# XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy 8 GB



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2018)

AMD today released the Radeon RX 590, which is an improved 12 nanometer version of the RX 580. Thanks to a large clock-speed increase, the card beats the GTX 1060 6 GB by 10%. XFX's RX 590 Fatboy comes with a large triple-slot cooler to keep the card cool and noise levels low.

*Show full review*


----------



## madness777 (Nov 15, 2018)

The Fatboy has dropped


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Nov 15, 2018)

Powerdraw of a 1080TI, performance of a 1060. I don't see this taking a bite out of 1070, which it's supposed to be competing with.


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 15, 2018)

TSMC? You sure it's not from the GF 12nm line as zen+. I thought 12nm FFN is only for Nvidia. 



ZeppMan217 said:


> Powerdraw of a 1080TI, performance of a 1060. I don't see this taking a bite out of 1070, which it's supposed to be competing with.



It's not even suppose to compete with gtx 1070. Well there's price point room between gtx1060 and gtx1070, where this slots. But yeah not really stellar product itself. AMD needs something to sell for Christmas and this does the job.


----------



## kastriot (Nov 15, 2018)

This is just replacement for 580 but with 20% more power draw and 50% higher price so it's a failed product atm.

BTW great review like always!


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Powerdraw of a 1080TI


Your on a radeon HD so you know nothing, you could've googled the power consumption of a 1080 ti and hint for you - it's above 300w, large difference. And chances are this card will be better priced than a 1060 for more performance.


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2018)

kastriot said:


> This is just replacement for 580 but with 20% more power draw and 50% higher price so it's a failed product atm.
> 
> BTW great review like always!



Where do you find 580's so cheap?


----------



## Fleurious (Nov 15, 2018)

So glad I pulled the trigger on a 1070ti instead of waiting for reviews on the 590.  At its current price it’s just doesn’t seem worth it.


----------



## rvalencia (Nov 15, 2018)

RX-580 needs 64 ROPS update and faster memory speeds.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

Fleurious said:


> So glad I pulled the trigger on a 1070ti instead of waiting for reviews on the 590.  At its current price it’s just doesn’t seem worth it.


$279 RRP according to https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-11-15-radeon-rx-590-preview-7014
And this card in the review will be priced around 300$ - the 1070 ti goes at a higher price point and it's dead, nvidia don't optimize their older generation cards so the performance will overtake nvidia's cards over time with drivers


----------



## Fleurious (Nov 15, 2018)

Perhaps, I certainly wouldn’t put it past nVidia.

However, $425CAD (~$320 USD) shipped for a BNIB 1070ti gives me a lot if performance that i can use right now and not maybe down the road later with driver improvements.

With respect to the above HWC had a good article on the 780ti and 290x performance over time:
https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for...iews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html


----------



## siluro818 (Nov 15, 2018)

kastriot said:


> This is just replacement for 580 but with 20% more power draw and 50% higher price so it's a failed product atm.
> 
> BTW great review like always!


Except the power draw is matched by the increase in performance, while the 40% higher price will fall substantially in the coming months. Not only it's not a failed product - it will fit right in.
See how different things look when you can read and dunno... think stuff through before writing it down?

Also I'm not so sure on those $200 RX580s. The 8GB Sapphire Nitro is $240 on Newegg...


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Your on a radeon HD so you know nothing, you could've googled the power consumption of a 1080 ti and hint for you - it's above 300w, large difference. And chances are this card will be better priced than a 1060 for more performance.



Actually, you are wrong.  The 1080ti average gaming power consumption is 230 watts with a peak of 270 watts.  A far cry away from above 300 watts. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti/28.html


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> you could've googled the power consumption of a 1080 ti and hint for you - it's above 300w, large difference.



Sorry, try again. The 1080Ti is 231w average, this RX 590 is 232w average.  When the numbers are literally right in the review, why are you trying to say stuff that isn't true?  Like, no googling required, W1z gives them to you right there.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> And chances are this card will be better priced than a 1060 for more performance.



