AMD has really put me in it with Vega..

D

dankykang

n00b
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
19
LOOOOONG time [H] reader (10 years+), first time poster.

Anyway I am in a difficult predicament on what card to get and I wanted to get some outside opinions.

I built a new PC at the end of 2015/early 2016:
  • 6700K
  • 32GB RAM
  • RX480 (something cheaper to get by till Vega)
  • mITX
  • Silverstone RVZ01 case
  • 500W SFX PSU (highest power SFX at the time)
Then I picked up a Samsung CF791 UW monitor about 4 months ago, whenever they first came out. I needed a new monitor, since my Samsung T240 was pretty old and so I went freesync planning on getting Vega to drive it.

I have been waiting forever hoping Vega would be the shoe-in, but flash forward to the reality check yesterday. While I would love to run Vega, 300W is cutting it really close my mITX build I think and would require me to get a higher power PSU on top of the card itself.

Would you cut losses and get a 1080, that I can run just fine and forget about freesync until maybe Navi comes out? Or will Vega still run ok with my 500W PSU even though it's close? Will I even be able to get a Vega outside of a bundle in a timely manner?
 
Last edited:
Aren't they making a 'nano' version of Vega? I could have sworn I saw a shot of someone showing a prototype.
 
If it makes you feel any better, I have a Freesync monitor paired with my 1070 and I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not utilizing freesync. I haven't experienced any adaptive sync tech firsthand but I never use vsync with my 144hz monitor and I don't see any tearing or frame oddities. Everything plays and looks buttery smooth. Could it be smoother with Freesync? That I don't know.

At least you know the Freesync feature didn't automatically bump the cost of your monitor by $300 like G-Sync would have.
 
Last edited:
Wait 2 weeks for benchmarks, they are also going to launch a Nano version of it which will fit in your power envelope. I wouldnt wanna pay a big premium for it though..
 
Thanks guys. The problem I could foresee with the Nano is that it might not be powerful enough for 3440x1440...is it supposed to be the 56 or 64? Anyone know?
 
dankykang said:
Thanks guys. The problem I could foresee with the Nano is that it might not be powerful enough for 3440x1440...is it supposed to be the 56 or 64? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Nano is 64 i think, but lower clocks and tdp limited. A 56 might as well outperform it when it has thermal headroom (290 oc vs 290x) - which could also be an option for you to buy with freesync @ 399
 
Also I forgot to mention, but I have the room for a full size card...I'm using a Silverstone Raven case so it has a riser card that isolates the GPU side.
 
dankykang said:
Also I forgot to mention, but I have the room for a full size card...I'm using a Silverstone Raven case so it has a riser card that isolates the GPU side.
Click to expand...
Your PSU could easily power a Vega 56, which should perform very similar to a Vega Nano (just guessing)
 
I guess I will just have to wait and see how the different SKUs perform...the downside is that it could be a while before I am even able to get one of these. Also between 56/Nano, this is more like a 1070...so at 3440x1440, would it be better to have freesync with lower FPS or none with higher FPS (meaning like a Vega 64/1080)

Also just in case anyone is considering a Samsung CF791- the freesync support is not that great. On standard mode, its only 80-100hz. In "extreme" mode or whatever it extends down to 48hz I believe, but it pretty much makes every game flicker so I really can't run it in that mode anyway =\
 
dankykang said:
I guess I will just have to wait and see how the different SKUs perform...the downside is that it could be a while before I am even able to get one of these. Also between 56/Nano, this is more like a 1070...so at 3440x1440, would it be better to have freesync with lower FPS or none with higher FPS (meaning like a Vega 64/1080)

Also just in case anyone is considering a Samsung CF791- the freesync support is not that great. On standard mode, its only 80-100hz. In "extreme" mode or whatever it extends down to 48hz I believe, but it pretty much makes every game flicker so I really can't run it in that mode anyway =\
Click to expand...

