Also why this rather large FPS gap from the 4GB version to the 8GB version? i belived this never happened on Polaris.
That's a good question. Is RDNA's architecture more like NVidia's traditional arches., where things like ROP counts, are tied to memory bus sizes? Could the 8GB RX 5500 XT have more ROPs or something?Also why this rather large FPS gap from the 4GB version to the 8GB version? i belived this never happened on Polaris.
Tragic ,
If they would just port Polaris 30 (RX590) to 7nm they would have had a smaller, faster and cheaper card than this.
I dont know about you but with NAVI 14 its looks to me that RDNA is not scaling down very well.
That's an interesting proposal. If the 5500XT were $130 like the RX560 that would have been killer. But they wouldn't have been able to keep them in stock!Yeah its because amd doubled prices like nvidia with kepler.They moved whole stack one tier higher.5500XT should be priced like rx560 successor.But AMD doubled prices so we have rx580 performance 2 years later for same price.ITS DOA.
That's an interesting proposal. If the 5500XT were $130 like the RX560 that would have been killer. But they wouldn't have been able to keep them in stock!
As for "doubled prices" I think it's at least reasonable to consider that perhaps AMD doubled prices on Navi10 because 7nm costs almost twice (1.75-2x) as much as 14nm. I think AMD were focusing solely on utilizing the new process for performance, not for better efficiency or smaller die size, when it comes to 5700/XT.
For 5500XT it seems they used the new process to gain better performance per mm2, while lowering price and improving power draw. (RX480 was $199 on release. 5500XT is $169).
15% lower price, ~25% less power consumption under load, 25% better performance per mm2. Certainly not anything to write home about. But also not terrible.
Sure. Though RX570 isn't a cut-down Polaris. It just has shaders disabled. But whatever, let's roll with it.Thst is a wrong comparison, the comparison should be with RX570 as 5500XT is also a cut down Navi 14.
16% performance increase in 2 years is pretty laughable. Should have been 40%, either that or price should have been $149.Sure. Though RX570 isn't a cut-down Polaris. It just has shaders disabled. But whatever, let's roll with it.
RX570 retailed $169 on release.
5500XT retails for $169
- 5500XT beats 570 by 16% in 1080p gaming.
- Beats it by 41% in performance per watt by reducing power consumption at peak gaming by 27% (47W).
- Die size 232mm2 for 570, 158mm2 for 5500XT (32% smaller die size).
- At release yields for 14nm were 78% for 570/580 die size. Current 7nm yields for 5500XT die size are 88%. So yields are 12% higher. 7nm costs almost twice as much though. In the end the silicon probably costs about the same.
Overall I think the price isn't far off if you just look at the tech. But a 13% performance gain and 27% efficiency gain isn't far off from what is promised, AMD just chose to focus on less power draw instead of more performance for the same price, perhaps.
They decreased prices with their Super-lineup and forced the competition to a pre-release price cut and a two months delay.
Tragic ,
If they would just port Polaris 30 (RX590) to 7nm they would have had a smaller, faster and cheaper card than this.
Yep, don't expect 7 nm Nvidia consumer GPUs anytime soon. We haven't even got all Turing refresh from top to bottom.
LOL... did you miss latest drivers right? Navi10 is now matching Radeon 7, using way less power, half bandwidth and at the same node... oh and smaller dieRDNA isn't any step forward compared to GCN.
If it was the 5500 XT vs 1650 vanilla with no Super model it would an absolute slaughter. Much higher FPS plus modern media engine? 5500 XT would look like it was worth the price they're charging for it.AMD normally always counter competition new products with price cuts. Now just imagine all the RDNA reviews without the RTX/GTX Super cards how good would they have looked.
LOL... did you miss latest drivers right? Navi10 is now matching Radeon 7, using way less power, half bandwidth and at the same node... oh and smaller die
Yes against VEGA its fine because VEGA Gaming ipc was atrocious.
NAVI is not that much better if better at all against Polaris though and you can clearly see this by comparing Polaris 30 (5.7B transistors) against NAVI 14 (6.4B transistors). Polaris 30 (RX590) with less transistors and a process disadvantage its faster.
As i have said before, if you port Polaris 30 to 7nm it would be smaller and faster than NAVI 14.
As i have said before, if you port Polaris 30 to 7nm it would be smaller and faster than NAVI 14.
Yeah why would NV pay for 7nm when their competior can just barley match their 16nm offerings. RDNA isn't any step forward compared to GCN. Instead of transistors for actual functional units they used a ton of them for higher clocks while loosing a lot of compute in the process.
Only matching your competitor in performance/watt and performance/$ on a node advantage is utter failure.
We don't know that, for example the Intel 10nm cpu is worst than the 14nm in all fronts and metrics.
What Intel gained with 10nm vs 14nm besides the smaller die? Name one.
The RX590 had a 256bit bus, this is most likely the only reason its faster than Navi 14. Give Navi 14 a proper bus, and I think it would be the card that people want.
Polaris die is 232mm2, 1 month after RX570/580 release (4/2017) yields were reported 80% on their 8-core Zen chips (~9.67x22mm), which was a defect rate of 0.105, and when you calculate Polaris yields (~17.5x13.25mm) based on that defect rate you get a 14nm yield for Polaris to be 78%.
Navi die is 251mm2, presently, 7nm defect rate reported as 0.09, hence we get a yield of 80% for a die of Navi dimension (~17.95x14mm).
AMD have said that 7nm costs 1.75-2x as much as 14nm.
And they were able to scale performance on the same die up by the same amount as the new process costs (1.75-2x).
Why shouldn't they sell it for almost twice as much if it performs almost twice as well and the process costs almost twice as much, and yields are about the same?
Edit: Now, sure, we can go back and examine the RX400 series to RX500 series price increase. But to claim that the intrinsic problem is that the Polaris successor is pricey completely ignores a lot of other issues surrounding it. Such as that it is cheaper per FPS than Nvidia, and AMD are a for-profit company, and that the pricing is in-line with Polaris with respect to performance.