One thing to be aware of is that it is much more expensive to build an RTX 2070 than a GTX 1080. If Nvidia sells them for the same price, then they're making less per unit sold on the RTX 2070. Thus, in that sense, it should cost more until the GTX 1080 is discontinued.
I'm not anti amd, but heat is a big problem in summer in my room. Like my R9 290, the Vega 64 is power hungry and I assume also hotter overall than the nvidia counterparts.
It's going for around the same price of a regular 1080 (Seems like nvidia cards are more expensive in europe) from what I could find.
One thing to be aware of is that it is much more expensive to build an RTX 2070 than a GTX 1080. If Nvidia sells them for the same price, then they're making less per unit sold on the RTX 2070. Thus, in that sense, it should cost more until the GTX 1080 is discontinued.
I don't know why people should care about that when buying a new GPU. Manufacturers ask different profit margins for different products all the time, and at least personally I'm not trying to seek for some hypothetical just profit margin when looking for a product to buy, I've got much more simple aim of getting best product for my own purposes at cheapest price possible.
I'm not anti amd, but heat is a big problem in summer in my room. Like my R9 290, the Vega 64 is power hungry and I assume also hotter overall than the nvidia counterparts.
It's going for around the same price of a regular 1080 (Seems like nvidia cards are more expensive in europe) from what I could find.
Heat generated always equals the power used. Some products can run cooler or hotter thanks to their better cooling, but how much they heat your room does not depend on how well their cooling transfers the heat to your room, it only depends on the power used because in the end all that power ends up as heat in your room.
If you want best performance with least amount of heat generated, then NVidia's GTX 10xx series is best. AMD and RTX 20xx cards are both worse.
Though RTX 20xx card might be better if there was a game that really used its new features, but since such games are practically non-existent that's just speculation.
I'm not anti amd, but heat is a big problem in summer in my room. Like my R9 290, the Vega 64 is power hungry and I assume also hotter overall than the nvidia counterparts.
It's going for around the same price of a regular 1080 (Seems like nvidia cards are more expensive in europe) from what I could find.
I'm certainly sympathetic to not wanting to heat up your room excessively. That was actually the driving reason behind why I bought a Vega 64 rather than a GTX 1080 Ti. The RTX 2000 series cards weren't out yet when I bought my new computer.
If the concern is heating up your room, then yes, a Vega 64 will put out more heat under heavy load than a GTX 1080. You can nearly eliminate that disparity by throttling back the clock speeds, which is easy to do with the Radeon WattMan software that comes in drivers. That carries the drawback that it will then be a little slower than a GTX 1080. The nominal stock clock speed on a Vega 64 is more aggressive than a GTX 1080, and because of the aggressive clock speeds, that last 10% of stock performance might well be burning 30% of the power.
But that's only when your video card is under heavy load. If you leave your computer running when not playing heavy games, then the long-term heat output of the video card is likely to be dominated by idle power consumption.
If you plug in three monitors to an Nvidia GPU, it will run at the max clock speed all the time, even when idle at the desktop. Similarly, if you have a monitor with a refresh rate above 120 Hz, the Nvidia GPU will run at max clock speed at all times. Most people don't need to care about those. I have three monitors with a refresh rate of 144 Hz, which means a high end Nvidia GPU would likely crank out around 100 W when idle at the desktop.
In contrast, my Vega 64 will clock down to a mere 26 MHz at idle, even with three monitors at 144 Hz. It keeps the memory clock speed at maximum, but HBM2 uses vastly less power than the GDDR5X or GDDR6 in Nvidia's high end cards.
Furthermore, even when playing light games, Radeon Chill means that the driver will automatically throttle back clock speeds to however low it can go while still keeping frame rates above the monitor refresh rate. Under a heavy gaming load, that means it doesn't change clock speeds at all. But if you're playing something 10 years old, or something browser-based or otherwise meant to be minimal GPU load, that means that a Vega 64 can use less power under actual gaming loads than a high end GeForce card would have idle at the desktop--at least with my monitor setup.
If you only use one or two monitors and they only have a refresh rate of 120 Hz or lower, and if you're not going to change that in the useful lifetime of the card, then that might well all be irrelevant to you. It's likely that Nvidia will fix the problem eventually, especially after tech sites picked up on it; I have no idea whether the RTX 2000 series fixed it. With most monitor setups, GeForce cards can throttle back clock speeds well, too.
