add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

vega 56 or GTX 1070?

iiVe

6 months ago

I'm going to use an Intel i7-8700K but I don't know if I should get a GTX 1070 card or a vega 56.

I use Blender (a 3D animation/modeling/rendering software), Photoshop, and play games (COD, OW, etc) a lot. Which means I need good 3D graphics and rendering potential, but also the ability to play games at 144fps.

From what I can figure out they have similar specs but I have no place talking about this kind of stuff.

Thanks in advance!

Comments

  • 6 months ago
  • 2 points

I would go with the Vega 56. It is more powerful and from what I have seen most 3D applications favor AMD gaming GPUs compared top nVidia ones. But that does depend on the application itself and I would look up benchmarks for those applications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECNLiQoGteA

For gaming the Vega is closer on average to the 1070ti and the Vega is a great overclocker. If pushed far the Vega 56 can reach 1080 performance levels. Plus the support for freesync monitors means you can get a cheap adaptive refresh rate display bringing the cost of the Vega card down compared to the 1070.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqABChFrD_w

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

I looked up the CUDA cores for both (very important for 3D graphics and whatnot) and found Vega 56 has more cores than even a 1080ti. Thanks for the input.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

Uh cores really don't mean a lot. And comparing Cuda cores to Stream Processors is like comparing an Intel i7 to a Qualcom Snapdragon 850. There is just no direct comparison. You can compared an i7 to and i5 and an 850 to an 845. And yes while Vega has more Stream Processors than the 1080ti. The Quadro p4000 has less cuda cores than the 1080ti and pulls ahead in most 3d applications due to optimization.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

1070 or 1070ti are generally lower cost and trade blows or pull ahead.

Vega 56 costs more but offers cheaper frame syncing tech if you are also replacing a monitor.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

Vega 56 is usually $400 and sonetimes less(Got mine for $370). So they are prices very similarly to the 1070 and 1070ti while having the ability to overclock to insane performance levels for the price.

  • 6 months ago
  • 0 points

Giving from your own links that " insane performance levels for the price." is single digit levels and you are paying more well getting less for the users needs since they use CUDA.

It is a worse option.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

No you can push te Vega to sone insane performance levels. The links I provided were for stock speeds. But if you push the card to it's limits you can get gtx 1080 performance if you get lucky with things like vram and the silicon lottery. Not something I would recommend doing but you can.

https://youtu.be/w6gpxe0QoUs

I don't see where the OP said they needed CUDA. And the main 3d rendering app they mentioned favors AMD.

And paying $30-$40 extra for a card that while at stock speeds for gaming only provides a small increase, but provides a big performance increase in the 3d workloads is worth it. And like I mentioned in my comment below the cost of Vega goes down once you factor in freesync. The OP mentioned they wanted to game at 144hz. Abd gsync pannels are way more expensive than freesync pannels. Meanwhile freesync displays are very cheap and very common.

  • 6 months ago
  • 0 points

No you can push te Vega to sone insane performance levels. The links I provided were for stock speeds. But if you push the card to it's limits you can get gtx 1080 performance if you get lucky with things like vram and the silicon lottery. Not something I would recommend doing but you can.

Yet you recommend an option that is only better by doing something you don't recommend??? Like hard modding a graphics card.

Again being the card is only better at one aspect of the workloads, and being they already have the monitor from the post.

I use Blender (a 3D animation/modeling/rendering software), Photoshop, and play games (COD, OW, etc) a lot. Which means I need good 3D graphics and rendering potential, but also the ability to play games at 144fps.

The 56 is a worst option costing more and underperforming for the majority of the workloads, well something like a 1070ti from your own links would be better performance.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

Yet you recommend an option that is only better by doing something you don't recommend??? Like hard modding a graphics card

Uh no. That is not even remotely what I said. You may want to take a look at the benchmarks again. The Vega 56 beat the 1070ti as often as it got beaten by the 1070. And that was at stock. While I do not recommend doing what GN did, you can get a good overclock without doing anything crazy and it will perform a lot better. Vega is interesting when it comes to overclocking.

Again being the card is only better at one aspect of the workloads, and being they already have the monitor from the post.

You mean half of the uses they listed? Look at the blender benchmark I linked again. The Vega 64 beats the 1080ti in almost every test. There is not a big difference between the 56 and the 64.

The 56 is a worst option costing more and underperforming for the majority of the workloads, well something like a 1070ti from your own links would be better performance.

Again no. I couldn't find any benchmark comparisons that had the Vega 56. The one I did link was about the Vega 64. And like I stated earlier the difference between the 56 and 64 is not that big. Watch the benchmarks again.

EDIT: They never said they have a 144hz monitor. They just said they want the ability to play at 144hz. And even if they do there is a lot higher chance it is a freesync monitor anyway.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm happy people are talking highly of AMD chips. The reason I think AMD would be better is that you won't have to spend top dollar to replace your monitor. Free sync monitors are readily available from ALL vendors. Getting benchmarks scores with your application is solid advice.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube