Is it worth upgrading to a sapphire RX 5700 pulse or a sapphire RX 5700XT pulse from a Vega 56?

[*| Lion Heart |*]

I was wondering if its worth upgrading to the RX 5700 series mentioned above? If there would be any noticable upgrade?

[UTFapolloMarine]

yes massive upgrade

[ugafan]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx_5700-rx_5700_xt,6216-2.html

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Is the rx5700xt pulse a lot more power efficient than the vega 56?

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Not much point when you use 1080p monitor, Vega 56 is same performance as GTX 1070.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

^ I mainly invested in AMD products, got off the nvidia bandwaggon decades ago...I clearly see that the new cards are faster, but was concerned about the temperatures, and power consumption...that is why I was opting for the sapphire puls edition....and well also performance is key also, but I just got teh vega 56, less than a month ago upgrading from a 7950....which served me very very well....and now I am thinking (since I can still return it), if it would have been a better upgrade to go for the 5700xt, since its $110 more...I usually do not upgrade my gpu for 5 years+ downside is that it has no raytracing....good thing is its the series that the next xbox games are built on, so that might add longevity to it...

[UTFapolloMarine]

Lion Heart님이 먼저 게시:

Is the rx5700xt pulse a lot more power efficient than the vega 56?

massive ugrade man has 53% power over the vega runs 4k light games

[*| Lion Heart |*]

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

Lion Heart님이 먼저 게시:

Is the rx5700xt pulse a lot more power efficient than the vega 56?

massive ugrade man has 53% power over the vega runs 4k light games

For now I dont game much anymore...and mainly on a 1080P monitor, which I can perhaps upsample to 1440 perhaps, got links to those numbers?

[Autumn_]

Lion Heart님이 먼저 게시:

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

massive ugrade man has 53% power over the vega runs 4k light games

For now I dont game much anymore...and mainly on a 1080P monitor, which I can perhaps upsample to 1440 perhaps, got links to those numbers?

I'm not sure where he got 53% stronger from because even the Aniversary edition is only 36% stronger than the V56.
( https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-Vega-56-vs-AMD-RX-5700-XT/3938vs4045 , that's vs. the 5700 XT, but the Aniverary is just a better binned 5700XT iirc.)

POUusnavy says some strange things sometimes, but sometimes he's helpful, I don't think he means bad either.
My point, he's not the most reliable or accurate for information.
Still, I wouldn't just throw his opinion out, just check around or ask for proof (like you did.)

Anyway, back to topic.
Power draw/effecient is kinda not an issue, you're talking like 10-15 dollars a year difference. You'd make more money back changing your lightbulbs to energy efficent ones.

Temps with the stock cooler are garbage, we're talking 'spaceheater' levels, but most aftermarket coolers will do fine for it, so long as its not a blower, or super skinny heatsink.

Honestly, the Vega56/1070 is still fine for 1080p60fps max/high settings, so it's not a problem if you do decide to keep the V56.
You've gotta decide if 100 dollars is worth a ~30% gain in performance.

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

Lion Heart님이 먼저 게시:

Is the rx5700xt pulse a lot more power efficient than the vega 56?

massive ugrade man has 53% power over the vega runs 4k light games

Could you link you source(s)?
I'm curious to know where you/they got ~50% from.

[UTFapolloMarine]

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

Lion Heart님이 먼저 게시:

For now I dont game much anymore...and mainly on a 1080P monitor, which I can perhaps upsample to 1440 perhaps, got links to those numbers?

I'm not sure where he got 53% stronger from because even the Aniversary edition is only 36% stronger than the V56.
( https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-Vega-56-vs-AMD-RX-5700-XT/3938vs4045 , that's vs. the 5700 XT, but the Aniverary is just a better binned 5700XT iirc.)

POUusnavy says some strange things sometimes, but sometimes he's helpful, I don't think he means bad either.
My point, he's not the most reliable or accurate for information.
Still, I wouldn't just throw his opinion out, just check around or ask for proof (like you did.)

Anyway, back to topic.
Power draw/effecient is kinda not an issue, you're talking like 10-15 dollars a year difference. You'd make more money back changing your lightbulbs to energy efficent ones.

Temps with the stock cooler are garbage, we're talking 'spaceheater' levels, but most aftermarket coolers will do fine for it, so long as its not a blower, or super skinny heatsink.

Honestly, the Vega56/1070 is still fine for 1080p60fps max/high settings, so it's not a problem if you do decide to keep the V56.
You've gotta decide if 100 dollars is worth a ~30% gain in performance.