I think on a high refresh rate monitor, it might not even matter and you could grab a 1080 and call it a day.
You would have to look deep into freesync to know that, I really don't have much knowledge of the subject
 
dankykang said:
I guess I will just have to wait and see how the different SKUs perform...the downside is that it could be a while before I am even able to get one of these. Also between 56/Nano, this is more like a 1070...so at 3440x1440, would it be better to have freesync with lower FPS or none with higher FPS (meaning like a Vega 64/1080)

Also just in case anyone is considering a Samsung CF791- the freesync support is not that great. On standard mode, its only 80-100hz. In "extreme" mode or whatever it extends down to 48hz I believe, but it pretty much makes every game flicker so I really can't run it in that mode anyway =\
Click to expand...
At 3440x1440 one 1070 did not cut it for me, that resolution is very demanding if I had GSynch then it would probably be good enough, went to two 1070's which worked well in some titles and not so well in other -> 1080Ti now. FreeSynch is magic in a nutshell, I use a Nano at 4K and FreeSync makes a huge difference in a number of titles. For anything that does not play well I just go with 1440p, also I found scaling resolutions on AMD superior to Nvidia as a note, scaling as in game running 1440p while drivers scale to 4K looks better then on my IPS 1440p monitor running game at 1440p - it is that good.
 
I'd say your close enough, reviews will tell, but you may have to settle for the blower OEM versions to help get the heat out of the case quickly. It's what I did with my CM 120 and 1080ti, but you will gain some noise to offset keeping the heat from the rest of your system.
 
Might I suggest that in the future you not make expensive purchases without first seeing reviews of the video card you're planning on getting?
 
As others have alluded to, there's no 'best' answer here; a high-resolution FreeSync display basically means you'd have to use two Vega GPUs to hit decent framerates with settings set high, if you wanted to take advantage of FreeSync (and you do). But you can't do that with ITX. And with ITX, you're likely more thermally limited than reviewers will be, and thus you'll be getting even less performance.

A 1080, on the other hand, will likely perform better within the same thermal constraints, but obviously won't work with FreeSync and still won't really be 'fast enough', but it's really as close as you're going to get.

Well, as close as you're going to get short of swapping out for a G-Sync display and grabbing a 1080Ti.


[Also, variable v-sync has its uses even on high refresh rate displays; game resource needs aren't static over time, and aside from that at any given time some games will be easier to drive than others. Further, performance goals differ: some games are better with rendering options set low enough to hit higher framerates where variable v-sync is 'nice to have', while others may be better experienced with detail levels up at lower framerates, and variable v-sync will result in a notably better experience.]
 
Rizen said:
Might I suggest that in the future you not make expensive purchases without first seeing reviews of the video card you're planning on getting?
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah....I actually got it for about $850 OTD at my local Microcenter (spending extra for G-sync is something I put aside early on, partly because I didn't see the need to pay extra to support a proprietary protocol), so at least I got a bit of a break. Plus I long compared all the 3440x1440 displays at the time and figured the CF791 was the best overall even considering lack of G-sync. Deep blacks, no real noticeable color shift, 100hz, no IPS glow, etc. and in all honesty, I don't think there is that much more choice even now. I guess I was OK growing into the monitor. Which has priority, the monitor or the card?

IdiotInCharge said:
As others have alluded to, there's no 'best' answer here; a high-resolution FreeSync display basically means you'd have to use two Vega GPUs to hit decent framerates with settings set high, if you wanted to take advantage of FreeSync (and you do). But you can't do that with ITX. And with ITX, you're likely more thermally limited than reviewers will be, and thus you'll be getting even less performance.

A 1080, on the other hand, will likely perform better within the same thermal constraints, but obviously won't work with FreeSync and still won't really be 'fast enough', but it's really as close as you're going to get.

Well, as close as you're going to get short of swapping out for a G-Sync display and grabbing a 1080Ti.


[Also, variable v-sync has its uses even on high refresh rate displays; game resource needs aren't static over time, and aside from that at any given time some games will be easier to drive than others. Further, performance goals differ: some games are better with rendering options set low enough to hit higher framerates where variable v-sync is 'nice to have', while others may be better experienced with detail levels up at lower framerates, and variable v-sync will result in a notably better experience.]
Click to expand...

Considering all of this, I'm leaning 1080. Having my monitor limited to 80-100hz makes freesync only really possible in games that can easily be ran above 100fps@high (Overwatch, Doom) and use a FPS cap at 99. Beyond those two games really, I either have to turn down settings a good bit or deal with an otherwise sub-par experience (Witcher 3, *sigh* PUBG, everything else). I'm thinking it may be a larger benefit to me to be able to unilaterally increase my FPS??
 
