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

[Glo.]

Considering that Navi 10 GPUs is close to similarly clocked, ALU abundant, and memory bandwidth fed Nvidia GPUs, I struggle to see how come 1408 ALU GPU with more memory bandwidth, and lower, or similar core clock is going to be suddenly slower. There is nothing, apart from the software, that would make this happen.

RX 5500 should be on the same level as GTX 1660, all things considered.

 

[Dribble]

This has a standard ring to it - congrats AMD on the RX 5500, it's a great card, the competition it brings made Nvidia release an even better card. Now everyone goes out and buys a GTX 1650 super.

 

[Veradun]

The review of the RX 5500 is based on OEM GPU, with no optimized drivers.

And a single fan solution that surely limits it

 

[lifeblood]

The GTX 1650 Super is supposed to go on sale today so (assuming Nvidia doesn't delay) we'll know pricing for that soon enough.

 

[tajoh111]

Considering that Navi 10 GPUs is close to similarly clocked, ALU abundant, and memory bandwidth fed Nvidia GPUs, I struggle to see how come 1408 ALU GPU with more memory bandwidth, and lower, or similar core clock is going to be suddenly slower. There is nothing, apart from the software, that would make this happen.

RX 5500 should be on the same level as GTX 1660, all things considered.

Likely, the rx 5500 is ROP and bandwidth starved compared to the typical Navi architecture. While ROPS and Shaders got cut in half, shaders did not and are more likely to be more strained for resources.

Considering Navi was already strained for bandwidth considering overclocking results being disappointing because of the lack of overclocking headroom in the memory, the rx 5500 is likely showing those some bottleneck limitations.

The GTX 1660 on the other hand while having slightly worse bandwidth ratio compared to a rtx 2080, has excessive ROPs(64 vs 48). Considering Nvidia's architecture has typically done better compared to AMD with less memory bandwidth, it should not surprise people when a gtx 1660 is faster than a rx 5500. Lets not forget the GTX 1660 has an additional 2gb of memory as well. 4gb of memory is beginning to show strain at this point.

AMD Radeon RX 5500 Review

The RX 5500 Navi is AMD's ambitious attempt to disrupt the sub-$200 graphics card market just as the RX 5700 series did to the sub-$400 market, bringing in much needed competition. It won't be easy as NVIDIA tried to preempt it with the GTX 1650 Super and GTX 1660 Super.

www.techpowerup.com

RX 5500 review is up.

 

[lifeblood]

GTX 1650 Super reviews are up and it appears the release price is $159. Based on that I expect RX 5500 to cost $150.

 

[fleshconsumed]

GTX 1650 Super reviews are up and it appears the release price is $159. Based on that I expect RX 5500 to cost $150.

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

 

[Glo.]

Likely, the rx 5500 is ROP and bandwidth starved compared to the typical Navi architecture. While ROPS and Shaders got cut in half, shaders did not and are more likely to be more strained for resources.

Considering Navi was already strained for bandwidth considering overclocking results being disappointing because of the lack of overclocking headroom in the memory, the rx 5500 is likely showing those some bottleneck limitations.

The GTX 1660 on the other hand while having slightly worse bandwidth ratio compared to a rtx 2080, has excessive ROPs(64 vs 48). Considering Nvidia's architecture has typically done better compared to AMD with less memory bandwidth, it should not surprise people when a gtx 1660 is faster than a rx 5500. Lets not forget the GTX 1660 has an additional 2gb of memory as well. 4gb of memory is beginning to show strain at this point.

AMD Radeon RX 5500 Review

The RX 5500 Navi is AMD's ambitious attempt to disrupt the sub-$200 graphics card market just as the RX 5700 series did to the sub-$400 market, bringing in much needed competition. It won't be easy as NVIDIA tried to preempt it with the GTX 1650 Super and GTX 1660 Super.

www.techpowerup.com

RX 5500 review is up.

No, RX 5500 is not ROP(in bloody 1080p?!) and bandwidth starved. It has 224 GB/s - more than GTX 1660, it has the same ALU count, and similar clock speeds. It should not be slower. It should perform at the same level, at the least.

 

[Glo.]

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

Which already should tell you that something is not right.

RX 5500 in AMD's testing was faster than RX 480. Yet, in current reviews, based on OEM GPU, and drivers, that are... questionable performs at the same level, or SLOWER.

 

[lifeblood]

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

Give some credit, it does so at significantly lower power (and therefore quieter). And the 480 was well over $200 at launch...

 

[mohit9206]

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

$199 launch price in case you forgot.

 

[lifeblood]

Interesting tidbits out there. This one from TPU on the 1650 Super:

"I talked to various board partners and they tell me that they're making "no money due to NV pricing," which would explain such cost-cutting measures."

