Vega 56 Pulse or RTX 2060 Founder/Zotac Twin?

[floop]

A simple question for you but very difficult for me...

I have an AOC c24g1...1080p144hz with Freesync and a Ryzen 2600 etc...

So what should i buy ?
I play gdr and fps non competitive... and i dont change my pc every new hardware coming out lol

 

[kurosagi01]

Raw performance on paper the choice would be the RTX 2060, not sure if Nvidia is including BFV or not with 2060.
If you're thinking of going higher resolution the extra 2GB from the Vega 56 will come in handy and if you're interested in Division 2, Resident Evil 2 remake and devil may cry 5 that is on promotion with AMD GPUs then the Vega 56 would be a good deal.
If you can get the Vega56 for £50($60) less than the RTX2060 then my money is on Vega56, if you want to be more "futureproof" in features then RTX2060.

 

[gamerman]

well its easy.

points are:

1. its alot faster
2. its have alot better efficiency
3. its keep value much better, meaning if you want sell it after few years and buy new gpu again,its easy.
4. better drivers reason, (nvidia)

and that gpu is rtx 2060 FE or any AIB version of it.

you cant go wrong.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

Vega 56, tuned and overclocked is just as fast as the 2060, maybe even faster. It has 2GB of extra VRAM and I've personally owned the Sapphire Pulse, it is a fantastic card, runs cool and quiet too.

If they are the same price, I'd still pick the Vega 56; the 2060 is apparently a stutterry mess in BF5 with RTX due to lack of VRAM and going forward you'll want at least 8GB IMO. IF the 56 is cheaper, then 100% get the 56. But I wouldn't pay more for the 56.

Yes power use is significantly lower on the 2060 but as I said the Pulse is an excellent cooler so it's not going to run hot / make a lot of noise if your case has good airflow.

And lastly, please don't listen to the "gamerman" shill above, everything he posts is to try and smear against Radeon or Ryzen. I'm fairly certain he's either a paid shill or a massive fanboy; 2060 isn't not "a lot faster". And AMD has had better drivers than Nvidia for a while now. Stability wise they are equally as good but AMD has A LOT more features, built on performance monitoring, an overlay, a great overclocking tool, etc.

Raw performance on paper the choice would be the RTX 2060, not sure if Nvidia is including BFV or not with 2060.
If you're thinking of going higher resolution the extra 2GB from the Vega 56 will come in handy and if you're interested in Division 2, Resident Evil 2 remake and devil may cry 5 that is on promotion with AMD GPUs then the Vega 56 would be a good deal.
If you can get the Vega56 for £50($60) less than the RTX2060 then my money is on Vega56, if you want to be more "futureproof" in features then RTX2060.

2060 is hardly future proof with the 6GB of vram; with RTX enabled in BF5 it is already running into issues.

 

[Deleted member 50521]

RTX2060 hands down. Faster, cooler, less power hungry and now Adaptive Sync support. Just read W1zzard’s review!

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

RTX2060 hands down. Faster, cooler, less power hungry and now Adaptive Sync support. Just read W1zzard’s review!

It really isn't faster. Maybe 5%, and against a reference, throttling 56 (which runs at significantly lower clock speeds). AIB 56 with increased power limit will trade blows with 1070 Ti (and thus 2060) and even tie 1080 in many games and you're getting more VRAM. RTX is literally a joke this generation in all honestly, and the 2060 doesn't have the power -or- VRAM to really handle it. It really comes down to price but the 56 is still a very valid option going forward.

 

[kurosagi01]

2060 is hardly future proof with the 6GB of vram; with RTX enabled in BF5 it is already running into issues.

I did quote the word future proof purely because it has them fancy new 'features" like RTX for example lol, but my vote is also on Vega 56 if its cheaper by what i stated in my previous post.
You might even find Vega 64 for same price as Vega 56 in some places..at least in the UK the Asus strix 56 cost the same as the 64 on ScanUK.

 

[Deleted member 50521]

It really isn't faster. Maybe 5%, and against a reference, throttling 56 (which runs at significantly lower clock speeds). AIB 56 with increased power limit will trade blows with 1070 Ti (and thus 2060) and even tie 1080 in many games and you're getting more VRAM. RTX is literally a joke this generation in all honestly, and the 2060 doesn't have the power -or- VRAM to really handle it. It really comes down to price but the 56 is still a very valid option going forward.

Sure you can tune Veg56. But 2060 overclocks just well, not if better while drawing less power.

I see Vega56 around maybe $300 or lower to be a worthy recommendation over 2060

 

[the54thvoid]

RTX 2060 is about 10% faster at 1440p but often ties neck and neck with Vega 56.

Neither should disappoint but the FE 2060 will be a good solid bet with a quieter profile. ThePulse is a cheaper model of 56, so be aware of that. Don't get the Zotac, it's probably not as quiet as the FE version (not seen reviews yet).

