Nothing wrong with going Nvidia at all. Especially given the Benchmark Data and evidence on RX Vega 64 right now.
If you are not that interested in GPU Compute and you mostly interested in gaming then I think a GTX1080TI or GTX1080 is the best Power v Performance choice. The extra power pulled by the RX Vega 64 (the additional cost of ownership) versus the GTX 1080 / GTX1080TI also reduces the FreeSync Versus GSync argument as well, unless something changes with Drivers or new Vega Feature enabled to change that.
You can't really say anything about the graphics market right now as cryptocurrency miners are grabbing up cards no matter the cost as soon as they are available, AMD and nVidia catering to this market with mining drivers, board partners increasing the prices to capitalize on the boon, retailers increasing the prices because they can, and every world regulatory body is refusing to bring down the hammer on anyone in the chain. Really your only choices for graphics cards today are the lower end, like the RX 560, which is still around $160, the slightly higher GTX 1060 for $250, the high end, like the $500 GTX 1080 or $700 RX Vega 64 (which is a no brainer not to choose vs $500 GTX 1080), and the ultra high end, the $700+ GTX 1080Ti. AMD and etailers are exploiting this fact with "Radeon Packs" which essentially a legal way of overcharging. It's insane, and it's only going to get worse.
The way things are going, if my Fury Nano dies, I'm going to pop in my old HD 5450 and deal with it.
I am surprised that anyone could make their money back with those prices. But I am largely ignorant when it comes to mining. Never really looked into it at all, as it never interested me. Although, I do know the affect it has had on prices.
I found this to be a great introduction to the World of a Miner.
I think its great because.
(A). It is a cat video.
(B). It shows to me that Miners are humans too.
(C). It tells me where all the RX480/580 8GB cards have gone.
(D). It tells me why AMD must love miners, 6 RX480's per motherboard ... He has more AMD Cards than I have ever owned yet.
TomsHardware did an article on it, if an individual could use old parts and make a profitable mining rig at 97MH/s depending on where you live, using a Fury, 390X, 380X, and 380. They were able to do it, pulling in a profitable machine even if Eth were to drop below $125, if you live in Canada or Texas where power is dirt cheap. It's not much if Eth gets cheap, but a profit is a profit for something you set and forget: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/spare-part-ethereum-mining-rig,5143.html
|Location||Utility Rate ($/ kW)||Power Consumption (kW)||Monthly Cost||Hash Rate (MH/s)||Estimated First month - Ether||Ether Cash Value (07/24/17)||Estimated First Month - USD||Estimated Profits||Profitable?|
|San Francisco, CA||$0.25||579.7||$144.00||97||0.8661||$227.08||$196.67||$52.68||Yes|
|New York, NY||$0.24||579.7||$136.90||97||0.8661||$227.08||$196.67||$59.77||Yes|
|Location||Utility Rate (cents per kW)||Power Consumption (kW)||Monthly Cost||Hash Rate (MH/s)||Estimated First month - Ether||Ether Cash Value (07/16/17)||Estimated First Month - USD||Estimated Profits||Profitable?|
|San Francisco, CA||$0.25||579.7||$144.00||97||0.8661||$142.28||$123.23||($20.77)||No|
|New York, NY||$0.24||579.7||$136.90||97||0.8661||$142.28||$123.23||($13.67)||No|
RE: Radeon Packs.
I think if you are doing a new build, the idea of the Bundles / Packs is fine.
I am sure many people have been waiting for Vega to be released and may have decided to do a new AMD only build at the same time.
There must be many people who have taken the decision to move from Intel to Ryzen or Threadripper for their next build.
If the combinationss of new CPU / Motherboard and Vega GPU do actually save you some money over buying them separately then that's great.
Regarding the new bundles with the new Samsung monitor I have seen people complaining about issues with flickering on that monitor when it is set in Ultimate mode.
Gamers Nexus just tested it and it looks like the monitor works fine with Vega 56, at least with the testing they did.
That is good news I think.
The monitor looks nice to me.
Here is the Video it is worth a watch: Samsung CF791 Flickering Criticism Tested (Vega, Polaris) - YouTube
OK so I have been hoping to see improved Performance/Power on the Vega 64 Liquid Edition ... since I am thinking of purchasing.
I thing overclocking the HBM2 will be of the most benefit, combined with undervolting could put the Vega 64/56 in better competitive
position w.r.t. Performance/Power.
