Showing 1 of 909 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
Dang, this is such a tough decision. On one hand, the specs on this monitor look great and I'm sure it'll exceed my expectations. It seems to be good value (even after shipping and duties). I'm using a 24" 1080 IPS 60 Hz monitor right now, so I'm sure it'll blow my socks off if I decide to get it.
But on the other hand... It's a month away from Black Friday. I've been watching the 35" AOC monitor with G-SYNC (since I have a Nvidia card). I'm not sure if it'll go on sale for Black Friday but if it does I would definitely get it. It'll probably still be more expensive than this, but I feel like it'll be worth it since it has G-SYNC, and more importantly... I get to use it 2 months earlier. I know I'm hyping myself up too much, but my anticipation for a new monitor is through the roof and 2 extra months is an excruciating amount of time to sit here and just wait.
This of course all becomes null if Black Friday doesn't bring a discount to the monitor. If that's the case, then that means I lose both my chances to grab a good monitor (at a fair price; I've looked at other similar monitors and they're even more expensive while adding almost nothing!).
Which one do I go for? Should I take my chances and wait, or play it safe? I prefer the other one with G-SYNC, but this one is up there too!
That's a tough call. I joined this drop, but still have time (I think) to cancel if I find something else. I've been watching the Viotek and Pixio 34" monitors on Amazon, which have very similar specs to this and range from $550-$600. I have an nVidia card too, but it's hard to justify paying almost double just for that feature, when that alone could almost pay for a second 1080 Ti instead.
@goroMan You're both overcomplicating this. It's pretty much as simple as figuring out how committed you are to NVidia's platform.
If the answer is very committed then get a GSync monitor. If you're not committed then get this monitor.
If you're sitting on a 1080Ti then you've sunk $700+ into your GPU with the full knowledge of the GSync premium - no sense in penny pinching now.
The thing is AMD and NVIDIA flip flop every couple of years, and I just find it hard to justify $550 vs $1000 for nearly identical monitors, just with one having G-Sync and the other doesn't, when I could use that $450 to upgrade the components in my rig and hopefully stay above 100FPS making G-Sync pointless.
That's my point on the flagship cards - it really doesn't matter for practical purposes which platform you're on. NVidia was dominant for a long time, Vega 56/64 are on top at the moment and getting better, Volta will be out in Q1'18 and probably snag the top spot back, then Navi in 2H'18...and so on.
Realistically, if you're running a 1080Ti the only way to push minimum FPS above 100 is to SLI another 1080Ti as a single card solution can't cut it on current games at this resolution let alone new titles coming out. That's a $700 investment and you're still stuck with the monitor problem. Frankly, with Vega prices coming down, you're probably better off buying the Vast + a 64, but that's still ~$1,100 out of pocket - better than another 1080Ti, but still pricey.
The bottom line is that adaptive sync is the most significant development in display technology in a long time and dollar-for-dollar the best improvement you can make to your rig. If you're looking to move to AMD at some point in the near term then this is still one to consider. If you're going to use the 1080Ti for 2+ years then just get a GSync monitor.
I really appreciate your comments, I've been looking at gsync monitors and may wait to see if any of those go on sale this black friday. Thanks!
"NVidia was dominant for a long time, Vega 56/64 are on top at the moment and getting better, Volta will be out in Q1'18 and probably snag the top spot back, then Navi in 2H'18...and so on. "
Where did you read that propaganda? Nvidia already had a plan for Vega but it turned out that it was not needed. The 1080ti destroys anything that AMD has available so they can wait for next year to release anything new. The Vega 64 even has problems competing with the 1080.
"The 1080ti destroys anything that AMD has available so they can wait for next year to release anything new. "
Here's a Vega 56 neck-and-neck with a 1080Ti: http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-vega-64-outperforms-nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-23-dx12-forza-7/
Yes, that's a card designed to compete with a 1070 putting out performance in-line with a 1080Ti. And the 64 is like 10% ahead of a card that should be running circles around it.
Now my personal view is that's an outlier - I would expect the 1080Ti to significantly outperform Vega even at 1440p. But the 56 and 64 have otherwise been running the table with the latest benchmarks:
So yeah, today Vega is on top by some margin. Tomorrow or the day after or next week will probably be different. NVidia isn't stupid - they know they have to respond ASAP, which is why we're getting the 1070Ti later on this week.
It's a great time to be a consumer!
To say that AMD is "running the table with the latest benchmarks" is a gross overstatement. I'll give you that they succeeded in one new Direct X 12 game that is giving them an advantage. Within that exact article that you linked they said:
"So it appears there’s some magical driver wizardry that AMD has done to take advantage of the multi-threaded nature of DX12 that NVIDIA has yet to replicate for Forza 7.Is this merely an anomaly or perhaps a pattern that we could see repeated in future DirectX 12 games? Only time will tell. Although one thing’s for certain, Vega can really spread its wings in DirectX 12. Perhaps AMD’s partnership with Bethesda will expose more of what Vega can really do in DX12 games."
I would say that it is an anomaly and that the superior hardware will rise to the top. Showing one game performing on Vega better than G-force is Hardly proof that they are on top. Sounds like the rants of an AMD fanboy to me.
