclock either of the Vega 56 I owned to Vega 64 stock clocks - they just wouldn't get there.

AND the Vega 64 MIGHT be able to overclock as well. So no dice on the Vega 56 for me. I'd pick the Nvidia 2060 over the Vega 56 without hesitation personally - as benchmarks show those two cards about on equal in performance. The extra 15-20% performance of the Vega 64 is the draw, right?

Yes I agree blower coolers suck - but you weigh the pros and cons and I come out with a Vega 64 reference card as much preferred over any Vega 56 in this scenario where 3440x1440 is the expected resolution, and performance is on the edge and teetering under 60FPS with newer games as is. I've warned my friend about the potential for much more fan noise, and showed him this thread. He is leaning towards Vega 64 as most of the people seem to be so far.
 
Last edited:
I would normally think the Vegas extra 2gb would help at that oddball resolution but the techpowerup RTX 2060 benchmarks show the RTX 2060 and Vega 64 pretty much tied in avg performance at 1440p and 4k. (I wanted to check out 1440p and 4k benchmarks specifically because his res has about 25% more pixels than standard 1440p so those benchmarks might not necessarily show the whole picture.) https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

IMHO let you brother get the RTX 2060 he wants so it's not your fault when he's unhappy with the Vega performance. The two cards are so close in performance that he might as well just buy the brand he prefers.
 
Last edited:
Kardonxt said:
I would normally think the Vegas extra 2gb would help at that oddball resolution but the techpowerup RTX 2060 benchmarks show the RTX 2060 and Vega 64 pretty much tied in avg performance at 1440p and 4k. (I wanted to check out 1440p and 4k benchmarks specifically because his res has about 25% more pixels than standard 1440p so those benchmarks might not necessarily show the whole picture.) https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/33.html

IMHO let you brother get the RTX 2060 he wants so it's not your fault when he's unhappy with the Vega performance. The two cards are so close in performance that he might as well just buy the brand he prefers.
Click to expand...
As I stated previously, tech power ups comparison isn’t giving the Vega a fair shake. They are using the older Catalyst driver suite, not the current Adrenalin driver suite. TPU Probably didn’t want to rerun all their tests on the AMD cards but given the performance improvements AMD has wrung out of their hardware since then, it’s not a fair current comparison.
 
I missed that. Fair enough.

I would show your friend the benchmarks you like and then let it alone. People are weird about this stuff. When something goes wrong it will be your fault for making him pick something he didn't want. It's the same reason I stopped helping people find the best bang for their buck hardware when I worked repair \ retail lol.
 
Does he have the monitor already? Because if he only plays competitive FPS he should be getting a 144hz or above monitor. It used to be the 1080 ti really helped keep your FPS high in that game but since they've finally optimized it a vanilla 1070 runs it at 100-144fps at low/med settings. I still play some so I can back that up.
 
It depends on the type of gamer he is. If he's the type that needs to be pegged at monitor refresh, at max settings, then I think a 1080ti would be the starting point for a good experience at his rez and hz.

If he's ok with turning down settings and leaning on freesync then he could probably get by with the vega or 2060.
 
Here’s a vid that actually uses the current Adrenalin drivers and the Vega 64 steamrolls the 2060 in almost everything including Assasins Creed and PubG. (Where older AMD Vega drivers lose hard to the Nvidia 2060). This vid paints a much different light. So much so that I deleted the previous video post because it is pretty obvious they were using old recycled benchmark numbers from previous tests with very old drivers. (Like techpowerup)

 
I would not recommend any card with less than 8GB Vram for around $350.
For this reason I recommend the Vega 56/64 or used GTX 1070ti/1080.
This is assuming 1440P gaming. If only at 1080P, the 2060 is worth considering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
bpizzle1 said:
Personally, I'd wait 2 weeks to buy anything and see if the new AMD cards cause any changes to the market when they launch.
Click to expand...
this. if you have to buy know then vega just because the 2060 is kinda a waste. if you like nividia then wait for the 1600s
 
Archaea said:
Here’s a vid that actually uses the current Adrenalin drivers and the Vega 64 steamrolls the 2060 in almost everything including Assasins Creed and PubG. (Where older AMD Vega drivers lose hard to the Nvidia 2060). This vid paints a much different light. So much so that I deleted the previous video post because it is pretty obvious they were using old recycled benchmark numbers from previous tests with very old drivers. (Like techpowerup)

Click to expand...


Lol
 
I have an RTX 2060 and don't recommend it for above 1080p. Get the Vega 64.

On a side note, here is my 2 cents. Gamers playing at 4K should be able to afford whatever high-end card they want and if they cant its best to stay at a lower resolution so you don't break the bank.
 
Montu said:
1700mhz Vega? Talk about a fraud. The horrible AMD blower OP is wanting to buy won't get anywhere close to that.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind both cards are overclocked for that vid comparison.

The Vega 64's default clock speed is 1247MHz and boost clock is 1546MHz.
They are running it at 1700Mhz in that test. (a 9% overclock - which yes is probably more of a liquid cooled speed range since Vega 64 doesn't easily overclock on air)

The RTX 2060's default clock speed is 1365MHz base clock with a boost clock speed of 1680MHz
They are running it at 2050MHz. (a 22% overclock - Is this typical and obtainable for FE 2060s - I don't know)

I'd be happy to lock at a stock to stock comparison, but I haven't found one - at least that is using the newest Adrenalin drivers. Most of the site comparisons seem to be using VEGA launch, or older Catalyst drivers, and the Vega 64 has come a long way since launch.


Looks like quite a few people are able to undervolt and hit mid 1600 MHz range on the reference Vega 64.
 
Last edited:
Based on the resolution you'll be gaming at alone (the same one I play at) I'd go with the Vega 64 for the extra VRAM. You'll also have Freesync support with that monitor and the Vega 64 should equal or beat the RTX 2060 in most games.

To be frank, I have a hard time recommending any RTX cards.
 
exlink said:
Based on the resolution you'll be gaming at alone (the same one I play at) I'd go with the Vega 64 for the extra VRAM. You'll also have Freesync support with that monitor and the Vega 64 should equal or beat the RTX 2060 in most games.

To be frank, I have a hard time recommending any RTX cards.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I just hate the card OP is recommending. It's a POS.
 
Two points:

PUBG --> Nvidia - that's not a strike against AMD, it's a strike against the PUBG developers, but if that game is important, then that's that.
+100w --> Nvidia - in the same performance bracket, it's hard to recommend an AMD space heater, which they are so fond of building. AMD simply doesn't build higher end gaming cards, they build compute cards that are alright at gaming. You know, with extra power draw.

The 2GB VRAM difference is immaterial. Neither GPU is going to max out image quality, and you'd be splitting hairs to find a difference between the two. By the time the extra VRAM is actually needed, the GPUs in question will be struggling to keep up.

And that fracking AMD blower. Nvidia's very best blowers were okay; AMD never came close. If you can't get one with a multi-fan cooler, don't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top