QOTW: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070?

[tonyd2233]

Already got an MSI Gaming X 1070, which replaced the MSI 970 before it...

[Kamikaze-X]

Vega 56 is less of a silly choice compared to a Vega 64, but that will have to be seen when it comes to pricing and availability. I know a lot of reviews are testing V56 overclocked, but what i'm missing here is that none are comparing it to an overclocked 1070. Mine sits at 2150 core all day, every day (it is watercooled, fair enough) and AIB cards should be able to do that, and will close the performance gap big time, and still on average consume less than V56 power wise. We just should not be encouraging companies that use brute force as a solution to computation - take the whole Ryzen Vs Intel debacle, people are rightly deriding Intel for disproportionally increased power consumption and performance Vs Ryzen, yet AMD is seemingly getting a free pass when it comes to increased consumption for not particularly good increase in performance. I even read a review where it said 'increased performance compared to 1070 with *slightly* more power usage'. It uses MORE power than a 1080Ti in Turbo mode and doesnt come close! It just is not acceptable. nVidia turned it around after the gpu-come-spaceheater that was Fermi, and that is what AMD need to think about. Maybe their GPU department needs to do a 'Shadow the CPU department' day.

[kremmen]

Buy a GTX1080 - the Vega's power consumption will offset the extra £100

[loccothan]

DX12.1 + its early stage (i call it Early adopters Beta Phase)
Wait 3-4months and this Vega56 will crush 1080 in almost every Game out there at 1440-4k

[KN1GHT]

For me it's the RX Vega 56 as it's definitely gonna outlast a GTX1070 and will start competing with the GTX1080 sooner rather than later. (remember the RX570 vs gtx1060 fight)

I will wait for aftermarket GPU's though and would never buy a reference card.

That said pricing needs to be competitive, I won't buy Nvidia ever, but wouldn't be happy if Vega 56 can't compete with a GTX1070 price vs performance. The power differences doesn't really bother me especially at power save mode it becomes a lot more efficient and will still compete with a GTX1070.

I can't really say the same for RX Vega 64 as in that range it's probably better just to go for a GTX1080ti and leave both RXVega64 and the GTX1080 to fight among each other.
I'd still take Vega though even if Nvidia's offering looks better.

[KN1GHT]

Vega 56 is less of a silly choice compared to a Vega 64, but that will have to be seen when it comes to pricing and availability. I know a lot of reviews are testing V56 overclocked, but what i'm missing here is that none are comparing it to an overclocked 1070. Mine sits at 2150 core all day, every day (it is watercooled, fair enough) and AIB cards should be able to do that, and will close the performance gap big time, and still on average consume less than V56 power wise. We just should not be encouraging companies that use brute force as a solution to computation - take the whole Ryzen Vs Intel debacle, people are rightly deriding Intel for disproportionally increased power consumption and performance Vs Ryzen, yet AMD is seemingly getting a free pass when it comes to increased consumption for not particularly good increase in performance. I even read a review where it said 'increased performance compared to 1070 with *slightly* more power usage'. It uses MORE power than a 1080Ti in Turbo mode and doesnt come close! It just is not acceptable. nVidia turned it around after the gpu-come-spaceheater that was Fermi, and that is what AMD need to think about. Maybe their GPU department needs to do a 'Shadow the CPU department' day.

I do agree with most of what your saying, but please take note that RXVega looses it's efficiency after like 1400-1500core. Which means that if you run a RXVega 56 at like powersave mode it will use just about the same power maybe slightly more while still performing comparatively. When you start overclocking it, it might be 15% better overall, but will use waaaay more power. in that sense it will use more power than a GTX1080ti. Some of the tests I saw show the RXVega 56 at stock (not power save) beating a GTX1070 ever so slightly (2-8%) while using less power than a RX580. Still not Gtx1070 level, but you can argue it uses slightly more power. There is a lot of factors to be considered with these complex PC components things are hardly ever what they seem.

(In conclusion: With lower core clocks the RXVega Architecture becomes a lot more efficient while still maintaining most of it's performance.)
That has been proved by many reviewers. Check Gamer's Nexus, hardware unboxed, adore TV and a few others for confirmation on You Tube.

[Corky34]

(In conclusion: With lower core clocks the RXVega Architecture becomes a lot more efficient while still maintaining most of it's performance.)
That has been proved by many reviewers. Check Gamer's Nexus, hardware unboxed, adore TV and a few others for confirmation on You Tube.

Probably due to Vega Architecture being designed for the enterprise, embedded and semi-custom markets where performance per watt is king.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you look at the XBox One X which uses a GPU with Vega features it is clocked at just under 1200mhz.

[Biscuit]

I do agree with most of what your saying, but please take note that RXVega looses it's efficiency after like 1400-1500core. Which means that if you run a RXVega 56 at like powersave mode it will use just about the same power maybe slightly more while still performing comparatively. When you start overclocking it, it might be 15% better overall, but will use waaaay more power. in that sense it will use more power than a GTX1080ti. Some of the tests I saw show the RXVega 56 at stock (not power save) beating a GTX1070 ever so slightly (2-8%) while using less power than a RX580. Still not Gtx1070 level, but you can argue it uses slightly more power. There is a lot of factors to be considered with these complex PC components things are hardly ever what they seem.

(In conclusion: With lower core clocks the RXVega Architecture becomes a lot more efficient while still maintaining most of it's performance.)
That has been proved by many reviewers. Check Gamer's Nexus, hardware unboxed, adore TV and a few others for confirmation on You Tube.

