New AMD Polaris based GPU

[whm1974]

Are decently new and powerful cards actually affordable now or are the prices still jacked WAY the redacted up because of all the damn miners?

As far as I can tell the mining demand has started to go down but prices are still higher then they should be.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I haven't read this entire thread, but over the last several pages I haven't seen that at all. Most people on the past couple pages (all?) are highly critical of the power consumption.

"don't care even a little bit about how much power their rig uses" seems pretty clear, but maybe I somehow mis-interpreted it.

 

[neblogai]

Wow, power draw 100W over a GTX 1060.

I'll be 100% honest with you. Almost every time something goes mainstream it turns to crap. Gaming... PC building... pop music.. etc. It all follows the same trend once mainstream takes over. Power utilization is important. Calling yourself an enthusiast doesn't excuse the fact that power utilization is an important metric. I can simply crank the wattage by 100W until you clearly accept that there's a certain power utilization that's not acceptable. So, clearly.. it is an important figure. Fastest for the money smacks of consumerism. Who are you competing against? Whose sponsoring you? What's the prize for having the fastest gear? It's like people obsessed with professional grade wares...
...
The bleeding edge doesn't exist. It's a meme. You're the weakest and slowest link in the chain by orders of magnitude.
.

I'm sorry, I don't get the message. Very confuzing to read about power efficiency being important. For whom? I understand it is important for the maker of GPUs and cards, because then you can make faster cards in absolute terms before reaching 300W+, which is hard to cool and can cause inconvenience (heat) to the user. With higher efficiency you can also win competition in laptops. You can make cards cheaper, because they need smaller coolers and less powerful VRMs. But in this topic of RX580- we are talking about the end product and cost to consumer, not how much cheaper it costs to make to the company, or it's advantage in business, right? Because, if we as end consumers look at the benchmarks of GTX1060 vs RX580-590 cards today- cards will often causing similar noise. The 200W- 220W card would only cost extra ~€8-€10 per year for power bill (with 20h gaming per week at €0,1 electricity cost), perform the same or ~10% better, and have Freesync. So if the less efficient side comes with 2-3 new AAA games for the same price- is it efficient for the user to buy a card that offers no better (or worse) user experience, but will save him €10 in electricity cost per year?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

"don't care even a little bit about how much power their rig uses" seems pretty clear, but maybe I somehow mis-interpreted it.

Well for one thing, that was me stating what I hear from people asking me for hardware suggestions. That is hardly a representation of what people are doing "in this thread". Most replies I have read here since NDA lift have been highly critical of power consumption.

Those people who have talked to me have absolutely no bearing on your own agency. Power consumption can, and certainly *should* matter to you if you establish it as a priority. There are already many great options, like the 1060 you have, that have a (I'd daresay perfect) mixture of performance and efficiency given the current technologies available.

But what you have and desire likewise has no bearing on these strangers clamoring for the fastest product for the dollar. For them, at this budget, the 590 is going to be a compelling offer, even if, as I already had stated, the efficiency curves are way off the mark.

I personally don't see any issue with acknowledging the clear faults of this product, while also understanding the market it is targeting. It does not have to be all or nothing.

 

[ub4ty]

I'm sorry, I don't get the message. Very confuzing to read about power efficiency being important. For whom? I understand it is important for the maker of GPUs and cards, because then you can make faster cards in absolute terms before reaching 300W+, which is hard to cool and can cause inconvenience (heat) to the user. With higher efficiency you can also win competition in laptops. You can make cards cheaper, because they need smaller coolers and less powerful VRMs. But in this topic of RX580- we are talking about the end product and cost to consumer, not how much cheaper it costs to make to the company, or it's advantage in business, right? Because, if we as end consumers look at the benchmarks of GTX1060 vs RX580-590 cards today- cards will often causing similar noise. The 200W- 220W card would only cost extra ~€8-€10 per year for power bill (with 20h gaming per week at €0,1 electricity cost), perform the same or ~10% better, and have Freesync. So if the less efficient side comes with 2-3 new AAA games for the same price- is it efficient for the user to buy a card that offers no better (or worse) user experience, but will save him €10 in electricity cost per year?

You get it. You just won't accept it.
Power bill will go up by more than just the power your GPU uses when you consider the additional heat it outputs and your AC bill to cool your house down... Not to mention the discomfort being in a room where you're literally sitting next to a space heater. I run a number of machines and I can see temps climb 0.1*F in real-time if they are on. I care a lot about how much power my components use and how efficient they are. I have a dedicate room cooling solution beyond central A/C. My 1080 doesn't even use 200W.... Of course power to performance ratios matter. They've always mattered for as far back as I can remember even back to 333Mhz Celerons.

If i make the card 400W instead of 200W would you care then? Of course... How bout 600W?
For the same reasons people care about the increments in between. I do have KW consuming machines. Power consumption matters. It matters for the enterprise and it matters for any sensible consumer for the same reasons. A number of consumers aren't sensible which is why they chant the mantra .. just take my money and give me the most. I don't buy products by such rules. I'm not going to buy an inferno because its cheaper.

 

[neblogai]

You get it. You just won't accept it.
Power bill will go up by more than just the power your GPU uses when you consider the additional heat it outputs and your AC bill to cool your house down...
If i make the card 400W instead of 200W would you care then? Of course... How bout 600W?
For the same reasons people care about the increments in between. I do have KW consuming machines. Power consumption matters. It matters for the enterprise and it matters for any sensible consumer for the same reasons. A number of consumers aren't sensible which is why they chant the mantra .. just take my money and give me the most. I don't buy products by such rules. I'm not going to buy an inferno because its cheaper.

Well, where I live- I have to set heating to keep at least 18C for ~5-6 months of the year. So 50-100W extra from a graphic card will not spoil my life, winter or summer. It will actually reduce my gas bill by a few euros. And this topic is about RX580, which is a 175W TDP card, so examples of 400W, 600W or such do not apply at all. As sensible, I see value and user experience. Going for power efficiency 'just because it is better' is not sensible. Well, maybe, going for the best tech, not considering the price/performance, can be considered as an enthusiast thing. But to me- it has a different meaning. I'll give this example: for a space enthusiast, it should not matter, who gets to Mars first- Musk, BluOrigin or whoever else. Instead, he should mostly care about getting there as soon as possible. Now, in every field, tech development is faster, when there is competition. Supporting 'the best tech' in elitist way, not buying smaller competitor stuff even when it offers better user experience and price works against competion, and against tech advancement. In the end- it works even against power efficiency, when market gets stale and the wining party does not have reason to invest in better tech.

 

[linkgoron]

590's perf/watt is just terrible. The "fatboy" 590 has worse perf/watt than Fiji at 1440p and 4k. I'm not even sure why AMD released this card, at least at with its current MSRP. AMD releasing the 590 now probably means that anything better is quite far off.

For AMD, at least the Fatboy manages to beat the 1060 by 10%... however its price/perf is still worse than the 580 and even the 1060.

 

[neblogai]

For AMD, at least the Fatboy manages to beat the 1060 by 10%... however its price/perf is still worse than the 580 and even the 1060.

Not sure why you say that. At least in/around Germany, also in UK- AMD cards are much better deal. For example: cheapest RX580 8 GB is €199 with 2 AAA games, cheapest GTX1060 6GB- €225 and no games, and RX590 Fatboy- is higher quality card, also faster, costs €259 and comes with 3 highest grade upcoming AAA games: https://geizhals.eu/?cat=gra16_512&xf=132_6144#productlist

 

[ub4ty]

Well, where I live- I have to set heating to keep at least 18C for ~5-6 months of the year. So 50-100W extra from a graphic card will not spoil my life, winter or summer. It will actually reduce my gas bill by a few euros. And this topic is about RX580, which is a 175W TDP card, so examples of 400W, 600W or such do not apply at all. As sensible, I see value and user experience. Going for power efficiency 'just because it is better' is not sensible. Well, maybe, going for the best tech, not considering the price/performance, can be considered as an enthusiast thing. But to me- it has a different meaning. I'll give this example: for a space enthusiast, it should not matter, who gets to Mars first- Musk, BluOrigin or whoever else. Instead, he should mostly care about getting there as soon as possible. Now, in every field, tech development is faster, when there is competition. Supporting 'the best tech' in elitist way, not buying smaller competitor stuff even when it offers better user experience and price works against competion, and against tech advancement. In the end- it works even against power efficiency, when market gets stale and the wining party does not have reason to invest in better tech.

