Nice price but if you are think of getting a new card, wait and see because of the new AMD vega cards out very very soon, tomorrow i think, see what they do to the graphic card prices.
Billythebubble
13 Aug 17#2
Vega is coming :party: ........
MysticalUndies
13 Aug 17#3
Vega is coming with 3x the mining power of a 580. Ready for a price hike anyone!?
Just.Wondering to MysticalUndies
13 Aug 17#5
Fake news on the mining power front
michaeljb to Just.Wondering
13 Aug 17#8
I hope it's true then the miners snap up all these cards to replace their 580 thus flooding the market with 580s.
I want a 580 for 1050ti money
MysticalUndies to michaeljb
13 Aug 17#9
Tweaktown and ocuk have said although reports of 70 to 100 hash rate are exaggerated, the card has a hash rate of over 60. If this is true then miners will snap these up. Only a day to wait.
plewis00 to michaeljb
13 Aug 17#13
It's not true. Vega FE hashes Ethereum at about 35MH/s and uses much more power. About 20% faster than an R9 290 and a little faster than a 570/580. Even so, what's more likely is miners will add cards to their rigs rather than replace them. That hope is a dream at the moment.
I can't imagine RX Vega being substantially better than the same workstation-class silicon it's derived from.
MysticalUndies to plewis00
13 Aug 17#15
Isn't this the figure for the the vega FE? Not the vega 64 which has been leaked to be lot better than the FR at mining. Not as high as the 70 to 100 but I've seen figures of 60 to 65.
plewis00 to MysticalUndies
13 Aug 17#17
Yes, sorry you are right and I was in the process of updating my comment. But when people use Quadro cards for gaming, there isn't a 2-3 times performance deficit, it's like 5-10% so to expect RX Vega to be 2-3 faster on the same silicon doesn't stack up, especially with HBM2 which wasn't as efficient (look at how good R9 290 cards still run with the 512-bit memory bus vs the 256-bit on RX 470/480/580, which are getting slower per DAG epoch change).
chapchap to MysticalUndies
13 Aug 17#18
AMD and leaks are an interesting thing isn't thing isn't it. As in don't believe it until you see see.
plewis00 to MysticalUndies
14 Aug 17#30
Just to reawaken this but the embargo has been lifted on Vega 56 and 64 now. For gaming, it's close to GTX 1070 and 1080 (for 56 and 64 respectively) but at a massive power disadvantage and for mining, my prediction of it being close to Vega FE was right: legitreviews.com/amd…049
I'm not gloating, but I didn't really believe people claiming it could do 70-100MH/s from that one source when Vega FE was around 35MH/s and this shows it - it is basically the same silicon after all. I kind of feel pity for the people who banded about that false rumour. Anyway it's good for everyone, as it hasn't made all the old cards obsolete suddenly and the demand won't be through the roof. Glad I didn't pre-order this card though.
EDIT: Nate1492 beat me to it!
MysticalUndies to plewis00
14 Aug 17#31
Yep thankfully this card sucked. Truly awful tech 15 months after nvidia.
plewis00 to MysticalUndies
14 Aug 17#32
Everyone is saying, 'it'll be optimised with drivers, but seriously, how much optimising can you do? It does seem a bit mediocre after all that fanfare. I honestly expected more as everyone thought Ryzen was over exaggerated and then it came out and was actually pretty good, but the usual thing I've come to notice with AMD is to expect a bit of disappointment...
Nate1492 to plewis00
15 Aug 17#33
AMD 'fine wine' drivers are a myth, they don't pull in more than 10% changes in performance, and most of the time they are just fixing utter failures at launch.
Looking at some titles, and how they behave with MSAA and other AA options, it's clear the initial drivers are simply poor and AMD driver team 'fixing this' doesn't make AMD cards 'better with age' more as they are simply 'broken when launched'.
So, if you are happy with hardware being launched with poor driver support and are happy when it normalizes, fair enough.
There was a post in one thread that is often used to show actual performance differences are within 5% of the start, with maxes of 10%. These cards don't magically upgrade to a higher tier, they are near their final performance on launch.
plewis00 to Nate1492
15 Aug 17#34
That said, mining Zcash went from 40 to 200+ H/s with optimisation in miner software but I agree with gaming. AMD claims to be releasing a 'block chain driver' but that's only to fix the weird slowdown as the DAG increases in size. That nVidia doesn't suffer... just as you said!
