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

[lobz]

Like AMD has massively undercut Nvidia, this generation, eh?

If a GPU competing with RTX 2080 Ti from AMD exists it will cost 999$. And then Nvidia will release RTX 2080 Ti Super, to counter it .

a 2080ti super won't be much of a counter to anything that's already at 2080ti level

 

[lobz]

Random is a perfectly valid way of sampling. I suspect the real problem with steam is it doesn't say what you want to hear.

It is not though. I have steam since 2002 because I play CS since 1999. I tell you this much: I participated in the survey at least 30 times, but I have never seen the survey when I had an AMD GPU in my PC. NOT ONCE. Now of course you could say it's confirmation bias, well, yeah right... forgive me when I can't take that thing seriously.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So when 5600XT is about to launch does Nvidia swoop in with GTX 1670 being an RTX 2060 minus the tensor cores? Or only a GTX 1660 Ti Super with the 1660 Super's 14Gbps GDDR6?

 

[Shmee]

I am waiting for the higher end cards.

 

[mohit9206]

So when 5600XT is about to launch does Nvidia swoop in with GTX 1670 being an RTX 2060 minus the tensor cores? Or only a GTX 1660 Ti Super with the 1660 Super's 14Gbps GDDR6?

Maybe just dropping the price of 2060 non super to 300 might do the trick, no need for a new card.

 

[Shmee]

^ A good idea. This makes the 2060 relevant again, and gives us more options at the same time with both it and the 5600 series.

 

[lobz]

^ A good idea. This makes the 2060 relevant again, and gives us more options at the same time with both it and the 5600 series.

What AMD should do is to cut the 5500 XT prices heavily and release this card for $249 AT MOST. But they won't, of course. They seem to be perfectly content with remaining completely irrelevant in 90% of the dGPU space for some enigmatic reason...

What I mean is: if you won't try to go for a disrupting market positioning, thus at least achieving something meaningful (mindshare and market share) that can be profitable for better future products, then why spend soooooo many wafers on these big dies at all, when they could turn into actual profit if they'd be used as Matisse CCDs with much higher yields?

All this fuss, R&D, marketing- and packaging costs and a lot of missed profit (whe the wafers are spent elsewhere) just to be somewhat present on the GPU market? Doesn't seem like a worthwile effort to me. AMD can be very strange.

 

[uzzi38]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211230340515270656

Same CU count as the 5700.

36CUs, 192 bit memory bus, 12Gbps memory and significantly lowered clocks.

 

[Glo.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211230340515270656

Same CU count as the 5700.

36CUs, 192 bit memory bus, 12Gbps memory and significantly lowered clocks.

Power draw of this GPU will be ridiculously low. I was expecting 140W TBP, but with those clocks it can be even lower!

 

[Glo.]

Also, 36 CUs?

RX 5600 might be then 32 CU design. with higher performance than GTX 1660 Ti, while consuming similar amount of power.

 

[lobz]

Power draw of this GPU will be ridiculously low. I was expecting 140W TBP, but with those clocks it can be even lower!

Never underestimate the power draw of AMD GPUs

 

[Glo.]

Never underestimate the power draw of AMD GPUs

Nah. RX 5700 draws something like 30-40W less than RX 5700 XT, with 10% cut down, and 10% lower core clock. GPU with even lower core clocks, and voltages(!), and 10W less because of two less memory chips, you get 130-140W GPU, at least - on paper .

 

[lobz]

Nah. RX 5700 draws something like 30-40W less than RX 5700 XT, with 10% cut down, and 10% lower core clock. GPU with even lower core clocks, and voltages(!), and 10W less because of two less memory chips, you get 130-140W GPU, at least - on paper .

May the prophets speak through you!

 

[AtenRa]

From first look if those specs are true it seems to me that RX5600XT could compete against RTX2060 in price and performance. Most probably between GTX1660Ti and RTX2060.

 

[Glo.]

From first look if those specs are true it seems to me that RX5600XT could compete against RTX2060 in price and performance. Most probably between GTX1660Ti and RTX2060.

Thats a wide gap, right there .

