If the GPU performs more like GTX 1660 Super, which it will, AMD can charge whatever they want up to 239$ for it.
If the GPU performs more like GTX 1660 Super, which it will, AMD can charge whatever they want up to 239$ for it.This card shouldn't be more than $150
They can but people won't buy it so its AMD's loss. They need to find a perfect balance like they did with 570 and 580. Also I don't see how it will be close to 1660 Super.If the GPU performs more like GTX 1660 Super, which it will, AMD can charge whatever they want up to 239$ for it.
Maybe because in Overwatch, with Ryzen 5 3600, GTX 1660 Super, in 1080p, Epic Settings averages 137 FPS, 1-2 FPS more than AMD claims that RX 5500 averages?They can but people won't buy it so its AMD's loss. They need to find a perfect balance like they did with 570 and 580. Also I don't see how it will be close to 1660 Super.
If this is true, and the RX 5500 competes decently with a GTX 1660 Super card, then I expect that AMD will end up pricing it similarly, maybe $199 at lowest, rather than just $150 as if it were a GTX 1650 competitor and RX 570 / 580 replacement.Maybe because in Overwatch, with Ryzen 5 3600, GTX 1660 Super, in 1080p, Epic Settings averages 137 FPS, 1-2 FPS more than AMD claims that RX 5500 averages?
Maybe because the averages AMD presents corelate exactly with GTX 1660 Super performance, or more exactly in between GTX 1660 and 1660 Super?
The marketing slides confirm that RX 5500 has only 4 GB versions. Would 4 GB GPU compete in pricing with GTX 1660?If this is true, and the RX 5500 competes decently with a GTX 1660 Super card, then I expect that AMD will end up pricing it similarly, maybe $199 at lowest, rather than just $150 as if it were a GTX 1650 competitor and RX 570 / 580 replacement.
Edit: Don't forget that leak, with five slightly different RX 5500-family suffixes. Maybe there are card variants that are "all of the above". (Maybe a $150 variant, a $199 variant, and a $230 variant.)
I just hope some AIB comes out with an 8GB GDDR6 model, even if it is $30 more expensive than the basic 4GB model. Maybe slap on a better cooler for that money too. I think, in this day and age, 6GB is the absolute minimum VRAM amount that you want to spec in a GPU card, unless all you do is play e-sports all day long. (DOTA, WoT, and Overwatch and Fortnite @ 1080P).
From a straight-conversion to USD, those prices would be OK with me, and as long as there is *a* RX 5700 variant (XT) with 8GB of VRAM, I'm good with it.The rumors say that 4 GB RX 5500 is 149-169€. And that RX 5500 XT, with full, 24 CU die, and 8 GB's of VRAM is 199€.
From a straight-conversion to USD, those prices would be OK with me, and as long as there is *a* RX 5700 variant (XT) with 8GB of VRAM, I'm good with it.
Well, looking at AMD's slides - it is competing with GTX 1660 Super.Guys this is a 128bit GDDR-6 chip, it cannot compete directly with GTX1660Super/Ti.
This card it should be between the GTX1650 and GTX1660 both in performance and price.
So mohit9206 price guess at $170 will be close.
Well, what I meant by that € numbers is that RX 5500 can cost 150-170$, and RX 5500 XT can cost 199$.From a straight-conversion to USD, those prices would be OK with me, and as long as there is *a* RX 5700 variant (XT) with 8GB of VRAM, I'm good with it.
I just question the longevity of a card being sold these days with only 4GB of VRAM. Then again, how well has the GTX 1050 ti 4GB model held up these days? Has it been running out of VRAM in modern titles, or running out of GPU grunt before that even becomes an issue?
Edit: Maybe they're trying to deperately hit the $150 "Sweet-spot" low/mid-range price point, and since they're using GDDR6, they can only afford to put on 4GB, at that price point, and that's why the 8GB GDDR6 model is $199.
I just hope that this is a real step forward at that price-point, as compared to RX 570/580. If the RDR II charts are anything to go by (RX 570/580 cards, compared to Turing GTX, compared to RX 5700 / RDNA), then I think that the RX 5500 will be a step forward in performance, with modern titles.
If it competes so well, with even a GTX 1660 Super, that would be grand. I would love to see Nvidia losing their shirt over their $250-and-under GTX Turing card price-brackets, and have to move all of their cards in those price brackets down $30-50 down the stack.
Guys this is a 128bit GDDR-6 chip, it cannot compete directly with GTX1660Super/Ti.
This card it should be between the GTX1650 and GTX1660 both in performance and price.
So mohit9206 price guess at $170 will be close.
Let me repeat it once again.
With Ryzen 5 3600 GTX 1660 averages 125 FPS in Overwatch 1080p, Epic Settings. GTX 1660 Super averages 137 FPS, with the same CPU, and GTX 1660 Ti, averages 140 FPS, with the same CPU in the same settings.
