Anyone has experience with subject? Can it handle 60 fps? Or do I need to look for something beefier?
Hardware & Technical AMD RX 580 and 4k ED
- Thread starter Cmdr Eagleboy
- Start date
I had originally installed an RX 580 in my new rig. Setting to 4K resolution caused it to literally cook itself in minutes.
Granted this is an SFF build, but temps over 85C just were not comfy, and caused the whole case to jump up heat-wise.
I replaced with an MSI RX Vega 56 OC (blower style to get the heat out of the case) and am now very happy running at 4k Ultra without having to resort to watercooling.
YMMV
Granted this is an SFF build, but temps over 85C just were not comfy, and caused the whole case to jump up heat-wise.
I replaced with an MSI RX Vega 56 OC (blower style to get the heat out of the case) and am now very happy running at 4k Ultra without having to resort to watercooling.
YMMV
There's pretty much only one card that'll reliably do 4k/ultra at locked 60 and that's the 1080ti.
Any other card will see significant framerate dips, especially on planet's surfaces and inside stations. I've previously used ED with a 1070 and Vega 64, neither could manage 4k/60 without dips into the 40s.
With an rx580, you'll be looking at 1080p-1440p max (or 4k@30fps).
Any other card will see significant framerate dips, especially on planet's surfaces and inside stations. I've previously used ED with a 1070 and Vega 64, neither could manage 4k/60 without dips into the 40s.
With an rx580, you'll be looking at 1080p-1440p max (or 4k@30fps).
Last edited:
Nice, so I know which card I should aim for. It is 1000€ at the moment but I am in no rush atm. Just good to know, thanks.
I personally wouldn't buy Vega. AMD have been doing something very strange with their GPUs for the last couple of years. Also, seems like developer support for Vega cards is very weak. Partially because barely anybody had bought one 
I personally wouldn't buy Vega. AMD have been doing something very strange with their GPUs for the last couple of years. Also, seems like developer support for Vega cards is very weak. Partially because barely anybody had bought one
That's not actually true. AMD newest lineup is very capable and well supported.
Next gen graphic cards are more likely to be 4k ready.
a rumor i read with nvidia's next generation if you can get x fps in 1440p, you will get x fps in 4k
Which would be nice, and doesn't seem that far fetched.
AMD has similar rumors going, so true 4k is probably next gen.
AMD also has some interesting rumors with VR, so we will see.
Last edited:
And what is their newest lineup? Vega FE is a joke, 64 just has no place on the market. And 56...is a good card, but only because it's price was dropped to make it realistically competitive.
I personally wouldn't buy Vega. AMD have been doing something very strange with their GPUs for the last couple of years. Also, seems like developer support for Vega cards is very weak. Partially because barely anybody had bought one
AMD GPU's are as well supported as Nvidia cards. I am currently sporting an AMD Fury which runs the oculus rift at an exceptable way and at 1080p at max settings at 60fps. But I am looking at a better GPU as I am getting a Pimax 8k.
The vega cards are very capable and are fully suported. There are not many benchmarks with current drivers which have matured nicely.
They are not as well supported. Unfortunately. Mostly because optimizing for 80% of the users is more profitable than for the other 20%
We can blame AMD for their half baked marketing, that's very hit and miss. And arguably lower budget, which leads to some problematic cards hitting the market. They've been doing amazingly well with their CPUs as of recent, which I'm happy to see. However, I just don't think that on graphics cards market they can pose any competition to team green as of today. They are beaten at most price points, with Vega 56 being a very competitive card costing less than 1070 and being slightly more powerful(debatable). I appreciate that they've taken a risk of adopting HBM though. While Nvidia playing it safe with good old GDDR5, I think HBM is the future. So gotta give them credit for being the underdog in the current market, and being the one adopting a very much unproven experimental tech
They are not as well supported. Unfortunately. Mostly because optimizing for 80% of the users is more profitable than for the other 20%
I appreciate that they've taken a risk of adopting HBM though. While Nvidia playing it safe with good old GDDR5, I think HBM is the future. So gotta give them credit for being the underdog in the current market, and being the one adopting a very much unproven experimental tech
Regarding their CPUs, I intend to update in april to the Zen+. Probably the 2600x. The Vega cards are very good. Their only issue is that they are very power hungry, but in all honesty that issue is completely overblown. If you had a Vega 64 on all year and a 1080 on all year the difference in the electricity price would be around £10-20. No big deal.
