Did the crazy, out with Titan Xp, in with Vega 64 Liquid...

NukeDukem said:
Again it's not just about the raw performance difference between the cards. He is also losing VRR entirely by switching to AMD because the monitor is G-Sync only. Modern demanding games like BF 1 are not getting >165FPS minimums at that resolution with a Vega 64 or a 1080Ti, so yes having VRR will provide the smoothest experience.
Click to expand...

COD WWII (Vega 64 Liquid) I'm having no problems getting 165FPS - I've spent some time in BF1 CTE now, when I'm running around (most all maps) its in 150's FPS with a rare upper 140's, low 160's while not running. Strangely enough my Titan Xp had lower low FPS, however it also had a bit more (though only for surging moments) peak FPS - with just these 2 games (WWII and BF1 CTE) the Vega 64 Liquid does not seem to swing (FPS) near as much as my Titan Xp (AIO) did, it (Vega 64) stays pretty level in comparison.

The frame dips with the Vega 64 come in-between matches and loading maps in both WWII and BF1 CTE.

You're correct though, with many modern games (at least ones I play), its a challenge yet to stay above 165FPS mark. So far I don't miss Gsync, at least with this monitor the images still look great. Hopefully with the next gen cards from both AMD and Nvidia we will see cards that can push frames over 165FPS most of the time at 2560x1440.
 
Last edited:
Archaea said:
First off - thanks for your response!



#1 - is this a known issue? Is your friend using DX9 or DX11? Have your friend submit a bug report. This can be looked into further.

DX11, all settings maxed. We both played POE for years. Though not recently - both probably quit regular play over the last six months to a year. Neither of us had seen it before, but my nvidia card doesn't do it.

#2 - This was an issue, but should have been resolved in a game patch. This was not just an AMD issue.
Search here for "cursor". https://vermintide.gamepedia.com/Changelog
Possible fix or cause could be alt tabbing too.

I've never seen it with my 1080TI nvidia card, and I bought the game near launch and have 30 hours in it. His fix is typically to open the menu and close it again, or alt-tab out - but sometimes it doesn't go away so he has to exit the game and re-launch. He's got the newest version of the game updated via Steam FWIW.

#3 - You are using an old version of windmill. The new version works fine on Vega. This was a demo program way before Vega was even around.

Where is the new version? I couldn't even find the old version save a 3rd party link? I'm sure he'd love to try the new version. (though really - why does the old version not work?) I can go to nvidia's site and download any nvidia 1st party demo back nearly two decades and they all work)

#4 - If you enable VP9 in edge, 4k works for me but I had to refresh.

I'll have hit test - I don't know what VP9 is - but I'll do a websearch -- edit - instructions:
(https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...icrosoft-edge-vp9-extension-windows-10-a.html)

#5 - IDK again submit a bug report. It's built into the drivers.

What's built into the drivers?
Click to expand...

#2 - I have a friend with a 980 and he gets the mouse cursor too. I just hopped in and got it 1 out of the 10 times I started/closed the game, so It's there. It could still be a game bug though.

#3 - The updated windmill isn't public. I've already asked though, and was told no.

#4 - VP9 is under "about:config" type that in the address bar. "Enable VP9 Video Format to Always on"

#1 and #5 - Under preferences you can click "report issues online"

I can put a feeler out though for someone to test.
 
nEo717 said:
COD WWII (Vega 64 Liquid) I'm having no problems getting 165FPS - I've spent some time in BF1 CTE now, when I'm running around (most all maps) its in 150's FPS with a rare upper 140's, low 160's while not running. Strangely enough my Titan Xp had lower low FPS, however it also had a bit more (though only for surging moments) peak FPS - with just these 2 games (WWII and BF1 CTE) the Vega 64 Liquid does not seem to swing (FPS) near as much as my Titan Xp (AIO) did, it (Vega 64) stays pretty level in comparison.
Click to expand...

I wonder if your Titan Xp was thermal throttling by chance? The AIO Vega 64 water cooled unit is not going to thermal throttle. Perhaps that's the delta with the variance in FPS.

