Man, I still have a hard 200 dollar cap on any single component. Kinda insane to imagine doubling that!
I also don't give a shit about 3d, virtual anything or resolutions beyond 1080p. I mean ffs the human eye can't even tell the difference between 4k and 1080, why is ANYONE willing to pay for that?!
In any case, 150 is my budget for my next GPU. Considering how old 1080p is that should be plenty.
4k and 1080p look pretty different. No offence, but if you can't tell the difference, perhaps it's time to schedule a visit with an optometrist? Nevermind 4K, the rest of the world will look a lot better also if your eyes are okay :)
My eyes are fine. The sole advantage of 4K is not needing to run AA. That's about it.
Anyone buying a card just so they can push a solid framerate on a 4K monitor is throwing money in the trash. Doubly so if they aren't 4->1 interpolating to play at 1K on a 4K monitor they needed for work (not gaming, since you don't need to game at 4K in the first place).
There is a big difference between 1080P and 4k... But that is entirely depending on how large the display is and how far you sit away from said display.
Otherwise known as "Perceived Pixels Per Inch".
With that in mind... I would opt for a 1440P panel with a higher refresh rate than 4k every day of the week.
Depends on the monitor. I'd agree with you when people claim "the sweet spot of 4k monitors is 28 inches". Maybe the price is good, but my old eyes will never see it. I'm wondering if a 40" 4k TV will make more sense (the dot pitch will be lower than my 1080P, but I'd still likely notice lack of AA).
Gaming (once you step up to the high end GPUs) should be more immersive, but the 2d benefits are probably bigger.
There are people who notice the differences, and those who do not. Back in the days of CRT monitors, most people would notice flicker with a 60Hz monitor, but wouldn't notice with 72Hz. I always found that 85Hz produced less eye strain.
There is a huge difference between 1080p and 2160p in terms of quality, but many games are so focused on action that the developers don't bother putting in the effort to provide good quality textures in the first place. It isn't just about not needing AA as much as about a higher pixel density and quality with 4k. For non-gaming, being able to fit twice as much on the screen really helps.
I reached diminishing returns at 1366x768. The increase to 1080p offered an improvement in image quality mainly by reducing jagged lines, but it wasn't anything to get astonished about. Agreed that the difference between 1080p and 4K is marginal on smaller screens and certainly not worth the added demand on graphics power to push the additional pixels.
Diminishing returns, sure. But the improvements are still there. Oddly enough, it looks like 2080ti Battlefield (raytraced edition) has a choice of [low] 1080P raytraced (at 72Hz) vs. super high resolution and/or frequency. I'm curious what buyers pick (assuming their cards don't fail).
Don't forget the value of a big screen for 2d and "immersive" effects. I certainly loved going from 1024x768 15" to 1600x1200 19" (CRTs)_, even though it would be ages before GPUs would catch up to those resolutions (the 19" CRT likely predated by Voodoo card).
Can't tell about 1366x768, I went straight from CRT land (at least 1600x1200 and beyond) to 1080P and wouldn't touch 1366 (unless on a laptop). The 2d benefits are enough, although you might consider a second monitor, or simply find a sufficiently large 4k TV (60Hz *real* frequency minimum, and make sure the HDMI interface can take 60HZ) for 2d use.
I'd argue that point happens somewhere between 1080p and 1440p - the difference between 1080p and lower resolutions is painfully stark, especially when it comes to representation of textures. YMMV depending on screen size and preference, of course, but it sounds like you might want an update prescription :)
As someone who finally upgraded from 1080p to 1440p (27 inch IPS monitor for both, 75 Hz / or 60 Hz 10 bit on my new 1440p). I was very surprised at the difference. I was not expecting it to be very noticeable, but it def is . It's not night and day but its def a nice bump up in sharpness. But the main thing I love is the extra screen space. I also went from ivy bridge 3770K to 8700K. I'm hoping my EVGA GTX 1080 (regular not Ti) can last me at least 6 more months. Till the end of next year would be even better. So far so good, I don't mind bumping one or two settings down as long as I can get close to max settings and a mostly steady 60 FPS.
I'm the same way... Hard $200 cap on SSDs, Video Cards, Motherboards and CPUs. However, I might bend on the CPU next time out. I was flexible when I purchased my current I7-3770K many years back.. I paid about $300 for it.
I'm hoping we get an 8 core / 16 thread Ryzen with onchip Vega graphics... Problem is no manufacturer will put two HDMI 2.0 ports on a decent mITX motherboard.
It seems the NPCs are happy to follow NVIDIA's push to shove the entire pricing stack upwards, mainstream becomes $600. Oh dear.
Btw, used 980 Tis are a decent alternative. Only just a little bit slower than a 1070 FE but usually about the same or cheaper than the 590 via normal auction. Not as much as VRAM as a 590, but I doubt that matters much at this level.
It's a derogatory term that implies an individual is a "non-player character", doomed to wander around following instructions and being led by others. You'll mostly see it used in an unintentionally ironic way by the alt-right to describe anyone who doesn't reside in their echo chambers.
In this case I sort-of endorse the point, because I too am frustrated by the willingness of many in the supposedly tech-savvy enthusiast community to swallow this ridiculous and unnecessary price inflation.
I donno, you can pickup a used 1070 for under $300 practically anywhere (facebook mp, forums, even ebay) as people upgrade to RTX...which I honestly can't believe people are doing, but hey, they're doing it.
Just get something cheap for now and wait for navi in 1 year. Gpu buyers the 10 series window is gone. This next year is going to suck untill navi comes out.
GTX1070/Vega 56 is expensive toys. I only play like 2 hours a week, and only need min. FPS to stay above 60. 1440P Ultra settings sure looks pretty, but doesn't really improve my gaming experience considerably compared to 1080P High settings. So I recently replaced my defective R9 280 with a 4GB RX580. Only paid 140$ and sold the game bundle for 20$. My RX580 clocks to 1480/9600Mhz so I'm perfectly satisfied with the performance I got for 120$.
How is it an investment? Unless you play Counter Strike professionally, I doubt you get a return on that "investment". how much the "minimum" is depends how much money you have to spare for playing games.
Investment in this case was probably used in a casual sense rather than to imply there was a more conventional set of investing considerations given to the purchase. It is common knowledge, after all, that computer hardware generally loses value rapidly and computer gaming typically only yields an intangible reward in the form of entertainment.
If I wanted an "investment" in the sense of "depriciating slightly slower than fish" I'd wait for something made in 7nm (not the Vega, unless you fit their market exactly). And I suspect nvidia should have something up their sleeve to spoil Navi's party (but at least wait to see if they survive, this latch batch of nvida cards seems to just fail).
GPU architecture may improve, but it will take a long time to get a smaller process than TSMC's new 7nm. This is about as close to "future proofing" as you are going to get.
No, those prices are still to high. Vega is that expensive deu to HBM, and 1070 because NVIDIA is asking to dam much. 1070/V56 are high end, compaired to next gen it will be mainstream. Navi will hit early 2019, my guess is prices will get lower
Agree, 12nm might have helped them to hit higher clocks, but it certainly has not helped much at all in regards to power consumption or temps IMO, all for the "low price" of an additional 50+$ when it hits the shelf (knowing the AIB likely will not be $299 will most likely be $339 (~445-448 CAD)
for me, the 570 seems "the better pick" for an overall capable 1080p level card or 1440p at reduced settings, at lest the power use is not terribad and pricing is much more "palatable" on the shelf compared to the 580s and likely very much compared to this 590 and the V56 which is over $600 where I can get them up here in the great white north.
There is no "reference" 590 card. They are all AIB cards. The XFX card featured in the article is on sale on Amazon right now for the $279 MSRP. Sure, there will be triple-fan OC cards for $300+ and some RGB LED monstrosity models pushing closer to $400 but this is available today for the advertised price.
