Vega 64 vs 1080ti

[richaron]

Don't get me wrong Vega 64 is a okay card, certainly you can make the case for Vega64 over the 1080, especially with a freesync monitor, but there is no way to make the case for it against the 1080ti.

Heaps of you guys must live in a crazy black and white world where there's only 1 metric for measuring anything: "If it's not the fastest then it's not the right choice".

Back in the real world 1080Ti's cost more than Vega cards. So if we can open our minds a little we have another metric to consider our options: price! And at least where I live a 1080Ti will cost ~75% more than I paid for a Vega64. And even if it's only 25-30% more they still lie on the same price/performance level.

The next point is what we mean when we say "good enough" performance. Elitists here seem to think I'm trying to polish a turd when I say "good enough", but I totally mean that more performance will be mostly wasted. If you're not stupidly OCD about needing to run arbitrary max settings Vega cards can easily perform in the sweet spot for a 144Hz QHD VRR monitor: Averaging 120-130 fps Freesync will be a better experience than 25-30% higher fps with a 1080Ti and much cheaper.

 

[shortylickens]

https://graphicscardhub.com/rx-vega-64-vs-gtx-1080/

On paper the AMD card is faster, sure. But generally GeForce has been better to me over the years so I'd stick with them regardless. Also, I have a G-sync monitor and video card and its been awesome, no reason to change.

 

[tential]

Heaps of you guys must live in a crazy black and white world where there's only 1 metric for measuring anything: "If it's not the fastest then it's not the right choice".

Back in the real world 1080Ti's cost more than Vega cards. So if we can open our minds a little we have another metric to consider our options: price! And at least where I live a 1080Ti will cost ~75% more than I paid for a Vega64. And even if it's only 25-30% more they still lie on the same price/performance level.

The next point is what we mean when we say "good enough" performance. Elitists here seem to think I'm trying to polish a turd when I say "good enough", but I totally mean that more performance will be mostly wasted. If you're not stupidly OCD about needing to run arbitrary max settings Vega cards can easily perform in the sweet spot for a 144Hz QHD VRR monitor: Averaging 120-130 fps Freesync will be a better experience than 25-30% higher fps with a 1080Ti and much cheaper.

Well said, and this is why Vega 56/144hz freesync monitor is a great sweetspot option.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have the same monitor in 27" and a 1080 Ti. The 144hz and 1080 Ti makes any adaptive sync irrelevant. No screen tearing whatsoever in any games that I play without any kind of syncing enabled. It would be a different story if you had a 60hz monitor but you don't because the 60hz monitor will tear like a POS even on Window's desktop while you're browsing a webpage.

My vote is 1080 Ti.

I never read before such nonsense.

 

[amenx]

https://graphicscardhub.com/rx-vega-64-vs-gtx-1080/

On paper the AMD card is faster, sure. But generally GeForce has been better to me over the years so I'd stick with them regardless. Also, I have a G-sync monitor and video card and its been awesome, no reason to change.

Its not about the 1080, its vs the 1080ti being discussed here.

 

[amenx]

Back in the real world 1080Ti's cost more than Vega cards. So if we can open our minds a little we have another metric to consider our options: price! And at least where I live a 1080Ti will cost ~75% more than I paid for a Vega64. And even if it's only 25-30% more they still lie on the same price/performance level.

That far from representative. In many cases V64 is not that far off from 1080ti (Amazon/Newegg).

 

[legcramp]

I never read before such nonsense.

You wouldn't know if you never used and compared and reply with such nonsense.

 

[tential]

You wouldn't know if you never used and compared and reply with such nonsense.

Your setup is acceptable to you Rifleman. However, you don't know how that experience could be improved by adpative sync since you don't have that option. So there is a possibility that you could have an even better experience if you had gsync at your disposal. The only person in this thread who has not only tried both side by side, but from both vendors preferred an R9 390 over a 1080Ti when comparing with Freesync. That's a VERY telling statement.

I seriously consider a Freesync monitor with my 390 to be a better experience than a 1080 Ti with a non VRR monitor. That's how big of a difference it makes to me.