AMD claims that RX 5500 averages in the same game, resolution, and settings, with similarly powerful CPU 135-136 FPS.
GTX 1650, with Zen1: Ryzen 7 1700 CPU averages in this game 83-84 FPS. With Zen 2 CPUs: it shots up to 87-89 FPS, so exactly in the ballpark AMD claimed in their benchmarks.
RX 5500 is going to compete with GTX 1660 Super. It may not beat it, but will be extremely close.
From a straight-conversion to USD, those prices would be OK with me, and as long as there is *a* RX 5700 variant (XT) with 8GB of VRAM, I'm good with it.
I just question the longevity of a card being sold these days with only 4GB of VRAM. Then again, how well has the GTX 1050 ti 4GB model held up these days? Has it been running out of VRAM in modern titles, or running out of GPU grunt before that even becomes an issue?
Edit: Maybe they're trying to deperately hit the $150 "Sweet-spot" low/mid-range price point, and since they're using GDDR6, they can only afford to put on 4GB, at that price point, and that's why the 8GB GDDR6 model is $199.
I just hope that this is a real step forward at that price-point, as compared to RX 570/580. If the RDR II charts are anything to go by (RX 570/580 cards, compared to Turing GTX, compared to RX 5700 / RDNA), then I think that the RX 5500 will be a step forward in performance, with modern titles.
If it competes so well, with even a GTX 1660 Super, that would be grand. I would love to see Nvidia losing their shirt over their $250-and-under GTX Turing card price-brackets, and have to move all of their cards in those price brackets down $30-50 down the stack.
But again the issue is the vram amount, if it only has 4gb then being close to 1660 Super won't matter because you would run out of vram quickly resulting in poor gameplay experience.
This is a GPU aimed at 1080p. 4 GB is still perfectly fine.But again the issue is the vram amount, if it only has 4gb then being close to 1660 Super won't matter because you would run out of vram quickly resulting in poor gameplay experience.
Yes its fine... Provided that it doesn't cost more than 170. If its close to 200 then AMD will be heavily criticised for gimping on vram, a complaint which is usually reserved for Nvidia.This is a GPU aimed at 1080p. 4 GB is still perfectly fine.
Mostly...
There is a good reason why AMD is aiming this GPU as GTX 1650 competitor, despite it being vastly faster to the GTX 1660 Super levels.Yes its fine... Provided that it doesn't cost more than 170. If its close to 200 then AMD will be heavily criticised for gimping on vram, a complaint which is usually reserved for Nvidia.
There is a good reason why AMD is aiming this GPU as GTX 1650 competitor, despite it being vastly faster to the GTX 1660 Super levels.
I can only quote myself, once again:In cherrypicked Benches, great(I mean the 49%). There is a good reason AMD is writing 5500 is 20% faster than a RX480 in their presentation. That's around 140% in psolords graph. 5500er will have a hard fight against the 1650TI, 1660 Super isn't a competitor.
I picked a game which I know by the back of my hand, how it performs, with different hardware and different settings, and I know that it is one of the worst for AMD GPUs and CPUs.So out of AMDs benchmark you cherrypick one of the best and think it will perform always like that? Damn, why did AMD publish all other benches, which show that 5500 is not so fast? Seems their marketing department just don't know how fast their gpus are.
Your interpretation of benchmarks is even worse than Intel last great marketing stunts.
As far as I've read and understood, this is true. Overwatch and Fortnite are very heavily optimized for Intel + NVidia. So if AMD is making a decent showing in those games, vis-a-via Nvidia, then that's a really good sign for the RDNA architecture, IMHO.Overwatch is heavily optimized for Intel and Nvidia. To the the degree, that if you will look at the data I provided, and compare FPS of GTX 1660 Ti paired with Zen 2 CPU and Intel CPU, you gain 15 FPS just by going from Ryzen 7 3800X to... Core i5-9400F, on the same GPU.
AMD published the benchmarks they wanted, not to show the best scenarios for their GPU, oh for sure not: Fortnite, Overwatch are heavily optimized for Nvidia GPUs. Why we do not talk about it?
Perhaps AMD will update their comparison benchmarks at that time, but realize, even if they do have a pre-release GTX 1650 Super card in their hands, it's officially not released yet, so they really can't legally use it in comparison benchmarks. Not the least of which reason, NV could intentionally then screw with the specs, just to F with AMD's marketing dept., and then AMD could get sued for a false comparison.I fail to see why the comparisons with GTX 1650 should hold any water when it will be functionally replaced by GTX 1650 Super (basically a GTX 1660 minus) when RX 5500 is actually released.
The 1650 will apparently still exist so the performance comparison remains valid. Of course both companies will play around with pricing so which card the 5500 actually competes with price wise is yet to be seen. It will most likely be the 1650 Super.I fail to see why the we are discussing comparisons with GTX 1650 when it will be functionally replaced by GTX 1650 Super (basically a GTX 1660 minus) by the time RX 5500 is actually released.