At the same time, go buy a 570 or 580 (or even a used 480 8GB if you can find one that wasn't mined on) and OC the thing if you want. Nearly the same card and keep money in your pocket.
Except for the significantly better performance per watt, and the fact you can put that in a SFF case. There are obvious benefits to Polaris 30 such as FreeSync compatibility and the larger frame buffer, but if you require a new PSU when you didn't with the 1060, that's an extra cost.
With the power figures on show here, I'm immediately wondering about the benefits of undervolting, as well as where the actual frequency sweet spot is. 12nm hasn't exactly been a notable success story for AMD, and with 7nm on its way, I'm not sure what this experiment was supposed to show.
This is a completely different 12nm process than what AMD used for Zen+ (TSMC vs GloFo; Nate's article is wrong), so any equivalencies between them are actually largely just coincidence. Though I SERIOUSLY don't really know in what world you wouldn't described Zen +/Ryzen 2nd Gen as a success story.
I was talking about the process; I know the 2000 series has done well.
I didn't even know TSMC had a 12nm process, but either it's not very well suited to this application or AMD have just clocked it far too highly, so it's not a successful product in that sense.
Nvidia's Volta and Turing are fabbed on TSMC 12nm. So, it seems to work well for GPUs, but AMD's architecture is just not competitive in their perfs/watt.
It feels like Polaris is bottlenecked in some way, and increasing clock speeds is just a brute force way of alleviating the issue at the cost of significant power consumption. Perhaps the design is just broken to begin with.
Power consumption - wise, its the process node from GLOFO that's limiting Polaris mainly from achieving high frequencies and low power consumption. GLOFO nodes are designed for low clocks and mobile parts... 12nmLP is designed for the same, and AMD used it for RX 590. That's why power consumption explodes on high frequencies.
Polaris is bottlenecked by the GLOFO 12nmLP process that's being used here. It's designed for low clocks and mobile parts. There was NOTHING posted about AMD using TSCM 12nm node for Polaris refresh. TSMC 12nm was slated for Nvidia.
AMD gets to use TSMC 7nm high performance process node for Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi.
"Limited" is the word you want to use to describe Polaris. "Broken" would imply it doesn't work at all. Polaris was never meant to be a high end architecture. They have just been doing refreshes because they are likely reorganizing their GPU division and coming up with a new architecture to replace GCN. Doing something like that takes time, and AMD has to continue generating revenue. Also, the 590 is not a bad card at all, while I have a 1080ti in my machine, I would definitely consider a Polaris card in any new machine I build (for friends, family, etc.)
Incorrect on AMD's architecture not being competitive because AMD is still using GLOFO 12nm LP process for RX 590 which is designed for low clocks and mobile parts.
TSMC 16nm and 12nm processes are designed for high performance and efficiency... those nodes are superior to GLOFO (that's why AMD's GPU's end up sucking up A LOT of power at high frequencies - its because the process node from GLOFO cannot take it, and partly because the compute performance on Polaris is a lot bigger than on GTX 1060).
Furthermore, the power consumption on RX 590 should be a dead give-away, because this is exactly the same thing that happened for Ryzen+ too (not to mention the fact we had 0 indications that AMD would refresh Polaris on TSMC 12nm process. NV got access to 12nm TSMC process, not AMD... AMD got access to TSMC's 7nm high perf. process and they have reserved Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi for that).
They increased the frequencies on 12nmLP, but as a result they also saw an increase in power consumption.
Polaris is clocked WAY beyond the voltage comfort zone on GLOFO processes (which are designed for low clocks and mobile parts). If they wanted a refresh, they should have just dropped the frequencies down to 580 levels and call it a more power efficient rebrand.
If AMD moved to TSMC 12nm for RX 590, power consumption on this GPU would actually be lower than on GTX 1060 with those frequencies.
I bought my GTX titan X I bought in mid 2016 for cheaper than current price rtx 2080 ti , it's sad that GPU advancement has slowed , my card can still good with best :(
Problem is, far too many gamers just don't buy AMD even when they do have something genuinely competitive or objectively better. Many people use them merely as a means of buying a cheaper NVIDIA option when the latter drops its prices. I've even seen people say such dumb things as they hope AMD will release something good so they can buy a cheaper NVIDIA card. With such a consumer mindset, there's no incentive for AMD to target the high end at all. AMD are going after the mainstream, which is where the volume is. If they can do well there then they can build the brand recognition and aim higher later.
It's likely a reference to the Harley-Davidson Fatboy, which is a big cruiser even by HW standards. Probably hoping to capitalize on its continuing media presence in such productions as Sons of Anarchy and Terminator Genisys (not so much Wild Hogs).
Yes, that's some awful branding and who knows how that one found its way onto a retail box. The name on the box doesn't mean anything in relationship to the card's performance, but someone over at XFX was smoking something good and someone else was asleep at the approval button helm.
It's likely a reference to the Harley-Davidson Fatboy, which is a big cruiser even by HW standards. Probably hoping to capitalize on its continuing media presence in such productions as Sons of Anarchy and Terminator Genisys (not so much Wild Hogs).
It seems derogatory in any case, as if a clever way to toss out an insult in the general direction of the customers. As for media presence, I don't know. I've heard of Terminator movies before, but haven't seen anything past the second movie. Sons of Anarchy, I think is a cable TV series IIRC, but not as many people pay attention to television. For instance, I haven't even owned a television in the last 18 years and don't bother with streaming media aside from the occasional YouTube clip. It seems that aside from the very old, that's more the norm than the exception. As well, I think those big motorcycles aren't very popular either. Isn't the company that sells them in a little financial trouble these days?
Harley Davidson --> Harley Owners Group --> H.O.G. --> Also nickname for Harleys --> Fatboy is what you call a big actual hog. Nothing derogatory. SMDH. Step out of the basement every now and then! ;)
I Fatboy is better than many of the other vendors meaningless names. It's easy to remember and the fact that we are even discussing it proves that it succeed in standing out from all the other names
Reminds me of the derision that was everywhere when AMD announced the EPYC name, but now it's become the popular source for various amusing memes in AMD's favour.
Fatboy on the face of it sounds crude perhaps, but it has consonants, and it's memeable.
AMD have cards at 1080/2070 price point, and offer a better deal- lower price, Freesync, and 3 highest tier games for free. RX590, while not as great deal as RX570/580, also comes with those 3x €60 games- while nVidia's GTX1060 did not get any speed upgrade since release, nor a more competitive price, nor any new tech.
AMD has a better price. Stop. They just can't stop discounting their GPUs to not be erased in the graphics market. This GPU is not going to make nvidia loose any sleep and they can continue selling Turing at whatever price they want. nvidia today is simply a generation ahead on the same PP. Let's see what will happen at 7nm, when AMD will most probably come out with another GCN pearl ws Turing successor. Maybe at 7nm at the end of 2019 GCN will start consuming like Pascal 3.5 years older.
For me, and many other people 2080 or 2080Ti might as well not exist. I'd never buy any GPU priced like that. In fact, I'd never even buy a €300+ card. Also- power use is not an issue- at 200W+, it is easy to cool, not noisy, and savings in electricity cost from having a GTX1060 would be only €5-10 per year (at 20 hour gaming per week, which I do not achieve). And in a sub-€300 market- nVidia has not offered anything for 2.5 years. So it is certainly better deal to buy a faster RX590 and get a €180 AAA game bundle for free, compared to similarly priced, slower GTX1060. There are other reasons as well, like Freesync, and futureproofing like 8GB of VRAM and better driver support (because nVidia will be moving toward doing optimizations for 20xx series).
Xex360, AMD is not trying to compete because just don't buy them, so what's the point? There market and brand awareness simply isn't there to support a high end product stack atm, not until gamers stop being so irrational and actually buy AMD when they are objectively the more sensible option, whether based on price, performance or some combination of metrics.
"but now built on GlobalFoundries' 12nm process" Sorry, Nate, but ya got that one wrong. Polaris 30 is being fabbed at TSMC, just like the rest of AMD's GPUs.