Leaked 3dMark performance shows it is 3-4% faster than Vega56, and 1-2$ behind GTX 1070 Ti. To RTX 2060 there is still around 5-10% in performance.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Maybe just dropping the price of 2060 non super to 300 might do the trick, no need for a new card.

But they'd need that 14th SKU in the consumer Turing line.

 

[mohit9206]

But they'd need that 14th SKU in the consumer Turing line.

Yes that is a good point, we do need a Turing at every $5.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Man with the leaks about PS5 having a 9TFLOPS gpu and the new highend version of the XBox having a 12TFLOPS gpu it really makes me think getting a PC gpu in 2020 might be a sucker's buy. It honestly sounds way too good to believe since Sony has kept hinting at PS5 not being a wildly expensive console like PS3 was, but that little voice in the back of my head is telling me I'll be sorry if I buy a $240 1660 Super or a $350 RX 5700, especially since I'll need an expensive platform upgrade from my Xeon E3-1231v3 to not bottleneck a 5700.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Yes that is a good point, we do need a Turing at every $5.

Turing at every $5, and always at least $50 overpriced.

 

[mohit9206]

Man with the leaks about PS5 having a 9TFLOPS gpu and the new highend version of the XBox having a 12TFLOPS gpu it really makes me think getting a PC gpu in 2020 might be a sucker's buy. It honestly sounds way too good to believe since Sony has kept hinting at PS5 not being a wildly expensive console like PS3 was, but that little voice in the back of my head is telling me I'll be sorry if I buy a $240 1660 Super or a $350 RX 5700, especially since I'll need an expensive platform upgrade from my Xeon E3-1231v3 to not bottleneck a 5700.

If you want similar to PS5 performance on PC, the mimium i feel is 5700XT. Anything less than THAT, then PS5 will be better option.

 

[DeathReborn]

Nah. RX 5700 draws something like 30-40W less than RX 5700 XT, with 10% cut down, and 10% lower core clock. GPU with even lower core clocks, and voltages(!), and 10W less because of two less memory chips, you get 130-140W GPU, at least - on paper .

I'd expect 140-150W (probably closer to 150W) for the 5600XT based on the leaked specs. I have had to scrap my intended 5500XT 8GB purchases for my nephews, too many issues around the 5500XT, especially given it'd be limited to PCie 3.0 x8, so I will instead buy 2 5600XT's and they can enjoy full PCIe 3.0 x16 bandwidth plus more Fortnite/RB6:S fps...

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If you want similar to PS5 performance on PC, the mimium i feel is 5700XT. Anything less than THAT, then PS5 will be better option.

I just don't see how you get that in a $500 box, but I keep hearing leaks over and over again claiming that kind of gpu power for both consoles. The whole point of PC gaming is to be more powerful than the consoles.

Is AMD just making that much profit on each PC gpu sold to be able to throw that kind of power into a low priced machine?

 

[uzzi38]

I just don't see how you get that in a $500 box, but I keep hearing leaks over and over again claiming that kind of gpu power for both consoles. The whole point of PC gaming is to be more powerful than the consoles.

Is AMD just making that much profit on each PC gpu sold to be able to throw that kind of power into a low priced machine?

By the time the consoles release, 5700XT will be safely in midrange territory, regardless of who's product stack you're looking at (bar Intel). Which is normal for consoles to get.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

By the time the consoles release, 5700XT will be safely in midrange territory, regardless of who's product stack you're looking at (bar Intel). Which is normal for consoles to get.

You think so? Because gpu progress has felt glacial the last couple of years, at least for price to performance. When PS4 came out it was using a low end gpu (~HD7850?) and a super low end cpu (Jaguar) but doesn't sound like this'll be the case this time around.

 

[uzzi38]

You think so? Because gpu progress has felt glacial the last couple of years, at least for price to performance. When PS4 came out it was using a low end gpu (~HD7850?) and a super low end cpu (Jaguar) but doesn't sound like this'll be the case this time around.

Even now the 5700XT is more like upper-midrange, so yeah, by the time the consoles release they'll be more midrange in terms of performance relative to the high end.