Shame as I really want to like AMD more.
Nate1492 to plewis00
15 Aug 17#35
I don't really care who I purchase from, because, ultimately, these are both companies and not people. It's not as if they have personalities, they are designed to make profits for shareholders.
I will take the best graphics card for the amount of money I want to spend.
The best has many different aspects, but probably the most important is: Good graphics, low hassle, good value.
AMD's latest offering sounds like good graphics, high hassle, and low value. Having 1 out of 3 is pretty bad when the competitor has: Good graphics, low hassle and (comparatively) better value.
plewis00 to Nate1492
15 Aug 17#36
Competiton is good but AMD seem to consistently overpromise and underdeliver - it means nVidia can continue to charge more for their cards and get away with it. Same story with Intel til recently with Ryzen. I would far rather see strong cards and CPUs from both parties or we have little innovation like the last few years of Intel barely improving their CPUs (efficiency yes but IPC barely moved).
Nate1492 to plewis00
16 Aug 17#37
I agree, competition is great for consumers and innovation.
I would suggest that Intel has driven efficiency based on mobile competition.
Efficiency usually can translate to better overall speed, but don't be shocked if there is a fairly hard limit to IPC that Intel has began to approach.
Looking only at IPC improvements may be nearly worthless, looking at total throughput is likely the correct analysis tool.
Once Intel start pumping more watts into their CPUs, we'll see a sharp increase in performance as their efficiency has allowed for these increases.
plewis00 to Nate1492
16 Aug 17#38
I don't demand higher IPC really, and on the plus side it means I've ended up with a few Ivy Lake/Haswell generation machines off-lease at silly prices that are still high spec, well-built, slim and most importantly cheap enough to tote around without too much worry. There hasn't really been a compelling reason to upgrade for a while as far as I'm concerned and a lot of my friends and customers are still using Sandy Bridge architecture because it's still fast and relatively efficient even today. Let's face it, for productivity work, even a lowly Core 2 Duo is perfectly fine so I can't see many people rushing to upgrade.
Nate1492 to plewis00
16 Aug 17#39
Sure, most tasks don't demand the new, high end, I7s. Nor do the new high end I7s distance themselves.
The Sandy Bridge was an excellent chip and is absolutely still viable today.
I am a huge fan of the G4560, a 50 quid CPU that can handle 90% of all computer needs.
chapchap to plewis00
13 Aug 17#16
You seem clued up ( unlike my ignorant self) so..a gtx 1070 ( with i7 4970 and ssd all round if that' matters at all) does that stand at making any money? If you don't mind answering that is.
plewis00 to chapchap
13 Aug 17#20
You can always make money, it depends how much time you have on your hands to micro-manage it with rigs crashing, things burning out (possibly), replacing parts, etc. I learned about it and continue to follow-up on updates but buy it rather than mine.
I would suggest you plug your card into an Ethereum calculator, I think you'll be about 25-28MH/s: cryptocompare.com/min…h=0
bbfb123
13 Aug 17#4
Vega 64 is out tomorrow potentially. Vega 56 isn't out for few weeks
Destard
13 Aug 17#6
Good price, hope other cards start dropping in prices soon.
coventgamer
13 Aug 17#7
Just waiting for my benefits to come In
computerrobot to coventgamer
13 Aug 17#19
Funny but not funny!
maddogb
13 Aug 17#10
getting closer to what they should be :wink:
Joshimitsu91
13 Aug 17#11
This is the 3GB so just factor that in when deciding whether to purchase.
zangetsu19
13 Aug 17#12
6gb version Is £229 on oc
Neostar
13 Aug 17#14
I want a 1070 :neutral_face:
kamikazilucas
13 Aug 17#21
its 3gb and its nearly 200 ripoff, i got my 970 for 220 back in 2014
MysticalUndies to kamikazilucas
13 Aug 17#22
I got the Geforce 256 in 1999 for £199. Forgot how much I paid for the Nvidia riva 128 before it, but comparing prices of today's cards with past models is completely pointless.
kamikazilucas to MysticalUndies
13 Aug 17#23
it isnt pointless when the 1060 3gb is pretty much the same as a 970 and i got it for that price 3 years ago
plewis00 to kamikazilucas
13 Aug 17#24
Exactly, and everything is inflated with cryptocurrency - whether people like it or not it's likely here to stay.
kennyhkw to kamikazilucas
14 Aug 17#26
Pointless unless you can find a better deal. i paid £46 for 16GB of DDR3 last year. Its now over £100. Does anyone care? no.
kennyhkw
14 Aug 17#25
At current prices this is a good deal for 1080p gaming.
