Support NeoGAF

[Leonidas]

Edit: The bundles are not exclusive to the 590, you can get 570/580 for $150/$200 and get your choice of two of the games at select retailers.

Reviews are live:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/XFX/Radeon_RX_590_Fatboy/
https://techreport.com/review/34260/amd-radeon-rx-590-graphics-card-reviewed/
https://www.kitguru.net/components/leo-waldock/amd-sapphire-rx-590-nitro-se-8gb-review/
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/26583-xfx-radeon-rx-590-fatboy-polaris-pa-12-nanometer/
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13570/the-amd-radeon-rx-590-review/
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_rx_590_powercolor_red_devil_review

40% higher price. 590 is $279. 580 is $160-$199 for more models than the 590 is $279.
10% higher performance over 580(shrinks to 0-3% when both cards are overclocked).
garbage performance per watt(the worst since Fury X).



There is no defending this card at it's current price.
Sounds much worse than any other GPU launch I've seen in a very long time.

 

[RoboFu]

Apparently it’s much better than a 1060 though which is its market.

I wonder if there will even be 2060 ?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Apparently it’s much better than a 1060 though which is its market.

I wonder if there will even be 2060 ?

It will have similar to 1070 performance probably

 

[RoboFu]

It will have similar to 1070 performance probably

Right but will they cut out tensor stuff to make it cheap enough.

 

[michaelius]

Apparently it’s much better than a 1060 though which is its market.

I wonder if there will even be 2060 ?

Nvidia has 1060 with DDR5X prepared to counter it.

2060 and 2050 cards are coming in 2019.

Right but will they cut out tensor stuff to make it cheap enough.

Yes - Nvidia said 2070 is lowest part with RT cores.

 

[Leonidas]

Apparently it’s much better than a 1060 though which is its market.

I wouldn't say much better. The performance increase compared to GTX 1060 seems proportional to the price increase. And that's with an increased power draw.

RX 580 is the best deal(price/performance wise, not taking into consideration electricity costs over time) currently in that segment. Who would spend $280 on a 590 when they could get a 580 for $80 cheaper. Only way it makes sense is if the Game Bundle actually sells for $279.

 

[lukilladog]

Garbage card, it just shows how Nvidia and AMD have become so predictable and so cooperative to each other. Because Nvidia could have launched the 2060 and make this totally irrelevant (they are just holding the tu116), AMD could also have designed navi 12 to obliterate the 2060/1070 (because 7nm is that good) but they didn´t... they are not competing anymore and the effects already show, having to pay $1200 to play at the same resolution of a 1 year old console with somewhat comfortable performance is hilarious and has no precedent.

 

[thelastword]

Nice card, should make a killing for the holidays.......Most people buy these cards than 1080ti and 2080ti's folks. The 580 already beat the 1060-6GB, but this takes it to another level at that price.....AMD should make a killing with both the $220 RX 580 and the RX 590, which beat the 1060 on the mid end, more memory, better card overall...

Now these are performance metrics at 1469 base and 1545 boost, which is very impressive....Yet these cards have been shown to reach speeds of 1680, perhaps even much higher (1750 perhaps) when it launches...

There's also this $180.00 game bundle below too....Now all three of these games are highly anticipated and it's looking that they will run best or very well on AMD hardware...I think I'll buy one of these RX 590's just for the bundle.....Yes AMD is gearing for the holidays allright, most people buy mid-end GPU's around that time, with that bundle, it's a no brainer....

 

[Tenaciousmo]

Interested in more benchmark , maybe ones with higher clock speed would be more interesting, my 290 has served me well but those numbers are sadly not that impressive.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Garbage card, it just shows how Nvidia and AMD have become so predictable and so cooperative to each other. Because Nvidia could have launched the 2060 and make this totally irrelevant (they are just holding the tu116), AMD could also have designed navi 12 to obliterate the 2060/1070 (because 7nm is that good) but they didn´t... they are not competing anymore and the effects already show, having to pay $1200 to play at the same resolution of a 1 year old console with somewhat comfortable performance is hilarious and has no precedent.

Garbage card for $280 that is comparable to a GTX 1070 and it includes a $60 game?

 

[lukilladog]

Garbage card for $280 that is comparable to a GTX 1070 and it includes a $60 game?

