New AMD Polaris based GPU

[kawi6rr]

oh should I say "That made me laugh pretty hard" ? You live in Your country , what country do you live? in my country , energy is extremely cheap, so yeah many buyers don't care about power consumption ,This card will be sold out , whether you like or not.

I was just wondering what they were novice about? I don't care if the card sells out I hope it does so my AMD stock keep strong

 

[PhonakV30]

like I said you live in your country but I live other.so different matter.many of people that I read on forum/market , don't know much about PC.I live in Asia not EU.

 

[Qwertilot]

Will? Are you saying something is going to change?

Soonish anyway - Toms are saying that NV are going to stop producing Pascal this quarter, so either price cuts/improved replacements from Turing at some point once the inventory is gone.

 

[DeathReborn]

Cheapest GTX 1070 = £380 (UK price)

Cheapest RX 590 Red Devil = £250 (UK Price)

130 pounds more for ~15% higher performance and without the 3 games bundle

I know you aren't used to that site but it updates pricing every 2 hours, there's a 170 ITX for £353 now: https://skinflint.co.uk/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-mini-itx-oc-gv-n1070ixoc-8gd-a1469089.html?hloc=uk and Amazon did some Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse for £299 earlier today as part of Black Friday sales (normally £420).

 

[neblogai]

For Perf/$ and Perf/W it's a bad choice, just like the 9Gbps 1060 is a bad choice for Perf/$, after all the 1070 is only £60 more than the 1060 9Gbps and 590 only £23 less. The gap between the 580 & 590 is just too big. Not everyone cares about the game bundle, some will just discard them or ignore them.

If a person does not care about picking up a game bundle that retails for €150-180- so can probably be resold for €70-90- then that 1€/month increase in power bill is the least of his worries.

 

[neblogai]

I know you aren't used to that site but it updates pricing every 2 hours, there's a 170 ITX for £353 now: https://skinflint.co.uk/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-mini-itx-oc-gv-n1070ixoc-8gd-a1469089.html?hloc=uk and Amazon did some Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse for £299 earlier today as part of Black Friday sales (normally £420).

Amazon does not give games- but Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse is available for the same £299 (but with game bundle) at Overclockers.uk

 

[Justinbaileyman]

So, I am sure everyone here is gonna tell me how stupid I am specially after me bad mouthing AMD for this release.... But I went out and purchased a Red Devil rx 590 today from Newegg.
Not so much for the GPU it self, but for the game bundle.
After the launch I thought about it for a couple days and I would have purchased these games at $59 a pop + Tax anyways and after that amount is deducted from the total cost it was like getting a GPU for $99 bucks so I said what the heck why not..
Now wondering if its possible to crossfire these 590's and picking another one up a little later down the road should be considered or did they cut this option out of these cards??
What do you guys think and did anyone else snag one?

 

[JustMe21]

The RX 580s let you pick 2 of the 3 games and they even have an 8 GB card for $199.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I know I looked at all the 580's before I decided on the 590. Totally awesome deal on 580's right now, but I am greedy when it comes to games and I really wanted all 3!!
Also, do you guys know how long its supposed to take to get my digital coupon email for my 3 free games??
My GPU is already showing shipped but I didnt get any game codes email like I was supposed to.
Should I contact Newegg right away??

 

[AtenRa]

Will? Are you saying something is going to change?

What im saying is that if you lower the performance of the RX 590 to the level of the GTX1060, then perf/watt is going up significantly.

 

[AtenRa]

1060 / 1070 is also less power hungry.

Nobody said otherwise, but 1060 is slower and 1070 is 30-40% more expensive than RX 590. If you also include the 3 games bundle then the price of the card is going down significantly.

As for the 100W difference in power usage between the GTX 1060 and RX 590, if we actually game for 3 hours every day the cost of ownership is £1.2 per month (UK £0.14 per Wh). That is a small price to pay for getting higher performance + 3 free games than the GTX 1060.

 

[beginner99]

Seeing the player earlier constitutes a minuscule fraction of the time out of the overall reaction time it takes to process and respond to the player movement. After you see the image your eyes track the player's anticipated position based on movement, which takes 100ms, and then your muscles react by clicking on the button to fire upon the enemy. 5ms does nothing if your eyes and muscles cannot react quickly after you see the image.

And I did say "everything else being equal" hence your whole list is irrelevant. I mean i understand your point. Skill matters. But so does hardware. The best driver won't win F1 in a shitty car. I mean why do the teams invest 2 digit millions per year in aerodynamcis to make the car 500ms faster per lap? Because it pays off.

[QUOTE="tamz_msc, post: 39650633, member: 376909" CS:GO players play at 500 fps so as to reduce input latency, not because they wish to have a 5ms advantage in seeing other players.[/QUOTE]

And why do they want to reduce input latency? So that they get to see the image sooner than their opponent. The whole point of low input latency is to get to see the image sooner so you can react sooner. You actually are arguing for my point.