The GTX1060 6GB is literally $50 cheaper than this RX 590($229 vs $279).  So, no, it won't be better priced than the 1060.  Yes, it has 10% more performance, but is that worth a 20% higher price?  IDK, that is up to the buyer.  Of course the GTX1070 is 20% faster than the RX 590 and 20% more money, so at least it offers a linear price/performance gain over the RX 590.  I mean, if you're going to spend the extra $50 on an RX590, it is hard to not consider spending another $60 to go with the GTX1070.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> so the performance will overtake nvidia's cards over time with drivers



The problem is this isn't a new architecture.  Major performance improvements come with new architectures, the drivers are optimized for the architecture and the performance for that architecture improves over time.  There will be no improvements for RX 590, AMD has already optimized the Polaris architecture as much as it can in the 2 years since they launched it.



Fleurious said:


> Perhaps, I certainly wouldn’t put it past nVidia.
> 
> However, $425CDN shipped for a BNIB 1070ti gives me a lot if performance that i can use right now and not maybe down the road later with driver improvements.



Polaris and Pascal are both optimized as far as they are going to go at this point.  So the performance is what it is.  We might see a percentage point swing one way or the other, but there isn't going to be any major improvement.  It definitely isn't going to suddenly make the RX 590 perform like a GTX1070.  The architecture has been pushed as far as it's going to go.



siluro818 said:


> Except the power draw is matched by the increase in performance, while the 40% higher price will fall substantially in the coming months. Not only it's not a failed product - it will fit right in.
> See how different things look when you can read and dunno... think stuff through before writing it down?
> 
> Also I'm not so sure on those $200 RX580s. The 8GB Sapphire Nitro is $240 on Newegg...



There will likely be price drops across the board on graphics cards after the holidays.  So saying "price will fall eventually" isn't really a valid argument.  We are judging the card on where it sits right now, not where it might sit in a few months.  AMD knew the pricing of the market when they released this card, if they wanted it to be cheaper they would have made it cheaper.  If AMD really wanted a winner they would have priced the RX 590 at $240 and lowered the rest of the stack below it.  But they did exactly what nVidia did, released a new card that is faster than their others(ignoring Vega) and instead of replacing the highest Polaris card in the product stack and keeping that price point, they just added a new higher price point.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

FeelinFroggy said:


> Actually, you are wrong. The 1080ti average gaming power consumption is 230 watts with a peak of 270 watts. A far cry away from above 300 watts.


Nope your wrong, your comparing the "founders" 1080 ti to an aftermarket card
That's my 1080 ti ftw3 power consumption, My 1080 ti draws more than "230w average"
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/evga-gtx-1080-ti-ftw3-gaming,5061-5.html
Besides, your forgetting the pricing difference between the 1080 ti and rx 590 - it's a stupid comparison.


----------



## PerfectWave (Nov 15, 2018)

Are you sure about this prifle in multimonitor? (932 MHz2000 MHz0.950 V)
   932 mhz? Seems to bit strange to me


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> it is hard to not consider spending another $60 to go with the GTX1070.


60$ more for a card that doesn't support freesync - if your going low end on nvidia you'll end up with a no sync monitor without handing over a kidney - you'll end up with v sync all the time



newtekie1 said:


> Polaris and Pascal are both optimized as far as they are going to go at this point.


So you work at AMD? Well even if you did your talking BS, there is no limit to "optimization" - what about newer titles? Well nvidia will stop optimizing our 10 series cards in favor of RTX, whilst AMD pulls ahead over time.


----------



## unikin (Nov 15, 2018)

What has happened to GPU market today? Recommending to buy revision of revision with one of the worse performance per watt ratio World has ever seen. Have we really become so desperate? Granted NGreedia is ignoring low to mid range GPU segment all together with RTX release, so second revision of 2.5 years old lower mid range architecture can be sold for $280 and still call it a good deal, but c'mon PS5 will be faster than this.


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 15, 2018)

Now the x90 name is tainted. x90 now competing with competitor’s xx60. Man this is just sad.

Remove the game bundle and drop the price to maybe $220 then it would be a better value.

Here is to hope David Wang works his magic on what comes after Navi. GCN must die ASAP. Jack of all trades and master of none.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

unikin said:


> What has happened to GPU market today? Recommending to buy revision of revision with one of the worse performance per watt ratio World has ever seen. Have we really become so desperate? Granted NGreedia is ignoring low to mid range GPU segment all together, so second revision of 2.5 years old lower mid range architecture can be sold for $280 and still call it a good deal.