So I'm sure you can agree that there is another side of the story that goes beyond the experience you've described. When you get a chance you can one day down the line pick up a Gsync monitor (or AMD video card) and you'll get to experience Async as well which will be a pleasant experience. I imagine a LOT of us will have a Gsync and Freesync monitor eventually because of this insanity going on.

 

[legcramp]

Your setup is acceptable to you Rifleman. However, you don't know how that experience could be improved by adpative sync since you don't have that option. So there is a possibility that you could have an even better experience if you had gsync at your disposal. The only person in this thread who has not only tried both side by side, but from both vendors preferred an R9 390 over a 1080Ti when comparing with Freesync. That's a VERY telling statement.
So I'm sure you can agree that there is another side of the story that goes beyond the experience you've described.

I am sorry, I didn't clearly state that I have used both G-Sync and Free-sync monitors, all were 144-165hz. I tried them on my old R9 290 setup and also on a Vega 56 setup for a couple weeks. Switched to a 1080Ti setup with a Viewsonic G-Sync monitor and tried G-sync on/off. It simply does not make much of a difference for me playing fast-twitch games where I would expect the adaptive sync to come in handy the most.

And also, I don't know why that person that quoted me earlier about the experience of browsing webpages on 60hz vs 144hz was nonsense but if he's not old as a bat it would be a night and day difference just for browsing/scrolling through your browser.

And again this is just my experience and I am just putting it out there and put in my vote for the 1080 Ti. No one needs to be rude about it lol

 

[tential]

I am sorry, I didn't clearly state that I have used both G-Sync and Free-sync monitors, all were 144-165hz. I tried them on my old R9 290 setup and also on a Vega 56 setup for a couple weeks. Switched to a 1080Ti setup with a Viewsonic G-Sync monitor and tried G-sync on/off. It simply does not make much of a difference for me playing fast-twitch games where I would expect the adaptive sync to come in handy the most.

And also, I don't know why that person that quoted me earlier about the experience of browsing webpages on 60hz vs 144hz was nonsense but if he's not old as a bat it would be a night and day difference just for browsing/scrolling through your browser.

And again this is just my experience and I am just putting it out there and put in my vote for the 1080 Ti. No one needs to be rude about it lol

Well that's kind of like driving a Tesla and a Honda at 15 miles an hour each and saying they're equivalent.
In this case, you were playing at above the 144hz bound so you weren't going to really need any of the sync features.

But if the OP was going to play games that aren't just fast twitch games, it's nice to still have the monitor scale up. So some games that are Triple A singleplayer games may range from 40 FPS to 100 FPS depending on the zone/optimization/etc. Take a game like fallout 4. On release, you could easily have had a HUGE FPS range.

I don't doubt your superior knowledge in this case that a 1080ti + nonsync monitor would be completely acceptable for the OP. I accept this and want to try it myself sometime.

But given the opportunity to start from scratch, OP could pair a GPU with the appropriate sync monitor for an experience that covers all potential situations OP may encounter. 1080ti + gsync or R64/Freesync are both easily doable for the OP.

----
I'd go 1080ti just because you can upgrade to the 2080ti, where as the update for Vega, it would be optimistic to say you'll get a successor that will make you as happy as a 2080ti.

 

[VirtualLarry]

And also, I don't know why that person that quoted me earlier about the experience of browsing webpages on 60hz vs 144hz was nonsense but if he's not old as a bat it would be a night and day difference just for browsing/scrolling through your browser.

That makes me want to try web browsing at 144Hz, on a high-refresh-rate monitor. Will Windows 10 run your desktop at that Hz if you set it? I've gone 4K UHD, so I guess I'll have to wait for affordable 4K UHD TVs with 144Hz.

 

[UsandThem]

That makes me want to try web browsing at 144Hz, on a high-refresh-rate monitor. Will Windows 10 run your desktop at that Hz if you set it? I've gone 4K UHD, so I guess I'll have to wait for affordable 4K UHD TVs with 144Hz.