 

[tamz_msc]

And I did say "everything else being equal" hence your whole list is irrelevant. I mean i understand your point. Skill matters. But so does hardware. The best driver won't win F1 in a shitty car. I mean why do the teams invest 2 digit millions per year in aerodynamcis to make the car 500ms faster per lap? Because it pays off.



And why do they want to reduce input latency? So that they get to see the image sooner than their opponent. The whole point of low input latency is to get to see the image sooner so you can react sooner. You actually are arguing for my point.

To be able to see the image sooner isn't the whole point of reducing input latency. Lower input latency resulting from lower frame-to-frame latency is not just required for faster reaction times, it also helps by having more frames to work with in a given time interval so that tracking of enemies becomes easier. In a game like CS:GO, which is all about your aim, this ability to have smoother tracking due to high frame rates is more important than the ability to see an image sooner(which is not directly a function of your monitor).

Like I explained previously if 5ms is the delta between seeing an image between two individuals, then the additional time taken for processing the image and responding to it is at least an order of magnitude higher than 5ms, and individual variances in reaction times dictates that the overall time taken to react will never be equal, and any advantage of 5ms in seeing the image won't matter since 5ms is well within the error margin of reaction times.

 

[ItsAlive]

If they would remove the "$150" game bundle (yeah right) and sell the RX 590 for $130, I'd buy one.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

As for the 100W difference in power usage between the GTX 1060 and RX 590, if we actually game for 3 hours every day the cost of ownership is £1.2 per month (UK £0.14 per Wh). That is a small price to pay for getting higher performance + 3 free games than the GTX 1060.

You're right. With power consumption, it's important to keep things in perspective. A 100W difference isn't going to break the bank or anything with -normal- usage. It -makes- a difference if you do nothing else then game 8-10 hours a day, but then you might have other financial issues...

Electricity is quite a bit more expensive here in Denmark then the UK price you quoted. As of writing about 2x (~2.5DKK / ~£0.29 KWh) more in fact. So the cost difference would be around 22DKK a month. In other words about half of a pint of beer in Copenhagen...

 

[LTC8K6]

Nobody said otherwise, but 1060 is slower and 1070 is 30-40% more expensive than RX 590. If you also include the 3 games bundle then the price of the card is going down significantly.

As for the 100W difference in power usage between the GTX 1060 and RX 590, if we actually game for 3 hours every day the cost of ownership is £1.2 per month (UK £0.14 per Wh). That is a small price to pay for getting higher performance + 3 free games than the GTX 1060.

Exactly. Hopefully you always hold the position that 100 watts more for a computer component is insignificant.

Many posters seem to change their view according to which manufacturer needs the extra wattage.

 

[AtenRa]

Exactly. Hopefully you always hold the position that 100 watts more for a computer component is insignificant.

Many posters seem to change their view according to which manufacturer needs the extra wattage.

Depends on the conversation each time, when we are talking technically about the chips architecture and manufacturing process we care about the 100 more watts, but when we are talking as consumers/gamers the 100W more power is not that important for the majority of the Gamers.

So, if we talk technically about the efficiency of the Polaris 30 chip manufactured at GloFos 12nm we care about the 100W more power it uses in relation to the Pascal GP106 chip manufactured at TSMC 16nm.

But when we are talking about the Graphics Cards (RX 590 vs GTX 1060) as gamers, the 100W more power is not that important because most of the time the user is focusing on the performance of the card. There are people that may chose the lower power card but the vast majority will/should not be concerned about the power usage especially when the more power hungry card is also faster and comes with a game bundle.

 

[whm1974]

Depends on the conversation each time, when we are talking technically about the chips architecture and manufacturing process we care about the 100 more watts, but when we are talking as consumers/gamers the 100W more power is not that important for the majority of the Gamers.

So, if we talk technically about the efficiency of the Polaris 30 chip manufactured at GloFos 12nm we care about the 100W more power it uses in relation to the Pascal GP106 chip manufactured at TSMC 16nm.

But when we are talking about the Graphics Cards (RX 590 vs GTX 1060) as gamers, the 100W more power is not that important because most of the time the user is focusing on the performance of the card. There are people that may chose the lower power card but the vast majority will/should not be concerned about the power usage especially when the more power hungry card is also faster and comes with a game bundle.

Actually that highly depends on the size of the case and what wattage your PSU is. My 970 produce way less heat and uses less power then my 760 then it replaced.

One reason I would get the 1060(6GB) is that they can come in mini form factors that will fit in smaller MicroATX miniTower cases.

 

[AtenRa]

Actually that highly depends on the size of the case and what wattage your PSU is. My 970 produce way less heat and uses less power then my 760 then it replaced.

I have shown above that you can use the same 430W PSU with both the RX 590 and GTX 1060.