Note that we currently have no information cooroborating the use of TSMC. And indeed it seems incredibly unlikely given AMD's WSA, and the fact that Polaris 30 has the exact same die size as Polaris 10. TSMC and GF's 12nm processes are not identical, porting a chip to TSMC would given you different geometry dimensions.
Its just a gap filler. It will help them make money from people wanting to get good performance at that price but... we're still waiting for the serious contenders. Vega refresh will be a little more toward the high end but... navi is where amd could potentially shift the market. RTX means you pay more for less performance outside rtx games. Navi is the opposite you pay less and get more. We need navi to function well and I believe amd can do it.
Is is not a gap filler. It is only there, because overproduction of P20 needs to be sold out first. Naturally- P30 should be a replacement of P20, at same price, with minimal investment by MAD or partners.
I am surprised a boost frequency increase of 15% nets 12% overall performance. Maybe Polaris isn't as starved for memory bandwidth, as people seem to think. Or AMD made other improvements besides the increased frequency...?
Frequency increases rarely produce linear performance gains, not when there are so many other aspects of a system that impact what's happening (main CPU, API, game engine, etc.)
Yes that is why I'm surprised 15% increase on the core frequency -without any increase of the Vram frequency, would result in 12% overall performance increase. Especially considering the "original Polaris" rx480 was configured with 1266Mhz core boost frequency and 2000Mhz Vram. If AMD figured 1266/2000MHz was near the sweet spot balance between core/mem speed then 1545/2000 would be severly starved for memory bandwidth. So I'm wondering if 2000MHz memory speed was kind of wasted on the rx480? Or did AMD tighten the Vram timings on this new 590? Or maybe the near linear increase in performance is due to the higher tdp allowing the rx590 to sustain the boost clock while the 480 would throttle to base core frequency of 1120MHz?
The most surprising thing to me is just how good RX480 is when you look at the benchmarks. When it launched it was as fast as the GTX970, now it is faster than then GTX980 just due to drivers and newer games being able to use its resources better.
Very true, though I suppose wrt the 590 this kinda works against AMD a bit since pretty much all the optimisation that the 590 could ever have benefited from is already there.
I think there are quite a few owners of pitcairn-based cards that would object page 2. That GCN1 architecture made it from 78xx in 2011 up through the R7 370 in 2015. Polaris always seemed to be aiming to replace that core in the lineup and definitely fit right in at the same price levels. However, I never thought that actual performance difference was enough to justify a purchase until this 590, but that comes at a much higher price. I think I can still hold out with my 7870 for the next mid-range architecture on 7nm before finally scratching the upgrade itch.
Total Board Power? Because the GPU is more efficient at a 12nm process, they can spend that extra headroom overclocking the chip to run faster. That was the point of the statement.
TBP is not a typo. I think it's Typical Board Power or, as Joey said, Total Board Power. AMD was swinging that term a year or three ago (not really sure when they started that) for some marketing-driven reason and, in the absence of better power and heat numbers to refer to, tech journalists are forced to resort to it in the articles they write.
@Nate: thanks for the review. Now, I know that this card (and the 1060 from Nvidia) are targeted for gaming at 1080p or 1440p with high or ultra settings, but I would have liked to see how this card does in UHD. If you have any data, please share them - Thanks! Now, I don't expect the Rx 590 or 580 to provide playable frame rates for all games in UHD, but I like to now how close these mid-rangers come to the higher-end cards when they really stressed (UHD with some goodies turned on). Plus, the extra 2 Gb of VRAM vs. the 1060 might make it possible to handle games the 6 Gb 1060 can not. Any information? Thanks!
A 40CU config (as was initially rumored) would have been much more interesting- at >1500mhz boost such a card would be nipping at the heels of the GTX 1070 and at around $320 it would have been a great deal even if the TBP hit 250W but this is kind of mediocre, even if it's a bit faster than the 1060. If the price undercut the 1060 it would be a good deal but at higher price AND power? Not worth it unless Freesync is important to you. I heard some variants could clock up to 1680mhz- I'd be curious to see how that performs.
I would love to see if the improved process offers better efficiency. With the RX480 4gb, I undervolted the card and saw a significant decrease in load power consumption.
With the RX580 8gb, I dropped the boost clocks a bit and dropped the voltage as well, and only used 6 pin power connector.
I would like to see the rx590/580/480 at similar reference/boost clocks, then undervolted to lowest possible stable and see what the frame per watt comparison is.
Just another example of AMD shooting their R&D wad at the APU/CPU segment and ignoring the GPU segment. There is ZERO reason to buy this fail over Nivdia unless you have already bought a Freesync monitor and a much older AMD GPU, which monitors, by the way, do work with Nvidia GPUs when locking down the v-sync tool. I have a Freesync 75Hz monitor ( 32" 1440p AOC) and love it with my GTX 1070 Ti locking in frames (bought it for $369 on NewEgg in a promo sale). Said 1070 Ti doesn't even need to breathe hard. Minimum FPS never comes close to hitting 75 FPS. Not only is it 30+% faster, but it also consumes nearly 20% less power under load than this card. Yeah, that's worth the extra $80 for my 1070 Ti in my book. You get what you pay for. I really hope AMD starts using some of their Ryzen revenue that they've been taking in for - nearly three years now mind you and not including their revenue stream from game console APUs - into upping their dedicated GPU game. Because they have a long way to go to match Nvidia in the upper tiers where the real price margin revenue is made. Nobody makes money on low and mid range GPUs where AMD has always targeted.
You are missing the point here, Lisa Su said that decision are took 3-5 years in advance for their roadmap.
Polaris was already a thing and just making a 12 nm was an easy thing to do and was filling a gap.
People tend to forget that the 8GB RX 580 MSRP is actually 240$, not 200$ which is for the 4GB version. 30$ more is not such a step and still the cost per FPS is one of the lowest.
With a 100$+ of game bundle to add to it, there is no question that the value is there.
While everyone upped their resolution to UHD, I went the opposite direction and am running a CRT at 720p. My 7970's still running strong lol. CPU market is fire right now, but GPUs so boring =\
So it sits somewhere between the 1060 6GB and 1070, most of the time closer to the former, and yet consumes a lot more power than either card. No thanks. People don't want noisy, hot systems these days without actually getting some performance to back it up.
Now undervolt and overclock that gtx 1060, Mine was able to drop over 100mv, lowered power limit to 75%, but still overclocked 200/400 core/mem clocks and uses 75w max at full load. Temps typically run mid 60s with stock fan settings and its near silent. Its a mini card that is probably 1/3 the size of the RX590 and I bought it over a year ago for $250.
If a stock gtx1060 uses typcially 120 watts max (mine would before the undervolt), then total system power for an undervolted card according to the charts in the article would look like this:
It would be an unfair comparison because AMD is using GLOFO 12nm LP node designed for low clocks and mobile parts, whereas NV is using TSMC 16nm high performance process designed for high clocks and efficiency.
You can't compare the two back to back and NV would still win in such a situation.
But, for the sake of argument, a Polish website (at least I think it was Polish) apparently managed to undervolt RX 590 just recently and total power consumption dropped by 34W. Here's the website: https://pclab.pl/art79190-20.html
Polaris power consumption problems stem from a combination of problems: 1. (and this would be the biggest) GLOFO 14nm/12nm process nodes designed for low clocks and mobile parts (not worth it even raising frequencies on 12nm because as we saw, both Ryzen+ and Polaris were already boosting WAY past the GLOFO node 'comfort zone' to the point efficiency was thrown out the window.
2. lower yields on GLOFO nodes contributed towards lack of voltage optimisation resulting in higher maximum voltages on GPU's shipping from factory.
3. Excessive amount of compute hardware. Polaris has powerful compute which is not really used in games, and this hardware does suck up a lot of power, and Polaris in general has about 40% more stream processors than Pascal has CUDA cores.
