AMD Radeon Vega 64 Revisited: Did It Age Better than GTX 10 Series?

Tom Yum

Posts: 189   +451
I bought 2 Vega 64 Nano's and had them in Crossfire back in 2017, and then sold them for double the cost in 2018 during the first mining boom, so Vega 64 was really great for me!

Nano was pretty good though, a bit loud but with a decent UV it was manageable and performance was improved (because it boosted higher within its TDP/thermal limit). The thing that got me though was how much silicon and transistors AMD had thrown at Vega for the performance it provided. It really should have curb-stomped the 1080, but instead it barely matched it, and the manufacturing cost must have been enormous.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,352   +944
If you are going to list an example as a counter argument, make sure you understand how to actually and effectively use the search functions of ebay.


Your original search didn't refine the results enough to clearly understand the point I was making earlier. As someone who frequently buys and sells used equipment, I understand market conditions. Take a closer look.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
If you are going to list an example as a counter argument, make sure you understand how to actually and effectively use the search functions of ebay.


Your original search didn't refine the results enough to clearly understand the point I was making earlier. As someone who frequently buys and sells used equipment, I understand market conditions. Take a closer look.
You're right I don't get it. You can list by lowest price for the RX 6600 as well.

They're around $170, if you ignore the untested and probably dead GTX 1080 @ $75 the rest are over $150. Are you saying it's worth saving $20 on a 5 year old product that's much slower, uses more power and doesn't support updated features? I'm not someone who frequently buys and sells used equipment though.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,352   +944
You're right I don't get it.
Seemingly so. And that's on you. What you fail to understand is that many people just don't have the money to spend $250 to $300(USD) on a GPU. For some $200 is even too much. So your notion of the RX6600 is out the question. Your above comparison to such is so wildly out of context as to be simply silly. The GTX 1080 is in a sweetspot place of price/performance. It offers excellent value to those on a budget, which is A LOT of people.
I'm not someone who frequently buys and sells used equipment though.
You made that point very clear. That's alright, you're in a difference place in life than most of your readers/viewers. Your only real problem here is that you've lost sight and context of that reality. That is why people like me comment. We offer pieces of the puzzle you don't have so to widen the view field of the big picture.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
Seemingly so. And that's on you. What you fail to understand is that many people just don't have the money to spend $250 to $300(USD) on a GPU. For some $200 is even too much. So your notion of the RX6600 is out the question. Your above comparison to such is so wildly out of context as to be simply silly. The GTX 1080 is in a sweetspot place of price/performance. It offers excellent value to those on a budget, which is A LOT of people.

You made that point very clear. That's alright, you're in a difference place in life than most of your readers/viewers. Your only real problem here is that you've lost sight and context of that reality. That is why people like me comment. We offer pieces of the puzzle you don't have so to widen the view field of the big picture.
Just to be clear, on average the RX 6600 sells second hand for 13% more than the GTX 1080 but offers around 20% more performance. It's also significantly newer/less used, supports newer technologies such as ray tracing and is better optimized for FSR 2.0, it also supports SAM/ReBAR and consumes less power. Driver support is significantly better and that trend will continue over the next 5 years, at which point the 1080 will be well and truly EOL.

I gave you plenty of rope on this one, you did about as well as you could have taking such a poor position, strange hill to die on.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,352   +944
Just to be clear, on average the RX 6600 sells second hand for 13% more than the GTX 1080 but offers around 20% more performance. It's also significantly newer/less used, supports newer technologies such as ray tracing and is better optimized for FSR 2.0, it also supports SAM/ReBAR and consumes less power. Driver support is significantly better and that trend will continue over the next 5 years, at which point the 1080 will be well and truly EOL.

I gave you plenty of rope on this one, you did about as well as you could have taking such a poor position, strange hill to die on.
Yup, you continue to fail at context. For example, just because an RX6600 can technically do raytracing, doesn't mean it does it well or at playable framerates. Your argument falls flat on it's face. The claims on performance depend highly on specific settings.

Since you seem to be deliberately ignoring facts and flexing your bias, we're done here. Top notch professionalism Steve.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
Yup, you continue to fail at context. For example, just because an RX6600 can technically do raytracing, doesn't mean it does it well or at playable framerates. Your argument falls flat on it's face. The claims on performance depend highly on specific settings.

Since you seem to be deliberately ignoring facts and flexing your bias, we're done here. Top notch professionalism Steve.
RT support was one of several key points that make the GTX 1080 a pointless second hand purchase. I'll simplify the argument for you, you know so you can't get the 'context' wrong.

1: Second hand RX 6600's cost just $20 US more on average, a 13% price premium.
2: RX 6600's are on average a little over 20% faster at 1440p (yes that makes them better value for rasterization performance)
3: Driver support is better and the architecture will stand the test of time far better.
4: At most RX 6600's are a year old, GTX 1080's are up to 5 years old.

I'm keen to see you over look all these points and take a clear cut win out of context. "Top notch professionalism Steve." - don't weasel out now, you called me out, I defended my position and you ignored all counter points bar one, bravo.

Your argument falls flat on it's face. The claims on performance depend highly on specific settings. - ZedRM

Also wrong, it doesn't matter what settings you use, the RX 6600 almost always has its way with the GTX 1080, external sources:
and of course....
 
Last edited:

takaozo

Posts: 426   +655
1080 was a good hi end card when released.
6600 was a good entry level card 1 year ago.

Like comparing a Mercedes S classe with A classe, do not matter if S classe is 10 years old and A classe is new and cost the same.

Moving on let's see what next gen cards bring in and maybe Intel manage to release something in hi end until new year.

