Scisca said:
AMD is much cheaper if you consider the price of the monitor. If you're so serious about gaming that you invest is such an expensive card, you can't justify not buying a FreeSync/G-Sync monitor with a high refresh rate. FreeSync monitors are MUCH cheaper, especially if someone is interested in the extra value packs AMD offers, which includes $200 off of a sweet 34" 1440p Ultrawide Samsung FreeSync monitor (100 Hz I believe). nVidia can't come close to that offer.
Also, Ultrawide Masterrace!
Still, I'm keeping my hopes up for non-reference Vega 56 shipping with unlocked BIOS, or people creating a solution for this |
He only asked for a GPU advise, so let's not move that discussion into other things like monitors because we don't know if he's also planning to get a new one or even if he cares about faster than 60Hz monitors or things like FreeSync/G-Sync.
malistix1985 said:
The performance is slightly in favor of the 1080 but the power usage is LARGELY in favor of the 1080, that counts for $$$ difference if there is one, 1080 is the solid choice |
In Vulkan titles Vega 64 is much faster than a 1080, and in DX 12 they trade blows all the time, albeit for the fact that when the 1080 wins, it is by a small margin, and when the Vega 64 wins, it's usually with a bigger lead.
In DX 11 the 1080 is usually faster.
Power consumption is clearly better on Nvidia cards, but that will only matter based on how many hours a week Turkish play, because at idle, where most cards spend their time, the differences are minimal (and that also depends on the rest of the build).
Please excuse my bad English.
Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.








56 can be a legendary card.