Their Ryzen series is indeed very good. I'm still sticking with Intel for my current system, but it's nice to see competition for a change finally.
Why would you buy Vega 64 though? It's much more expensive than 1080, but less powerful. And looking at many benchmarks, it's not even better for rendering or acceleration purposes or encoding in workloads. So, what's the point of it? Gap widens even more considering how easy it is to overclock 1080.
Vega 56 is much better choice, and financially makes all kinds of sense
Last edited:
Their Ryzen series is indeed very good. I'm still sticking with Intel for my current system, but it's nice to see competition for a change finally.
Why would you buy Vega 64 though? It's much more expensive than 1080, but less powerful. And looking at many benchmarks, it's not even better for rendering or acceleration purposes or encoding in workloads. So, what's the point of it? Gap widens even more considering how easy it is to overclock 1080.
Vega 56 is much better choice, and financially makes all kinds of sense
I am not going to buy a Vega 64 or any Nvidia card at the moment due to the prices. The reason why I am of the Vega 64 is because some people are having serious issues with the Nvidia drivers for VR purposes whereas my AMD Fury has zero issues with the drivers. They just work. I update without fear of them having issues.
As to the Vega being not as powerful as the 1080, that all depends on what games you are playing. DX12 it is roughly in the same place or better, DX 11 it is slightly below on average.
I would prefer to get a 1080ti, but I don't have the funds for one of those at the moment. Hoping the prices start to get a bit more realistic soon.
Last edited:
The Pimax 8k that I have on the way is exactly the reason that I have a Vega 56 in my case now - and why I designed this rig specifically for playing ED in VR as cranked up as I can get it.
They are not as well supported. Unfortunately. Mostly because optimizing for 80% of the users is more profitable than for the other 20%
I appreciate that they've taken a risk of adopting HBM though. While Nvidia playing it safe with good old GDDR5, I think HBM is the future. So gotta give them credit for being the underdog in the current market, and being the one adopting a very much unproven experimental tech
The problem with AMD cards and current market price is entirely down to the miner craze - I have been following the Vega series since pre-release as my prior card was an R9 Nano which simply smoked ED sixteen ways from Sunday without a worry.
As for HBM being unproven tech, I refer you back to the Nano, which used 4Gb of HBM and provided superior performance (IMHO) to the NVidia cards that were available (and would fit my SFF builds) even when they had twice the memory.
On the subject of overclocking - it has always been my firmly held belief that if overclocking is necessary to get "acceptable" performance, then you have the wrong component. Again, I reference the fact that my builds are exclusively SFF so I am very cognizant of heat issues. Further, a lot of the reviews that are currently out show that under volting actually provides stable performance gains with the Vega cards. As always YMMV
Trouble is, a Vega 56 will never be able to max out ED in VR, let alone 8k VR, it's firmly a mid range card. Hell, even high end cards can't max out ED in current gen VR.
You will have to tell me how the Vega 56 goes with the Pimax 8k. I am seriously considering either a Vega 56, 64, Nvidia 1080 or 1080ti. All depends on the prices. I will likely see how it runs on my AMD Fury first.
I doubt he is thinking it will max out VR in ED as no card can at the moment. But it will be better then the R9 Nano which is minimum spec for the Pimax 8K. My AMD Fury is only slightly better then the R9 Nano so it will be interesting to see how it will perform.
You don't need overclocking to get "acceptable" performance. Current Nvidia cards already smoke AMD on most price points. Vega 56 being pretty much only competitive mid range card AMD have. It's just nice to have an ability to apply a good 20%+ stable overclock if needed, which definitely make card relevant for just a bit longer.
Also, HBM was a very much unproven tech when it was adopted by AMD. Not functionally. That's not what I've meant. Marketing-wise it was difficult to convince consumers why it's good, or even better than GDDR5. That was the risk, and I think it will only pay off in a very long term.