So I guess when the price of HBM comes down and the availability goes up, we should see some pretty interesting mid-range vega cards...

I watched a Jayz2c video yesterday talking about the whole rebate thing, it still seems real unclear what's going on with the vega pricing.

[Corky34]

If you look at the XBox One X which uses a GPU with Vega features it is clocked at just under 1200mhz.

Does the XBox One X GPU come with a boost feature? I only ask as the 1200Mhz is roughly the same as Vega's non-boosted clock, i wonder if LPP FinFET's suffer from higher than normal leakage beyond a certain point.

[tinbin]

id go with the 1070 vega too power hungry

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Does the XBox One X GPU come with a boost feature? I only ask as the 1200Mhz is roughly the same as Vega's non-boosted clock, i wonder if LPP FinFET's suffer from higher than normal leakage beyond a certain point.

Well if you look at both Vega,Polaris and Ryzen power consumption gets very high once it is pushed to the edge.

I suspect,the GPU runs at a fixed clockspeed,which is conservative,so it can remain at that clockspeed even on a warm day.

[jigger]

The Vega 56 for me. Ignoring the tech advantages I'd still go with AMD if only for what they've done for the PC enthusiast.

[KN1GHT]

The Vega 56 for me. Ignoring the tech advantages I'd still go with AMD if only for what they've done for the PC enthusiast.

It seems a tad bit weird, wrong even to think like this, but yes I personally can't agree more. I've seen way too many things to know that AMD means much more to the tech community than it want's to admit.
For me I still want good value for money, but also want to support the tech/gaming industry as a whole, as it is so dear to my heart. Both Intel and Nvidia(to a lesser degree) has made me nervous in this regard.

Intel:
With their behind the scenes unfair anti-competitive practices (All utterly illegal!) against specifically AMD plus aggressive market segmentation which works against the consumer. (anti-consumer)
Lets not discuss the Intel compiler situation, where AMD also won law cases against Intel, for purposefully knee-capping performance of certain instructions sets when no Genuine Intel CPU is installed within the system.
Just on a moral basis I'm embarrassed to have ever owned an Intel based system and would never buy Intel again. (It's a miracle AMD is still with us today, I thank them and God for that.)

Nvidia:
With their propriety software and unfair game-works joint partnerships(Not illegal, but wrong). The conspiracy of planned obsoletion and driver optimization being left out for older generations is also at least somewhat true.
Not to mention their aggressive tessellation in previous games like Crysis 2 to purposely and severely knee-cap GCN hardware.
To a lesser degree mind share, but that wasn't fully Nvidia's fault, that's on us as the consumers (me included).
I'm currently on my first full AMD build in 10 years. From now on if AMD is still (even remotely) in business and can offer at-least some value, I'd always choose them first.

Don't get me wrong Intel and Nvidia did bring along their own innovations. Maybe Nvidia more so than intel. For example perf/watt become important and hardware based video encoding among other things.
Which all helps, but AMD is way more forward looking and innovative than both Nvidia and Intel combined and they have less of everything to work with.
This forward looking futuristic approach of AMD has at times and still do cost them in the short term and because they think so far ahead, it could also possibly cost them in the long run as well. (Sadly they have no other choice)
Both Intel and Nvidia quickly apply AMD's innovations to their own processes and adapt them to their own needs. (This could possibly be AMD's down fall in the end.)

Hopefully God willing AMD still stays in the fight for years to come.

The conclusion is yes, not everything AMD comes up with is purely innovation as apposed to Nvidia/Intel, a lot of it is due to not being able to compete in what the competition is already superior in, but that speaks to competition in the first place which we all need so much and both Intel & Nvidia are responsible for trying to bend the rules so that competition isn't on products only, but ECO system as well, which was turned on Nvidia with the RXvega plus freesync advantage. Remember Nvidia can always make their GPU's compatible with free sync as it's an open standard, but they won't, because they wan't more control.

Just as Intel's aggressive segmentation gave AMD a open gap in the market so this also helps AMD.
Lets hope it sticks and that AMD can eventually compete in the graphics market as they did in the HD5000/HD4000 days or at least close to.

God speed :-)

[KN1GHT]

id go with the 1070 vega too power hungry

I'd do a bit more digging and researching if I were you, plus maybe a bit more waiting for things to mature.
It's obvious that there is still some learning to do and 2-3 Months from now your answer might differ quite a bit.

That said I get it and agree that Vega 56 or 64 for that matter isn't what everyone hoped for, but V56 is definitely a better buy than a GTX1070 and I can tell you now that even before the custom AIB's and driver optimizations release and we're not talking about any of that future tech or free sync advantage that V56 will have over the GTX1070. You can make an argument for the GTX1080/ti, but not really for the RXvega 56 vs the GTX1070.

If you are a hardcore Nvidia guy. wait for Volta or go for a GTX1080ti and call it a day as I cannot argue with that logic. That makes sense.

Just food for thought.

[globalwarning]

This largely depends, for me, on games and monitor. If you have games and a monitor that are better on Nvidia, get the 1070 - which is a lot of people. If you don't have a monitor, the lower price of freesync might tip the tables on a decision, I think. I need to replace my aging non-X-sync gaming monitor, so that would make the decision lean towards VEGA. I'm still waiting for liquid cooled VEGA benchmarks, though, having recently pumped (haha) a lot of money into a custom LC setup designed to cool everything...