Well do you want to work at AMD and fix it, people are expecting a 2080 ti here for peanuts, AMD can't compete in the high end market, get over it - and when they do nvidia fanboys like the ones in this thread will continue to buy nvidia. If it's not for you don't buy it, It's got it's use case and people will buy what meets their needs best or at least most of the time. Remember AMD works on nowhere near as much as R&D as intel and nvidia have, AMD is poor in comparison to the two AND they have no choice to not release a card every year, or they'll basically be handing over some more market share to nvidia, and remember their staff need to get paid so they need to release something people will buy or they'll end up bankrupt.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> 60$ more for a card that doesn't support freesync - if your going low end on nvidia you'll end up with a no sync monitor without handing over a kidney - you'll end up with v sync all the time



Despite AMD fan belief, freesync is not a technology that most people actually give a shit about.  And freesync is only needed if the card is too weak to maintain a good enough framerate.  Not really an issue with the GTX1070@1080p like it is with the RX 590.  I'd rather just get a 75Hz monitor and game at a stead 75Hz or 60Hz than deal with the card dipping down below 60FPS and my monitor needing to adapt try try to make the stuttering look smoother.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Remove the game bundle and drop the price to maybe $220 then it would be a better value.


That'd without a doubt sell like mad, I'd imagine we'd see cheap cards on the used market at around £150~ I might grab one for my other rig


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Your on a radeon HD so you know nothing, you could've googled the power consumption of a 1080 ti and hint for you - it's above 300w, large difference. And chances are this card will be better priced than a 1060 for more performance.


What have you been reading and where? Here, on TPU, this card draws exactly twice the power the 1060 6GB does, for 10-15% better performance (15% at 4k, but neither card can really handle that resolution comfortably). And it costs $50 more than 1060 6GB.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Despite AMD fan belief, freesync is not a technology that most people actually give a shit about.


Still 60$ more in your pocket, some people care about saving what they can.


----------



## kings (Nov 15, 2018)

So, significantly more expensive (MSRP), significantly more power consumption, to only 10% extra performance in most cases.

Either the street price will be much lower or I don't know who will buy this card compared to the much cheaper RX580.


----------



## unikin (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Well do you want to work at AMD and fix it, people are expecting a 2080 ti here for peanuts, AMD can't compete in the high end market, get over it - and when they do nvidia fanboys like the ones in this thread will continue to buy nvidia. If it's not for you don't buy it, It's got it's use case and people will buy what meets their needs best or at least most of the time. Remember AMD works on nowhere near as much as R&D as intel and nvidia have, AMD is poor in comparison to the two AND they have no choice to not release a card every year, or they'll basically be handing over some more market share to nvidia, and remember their staff need to get paid so they need to release something people will buy or they'll end up bankrupt.



I've been in Red team most of my life, buying their FirePro series and gaming GPUs, just to support some competition in GPU market, knowing that I would be paying $10K+ for PRO GPUs if AMD goes under water. BUT saying it's OK to sell 3 years old Polaris for more money than RX 470/480 have originally costed is not OK with me. AMD used to be much better value than NGreedia, now it's not anymore. If Navi doesn't deliver GTX 1080 performance for $350, I'm going 2nd hand high end Green on my gaming PC and wait for better times to arrive.


----------



## Gasaraki (Nov 15, 2018)

What a joke article. This got a "Highly Recommended" even though it is more expensive, has super high power draw, lower performance per $, lower performance per watt, no overclocking headroom than a 1060 6GB.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

unikin said:


> AMD used to be much better value than NGreedia, now it's not anymore.


And why do you think that is? 
They are fighting a 2 front battle here, it's like a car and van company fighting a richer dedicated car only company and a richer dedicated van only company then having a bunch of retards complain and expect some faster than 2080 ti card to launch from AMD, AMD got hurt bad from intel playing dirty and bribing companies to only use intel. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/05/25/why-did-nvidia-win-the-gpu-market/#40c504b575ef


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Still 60$ more in your pocket, some people care about saving what they can.



