New AMD Polaris based GPU

[coercitiv]

After checking out a few reviews all I can think of the RX 590 is "meh", a mediocre card worthy of the 580X name at best (someone else already mentioned this on the forum I think). The only saving grace for RX 590 will be an excellent retail price, as close to RX 580 as possible, which will be hard to accomplish considering it requires excellent cooling to work as intended.

I'll be curious to see a Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+ SE vs RX 590 Nitro+ SE comparison, including overclock performance, as these two cards use the same cooling and power delivery options. Another XFX RX 580 GTS XXX versus XFX RX 590 Fatboy comparison will also be interesting, since the GTS XXX is a very good balance of performance and quality, capable of achieving a low sale price.

I have used both the Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+ SE and the XFX RX 580 GTS XXX and while the Sapphire has hands down better cooling both in terms of power and lower minimum noise floor, the XFX RX 580 GTS is a more compact card, with very adequate cooling and clearly better pricing. For a casual consumer I would always recommend the XFX over the Sapphire model, and this may also translate into a RX 580 over RX 590 recommendation.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm kind of "meh" too, mostly though, because of the MSRP. If it was $230-250, I would be very pro-RX 590. As it is, it really doesn't seem worth all that much more than a decent RX 580 card. Then again, given the power demands of the RX 590, does it imply that any RX 590 card will be therefore "decent" as far as cooling and VRMs go? Otherwise, the card would be marginal and fail. (PowerColor, I'm looking at you.)

 

[IRobot23]

Why we haven't see wider GCN? I mean... R9 290X are as wide as RX VEGA 64.

7870 was was as 7970 while they step up and made wider arch for R9 290/X. I have to say R9 290X OC (R9 390X) is really good even today... even beats GTX 980TI in BF V.

Can someone explain where are limitations that they weren't able to make wider GCN?

 

[Qwertilot]

R&D $$$$$. They were in absolute survival mode so targeted roughly 'console sized' units with Polaris and bigger/the compute market with Vega.

Also obvious from how none of the improvements/new features from Vega have filtered down. They're in a happier spot now so things might improve.

Thoroughly unimpressed with the 590 myself - I really don't like these sorts of things where they ramp the frequency up way past the optimal point to try and squeeze out a little performance.
(also see Intel recently!)

 

[Hans Gruber]

I'm kind of "meh" too, mostly though, because of the MSRP. If it was $230-250, I would be very pro-RX 590. As it is, it really doesn't seem worth all that much more than a decent RX 580 card. Then again, given the power demands of the RX 590, does it imply that any RX 590 card will be therefore "decent" as far as cooling and VRMs go? Otherwise, the card would be marginal and fail. (PowerColor, I'm looking at you.)

I have a PowerColor 7950 from mid 2013 (when I got mine). To this day it still runs like a champ. Never an issue with fans and OC's very well for a 7950. I am disappointed in the GPU market in general today. AMD has to step up their game. They have old GPU's without anything new in the pipeline.

 

[RTX2080]

I'm waiting for undervolting result. Any1 has discover any review doing this?

 

[tamz_msc]

I think that it's pretty sad that there has been no improvement in performance in the $200-300 price bracket for over two years.

 

[lifeblood]

I’m curious how they were able to get as much of a performance boost out of RX 590 if Polaris really is as memory bandwidth limited as people say it is. The memory clocks are the same, they just boosted the core clocks by 200 MHz, and got another (roughly) 10% performance increase. I wonder if they did make some architectural tweaks to improve memory compression or something?

 

[PhonakV30]

I'm waiting for undervolting result. Any1 has discover any review doing this?

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/88...sioen-voor-polaris-overklokken-en-undervolten

 

[beginner99]

So, no you don't win if you can see your opponent 5ms earlier due to your monitor.

Everything else equal, yes you do win that fight. That is the point. And seeing earlier is only one aspect the other is actually hitting the opponent when he is moving where higher fps = advantage. Or why do you think cs:go pro player run at 500 fps or whatever? because it matters.

 

[beginner99]

I’m curious how they were able to get as much of a performance boost out of RX 590 if Polaris really is as memory bandwidth limited as people say it is. The memory clocks are the same, they just boosted the core clocks by 200 MHz, and got another (roughly) 10% performance increase. I wonder if they did make some architectural tweaks to improve memory compression or something?

Agree. I'm actually surprised by the performance. better than expected. The performance/$ however is a completely different aspect and performance/watt was given to be bad.