And, to counter what @ArbitraryAffection says, you can also easily overclock the FE for close to 10% extra performance. The memory at 1440p gaming will not be a deal breaker.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Vega 56 as low as 300 now, that would be my choice

 

[ne6togadno]

2nd to @ArbitraryAffection
if 56's price is 10-20 above or less then 2060 get 56. if 2060 is cheaper get 2060.
beside what @ArbitraryAffection already mentioned i'd add that 56 come with plug and play freesync support, while for 2060 freesync support for your monitor will come someday with driver update from nvidia

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

I did quote the word future proof purely because it has them fancy new 'features" like RTX for example lol, but my vote is also on Vega 56 if its cheaper by what i stated in my previous post.

No point having those fancy features if you're running into memory issues a week after launch. Trust me I am not being a fangirl when I vouch for Vega 56, but the extra VRAM alone is worthy of mention.

RTX 2060 is about 10% faster at 1440p but often ties neck and neck with Vega 56.

Neither should disappoint but the FE 2060 will be a good solid bet with a quieter profile. ThePulse is a cheaper model of 56, so be aware of that. Don't get the Zotac, it's probably not as quiet as the FE version (not seen reviews yet).

And, to counter what @ArbitraryAffection says, you can also easily overclock the FE for close to 10% extra performance. The memory at 1440p gaming will not be a deal breaker.

Honestly you will not notice the difference in FPS Between these cards in most games, but you will notice that VRAM limit being slammed into, hard. Also Vega can use HBCC which can massively improve frametimes when running over 8GB of VRAM. I've owned the Pulse and it's by no means a 'cheap' card. The cooler and power delivery are fantastic (board uses the same high-quality components as the AMD Vega Reference design). I even flashed a NITRO+ bios on mine when i had it and increased power limit to 295W and with that, 1000MHz HBM and 1600 Mhz core. I think at this point it will be winning raw FPS vs 2 Ghz 2060.

 

[Final_Fighter]

if you now how to squeeze the extra performance out of the vega than it can match the rtx2060 and its also a good combination given your current monitor. you should have a good 600w psu before considering the vega if your plans are to overclock it. if you are just looking at raw performance out of the box and dont care for rtx or freesync there is the option of getting a used 1080 that can be had for cheaper on some auction sites. rtx2060 is a good card but i would not be buying it because of rtx(too young). that said the rtx2060 is faster out the box but it does not guarantee freesync support. the vega is a good match and allows you to use the features you bought into with your current monitor.

 

[ShieldHead]

I pick the vega 56 if its the same price or cheaper than the rtx 2060.
I'd also argue that the vega architecture is more future proof and amd driver features and support beats nvidia's. (I had a gtx 970 before the vega). The sapphire pulse is also very well made. Sapphire is by far my favorite OEM.
An overclocked vega 56 comes close to a rtx 2070 in some games and the power draw is not unreasonable. I've seen an article where undervolted vega bests a gtx 1080 in perf/W.

 

[Deleted member 50521]

I will just leave W1zzard’s words here. I trust a seasoned GPU reviewer who worked on both Vega and 2060 a bit more than general forum member ideas.

 

[ShieldHead]

I will just leave W1zzard’s words here. I trust a seasoned GPU reviewer who worked on both Vega and 2060 a bit more than general forum member ideas.

View attachment 114677

In all fairness TPU only reviewed a reference vega 56 which throttles at 1300mhz.
Plus in my country i can get a sapphire pulse for under 400€ while the rtx is still inflated at a little over 400 for the cheaper models

 

[floop]

in my country the vega 56 pulse costs 357 eur including shipping and three games of bundle instead the 2060 costs 399 with BFV or Anthem...

i'm very undecided!

 

[eidairaman1]

Id say the V56 for the AIB design standpoint.

 

[cucker tarlson]

none of those cards are perfect,but I'd definitely choose the rtx 2060 for 1080p as well as definitely go with Vega 56 for 1440p.
nvidia's own/zotac twin coolers on a 180W card will perform better or at least just as good than sapphire's dual fan pulse cooler on a 250W card,though if you decide to go with v56 pulse you'll get a card that really excells at keeping this 250w power hog cool and quiet.

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-03...nahme-der-grafikkarte-rise-of-the-tomb-raider

 

[newtekie1]

It really isn't faster. Maybe 5%, and against a reference, throttling 56 (which runs at significantly lower clock speeds). AIB 56 with increased power limit will trade blows with 1070 Ti (and thus 2060) and even tie 1080 in many games and you're getting more VRAM. RTX is literally a joke this generation in all honestly, and the 2060 doesn't have the power -or- VRAM to really handle it. It really comes down to price but the 56 is still a very valid option going forward.

I find your comments pretty damn funny, or maybe ironic. I mean, you post calling someone else a shill, then post bullshit like this.

First, the RTX 2060 is not "maybe 5%" faster. It's 11% faster at 1080p, which is what the OP is using.

Second, this idea that the reference card just looks bad because it throttles is totally bogus as well. The reference Vega56 doesn't throttle, in fact, it maxes out at about 75°C with the stock fan curve. Vega64 reference hits 85°C and throttles, but not Vega56.