How long will AMD keep squeezing the blood out of Polaris? They have practically abandoned their GPU division, their mainstream one anyway. A single refresh could be occasionally justified, but a refresh-squared of the same GPU (or GPU series) equates with rebranding. I realize that they overwhelmingly focused on their CPU and APU division in order to compete with Intel, and that drew resources and engineers from the GPU division. But competition is required in the GPU market as well, or else Nvidia will keep charging an arm and a leg for their graphics cards.
Probably because the game is well optimised for AMD hardware (a situation which is all too uncommon).
But AMD's main problems stem from using an inefficient GLOFO nodes. 14nm and 12nm were both designed for low clocks and mobile parts... this is why we see massive increase in power consumption for Polaris at high frequencies... because the GPU is clocked WAY past the voltage comfort zone where it would be efficient.
TSMC nodes are designed for high clocks and efficiency... and as such, they WILL have an advantage in clocks and power consumption.
Does this win the award for most pointless launch of all time? Anyone who was in the market for a GTX 970/1060 class GPU in the GTX 970/1060 price range probably bought a GTX 970 or GTX 1060 already. Releasing a more power hungry card over 4 years late doesn't really seem like it's going to move the market.
When Nvidia was 6 months late with the housefire GTX 480 they at least had the performance crown compared to the 5870. This is 4 years late and has nothing.
Seems like a used RX 480 8GB is probably the best value out there for 1080 gaming. Plenty of them for about 100.00 on ebay. I keep looking for the price of 1060 6GB cards to come down now that there is a glut of them, but they stay stubbornly high.
RX570s are about as fast as RX480, but start at ~$150. They are new, come with warranty, and with 2 AAA games which can be considered to be worth ~$120 if you want them, or ~$60 for reselling. RX570 is a better deal.
Well, they released a card this year for the consumer market. My hopes are that Navi will be a better option against NVIDIA RTX, good that Radeon will not support RT. Let NVIDIA first support DX12 with hardware shader units, instead of hanging on to DYING DX11.
A couple of reviews seem to be showing the Fatboy at similar power consumption (or slightly higher) levels to the 580 Nitro+ (presumably the 1450MHz version) and Red Devil Golden Sample. That's not so bad when you factor in the significantly increased clocks, but the two 580s hardly sipped power to begin with, and basic 580s don't really perform much worse for what would be much lower power consumption. AMD has a product that kind of bridges the gap between the 1060 and the 1070, but uses more power than a 1080... hardly envious, really. The Fatboy has rather poor thermals as well if you don't ramp the fan speed up.
The 590s we're getting are clocked aggressively on core but not on memory; what would really be interesting is a 590 clocked at 580 levels, even factory overclocked 580 levels. Would it be worth getting a 590 just to undervolt and underclock the core, make use of the extra game in the bundle (once they launch, that is), and essentially be running a more efficient 580? I'd be tempted to overclock the memory at the same time as that appears to be where the 580 is being held back, not core speed.
I just bought a Fatboy...to run in X-fire with my year-old 8GB RX-480 (1.305GHz stock)...! As I am now gaming at 3840x2160, it seemed a worthwhile alternative to dropping $500+ on a single GPU. Paid $297 @ NewEgg & got the 3-game bundle. I read one review by a guy who X-fired a 580 with a 480 without difficulty--and the performance scaled from 70%-90% better when X-Fire is supported. Wouldn't recommend buying two 590's at one time, of course, but for people who already own a 480/580, the X-Fire alternative is the most cost-effective route at present. Gaming sites seem to have forgotten about X-Fire these days, for some reason. Of course, the nVidia 1060 doesn't allow for SLI--so that might be one reason, I suppose. Still, it's kind of baffling as the X-Fire mode seems like such a no brainer. And for those titles that will not X-fire, I'll just run them all @ 1.6GHz on the 590...Until next year when AMD's next < $300 GPU launches...! Then, I may have to think again!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
136 Comments
Back to Article
El Sama - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
To be honest I believe that the GTX 1070/Vega 56 is not that far away in price and should be considered as the minimum investment for a gamer in 2019.Dragonstongue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
over $600 for a single GPU V56, no thank you..even this 590 is likely to be ~440 or so in CAD, screw that noise.minimum for a gamer with deep pockets, maybe, but that is like the price of good cpu and motherboard (such as Ryzen 2700)
Cooe - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Lol it's not really the rest of the world's fault the Canadian Dollar absolutely freaking sucks right now. Or AMD's for that matter.Hrel - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Man, I still have a hard 200 dollar cap on any single component. Kinda insane to imagine doubling that!I also don't give a shit about 3d, virtual anything or resolutions beyond 1080p. I mean ffs the human eye can't even tell the difference between 4k and 1080, why is ANYONE willing to pay for that?!
In any case, 150 is my budget for my next GPU. Considering how old 1080p is that should be plenty.
igavus - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
4k and 1080p look pretty different. No offence, but if you can't tell the difference, perhaps it's time to schedule a visit with an optometrist? Nevermind 4K, the rest of the world will look a lot better also if your eyes are okay :)Great_Scott - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
My eyes are fine. The sole advantage of 4K is not needing to run AA. That's about it.Anyone buying a card just so they can push a solid framerate on a 4K monitor is throwing money in the trash. Doubly so if they aren't 4->1 interpolating to play at 1K on a 4K monitor they needed for work (not gaming, since you don't need to game at 4K in the first place).
StevoLincolnite - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
There is a big difference between 1080P and 4k... But that is entirely depending on how large the display is and how far you sit away from said display.Otherwise known as "Perceived Pixels Per Inch".
With that in mind... I would opt for a 1440P panel with a higher refresh rate than 4k every day of the week.
wumpus - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
Depends on the monitor. I'd agree with you when people claim "the sweet spot of 4k monitors is 28 inches". Maybe the price is good, but my old eyes will never see it. I'm wondering if a 40" 4k TV will make more sense (the dot pitch will be lower than my 1080P, but I'd still likely notice lack of AA).Gaming (once you step up to the high end GPUs) should be more immersive, but the 2d benefits are probably bigger.
Targon - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
There are people who notice the differences, and those who do not. Back in the days of CRT monitors, most people would notice flicker with a 60Hz monitor, but wouldn't notice with 72Hz. I always found that 85Hz produced less eye strain.There is a huge difference between 1080p and 2160p in terms of quality, but many games are so focused on action that the developers don't bother putting in the effort to provide good quality textures in the first place. It isn't just about not needing AA as much as about a higher pixel density and quality with 4k. For non-gaming, being able to fit twice as much on the screen really helps.
PeachNCream - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I reached diminishing returns at 1366x768. The increase to 1080p offered an improvement in image quality mainly by reducing jagged lines, but it wasn't anything to get astonished about. Agreed that the difference between 1080p and 4K is marginal on smaller screens and certainly not worth the added demand on graphics power to push the additional pixels.wumpus - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
Diminishing returns, sure. But the improvements are still there. Oddly enough, it looks like 2080ti Battlefield (raytraced edition) has a choice of [low] 1080P raytraced (at 72Hz) vs. super high resolution and/or frequency. I'm curious what buyers pick (assuming their cards don't fail).Don't forget the value of a big screen for 2d and "immersive" effects. I certainly loved going from 1024x768 15" to 1600x1200 19" (CRTs)_, even though it would be ages before GPUs would catch up to those resolutions (the 19" CRT likely predated by Voodoo card).
Can't tell about 1366x768, I went straight from CRT land (at least 1600x1200 and beyond) to 1080P and wouldn't touch 1366 (unless on a laptop). The 2d benefits are enough, although you might consider a second monitor, or simply find a sufficiently large 4k TV (60Hz *real* frequency minimum, and make sure the HDMI interface can take 60HZ) for 2d use.