 

[lifeblood]

Agree. I'm actually surprised by the performance. better than expected. The performance/$ however is a completely different aspect and performance/watt was given to be bad.

The perf/watt is bad but can be improved by undervolting, which it appears both the 580 and 590 respond well to. In the end however, we’re just going to have to wait until Navi for any chance of cooler chips. Polaris is just not a cool running architecture, made worse by AMD’s habit of ramping up the clocks in order to squeeze as much performance it can out of it.

Perf/$ is not so hot for the 590, but thanks to the price drops, the 8GB RX 580 is at the top of that list. The biggest benefit from the RX 590 may be that it puts a price cap on RX 580 prices, keeping those reasonable. At 1080p does the extra FPS of the 590 over the 580 make that big of a difference? If you’re a big first person shooter type then certainly, but for the rest of us average gamers then no.

(Before all you competitive gamers jump down my throat, please note I did acknowledge your need for high FPS. I’m talking about us average folks who play strategy type games or stuff like that).

 

[tamz_msc]

Everything else equal, yes you do win that fight. That is the point. And seeing earlier is only one aspect the other is actually hitting the opponent when he is moving where higher fps = advantage. Or why do you think cs:go pro player run at 500 fps or whatever? because it matters.

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. 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.

 

[Mopetar]

I’m curious how they were able to get as much of a performance boost out of RX 590 if Polaris really is as memory bandwidth limited as people say it is. The memory clocks are the same, they just boosted the core clocks by 200 MHz, and got another (roughly) 10% performance increase. I wonder if they did make some architectural tweaks to improve memory compression or something?

I don't think they changed anything. In the past, this would have just been given the X moniker, instead of a new number.

What I'd really like to see is someone selling this with faster memory attached. I if you bumped the memory up to 9 GHz you'd actually end up with a card that's worth what they're asking for it. NVidia sold a 1060 with 9 GHz GDDR5 so it's not as though it's impossible to do.

 

[DeathReborn]

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

The UK pricing could be better, maybe should also come with it's own power plant too (UK average electric costs £0.14/kWh). Cheapest of each in the UK using: http://skinflint.co.uk (UK version of Geizhals):-

580 4GB £180
580 8GB £195
590 8GB £250

1060 6GB 9Gbps £273
1060 6GB £202
1060 3GB £180

The 590 should be no more than £220 really.

 

[AtenRa]

The UK pricing could be better, maybe should also come with it's own power plant too (UK average electric costs £0.14/kWh). Cheapest of each in the UK using: http://skinflint.co.uk (UK version of Geizhals):-

580 4GB £180
580 8GB £195
590 8GB £250

1060 6GB 9Gbps £273
1060 6GB £202
1060 3GB £180

The 590 should be no more than £220 really.

If im not mistaken, 590 8GB is faster and cheaper including 3 games than the 1060 6GB 9Gbps but you believe it should be no more than £220 ???

 

[DeathReborn]

If im not mistaken, 590 8GB is faster and cheaper including 3 games than the 1060 6GB 9Gbps but you believe it should be no more than £220 ???

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.

 

[AtenRa]

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.

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

 

[EXCellR8]

We comparing 1060 or 1070?

 

[SPBHM]

if it was cheap it would be OK
when you look at the BF1 performance vs power usage compared to the 480 which was released so long ago for less... this is pretty underwhelming

 

[LTC8K6]

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

1060 / 1070 is also less power hungry.

 

[PhonakV30]

1060 / 1070 is also less power hungry.

many of buyers will not look at power consumption, they're novice , sometime they ask fast card with a reasonable price.not only Eu/US but the whole world.just look at 290X/390X , They sold very well.

 

[kawi6rr]

many of buyers will not look at power consumption, they're novice , sometime they ask fast card with a reasonable price.not only Eu/US but the whole world.just look at 290X/390X , They sold very well.

That made me laugh pretty hard, are you saying people who don't care about power consumption are novices or did I miss read that? Novices at what? Being tech savvy lmao? I've been building systems since 2000 and never cared about power consumption considering you wont see any change to your bill. I purchase the fastest product I can at the given time and what I want to spend at said time and most people probably do.

 

[Phynaz]

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

Will? Are you saying something is going to change?

 

[PhonakV30]

That made me laugh pretty hard, are you saying people who don't care about power consumption are novices or did I miss read that? Novices at what? Being tech savvy lmao? I've been building systems since 2000 and never cared about power consumption considering you wont see any change to your bill. I purchase the fastest product I can at the given time and what I want to spend at said time and most people probably do.

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.