BTW @Steve if you have time to check AMD drivers and RDR2 online. Had a strange issue last year with those two, after 10-30 minute of gameplay and exiting game, the GPU had locked GPU and MEM at max boost for a Rx5600XT. Only a restart fixed this.
 

loki1944

Posts: 636   +474
Proper comparison is with a 1080Ti; which still smokes the Vega 64. A Vega 56 is more appropriate vs a GTX 1080.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
Proper comparison is with a 1080Ti; which still smokes the Vega 64. A Vega 56 is more appropriate vs a GTX 1080.
How have you come to that conclusion? Vega 64 came in with an MSRP of $500 US and it's the reason why Nvidia dropped the GTX 1080 MSRP from $600 US to $500 US. The GTX 1080 Ti meanwhile was $700 US and was never discounted, at least officially.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,352   +944
How have you come to that conclusion? Vega 64 came in with an MSRP of $500 US and it's the reason why Nvidia dropped the GTX 1080 MSRP from $600 US to $500 US. The GTX 1080 Ti meanwhile was $700 US and was never discounted, at least officially.
Yet another instance of you missing something. MSRP's don't matter. Performance matters. Loki1944 made a good point. When compared objectively(something you need to improve on), the Vega64 actually compares better to the 1080ti than the 1080.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
Yet another instance of you missing something. MSRP's don't matter. Performance matters. Loki1944 made a good point. When compared objectively(something you need to improve on), the Vega64 actually compares better to the 1080ti than the 1080.
Seriously stop: https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2523/bench/1440p.png

This was never the case, even Vega 64 LC was only on par with the 1080, the 1080 Ti left them in the dust and still does: https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page13.html

External source TPU: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64/31.html

Claiming that Vega64 is or was closer to the GTX 1080 Ti than the 1080 is a laughably bad take and you'll struggle to find evidence outside of a few outliers to prove that. Objectively speaking, you've made a boob of yourself here.
 
Last edited:

loki1944

Posts: 636   +474
How have you come to that conclusion? Vega 64 came in with an MSRP of $500 US and it's the reason why Nvidia dropped the GTX 1080 MSRP from $600 US to $500 US. The GTX 1080 Ti meanwhile was $700 US and was never discounted, at least officially.
Vega prices was not close to MSRP when I bought my Vega 56 and 64 cards; they were closer to 1080 and 1080ti, respectively; out of the gate: https://www.techpowerup.com/236323/amd-issues-official-statement-on-rx-vega-64-pricing-woes

I ended up selling both because the performance was so mediocre compared to my 1070, 1070Ti, 1080, 1080Ti cards; gave them a fair shake with about 25 game benchmarks, some lasting 5 minutes in length and just was super disappointed with the performance; tack on the more recent AMD GUI vs Nvidia.

You do great articles Mr. Walton, I mean no disrespect ; I just personally don't see the Vega 64 as a good card and with it being the top AMD GPU at the time; comparing it to the top Nvidia GPU makes plenty of sense to me; as well as the way pricibg was out the gate for me.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,932   +3,082
Staff member
Vega prices was not close to MSRP when I bought my Vega 56 and 64 cards; they were closer to 1080 and 1080ti, respectively; out of the gate: https://www.techpowerup.com/236323/amd-issues-official-statement-on-rx-vega-64-pricing-woes

I ended up selling both because the performance was so mediocre compared to my 1070, 1070Ti, 1080, 1080Ti cards; gave them a fair shake with about 25 game benchmarks, some lasting 5 minutes in length and just was super disappointed with the performance; tack on the more recent AMD GUI vs Nvidia.

You do great articles Mr. Walton, I mean no disrespect ; I just personally don't see the Vega 64 as a good card and with it being the top AMD GPU at the time; comparing it to the top Nvidia GPU makes plenty of sense to me; as well as the way pricibg was out the gate for me.
That article was published just 7 days after Vega 64 was released and 4 days before Vega 56 was released. People always get carried away with pricing and availability just weeks after a release. It has always been the case that when new graphics cards are released, they're difficult to purchased shortly after release and as a result pricing is always well above MSRP.

In the case of Vega pricing and availability settled down just months after release, which isn't that unusual. In fact it wasn't that long before pricing dropped below MSRP due to poor sales.
 

loki1944

Posts: 636   +474
That article was published just 7 days after Vega 64 was released and 4 days before Vega 56 was released. People always get carried away with pricing and availability just weeks after a release. It has always been the case that when new graphics cards are released, they're difficult to purchased shortly after release and as a result pricing is always well above MSRP.

In the case of Vega pricing and availability settled down just months after release, which isn't that unusual. In fact it wasn't that long before pricing dropped below MSRP due to poor sales.
Well for me getting two new STRIX 1080Tis at release for $700 and paying about the same at release for STRIX Vega 64 was the reality; and AMD's top card was in fact the Vega 64; facing Nvidia's top card at similar price point was only natural.

And a really big detractor for AMD vs all cards at that point has fed an extreme loathing for newer AMD products; even my Voodoo 5 5500 wins on the GUI front for their control panel on that front.

Speaking of the Voodoo 5; as the top 3DFX card it was compared in reviews directly to the Geforce 2 GTS; even though ability wise it was supposedly down the chain; but as the top 3DFX card it got compared and reviewed directly against the Geforce 2 GTS rather than something lower in the Nvidia product line.

Way I see it; you alway compare top product performance for each company directly against each other. It's the GPU Olympics.
 

Arbie

Posts: 432   +754
Excellent benchmarking as always, thanks for these comparisons. You covered price and performance. But power is the third key element and there are no numbers - just the statement that Vega took a lot more. I can go find those but a couple of typical values would help make a complete picture here.
 
Last edited: