Marketplace
PING20
Managed to negotiate this deal with the PC Byte rep.
Incredible price and cheapest offered in the Australian Market
Enjoy
Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB $639.20 Delivered @ PCByte eBay
820
easternculture on 20/11/2017 - 13:26 ebay.com.au (1201 clicks)
Last edited 20/11/2017 - 13:29 by 1 other user
Last edited 20/11/2017 - 13:29 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
Yes, Vega 64 are all reference designs at the moment. No custom cooler or anything yet.
Stock cards from AMD and Nvidia have the best PCB's, but that only means its slightly better than competitors.
However, stock cards from Nvidia and (especially) AMD have the worst coolers, and its a big difference compared to competitors. Not to mention that AIB (partner or competitor cards) have better prices, availability, warranty, and Customer Service (especially EVGA's SC cards). They're usually lightly overclocked out of the box as well.So, what you can do is if you have a large/full-tower PC is to buy this card.
Then slap on an after-market GPU cooler.
Such as the Arctic Accelaro Xtreme 3/4.
Or go Watercooling with your own Radiator/Pump/and Attachment, such as NZXT G12
Or even make your own homemade GPU cooler using Case Fans, especially name brand Slim ones.
Or buy a 1080 GTX for $24 more, and ranks a lot better for your money.
Not sure why you'd negotiate on the lesser card… Or is she asking you to post again, like she wanted me to?
Waiting for people to explain that it will be faster in the future :p
Ah, the classic AMD excuse.
Yes you can wait 3-5 years for games to move to DX12, problem is this card can already be considered underpowered today, its going to be useless in 1-2 years for high end gaming.
Imo, DX12 AND support AMD are the only reason to buy this card.
Do you think most of the new games will support DX12 by 2019?
Definitely agree that the 1080 is better for gaming however if you are looking for a compute card (problem solving, engineering analysis, mining even) this card is really good and even bests the 1080 ti in some things.
I have both. A free sync monitor might even put someone over the line if this benefits them.
I have gsync and try to convince anyone who will listen that it's so good. I would tell most people to spend slightly less on their GFX card if it means they can put that money towards a {g,free}sync enabled monitor.
But Freesync is a thing too. and Its cheaper.
Unfortunately AMD just cant compete graphics wise atm.
I have freesync, and I can much more easily passthrough this hardware in virtualized environments, and i like AMD - i support them where its not foolish to do so, as the last thing any of us want, is one GPU player left in the market.
Even you i'd imagine wouldnt like AMD gone.
Comments like this are best left not posted.
Why do you want to support a GPU that is clearly not as good and priced way too high?
Clearly you have not been around for very long otherwise you would remember the old AMD/ATI, the one who would release a competing graphics card for a lot less money and actually compete.
AMD/ATI does not do this with their graphics cards anymore.
They just try to pretend they have better cards in the few DX12/Vulkan favoured games they have.
Nvidia has software support while AMD has hardware support for DX12. You can check the benchmark result, Vega 64 perform DX12 a lot better than GTX 1080.
lol, clearly I have not been around very long? Thats quite a leap there. I have been around long enough to know my way around an ISA slot.
And while we are being clear on what was said, you clearly didnt read the comment on virtualization? nVidia simply block it on non Quadro cards.
I dont really care if my card is a little slower. It if keeps up with the 1070 in one of my other systems, but affords me passthrough, better compute and freesync. Then this is simply a better choice.
I think these comments just betray both a little ignorance and bias. If you want this card, this is a good post. If you dont, dont buy one ;)
I dunno much about this stuff, but this is what i learned about this topic from the vid in link. Nvidia psuedo supports dx12. Nvidia moved its scheduling from hardware to software. This proved to be the best way to reduce heat and be more energy efficient and better performance which made it the king of DX11. AMD on the other hand is still using hardware scheduling and somehow this is benefiting them as they outperform Nvidia on DX12 tests.
@shamowfski: lol spending less on GPU to spend more on gsync is totally not worth it. Better to get the best video card you can get and a monitor with ULMB it's way smoother than GSYNC. Gsync is "okay" but it's not amazing. Basically it's only for games where you get way below your monitor refresh rate that it makes a difference because it stops that awful tearing you get sub-60fps, once you are getting over 60fps it's virtually unnoticeable and most cards can push over 60fps in today's games. If you can get a good framerate already it doesn't make a difference and that's where ULMB shines.
So far, as far as I know, there's only two games that the Vega 64 beats a 1080Ti (yes, Ti). Forza 7 and this week with the latest patch Wolfenstein 2. Forza was heavily optimised for AMD graphics when their developers worked on it for the then yet to be released Xbox One X. Wolfenstein 2 was another that was heavily optimised in a partnership with AMD.
Whether game developers choose to optimise their future games for nVidia or AMD is anybody's guess but Vega is looking to be worth a bet.
In raw hardware, the Vega 64 is slightly more powerful than the GTX 1080 Ti and Titan Xp2.
However, when it comes to game performance… and more specifically polished game-specific drivers, Nvidia wins with their massive R&D.We saw a similar deal with the GTX 680 and AMD HD7970… where the GTX 680 is equivalent to the GTX 1050 Ti, but the HD7970 is able to surpass it, bringing it close to the GTX 1060-3GB performance. About a +34% difference today.
Why?
The AMD card always had a hardware performance advantage, despite that, lost many times to the GTX 680 since it was better optimised. And after Nvidia left optimising Kepler, and focussed on Maxwell/Pascal, the AMD card began to overtake it. Then parallel processing became available for graphics applications in the form of DX12 (semi-optimised) and Vulkan (full-parallel). This gave the old card an additional boost.Now, does this mean I am advocating AMD?
No. I don't believe in FineWine, simply because I look at the history from an objective viewpoint.
It's like telling someone to spend an extra from New Hyundai ($26k) and New Subaru ($31k)…. and using the argument "but it will hold better value later on"…. well maybe, but the difference is smaller (eg/ when they're 10yo $11k vs $12k). And even that difference/argument doesn't matter to the buyer if they plan on not-selling it.So what should you do?
Buy what makes most sense NOW, but still do your research to see possible future trends. For example, it would be stupid for someone to build a Core i5-Skylake PC (eg 6600k) in 2017, when a comparable Ryzen 5 PC (eg 1400) is available for around the same price… but gives you the benefit of a platform upgrade after a couple years.
I'll reiterate, get something that makes most sense NOW but isn't going to be obsolete shortly after (like a car refresh cycle).There is nothing stopping you from buying a Ryzen CPU and an Nvidia GPU.
The point here is that there is no reason to buy a Vega GPU for gaming today.
If you read my above comment, I basically concluded, that there's no reason to buy a Vega GPU any time.
Grab an AMD Polaris RX 470-580, when price drops, for a cheap but decent performance.
Grab an Nvidia GTX 1070 - 1080 Ti, depending on budget, for higher performance.…don't worry about future-proofing.
With that said, don't buy a GTX 1080 Ti for full-price only a few weeks before Nvidia's next announcement/release date.
As far I know, Nvidia is set to announce/pre-order for the GTX 1180 (Volta) in Early-April 2018 and release/ship units in Late-April 2018. But they're in a good spot, so they will likely push that further back, and milk more profits from the GTX-10xx series. I suspect it could be as late as Late-July 2018 (which doesn't seem like much, but 5 months is quite long in terms of technology).The whole thing depends on AMD, and see if they can improve the Rasteriser (Advanced Tile Base) for Navi/RX-600 series… if they can, they could potentially beat Nvidia, if not, Nvidia will have a HUGE lead on them and this will have great implications in the future. Especially the next-gen PS5 console in 2019, and maybe the Xbox Two in 2020.
@Manh:
No, NVIDIA patched driver for Forza 7 almost 2 months ago. The GTX 1080 is even faster than Vega 64 at 4K, don't need to guess how much faster the GTX 1080 Ti is.@Bigboomboom:
Thanks for the heads up. I searched for the latest testing of Forza and found one from PCper.com from last month 24th Oct. Both AMD and nVidia have further optimised for Forza and nVidia did very well in 1080p and 1440p outclassing the Vega. In 4K, the GTX 1080 (93.4fps) didn't beat the Vega 64 (99.3fps), though. They didn't test the GTX 1080Ti which was a shame.https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Forza-Motorspor…
Well its faster at mining cryptocurrencies. Because of that the prices of them are stupid.
You need to put the power consumption in mind.
But how does it perform while underclocked?
Yeah all video cards are way too expensive currently. The 1070 I can sell my used card for now for more than what I purchased for it about 9 months ago lol.
Problem is then I will need another stupidly priced card.
Agree, that is the reason I will buy a 1080 Ti for extra $200.
look forward to GTX 2070/2080 for 4k gaming and DX12.@windwai:
What?! A 1080Ti for around $840 ($200 more than this Vega)? I can't find any Ti for less than $1000.
Cheapest I could find:
gsync ultrawide monitor 1350$
Freesync ultrawide monitor 950$That's why a lot of Vega's sell!
If NVIDIA supported an open sync standard no way I would have bought amd card, especially with a reference cooler :-DOnce you change the clock & voltage, this outperforms the 1080 at 1440p and higher, and presumably will outperform it in the future, particularly with DX12. What's more the TDP is also extremely similar once you've made this adjustment (i.e. it stops being a power hog).
As for further driver improvements, who knows?
Ranks a lot higher? 3rd vs 5th?
FreeSync monitor is from $150 to $400 cheaper than G-sync monitor with the same other specs.
Will the crypto currency price hike situation ever end? id like to buy AMD again.
I hope not
lol why?
lol, because then gpu-mining will be unprofitable in Australia?
@clse945111: How do you know?
There are other coins besides Bitcoin to mine. No one knows how they will go. If I had the spare cash and wern't too lazy id mine a bit of each and just have them sitting there.
Mining coins that are unprofitable based on the assumption that they could become profitable is foolish.
Electricity is simply too expensive in Australia to make mining worth it.
If you wanted to gamble money (electricity funds) why not put it somewhere you can actually make good money…
@clse945111: I wouldn't go buying GPUs for it at this point, but it's still profitable for me. I sell for AUD every Thursday night and have about 6-8x profits after power costs.
@mavis30551: If you're going to mine, always mine the most profitable coin. If you want a different coin, then mine the profitable coin (whatever earns you the highest AUD per day) and trade it for the coin you want.
If you mine and hold a coin, you're effectively doing 2 things.
1. Turning your AUD into the coin via your power company.
2. Deciding to invest in that coin at whatever the AUD price of the coin is at the time you mine it.Never mine unprofitably for investment purposes (eg. mining with inefficient hardware, mining with high power costs, or trying to mine a difficulty coin like bitcoin with a GPU), you're better off just buying the coin then.
If you have a GTX10xx or RX4xx / RX5xx, then there are some coins you can mine profitably in Australia.
Also, if you start mining, you can mention it on ozbargain to build up neg votes ;)
I would buy the AMD card. Majority of players are not running their games at max resolution and graphics. More people are getting high refresh rate monitors and prefer more than 100 fps so they turn down the graphics.
Good price for the 64, but any chance for better prices on the Vega 56's?
This or 1080ti
Depends on monitor.
1080ti easy
Vega for 144 FPS in 1080p.
1080TI for 4k 60hz.Patience = better price for both, assuming new card is coming in 4 months.
Waiting 4 months to save 50 bucks???
you can save even more if you wait another 4 months after that.
@Travis J: or another 4! … that should be 12 and a new one will be out making it a lot cheaper hahahaha .. also continue this line of thinking and you'll never need to spend big $'s hahaha
Man…wish they do 56 deal as well
Let me see what I can do 👍🏾
Thanks!
and 1070 ti as well = )
Thanks EASTERNCULTURE!!!!
I'd definitely be keen on a 56.
seconded :)
I am keen for it as well
Same here.
Working on it . Hopefully I can get something happening tonight
I'll be on that… :)
Disadvantages: Runs hot and can melt off your face, especially with blower fan and it likes to burn electricity
Advantages: Faster in some games than 1080 and even 1080ti in dx12 games, cheap freesync monitor1080 is faster in more games than this is.
yeh hence why i said some games, but this is better for newer games
lol,dota,csgo you're probably better off with just a 1060.
alternatively wait for nvidia volta in a couple of months which may just destroy amd
RX64 beats the 1080 at 1440p and 4k in heaps of new AAA games, including BF1, Battlefront 2, COD WW2 and Assassins Creed Origins.
Nope, not according to the benchmarks below which completely disagree. Happy to look through your sources though (as long as they bench using the latest drivers).
Battlefield 1:
*Hardware Unboxed has Vega 64 LC > GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 1080p/1440p/2160pBattlefront 2:
* PCGH has GTX 1080 > Vega 64 LC > Vega 64 in 1080p/1440p/2160p
* Computer Base has Vega 64 > GTX 1080 in 1080p/1440p/2160p
* Guru 3d has GTX 1080 = Vega 64 in 1080p and Vega 64 > GTX 1080 in 1440p and GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 2160pCOD WW2:
* PCGH has GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 1080p/1440p/2160p
* Computer Base has GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 1080p and Vega 64>GTX 1080 in 1440p/2160p
* Guru3d has GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 1080p/1440p and Vega 64 = GTX 1080 in 2160pAssassin's Creed Origins:
* PCGH AND Computer Base AND PC Gamer have GTX 1080 > Vega 64 in 1080p/1440/2160pThe game you should have mentioned is Wolfenstein 2 where Vega 64 beats GTX 1080 quite handily.
Don't get me wrong, Vega 64 is a compelling buy in this price range especially as you get pretty good performance if you tinker with it (undervolt/overclock) + access to freesync but GTX 1080 still seems to hold the edge in most new titles stock vs stock. This trend may however change with more Vulkan/DX 12 titles.
Edit: formatting
nice price..
Paid $740 :-(
I'm looking for a half size card for an eGPU / nothing fancy just needs to play some PUBG and other PC games my friends are into
Won't this translate to ~$560 AUD, when stacked with TRS and cashrewards? GG, PC Byte. Would've got one if I wasn't flying off in a few hours
i picked up the sapphire one before are they all the same internally? allso ask the seller to send you the codes for wolfensiten and prey :)