You might have to wait a while. It's crazy how expensive some PC monitors are compared to 4k TVs (I know they are different). I just really thought these "gaming" and high-refresh monitors would have decreased more by now, but they really haven't moved too much lately. I am now just getting to a 1440p monitor ($249 Black Friday). Maybe I'll get a 4k monitor by 2025.

 

[Campy]

That makes me want to try web browsing at 144Hz, on a high-refresh-rate monitor. Will Windows 10 run your desktop at that Hz if you set it?

Yes, it will. Can confirm 240Hz Windows is a pleasant experience

 

[tential]

That makes me want to try web browsing at 144Hz, on a high-refresh-rate monitor. Will Windows 10 run your desktop at that Hz if you set it? I've gone 4K UHD, so I guess I'll have to wait for affordable 4K UHD TVs with 144Hz.

I'm in the same exact Boat Larry. It's so hard. We should start a petition.
4k users who need 144hz at an affordable price.

I'm considering a 1440p 144hz monitor at this rate for gaming. I feel like I'm missing out so much. The Razer Phone review was going CRAZY about the 120hz feature. Even PHONES are going high refresh rate. That's got to be something.....

 

[legcramp]

I'm in the same exact Boat Larry. It's so hard. We should start a petition.
4k users who need 144hz at an affordable price.

I'm considering a 1440p 144hz monitor at this rate for gaming. I feel like I'm missing out so much. The Razer Phone review was going CRAZY about the 120hz feature. Even PHONES are going high refresh rate. That's got to be something.....

Have you ever used a CRT monitor and an old LCD 60hz monitor side-by-side? The high refresh monitors nowadays get you pretty close to the CRT experience, at least on the responsiveness side without the bulk/power used by CRTs.

 

[CatMerc]

I guess I should add some clarification to my R9 390 statement.

I mostly play Titanfall 2 these days, and that game has problematic multiplayer maps that always cause FPS drops. Running most of the game at 140FPS? Those can drop to the 60's with max settings. Without a VRR display, that feels so much more jarring it's unreal. With a VRR display, it's visually much better.

If I can play a game at say 300FPS like Overwatch, VRR doesn't make that big of a difference when locked to 141FPS compared to just unlocking and going 300FPS. That said, I still find it smoother to lock at 141FPS than to unlock for 300FPS, so even then personally I like my VRR display.

Vega 64 and 1080 Ti while "far" in benchmarks, are so close in the actual gaming experience, that the VRR monitor would be the biggest noticeable difference, rather than a few dozen percent more frames.

Have you ever used a CRT monitor and an old LCD 60hz monitor side-by-side? The high refresh monitors nowadays get you pretty close to the CRT experience, at least on the responsiveness side without the bulk/power used by CRTs.

Motion clarity is still in another league with CRT's due to the sample and hold behaviour of LCD's introducing motion blur. Only with ULMB technology can you really approach CRT tech in clarity, but that has a slew of issues that hold it back from being commonly used.

That makes me want to try web browsing at 144Hz, on a high-refresh-rate monitor. Will Windows 10 run your desktop at that Hz if you set it? I've gone 4K UHD, so I guess I'll have to wait for affordable 4K UHD TVs with 144Hz.

Biggest wtf moment for me was just using the desktop at 144Hz and then switching back to 60Hz. Never in my life have I experienced such a jarring "can't go back" moment. Like when you buy a really good pair of cans and then you can't just go on buying cheap stuff ever again.

 

[legcramp]

Well that's kind of like driving a Tesla and a Honda at 15 miles an hour each and saying they're equivalent.
In this case, you were playing at above the 144hz bound so you weren't going to really need any of the sync features.

But if the OP was going to play games that aren't just fast twitch games, it's nice to still have the monitor scale up. So some games that are Triple A singleplayer games may range from 40 FPS to 100 FPS depending on the zone/optimization/etc. Take a game like fallout 4. On release, you could easily have had a HUGE FPS range.

I don't doubt your superior knowledge in this case that a 1080ti + nonsync monitor would be completely acceptable for the OP. I accept this and want to try it myself sometime.

But given the opportunity to start from scratch, OP could pair a GPU with the appropriate sync monitor for an experience that covers all potential situations OP may encounter. 1080ti + gsync or R64/Freesync are both easily doable for the OP.

----
I'd go 1080ti just because you can upgrade to the 2080ti, where as the update for Vega, it would be optimistic to say you'll get a successor that will make you as happy as a 2080ti.

I completely agree with you and thanks for the input.

 

[Muhammed]

Lol if you've ever watched benchmarks over years you'll see AMD cards shaming nVidia release date competition.

Some AMD GPUs suffer the same thing too, like the FuryX for example. So this isn't a parameter to consider.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7ckjj5/furyx_aging_tremendously_bad_in_2017/?sort=new
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUyvEVB984&t=428s

If you care about longevity, get the 1080Ti, it has ~ 35% more GPU power and 35% more VRAM, So it is guaranteed to last longer down the line. Also sell the FreeSync monitor and get the cheapest G.Sync monitor you can find.

 

[Grubbernaught]

So I absolutely swear by adaptive sync, I really do and have since I went gsync a fair while ago.
But just last week I really wanted to see what 4k hdr was all about so I grabbed a Samsung Q7F 55" and chucked it on my 108080Ti knowing full well it would be 60Hz no adaptive sync.
I slapped on fast sync in the drivers and the results were......not bad at all, having a fair bit of trouble discerning any tearing.

So my view on the necessity of it all may have shifted.

I'd still probably go for a 1080ti, but see merit in both choices.

 

[beginner99]

I would go with Vega 56 instead. Undervolt it and overclock it (especially the memory) and it will be within 5%max 10% of a vega 64 for much less.

 

[richaron]

Some AMD GPUs suffer the same thing too, like the FuryX for example. So this isn't a parameter to consider.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7ckjj5/furyx_aging_tremendously_bad_in_2017/?sort=new
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUyvEVB984&t=428s

If you care about longevity, get the 1080Ti, it has ~ 35% more GPU power and 35% more VRAM, So it is guaranteed to last longer down the line. Also sell the FreeSync monitor and get the cheapest G.Sync monitor you can find.

What a bunch of nonsense. You try to play off that last sentence on the back of some half-assed and misrepresented statement about nV vs AMD over time.

I said AMD cards perform better than their "release day competition" over the years. And yes considering newer games the Fury X performs better niw than it did when it competed with the 980Ti at launch.

So just sell that GSync monitor and buy the cheaper Freesync one? Point proven.?;!

 

[Muhammed]

I said AMD cards perform better than their "release day competition" over the years. And yes considering newer games the Fury X performs better niw than it did when it competed with the 980Ti at launch.

Nope, according to benchmarks (links above). The FuryX performs considerably worse than 980Ti in most 2017 games. My point still stands, the 1080Ti has a bigger margin of future proofing within it.

So just sell that GSync monitor and buy the cheaper Freesync one? Point proven.?;!

That remark was directed at the OP, not you.

 

[Krteq]

...

Mate, don't feed a troll.

 

[Headfoot]

its not just freesync. Its freesync 2. It has extra HDR features. So far ME:A and ShadowWarrior are the only HDR game, but I would look carefully to make sure that nVidia's HDR stuff will work fine with that monitor. That seems to be the primary draw and the reason to drop 600 on a monitor so I wouldnt buy a chip where the HDR works poorly on it. I am not saying that's the case but if its FreeSync2 you know it has certain features for HDR turned on. Read some reviews on that

 

[Muhammed]

So far ME:A and ShadowWarrior are the only HDR game

Actually there is a dozen PC games with HDR enabled, including Hitman, Paragon, Shadow Of War, Forza 7, Agents Of Mayhem, Battlefield 1, Call Of Duty WW2, Destiny 2, Resident Evil 7 and Battlefront 2. All of these games have an HDR toggle in their menu to enable on supported screens. I hear Injustice 2 has that support as well but I didn't try it yet.

but I would look carefully to make sure that nVidia's HDR stuff will work fine with that monitor

NVIDIA doesn't have exclusive HDR effects, HDR is purely a developer's effort and will work on any screen that supports HDR10.