Yeah, for $300 they used to give you cards that would easily handle console resolutions at high frame rates.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Yeah, for $300 they used to give you cards that would easily handle console resolutions at high frame rates.

That card will play games at 1440p and over 30 fps. Pardon me?

 

[Chairman Tickles]

Hell my 1070 handles most games at 4k on high-ultra 30fps. 590x for that price is a bargain.

 

[lukilladog]

That card will play games at 1440p and over 30 fps. Pardon me?

You have a 1 year old console that is doing native 4k in a game like red dead redemption 2 and BFV on one side, on the other side you have to pay $300 for a card that will choke at such resolution. This is not ok, playing games at resolutions higher than a 1 year old console with high frame rates and without the need to slash graphic settings out of the box should be a given on a brand new card on this price range, such feat is nothing extraordinary, it used to be the norm, pc gamers should not be supporting this crap.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

You have a 1 year old console that is doing native 4k in a game like red dead redemption 2 and BFV on one side, on the other side you have to pay $300 for a card that will choke at such resolution. This is not ok, playing games at resolutions higher than a 1 year old console with high frame rates and without the need to slash graphic settings out of the box should be a given on a brand new card on this price range, such feat is nothing extraordinary, it used to be the norm, pc gamers should not be supporting this crap.

Red Dead 2 is not on consoles so how did you conclude it chokes?

This card will play Forza Horizon 4 in ultra at 4k. The X is in 4k but not all settings in ultra. Destiny 2 is 30fps. The Division 2 will also likely play better with this card (with the right CPU) than we will see on the X.

The X offers great value but most games will continue to be locked at 30fps. I think this card will give you more options and better overall performance.

It's also $220 once you factor in the game. The X is $400.

 

[Tenaciousmo]

It's also $220 once you factor in the game. The X is $400.

But the X is a complete package too. cpu, ram, motherboard, controller, PSU and OS included...

 

[lukilladog]

Red Dead 2 is not on consoles so how did you conclude it chokes?

This card will play Forza Horizon 4 in ultra at 4k. The X is in 4k but not all settings in ultra. Destiny 2 is 30fps. The Division 2 will also likely play better with this card (with the right CPU) than we will see on the X.

The X offers great value but most games will continue to be locked at 30fps. I think this card will give you more options and better overall performance.

It's also $220 once you factor in the game. The X is $400.

You are missing the point, it´s about how this card falls so short compared to previous video cards on the same price range which used to mop the floor with 1 year old consoles... playing at the same resolution of consoles was $80 video card job, not $300.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

You are missing the point, it´s about how this card falls so short compared to previous video cards on the same price range which used to mop the floor with 1 year old consoles... playing at the same resolution of consoles was $80 video card job, not $300.

We never had midcycle upgraded consoles like this before either. The point is consoles will continue to cap most of their games at 30fps because they know graphics sell. I built my PC to allow me the freedom to do as I wish and this card will play all those console titles at higher frame rates.

 

[llien]

The price is better than I have expected.
Basically much faster than 1060 for 1060's price + FreeSync perk + game.

 

[Paracelsus]

This will force them to kill the 4gb 580, because it factually becomes useless, as the 580 will definitely fall down to 220€. Same will probably happen to the 3gb 1060.

 

[thelastword]

This will force them to kill the 4gb 580, because it factually becomes useless, as the 580 will definitely fall down to 220€. Same will probably happen to the 3gb 1060.

Still a good card for those who want to save a few bucks, but yes, eventually I think AMD will stop making 4GB versions of these cards....

BTW, 8Gb 580's have been available for $220 for a while now.....Currently you can get an 8Gb 580 for as low as $199 on Newegg......So all the lower-ram variations you can get for even cheaper, choices are good tbh...People buy what they can afford or what they think is good enough for them..

 

[Paracelsus]

Still a good card for those who want to save a few bucks, but yes, eventually I think AMD will stop making 4GB versions of these cards....

BTW, 8Gb 580's have been available for $220 for a while now.....Currently you can get an 8Gb 580 for as low as $199 on Newegg......So all the lower-ram variations you can get for even cheaper, choices are good tbh...People buy what they can afford or what they think is good enough for them..

