Vega 56 + Freesync or RTX 2060 + 60hz

NattyKathy

NattyKathy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,391
i can afford a little over $400 to finish this build; it's down to two GPU options-
RTX 2060 STRIX @$400 + keep my 1050P 16:10 60hz display
Vega 56 Red Dragon @ $300 + a used <=$100 1080P 48-75hz Freesync monitor

either gpu will be bought new and get tweaked and overclocked to the max and I'm not worried about power consumption.

It comes down to, is Freesync worth giving up RT cores and thusly taking a risk on future RT/DXR availability & performance on Vega? Are there performance numbers anywhere that hint to how Vega might perform vs Turing & Turing RT whenever AMD adds support to the driver? Obviously Vega is going to be slower than the 2060 for RT but by how much? I'm really tempted to go Red Team all the way (this is a Ryzen build) and get that variable refresh rate but if Vega is going to suck at Raytracing as bad as Pascal then i'd better stick with RTX eh?
 
Freesync at 75 Hz? I mean, it's an upgrade from 60 TECHNICALLY, but I would wait, save up a bit more chowder and buy a nice 144Hz screen. If you're spending $300-400 on a new GPU, at least allow HALF of that for a monitor. You'll thank yourself.
 
You can get 2060s for $350ish new now and just saw one go for $300 in FS/FT, so I would go with that and also sell your existing monitor locally if possible towards a cheapish 1440p or 1080p ultrawide Freesync monitor.
 
KazeoHin said:
Freesync at 75 Hz? I mean, it's an upgrade from 60 TECHNICALLY, but I would wait, save up a bit more chowder and buy a nice 144Hz screen. If you're spending $300-400 on a new GPU, at least allow HALF of that for a monitor. You'll thank yourself.
Click to expand...

i don't care about high refresh rate tho. I want Freesync so I can get VSync benefits for games that can't lock at 60hz. Being able to go down to 48fps without shenanigans like custom refresh rates that mess up cutscenes and timing would be nice

T4rd said:
You can get 2060s for $350ish new now and just saw one go for $300 in FS/FT, so I would go with that and also sell your existing monitor locally if possible towards a cheapish 1440p or 1080p ultrawide Freesync monitor.
Click to expand...

I'll keep any eye out for used 2060s. I have looked at the $350 models and I don't like them. Power limit too low, heatsinks not big enough. Finding a cheap used 1080P Freesync panel is the plan if I go Vega. Hadn't thought about ultrawide much... I'll have to take a look at some floor models and see what I think. I also do photo editing on this machine so 21:9 might not be good because vertical images.
 
I'm not a fan of 21:9 for anything but gaming. Even then, allot of games don't support it.
 
Vega 56 for me, very close to 2060 in performance using Wattman to tweak and a Freesync monitor.

Unless you see a good deal on a 2060 and supported Freesync monitor, as nVidia does certify some these days.
 
2070's can be had for under $500. And would give the OP more flexibility to switch resolutions later if desired. Like 1440p etc.

Should keep anything pegged at 60fps in 1080p pretty constantly.
 
Man, everything sucks at ray tracing now. We're probably 2-3 GPU refreshes away from realistically enjoying ray-tracing in something that isn't Minecraft. Buying GPU's hoping for future-proof-ness is never a good idea, but in the case of RTX it's particularly bad.

I also think a budget of $100 for your monitor is out of whack. What are we running at 1080p these days that takes more than a 980ti? The monitor is how you actually see what all the money you spent on the other hardware is getting you, and imho needs more priority. If you're ok with 1080p, save your money, keep your monitor, and get a used 980ti off the forum for $200. When you have ~$300 for a halfway decent monitor or a sick deal comes along, buy one, then consider what GPU you need to power it.

My 2c.
 
Freesync at 75Hz is great. To the poster who said he’d wait for 144hz... you may not be able to tell the difference between Freesync at 75Hz and Freesync at 144hz


I couldn’t


I’d take freesync or gsync over any other current bell and whistle in the monitor realm. It’s the biggest advancement in overall game experience in a decade. Buttery smooth feel regardless of actual FPS while in range.
 
Why are people suggesting a 2060 or 2070? Those are way overpriced for what they offer imo.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
i can afford a little over $400 to finish this build; it's down to two GPU options-
RTX 2060 STRIX @$400 + keep my 1050P 16:10 60hz display
Vega 56 Red Dragon @ $300 + a used <=$100 1080P 48-75hz Freesync monitor

either gpu will be bought new and get tweaked and overclocked to the max and I'm not worried about power consumption.

It comes down to, is Freesync worth giving up RT cores and thusly taking a risk on future RT/DXR availability & performance on Vega? Are there performance numbers anywhere that hint to how Vega might perform vs Turing & Turing RT whenever AMD adds support to the driver? Obviously Vega is going to be slower than the 2060 for RT but by how much? I'm really tempted to go Red Team all the way (this is a Ryzen build) and get that variable refresh rate but if Vega is going to suck at Raytracing as bad as Pascal then i'd better stick with RTX eh?
Click to expand...
Used Vega 56 at $245 (10% ebay bucks in app) or so, and New 144hz VA Panel Freesync for $160
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
i don't care about high refresh rate tho. I want Freesync so I can get VSync benefits for games that can't lock at 60hz. Being able to go down to 48fps without shenanigans like custom refresh rates that mess up cutscenes and timing would be nice.
Click to expand...

You don't need a fancy monitor to get no tearing. Look up Nvidia Fast Sync: it's a low-latency triple-buffering piece of hardware that's built into Pascal or newer Nvidia GPUs.

Turn it on in your control panel, then turn vsync off in the game itself to activate it, and enjoy the low-latency smoothness.

There are supposedly problems with a few games, but Its worked in every game I've tried. I noticed when I upgraded my drivers that it reset the Fast Sync, and all my games started tearing again...until I turned it back on. Butter smoothness, with no noticeable latency over sync off :D
 
Last edited:
ssnyder28 said:
Why are people suggesting a 2060 or 2070? Those are way overpriced for what they offer imo.
Click to expand...

2070 is useless given that a $400 top 2060 will overclock to match or beat a $500+ entry-mid 2070.

I'm considering a 2060 because RT global illumination/ambient occlusion made a huge impression when I had a chance to play through Metro Exodus on a 2080 and I want more of that. But I don't want to throw money at NV over the possibility that there will be more than one game that has RTX features I like (and is worth playing) when I could put the money I'd save by going AMD into trying Freesync which will benefit all games.
 
defaultluser said:
You don't need a fancy monitor to get no tearing. Look up Nvidia Fast Sync: it's a low-latency triple-buffering piece of hardware that's built into Pascal or newer Nvidia GPUs.

Turn it on in your control panel, then turn vsync off in the game itself to activate it, and enjoy the low-latency smoothness.

There are supposedly problems with a few games, but Its worked in every game I've tried. I noticed when I upgraded my drivers that it reset the Fast Sync, and all my games started tearing again...until I turned it back on. Butter smoothness, with no noticeable latency over sync off :D
Click to expand...
thanks for the tip, i didn't know NV had hardware triple buffering, that's neat.

unfortunately wouldn't help my scenario as I'm considering adaptive sync to help with low refresh rate performance.
 
Are the 144hz Freesync monitors more likely to have a wider low range (ie lower than the 48hz common with 75hz panels) ? That's the only reason I'd consider a 144hz panel. I'm considering Freesync so I can max out graphics quality without having to lock my framerate at a restrictively low value to avoid losing synchronization, not for ultra-high-framerate gaming.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
thanks for the tip, i didn't know NV had hardware triple buffering, that's neat.

unfortunately wouldn't help my scenario as I'm considering adaptive sync to help with low refresh rate performance.
Click to expand...


What part of Triple Buffering do you not understand? Triple buffer = the same smoothness as Adaptive Sync, because the video card can save the previous buffer and keep displaying it until the new buffer is ready. No tearing.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/4

Low Frramerate Compensation uses the same third buffer as traditional triple-buffering.

The only problems are: it adds input lag, and very few games bother to offer triple buffer natively, and you can't force it easily in Direct3D games...until Nvidia's Fast Sync fixed both these issues.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
What part of Triple Buffering do you not understand? Triple buffer = the same smoothness as Adaptive Sync, because the video card can save the previous buffer and keep displaying it until the new buffer is ready. No tearing.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/4

The only problem is, very few games bother to offer triple buffer natively, and you can't force it easily in Direct3D games...until Nvidia's Fast Sync.
Click to expand...

uh please don't condescend to me in my own thread. please and thank you

Triple Buffering is good at covering up the symptoms of losing framerate sync. I don't consider it a substitute for retaining synchronization.
 
Auer said:
A 2070 beats a 1080 or V64 stock. For under $500. Pretty ok for the $$ imo.
Click to expand...

But used Vega 64's and 1080s are pretty readily available for $300 and under and sometimes can be found new in that range if ur lucky. So i'll take the slightly slower/older cards for $200ish less. You can also easily find 1080tis sub $500 which i'd much rather have than a 2070.
 
ssnyder28 said:
But used Vega 64's and 1080s are pretty readily available for $300 and under and sometimes can be found new in that range if ur lucky. So i'll take the slightly slower/older cards for $200ish less. You can also easily find 1080tis sub $500 which i'd much rather have than a 2070.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised it took this many replies to state the obvious... 1080ti (new or used) although I have a soft spot for AMD... I would prefer a freesync combo.
 