I'll mention this. A few times a year I build PCs for people. I recently built a PC for a customer who wanted a Titan Xp. It was my first time using one - ordered brand new from Nvidia. I built in an open air Thermaltake P3 case, and the darn card would hit 84* C under Futuremark stability test and throttle just a bit -- even with an open air case. I ran the 20 minute stability/stress test 3x's and couldn't get it to pass. (97% identical performance required for a passing grade). When it would thermal throttle it'd make it fail the test, because it would back off just a bit on the speed. In regular game play the card was so fast I don't know that it mattered - but it's perhaps the only single card I ever tested that didn't pass that stability test ----- (it was just shy - like a 96.x% something) and I don't think there was anything wrong with it - except that it's stock blower reference fan was being overwhelmed by heat in that stress test... I have had a 970 SLI rig that failed the stress test too (because of heat) but was fine for gaming - but every other single card I can remember testing passed that test. Perhaps relevant, perhaps not. It's all I got.
 
Last edited:
The first post mentions a Titan Xp with AIO- that shouldn't really ever throttle, unless there was something wrong with the cooler itself.
 
I dont see myself as being a 'usual suspect' for any camp.

It isnt just what is said it is also how it is said.

Thank you OP for posting interesting info. Something to keep in mind. Hope you didnt pay too much in this Crypto-Crazy market. I wonder if there is a way to get a screen capture from two systems otherwise identical to show the color difference. I know my eye sight is not what it was even with glasses.
 
Honestly, I would have gone with the Vega FE, but only for the 16GB of VRAM. I love keeping VRAM heavy games alt tabbed and with 8 GB, 2 is the max. But this is a silly desire.
 
Archaea said:
I wonder if your Titan Xp was thermal throttling by chance? The AIO Vega 64 water cooled unit is not going to thermal throttle. Perhaps that's the delta with the variance in FPS.

I'll mention this. A few times a year I build PCs for people. I recently built a PC for a customer who wanted a Titan Xp. It was my first time using one - ordered brand new from Nvidia. I built in an open air Thermaltake P3 case, and the darn card would hit 84* C under Futuremark stability test and throttle just a bit -- even with an open air case. I ran the 20 minute stability/stress test 3x's and couldn't get it to pass. (97% identical performance required for a passing grade). When it would thermal throttle it'd make it fail the test, because it would back off just a bit on the speed. In regular game play the card was so fast I don't know that it mattered - but it's perhaps the only single card I ever tested that didn't pass that stability test ----- (it was just shy - like a 96.x% something) and I don't think there was anything wrong with it - except that it's stock blower reference fan was being overwhelmed by heat in that stress test... I have had a 970 SLI rig that failed the stress test too (because of heat) but was fine for gaming - but every other single card I can remember testing passed that test. Perhaps relevant, perhaps not. It's all I got.
Click to expand...


Now after messing around (and becoming a where of this) it has my interest... Titan Xp has the EVGA Hybrid AIO, I've upgraded the fan to NB Fan, and I run the Hybrid fan on the card itself at 100%... that's not to say though there's not some throttling that was happening (I may put card back in just to mess around some more and see).

With (in) COD WWII the Vega 64 AIO max frames runs almost the exact same as my Titan Xp AIO, maybe a 3 frame increase with Titan Xp - However my Vega 64 AIO in BF1 CTE vs Titan Xp AIO max frames is a solid 35 frames more (don't take my results as very scientific or as the normal please, not looking for fan boy flare ups either way here). The Vega 64 AIO even in BF1 is more steady still though which to me seems really strange - maybe the beast the Titan Xp that it is and while it does turn some awesome max frames, holding the frames steady is yet a whole different thing?

There is a part of me that feels maybe the Titan Xp would steady out with even lower latency memory than I'm running whereas the Vega 64 is the slowest part in my box (its the bottle neck per se) - hence the slight difference in better steady frames for Vega 64....
 
I'd honestly question CPU speeds- but since that is constant between the two, the Xp should simply just be faster, with higher minimums and maximums.

Lower minimums and higher maximums is pretty goofy behavior; I'd be looking at GPU temperatures and plotting out clockrates under load, and I'd be looking at drivers and software too, such as scraping out the old drivers or even building up a test OS install.

You know, if you're up for playing with it ;).
 
I'm having issues with dual screens and Netflix video playback right now skipping frames since the last 3 driver releases on my GTX 1070ti. Change to the R9 Fury Nitro in the other rig and issues are gone. So whoever plays the whose driver is better game. There's always issues from time to time on both camps.
 
Shadowed said:
Honestly, I would have gone with the Vega FE, but only for the 16GB of VRAM. I love keeping VRAM heavy games alt tabbed and with 8 GB, 2 is the max. But this is a silly desire.
Click to expand...