I deliberately put "€" because prices in Europe are still in robbery zone. 220€ for the 4gb 580, 280€ for a non-explosive 8g model (armor can be found for cheap but it sucks), more or less same pricing but about 20€ higher for both models of the 1060. If the 590 is going to be 279$ you can bet your bottom dollar that it's going to be in between 299 or 350€.

 

[thelastword]

I deliberately put "€" because prices in Europe are still in robbery zone. 220€ for the 4gb 580, 280€ for a non-explosive 8g model (armor can be found for cheap but it sucks), more or less same pricing but about 20€ higher for both models of the 1060. If the 590 is going to be 279$ you can bet your bottom dollar that it's going to be in between 299 or 350€.

I saw the euro sign, does the price hike happen commonly with products in Europe against the US? or is this just happening in the GPU market there?

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

You have a 1 year old console that is doing native 4k in a game like red dead redemption 2 and BFV on one side, on the other side you have to pay $300 for a card that will choke at such resolution. This is not ok, playing games at resolutions higher than a 1 year old console with high frame rates and without the need to slash graphic settings out of the box should be a given on a brand new card on this price range, such feat is nothing extraordinary, it used to be the norm, pc gamers should not be supporting this crap.

This is nonsense. A 590 not only can handle 4K at similar performance at comparable settings based on the performance of the 580, it can go higher. A 580 8GB card handles GTAV maxed out at 4K at around 30-55FPS and that's despite the DX11 renderer. The Khronos group was credited in Red Dead Redemption 2 so I'd imagine it'll be even better in RDR2 on PC when that happens.


The Xbox One X is a great value but it's a walled garden ecosystem that comes with a lot of bullshit as baggage. Personally, I'd gladly pay an extra $250 to get a much more powerful, capable system where I'm not paying for multiplayer, waiting for certification for updates, paying more for content in general and having the ability to do whatever I want with the hardware I own.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Cn4cFt

 

[lukilladog]

We never had midcycle upgraded consoles like this before either. The point is consoles will continue to cap most of their games at 30fps because they know graphics sell. I built my PC to allow me the freedom to do as I wish and this card will play all those console titles at higher frame rates.

Consoles are always designed to take advantage of the available technology in a way that makes sense, so a thing like the XBox X is just the latest console technologically speaking. It was built using the latest available tech, the same way video cards are, so there is not any kind of midcycle disparity producing a technological advantage, it´s an unsubstantiated argument. Furthermore, it´s not even 12nm as the rx 590, it´s built on the less efficient 16nm. And as for consoles continuing to be 30fps, that has always been the norm on the 3d era, but guess what was also the norm, far inferior resolutions compared to what $300 worth of video card would get you. So don´t let them preach you that +30fps at the same console resolution is acceptable for multiplatform games on a $300 video card, it´s spin doctoring.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

It is funny how I bought 1070 around 2 years ago for 350 after jet discount and now there is still no real update unless I spend 1080 crazy money

 

[lukilladog]

This is nonsense. A 590 not only can handle 4K at similar performance at comparable settings based on the performance of the 580, it can go higher. A 580 8GB card handles GTAV maxed out at 4K at around 30-55FPS and that's despite the DX11 renderer. The Khronos group was credited in Red Dead Redemption 2 so I'd imagine it'll be even better in RDR2 on PC when that happens.


The Xbox One X is a great value but it's a walled garden ecosystem that comes with a lot of bullshit as baggage. Personally, I'd gladly pay an extra $250 to get a much more powerful, capable system where I'm not paying for multiplayer, waiting for certification for updates, paying more for content in general and having the ability to do whatever I want with the hardware I own.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Cn4cFt

You are just cherry picking, a known form of fallacious argument. See, I could also pick a game like Kingdom Come and claim that this isn´t even a good 1080p card:

The other stuff you mention about the xbox X is not relevant to the argument at all, performance is not related to your feelings about things like paid multiplayer and stuff. Which another form of fallacious argument (Red Herring), so you can see how much sense you are making.

 

[lukilladog]

It is funny how I bought 1070 around 2 years ago for 350 after jet discount and now there is still no real update unless I spend 1080 crazy money

Because AMD and nvidia are not competing anymore, and not because AMD fails to produce good high end cards, that would change nothing if they keep fixing the market along with nvidia... well, of course AMD would not have the balls to charge $1200 for a high end video card, they don´t have that kind of fanbase. It would drive nvidia high end price tags down a bit, but it would not change much the way they all are handling the midrange and low end. Predictable products with little to no effort to disturb each other look like the scenario you would expect if there was market fixing going on.

 

[llien]

Because AMD and nvidia are not competing anymore

No, rather because AMD has limited resources for R&D (although they spend more on it than Apple does) and they have focused most of it on CPU development (and it did indeed pay off).

 

[lukilladog]

No, rather because AMD has limited resources for R&D (although they spend more on it than Apple does) and they have focused most of it on CPU development (and it did indeed pay off).

C´mon, outside of a couple of high end flops, amd gpu´s are much more rounded (technologically speaking) compared to nvidia gpu´s than their cpu´s are to intel´s (IPC is still clearly weak point), so citing some ficticious R&D unbalance is lazy. The difference is that AMD is willing to compete against intel by offering more cores at really competitive prices, disrupting Intel product plans. That´s what they are not doing against nvidia. And even if their tech was so inferior (which it isn´t) they could still spec their cards to slip them between nvdia´s segmens, but they wont do that, and nvidia wont do it either, and again that´s the behavior you would expect in a fixed market scenario.

 

[xwez]

You have a 1 year old console that is doing native 4k in a game like red dead redemption 2 and BFV on one side, on the other side you have to pay $300 for a card that will choke at such resolution. This is not ok, playing games at resolutions higher than a 1 year old console with high frame rates and without the need to slash graphic settings out of the box should be a given on a brand new card on this price range, such feat is nothing extraordinary, it used to be the norm, pc gamers should not be supporting this crap.

I like how you keep leaving out the part about framerate. Surely that wasn't intentional

 

[lukilladog]

I like how you keep leaving out the part about framerate. Surely that wasn't intentional

Explain.

 

[llien]

The difference is that AMD is willing to compete against intel by offering more cores at really competitive prices, disrupting Intel product plans. That´s what they are not doing against nvidia.

290x anyone?
280/280x vs 960 anyone?

In other words, I beg to differ.

PS
Volta was a fluke, they spent several billion (Huang himself said), and made, perhaps, a couple of hundred million in datacenter business (if at all). AMD cannot afford this kind of R&D spending. They simply don't have backup products.

 

[MightySquirrel]

Oh wow yet another rx 480 refresh with similar perf and price

Anyone with Nvidia 1060, 980ti, 1070, 1070ti , 1080, 2070, 1080ti 2080, 2080ti or Amd 480, 580, furyX, vega56, vega64... so basically everyone with a gaming pc will find this worthless. Unless someone hasn't upgraded from 2013 yet. What are they even targeting with this? New players? AMDisappointed.

 

[llien]

rx 480 refresh

Nope. It's a die shrink.

similar perf

Nope, it's about 10% faster.

and price

Nope, 50$ more.

so basically everyone with a gaming pc will find this worthless

There are many with older cards.
nvidia knows that too and is about to release GP104 based 1060 branded card, to my knowledge.

 

[MightySquirrel]

^^ thanks for confirming everything what I said to be true.

 

[lukilladog]

290x anyone?
280/280x vs 960 anyone?

In other words, I beg to differ.

PS
Volta was a fluke, they spent several billion (Huang himself said), and made, perhaps, a couple of hundred million in datacenter business (if at all). AMD cannot afford this kind of R&D spending. They simply don't have backup products.

I wouldn´t say there was fixing in 2013. You can see a graph from back then and see how the performance bars escalate naturally among different cards:

Then this happens:

 

[llien]

Crysis 3, you say:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/14.html

Then this happens:

970, by nvidia's standards, had great perf/$ (although your chart is a single game) which, however, was matched by AMD.

970 was losing at 1440p:

And was between 390/390x at 1080p:

960 was outright pathetic, but still outsold competition. (which was the point I was making)

 

[Kenpachii]

Lol at those benchmarks.

Who the hell was playing with a 290/970 on 1440p. Nobody. These are 1080p cards and nothing else. Wanna go 1440p route you are sitting at 980 ti + cards / vega+. Wanna do 4k you sit at a minimum of 1080ti tier guard unless you wanna tune settings down and even those are struggling with 4k at 60 fps in games like battlefield 5.

Now go get a budget CPU and push that 970 in it, play witcher 3 and walk through a town and do the same with a 290. I have had both cards and benched them myself. Nvidia will push far higher lows and far more stable ms then AMD ever did the framerate is all over the place. The heat and trash ram used on those 290's gave them lots of hardware issue's ( AMD cards where riddled with it that they even deliver tools to indentify if you had borked memory ), ms problems also. The sound they made and power supply it needed on top of it.

Then the trash AMD drivers that got offered which for multiple reasons i would avoid buying any AMD card no matter the performance it delivers. ( well if its 100% faster for the same price, maybe i would consider ). It amount of features it misses over Nvidia also isn't helping there case.

How is somebody with a 970 ( old gpu ) and a gsync monitor upgrading to a 590? that does what? 25% more performance? yea good luck, he's better off if he needs v-ram to buy straight into a 1060 even if it performs worse in some games. You also probably will get far more stable framerates if you have a some what aged CPU on that 1060.

It's well known AMD will perform better on higher resolutions with there cards then Nvidia simple because there shit tier drivers are not getting limited as much by the CPU. The benchmarks on top end CPU's for budget cards also do not reflect anything what people will experience.

It always made me laugh when people started to brag how 290 would push 30% more performance over a 970 at 4k, but forget the mention both cards runned the game sub 20 fps aka unplayable and completely useless.

I would buy a 1060 over that 590 any day.

 

[llien]

Lol at those benchmarks.

Because....

Who the hell was playing with a 290/970 on 1440p.

You should, perhaps, re-check what has been posted again.

 

[plushyp]

As someone who will be gaming on 1080p for 3-4 years, will R590 be a good choice? I like to keep all graphical settings at max except for shadows, AA...

 

[Leonidas]

The one reason to buy RX 590 has evaporated. You get free games with RX 570 and higher.

RX 590 is now just an overpriced Radeon card(40% more expensive than the current going rate of some RX 580s while only being ~10% faster).

As long as there aren't any weird shenanigans with the pricing you should be able to pick up a RX 570 at $150 or RX 580 for $200(for 90% of the performance and 2 games of your choice).

 

[llien]

40% more expensive than the current going rate of some RX 580

Citation needed.

PS
You sound as if there is some personal vendetta against GPU underdog.

As someone who will be gaming on 1080p for 3-4 years, will R590 be a good choice? I like to keep all graphical settings at max except for shadows, AA...

It's always better to see actual benchmarks first.
It will also depend on actual street price.
With Vega 56 going for $350 at the moment, there are other great options.

 

[Leonidas]

Citation needed.

PS
You sound as if there is some personal vendetta against GPU underdog.

Newegg.com right now.

You got me, the 590(at $280) is up to 75% more expensive for 10% better performance...

 

[llien]

You got me, the 590(at $280) is up to 75% more expensive for 10% better performance...

We need to see street price, to judge how expensive 590 actually is.

Even 4Gb version of 580 is a steal at $159.
Especially having competitor pricing in mind:

 

[Leonidas]

We need to see street price, to judge how expensive 590 actually is.

Even 4Gb version of 580 is a steal at $159.

You think they're going to discount 590 on day one? At any rate there is no way it will be good price/performance compared to the prices the old cards are going for with the bundled games.

 

[llien]

So, cheapest 1060 is $230, 21% cheaper, most are $250, 11% cheaper for a slower card with no FreeSync support, 2GB less of RAM, even ignoring bundled games.
$280 for 590 at this point is just about right.

You think they're going to discount 590 on day one?

It will depend on actual demand and competitor's pricing, which as we see ain't that great for the customer.

 

[Leonidas]

$280 for 590 at this point is just about right.

I fail to see the logic where paying up to 75% more for 10% more performance makes any sense. Why are you trying to bring nVidia into this?

 

[Leonidas]

It will depend on competitor's pricing, which as we see ain't that great for the customer.

It's not nVidia's fault that AMD is still competing with a 2.5 year old card.

 

[plushyp]

It's always better to see actual benchmarks first.
It will also depend on actual street price.
With Vega 56 going for $350 at the moment, there are other great options.

What would you suggest?