MMitch said:
I'm actually surprised it took this many replies to state the obvious... 1080ti (new or used) although I have a soft spot for AMD... I would prefer a freesync combo.
Click to expand...

I just don't have any idea why anyone would buy or suggest buying a 2070.
 
ssnyder28 said:
I just don't have any idea why anyone would buy or suggest buying a 2070.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm out of touch with the latest and greatest but if I recall correctly 2070 supports some Freesync and somewhat RTX & DLSS (I think).
But yeah, I also think the 1080/ti or VEGA 56/64 is a better perf/dollar.

OP could also wait for NAVI (Not sure about the ETA), seems like it will be a great bargain at mid range.
 
MMitch said:
Well, I'm out of touch with the latest and greatest but if I recall correctly 2070 supports some Freesync and somewhat RTX & DLSS (I think).
But yeah, I also think the 1080/ti or VEGA 56/64 is a better perf/dollar.

OP could also wait for NAVI (Not sure about the ETA), seems like it will be a great bargain at mid range.
Click to expand...

The 1080ti also supports some freesync monitors. In fact i currently run 144hz freesync on my monitor with a 1080ti without issue.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
i can afford a little over $400 to finish this build; it's down to two GPU options-
RTX 2060 STRIX @$400 + keep my 1050P 16:10 60hz display
Vega 56 Red Dragon @ $300 + a used <=$100 1080P 48-75hz Freesync monitor

either gpu will be bought new and get tweaked and overclocked to the max and I'm not worried about power consumption.

It comes down to, is Freesync worth giving up RT cores and thusly taking a risk on future RT/DXR availability & performance on Vega? Are there performance numbers anywhere that hint to how Vega might perform vs Turing & Turing RT whenever AMD adds support to the driver? Obviously Vega is going to be slower than the 2060 for RT but by how much? I'm really tempted to go Red Team all the way (this is a Ryzen build) and get that variable refresh rate but if Vega is going to suck at Raytracing as bad as Pascal then i'd better stick with RTX eh?
Click to expand...

Well I own RTX cards and Ray Tracing is not very good on the games out now but DLSS is the bomb when gaming in 4K even down to 1080P. DLSS can make a game playable. Also you can run RTX on GTX 1080Ti and alike and it is not very good also.AMD will support RTX sort of features but maybe not at all on the Vega cards.

Here is what I would do . Buy video card new with two free AAA games worth $120.00 buck and get the freesync monitor. I been using Gsync/Freesync monitors for awhile and it great running games in the 45-60 FPS range maxed out. Freesync for me runs better at the lower FPS range for me than GSync.

Also for the $100.00 Freesync monitor you can use CRU Utility and lower the freesync range from 48-75 to maybe 35-75.You have to see how low you can go.


PowerColor AXRX Red Dragon Radeon RX Vega 56 Overclocked Triple-Fan 8GB HBM2 PCIe Video Card $299.00
https://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=vega+56&searchButton=search
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
Are the 144hz Freesync monitors more likely to have a wider low range (ie lower than the 48hz common with 75hz panels) ? That's the only reason I'd consider a 144hz panel. I'm considering Freesync so I can max out graphics quality without having to lock my framerate at a restrictively low value to avoid losing synchronization, not for ultra-high-framerate gaming.
Click to expand...
if it supports 144hz it should support LFC as well.
 
Go for the Freesync. Adaptive sync truly is a wonderful innovation and worth the buy in. The 2060 FE is functionally the same performance as the Red Dragon Vega 56, so to me it’s a no brained to save some money and upgrade the monitor to be a freesync compatible one.

I understand the worry of not having an RTX card if the ray tracing features take off. However what’s the current state of the 2060 being capable of playable raytracing? (Legit question I don’t know how it does with Metro and stuff) Is RT worth possible lower settings to get the same smoothness as higher adaptive sync settings?


Alternatively, if possible resist the urge to spend the money now and save a little longer for the 2060 and a compatible freesync monitor.
 
gerardfraser said:
Well I own RTX cards and Ray Tracing is not very good on the games out now but DLSS is the bomb when gaming in 4K even down to 1080P. DLSS can make a game playable. Also you can run RTX on GTX 1080Ti and alike and it is not very good also.AMD will support RTX sort of features but maybe not at all on the Vega cards.

Here is what I would do . Buy video card new with two free AAA games worth $120.00 buck and get the freesync monitor. I been using Gsync/Freesync monitors for awhile and it great running games in the 45-60 FPS range maxed out. Freesync for me runs better at the lower FPS range for me than GSync.

Also for the $100.00 Freesync monitor you can use CRU Utility and lower the freesync range from 48-75 to maybe 35-75.You have to see how low you can go.


