Thing is 5700XT IS Polaris replacement.
If we're going by price, then the 5700XT is a Vega 56 replacement.It costs too much to be an RX480 replacement.
If we're going by price, then the 5700XT is a Vega 56 replacement.
But there are so many people who say that it's not price or performance, but die size that should be the measure.
In the end, who cares. AMD released the 5700XT at the same price as the Vega 56, with 20-25% more pure performance and 20-25% more performance per watt. Period.
In the end, who cares. AMD released the 5700XT at the same price as the Vega 56, with 20-25% more pure performance and 20-25% more performance per watt. Period.
Great. So where's the Polaris replacement? We need something in the $200-$250 range that is faster than an RX590. Preferably closer to $200, and preferably at least 20% faster than the 590.
I agree with your sentiment about what I'd like to see out of AMD. I don't care if they're a Polaris "replacement" or not because then people get their panties in a bunch about die size and other stuff.Great. So where's the Polaris replacement? We need something in the $200-$250 range that is faster than an RX590. Preferably closer to $200, and preferably at least 20% faster than the 590.
"They" say Moore's Law is ending...If we take 5700/XT as a guide (7 July 2019 release) , a late September release of a Polaris replacement will only make it available for after market cards at the end of the year.
That will make a RX480 replacement 3.5 years later with only 30% higher performance at the same price (perhaps even higher).
That is unacceptable for the consumer , period.
I agree with this, largely, but what I want to know is, what is AMD doing with the 12nm Polaris dies, that don't make the cut (due to defects) to make it into an RX 590?I agree with your sentiment about what I'd like to see out of AMD. I don't care if they're a Polaris "replacement" or not because then people get their panties in a bunch about die size and other stuff.
I'd be content with 5600 and 5600XT at $229 and $269 that boast 15% performance improvements over the RX580 and RX590. That would put the 5600 between the 1660 and 1660Ti, and the 5600XT just above the 1070 at 1440p.
An RX570 "replacement" (5500XT) at $169 that boasts a 15% improvement over the RX570 puts it just below at 1660. A single-fan 5500 without power connector would be sweet.
As long as AMD market them by price point rather than performance (that is, don't put the 5600 against the 1660Ti, but instead against the similarly-priced 1660) like they seemed to be doing with the 5700/XT, that would be a win.
"They" say Moore's Law is ending...
Well, total yearly / quarterly unit sales are down overall in the market. Less and less people own desktop PCs, and while the enthusiast / gamer segment is growing, within the pie, the entire pie is shrinking. So overall, I believe, GPU sales have largely been cut in half, so funding the R&D pipeline necessary to make the "big" improvements in GPU technology, takes money, so they raise the price on their products, even at the same performance points, mostly. It's kind of sad.Feels like we are on the door step of discrete video cards being irrelevant, kind of like add on audio cards are. Card manufacturers keeping prices high for minimal improvements strategy can't last that long.
Well, total yearly / quarterly unit sales are down overall in the market. Less and less people own desktop PCs, and while the enthusiast / gamer segment is growing, within the pie, the entire pie is shrinking. So overall, I believe, GPU sales have largely been cut in half, so funding the R&D pipeline necessary to make the "big" improvements in GPU technology, takes money, so they raise the price on their products, even at the same performance points, mostly. It's kind of sad.
For so many years, the "Joe Sixpack" PC purchaser, was really the bottom-tier of the "food chain", whos purchases (collective purchasing power, spread out over many individuals) were funding the R&D pipeline, that us enthusiasts (and corporate types, the top of the food chain), were benefiting from better and better technology, Now that that pool of "Joe Sixpack" funding is drying up, we enthusiasts (and corporate types), are paying more directly to fund the future development of this technology.
The loss of the low-middle mainstream market is multifaceted.Well, total yearly / quarterly unit sales are down overall in the market. Less and less people own desktop PCs, and while the enthusiast / gamer segment is growing, within the pie, the entire pie is shrinking. So overall, I believe, GPU sales have largely been cut in half, so funding the R&D pipeline necessary to make the "big" improvements in GPU technology, takes money, so they raise the price on their products, even at the same performance points, mostly. It's kind of sad.