Spunjji - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
I'd argue that point happens somewhere between 1080p and 1440p - the difference between 1080p and lower resolutions is painfully stark, especially when it comes to representation of textures. YMMV depending on screen size and preference, of course, but it sounds like you might want an update prescription :)sean8102 - Tuesday, December 18, 2018 - link
As someone who finally upgraded from 1080p to 1440p (27 inch IPS monitor for both, 75 Hz / or 60 Hz 10 bit on my new 1440p). I was very surprised at the difference. I was not expecting it to be very noticeable, but it def is . It's not night and day but its def a nice bump up in sharpness. But the main thing I love is the extra screen space. I also went from ivy bridge 3770K to 8700K. I'm hoping my EVGA GTX 1080 (regular not Ti) can last me at least 6 more months. Till the end of next year would be even better. So far so good, I don't mind bumping one or two settings down as long as I can get close to max settings and a mostly steady 60 FPS.HardwareDufus - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I'm the same way...Hard $200 cap on SSDs, Video Cards, Motherboards and CPUs. However, I might bend on the CPU next time out. I was flexible when I purchased my current I7-3770K many years back.. I paid about $300 for it.
I'm hoping we get an 8 core / 16 thread Ryzen with onchip Vega graphics... Problem is no manufacturer will put two HDMI 2.0 ports on a decent mITX motherboard.
AndrewDarnell - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7xz2fw/psa_o...NomanA - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Vega 56 is between $350-400 in US. There are higher priced Vega 56s as well, but you can find them below $400.limitedaccess - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
This is available for $370 at Newegg.ca currently.There are GTX 1070s between $450 - $500.
mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
It seems the NPCs are happy to follow NVIDIA's push to shove the entire pricing stack upwards, mainstream becomes $600. Oh dear.Btw, used 980 Tis are a decent alternative. Only just a little bit slower than a 1070 FE but usually about the same or cheaper than the 590 via normal auction. Not as much as VRAM as a 590, but I doubt that matters much at this level.
PeachNCream - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
NPCs?Spunjji - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
It's a derogatory term that implies an individual is a "non-player character", doomed to wander around following instructions and being led by others. You'll mostly see it used in an unintentionally ironic way by the alt-right to describe anyone who doesn't reside in their echo chambers.In this case I sort-of endorse the point, because I too am frustrated by the willingness of many in the supposedly tech-savvy enthusiast community to swallow this ridiculous and unnecessary price inflation.
Samus - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I donno, you can pickup a used 1070 for under $300 practically anywhere (facebook mp, forums, even ebay) as people upgrade to RTX...which I honestly can't believe people are doing, but hey, they're doing it.Spunjji - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
It's really quite astonishing, but great for those of us who can think our way our of a paper bag :DManch - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Can't go across the border and bring one back?Targon - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
$400-$450 USD for a Vega 64.Falck - Sunday, June 6, 2021 - link
This comment aged well XDOpencg - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Just get something cheap for now and wait for navi in 1 year. Gpu buyers the 10 series window is gone. This next year is going to suck untill navi comes out.Allan_Hundeboll - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
GTX1070/Vega 56 is expensive toys. I only play like 2 hours a week, and only need min. FPS to stay above 60. 1440P Ultra settings sure looks pretty, but doesn't really improve my gaming experience considerably compared to 1080P High settings.So I recently replaced my defective R9 280 with a 4GB RX580. Only paid 140$ and sold the game bundle for 20$. My RX580 clocks to 1480/9600Mhz so I'm perfectly satisfied with the performance I got for 120$.
casperes1996 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
How is it an investment? Unless you play Counter Strike professionally, I doubt you get a return on that "investment". how much the "minimum" is depends how much money you have to spare for playing games.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Investment in this case was probably used in a casual sense rather than to imply there was a more conventional set of investing considerations given to the purchase. It is common knowledge, after all, that computer hardware generally loses value rapidly and computer gaming typically only yields an intangible reward in the form of entertainment.wumpus - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
If I wanted an "investment" in the sense of "depriciating slightly slower than fish" I'd wait for something made in 7nm (not the Vega, unless you fit their market exactly). And I suspect nvidia should have something up their sleeve to spoil Navi's party (but at least wait to see if they survive, this latch batch of nvida cards seems to just fail).GPU architecture may improve, but it will take a long time to get a smaller process than TSMC's new 7nm. This is about as close to "future proofing" as you are going to get.
Diji1 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
You know what they say about a fool and his money.Almost every gamer on Steam is using a GTX 1060 class GPU which is less powerful. Every single gamer on Steam made a loss on their "investment".
gopher1369 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
" I believe that the GTX 1070/Vega 56 ...should be considered as the minimum investment for a gamer in 2019"Meanwhile I'll continue to enjoy the vast majority of my games quite happily in 1080p / 60FPS on my perfectly good 1050Ti.
AMD#1 - Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - link
No, those prices are still to high. Vega is that expensive deu to HBM, and 1070 because NVIDIA is asking to dam much. 1070/V56 are high end, compaired to next gen it will be mainstream. Navi will hit early 2019, my guess is prices will get lowerdel42sa - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
patheticDragonstongue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Agree, 12nm might have helped them to hit higher clocks, but it certainly has not helped much at all in regards to power consumption or temps IMO, all for the "low price" of an additional 50+$ when it hits the shelf (knowing the AIB likely will not be $299 will most likely be $339 (~445-448 CAD)for me, the 570 seems "the better pick" for an overall capable 1080p level card or 1440p at reduced settings, at lest the power use is not terribad and pricing is much more "palatable" on the shelf compared to the 580s and likely very much compared to this 590 and the V56 which is over $600 where I can get them up here in the great white north.
WithoutWeakness - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
There is no "reference" 590 card. They are all AIB cards. The XFX card featured in the article is on sale on Amazon right now for the $279 MSRP. Sure, there will be triple-fan OC cards for $300+ and some RGB LED monstrosity models pushing closer to $400 but this is available today for the advertised price.At the same time, go buy a 570 or 580 (or even a used 480 8GB if you can find one that wasn't mined on) and OC the thing if you want. Nearly the same card and keep money in your pocket.
dazz112 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Seems like there's no reason to buy gtx1060 anymore (unless it's a lot less cheaper)ToTTenTranz - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Unless you're stuck with a tiny form factor or a 300W PSU.silverblue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Except for the significantly better performance per watt, and the fact you can put that in a SFF case. There are obvious benefits to Polaris 30 such as FreeSync compatibility and the larger frame buffer, but if you require a new PSU when you didn't with the 1060, that's an extra cost.With the power figures on show here, I'm immediately wondering about the benefits of undervolting, as well as where the actual frequency sweet spot is. 12nm hasn't exactly been a notable success story for AMD, and with 7nm on its way, I'm not sure what this experiment was supposed to show.
Cooe - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
This is a completely different 12nm process than what AMD used for Zen+ (TSMC vs GloFo; Nate's article is wrong), so any equivalencies between them are actually largely just coincidence. Though I SERIOUSLY don't really know in what world you wouldn't described Zen +/Ryzen 2nd Gen as a success story.silverblue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I was talking about the process; I know the 2000 series has done well.I didn't even know TSMC had a 12nm process, but either it's not very well suited to this application or AMD have just clocked it far too highly, so it's not a successful product in that sense.
frenchy_2001 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Nvidia's Volta and Turing are fabbed on TSMC 12nm.So, it seems to work well for GPUs, but AMD's architecture is just not competitive in their perfs/watt.
silverblue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I completely forgot about them.It feels like Polaris is bottlenecked in some way, and increasing clock speeds is just a brute force way of alleviating the issue at the cost of significant power consumption. Perhaps the design is just broken to begin with.
Manch - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Memory bandwidth is the bottleneck for Polaris.deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Power consumption - wise, its the process node from GLOFO that's limiting Polaris mainly from achieving high frequencies and low power consumption.GLOFO nodes are designed for low clocks and mobile parts... 12nmLP is designed for the same, and AMD used it for RX 590.
