[Rumor, Tweaktown] AMD to launch next-gen Navi graphics cards at E3

[Glo.]

If the rumors are correct and 5500 XT is GTX 1660 performance with 8 GB's of VRAM and 179$ - its not a bad deal.

 

[lifeblood]

I wouldn't call matching performance/watt with a node advanatge as "good architecture"...

From the TPU review of the oem RX 5500:

"AMD's aging Radeon RX 580 is 2% faster than the RX 5500, which isn't much. What makes this an impressive feat is that the RX 5500 achieves the same performance with a much smaller silicon die (= cheaper), and it does so with almost half the power consumed (= less heat/noise)."

 

[mohit9206]

From the TPU review of the oem RX 5500:

"AMD's aging Radeon RX 580 is 2% faster than the RX 5500, which isn't much. What makes this an impressive feat is that the RX 5500 achieves the same performance with a much smaller silicon die (= cheaper), and it does so with almost half the power consumed (= less heat/noise)."

And half the vram too which negates all the advantage

 

[beginner99]

Navi has better Perf:Watt than Polaris or Vega.

Obviously I meant compared to Nvidia.

AMD's aging Radeon RX 580 is 2% faster than the RX 5500, which isn't much. What makes this an impressive feat is that the RX 5500 achieves the same performance with a much smaller silicon die (= cheaper)

see above. What matters is the competition not your own old products.

And a smaller die on 7nm isn't nesseraly cheaper than a slightly bigger 14nm one.

 

[lifeblood]

see above. What matters is the competition not your own old products.

Quite true, and it's intended competition, the GTX 1650 (non-Super), is clearly beaten by the 5500.

Of course, "intended competition" is irrelevant unless they cost around the same. With the 1650 at $150 and the 1650 Super at $160, the 5500 XT can't cost $200 or even $180 and still be said to be competing with the 1650 (at least not with a straight face).

 

[AtenRa]

From the TPU review of the oem RX 5500:

"AMD's aging Radeon RX 580 is 2% faster than the RX 5500, which isn't much. What makes this an impressive feat is that the RX 5500 achieves the same performance with a much smaller silicon die (= cheaper), and it does so with almost half the power consumed (= less heat/noise)."

Polaris 10 (RX480/580) and Polaris 30 (RX590) has 5.7B transistors.

NAVI 14 has 6.4B transistors and a fab advantage and yet cannot even reach RX590 performance.

If the performance of the RX5500XT is not at least on par with the RX590 and at way lower power , then this is technically a disaster.

 

[lifeblood]

Polaris 10 (RX480/580) and Polaris 30 (RX590) has 5.7B transistors.

NAVI 14 has 6.4B transistors and a fab advantage and yet cannot even reach RX590 performance.

If the performance of the RX5500XT is not at least on par with the RX590 and at way lower power , then this is technically a disaster.

I don't think 5500 XT will reach RX 590 level of performance, only RX 580 levels, but at a little more than half the power (which it almost does already). I just don't see how 4 more GB of vram and a minor 30 MHz bump to clocks is going to result in all that more performance than what we see already.

I'm more concerned with perf/price rather than perf/watt. RX 480 was $239 at launch, RX 580 was $229 at launch, and RX 590 was $279 at launch. In comparison, RX 5500 XT is launching at... um, yea. Lets shelve this one until next week when we know what AMD is charging.

 

[Kippa]

Sorry I am not up to date with the current tech, when is the large Navi card due?

 

[insertcarehere]

The OEM cards are AMD Reference models, the drivers were provided by AMD (so if they aren't good enough blame AMD) & the performance difference between Reference & AIB is what, 3-5%? That will take it to 1650S/1660 performance levels & not 1660S levels but for more power and a higher price (if $179+ is the price).

Way more power, with the voltages needed to get 2ghz I wouldn't be surprised if this card is at 140-150w.

 

[beginner99]

orry I am not up to date with the current tech, when is the large Navi card due?

Does it matter really? Not that man people have free arms and legs to give away.

If 5500XT launches at $199 it's just utter failure performance/$ wise.

 

[uzzi38]

Does it matter really? Not that man people have free arms and legs to give away.

If 5500XT launches at $199 it's just utter failure performance/$ wise.

Erm, did you just quote the wrong guy?

Anywho, @Kippa - expect H2 2020.

 

[Kippa]

Thanks Uzzi38 for the feedback. I am just out of the loop when it comes to graphics cards. I did have an Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell) and it played 4K games alright with no AA. That card managed to last me 4 1/2 years which in gaming cards was bloody good. Currently I have a temprary gfx card to make me last, but I want to get a high end card again to last me a fair few years (with AA off to help). I wouldn't have minded going for another Titan again although the prices of both the Titan and 2080ti are insane, bad enough for me to consider going for a high end AMD card. I was thinking of getting a Radeon VII but it is an old card and there will be a new one comming out soon. If AMD release the sucessor to the Radeon VII and it isn't insanely priced the I will be going over to AMD for the first time for a high end card.