One feature I do like is Nvidia Adaptive sync, that feature kicks ass if you can maintain the monitor refresh rate. To me it is as good as FreeSync if one can maintain the FPS which for the 1080Ti is actually easy with a 60hz monitor (3440x1440p). So even if one has a FreeSync monitor, they can still use adaptive sync with a Nvidia card - just get a card that will maintain the frame rate. On the 1070 I would use 50hz sometimes for this but rarely. Just another option for consideration.

Now I wished HardOCP would break down the different sync technologies which includes Vsync, Fast sync and my favorite with non syncing monitors Adaptive sync. Looks like AMD has a new sync version as well, Enhanced sync. AMD frame limiting in the drivers drifts too much to prevent tearing but it does help as well.
 
dankykang said:
LOOOOONG time [H] reader (10 years+), first time poster.

Anyway I am in a difficult predicament on what card to get and I wanted to get some outside opinions.

I built a new PC at the end of 2015/early 2016:
  • 6700K
  • 32GB RAM
  • RX480 (something cheaper to get by till Vega)
  • mITX
  • Silverstone RVZ01 case
  • 500W SFX PSU (highest power SFX at the time)
Then I picked up a Samsung CF791 UW monitor about 4 months ago, whenever they first came out. I needed a new monitor, since my Samsung T240 was pretty old and so I went freesync planning on getting Vega to drive it.

I have been waiting forever hoping Vega would be the shoe-in, but flash forward to the reality check yesterday. While I would love to run Vega, 300W is cutting it really close my mITX build I think and would require me to get a higher power PSU on top of the card itself.

Would you cut losses and get a 1080, that I can run just fine and forget about freesync until maybe Navi comes out? Or will Vega still run ok with my 500W PSU even though it's close? Will I even be able to get a Vega outside of a bundle in a timely manner?
Click to expand...


500 watts, I would be wary of using Vega with that power supply. I'm using a 620 platinum EVGA w/ a 1080ti. pretty much the same set up as you just with 64 gb of vram though.
 
dankykang said:
While I would love to run Vega, 300W is cutting it really close my mITX build I think and would require me to get a higher power PSU on top of the card itself.
Click to expand...

Run an external power supply?

or get another case that supports a full sized ATX supply. That is what I run right now in my Fractal Design Nano S.
 
Ext. PSU is a great idea or just slap a nano on water and have your cake and eat it...
 
No Vega card will beat the 1080 to begin with in averages. And lower Vega models are going to spend more time fighting the 1060(9Ghz) and 1070. On top of that Vega cards are way overpriced as well.

The 56 and Nano also got a ~20% drop in memory bandwidth as well. Not to mention what clocks will be like. I doubt the Vega Nano will be much faster than the Fiji Nano.

Either get a 1080 or wait for Volta where a 120W 250$ (GV106) card will have GTX 1080 stock / RX Vega Liquid style performance.

And Navi? Think Vega on a smaller process ~2 years from now.
 
Shintai said:
No Vega card will beat the 1080 to begin with in averages. And lower Vega models are going to spend more time fighting the 1060(9Ghz) and 1070. On top of that Vega cards are way overpriced as well.

The 56 and Nano also got a ~20% drop in memory bandwidth as well. Not to mention what clocks will be like. I doubt the Vega Nano will be much faster than the Fiji Nano.

Either get a 1080 or wait for Volta where a 120W 250$ (GV106) card will have GTX 1080 stock / RX Vega Liquid style performance.

And Navi? Think Vega on a smaller process ~2 years from now.
Click to expand...
https://videocardz.net/amd-radeon-rx-vega-nano/

Well if the Vega Nano is not faster then no buy. Except it should OC decently like the Nano before but will have to see in the end. HBM2 memory should also be able to OC as well.

As for performance on all the Vega's, we will see.
 
noko said:
https://videocardz.net/amd-radeon-rx-vega-nano/

Well if the Vega Nano is not faster then no buy. Except it should OC decently like the Nano before but will have to see in the end. HBM2 memory should also be able to OC as well.

As for performance on all the Vega's, we will see.
Click to expand...

And then you have a 300W card that's still way under 1080 stock performance. AMD raised the voltage as well from 1.2 to 1.35 on the overclocked HBM2 to reach 1888Mhz.