Yeah, I totally agree - as I said right there, I thought the Forza benchmarks were an outlier. Vega should not be able to compete with a 1080Ti - it should be absolutely running circles around everything else. And keep in mind, everything else up to the point that the Forza benchmarks came out had Vega running even with or behind the comparable NVidia GPUs (1080/1070 for 64/56, respectively). So I personally thought almost nothing of it.
Then the Shadow of War benchmarks came out and AMD was way (~20%) ahead. And things became a little more interesting as more and more games put Vega ahead of NVidia at least on DX12.
Fast forward to today and the Destiny 2 benchmarks - AMD is on top again across everything comparable, which probably isn't surprising anymore except for it's running on DX11. Plus, the 64 is nipping at the 1080Ti's heels again even at 4k.
So yeah, on paper, AMD is definitively winning out. In practice, I'm not sure it really matters all that much. Both Vega GPUs and the comparable NVidia models are great cards.
I guess you're not understanding the point here (makes sense, you seem to have drank quite a bit of NVidia kool-aid), I'll try to go a little slower for you - as I said clearly up above there is no dispute that the 1080 Ti should be way ahead. It's an ~$800 card that is in a class of it's own...or it should be anyway. AMD's top card (Vega 64) is literally hundreds of dollars less and was not designed to compete with a 1080Ti.
What is the Vega platform designed to compete with? 1080/1070 - and it's beating them by, let's just say some margin currently. Using your benchmarks, they are running ~10-20% ahead and that's without factoring in 17.10 optimization. This is a consistent pattern across any game that's come out since Vega dropped. It could change tomorrow or the day after or next week. This isn't a crazy thing - it's just how competition works and it's great for consumers.
The crazy thing is how far above their fighting weight the Vega cards are punching. The Destiny 2 benchmarks have the 64 again nipping at the 1080Ti's heels with the 56 running ~10% of the 1080 at 4k. It's amazing that the only real defense of NVidia's performance, as you've illustrated, is to pit an $800 card against a $500 card and hope no one notices the $800 card is barely 10% ahead.
Like I said, NVidia is not stupid - they're seeing all this. There's a reason the 1070Ti is coming out this week. It's good news for everyone.
I've been looking at the AOC too. Microcenter sells it for $799.
You seem to be the AMD spokesman for their GPU division and you sure do like to stretch the truth. #1 it's quite a stretch to say that the 1080 ti costs 800.00 (especially on this site Massdrop) where cards are going south of 700.00 routinely. You seem to like to blur the Vega 56 and 64 together and say that this magical 500.00 card is coming within 10% of the 1080 ti. Truth of the matter is.. Vega 56 is below the 1080( closer to the 1070) and is closer to the 500.00 actual cost that you speak of and the 64 is closer to 600.00 . Only recently has there been any actual stock of these mythical creatures( Vega 56 and 64) available from retailers and they have never been sold at the original listed retail price unless you win the AMD lottery. I just love the absence of aftermarket cooling for the new AMD cards. Doesn't show much support for the Vega platform from companies like EVGA, ASUS, GIGABYTE etc.
Well at least you've finally figured out that the 56 and 64 are better cards than NVidia's comparable offerings.
If the only thing that can be said in defense of NVidia is that currency mining exists I think that concession speaks for itself.
I personally only buy MSI parts when I can and they certainly offer aftermarket cooling for both Vega cards. A quick scan of like any retail site indicates that Gigabyte, Sapphire, and a handful of other third parties are selling Vega cards so I don't know what you're on about there.
I do agree with you that if you're buying a card today, you have to consider the relative value at market rather than retail prices. That's going to change on a day to day basis. All good news for anyone not indoctrinated into the cult of NVidia/AMD.
"Well at least you've finally figured out that the 56 and 64 are better cards than NVidia's comparable offerings. "
Actually No , I haven't "figured" that out and I don't know how you can infer that with my response.
"If the only thing that can be said in defense of NVidia is that currency mining exists I think that concession speaks for itself. "
Don't think that's the only defense, I would call it pretty crappy on AMD's part for allowing currency miners to buy up a good portion of the old cards and the new ones and artificially inflate the value so gamers can't get a hold of one. Once this became apparent after the launch of the cards, every online reviewer wanted to add that to their review and crap on AMD's parade.
"I personally only buy MSI parts when I can and they certainly offer aftermarket cooling for both Vega cards. A quick scan of like any retail site indicates that Gigabyte, Sapphire, and a handful of other third parties are selling Vega cards so I don't know what you're on about there."
You wouldn't (no surprise), Let me dumb it down for you. Aftermarket cooling = a non reference heatsink fan design that allows for better cooling and overclocking. Of course the Vega lineup is so hot running and power hungry that the only way to overclock it is to liquid cool it and see your power bill go up. If you didn't notice, every single Vega card for sale uses the reference designed blower type heatsink/fan combination accept for the way overpriced built on liquid cooled one.
Didn't say that they aren't selling the cards, just that they don't have custom cards with custom cooling solutions.
"Actually No , I haven't "figured" that out and I don't know how you can infer that with my response."