Just for your information the Titan X (maxwell) that lasted me 4 1/2 years cost me £800 which considering the fact that it lasted so many years turned out to be a rather good investment. 2080ti and Titan RTX are too overpriced and I don't think I will get that many years out of them if I did buy either of them, not a good investment.

 

[Stuka87]

Thanks Uzzi38 for the feedback. I am just out of the loop when it comes to graphics cards. I did have an Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell) and it played 4K games alright with no AA. That card managed to last me 4 1/2 years which in gaming cards was bloody good. Currently I have a temprary gfx card to make me last, but I want to get a high end card again to last me a fair few years (with AA off to help). I wouldn't have minded going for another Titan again although the prices of both the Titan and 2080ti are insane, bad enough for me to consider going for a high end AMD card. I was thinking of getting a Radeon VII but it is an old card and there will be a new one comming out soon. If AMD release the sucessor to the Radeon VII and it isn't insanely priced the I will be going over to AMD for the first time for a high end card.

Just for your information the Titan X (maxwell) that lasted me 4 1/2 years cost me £800 which considering the fact that it lasted so many years turned out to be a rather good investment. 2080ti and Titan RTX are too overpriced and I don't think I will get that many years out of them if I did buy either of them, not a good investment.

I would not say you need a high end card to last several years. Games have slowed down in regards to system requirements, and GPU releases have also slowed down. I am still using my RX480 that I bought the day it came out and I play every game I choose to play. Now, yes I play at 1080, so that helps. But, my point is you don't have to go super high end to get more life. Now if you can wait a year, and can budget a lot of money, awesome. I don't think big Navi will cost what a 2080Ti does, but its still going to be a lot. Something like a 5700XT or 2070 Super may be a good choice if you want something sooner.

 

[Glo.]

I don't think big Navi will cost what a 2080Ti does, but its still going to be a lot. Something like a 5700XT or 2070 Super may be a good choice if you want something sooner.

AMD currently matches the prices of Nvidia, if they have competitive product. It will not change with RTX 2080 Ti competitor, if such GPU exists.

 

[CastleBravo]

Thanks Uzzi38 for the feedback. I am just out of the loop when it comes to graphics cards. I did have an Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell) and it played 4K games alright with no AA. That card managed to last me 4 1/2 years which in gaming cards was bloody good. Currently I have a temprary gfx card to make me last, but I want to get a high end card again to last me a fair few years (with AA off to help). I wouldn't have minded going for another Titan again although the prices of both the Titan and 2080ti are insane, bad enough for me to consider going for a high end AMD card. I was thinking of getting a Radeon VII but it is an old card and there will be a new one comming out soon. If AMD release the sucessor to the Radeon VII and it isn't insanely priced the I will be going over to AMD for the first time for a high end card.

Just for your information the Titan X (maxwell) that lasted me 4 1/2 years cost me £800 which considering the fact that it lasted so many years turned out to be a rather good investment. 2080ti and Titan RTX are too overpriced and I don't think I will get that many years out of them if I did buy either of them, not a good investment.

I'm in the same boat with a 980ti I bought over 4 years ago for $580. Nothing short of a ~$300 RX 5700 offers any improvement, especially with my 1400+ mhz overclock on the core. I'm hoping for CES in January to provide some good info on what high end GPUs are on the horizon.

 

[RetroZombie]

Just to be fair RX5500 and RX580 don't belong to the same segment.
With any past card the new gen normally performs about the same of the upper segment gen, and that's with Nvidia or AMD cards, for example Nvidia GTX670 > GTX580.
So I fail to understand posts like the AtenRa unless I'm missing something, because if he is right than someone tell Nvidia or AMD to only release new products that outperform the previous highest performing model.

 

[DeathReborn]

Just to be fair RX5500 and RX580 don't belong to the same segment.
With any past card the new gen normally performs about the same of the upper segment gen, and that's with Nvidia or AMD cards, for example Nvidia GTX670 > GTX580.
So I fail to understand posts like the AtenRa unless I'm missing something, because if he is right than someone tell Nvidia or AMD to only release new products that outperform the previous highest performing model.

I think it's more the fact that with more transistors it doesn't outperform the last gen's 1080p card and is priced (if rumored pricing is true) poorly to boot. I don't think people are expecting Vega 56 performance from the 5500 as AMD placed it against the 1650 & compared it to the 480 in pre-release marketing materials. Some people are expecting miracles from the 5500XT, others a disaster but I think it'll be just mildly disappointing, not moving Perf/$ at all.

 

[lifeblood]

If 5500XT launches at $199 it's just utter failure performance/$ wise.

Absolutely agree. The 4GB model needs to be $150-$160. While the 8GB model can be $20-$30 more.

Of course, in fairness we have to remember that there are a lot of 570/580’s still that need to be sold. They may initially charge more for 5500 then lower it once the stock of Polaris is gone.

 

[Mopetar]

Absolutely agree. The 4GB model needs to be $150-$160. While the 8GB model can be $20-$30 more.

Of course, in fairness we have to remember that there are a lot of 570/580’s still that need to be sold. They may initially charge more for 5500 then lower it once the stock of Polaris is gone.