Consumerism != enthusiast.
It's quite common now-a-days to conflate the two as people have lost touch with the genuine nature of a lot of things.
Buying high end products doesn't make you an enthusiast.
Technology is a tool. Unless you're a consumer, you don't buy the 'best'... You buy what has the best value and per your needs.
Another thing mainstream technology consumers conflate. Builders of old bought the best because there was literally 100% gains or more each generation. We've hit the wall in many ways. What companies do at such times is market gimmicks and it shows.

A space enthusiast? There's that term again. We've already been to Mars.. Just not in the sexy way that charitans market the idea to people.
We've already been to the moon too. Musk isn't doing anything new.. Just re-marketing the old.. Hype

I'd expect a true 'space enthusiast' to know more about NASA and its history and all of the missions/satellites and research they've conducted on space than some new age hype of commercialized for profit companies that work off the shoulder of their legacy... But you see, mainstream vs. enthusiast.

Instead, he should mostly care about getting there as soon as possible.

NASA's already been there multiple times. If what you're referring to is a manned mission, that actually is not the priority. The priority would be the safety of the crew. Furthermore, since robots by and large can conduct far more work there than a human, it seems we've already solved the enthusiast problem w/ technology. Putting a human being there on an uninhabitable planet is pure hype and mainstream nonsense... Like i said, I'm noting a pattern.

I work in tech and know people at just about every company in tech. Innovation occurs via R&D. It is many times shelved and delayed in order to make more money. So, innovation has nothing to do w/ competition and everything to do w/ steady R&D. Whether or not that comes to market and how its packaged is a business case. There's years of R&D'd tech sitting on shelves awaiting biz dev to give it engineering ok... Why? Because they're busy milking profit off of tech that consumers are willing to buy when there is bad value. If people boycotted the Geforce 20 series for instance, I guarantee you prices would change.

Being an enthusiast has nothing to do w/ buying the latest and greatest. It has everything to do w/ the spirit/nature and foundation of a particular thing and your connectivity to it no matter what hardware you have. Mainstream ideology disagrees and its obvious to see the folly/absurdity in that. Tech innovates and progresses because there's money to be made in more efficient and faster computer hardware. It will always be this way no matter if someone is silly enough to pay double for the flagship or not. Profit could be cut in half and Nvidia would still be innovative. Look at what AMD did w/ far less... The only thing absurd profit margins profit are shareholders. If a company decided to stop innovating because of profit margin compression someone would simply replace them.

Consumerism != Enthusiast.
Less leddit/mainstream and more independent soul searching

 

[ub4ty]

590's perf/watt is just terrible. The "fatboy" 590 has worse perf/watt than Fiji at 1440p and 4k. I'm not even sure why AMD released this card, at least at with its current MSRP. AMD releasing the 590 now probably means that anything better is quite far off.

For AMD, at least the Fatboy manages to beat the 1060 by 10%... however its price/perf is still worse than the 580 and even the 1060.

Mainstream "enthusiast" (consumerist) will buy it just because it's new and "the best". Listen to some of the users here to get an idea who companies design and ship products for.

 

[LTC8K6]

That CPU uses 50 watts more power! What a joke!

Next week:

That GPU uses 50 watts more power? Not bad.

 

[whm1974]

At this point I would be lucky to buy a new video next Xmass. Is 100% increase in performance at the same or lower power draw and at least double the memory, priced at less then $300 too much to ask for? I have a GTX 970.

 

[railven]

Man, this launch really made me sad. I really hope Navi is amazing.

Just about the only positive this launch brings for me is the potential of cheap RE2/DMC5 keys on Ebay. Sort of wish the mining craze was still going a bit because you'd find keys out the wahzoo. I think I paid $15 for Tomb Raider back when it was bundled with I forgot which card...

 

[neblogai]

Consumerism != Enthusiast.
Less leddit/mainstream and more independent soul searching

Sorry, but I find you fighting strawmen, and soul searching more, than thinking or arguing logically in your posts.

But regarding the Polaris30: Here is some very interesting undervolting info. They say, the aim was to drop the voltage while keeping the the clocks the same:
https://pclab.pl/art79190-20.html

 

[railven]

Sorry, but I find you fighting strawmen, and soul searching more, than thinking or arguing logically in your posts.

But regarding the Polaris30: Here is some very interesting undervolting info. They say, the aim was to drop the voltage while keeping the the clocks the same:
https://pclab.pl/art79190-20.html

But I thought power consumption wasn't important?

 

[ub4ty]

Sorry, but I find you fighting strawmen, and soul searching more, than thinking or arguing logically in your posts.

