Vega 64 is 490$ on ebay, is it worth it Sup Forums lol

vega 64 is 490$ on ebay, is it worth it Sup Forums lol

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vZwmzZjP3Oo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>lol

if your willing to spend that much for muh games, then go all the way you tard

god damnit

its a collectors edition. so yes. get is signed by lisa su

Why aren't there custom coolers yet? Is it still because of two different packages?

there are custom water blocks.56/64 are the same size I think its just that the gpu chip has varying height that is causing problems.

>pay more shekels

I didn't say buy anything wtf are you on about. If you're asking why there are no AIB cards? Most likely because Apple is buying the best and custom coolers dont do much better than the stock cooler.

its actually not. if you buy a 1080 you save more money alone when it comes to power bills. vega is absolutely not worth it. the average benchmarks are mediocre, at best on par with a 1080. 1080 still outperforms everything amd has, and consumes round about 200w instead of 3 or even 400

coming from someone who prefers to buy amd

this is what i was thinking :[

I think it's a decent deal, Vega 64 will probably have a great life due to fine wine technology. I bought into the Goyforce meme and have a 1080Ti, otherwise I'd probably jump on a $500 Vega 64.

Not really with pick related. You can also get brand new Vega 64's for $500.

Unless you're doing long amounts of heavy gpu loads on a regular basis, or live in a third world country with expensive electricity, this argument isn't really valid. The heat generation is a concern, though. But a vega 56 with a Raijintek morpheus cooler slapped onto it will be very competitive and quiet. Would still say wait for the refresh, though if you want to get a Vega. Unless they go below MSRP by a significant margin.

Vega 64 beats the 1080 in almost everything now, especially once you undervolt it or raise the fan speed. The problem is that the 64 is way too hot so it thermal throttles at stock, but reviewers never mention this. (Of course it's AMD's fault for not setting a good default fan curve as well) You can see how the Vega 64 really performs with the watercooled one, even at the same clocks it outperforms the 1080 simply because it's not throttling to death.

Never buy reference cards ever, it doesn't matter if the company "claims" this is a COMPLETELY different blower that fixes ALL problems, they all suck for high-end cards and moving competent amounts of air. My 8800 GT, 285 GTX, and 6970 were all housefires waiting to happen, and getting a Vapor-X 7950 is when I finally saw the light, even if it was a shitpiece that Sapphire gave nonexistent VRM cooling too

>games
that's good for cryptonight OP

Only cost aspect we have to look at is monitors for vsync and freesync costs add on. But why would he want to do that when he can just get the 1070 TI for cheaper and near equal performance of a 1080, unless he's going to go 4k.

I have a 4k tv so im looking for a sweet spot in market. But it looks like I have to wait just a bit more.

a very shitty oc coming through

rip

Those could be and probably are two entirely different questions. :)

> vega 64 is 490$
No, it's not. But if you can find it at that price then just buy it.

> on ebay
Good luck with your door-stop when you find out that you paid for a brick or a piece of clay.

:x

Are hybrids a meme or do u think they are worth the money?

youtube.com/watch?v=vZwmzZjP3Oo
lol this things ugly

Great, so vega reference cards are in sale now. Partnercards incoming

And reference isn't even that bad.
The PCB is pure, unrelenting overkill.

>Unless you're doing long amounts of heavy gpu loads on a regular basis, or live in a third world country with expensive electricity, this argument isn't really valid.
green/renewable energy is slightly more expensive than coal for one, and the other thing is that performance per watt still is by at least 25% better than with amd, in almost every scenario.

why in the fucking world would i want to increase the fan speed? i don't want a jet engine sitting next to me and i'm not going to watercool my system or underclock my card in order to NOT have out of the box "housefire". why did you not recommend nitrogen cooling, i'm sure that'll convince me. i wanna enjoy the performance of my hardware without ricing it, i'm to old for that shit

honestly vega is just another fury, minor improvements, almost equal performance. it's simply just bad and a complete letdown by amd which is not that surprising.

nobody uses vsync or freesync. the market is so tiny its dead technology similar to firewire, sounds good on paper but never got to be hot shit.

Vega64 a shit

>honestly vega is just another fury, minor improvements, almost equal performance.
Oh look, it's clueless!
>nobody uses vsync or freesync.
Are you deluded or what?