That's why power consumption explodes on high frequencies.
deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Polaris is bottlenecked by the GLOFO 12nmLP process that's being used here.It's designed for low clocks and mobile parts.
There was NOTHING posted about AMD using TSCM 12nm node for Polaris refresh. TSMC 12nm was slated for Nvidia.
AMD gets to use TSMC 7nm high performance process node for Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi.
eek2121 - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
"Limited" is the word you want to use to describe Polaris. "Broken" would imply it doesn't work at all. Polaris was never meant to be a high end architecture. They have just been doing refreshes because they are likely reorganizing their GPU division and coming up with a new architecture to replace GCN. Doing something like that takes time, and AMD has to continue generating revenue. Also, the 590 is not a bad card at all, while I have a 1080ti in my machine, I would definitely consider a Polaris card in any new machine I build (for friends, family, etc.)deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Incorrect on AMD's architecture not being competitive because AMD is still using GLOFO 12nm LP process for RX 590 which is designed for low clocks and mobile parts.TSMC 16nm and 12nm processes are designed for high performance and efficiency... those nodes are superior to GLOFO (that's why AMD's GPU's end up sucking up A LOT of power at high frequencies - its because the process node from GLOFO cannot take it, and partly because the compute performance on Polaris is a lot bigger than on GTX 1060).
porcupineLTD - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I highly doubt that, any source?deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Actually 'Cooe', you are incorrect.AMD is using 12nmLP process from GLOFO for RX 590.
You can read about that here:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-rx-590-overclocking-p...
Furthermore, the power consumption on RX 590 should be a dead give-away, because this is exactly the same thing that happened for Ryzen+ too (not to mention the fact we had 0 indications that AMD would refresh Polaris on TSMC 12nm process. NV got access to 12nm TSMC process, not AMD... AMD got access to TSMC's 7nm high perf. process and they have reserved Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi for that).
They increased the frequencies on 12nmLP, but as a result they also saw an increase in power consumption.
Polaris is clocked WAY beyond the voltage comfort zone on GLOFO processes (which are designed for low clocks and mobile parts).
If they wanted a refresh, they should have just dropped the frequencies down to 580 levels and call it a more power efficient rebrand.
If AMD moved to TSMC 12nm for RX 590, power consumption on this GPU would actually be lower than on GTX 1060 with those frequencies.
eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Who the hell is using SFX?There is plenty of small form factor case using regular ATX standard.
Unless you use Silverstone cases, SFX is not even a matter.
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I am using a Silverstone case and a SFX power supply. Not that either of the two matter in regards to an RX590 announcement.duploxxx - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
hard to find any psu below 500w these days....Gasaraki88 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Unless the 1060 GDDR5X version comes out... which is soon.eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
GDDR5X is only having an impact at higher resolutions than 1080p... which the 1060 GTX is clearly not aiming at.eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Exactly, this is selling at the same price as a 1060 GTX and offer a game bundle, it is brainless and right before christmas.Unlike a lot of people here, I think it is the best new card of the year. RTX was such a disaster and especially more with BF5 benchmarks.
ragenalien - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Still viable for smaller cases that have stricter heat requirements.Uelmo - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I bought my GTX titan X I bought in mid 2016 for cheaper than current price rtx 2080 ti , it's sad that GPU advancement has slowed , my card can still good with best :(goatfajitas - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Boy oh boy, if AMD keeps pushing like this by next year they will be as fast as Nvidia was in 2016.mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Problem is, far too many gamers just don't buy AMD even when they do have something genuinely competitive or objectively better. Many people use them merely as a means of buying a cheaper NVIDIA option when the latter drops its prices. I've even seen people say such dumb things as they hope AMD will release something good so they can buy a cheaper NVIDIA card. With such a consumer mindset, there's no incentive for AMD to target the high end at all. AMD are going after the mainstream, which is where the volume is. If they can do well there then they can build the brand recognition and aim higher later.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guK2XoFbPFw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USMlET3L7mA
rtho782 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
So, a 16% increase in price since June 2016, 30 months ago, gets us 22% higher clocks with the same memory bandwidth, and 50% more power consumption.I'm not very excited by this for some reason.
Galcobar - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
It's likely a reference to the Harley-Davidson Fatboy, which is a big cruiser even by HW standards. Probably hoping to capitalize on its continuing media presence in such productions as Sons of Anarchy and Terminator Genisys (not so much Wild Hogs).Galcobar - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Bother, replied to the wrong comment...Dr. Swag - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Who in the world thought xfx fatboy was a good gpu name?!?"Hey I was thinking of buying the fatboy."
"Dude the fatboy actually runs pretty cool."
Seriously wtf is that name?
plonk420 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
it would have been an amazingly awesome promo if Fallout 76 came with it...PeachNCream - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Yes, that's some awful branding and who knows how that one found its way onto a retail box. The name on the box doesn't mean anything in relationship to the card's performance, but someone over at XFX was smoking something good and someone else was asleep at the approval button helm.ianmills - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
If we think of electricity as food I think fatboy is a great name for the 590!PeachNCream - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Hah, that's a good (and funny) point!Galcobar - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
It's likely a reference to the Harley-Davidson Fatboy, which is a big cruiser even by HW standards. Probably hoping to capitalize on its continuing media presence in such productions as Sons of Anarchy and Terminator Genisys (not so much Wild Hogs).PeachNCream - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
It seems derogatory in any case, as if a clever way to toss out an insult in the general direction of the customers. As for media presence, I don't know. I've heard of Terminator movies before, but haven't seen anything past the second movie. Sons of Anarchy, I think is a cable TV series IIRC, but not as many people pay attention to television. For instance, I haven't even owned a television in the last 18 years and don't bother with streaming media aside from the occasional YouTube clip. It seems that aside from the very old, that's more the norm than the exception. As well, I think those big motorcycles aren't very popular either. Isn't the company that sells them in a little financial trouble these days?Manch - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Harley Davidson --> Harley Owners Group --> H.O.G. --> Also nickname for Harleys --> Fatboy is what you call a big actual hog. Nothing derogatory. SMDH. Step out of the basement every now and then! ;)PeachNCream - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Why lace something with an insult? You were doing pretty good until you got to that point.Manch - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
It was just a joke! Hence the wink ;)Allan_Hundeboll - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I Fatboy is better than many of the other vendors meaningless names. It's easy to remember and the fact that we are even discussing it proves that it succeed in standing out from all the other namesmapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Reminds me of the derision that was everywhere when AMD announced the EPYC name, but now it's become the popular source for various amusing memes in AMD's favour.Fatboy on the face of it sounds crude perhaps, but it has consonants, and it's memeable.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Personally, I'm hoping they release a mITX length card under the name Fatboy Slim.Lord of the Bored - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Honestly, I thought it was inspired by Fat Man and Little Boy.Xex360 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
AMD are nowhere compared to nVidia, even 2 years after Pascal they can't compete the 590 should at least be on the level of the 1080 not the 1060.neblogai - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
AMD have cards at 1080/2070 price point, and offer a better deal- lower price, Freesync, and 3 highest tier games for free. RX590, while not as great deal as RX570/580, also comes with those 3x €60 games- while nVidia's GTX1060 did not get any speed upgrade since release, nor a more competitive price, nor any new tech.CiccioB - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
AMD has a better price. Stop.They just can't stop discounting their GPUs to not be erased in the graphics market.
This GPU is not going to make nvidia loose any sleep and they can continue selling Turing at whatever price they want.
nvidia today is simply a generation ahead on the same PP. Let's see what will happen at 7nm, when AMD will most probably come out with another GCN pearl ws Turing successor.