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

massive ugrade man has 53% power over the vega runs 4k light games

Could you link you source(s)?
I'm curious to know where you/they got ~50% from.

the rx5700 is most new companies new go to budget hi end build, will run future games just fine maxed out, be sure to run no less than 6 cores for its run though, the rx5700 cannot use its full power with low end cpu or low end ram

[Omega]

It will be a upgrade but not a big one. I would wait for high-end Navi cards.

[Autumn_]

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

I'm not sure where he got 53% stronger from because even the Aniversary edition is only 36% stronger than the V56.
( https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-Vega-56-vs-AMD-RX-5700-XT/3938vs4045 , that's vs. the 5700 XT, but the Aniverary is just a better binned 5700XT iirc.)

POUusnavy says some strange things sometimes, but sometimes he's helpful, I don't think he means bad either.
My point, he's not the most reliable or accurate for information.
Still, I wouldn't just throw his opinion out, just check around or ask for proof (like you did.)

Anyway, back to topic.
Power draw/effecient is kinda not an issue, you're talking like 10-15 dollars a year difference. You'd make more money back changing your lightbulbs to energy efficent ones.

Temps with the stock cooler are garbage, we're talking 'spaceheater' levels, but most aftermarket coolers will do fine for it, so long as its not a blower, or super skinny heatsink.

Honestly, the Vega56/1070 is still fine for 1080p60fps max/high settings, so it's not a problem if you do decide to keep the V56.
You've gotta decide if 100 dollars is worth a ~30% gain in performance.


Could you link you source(s)?
I'm curious to know where you/they got ~50% from.

the rx5700 is most new companies new go to budget hi end build, will run future games just fine maxed out, be sure to run no less than 6 cores for its run though, the rx5700 cannot use its full power with low end cpu or low end ram

GPU doesn't care about CPU or RAM.
The only time it would 'matter' is if there was a CPU bottleneck, but the GPU still wouldn't care, because the CPU 'draws' frames, and the GPU 'colours them in', the GPU wouldn't care about the CPU bottleneck, because it just means less instructions are sent to the GPU. And it only sees that as 'oh well, I got less sent today' not 'whew, he's got loads of work to do today.'

You could run a 2080ti with an i3-9100F, it would just depend on what games you play.
If they're singe-quad threaded games, then you're not going to experience a CPU bottleneck.
So games like CS:GO, older CoD games, other various E-Sports titles, and funny enough, the latest Far Cry game (New Dawn), it only uses 4 threads, so you could use a (Quadcore) i3 for it just fine.

And '6 core' isn't a good statement to make, because of older i7's (There were 6c12t versions, back in the first gen of i7's), and FX CPUs, which are '6 core' or '8 core' but realistically, they're like 3 and 4 core CPUs with hyperthreading, not to mention their IPC and clockspeeds being low. (And, drawing stupid amounts of power, lmao), or even older Xeons, which aren't that great today either.
So, refer to which '6 core' you mean when you say it otherwise someone could just search '6 core processor' in google, and get an FX pop up, and they'll be like ''Oh it's 6 core, so it has to work, RIGHT?''

But, you still didn't explain how or where you got ~50% from.

[UTFapolloMarine]

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

the rx5700 is most new companies new go to budget hi end build, will run future games just fine maxed out, be sure to run no less than 6 cores for its run though, the rx5700 cannot use its full power with low end cpu or low end ram

GPU doesn't care about CPU or RAM.
The only time it would 'matter' is if there was a CPU bottleneck, but the GPU still wouldn't care, because the CPU 'draws' frames, and the GPU 'colours them in', the GPU wouldn't care about the CPU bottleneck, because it just means less instructions are sent to the GPU. And it only sees that as 'oh well, I got less sent today' not 'whew, he's got loads of work to do today.'

You could run a 2080ti with an i3-9100F, it would just depend on what games you play.
If they're singe-quad threaded games, then you're not going to experience a CPU bottleneck.
So games like CS:GO, older CoD games, other various E-Sports titles, and funny enough, the latest Far Cry game (New Dawn), it only uses 4 threads, so you could use a (Quadcore) i3 for it just fine.

And '6 core' isn't a good statement to make, because of older i7's (There were 6c12t versions, back in the first gen of i7's), and FX CPUs, which are '6 core' or '8 core' but realistically, they're like 3 and 4 core CPUs with hyperthreading, not to mention their IPC and clockspeeds being low. (And, drawing stupid amounts of power, lmao), or even older Xeons, which aren't that great today either.
So, refer to which '6 core' you mean when you say it otherwise someone could just search '6 core processor' in google, and get an FX pop up, and they'll be like ''Oh it's 6 core, so it has to work, RIGHT?''