PowerColor AXRX Red Dragon Radeon RX Vega 56 Overclocked Triple-Fan 8GB HBM2 PCIe Video Card $299.00
https://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=vega+56&searchButton=search
Click to expand...

yep, that's the exact Vega I'm looking at. Also contemplating diy'ing watercooling as I just got offered a deal on a H115i I can't pass up.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Go for the Freesync. Adaptive sync truly is a wonderful innovation and worth the buy in. The 2060 FE is functionally the same performance as the Red Dragon Vega 56, so to me it’s a no brained to save some money and upgrade the monitor to be a freesync compatible one.

I understand the worry of not having an RTX card if the ray tracing features take off. However what’s the current state of the 2060 being capable of playable raytracing? (Legit question I don’t know how it does with Metro and stuff) Is RT worth possible lower settings to get the same smoothness as higher adaptive sync settings?


Alternatively, if possible resist the urge to spend the money now and save a little longer for the 2060 and a compatible freesync monitor.
Click to expand...

If raytraced GI/AO continues to look and perform like it does in Metro, then that kind of is worth it tbh which is why I'm torn. It's not clear at this point whether whether Vega will be able to handle RT GI/AO at all when and if it gets DXR support via driver or it'll be limited to reflections and shadows like Pascal. Whereas Turing RTX is guaranteed to have a high level of RT performance compared to everything except other RTX cards.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
If raytraced GI/AO continues to look and perform like it does in Metro, then that kind of is worth it tbh which is why I'm torn. It's not clear at this point whether whether Vega will be able to handle RT GI/AO at all when and if it gets DXR support via driver or it'll be limited to reflections and shadows like Pascal. Whereas Turing RTX is guaranteed to have a high level of RT performance compared to everything except other RTX cards.
Click to expand...

There is no combination of Turing GPU that supports high refresh and RT at the same time, at any resolution. DLSS is there to make RT viable for RT @ 60 FPS across select resolutions for select cards. Not 90+ for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Global illumination in Metro was the only game to make my mouth drop. Simply put, the game looks next gen with it enabled. Not in every scene, but I’ve spent too much turning it off and on and It’s beautiful. Also, the 3rd update to DLSS for this game is much improved, as tt’s very usable and the hit to visual quality isn’t bad at all. RT set to High with DLSS enabled at Ultra settings no tessellation is possible at 1440p with a RTX 2060. FPS fluctuates a lot depending on the area. It’s dropped into the 30’s, but hangs out in the 50-60’s most of the times. Fine for a Metro game IMO.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
2070 is useless given that a $400 top 2060 will overclock to match or beat a $500+ entry-mid 2070.

I'm considering a 2060 because RT global illumination/ambient occlusion made a huge impression when I had a chance to play through Metro Exodus on a 2080 and I want more of that. But I don't want to throw money at NV over the possibility that there will be more than one game that has RTX features I like (and is worth playing) when I could put the money I'd save by going AMD into trying Freesync which will benefit all games.
Click to expand...

2060 is limited to 6GB of VRAM which will hurt it at 1440P in some games. Also Ray Tracing on a 2060 is practically worthless.
 
RTX 2070 owner here,

Vega 56 all day. RTX 2060 isn't powerful enough for Ray Tracing and really only two or three games support it. You won't be missing out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
yeah i'd say save the money and go with either the RX 590, vega 56 or 1660ti if power usage/heat is a concern for 1080p.. also remember that even if you aren't using freesync most of those 75hz monitors can be set to run at 75hz even without freesync enabled. otherwise check the used market if you can find a cheap 1060 6GB under 200 dollars or even a 1070 those will also work just fine at 1080p.
 
thanks to all who responded!
ended up snagging a used reference Vega 64 locally for $280 and picked up an AOC C24G1 144hz VA panel on sale at Microcenter. All said and done came out like $80 over budget with tax but whatever, I'm set up for awhile now. Still don't think I'll need 144hz but I do want LFC and it seems like going for the 48-144hz range is the way to get that. I'm probably going to try and suss a way to adapt my H115i to the Vega and go for the moon but for now imma try some undervolting and fan curves and see how far it'll go on air
 
Wow. Only tried Superposition and Darkplaces Quake (yes really) so far and I'm sold. Quake at triple-digit FPS is bad ass and on the other end, low framerates look way smooth down to low 30s which is gonna be HUGE for my "to hell with the frametimes i want eyecandy" ways.
And the Vega 64 itself... is a thing of beauty. Going to be a lot of fun to tweak too, more of a challenge than the bore that I found OC'ing Pascal and Turing to be.

11/10 Go Team Red
 
i upgraded from 75 to 144. at first i wasnt impressed... but when i tried the old 75... wow i cant go back anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top