Vega cards are being beaten in all metrics by cards already on the market.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
And then you have a 300W card that's still way under 1080 stock performance. AMD raised the voltage as well from 1.2 to 1.35 on the overclocked HBM2 to reach 1888Mhz.

Vega cards are being beaten in all metrics by cards already on the market.
Click to expand...
Tell me which one is faster, Vega Fe at 1600mhz or 1080 -> BF1 at 4K (note tile based rendering will be turned on with Rx Vega when launched which Vega FE driver will be updated, meaning better performance)


How about Witcher 3 with Vega FE running around 1440mhz (Rx Vega should be running faster and with tile based rendering)


Doom at around 1440mhz:


We need to wait for the real testing and then unfortunately real performance will be improved over time as well. Tile based rendering can have a dramatic improvement in performance, so that too can mix things up.
 
noko said:
Tell me which one is faster, Vega Fe at 1600mhz or 1080 -> BF1 at 4K (note tile based rendering will be turned on with Rx Vega when launched which Vega FE driver will be updated, meaning better performance)


How about Witcher 3 with Vega FE running around 1440mhz (Rx Vega should be running faster and with tile based rendering)


Doom at around 1440mhz:


We need to wait for the real testing and then unfortunately real performance will be improved over time as well. Tile based rendering can have a dramatic improvement in performance, so that too can mix things up.
Click to expand...


Pcper review of the Vega FE was already done. And just drop the #foreverwaitgame, specially after people have waited 15 months or so for a 350W+ ~GTX 1080 stock card for 700$. There is no magic switch to fix Vega performance. Even AMD only compares it to 1080 and that's the absolute best case.

Vega isn't a 4K card. And even AMD isn't placing it much above Fiji. And 1600Mhz pretty much means 350W+ and water.


8ca6632da8bef739ccb33fbe30a3ff89301c2ba2ffbe8d9a477660228acb7546.jpg






 
Last edited:
As usual benchmarks all over the place, the videos you see the real McCoy. Anyways HardOCP review when ever that becomes available should be very interesting.
 
I actually misread the title of this thread and thought OP was complaining that Vega put it in them. Awkward.
 
noko said:
As usual benchmarks all over the place, the videos you see the real McCoy. Anyways HardOCP review when ever that becomes available should be very interesting.
Click to expand...
Those videos are useless, it never ceases to amaze me that these side by side comparison videos even rack up this many views. You cannot judge a damned thing this way, you need actual performance data on a graph.
 
I'm in the process of upgrading my NCase rig and am really happy with the 1700. I was waiting and seriously hoping that VEGA would be able to do some things, so I could have an all AMD setup but from what I've seen / read so far, it's "more power, less performance" - which is disappointing.

Right now I'm debating on going 1080ti SFF (just saw a video for it, I think it was Zotac maybe ???) or just keeping the full size Titan X(Maxwell) that's currently in it until Volta next year.

Some have suggested waiting on the Nano Vega but from what we've seen from full size Vega, I don't have high hopes for a Nano Vega with an even lower power enevelope handicapping it.
 
dvsman said:
I'm in the process of upgrading my NCase rig and am really happy with the 1700. I was waiting and seriously hoping that VEGA would be able to do some things, so I could have an all AMD setup but from what I've seen / read so far, it's "more power, less performance" - which is disappointing.

Right now I'm debating on going 1080ti SFF (just saw a video for it, I think it was Zotac maybe ???) or just keeping the full size Titan X(Maxwell) that's currently in it until Volta next year.

Some have suggested waiting on the Nano Vega but from what we've seen from full size Vega, I don't have high hopes for a Nano Vega with an even lower power enevelope handicapping it.
Click to expand...

I'd wait for Volta unless you play at 4K. Titan X should be plenty for anything less than that for quite a while still. Too bad Vega turned out to be so disappointing.
 
Ieldra said:
Those videos are useless, it never ceases to amaze me that these side by side comparison videos even rack up this many views. You cannot judge a damned thing this way, you need actual performance data on a graph.
Click to expand...

Funny, I play games not graphs...
 
dankykang look at the bright side the rx480's are still high $$ in the resell market because of the mining stuff still going on. Also, I have a Raven RZ01 and if you were up for some modding you can actually fit a full atx power supply in there, this is HardOCP btw ;). I get that there are higher rates PSU's out there sfx style but it might make a fun project and save some $$$ to way over kill that little HTPC case as I stuck a spare 1000w unit in mine.

As far a VEGA 64/56 I would think this is going to be one of those limited supply things where the MSRP is how AMD (vs newegg or the others) can milk some extra cash out of consumers while they can as they sell out quickly. Eventually, the market will stabilize (minus the miner junk) and maybe they will be competitive in price against the competition. Also if history is any indication the Fury was launched against the 980 gtx and crept close to the 980ti level eventually with driver tweaks and the likes.
 
rhansen5_99 said:
dankykang look at the bright side the rx480's are still high $$ in the resell market because of the mining stuff still going on. Also, I have a Raven RZ01 and if you were up for some modding you can actually fit a full atx power supply in there, this is HardOCP btw ;). I get that there are higher rates PSU's out there sfx style but it might make a fun project and save some $$$ to way over kill that little HTPC case as I stuck a spare 1000w unit in mine.

As far a VEGA 64/56 I would think this is going to be one of those limited supply things where the MSRP is how AMD (vs newegg or the others) can milk some extra cash out of consumers while they can as they sell out quickly. Eventually, the market will stabilize (minus the miner junk) and maybe they will be competitive in price against the competition. Also if history is any indication the Fury was launched against the 980 gtx and crept close to the 980ti level eventually with driver tweaks and the likes.
Click to expand...

From what I could tell RX480s have dropped a lot in second hand price recently, but I could likely still get close to the original $250 I paid out of it...so little to no depreciation.

While I have considered some modding to the case (esp to cut out above the HSF to fit a bigger cooler/fan) and I am not against it in any major way..as long as it still has similar footprint, it more annoys me that I would have to spend extra money on a PSU I shouldn't really need just so I can run Vega 64...esp when I can just pick up a 1080 and be fine as is. So basically around $600 for a Vega 64 + PSU and gain freesync and a space heater OR $500 for a 1080 and no freesync.
 
AzixTGO said:
are you being dishonest or ignorant? the vega 64 reference is supposedly faster than vega fe was and that runs the clock speed that vega fe did during tests. it does not use 350W+, its a <300W card. Even vega fe running on the reference cooler was ~300W. I am pretty sure AMD was targeting 4k with vega and OPs monitor is not 4k anyway. All the vega GPUs should run well at 3440x1440. the vega 56 should be using close to custom 1080 power based on specs and the vega 64 reference at 220W GPU+HBM 290W TDP is also an option and should be within 40-90W of a custom 1080.


Custom vega Graphics cards might have lower TDP depending on the configuration.
Click to expand...

Is it? Please show me. The RX Vega 64 reference got slower listed clocks than Vega FE. And its 295W TBP isn't it.
 
Good point on the space heater argument for the Vega cards... so even if you overclocked the 1080 to the max you would still be below the (190w stock) 275w peak mark vs the 330 ish at stock 64 levels... so yes that 55w delta to 130w stock is going to turn into heat. So in reality a minor bump from the rx480 at full tilt vs a 1080, and a lot more for the Vega. Most likely in that case you would get a pretty good heat soak situation going on :( .
 
AzixTGO said:
OP you dont have to go water cooled vega. even if you did you could still undervolt it.

vega 56 is 220W (165W GPU+HBM2)
nano vega is 150W (GPU+HBM).

you have options
Click to expand...

I'm definitely going to wait for thorough reviews either way so I can make a well informed decision, but I have my doubts that those will drive my 3440x1440 monitor well enough for 80-100fps (freesync range).
 
dankykang said:
I'm definitely going to wait for thorough reviews either way so I can make a well informed decision, but I have my doubts that those will drive my 3440x1440 monitor well enough for 80-100fps (freesync range).
Click to expand...
Doesn't that monitor have an expanded Freesync range via driver settings? It's supposed to be called the Ultimate Engine (48-100 hz):
Ignore the pessimistic title, it's the second thing out from a Google result. Someone got it working pretty well according to the comments.
 
This is exactly the case, in "Ultimate mode" I noticed annoying flickering in almost all 3D games, at least ones I consistently play. It's not so much a "may" have flickering, it's more like "probably".

I just didn't see it as a large enough reason to return it as the monitor itself is gorgeous and 100hz is still great for this type of monitor.

You can see it in this video:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top