Owned two of these. The drivers are horrible with the game mode and MSI Afterburner or any 3rd party applications do not work properly on the professional driver. The game mode driver causes TDRs and the stable Pro driver is stable in games. They still can't get it right so they actually discontinued the Frontier edition.
 
Did the same, sort of. I went from the original Titan XP to a Vega 64 Liquid. It was mostly because I got a FreeSync monitor, an LG 38UC99.

Honestly, for the games I play, the Vega has been doing great at this resolution. Mostly been playing Wolfenstein 2 and Dark Souls 3 right now. And having FreeSync versus the raw power of the Titan is a better experience to me. I'm sure there's some newer games it can't drive as well at this res but I usually don't play the latest. My backlog is huge so when I get around to those maybe AMD will have a new card out :p

If there was a 38" ultrawide available in G-Sync I may have remained on Nvidia but I purchased this monitor over a year ago and there's still no G-Sync variant announced so I feel I made the correct decision.

I see myself staying on AMD for the foreseeable future though especially with TVs coming out with VRR support. Highly likely we'll see an OLED with VRR next year, and Nvidia will still probably be stubborn enough to not support it seeing as they announced their own "Big Format" G-Sync displays recently.
 
Rvenger said:
Owned two of these. The drivers are horrible with the game mode and MSI Afterburner or any 3rd party applications do not work properly on the professional driver. The game mode driver causes TDRs and the stable Pro driver is stable in games. They still can't get it right so they actually discontinued the Frontier edition.
Click to expand...

That is a bummer.
 
Why does it matter what GPU you own as long as you hit the desired quality and perfomance? OP gets a locked 150fps+ and as long as it is above 144hz, why does it matter? Stock Vega ain't too efficient, but that doesn't appear to worry OP.
 
Just chiming in here that I just did the same thing: replaced my last 1080 ti for a Red Devil Vega 64. Granted, I sold the 1080 ti for $700 and got a deal on the Vega for $600 (guy was dumping his cards after a short foray in mining).

To echo others, I a) don't need blazing FPS in most games and b) have a freesync monitor, and c) don't mind the extra power usage. Also, nV's recent tomfoolery really put me off their brand.

In summary, I'm very happy with the switch and pocketed a few schmekels to boot that I'll put towards a new-gen card in a few months.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
I remember the inconsistencies quite well, which Kyle acknowledged in the article :D
Click to expand...

He did? I did not see anything of what you mentioned but, I did see him praise HDR, which Nvidia did not have and AMD does. Also, I am not wired for games to look like games because, after all, I played flight sims and wanted them to be as photo realistic as possible. :)
 
nEo717 said:
Pre GPP I was solid Nvidia Fan boy I guess - Post GPP, I did the crazy and pulled my Titan Xp (AIO) for the RX Vega 64 Liquid...

Currently (on this PC) I mostly play COD WWII, BF 1 Alpha and CTE, and couple other Games to come soon - And I have to say after seeing so many (posts and reviews) hammer on the Vega 64 a bit about being slow, not really gaming card etc.... I expected to have to put up with some lag and low frame rates, but that has not proven itself to the case.

Its not only fast, its smooth, I do feel the images are definitely different than what I'm used to with my Titan Xp - In my opinion (old eyes) colors seem to have more depth (LG 850 GSync 165Hz Monitor, 2560x1440). The AMD Radeon Settings Panel seems a bit foreign to me... though its growing on me, and I don't miss gsync (this monitor with Vega 64 is working great at 165Ghz).

Game Play, once Multi-Player maps load (WWII) its almost always hitting 167FPS (have it capped 165), which what I've noticed is that this Vega 64 seems to be doing getting min. frame rates than my Titan Xp, however the Titan Xp peak frames (when turn frame limits off) will pump out 3 to 5 higher peak frames here and there. I've found this very interesting, in my mind it opens up the debate of (for FPS game) is min. frames or average frames more desired...

I've just figured out how to get to (and found) Global WattMan), lol - I don't care about noise to I pumped fans up to 2800 rpm min. with 3300 target.

Power limit, its at 25%, looks like I can go up to 50% if I turn custom on... I don't care about using less power, however is this a good or bad idea to bump the power up?

Also notice the max frequency MHz of memory currently is at 965 - on the liquid Vega 64 how far safely up (what's a good base) can one bump this up to, or just leave it alone?
Click to expand...
I bought a Vega 64 Engineering Sample and selling my GTX 1080 FE


SZippWV.jpg
 
This thread just prompted me to a do a quick price check on video cards.