But, you still didn't explain how or where you got ~50% from.

if a cpu cannot run full due to low end ram, it will not run at its best speed, then will also cause gpu stutter! trust me

[Omega]

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

GPU doesn't care about CPU or RAM.
The only time it would 'matter' is if there was a CPU bottleneck, but the GPU still wouldn't care, because the CPU 'draws' frames, and the GPU 'colours them in', the GPU wouldn't care about the CPU bottleneck, because it just means less instructions are sent to the GPU. And it only sees that as 'oh well, I got less sent today' not 'whew, he's got loads of work to do today.'

You could run a 2080ti with an i3-9100F, it would just depend on what games you play.
If they're singe-quad threaded games, then you're not going to experience a CPU bottleneck.
So games like CS:GO, older CoD games, other various E-Sports titles, and funny enough, the latest Far Cry game (New Dawn), it only uses 4 threads, so you could use a (Quadcore) i3 for it just fine.

And '6 core' isn't a good statement to make, because of older i7's (There were 6c12t versions, back in the first gen of i7's), and FX CPUs, which are '6 core' or '8 core' but realistically, they're like 3 and 4 core CPUs with hyperthreading, not to mention their IPC and clockspeeds being low. (And, drawing stupid amounts of power, lmao), or even older Xeons, which aren't that great today either.
So, refer to which '6 core' you mean when you say it otherwise someone could just search '6 core processor' in google, and get an FX pop up, and they'll be like ''Oh it's 6 core, so it has to work, RIGHT?''

But, you still didn't explain how or where you got ~50% from.

if a cpu cannot run full due to low end ram, it will not run at its best speed, then will also cause gpu stutter! trust me

In gaming RAM speed is never a bottleneck. Games are not that RAM heavy.

It will not cause stutter. You might just lose you a few FPS because more time is spend sending data and less computing.

[Autumn_]

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

GPU doesn't care about CPU or RAM.
The only time it would 'matter' is if there was a CPU bottleneck, but the GPU still wouldn't care, because the CPU 'draws' frames, and the GPU 'colours them in', the GPU wouldn't care about the CPU bottleneck, because it just means less instructions are sent to the GPU. And it only sees that as 'oh well, I got less sent today' not 'whew, he's got loads of work to do today.'

You could run a 2080ti with an i3-9100F, it would just depend on what games you play.
If they're singe-quad threaded games, then you're not going to experience a CPU bottleneck.
So games like CS:GO, older CoD games, other various E-Sports titles, and funny enough, the latest Far Cry game (New Dawn), it only uses 4 threads, so you could use a (Quadcore) i3 for it just fine.

And '6 core' isn't a good statement to make, because of older i7's (There were 6c12t versions, back in the first gen of i7's), and FX CPUs, which are '6 core' or '8 core' but realistically, they're like 3 and 4 core CPUs with hyperthreading, not to mention their IPC and clockspeeds being low. (And, drawing stupid amounts of power, lmao), or even older Xeons, which aren't that great today either.
So, refer to which '6 core' you mean when you say it otherwise someone could just search '6 core processor' in google, and get an FX pop up, and they'll be like ''Oh it's 6 core, so it has to work, RIGHT?''

But, you still didn't explain how or where you got ~50% from.

if a cpu cannot run full due to low end ram, it will not run at its best speed, then will also cause gpu stutter! trust me

Even if you're running a first gen Ryzen chip, RAM speed isn't going to be the limiting factor, sure, it'll make it run at lower FPS, but it won't cause stutters.
If you didn't have enough RAM, then it would, because you'd be constantly hitting pagefile.

RAM speed will not 'make or break' a PC, it's not gonna make a low end PC equal to a high end one, and it won't make a low end one equal to a high end one.
It's going to have a slight difference in framerate, that's it.

Please, tell me, how is slow RAM going to make my ''GPU stutter''?

[UTFapolloMarine]

𝓞𝓶𝓮𝓰𝓪님이 먼저 게시:

POUusnavy님이 먼저 게시:

if a cpu cannot run full due to low end ram, it will not run at its best speed, then will also cause gpu stutter! trust me

In gaming RAM speed is never a bottleneck. Games are not that RAM heavy.

It will not cause stutter. You might just lose you a few FPS because more time is spend sending data and less computing.

need decent ram for a higher end cpu though, otherwise lose speed and transfer times not worth the lost if you build such a system, some games i run right now are using 11gb ram, and also Ultra Settings on Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 uses 12gb ram on my system regardless the resolution, but it just seems kind of sketcy to think 480p will use more than 8gb ram on some titles my monitor dont even support such screens man