Should I get the RX Vega 64 or GTX 1080?

[Scisca]

Pemalite 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

Well. No.

Vega 56 has 14% less compute than Vega 64.
14% less fillrate.
17% less bandwidth.

So don't be surprised if it is about 15% slower than Vega 64 *when* the core is overclocked to the same clockrate at Vega 64.
Expect it to be around 20% when not overclocked.

Will it be value for money? Shit yes. nVidia is still better though, hard to pass up Pascals potency and efficiency...
Still I am of the firm believer that there is no such thing as a bad GPU, only a bad price, AMD has to price Vega competitively due to how power hungry it is.

Well. No.

That's not how AMD GPUs work. Compare Fury X and Fury, which are somewhat similar to Vega. 4096 CUs vs 3584 CUs (14% difference), 640 BG/s vs 512 GB/s bandwidth (25% difference), 5% less fillrate - yet after setting the same clocks, the difference in performance is about 3%. Compare the RX 470 and RX 480, or regular R9 cards and the "+" cards - same story. AMD GPUs don't scale so well when close to the top performance. Unless they intentionally held the memory back, expect Vega 56 to be only a hair behind Vega 64.