Okay...crazy prices are still in effect.

I'll check again in another half year or so.
 
c3k said:
This thread just prompted me to a do a quick price check on video cards.

Okay...crazy prices are still in effect.

I'll check again in another half year or so.
Click to expand...

There are a few good deals that pop up, however have to be quick to snag them as they sell often in a matter of hours... the XFX Liquid Vega 64 was $999.
 
Managed a new 1080 ti at msrp - didnt even know announcements had gone out - just happened to log in and find one for sale in the 5 minute window before they sold out.

Still didnt find one of the God-be-damned NV rulers. Those are hard to get.
 
ChrisC said:
My heart weeps a little to see so called hardware enthusiasts on a graphics card forum actually know nothing about color profiling and calibration.
Click to expand...

Then your definition of hardware enthusiast is definitely one sided and centered upon yourself. :rolleyes: Sorry but, I am not going to spend days on end getting something to look almost ok but not quite there when AMD does it out of the box.
 
ManofGod said:
Then your definition of hardware enthusiast is definitely one sided and centered upon yourself. :rolleyes: Sorry but, I am not going to spend days on end getting something to look almost ok but not quite there when AMD does it out of the box.
Click to expand...

What? It only takes about 5 seconds to turn on Digital Vibrance in the NV control panel.
 
New 32" 2560x1440 FreeSync Monitor... I'm thinking of pairing this monitor with this card... looks as this is just a refresh and benq take on the same panel as the Samsung and Asus.

https://www.benq.com/en-us/monitor/video-enjoyment/ex3203r.html

As a hardware junkie these longer cycles for new releases is getting rough - although there are rumors about more and more, we may see some kind of AMD refresh, and from sounds of it, Nvidia will be ready to refresh too if they have too... What is it now, 2 years we've had Pascal?
 
ManofGod said:
Then your definition of hardware enthusiast is definitely one sided and centered upon yourself. :rolleyes: Sorry but, I am not going to spend days on end getting something to look almost ok but not quite there when AMD does it out of the box.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have just shown how you really don't understand anything about color.

All you have shown is a preference for AMD's rendition and dislike Nvidia's.

Anyone who understands color accuracy and knows why monitor calibration is always required will then understand why color professionals use both AMD and Nvidia alike without them spouting ridiculously ignorant statements like yours. Color accuracy requires effort, something you are not prepared to put in.
 
ChrisC said:
I'm sorry, but you have just shown how you really don't understand anything about color.

All you have shown is a preference for AMD's rendition and dislike Nvidia's.

Anyone who understands color accuracy and knows why monitor calibration is always required will then understand why color professionals use both AMD and Nvidia alike without them spouting ridiculously ignorant statements like yours. Color accuracy requires effort, something you are not prepared to put in.
Click to expand...

:eek::rolleyes: Sorry but, what you are really saying is I must agree with what someone else says is accurate color representation, as opposed to what my own two eyes see. I spent a long time trying to get a 980Ti to look good on the desktop and it never happened. (All the AMD cards looked great, the 980TI looked washed out, period.) Whether you agree with me or not is fine, I know what my own two eyes see.

However, if what you are saying is accurate, then an enthusiast must also spend at least 1200 or much more to get a proper, color accurate monitor. Therefore, almost no one here, if anyone at all, is an enthusiast. :D (No, that is not a strawman argument because, ultimately, inexpensive monitors are never going to produce true color accuracy, according to your definition.)
 
ManofGod said:
:eek::rolleyes: Sorry but, what you are really saying is I must agree with what someone else says is accurate color representation, as opposed to what my own two eyes see. I spent a long time trying to get a 980Ti to look good on the desktop and it never happened. (All the AMD cards looked great, the 980TI looked washed out, period.) Whether you agree with me or not is fine, I know what my own two eyes see.

However, if what you are saying is accurate, then an enthusiast must also spend at least 1200 or much more to get a proper, color accurate monitor. Therefore, almost no one here, if anyone at all, is an enthusiast. :D (No, that is not a strawman argument because, ultimately, inexpensive monitors are never going to produce true color accuracy, according to your definition.)
Click to expand...

When you're dealing with professional color output (i.e. print/film) eyesight is not what you use to color coordinate. I use Pantone colors exclusively for print output as it's a professionally-defined color space where there is no variation as it is defined. Since I am using a defined color space it then follows that my monitor calibration matches the Pantone color space that I'm working within.

Honestly, it's very surprising to me that anyone who is a professional in print/film production would consider their eyes to be a better arbiter of color than using professionally calibrated colors and displays.
 
ManofGod said:
:eek::rolleyes: Sorry but, what you are really saying is I must agree with what someone else says is accurate color representation, as opposed to what my own two eyes see. I spent a long time trying to get a 980Ti to look good on the desktop and it never happened. (All the AMD cards looked great, the 980TI looked washed out, period.) Whether you agree with me or not is fine, I know what my own two eyes see.

However, if what you are saying is accurate, then an enthusiast must also spend at least 1200 or much more to get a proper, color accurate monitor. Therefore, almost no one here, if anyone at all, is an enthusiast. :D (No, that is not a strawman argument because, ultimately, inexpensive monitors are never going to produce true color accuracy, according to your definition.)
Click to expand...

No, any monitor can be calibrated. All you need is a spectrometer and calibration software. Spyder, look it up.

If you don’t calibrate, then as I said, all you have stated is a preference for AMD’s rendition.
 
Algrim said:
When you're dealing with professional color output (i.e. print/film) eyesight is not what you use to color coordinate. I use Pantone colors exclusively for print output as it's a professionally-defined color space where there is no variation as it is defined. Since I am using a defined color space it then follows that my monitor calibration matches the Pantone color space that I'm working within.

Honestly, it's very surprising to me that anyone who is a professional in print/film production would consider their eyes to be a better arbiter of color than using professionally calibrated colors and displays.
Click to expand...

Algrim’s got it right. When dealing with color accuracy, your eye is merely your perception of that color. You want to be sure your display setup is accurate, you get real tools.

Puple or gold dress?
 
ChrisC said:
No, any monitor can be calibrated. All you need is a spectrometer and calibration software. Spyder, look it up.

If you don’t calibrate, then as I said, all you have stated is a preference for AMD’s rendition.
Click to expand...


I agree with you (calibrate), however after doing do, now the AMD will look a bit washed out, lol... I also would agree out of the box the AMD looks less washed out - then again, as mainly FPS gamer I have brightness and contrast adjusted well different than how they would be once calibrate them. So I guess I also agree with Algrim...


I'll add to your color example, I know as a fact no matter if I'm using my Titan Xp (AIO) or Vega 64 Liquid, I'm not seeing the games colors accurately (almost always) due to tweaking things to my own personal eyes to be able to see targets the best I can (at all costs of color being calibrated properly).
 
Shadowed said:
Honestly, I would have gone with the Vega FE, but only for the 16GB of VRAM. I love keeping VRAM heavy games alt tabbed and with 8 GB, 2 is the max. But this is a silly desire.
Click to expand...

That is a silly desire, but I'm gonna give it a shot!
Gotta rationalize this card somehow... (besides mining of course)
 
OP, you didn't do the crazy. You did the stupid. You already gave nVidia your money and put another one of their GPU's on the market. You succeeded in spending more money for a downgrade. Unless you managed to travel back in time and undo that purchase, you helped nVidia, you helped AMD and you hurt yourself, on two fronts. Performance and money spent.
 
RamonGTP said:
OP, you didn't do the crazy. You did the stupid. You already gave nVidia your money and put another one of their GPU's on the market. You succeeded in spending more money for a downgrade. Unless you managed to travel back in time and undo that purchase, you helped nVidia, you helped AMD and you hurt yourself, on two fronts. Performance and money spent.
Click to expand...

Someone failed to read the thread, I see. He made the right and good choice, something some people are willing to see. Oh, and who said he sold his card or is selling it?

Seems like this is worse than Facebook around here.
 
RamonGTP said:
OP, you didn't do the crazy. You did the stupid. You already gave nVidia your money and put another one of their GPU's on the market. You succeeded in spending more money for a downgrade. Unless you managed to travel back in time and undo that purchase, you helped nVidia, you helped AMD and you hurt yourself, on two fronts. Performance and money spent.
Click to expand...

lol, as much as you tried to take a jab, you missed :) - I still have the Titan Xp... can't let Steam see that and count it for Nvidia for a couple of months :) - AMD gained a top (of its gaming line) card sale it would have never had, and Nvidia didn't get my Titan V order they otherwise would have got.
 
Happy that you're happy, OP. Nice to see some first-hand experience from someone who crossed from green to red. Not a choice I would have made, for certain, but that's why I have my rig and you have yours. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top