Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: » Windows Update for DXR is still MIA, I wonder if thats causing delays. Its funny that everything is delayed but people still thing 7nm will be on time, I cant see 7nm in the next 18 months.
Blazer wrote: » BFV is coming soon....apparently.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » I've seen about a dozen 1070's sold for 250-270 recently. A lot of it was mining stock obviously. And you're right, for some reason people seem to think 980Ti's are magically worth more.....but a quick look on Adverts and you'll find tons of them for sale at that price, and zero offers on them! Same with most of the GTX970's and 980's. People expecting to get way over their worth. Odd great bargain. Was a reliable seller in Galway the other day selling a decent model GTX970 for €110 - and a lad selling EVGA 1070's with plenty warranty for €250.
K.O.Kiki wrote: » How many games would even use more than 6Gb VRAM at playable settings?
BloodBath wrote: » If you read what I said initially you would see I said to compete with a 1070ti it will use far more power. I was referring mainly to this article where Steve overclocks the bejesus out of Vega 56 and get's it quite close to a 2070 which is impressive but look at the power consumption.https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3382-rtx-2070-versus-power-modded-vega-56 It's not a flat 30% either. There's a big variance depending on the titles. There are still titles that heavily favour Nvidia. There are virtually none that favour Vega. That is the main issue. Second hand 980ti's are mainly overpriced and you still have only 6gb of memory. Modern games are using all of the gpu memory available these days. Most of my new game downloads have been well over 50GB in size. It's getting to the stage where all of these games need to be stored on an SSD because the loading times are atrocious even on a fast HDD. Luckily by this time next year 1TB ssd's will be under €100. It also means there are generally well over 8gb of texture memory so memory swapping is occurring all the time which is why games are doing better with 16gb of ram and higher speed ram. I think we will even see an improvement going to 32gb in the near future unless the gpu's themselves massively increase their memory. One thing I did overlook is if you have a freesync monitor the Vega is definitely more compelling.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » The only games I've seen where AMD has a strong advantage recently is Far Cry 5 and Wolfenstein 2. In those games the Vega 64 sits in between the 1080 and 1080Ti.
BloodBath wrote: » That's impressive and all and amazing AMD engineers didn't make these optimisations themselves but at the same time why would I ever pay €400 for it with all that work when I could just buy an RTX 2070 that wipes the floor with it out of the box even without the RT and Tensor cores for only €120 more. There is no compelling argument for buying these cards unless you really want all 3 of those game titles and you were going to buy them anyway.
BloodBath wrote: » I've seen Vega cards draw well over 300-350w on their own [...]
BloodBath wrote: » I've seen Vega cards draw well over 300-350w on their own if you want to overclock to compete with a 1070ti and the 1070ti still wins even without an overclock on it. Overclock the 1070ti and it's gg. While there are a good few titles where the performance is close there are others where the Nvidia cards come out well in front. Blame the devs for not optimising properly for Vega but that's the way it is.
K.O.Kiki wrote: » Vega 56 full system load in gaming will be under 400W, and you can lower that with undervolting further (and you can undervolt AND overclock). 1070 Ti is a bit more and not appreciably faster, 1080 is a lot more, and the Vega 56 also comes with 3 games. Right now, it's simply better value.
K.O.Kiki wrote: » A 980 Ti for less than a GTX 1060 6Gb? You'd have to be joking if you think anyone would put it up for that :rolleyes:
BloodBath wrote: » Vega is a terrible idea. I know Steve Burke and maybe a few others have been mentioning they are viable but I don't agree at all. You are always better off spending the little extra on the Nvidia cards atm. Those Vega cards need a hefty overclock to compete and then they draw massive amounts of power so you end up paying for it in the long run anyway. On top of that it just performs worse. What is the point. A 1070ti/1080 is just better in every way.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » Only if you're comparing an OC'd 980Ti vs a stock 1070 or something similar, at stock speeds the 1070 is around 10% faster and has the advantage of being newer/consuming less power. Obviously, a 980Ti at the right price could still be a great investment, but the problem is people are refusing to sell them at reasonable prices, which makes them a total non-bargain at the moment, particularly given their age. Given the 2nd hand prices of the 1070 right now, a 980Ti would have to be around €220 2nd hand to make it an appealing investment.
K.O.Kiki wrote: » 980 Ti beats 1070 though.
SterlingArcher wrote: » Wouldn't say so. Seen more 980tis than 1070s, and they are looking for 300+ ha adverts bless em.