Don't waste time waiting for Vega, its a pipe dream. TDPs are through the roof and so will be the prices.
rev6 to kennyhkw
14 Aug 17#27
Vega could still have an effect on GPU prices.
MysticalUndies to rev6
14 Aug 17#28
Vega 56 maybe but the Vega 64 isn't going to be making the 1080 any cheaper with this kind of power usage and performance....
It pulls 32-35 MH/s for mining, so unlikely to be gobbled up for mining. (Value compared to 480/580 is very low).
Unless you have strong brand loyalty toward AMD, the card is not value for money, unless you can sink the extra power it uses into a reduced heating bill.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
39 comments
I want a 580 for 1050ti money
I can't imagine RX Vega being substantially better than the same workstation-class silicon it's derived from.
legitreviews.com/amd…049
I'm not gloating, but I didn't really believe people claiming it could do 70-100MH/s from that one source when Vega FE was around 35MH/s and this shows it - it is basically the same silicon after all. I kind of feel pity for the people who banded about that false rumour. Anyway it's good for everyone, as it hasn't made all the old cards obsolete suddenly and the demand won't be through the roof. Glad I didn't pre-order this card though.
EDIT: Nate1492 beat me to it!
Looking at some titles, and how they behave with MSAA and other AA options, it's clear the initial drivers are simply poor and AMD driver team 'fixing this' doesn't make AMD cards 'better with age' more as they are simply 'broken when launched'.
So, if you are happy with hardware being launched with poor driver support and are happy when it normalizes, fair enough.
There was a post in one thread that is often used to show actual performance differences are within 5% of the start, with maxes of 10%. These cards don't magically upgrade to a higher tier, they are near their final performance on launch.
Shame as I really want to like AMD more.
I don't really care who I purchase from, because, ultimately, these are both companies and not people. It's not as if they have personalities, they are designed to make profits for shareholders.
I will take the best graphics card for the amount of money I want to spend.
The best has many different aspects, but probably the most important is: Good graphics, low hassle, good value.
AMD's latest offering sounds like good graphics, high hassle, and low value. Having 1 out of 3 is pretty bad when the competitor has: Good graphics, low hassle and (comparatively) better value.
I would suggest that Intel has driven efficiency based on mobile competition.
Efficiency usually can translate to better overall speed, but don't be shocked if there is a fairly hard limit to IPC that Intel has began to approach.
Looking only at IPC improvements may be nearly worthless, looking at total throughput is likely the correct analysis tool.
Once Intel start pumping more watts into their CPUs, we'll see a sharp increase in performance as their efficiency has allowed for these increases.
The Sandy Bridge was an excellent chip and is absolutely still viable today.
I am a huge fan of the G4560, a 50 quid CPU that can handle 90% of all computer needs.
I would suggest you plug your card into an Ethereum calculator, I think you'll be about 25-28MH/s:
cryptocompare.com/min…h=0
i paid £46 for 16GB of DDR3 last year. Its now over £100. Does anyone care? no.
Don't waste time waiting for Vega, its a pipe dream. TDPs are through the roof and so will be the prices.
wccftech.com/amd…ak/
It's noisy, it eats tons of power, and it costs more than the 1080.
techpowerup.com/rev…tml
The 56 is 9-13% slower than the 64, again, as expected.
techpowerup.com/rev…tml
It pulls 32-35 MH/s for mining, so unlikely to be gobbled up for mining. (Value compared to 480/580 is very low).
Unless you have strong brand loyalty toward AMD, the card is not value for money, unless you can sink the extra power it uses into a reduced heating bill.