Some review sites are known for using old benchmarks for comparison because they can't find the time to re benchmark again or because they're lazy. Rx470 and 480 have gained performance since their launch and need to re tested for a fair comparison with 570 and 580 cards.
And this is one of the major reasons why rebrands happen. If a card comes out weak (like Hawaii and Polaris 10) and later sees substantial improvements, whether in drivers or in better yields/binning, then most review sites will keep re-using the old results from their database, so the manufacturer gets no credit for the improvements. The only way to drive the old results off the charts is to rebrand.
Oem ryzen pre built with rx550 will be marketed and sold as gaming PC for the people who have no idea that it is crap for gaming.
I can see Ryzen 1600+rx550 with 16gb ram being sold for $800 or something.
For home htpc just for video output oem won't use rx550 because that would be too expensive. Instead they will use $30 GT 710 or something equally cheap.
Who is mad and why?AMD could have called it a 480X, and I think people would be less peeved about the whole rebranding thing. Still accomplishes the same desired outcome of getting a new entry on the charts. I suppose that one could make an argument since that it's Polaris 20 that it should be put in a new series instead, but how much of an architectural change does Polaris 20 represent? Clock speeds are nice, but that's more likely a result of process improvements so if IPC is flat, how much has it really changed?
Who is mad and why?
And in the process, provide worse perf/$ for the customer. Many will buy the rx 570/580 at a much higher price than they could have bought 470/480 thinking its much faster due to review sites using the old results in turn misleading the customer.And this is one of the major reasons why rebrands happen. If a card comes out weak (like Hawaii and Polaris 10) and later sees substantial improvements, whether in drivers or in better yields/binning, then most review sites will keep re-using the old results from their database, so the manufacturer gets no credit for the improvements. The only way to drive the old results off the charts is to rebrand.
It would be really bad, if they reused the stock reference card #s, or even the card itself. Those things awful! They might avg 1200mhz due to thermal and power throttling.And in the process, provide worse perf/$ for the customer. Many will buy the rx 570/580 at a much higher price than they could have bought 470/480 thinking its much faster due to review sites using the old results in turn misleading the customer.
That can't be right, can it? Maybe a regular fury @ 1080p. Then again the fury sucks at 1080p.An RX580 overclocked to 1500mhz would be about Fury X performance? For 1080p and at around 200 euro's that would be a great deal.
Yes, but I don't really see much low end market for Ryzen. That market is for the APUs or intel cpus with an igpu. I am sure OEMs will be quite willing to sell "gaming" PCs with the 550, but I think it risks damaging the brand image.What are OEMs going to attach to any of the Ryzen PCs? They have to have a GPU in them and AMD wants to have something available even with the lowest end Ryzen PCs, why hand that GPU attachment to their competition.
Brand image doesn't matter if it makes them money. Didn't you see plenty of oems sell fx6300 + r7 250 or fx8320+r7 360 or something like that last few years ?Yes, but I don't really see much low end market for Ryzen. That market is for the APUs or intel cpus with an igpu. I am sure OEMs will be quite willing to sell "gaming" PCs with the 550, but I think it risks damaging the brand image.
Yes, but I don't really see much low end market for Ryzen. That market is for the APUs or intel cpus with an igpu. I am sure OEMs will be quite willing to sell "gaming" PCs with the 550, but I think it risks damaging the brand image.
What, Intel chips cant run DX12 or work with AMD gpus? And yes, the 3gb 1060 may have vram issues, but I certainly dont anticipate any difference long term between 6 and 8 gb, especially in midrange (probably soon to be lower midrange) cards like these. Finally, I will "do myself a favor" and buy the card I want. One could just as easily argue that it makes no sense to give your money to a company that cant even bring out a high end card for a whole year.
I have to admit, I enjoyed this video, and I agree with the end conclusion.
tl;dw? Effectively yes, these are rebrands. AMD isn't alone as ATI and Nvidia have also been very guilty of this in the past. Difference is, because the general consumers, that's us by the way, keep buying Nvidia cards even when they are STRICTLY WORSE have left Radeon so $@£*&#! that they have to rebrand their midrange cards whilst skipping a year or two to push out the new hardware. Radeon needs money, Radeon needs consumers, and WE... NEED THE COMPETITION.
So if you're in the market for a sub £300 graphics card, do yourself and us a favour, get an Rx580 8gb over a GTX1060.
If you need more convincing: One, it's arguably better in some circumstances, including higher resolutions. Two, the higher vram should see it be more relevant for longer. Three, if you've bought a Ryzen chip Radeon graphics cards work MUCH better in dx12.
What, Intel chips cant run DX12 or work with AMD gpus? And yes, the 3gb 1060 may have vram issues, but I certainly dont anticipate any difference long term between 6 and 8 gb, especially in midrange (probably soon to be lower midrange) cards like these. Finally, I will "do myself a favor" and buy the card I want. One could just as easily argue that it makes no sense to give your money to a company that cant even bring out a high end card for a whole year.
The point is that we need to support and recommend AMD when they offer similar price/perf, so we can ensure competition in the marketplace.What, Intel chips cant run DX12 or work with AMD gpus? And yes, the 3gb 1060 may have vram issues, but I certainly dont anticipate any difference long term between 6 and 8 gb, especially in midrange (probably soon to be lower midrange) cards like these. Finally, I will "do myself a favor" and buy the card I want. One could just as easily argue that it makes no sense to give your money to a company that cant even bring out a high end card for a whole year.
Buy whatever you want, but don't complain if Radeon goes bust and Nvidia get a monopoly and everything grinds to a halt for gaming.
Actually the opposite is true. I would tell people to pick up a 480 that is on sale, or wait a few months, and get the 580 8gb on sale for about $210 or so.Man, you AMD salesmen are getting relentless... The cards aren't even released yet and you're already pushing them!
They just blame AMD. Look at any of the Titan / 1080 / 1080 Ti threads. They blame AMD for not competing constantly yet claim Nvidia doesn't have a monopoly over the high end gaming
well you cant really blame amd for the prices their cards were sold at. the demand for mining far outstripped supply. i got the 7950 boost when it came out and by that point prices were back to normal and amd was very competitive. between the 660ti and the 7950, the amd card was clearly the better buy.
that said, hawaii wasnt very good, and fiji was very expensive, so i can see people objecting to that, and they stuck with hawaii for the mainstream high end for way too long while the fury cards were 500+. that is what has been killing amd. tahiti was a great chip imo.
Let's not pretend AMD is rebranding Polaris cards for anything other than to bait unsuspecting and uninformed people into thinking this is a brand new graphics card launch and much better than last year's cards so its worth the higher price.
I really liked that video from Adoredtv. Both companies are equally to blame for the rebranding crap but unfortunately its a necessary evil as we cannot have a die shrink and new architecture every year but the way amd and nvidia go about rebranding without making the product position and naming scheme easy to understand for the buyer is a big part of the problem.