The only way those get sold is if they get discounted themselves. And the problem is that because the performance is so similar that there isn’t a lot of room for pricing the replacement parts.

But AMD have always had this problem for the last few generations where they’re late to the party. The 5500 may well have been a great foil to the 1650, but because AMD took so long to release it NVidia has not only been able to counter AMD but stolen any thunder they might have gained if they did release this card against the 1650.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Absolutely agree. The 4GB model needs to be $150-$160. While the 8GB model can be $20-$30 more.

Of course, in fairness we have to remember that there are a lot of 570/580’s still that need to be sold. They may initially charge more for 5500 then lower it once the stock of Polaris is gone.

-In all fairness, AMD should have it's internal timelines straight and EOL cards at the appropriate time or accept they'll have to eat a write-off or even a buy-back for unsold inventory to reinforce the launches of their new products.

The only way AMD can be sitting on a bunch of unsold 5xx series cards would be leftovers from the mining bust, which would also be bonkers if they screwed up the math on that so badly that it's still affecting them.

Everything NV does reinforces their brand image as the Premium, high quality option (even if it's things people don't like) while a lot of stuff AMD does reinforces the notion that they're the budget second player in the market.

 

[RetroZombie]

They should have created a 'new line' specially for the OEMs, and bring all the unsold Polaris and Vega stuff there, some RX6xx line:
Vega 64 = RX690
Vega 56 = RX680
RX580/590 = RX670
RX570 = RX660
RX560 = RX650
RX550 = RX640
....
The thing I miss even more is for the nom gamers what card cards should I recommend for the AMD/Intel cpus with no integraded graphics. The Nvidia GT610/710/730 are all junk, the GT1030 is overpriced, AMD has even worst which is the Radeon R5 230...

 

[DeathReborn]

They should have created a 'new line' specially for the OEMs, and bring all the unsold Polaris and Vega stuff there, some RX6xx line:
Vega 64 = RX690
Vega 56 = RX680
RX580/590 = RX670
RX570 = RX660
RX560 = RX650
RX550 = RX640
....
The thing I miss even more is for the nom gamers what card cards should I recommend for the AMD/Intel cpus with no integraded graphics. The Nvidia GT610/710/730 are all junk, the GT1030 is overpriced, AMD has even worst which is the Radeon R5 230...

Older drivers did have RX640 (RX550X) & RX630 (RX540X) listed but I have no idea what happened if anything.
TechPowerUp - AMD Readies Radeon RX 640, an RX 550X Re-brand

 

[railven]

Just to be fair RX5500 and RX580 don't belong to the same segment.
With any past card the new gen normally performs about the same of the upper segment gen, and that's with Nvidia or AMD cards, for example Nvidia GTX670 > GTX580.
So I fail to understand posts like the AtenRa unless I'm missing something, because if he is right than someone tell Nvidia or AMD to only release new products that outperform the previous highest performing model.

The core issue here is AMD increased the price of their cards as a counter to NV's. If you go back to what was it 2012? When the GTX 680 launched at $500 and on the technical side it should have been the $300 GTX x60 replacement NOT the $500 GTX x80 replacement. NV got egg on their face, but luckily for them AMD's own gaff of increasing the price of their X790 card from ~$380 to $550 with the HD 7970 NV saved face and out performing it for less left AMD holding the bag.

Fast forward to these cards where you can even see it in this thread, people were asking if AMD prices their clearly RX x80 replacement at $400+ where does that leave the RX x60 and lower cards' eventual replacement?

AMD is showing they are going to price match NV and consumers be damned. Only issue is NV can stack the SKUs in their favor where as AMD's second GPU will have to trade blows with NV's already over saturated line up and their own previous line up that already covered the hole these replacements are intended to compete in. Throw in the node difference and you got AtenRa's post.

If the x80 replacements doubled in price, of course the x60 replacements will also double in price. And here we are.

 

[lifeblood]

Older drivers did have RX640 (RX550X) & RX630 (RX540X) listed but I have no idea what happened if anything.
TechPowerUp - AMD Readies Radeon RX 640, an RX 550X Re-brand

They released an OEM only RX 600 series about a year ago which was just the RX 500 series but with the newest drivers (yes, that really was their official justification). I remember commenting that all I had to do was update my drivers and I could update my signature below to RX 670.

 

[lifeblood]

The only way those get sold is if they get discounted themselves. And the problem is that because the performance is so similar that there isn’t a lot of room for pricing the replacement parts.

But AMD have always had this problem for the last few generations where they’re late to the party. The 5500 may well have been a great foil to the 1650, but because AMD took so long to release it NVidia has not only been able to counter AMD but stolen any thunder they might have gained if they did release this card against the 1650.

While the actual 5500 may (or may not) be a good card, the launch of the card has been a disgraceful disaster. I really can't believe AMD bungled the timeline of this launch so bad. I can only hope the reason was they couldn't get the chips from TSMC in a timely fashion. That is beyond their control and therefore understandable.