Maybe at 7nm at the end of 2019 GCN will start consuming like Pascal 3.5 years older.
neblogai - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
For me, and many other people 2080 or 2080Ti might as well not exist. I'd never buy any GPU priced like that. In fact, I'd never even buy a €300+ card. Also- power use is not an issue- at 200W+, it is easy to cool, not noisy, and savings in electricity cost from having a GTX1060 would be only €5-10 per year (at 20 hour gaming per week, which I do not achieve). And in a sub-€300 market- nVidia has not offered anything for 2.5 years. So it is certainly better deal to buy a faster RX590 and get a €180 AAA game bundle for free, compared to similarly priced, slower GTX1060. There are other reasons as well, like Freesync, and futureproofing like 8GB of VRAM and better driver support (because nVidia will be moving toward doing optimizations for 20xx series).eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
It is a polaris card. Everybody knew what to expect. I am not sure what you are talking about.Navi is due next year and the contender will be the 2070 RTX. I am going to speculate a tag price of 300$ which is a whole 200-300$ less than a RTX.
mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Xex360, AMD is not trying to compete because just don't buy them, so what's the point? There market and brand awareness simply isn't there to support a high end product stack atm, not until gamers stop being so irrational and actually buy AMD when they are objectively the more sensible option, whether based on price, performance or some combination of metrics.Cooe - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
"but now built on GlobalFoundries' 12nm process"Sorry, Nate, but ya got that one wrong. Polaris 30 is being fabbed at TSMC, just like the rest of AMD's GPUs.
eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
... sure....porcupineLTD - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Where are people getting this from?Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Note that we currently have no information cooroborating the use of TSMC. And indeed it seems incredibly unlikely given AMD's WSA, and the fact that Polaris 30 has the exact same die size as Polaris 10. TSMC and GF's 12nm processes are not identical, porting a chip to TSMC would given you different geometry dimensions.lmcd - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Just like the rest of AMD's...https://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeo...
GPUs. Right.
maroon1 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
What a jokeOnly 12% faster but also cost and consume more power than RX580 (and 108watt more than GTX 1060 at load)
It adds noting new. It just fills the big gap between RX580 and vega56
dr.denton - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
"It adds noting new. It just fills the big gap between RX580 and vega56"Literally all it was ever intended to do. Polaris is a 2 year old mid range GPU design, how do you expect anything revolutionary from that?
Opencg - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Its just a gap filler. It will help them make money from people wanting to get good performance at that price but... we're still waiting for the serious contenders. Vega refresh will be a little more toward the high end but... navi is where amd could potentially shift the market. RTX means you pay more for less performance outside rtx games. Navi is the opposite you pay less and get more. We need navi to function well and I believe amd can do it.neblogai - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Is is not a gap filler. It is only there, because overproduction of P20 needs to be sold out first. Naturally- P30 should be a replacement of P20, at same price, with minimal investment by MAD or partners.eva02langley - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Polaris is selling well, Vega, not so much beside mining. In Canada, the price are still having a huge price tag because the supply is just so low.Allan_Hundeboll - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I am surprised a boost frequency increase of 15% nets 12% overall performance. Maybe Polaris isn't as starved for memory bandwidth, as people seem to think. Or AMD made other improvements besides the increased frequency...?mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Frequency increases rarely produce linear performance gains, not when there are so many other aspects of a system that impact what's happening (main CPU, API, game engine, etc.)Allan_Hundeboll - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Yes that is why I'm surprised 15% increase on the core frequency -without any increase of the Vram frequency, would result in 12% overall performance increase. Especially considering the "original Polaris" rx480 was configured with 1266Mhz core boost frequency and 2000Mhz Vram.If AMD figured 1266/2000MHz was near the sweet spot balance between core/mem speed then 1545/2000 would be severly starved for memory bandwidth.
So I'm wondering if 2000MHz memory speed was kind of wasted on the rx480? Or did AMD tighten the Vram timings on this new 590? Or maybe the near linear increase in performance is due to the higher tdp allowing the rx590 to sustain the boost clock while the 480 would throttle to base core frequency of 1120MHz?
SlowSpyder - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Where is 7nm Vega??mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Never going to happen, because gamers won't buy it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guK2XoFbPFw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USMlET3L7mA
Cyborg997 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Summer 2019 or late 2019. Definitely soon rtx fighter.schujj07 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
The most surprising thing to me is just how good RX480 is when you look at the benchmarks. When it launched it was as fast as the GTX970, now it is faster than then GTX980 just due to drivers and newer games being able to use its resources better.mapesdhs - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Very true, though I suppose wrt the 590 this kinda works against AMD a bit since pretty much all the optimisation that the 590 could ever have benefited from is already there.sasquatch85 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I think there are quite a few owners of pitcairn-based cards that would object page 2. That GCN1 architecture made it from 78xx in 2011 up through the R7 370 in 2015. Polaris always seemed to be aiming to replace that core in the lineup and definitely fit right in at the same price levels. However, I never thought that actual performance difference was enough to justify a purchase until this 590, but that comes at a much higher price. I think I can still hold out with my 7870 for the next mid-range architecture on 7nm before finally scratching the upgrade itch.edzieba - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
"This is enabled by being fabbed on 12nm and being afforded higher TBPs"Traditional Buttered Pixels? Total Bungholiomark Points?
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Total Board Power? Because the GPU is more efficient at a 12nm process, they can spend that extra headroom overclocking the chip to run faster. That was the point of the statement.edzieba - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I think it was a typo of TDP, I was just having some fun.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
TBP is not a typo. I think it's Typical Board Power or, as Joey said, Total Board Power. AMD was swinging that term a year or three ago (not really sure when they started that) for some marketing-driven reason and, in the absence of better power and heat numbers to refer to, tech journalists are forced to resort to it in the articles they write.eastcoast_pete - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
@Nate: thanks for the review. Now, I know that this card (and the 1060 from Nvidia) are targeted for gaming at 1080p or 1440p with high or ultra settings, but I would have liked to see how this card does in UHD. If you have any data, please share them - Thanks! Now, I don't expect the Rx 590 or 580 to provide playable frame rates for all games in UHD, but I like to now how close these mid-rangers come to the higher-end cards when they really stressed (UHD with some goodies turned on). Plus, the extra 2 Gb of VRAM vs. the 1060 might make it possible to handle games the 6 Gb 1060 can not. Any information? Thanks!KateH - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
A 40CU config (as was initially rumored) would have been much more interesting- at >1500mhz boost such a card would be nipping at the heels of the GTX 1070 and at around $320 it would have been a great deal even if the TBP hit 250W but this is kind of mediocre, even if it's a bit faster than the 1060. If the price undercut the 1060 it would be a good deal but at higher price AND power? Not worth it unless Freesync is important to you. I heard some variants could clock up to 1680mhz- I'd be curious to see how that performs.Arbie - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Thanks for the good article, and the inclusion of Ashes in the comparison charts.boozed - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
"Meh"Kriswithak - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I would love to see if the improved process offers better efficiency.With the RX480 4gb, I undervolted the card and saw a significant decrease in load power consumption.
With the RX580 8gb, I dropped the boost clocks a bit and dropped the voltage as well, and only used 6 pin power connector.
I would like to see the rx590/580/480 at similar reference/boost clocks, then undervolted to lowest possible stable and see what the frame per watt comparison is.
Nfarce - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Just another example of AMD shooting their R&D wad at the APU/CPU segment and ignoring the GPU segment. There is ZERO reason to buy this fail over Nivdia unless you have already bought a Freesync monitor and a much older AMD GPU, which monitors, by the way, do work with Nvidia GPUs when locking down the v-sync tool. I have a Freesync 75Hz monitor ( 32" 1440p AOC) and love it with my GTX 1070 Ti locking in frames (bought it for $369 on NewEgg in a promo sale). Said 1070 Ti doesn't even need to breathe hard. Minimum FPS never comes close to hitting 75 FPS. Not only is it 30+% faster, but it also consumes nearly 20% less power under load than this card. Yeah, that's worth the extra $80 for my 1070 Ti in my book. You get what you pay for. I really hope AMD starts using some of their Ryzen revenue that they've been taking in for - nearly three years now mind you and not including their revenue stream from game console APUs - into upping their dedicated GPU game. Because they have a long way to go to match Nvidia in the upper tiers where the real price margin revenue is made. Nobody makes money on low and mid range GPUs where AMD has always targeted.eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
You are missing the point here, Lisa Su said that decision are took 3-5 years in advance for their roadmap.Polaris was already a thing and just making a 12 nm was an easy thing to do and was filling a gap.