That's a shame because you said " Vega 56 is below the 1080( closer to the 1070)", which led me to believe you had finally figured out the performance stack between the four cards. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still believe you'll work this out in the end.
" I would call it pretty crappy on AMD's part for allowing currency miners to buy up a good portion of the old cards and the new ones and artificially inflate the value so gamers can't get a hold of one. "
Because AMD has the capability to ban certain end users from the market place. Let alone the desire to do so. Maybe come back when you get through some kind of middle-school level economics class.
Anyway, you should share some of that NVidia kool-aid you're chugging - it's obviously pretty mind-bending stuff.
" Because AMD has the capability to ban certain end users from the market place. Let alone the desire to do so. Maybe come back when you get through some kind of middle-school level economics class. "
It's called limiting purchases to individual buyers and perhaps having enough supply to satisfy demand. I have absolutely nothing against AMD (just pointing out the negative aspects that you refuse to acknowledge). I just built a new system with an AMD Ryzen CPU and was seriously considering a Vega purchase until all this crap with the release of the product.
"That's a shame because you said " Vega 56 is below the 1080( closer to the 1070)", which led me to believe you had finally figured out the performance stack between the four cards. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still believe you'll work this out in the end. "
That's hardly evident that the Vega 56 outperforms the 1070. I'll give you that it appears to be in certain circumstances. If you look at the current price of the Vega 56 and the GTX 1070 you find the AMD card is roughly 70.00 more expensive.
Unlike you, I don't ignore valid points that opposition makes.
" Unlike you, I don't ignore valid points that opposition makes. "
That's fair, but on the flip side, you've frequently fallen back on petty name calling in lieu of a reasoned argument. Whatever valid points you may or may not have made are just lost in the shuffle.
"It's called limiting purchases to individual buyers and perhaps having enough supply to satisfy demand."
I mean, no offense, but how do you imagine this happening exactly? Simply ignoring any channel that any commercial buyer has access to? That makes no sense on several levels and miners can (and do) just flood the consumer channels anyway.
I agree on the supply side being an issue at least at launch - maybe there is a middle ground where AMD forces a hard cap of say 2 GPUs per buyer. It would be difficult and costly to enforce, but at least it would put a brake on demand. It's unclear whether this does more long term damage than its worth though - AMD was already late to the party with Vega.
" That's hardly evident that the Vega 56 outperforms the 1070. I'll give you that it appears to be in certain circumstances. "
I mean, I just checked every single set of benchmarks in this thread that either you or I have linked and the 56 is ~10-15% ahead in every one.
Now is paying an extra ~15% for 10-15% better performance worth it? You've argued that the 1080Ti selling at ~25% markup over the 64 is a solid value for ~15-20% performance gains - I think that's probably right and I'd say the same about a 1070 vs 56.
Honestly, I think it's gotten to the point that it really matters what monitor you're running - if you're on GSync then you can upgrade to whatever NVidia card fits your needs and vice versa with Freesync/AMD. If you're uncommitted on the monitor front then it's AMD on value all the way.
"That's fair, but on the flip side, you've frequently fallen back on petty name calling in lieu of a reasoned argument. Whatever valid points you may or may not have made are just lost in the shuffle."
As far as name calling goes.. I agree although in the last post I believe I didn't call you "dumb", I said I would "dumb it down for you" : )
This is getting ridiculous with the back and forth on this (last word competition). FreeSync monitors are definitely more affordable and that was the reason for my initial interest in Vega. I have since ordered and returned the same 34 inch 1440P FreeSync monitor twice (not because I have an Nvidia card) but because they were both defective. I was just going to live without a monitor with adaptive refresh rate compatibility. Now that I've sent the monitor back for good I'm definitely going to go with a G-sync monitor. Even though G-sync monitors are more expensive, one could argue that the G-sync technology is superior to Free-Sync.
Here you go: https://www.ebay.com/itm/382242047727?ul_noapp=true
I'm not a fanboy for either of them, just have been going with best bang/buck for a long time, and I finally wanna get into high end GPUs + monitors. I paid $410 for the 56, and this monitor is $549.99. That's $959.99. nVidia: $500-700 GPU + $750-1000 monitor?
Would rather keep the extra 300-750 dollars and see where AMD drivers can take VEGA.
I am holding off as well, next year is going to be a great year for monitors. I have my eye on 240hz 1440p 27" monitors.
Even a 1080 ti can not play the latest AAA titles at 3440x1440 at 70 plus stead frames... I think Assassin's Creed Origins gets only 75 frames... so I mean... eh the tech just isn't there yet, but 2560x1440 is easy to push.
"Even a 1080 ti can not play the latest AAA titles at 3440x1440 at 70 plus stead frames... I think Assassin's Creed Origins gets only 75 frames... so I mean... eh the tech just isn't there yet, but 2560x1440 is easy to push. "
yeah I know that some games won't go over or at 100 FPS at that resolution with all the settings in game on Ultra. You can turn the settings down a little to boost the fps if you choose though. I personally like the 21 X 9 aspect ratio and the size of the 34 or 35 inch monitors. The new Acer X35 has some crazy specs and I'm hoping that it isn't outrageously priced.