For many gamers, a GTX 1080 would indeed tend to use less power than a Vega 64. Any game you play where a Radeon R9 290 struggles to keep up certainly qualifies as a heavy gaming load. But a GTX 1080 won't use less power than a Vega 64 for all gaming setups, and in particular, not for mine. What you should care about is what would happen in your particular use case, which is likely to be different from mine.
One thing to be aware of is that it is much more expensive to build an RTX 2070 than a GTX 1080. If Nvidia sells them for the same price, then they're making less per unit sold on the RTX 2070. Thus, in that sense, it should cost more until the GTX 1080 is discontinued.
I don't know why people should care about that when buying a new GPU. Manufacturers ask different profit margins for different products all the time, and at least personally I'm not trying to seek for some hypothetical just profit margin when looking for a product to buy, I've got much more simple aim of getting best product for my own purposes at cheapest price possible.
Sure, if you're looking to buy something right now, all that matters is the prices offered right now. If you want to predict what will happen to the prices of a particular product in the future, prices at retail tend to be correlated with the cost of production. And if you're considering waiting for a price drop, then you're trying to predict future prices.
It's because of the cost of production that I wouldn't count on an RTX 2070 matching the price of a GTX 1080 anytime soon. If the RTX 2070 were cheaper to build than a GTX 1080, then it would likely already be cheaper to buy, and would almost certainly be cheaper soon.
From what I am reading on the geforce forums lots of people with problem on new card and after some use so much such that apparently most peeps are having long wait times and issues with returns.
That's a problem of a particular SKU that seems to have not properly cooled the memory. It's one thing to avoid that particular SKU, but that doesn't mean that you need to avoid an entire generation of hardware.
A GeForce RTX 2070 tends to be a little faster than a GeForce GTX 1080 or Radeon RX Vega 64, but not a lot. All of those cards tend to be a lot slower than a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, though there are a handful of games where the Vega 64 and RTX 2070 will be more competitive with the GTX 1080 Ti, possibly because the 1080 Ti is having problems with its lack of register space or one of the other ways in which Pascal lacks some compute resources that the others have.
What you should get depends tremendously on the price tag. If you can get an RTX 2070 for the same price as a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, then sure, do it. But if it costs a lot more, then I'd look at a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, whichever is cheaper.
Sometimes you don't read properly to try and amaze us with your brilliance...the key words in my post was "for now".
Really it's kind of stupid to buy a rtx card while it's unknown if the issues is ONLY with this small batch....common sense says to wait awhile till this seems to be sorted out.
It's much to early to say if it is which is why I mentioned it, as one properly should, before blatantly saying, "If you can get an RTX 2070 for the same price as a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, then sure, do it".
Really offering up ALL information is key even before telling people how they should think especially since getting a 2070 gpu instead of a 1080 for minor increase but at a higher risk of technical issues is kind of debatable at this point in time.
In the grand scheme of things skipping this first gen of rtx cards is not a big deal and wont change much performance wise.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I meant more as to why. What's wrong with the current one? What do you think is the weakest link?
I mean, I already explained what I intended to upgrade (The GPU) and why. I listed everything just in case anything else could be in need of an upgrade as well.
From what I am reading on the geforce forums lots of people with problem on new card and after some use so much such that apparently most peeps are having long wait times and issues with returns.
That's a problem of a particular SKU that seems to have not properly cooled the memory. It's one thing to avoid that particular SKU, but that doesn't mean that you need to avoid an entire generation of hardware.
A GeForce RTX 2070 tends to be a little faster than a GeForce GTX 1080 or Radeon RX Vega 64, but not a lot. All of those cards tend to be a lot slower than a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, though there are a handful of games where the Vega 64 and RTX 2070 will be more competitive with the GTX 1080 Ti, possibly because the 1080 Ti is having problems with its lack of register space or one of the other ways in which Pascal lacks some compute resources that the others have.
What you should get depends tremendously on the price tag. If you can get an RTX 2070 for the same price as a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, then sure, do it. But if it costs a lot more, then I'd look at a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, whichever is cheaper.
Sometimes you don't read properly to try and amaze us with your brilliance...the key words in my post was "for now".
Really it's kind of stupid to buy a rtx card while it's unknown if the issues is ONLY with this small batch....common sense says to wait awhile till this seems to be sorted out.
It's much to early to say if it is which is why I mentioned it, as one properly should, before blatantly saying, "If you can get an RTX 2070 for the same price as a GTX 1080 or Vega 64, then sure, do it".
Really offering up ALL information is key even before telling people how they should think especially since getting a 2070 gpu instead of a 1080 for minor increase but at a higher risk of technical issues is kind of debatable at this point in time.
In the grand scheme of things skipping this first gen of rtx cards is not a big deal and wont change much performance wise.