For so many years, the "Joe Sixpack" PC purchaser, was really the bottom-tier of the "food chain", whos purchases (collective purchasing power, spread out over many individuals) were funding the R&D pipeline, that us enthusiasts (and corporate types, the top of the food chain), were benefiting from better and better technology, Now that that pool of "Joe Sixpack" funding is drying up, we enthusiasts (and corporate types), are paying more directly to fund the future development of this technology.
I agree with your sentiment about what I'd like to see out of AMD. I don't care if they're a Polaris "replacement" or not because then people get their panties in a bunch about die size and other stuff.
I'd be content with 5600 and 5600XT at $229 and $269 that boast 15% performance improvements over the RX580 and RX590. That would put the 5600 between the 1660 and 1660Ti, and the 5600XT just above the 1070 at 1440p.
An RX570 "replacement" (5500XT) at $169 that boasts a 15% improvement over the RX570 puts it just below at 1660. A single-fan 5500 without power connector would be sweet.
As long as AMD market them by price point rather than performance (that is, don't put the 5600 against the 1660Ti, but instead against the similarly-priced 1660) like they seemed to be doing with the 5700/XT, that would be a win.
Yeah they both doing same thing.Oh yes very nice duopoly we have.This is why nobody should buy RTX cards and Navi cards so both NV and AMD will be forced lower prices next gen.But sheeps keep buing those overpriced cards so they both will increase or maybe even double prices again with next gen cards.Thing is 5700XT IS Polaris replacement.
RX480 was replacement for 270X/280X, it had the same die size as 270X but offered double performance and was trading blows with previous top end card 290X while still priced in the super affordable mid $200 slot. We got twice the performance for same midrange price.
5700XT has the same die size as RX480, and also has performance of previous top end card from AMD VEGA64/RadeonVII, but it now costs twice as much.
AMD is doing same thing as nVidia - they're releasing faster cards, but instead of slotting everything down they just set the prices higher and higher.
What's the point in AMD releasing anything slower than 5700 as a replacement to RX480 if it's going to have the same price and performance as RX480? There is no point other than marketing and justifying inflated prices for NAVE/RTX.
True. I think if they only bump speeds 15%, then the prices should be something like $139-149, $189-199, $239-249 (personally I think an RX590 replacement at $239 landing somewhere between a 1070 and a Vega 56 in performance would be amazing).The 1660 and 1660 ti are already the speeds you suggested.
Grafikkarten-Rangliste 2024: GPUs im Vergleich
Welche Grafikkarte kaufen? Für den Juni gibt es Empfehlungen mit Nvidia GeForce RTX 4000, AMD Radeon RX 7000 und Intel Arc.www.computerbase.de
Considering these cards would be coming 9 to 10 months later and the 1660 can be found for 205 dollars and the 1660 ti found for 255 dollars, such performance and pricing would make those launch prices for those cards dead in the water.
You have to remember when launched the RX590 was poorly received because it presented a negative increase in price to performance vs the rx 580. This was because the increase in performance was less than the increase in price. Add that it was the third iteration of Polaris and it just was not a good card when combined with the increase in power.
Using the bad launch pricing and performance of the rx 590, as well as 2.5 years old pricing and performance of the rx 580 at launch to justify 229 and 269 pricing for 15% extra performance is poor form this late in the game. It was borderline acceptable for Nvidia because of their mindshare, the earlier release and the lack of competition.
AMD launching card with similar performance as the GTX 1660 and 1660 ti at roughly 10% higher pricing would be setting themselves up for failure.
$250??My AMD RX580 8GB was $200 on a 30% sale how is that even possible?I am waiting for the AMD 5700XT to be around $250. What good is competition if AMD is going to have a 2080Ti killer available sometime in 2020. That is not how the computer technology business works.
A $290 reference 5700 and drop in AIB prices to $310-320 would be awesome. But there's a sizeable gap in performance between 1660Ti and 5700 (per TechPowerUp at 1440p, RX5700 as baseline 100%, the 1660Ti is 79%, the 2060 is 95%, the 2060S is 108%, and the 5700XT is 114%).RX 5700 for $290 is close to where I think AMD should have launched that card. They needed a midrange card to beat the 2060 in performance and the 1660Ti in price. $290 is still more than some 1660Tis out there, so it doesn't quite fit the bill, but it's still a strong bargain. We'll see if any other 5700s go to that price level.
What do you market the 5700 against?