But regarding the Polaris30: Here is some very interesting undervolting info. They say, the aim was to drop the voltage while keeping the the clocks the same:
https://pclab.pl/art79190-20.html

Consumerism is nauseating especially ridiculous justifications.
Pascal still is the flagship line for Nvidia in my opinion.
RX 580 and RX vega for AMD.

Neither company has anything of value to show until they shrink the dies to 7nm process (cut power utilization significantly and bump performance).
The rest is a clown show for the masses.

If you were in the build scene, you'd already be on Pascal/RX Vega/or RX.
+5 years = 2021.

Amd = Navi (7nm)
Nvidia = Once their pull their head out of their behinds and make a good value 7nm GPU.

The rest is noise

 

[ub4ty]

But I thought power consumption wasn't important?

You're not an enthusiast unless you clown around w/ your hardware looking for a sweet spot it should ship with and does in most cases per modern day factory OCs and dynamic OCing/power management chips. You totally can do better

 

[Stuka87]

I highly doubt that I will build a rig that requires a 1000W PSU in order to power the thing...

Your hyperbole is a bit much there

 

[whm1974]

Your hyperbole is a bit much there

It's hardly hyperbole when people are buying such PSUs to power 3 and 4 way Crossfire/SLI setups.

 

[beginner99]

Response time to visual stimuli (human being) : 250ms
Average packet latency : 45ms

Pixel latency : 4-5ms

The bleeding edge doesn't exist. It's a meme. You're the weakest and slowest link in the chain by orders of magnitude.

You clearly have a severe lack of understanding displays and the fact humans response time is irrelevant as it's more or less the same for everyone. If I see my opponent 5ms before he sees me because of my better displays I will win the fight. the 250ms reaction time is equal for both so the person that can react first, wins.

About the display tech I always use the test-ufo moving map test:

Simply said with my screen I can read the street names on the moving map. Just foregt that on any 60 hz screen. And yeah blur matters in gaming.

 

[tamz_msc]

You clearly have a severe lack of understanding displays and the fact humans response time is irrelevant as it's more or less the same for everyone. If I see my opponent 5ms before he sees me because of my better displays I will win the fight. the 250ms reaction time is equal for both so the person that can react first, wins.

About the display tech I always use the test-ufo moving map test:

Simply said with my screen I can read the street names on the moving map. Just foregt that on any 60 hz screen. And yeah blur matters in gaming.

Nobody has 5ms reaction times. An image(if it isn't extremely bright) that persists for only 5ms would not even register in your brain. The moving map test exaggerates blur on text and the kind of blur you observed in it is far different from the kind of blur you typically get in gaming.

 

[AtenRa]

Im sure perf/watt will be a lot different when both 590 and 1060 perform at the same level.

 

[beginner99]

I write:

If I see my opponent 5ms before he sees me because of my better display

You reply

Nobody has 5ms reaction times

Please for once actually read what people post...annoying as hell.

 

[AtenRa]

I have two PCs; one has a 430 watt and one has a 460 watt PSU. Power consumption essentially twice that of the 1060 certainly *does* matter to me. In fact I just bought a 1060 without reservation as to the PSU, but I certainly would not do that with 225 watts for the 590.

According to AT review,

Total system power in BF1 = 379W for the RX 590 Fatboy.

Now since the AT Review system used on the review had a 140W CPU OC to 4.3GHz and 4x 8GB memory dimms with a 1000W PSU, I will say that any 14nm mainstream AMD Ryzen or Intel Coffeelake system will not reach more than 350W total system power use.

With a good 85% power efficient 430W PSU, requiring 350W will be very closely to its pick efficiency curve.

In simple words, RX 590 will be just fine with a 85% 430W PSU assuming you are using a mainstream platform.

edit: And im quite sure that if you lower the performance of the 590 to reach the level of the GTX1060 the total power use of the system will go down significantly. Now add the 3 new games of the package and the RX590 is a very good competitor even if you have small PSUs.

 

[tamz_msc]

Please for once actually read what people post...annoying as hell.

Deciding where to move the eye next after a visual stimulus on its own takes 100-140ms - what do you expect to achieve by seeing an image 5ms earlier than someone else? In a fast-paced game things like aim and skill are much more important than if you are able to see your opponent a few milliseconds before he can see you. So, no you don't win if you can see your opponent 5ms earlier due to your monitor.