There have been particular SKUs that were unreliable due to botched engineering. For an entire generation of GPU hardware to be unreliable right out of the box would be unprecedented, and I'd regard it as extremely unlikely. The only thing I've ever heard of even remotely similar to that was the bad bumps on GeForce 8000/9000 series era cards, and that took months or years to show up as a problem.
There have been particular SKUs that were unreliable due to botched engineering. For an entire generation of GPU hardware to be unreliable right out of the box would be unprecedented, and I'd regard it as extremely unlikely. The only thing I've ever heard of even remotely similar to that was the bad bumps on GeForce 8000/9000 series era cards, and that took months or years to show up as a problem.
Sure and I never said the entire generation would be bad but it obvious they did a really bad job on QA and it quite possible they did an equally bad job on other batches. Nothing wrong giving a guy a heads up and being cautious.
That said the whole RTX line barring MAYBE the 2080 is just an overpriced marketing trick and not worth the minor upgrade as games wont really be using the vaunted tech till most likely the next gen if even then.
That said if someone is keen on buying just cause they can there's nothing wrong with that just as there's nothing wrong with getting a 1080/ti and skipping the whole first gen rtx and waiting on the next ones.
It's not like there's going to be a mind boggling real world performance difference.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Poster said it is getting hot? Is the CPU getting hot? If so take the fan off the CPU clean it with denatured alcohol and reapply some thermal paste. That might bring your temps down. If your GPU is running to hot try adding more fans. Are your fans making noises? If so I would recheck like I suggested your CPU fan. If that thing is going bad or not seated correctly it can add a ton of heat. Even a PSU can cause heat if there are issues with it.
I meant more as to why. What's wrong with the current one? What do you think is the weakest link?
I mean, I already explained what I intended to upgrade (The GPU) and why. I listed everything just in case anything else could be in need of an upgrade as well.
Do you really need to "max" everything? Games look very nice even on medium let alone on high. And if the only thing that keeps the game beautiful is the graphics, then the art team failed phenomenally. Regardless, I'd buy 1080, but I'm more conservative. Especially given the state of the first batch of 2000s.
I don't NEED to, in fact graphics is not the main motivator when I buy games. However, I already explained that:
- The card is quite old now. - I bought it refurbished. - It's a sauna in summer when I play intensive games. - One of the fans is making a ton of noise, and it's getting on my nerves.
Wanting to future proof my system while I currently have some some spare cash is so bad? You're making it sound like you should never upgrade your system if you can run anything even on medium or less..
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of your messages here. By jumping to a 1080 (Or higher) from my R9 290 (Not the X version), I'd be getting a considerable upgrade.
The prices are way too inflated atm, and I also bought a new car so I had to lower my budget.
I was really tempted on getting an RX Vega 56/64 for the 3 free games deal (Really interesting games too!!), but I kept reading mixed reviews on most of the "cheaper" ones. Even a GTX 1070 can beat the Vega 56, and the Vega 64 is way too close to the RTX 2070 price (Gigabyte windforce in amazon.de if anyone wants it. Cheapest there is, 525ish euro excluding shipping.) and I had to tone down my budget limit.
Thank you for everyone that helped!
I'll eventually buy a better fan for my cpu (Using stock one), and see on fitting it myself. I'm assuming it's a walk in the park. Long ago, I bought a tube of thermal paste that I've never used (Arctic cooling mx-4), and it's time to give it a try.
Comments
It's going for around the same price of a regular 1080 (Seems like nvidia cards are more expensive in europe) from what I could find.
Found this site that tracks prices for all kinds of gpus: https://www.gputracker.eu
That's where I'm basing prices from.
If you want best performance with least amount of heat generated, then NVidia's GTX 10xx series is best. AMD and RTX 20xx cards are both worse.
Though RTX 20xx card might be better if there was a game that really used its new features, but since such games are practically non-existent that's just speculation.
If the concern is heating up your room, then yes, a Vega 64 will put out more heat under heavy load than a GTX 1080. You can nearly eliminate that disparity by throttling back the clock speeds, which is easy to do with the Radeon WattMan software that comes in drivers. That carries the drawback that it will then be a little slower than a GTX 1080. The nominal stock clock speed on a Vega 64 is more aggressive than a GTX 1080, and because of the aggressive clock speeds, that last 10% of stock performance might well be burning 30% of the power.
But that's only when your video card is under heavy load. If you leave your computer running when not playing heavy games, then the long-term heat output of the video card is likely to be dominated by idle power consumption.
