Honestly, I'd say get the GTX 1080 Ti. It's a great card. Vega is ok. It's cheaper but uses more power, so it may end up costing more in the long run.

Personally, I banked on vega not being better than the GTX 1080Ti, so, eventhough I paid 801 dollars for a FTW3, about 4 or 5 months ago, or whenever, I got to play it months earlier, and I'm still on top today. But, I will say I don't recommend the FTW3. Nothing's wrong with it, it's just 100 dollars extra for being over-engineered, and you'd have less time with it than I had until the next significant release if you factor in the amount of time you expect to own and use it.

If you don't mind noise, you can even get a founders edition, otherwise get the cheapest 1080 ti you can find, they're all close enough in performance. I had two of them, and the only thing i got for that extra money (basically) was less noise. That's what you'll notice most... Realistically, you're not going to see a 2, or 3 frame difference when the games are pushing +120 fps.

Personally, I lock my games to 60, 90, or 120 anyway.

You are more likely to notice sync than those few extra fps. It is easily noticable in games and a gamer who's willing to pay for a card as expensive as the 1080 and isn't going for a proper monitor is doing it wrong. There's no excuse. Also, in what world is 8ms a fast monitor!? Mine is 5ms and that's not considered fast.

Non-reference cards in general are the way to go. I never understand people who buy these ridiculous blower reference cards. Unless you have a tiny case that requires to blow the heat out, there's no reason to even consider them, no matter the card.

Honestly, if AIB partners unlock the full potential of V56, the market should be limited to two most viable options. Buy either a Vega 56 or GTX 1080ti, depending on what performance you're looking for.

I never said that my monitor was fast, I said it that the response time is high which, at 8ms, it is. A fast monitor will have a low response time, like those TN panels with 1 or 2ms figures. But I prefer a slower IPS or VA panel than a fast TN.

And blower cards are almost your only option if you have a case with limited airflow. I had an Antec P183 and with only one intake and two exhaust (near the CPU) fans in the top chamber, a blower card was the only sensible option unless you wanted the heat to remain inside. Thankfully my new case has better cooling while still being very quiet so a blower cooler was no longer needed.

Ah, I misunderstood you, sorry I also prefer IPS/VA monitors, viewing angles and colours on TN are unacceptable for me and I'm not playing competitive fighting games or shooters, so I don't need 1ms. 5ms with IPS with FreeSync and 75Hz works just fine for my needs

Not trying to be rude but while the 1080Ti is a great card people who buy top model cards are usually only those with too much money to waste. That said a Vega 64 Watercooled is only marginally cheaper but way more power hungry, so a no go imho.

if you're a sensible person a 1080, at best used is the better option, unless you want to do a lot of VR I guess.

Scisca said: From what I've heard, unless AMD crippled memory on Vega 56 in comparison to memory on Vega 64 (we'll know soon), it should turn out to be the card to get. If memory is ok, a simple OC to the same frequency Vega 64 runs at should give performance around 3% lower than Vega 64. All that for $100 less! Vega 56 has the potential to make a huge splash and AMD knows it - they told reviewers to focus on 56 instead of the 64! Watch out for this card, as it can turn into the best choice till Volta comes out. I'll be buying it, since I have a FreeSync ultrawide monitor and AMD makes most sense for me

The problem is overcklocking the R56 results in an even higher power consumption, up to over 50% going by recent tests. Not a viable option on a 300 Watt card.

It's more an opinion to go for one or the otehr than it being a fact that all ti's are a waste of money and should be deleted from the market. They exist for a reason.

Errorist76 said: Scisca said: From what I've heard, unless AMD crippled memory on Vega 56 in comparison to memory on Vega 64 (we'll know soon), it should turn out to be the card to get. If memory is ok, a simple OC to the same frequency Vega 64 runs at should give performance around 3% lower than Vega 64. All that for $100 less! Vega 56 has the potential to make a huge splash and AMD knows it - they told reviewers to focus on 56 instead of the 64! Watch out for this card, as it can turn into the best choice till Volta comes out. I'll be buying it, since I have a FreeSync ultrawide monitor and AMD makes most sense for me The problem is overcklocking the R56 results in an even higher power consumption, up to over 50% going by recent tests. Not a viable option on a 300 Watt card.

Vega 56 is a 210W card, Vega 64 is 300W. After overclocking to match the clocks you will still be below 300W on V56.

Waste of money?  Yolo, dude.  I wanted to make sure i had plenty of headroom.  I'll keep the card for 2 years, and in two years, that 1080 ti will just become my video rendering card, and I'll probably upgrade to the 3080 ti, or whatever it'll be called.

Vega is a failure. But their CPU ryzen is getting great reviews and hitting top ten sellers