LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNeither. I think its a bad time to buy a GPU right now, for many reasons.
Goddamn miners...
Neither. I think its a bad time to buy a GPU right now, for many reasons.
Goddamn miners...
Depending on the prices, I'd go with Vega 56. It's not that much worse than Vega 64 and is noticeably better than 1070. Right now however I'm not getting any - prices for all GPUs are being artificialy bloated by Ethereum miners... In June Amazon cancelled my 1080Ti order that I ordered for £580 and now it's like £700. I'm not gonna get any GPU until it goes back to normal - for the time being 1060 in my laptop is just about enough for any game I play.
I wouldn't get either for now at those prices. My mate was lucky enough to find a 1080 for around just over £400 a few months back on Amazon, but that offer was only around for a day, and even then I would never pay that kind of money personally for a graphics card.
Well the nVidia where no beauty queenOriginally Posted by Rubarb
if I had £400 in my pocket and was looking for a GPU, then I'd....buy none and keep saving for the next price bracket up which I'd pick NVidia.
If I had £300 in my pocket and no way to get more money, I'd reluctantly plum for AMD due to Freesync. The fact that AMD cannot game @4k at hi res/ultra settings comfortably is a deal breaker for me. Their overpricing policy is the final nail in the coffin for me for this batch of releases... It's been too long since AMD were competitive at the top end.
Loving my 3xRX 480 AMD mining setup though
Over-pricing policy?
*looks around for Vega 56 stock*. Nope, there's definitely no cards sitting on the shelf because they're overpriced. If anything the price is too low for the current demand and it seems like AMD is likely to be losing sales through lack of availability. They're better off losing sales through higher prices, as it means a bigger total profit for them.
Personally I'm not interested in high end cards any more. Been there, done that. I'd probably opt for the Vega 56 to be free of nVidia shenanigans (shadowplay registration, g-sync, etc.) but I've no particular objection to either.
This sums it up, i'd be happy with either assuming the price was reasonable for the performance gain upgrading.
What I'm not prepared to do is pay over the odds to Nvidia because they have the "best card" or pay over the odds to AMD because they can't get their supply chain in order and sell at the RRP they chose. If anything it's much more likely both Nvidia and AMD will push me to ignoring PC gaming and actually buying a console for games, instead of paying over the odds for a single PC component.
I'm a bit of an nvidia fanboy, so the 1070. Nvidia always seem to come out with better - be it performance, power usage, or driver support.
Unless AMD brings something out at the same time, with better performance for less money, then I'll be going with the green team. A product coming out a year later nearly, that consumes more power and costs more money, and is a year behind on driver support ? No thanks.
Just because something sells out doesn't mean it is underpriced.
Both cards need to be £50 cheaper to allow me to warrant an upgrade so I'm either waiting quite some time or for the next generation. If the 1070 were £300 and the Vega £350 I'd then go to that website that amalgamates benchmark scores to see if there have been any driver improvements to Vega which might have a substantial effect on performance. It's always the case with a mature Vs a new platform that the initial reviews are often on very raw or often on pre-release drivers (as they're benched under embargo so the results can be released simultaneously at launch for maximum initial hype) and may not represent what you're going to get several months down the line. This is often the case with cameras on phones for example - the HTC 10 got mediocre reviews for the camera from everyone at first, but Anandtech took a while to get around to reviewing it and found with the more mature drivers the camera was actually very comparable to other flagships. That in mind, AMD has historically always been worse at driver support, right back to the ATI days and that's probably just a simple resource issue. Nvidia has the cash to throw at relationships with manufacturers to ensure support and testing / bug fixing where as AMD just don't have the same resources and need real world data to find the issues. That said, driver bugs just aren't the issue they used to be and I'd only consider this as a priority if going down the multi-GPU route.
For now I'd probably be happy with either however a couple of things do come to mind to consider - the lifespan of the GPU for starters. Running hotter will cause components to fail sooner on the AMD board and, whilst most of the time the card is obsolete before this happens, I have had cards that run quite hot fail prematurely on me in the past (3 times, all boards which threw voltage / heat at the problem of trying to be competitive). AMD may well last longer as an architecture - AMD sometimes tend to have compatibility with upcoming standards where Nvidia works on what it out at the time. Pros and cons to both. I also seem to think that, whilst average frame rate is competitive, minimum frame rates tend to be quite substantially higher on the Vega board although I might be thinking of something else. Obviously this is very important to look at, as it's usually at the most frantic part of the game when you really want it to perform that this minimum frame rate is going to present an issue.
There is also the fact that winter is on its way and the AMD board will keep you warm, whilst Nvidia want you to freeze because they are a souless, cruel company in cahoots with the manufacturers of slippers.
I assume Tattysnuc was referring to the accusations that AMD only released X number of stand-alone cards at the $499 price to etailers and from now on intend to send out cards at the $599 price for inclusion in one of their packs.
AFAIK the Vega 56 isn't on sale yet, IDK when etailers have been told they can start selling them.
Lastly just because there's a lack of stock doesn't necessarily mean something is under priced, it could also mean supply is to low.
Linus discussed this on the WAN show. It's been suggested there was some kind of $100 rebate for sales partners that expired almost immediately. Reviewers are pretty annoyed that the price/dollar evaluation they put on cards has been undermined.
Before the price manipulation thing came out I would have leaned towards Vega, sorta. But with hindsight I'd go with pascal, if it's going to be the same price or less, consumes much less power, gives out much less heat, more overclocking headroom, and faster in gaming in general, I'm just going to go with that.
While the card is going to be overmined!
I'll show myself out.
Having upgraded my PSU to a FSP Hydro G 850W I can say unequivocally that this Sapphire Vega card is absolutely awesome at 1440p. Average 30 to 35% better than my Fury Pro and with a 144hz freesync monitor this card really shines. I was one of the lucky ones who got it for £450 but had to spend another £130 to upgrade my 700w PSU but I feel it is money well spent. Noise is not an issue (I have a very good noise dampening box and lots of fans) and performance is more than enough for my 30-144hz freesync monitor. Very happy chappy.
GTX 1070. Vega is overpriced
I would get neither of them due to the ridiculous prices atm. My guess they did this to cover the cost of their marketing hype campaign or using it for R&Ds. If i was in need for a new gfx, i would get a RX580 or a GTX1060 as i think these are at a good price point until AMD/Nvidia release their next set of cards that are hopefully power efficient, faster and most importantly, that we can buy it without selling one of our limbs!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