If you plug in three monitors to an Nvidia GPU, it will run at the max clock speed all the time, even when idle at the desktop. Similarly, if you have a monitor with a refresh rate above 120 Hz, the Nvidia GPU will run at max clock speed at all times. Most people don't need to care about those. I have three monitors with a refresh rate of 144 Hz, which means a high end Nvidia GPU would likely crank out around 100 W when idle at the desktop.
In contrast, my Vega 64 will clock down to a mere 26 MHz at idle, even with three monitors at 144 Hz. It keeps the memory clock speed at maximum, but HBM2 uses vastly less power than the GDDR5X or GDDR6 in Nvidia's high end cards.
Furthermore, even when playing light games, Radeon Chill means that the driver will automatically throttle back clock speeds to however low it can go while still keeping frame rates above the monitor refresh rate. Under a heavy gaming load, that means it doesn't change clock speeds at all. But if you're playing something 10 years old, or something browser-based or otherwise meant to be minimal GPU load, that means that a Vega 64 can use less power under actual gaming loads than a high end GeForce card would have idle at the desktop--at least with my monitor setup.
If you only use one or two monitors and they only have a refresh rate of 120 Hz or lower, and if you're not going to change that in the useful lifetime of the card, then that might well all be irrelevant to you. It's likely that Nvidia will fix the problem eventually, especially after tech sites picked up on it; I have no idea whether the RTX 2000 series fixed it. With most monitor setups, GeForce cards can throttle back clock speeds well, too.
For many gamers, a GTX 1080 would indeed tend to use less power than a Vega 64. Any game you play where a Radeon R9 290 struggles to keep up certainly qualifies as a heavy gaming load. But a GTX 1080 won't use less power than a Vega 64 for all gaming setups, and in particular, not for mine. What you should care about is what would happen in your particular use case, which is likely to be different from mine.
It's because of the cost of production that I wouldn't count on an RTX 2070 matching the price of a GTX 1080 anytime soon. If the RTX 2070 were cheaper to build than a GTX 1080, then it would likely already be cheaper to buy, and would almost certainly be cheaper soon.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
- The card is quite old now.
- I bought it refurbished.
- It's a sauna in summer when I play intensive games.
- One of the fans is making a ton of noise, and it's getting on my nerves.
Wanting to future proof my system while I currently have some some spare cash is so bad? You're making it sound like you should never upgrade your system if you can run anything even on medium or less..
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of your messages here. By jumping to a 1080 (Or higher) from my R9 290 (Not the X version), I'd be getting a considerable upgrade.
If u can find it Scythe Mugen 5 would be the best price/performance option.
https://www.amazon.com/Mugen-Rev-CPU-Cooler-Support/dp/B06ZYB8K77/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541328106&sr=8-1&keywords=scythe+mugen+5&dpID=51Ly2YwrEpL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Otherwise Thermalright Macho Rev B
https://www.amazon.com/Thermalright-814256001052-Macho-Rev-B/dp/B00PKJ21LW/ref=sr_1_43?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1541327828&sr=1-43&refinements=p_89:be+quiet!|Noctua|Cryorig|Phanteks|SCYTHE|Scythe|Thermalright
Or a Cryorig H7/H7 plus/H7 quad lumi, or a be quiet Dark rock 3.
At this 45-50 euro range the Mugen 5 is def the best option, and if you want to go to ~70 euro range get the Thermalright Le Grand Macho RT if u you can find it.
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Macho-RT-fan-TY-147B/dp/B01BCLXO7Q/ref=sr_1_71?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1541327855&sr=1-71&refinements=p_89:be+quiet!|Noctua|Cryorig|Phanteks|SCYTHE|Scythe|Thermalright
be quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 is a really good one as well, but it will probably be quite expensive, so only get it for the black aesthetics if u really want to break the bank
The prices are way too inflated atm, and I also bought a new car so I had to lower my budget.
I was really tempted on getting an RX Vega 56/64 for the 3 free games deal (Really interesting games too!!), but I kept reading mixed reviews on most of the "cheaper" ones. Even a GTX 1070 can beat the Vega 56, and the Vega 64 is way too close to the RTX 2070 price (Gigabyte windforce in amazon.de if anyone wants it. Cheapest there is, 525ish euro excluding shipping.) and I had to tone down my budget limit.
Thank you for everyone that helped!
I'll eventually buy a better fan for my cpu (Using stock one), and see on fitting it myself. I'm assuming it's a walk in the park. Long ago, I bought a tube of thermal paste that I've never used (Arctic cooling mx-4), and it's time to give it a try.