Here is a summary of the data I have seen so far. I took my own notes and I thought I may as well share ...
(1). Gamers Nexus on Vega FE.
Undervolting on Vega FE with fixed 1600MHz Clock, and setting Power Target by +50%.
. Undervolting needs to be set on a Per Application basis. So setting an undervolt in the Profile Wattman setting would be the best.
- Increase Power Limit by +50%.
- 110mv Undervolt
- Temp Drops from 73 to 63'C - Thats a 10'C. Drop.
- Locks are more stable @ 1600 MHz and therefore that might improve performance.
- Might then be possible to push clocks even higher.
- 86.353 Watts Power Saving at the at same clock speed and therfore application performance.
- Power saving is worked out as follows.
12.3V * 30 = 369W.
12.289V * 23 = 282.647
Delta = 86.353 Watts Less at same clock speed (and performance).
(2). Work done by Buildzoid on his Vega 56 sample.
Buildzoid Videos are here:
Buildzoid rambles about the RX VEGA cards - YouTube
BuildZoid : Testing with TimeSpy DX12 but on the Vega 56.
Buildzoid looks at increasing the Power Limit versus that set in the in the Vega56 Bios.
The Bios is locked down on the Vega Cards. You cannot change the power settings flashing a modified bios. There is a security lockdown which prevents POST.
There is a workaround by setting Power Limit in Windows Registry Tables.
This workarouns was used to change the Power L:imit on the Vega 56.
The card was tested running TimeSpy on DX12.
For GPU Core and Overclocking.
Running the Vega 56 at GPU Clock = 1680MHz, HBM2 Clock at 1050MHz.
(Already 13-14% Higher than what Vega 56 normally comes with 165W BIOS Limit, versus Power Limit of 220W for Vega64 and FE).
For Vega 56 a 300A 255 Watt +100% Power Limit. taken as the base in the following table.
Testing for Performance versus power limit scaling.
Running the Vega 56 at GPU Clock = 1680MHz, HBM2 Clock at 1050MHz. and tested Power Limit increase from 0% to 100% with a 250W Base.
Timespy Graphics DX12 Graphics Test Score Alone.
- 1680/1050 1.225Volts.
Power Limit set in Registry Tables. Time Spy Score.
255 W +0% = 7000
288 W +13% = 7241
320 W +25% = 7481
352 W = 7610 ---> This is the a sweet spot. Score stops increasing above this.
382 W = 7630---> Within margin of benchmark variation.
446 W = 7609---> Within margin of benchmark variation.
510 W = 7617---> Within margin of benchmark variation.
Vega 64 and Vega FE.
HBM2 Vreg pulls 20W max. It is 1.35 volt VRM. This Power draw It is nothing compared to the GPU Core.
Recommendation is to Maximize the HBM2 frequency. Run HBM2 as fast as possible because it has the most impact on improving the performance of the Vega GPU.
800MHz - 1100 MHz = for every 3% increase in HBM2 clock you get about 1% Performance Increase.
You can definitly get 10-15% HBM2 Memory Clock increase on the 1.35Volt cards = 3-5% Performance Increase for free! Very little power increase.
HBM2 VRM only pulls about 19-20 Watts Peak.
For HBM2 Memory Overclocking on the Vega 56.
Vega 56 ships at lower HBM2 volts (1.30) to save a little power and so lower HBM2 frequency on the Vega 56 and therefore you will not get > 1GHz on HBM2 on the Vega 56.
Core Clock Overclocking Margin.
Increasing the GPU Core Clock gives less performance improvement per increase in clock frequency than increasing the HBM2 clock.
Tried Vega 56 masses of problems getting stable overclock due to software issues but here are the results.
above 1GHz performance gain starts to drop off.
GPU Clock range 1600- 1650 MHz
0.6% performance improvement per 1% core clock increase.
GPU Clock range 1600 - 1650MHz
0.68% performance improvement per 1% performance improvement.
LN2 needed for higher HBM Clock but tried it.
1600 - 1800 = 8.6% perfomance increase for 12.5% clock increase.
0.69% per 1%
The core clock performance improvement definitely benefits from faster HBM2 Clock.
I just found this article ... it shows some interesting and encouraging results with undervolting the Vega 64 and 56.
It is written in German so if you cannot read German I suggest you open it in Google Chrome and use Google Translate.
They set both the Vega 64 and 56 to 1000MHz HBM in this article.