It would appear Nvidia has priced it as low as they could, which makes sense given the (potential) competition from the 5500.

Also, It seemed that in general the 1650 Super and 5500 seemed to swap position a lot. Their were maybe two games where the 5500 really sucked which certainly brought the average FPS down. If AMD can somehow fix the 5500's FPS in those games it would probably push the 5500's average FPS over the 1650 Super. That would change the value equation considerably.

 

[lifeblood]

$199 launch price in case you forgot.

$199 for the 4GB, $239 for the 8GB version.

 

[maddie]

Which already should tell you that something is not right.

RX 5500 in AMD's testing was faster than RX 480. Yet, in current reviews, based on OEM GPU, and drivers, that are... questionable performs at the same level, or SLOWER.

A RX570 = RX480 roughly, and the RX5500 is 14% faster than a RX570. Where are you seeing it at the same level or slower?

 

[fleshconsumed]

$199 launch price in case you forgot.

I didn't forget. I remember. I also remember all the sales shortly after release and before the mining boom, for example https://slickdeals.net/f/9995352-msi-radeon-rx-480-4gb-150-ar-or-less-w-doom You could also get 470 for $110-120. I am not enthused about zero progress in price/performance metric over the past 3 years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I didn't forget. I remember. I also remember all the sales shortly after release and before the mining boom, for example https://slickdeals.net/f/9995352-msi-radeon-rx-480-4gb-150-ar-or-less-w-doom You could also get 470 for $110-120. I am not enthused about zero progress in price/performance metric over the past 3 years.

Then again, those were fire-sale prices, designed to move stock, to make way for the higher-priced (and higher-performance) RX 570 and RX 580. Those weren't "normal" everyday prices, even pre-mining-boom.

Edit: This can be proved by deduction. You posted a SlickDeals thread to prove your point. Nobody posts "list price" deals to SlickDeals. Thus proving my point.

Edit: I remember too, when they dropped $50 from $200 (list, more or less), to $150. I tried ordered three different sets of cards, over ebay, from Newegg. First two sets, went OOS between ordering and fulfillment, and thus were cancelled. Finally got two of the cards on my last (third) order.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

2019 sucks. Blech at the Polaris replacement RX 5700 XT being $400. Such price inflation for such disappointing hardware.

 

[lifeblood]

Anyone think it’s possible we’ll see the retail 5500 released sometime next week?

 

[Ottonomous]

2019 sucks. Blech at the Polaris replacement RX 5700 XT being $400. Such price inflation for such disappointing hardware.

No worries, they'll become 580/570 level once nvidia picks all the 7nm+ fruit with ampere/hopper.

 

[DrMrLordX]

2019 sucks. Blech at the Polaris replacement RX 5700 XT being $400. Such price inflation for such disappointing hardware.

I haven't been all that impressed with the actual Polaris replacements yet, but I think you're overstating the problem. An RX 5700 is only $300 right now for casual shoppers, while an RX 5700 XT is actually closer to $370:

Choose A Video Card

pcpartpicker.com

If NV is making margins ultra-tight on their 1650 Supers and 1660, then AMD seems to have hit a sweet spot assuming the retail cards bench better than the OEM units we've seen thus far. If they don't then yeah, the 5500 is a bit of a disappointment.

 

[insertcarehere]

I get the feeling that there's something inherent in either RDNA or the 7nm process which means the cards hit a brick wall and require way more voltage over ~1.7ghz or so.

(Factory OCed RX 5700)

(Factory OCed RX 5700 XT)

(Factory OCed RX 5700 XT No.2)

(Reference RX 5500)

(Reference RX 5700, The only RDNA card under TPU testing which matches/beats Turing products on performance per watt.)

Contrast the above with Turing cards which have no problem boosting to ~1.9ghz at <=1v or so, Navi's lack of ability to clock high without needing tons of volts becomes a problem. On the flipside, if the reverse for Navi also holds true (slightly lower clocks = much lower voltage), these would make killer mobile parts.

 

[mohit9206]

Amd is caught in a difficult position here thanks to nvidia. If rx5500 is slower or equal to 1650 super then it would need to be $150 but if its slightly faster it still can't be more than $170 because it surely won't be more than 10% faster. So my guess is 150-170 range for 5500.

 

[beginner99]

So three years later I can finally buy replacement to my RX480 with exact same performance as my RX480 at exact same price as my RX480.

Great... Just wonderful...

You could go even further back. A RX480 is slightly faster than a 290x- And 290x could be had in 2014 for under $250 after first mining craze. So basically just $100 less for same performance over 5 years. RX5500 shouldn't even able to be a viable product outside of iGPU.

 

[mohit9206]

Its equally as hard to defend the RX5700 XT at $400 considering its supposed to be a Polaris successor and a mid range card but unfortunately this is something we have to get used to.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The GPU situation is just dire.