One reason I would get the 1060(6GB) is that they can come in mini form factors that will fit in smaller MicroATX miniTower cases.

This is the beauty of the competition, we have more choices , in your case the mini form factor GTX 1060 but for others the faster RX 590. There is no one card to rule them all, each of the two cards have their strengths and lows and depends of each gamers needs what they will choose.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I'm just glad there are signs of life over at RTG. Good to see them put *something* out, even if it's just them trying to get water out of a Polaris chip at this point.

 

[whm1974]

I'm just glad there are signs of life over at RTG. Good to see them put *something* out, even if it's just them trying to get water out of a Polaris chip at this point.

Given that the Ryzen APUs iGPUs are Vega Based, it seems to be going rather backwards to release an improved Polaris at this time.

 

[Borealis7]

EDIT: n/m new forums tricked me

 

[coercitiv]

But when we are talking about the Graphics Cards (RX 590 vs GTX 1060) as gamers, the 100W more power is not that important because most of the time the user is focusing on the performance of the card. There are people that may chose the lower power card but the vast majority will/should not be concerned about the power usage especially when the more power hungry card is also faster and comes with a game bundle.

I beg to disagree: those 100W extra watts are not just a few nickels and dimes in extra electricity cost, they also come with extra heat in the case and more importantly a more costly cooling solution. (both for the build in question, and more importantly for the card itself)

A better balanced card that doesn't require fat coolers is a far more sensible proposition even if it means loosing 5-10% performance, and especially considering such a card comes with some overclocking headroom. When it comes to pricing, the RX 590 needs to breathe in the neck of RX 580 in order for the power/performance compromise to make sense.

Here's how all this translated in real world problems, as reported by TomsHardware in their RX 590 Fatboy review:

The 245W we measure during FurMark is ultimately only constrained by XFX’s power limit and the cooler’s inability to keep up. Spikes as high as 300W are downright unbecoming of a mainstream graphics card.

So the card consumes ~240W in games and ~245W under torture, and is mainly limited by the cooler's inability to take it further. This means overclocking on the RX 590 is mostly a no go, which further erodes it's value proposition compared to RX 580 and GTX 1060. We might be able to get some breathing space by undervolting and overclocking, but I won't hold my breath for a meaningful jump in performance.

For the power consumption we measured, XFX’s cooler really does seem to be a limiting factor. Something larger (and quieter) would have certainly helped. To be sure, a constant 1580 MHz is only possible in a really well-ventilated case.

The card only maintained 1527Mhz boost clock while running inside a closed case.

So maybe the fans should run faster:

Faced with a real-world gaming workload, the fans gradually ramp up over 15 minutes to just under 2000 RPM, maintaining a temperature just over 80 degrees Celsius. They don’t need to spin nearly as fast in an open case, where temperatures level off around 79 degrees.

There are no reserves to adjust the fans down a bit. Rather, you may feel compelled to turn them up for more cooling. Unfortunately, noise becomes an issue not long after.

Maybe the XFX card isn't the best example to showcase the best side of the RX 590, but it certainly does the job in highlighting what pushing the chip to it's limits will do to secondary objectives such as noise, overclocking and required case cooling.


PS: Imagine Nvidia came up with a leaky GTX 1060Ti that ran 10% faster than RX 590 for the same price, while using 280W. Would that card make sense to gamers?

 

[aleader]

I beg to disagree: those 100W extra watts are not just a few nickels and dimes in extra electricity cost, they also come with extra heat in the case and more importantly a more costly cooling solution. (both for the build in question, and more importantly for the card itself)

A better balanced card that doesn't require fat coolers is a far more sensible proposition even if it means loosing 5-10% performance, and especially considering such a card comes with some overclocking headroom. When it comes to pricing, the RX 590 needs to breathe in the neck of RX 580 in order for the power/performance compromise to make sense.

This is what I lean towards myself. I just don't trust a card longterm that uses so much power. I want AMD to compete as much as anyone, but it's like rewarding a company for gross inefficiency. If I were buying right now (and couldn't get the deal that I did on a new 1070 for $288), I think I'd go straight for the 1070 ti. Sure, it's $80 to $100 more, but performance-wise and overclockability-wise, the 1070 ti has a lot more upside. I know the 590 is not looking to compete with the 1070 ti, but the 1070 ti gives roughly 40% more performance (at 1440p) for 29% higher price (ATM), and uses about 70w less power than the 590 when gaming. Hopefully the 590 will force Nvidia cards down in price a bit more.

 

[AtenRa]

HardOCP managed to OC the XFX FatBoy to 1670MHz for the core and 9.2GHz on the memory.

They also OCed the EVGA GTX 1060 SSC GAMING to 2152MHz

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/11/15/xfx_radeon_rx_590_fatboy_oc_video_card_review/5

After both cards were oced to maximum the 590 was up to 20% faster than the OCed GTX 1060.