Third, this idea that the RTX 2060 doesn't have enough VRAM to handle RTX is crazy. I mean, Vega56 can't even do RTX, so just the fact that the RTX 2060 can is a bonus. But on top of that, the RTX 2060 handles RTX just fine with RTX set to low, again at 1080p which the OP uses. RTX Low on the RTX 2060 is more than playable at 1080p and definitely not a stuttery mess, as you put it. In fact, even W1z says the RTX 2060 is entirely playable, maintaining over 60FPS, at 1080p even with RTX set to High settings.

Finally, the issue of 6GB of VRAM being an issue moving forward, and the Vega56 having 2GB extra. Yes, outwardly the extra 2GB would seem to be an advantage. But then you also have to consider nVidia's memory compression that they use, that has allowed them to get away with lower memory amounts as well as lower memory bus widths for a few generations now. The extra 2GB on the Vega56 is not as big of an advantage as it seems when you consider that. The fact is the 6GB won't be a limiting factor on the RTX 2060.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I find your comments pretty damn funny, or maybe ironic. I mean, you post calling someone else a shill, then post bullshit like this.

First, the RTX 2060 is not "maybe 5%" faster. It's 11% faster at 1080p, which is what the OP is using.

Second, this idea that the reference card just looks bad because it throttles is totally bogus as well. The reference Vega56 doesn't throttle, in fact, it maxes out at about 75°C with the stock fan curve. Vega64 reference hits 85°C and throttles, but not Vega56.

Third, this idea that the RTX 2060 doesn't have enough VRAM to handle RTX is crazy. I mean, Vega56 can't even do RTX, so just the fact that the RTX 2060 can is a bonus. But on top of that, the RTX 1060 handles RTX just fine with RTX set to low, again at 1080p which the OP uses. RTX Low on the RTX 2060 is more than playable at 1080p and definitely not a stuttery mess, as you put it. In fact, even W1z says the RTX 2060 is entirely playable, maintaining over 60FPS, at 1080p even with RTX set to High settings.

Finally, the issue of 6GB of VRAM being an issue moving forward, and the Vega56 having 2GB extra. Yes, outwardly the extra 2GB would seem to be an advantage. But then you also have to consider nVidia's memory compression that they use, that has allowed them to get away with lower memory amounts as well as lower memory bus widths for a few generations now. The extra 2GB on the Vega56 is not as big of an advantage as it seems when you consider that. The fact is the 6GB won't be a limiting factor on the RTX 2060.

sapphire pulse is just 2% faster than reference v56,margin of error stuff.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-03/sapphire-radeon-rx-vega-56-pulse-test/2/

RTX2060 hands down. Faster, cooler, less power hungry and now Adaptive Sync support. Just read W1zzard’s review!

given the OP is using 1080p,this is pretty much an unquestionable choice.

 

[ShieldHead]

I wouldn't buy a RTX for raytracing just yet. I agree that it's an awesome technology but its going to take atleast another 5 years until GPU's have the horsepower to run it the way it should. (Not that tech demo that is BFV).
For now the vega 56 is the better choice IMO. Yes it will consume slightly more power (the Vega 56 Pulse has a tdp of 180w btw) but it can me tuned to perform better than even an overclocked rtx 2060. The cooler on the Pulse is very silent aswell, probably even quieter than the Zotac, while still being 50€ cheaper and coming with 3 games.
Still the reference vega 56 is at its limits, while the pulse can be easily pushed to a steady 1600Mhz, using just 215W. (reported by gpu-z)

See for yourselves the potential of the vega:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...vega-56-und-vega-64-im-undervolting-test.html

 

[cucker tarlson]

I wouldn't buy a RTX for raytracing just yet. I agree that it's an awesome technology but its going to take atleast another 5 years until GPU's have the horsepower to run it the way it should. (Not that tech demo that is BFV).
For now the vega 56 is the better choice IMO. Yes it will consume slightly more power (the Vega 56 Pulse has a tdp of 180w btw) but it can me tuned to perform better than even an overclocked rtx 2060. The cooler on the Pulse is very silent aswell, probably even quieter than the Zotac, while still being 50€ cheaper and coming with 3 games.
Still the reference vega 56 is at its limits, while the pulse can be easily pushed to a steady 1600Mhz, using just 215W. (reported by gpu-z)

See for yourselves the potential of the vega:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...vega-56-und-vega-64-im-undervolting-test.html

v56 pulse has the tdp of 210w and draws 250w on standard bios.see the computerbase.de link I posted a few posts above.I don't know where you're getting this 180w tdp on a vega 56 from.the lowest power consumption on a vega 56 card you can find is 220w and that's on a nitro card running a power save bios.

 

[Divide Overflow]

in my country the vega 56 pulse costs 357 eur including shipping and three games of bundle instead the 2060 costs 399 with BFV or Anthem...

i'm very undecided!

Both are very nice GPUs and the differences between them seem to be negligible. I'd go with the better deal you can find in your area.

 

[Joss]

Both are good choices but I'd go with the Vega for the exotic factor