>vsync
s/v/g/

>Oh look, it's clueless!
oh look you are not providing anything useful to at least disprove that statement. just neck yourself, will you

And it resorts to shitposting.
How cute.

classic Sup Forums - if you can't find a valid argument you just shitpost and pretend that you said something that made you not look like a fucking inbred mongloid nigger jew.

literally kill yourself, you are the worthless normie faggot that's makes this board garbage

How angry.
Reeks of Sup Forums or /r9k/.

I pay about seven US cents per kilowatt-hour. If Vega costs $100 less but uses 100 watts more, I'd have to game for 1.6 straight years, 24/7. before the power savings outstrip the purchase price.

If I'm a turbo-neet who spends 40 hours every week gaming that means the more efficient card will come out ahead after 6.8 years. This is not a worthwhile investment.

ily Sup Forums

>no VGA port

It's 2017.

Maxwell was the last video card to support analogue through DVI-I.

Why would you want eew VGA on a graphics card?

DL-DVI-D maxes out at 1440p. You need DisplayPort or HDMI 2.0 for 4k at 60 fps.

I personally don't like HDMI very much so I'd ideally want a graphics card with three or four DisplayPort's on it and one HDMI port (there's no surround receivers with a USB audio or DisplayPort input so we need HDMI).

I know this makes it impossible to use some older monitors. Don't care; if you're going to be rocking some ancient 1080p display then you're better off buying some cheap 1050ti or RX 560 anyway.

That legacy DVI port and also the VGA port are annoyances and they need to die. Take that RX 560 I just mentioned, for example. All of them have one DisplayPort, one HDMI port and one DL-DVI-D port. You can't do a three 4k monitor setup with this card because of that legacy port.

The same applies to all the motherboards on both the Intel and AMD side. We can already be sure that AMD APUs with Vega graphics will be / already is a failure and a disappointment by looking at the motherboards; Most have a HDMI 1.4 port (=no 4k 60fps) and a DVI and eew VGA.

See

>Why would you want eew VGA on a graphics card?
CRTs are visually superior to most LCDs.
>DL-DVI-D maxes out at 1440p. You need DisplayPort or HDMI 2.0 for 4k at 60 fps.
Most people don't have 1440p+ monitors. Besides, VGA doesn't really have a max resolution.
>I personally don't like HDMI very much so I'd ideally want a graphics card with three or four DisplayPort's on it and one HDMI port (there's no surround receivers with a USB audio or DisplayPort input so we need HDMI).
You are entitled to your opinion.
>I know this makes it impossible to use some older monitors. Don't care; if you're going to be rocking some ancient 1080p display then you're better off buying some cheap 1050ti or RX 560 anyway.
For gaming, maybe. Vega is mostly a compute card, and screen resolution isn't super relevant.
>That legacy DVI port and also the VGA port are annoyances and they need to die. Take that RX 560 I just mentioned, for example. All of them have one DisplayPort, one HDMI port and one DL-DVI-D port. You can't do a three 4k monitor setup with this card because of that legacy port.
Still no VGA support in that setup. Besides, the RX 580 has 2xHDMI, 2xDisplayPort, and DVI-D Dual Link so it's obviously not a problem of surface are
>The same applies to all the motherboards on both the Intel and AMD side. We can already be sure that AMD APUs with Vega graphics will be / already is a failure and a disappointment by looking at the motherboards; Most have a HDMI 1.4 port (=no 4k 60fps) and a DVI and eew VGA.
Just retarded manufacturers. Replace the HDMI with a DisplayPort and the DVI/VGA connectors with a single DVI-I to save space.

They arent a meme but the price hike is criminal. I was planning a hybrid back with the 980ti and they were all sold out or unjustifiably expensive.

>CRTs are visually superior
I strongly disagree but you're entitled to your preference. I'm glad we're not rocking 640x480 pixel CRT monitors with 256 colors anymore and those things just looked eeeew. I can happily live the rest of my life without ever looking at a CRT again.

>Most people don't have 1440p+
"Most people" don't even lift so they don't count. Besides, if you're going to spend money on a new computer or a new GPU then you'll probably buy a 4k monitor or three.

As for "580 can do this", yes, sure. But that card is a lot more expensive than the 560, isn't it? Kind of pointless that I had to get a RX 470 just to be able to do 3x4k when I'd be fine with a 460 if it had enough ports (I don't game much, just need the workspace).

1440p should die too, btw. It's a pointless in-between resolution and a specially bad buy now that 4k's have become so cheap. I sort-of regret going 3x1080p to 3x1440p back in the day (since my unused 1440p's aren't that old, should probably sell'em) - but.. 4k's were a bit too expensive to do 3x at that time.