People tend to forget that the 8GB RX 580 MSRP is actually 240$, not 200$ which is for the 4GB version. 30$ more is not such a step and still the cost per FPS is one of the lowest.
With a 100$+ of game bundle to add to it, there is no question that the value is there.
Flunk - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Slightly overclocked RX 480 from two years ago? Wake me when AMD actually releases a new GPU.Cyborg997 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Can't believe this s*** with an AMD. 3 years with the same chips. What the f*** please give us something worth our money. Still have my Fury 9 runningAssimilator87 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
While everyone upped their resolution to UHD, I went the opposite direction and am running a CRT at 720p. My 7970's still running strong lol. CPU market is fire right now, but GPUs so boring =\piroroadkill - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
So it sits somewhere between the 1060 6GB and 1070, most of the time closer to the former, and yet consumes a lot more power than either card. No thanks. People don't want noisy, hot systems these days without actually getting some performance to back it up.eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
It is actually quieter... check higher... seriously... people.Lolimaster - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
It's really sad that 2 years after, performance per dollar went down.2 years more and we will have an APU with similar power than the RX580 on a $150 chip...
ItsAlive - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Now undervolt and overclock that gtx 1060, Mine was able to drop over 100mv, lowered power limit to 75%, but still overclocked 200/400 core/mem clocks and uses 75w max at full load. Temps typically run mid 60s with stock fan settings and its near silent. Its a mini card that is probably 1/3 the size of the RX590 and I bought it over a year ago for $250.If a stock gtx1060 uses typcially 120 watts max (mine would before the undervolt), then total system power for an undervolted card according to the charts in the article would look like this:
GTX1060/RX590/Fatboy
--------------------------------
BF1: 210w/363w/379w
Furmark: 206w/330w/362w
I would be interested to see an undervolted RX590 vs undervolted GTX1060 for a better comparison.
deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
It would be an unfair comparison because AMD is using GLOFO 12nm LP node designed for low clocks and mobile parts, whereas NV is using TSMC 16nm high performance process designed for high clocks and efficiency.You can't compare the two back to back and NV would still win in such a situation.
But, for the sake of argument, a Polish website (at least I think it was Polish) apparently managed to undervolt RX 590 just recently and total power consumption dropped by 34W.
Here's the website:
https://pclab.pl/art79190-20.html
Polaris power consumption problems stem from a combination of problems:
1. (and this would be the biggest) GLOFO 14nm/12nm process nodes designed for low clocks and mobile parts (not worth it even raising frequencies on 12nm because as we saw, both Ryzen+ and Polaris were already boosting WAY past the GLOFO node 'comfort zone' to the point efficiency was thrown out the window.
2. lower yields on GLOFO nodes contributed towards lack of voltage optimisation resulting in higher maximum voltages on GPU's shipping from factory.
3. Excessive amount of compute hardware. Polaris has powerful compute which is not really used in games, and this hardware does suck up a lot of power, and Polaris in general has about 40% more stream processors than Pascal has CUDA cores.
Kurosaki - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I still don't see any incitement to upgrade from my 290X, sad in a way.. : /eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Vega 56 if they are on sale for the right price...However yeah, no reason to change.
The_Assimilator - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
*sound of dead horse being beaten*Santoval - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
How long will AMD keep squeezing the blood out of Polaris? They have practically abandoned their GPU division, their mainstream one anyway. A single refresh could be occasionally justified, but a refresh-squared of the same GPU (or GPU series) equates with rebranding.I realize that they overwhelmingly focused on their CPU and APU division in order to compete with Intel, and that drew resources and engineers from the GPU division. But competition is required in the GPU market as well, or else Nvidia will keep charging an arm and a leg for their graphics cards.
samal90 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
you didn't mention in the Wolfenstein 2 page, that the RX590 performs like a GTX 1070. It's an interesting observation that should be investigated.deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Probably because the game is well optimised for AMD hardware (a situation which is all too uncommon).But AMD's main problems stem from using an inefficient GLOFO nodes.
14nm and 12nm were both designed for low clocks and mobile parts... this is why we see massive increase in power consumption for Polaris at high frequencies... because the GPU is clocked WAY past the voltage comfort zone where it would be efficient.
TSMC nodes are designed for high clocks and efficiency... and as such, they WILL have an advantage in clocks and power consumption.
DominionSeraph - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
Does this win the award for most pointless launch of all time? Anyone who was in the market for a GTX 970/1060 class GPU in the GTX 970/1060 price range probably bought a GTX 970 or GTX 1060 already. Releasing a more power hungry card over 4 years late doesn't really seem like it's going to move the market.When Nvidia was 6 months late with the housefire GTX 480 they at least had the performance crown compared to the 5870. This is 4 years late and has nothing.
spdfreak - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link
Seems like a used RX 480 8GB is probably the best value out there for 1080 gaming. Plenty of them for about 100.00 on ebay. I keep looking for the price of 1060 6GB cards to come down now that there is a glut of them, but they stay stubbornly high.neblogai - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
RX570s are about as fast as RX480, but start at ~$150. They are new, come with warranty, and with 2 AAA games which can be considered to be worth ~$120 if you want them, or ~$60 for reselling. RX570 is a better deal.AMD#1 - Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - link
Well, they released a card this year for the consumer market. My hopes are that Navi will be a better option against NVIDIA RTX, good that Radeon will not support RT. Let NVIDIA first support DX12 with hardware shader units, instead of hanging on to DYING DX11.silverblue - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
A couple of reviews seem to be showing the Fatboy at similar power consumption (or slightly higher) levels to the 580 Nitro+ (presumably the 1450MHz version) and Red Devil Golden Sample. That's not so bad when you factor in the significantly increased clocks, but the two 580s hardly sipped power to begin with, and basic 580s don't really perform much worse for what would be much lower power consumption. AMD has a product that kind of bridges the gap between the 1060 and the 1070, but uses more power than a 1080... hardly envious, really. The Fatboy has rather poor thermals as well if you don't ramp the fan speed up.The 590s we're getting are clocked aggressively on core but not on memory; what would really be interesting is a 590 clocked at 580 levels, even factory overclocked 580 levels. Would it be worth getting a 590 just to undervolt and underclock the core, make use of the extra game in the bundle (once they launch, that is), and essentially be running a more efficient 580? I'd be tempted to overclock the memory at the same time as that appears to be where the 580 is being held back, not core speed.
silverblue - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
I'll be fair to the Fatboy; it does have a zero RPM mode which would explain the thermals.WaltC - Sunday, December 2, 2018 - link
I just bought a Fatboy...to run in X-fire with my year-old 8GB RX-480 (1.305GHz stock)...! As I am now gaming at 3840x2160, it seemed a worthwhile alternative to dropping $500+ on a single GPU. Paid $297 @ NewEgg & got the 3-game bundle. I read one review by a guy who X-fired a 580 with a 480 without difficulty--and the performance scaled from 70%-90% better when X-Fire is supported. Wouldn't recommend buying two 590's at one time, of course, but for people who already own a 480/580, the X-Fire alternative is the most cost-effective route at present. Gaming sites seem to have forgotten about X-Fire these days, for some reason. Of course, the nVidia 1060 doesn't allow for SLI--so that might be one reason, I suppose. Still, it's kind of baffling as the X-Fire mode seems like such a no brainer. And for those titles that will not X-fire, I'll just run them all @ 1.6GHz on the 590...Until next year when AMD's next < $300 GPU launches...! Then, I may have to think again!quadibloc - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Oh, so Global Foundries does now have a 12 nm process? I'm glad they're doing something a little better than 14 nm at least.