Sure, and that argument can be applied to the RX 590.  The GTX 1060 is $50 cheaper, that's still $50 more in your pocket, some people care about saving what they can.  That doesn't change that the GTX1070 really is a better buy, even if you are gaming at 1080p, simply because the extra power of the GTX1070 will last longer than the RX 590 for people that hold onto a graphics card as long as possible.  Of course an even better buy is the GTX 1070Ti or Vega 56.  When it comes to high endish graphics cards that have the horse power to last and at a good price point too, those two cards both take the cake.



unikin said:


> BUT saying it's OK to sell 3 years old Polaris for more money than RX 470/480 have originally costed is not OK with me.



Honestly, I would have much preferred a die shrunk Vega at a lower price point than a die shrunk Polaris at a higher price point.  Give me a die shrunk Vega 56 at $300 and you have a winner on your hands.

Or, even better, instead of sitting on ass for the past year and a half, and then hastily die shrinking Polaris why not instead work on Vega?  Give us some lower end Vega cards, rework the core a little so it will use regular GDDR memory, maybe make it a little smaller.  Perhaps just make a Vega48, a die shrunk Vega that is designed with only 48CUs to start with that uses traditional GDDR.  The smaller less complext die along with the elimination of HBM should give a pretty good cost reduction allowing the card to be priced in the $300 range and still be profitable.  I'd probably be a damn good performing card too!


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Of course an even better buy is the GTX 1070Ti or Vega 56


Vega 64 wins in the UK in terms of price-performance
£398 and the 1070 ti costs £380 atm, both cards new.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...hbm2-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-38j-sp.html


----------



## unikin (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> And why do you think that is?
> They are fighting a 2 front battle here, it's like a car and van company fighting a richer dedicated car only company and a richer dedicated van only company then having a bunch of retards complain and expect some faster than 2080 ti card to launch from AMD, AMD got hurt bad from intel playing dirty and bribing companies to only use intel.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/05/25/why-did-nvidia-win-the-gpu-market/#40c504b575ef



Agree, but things look brighter for AMD with their 7nm Epyc release. Data centers can't ignore much better AMD's price/performance ratio anymore. It has become too obvious, that's why Intel is kindda panicing. They are the same monopoly bastards as NGreedia is, thats why I use Threadripper in my build. God knows Xeons have costed me fortune in the past. Thanks to AMD I can get very, very good value on CPU market today. I hope they manage to do the same with Navi. They don't need to go high end. GTX 1080 equivalent for $350 and they would sell shitloads of GPUs.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Gasaraki said:


> What a joke article. This got a "Highly Recommended" even though it is more expensive, has super high power draw, lower performance per $, lower performance per watt, no overclocking headroom than a 1060 6GB.


It's a new card though. I mean, is there any new card that doesn't get the "highly recommended" badge?


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

unikin said:


> Agree, but things look brighter for AMD with their 7nm Epyc release. Data centers can't ignore much better AMD's price/performance ratio anymore. It has become too obvious, that's why Intel is kindda panicing. They are the same monopoly bastards as NGreedia is, thats why I use Threadripper in my build. God knows Xeons have costed me fortune in the past. Thanks to AMD I can get very, very good value on CPU market today. I hope they manage to do the same with Navi. They don't need to go high end. GTX 1080 equivalent for $350 and they would sell shitloads of GPUs.


Yes in the CPU market they've caught intel off guard, it doesn't change the fact nvidia has steamed ahead in the time that they haven't been competing and nvidia and intel both have the advantage of a hell of a lot more cash to blow

And AMD is definitely going well now they've moved past the crap FX lineup and those athlons on fm2+ - I've sold both of my fm2+ and am3+ rigs after being disappointed by performance, I'm not upgrading for a long time but when I do it'll probably be an amd setup


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Vega 64 wins in the UK in terms of price-performance
> £398 and the 1070 ti costs £380 atm, both cards new.
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...hbm2-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-38j-sp.html



Saddly, that isn't the case in the states.  The cheapest Vega64 is $410 and it's the crappy reference cooler version.  The cheapest version with a decent aftermarket cooler is $500.  Right now, in the US, Vega64 is a horrible buy, but Vega56 isn't that bad _if_ you're ok with the loud reference cooler otherwise Vega56 isn't really a good buy either.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2018)

PerfectWave said:


> Are you sure about this prifle in multimonitor? (932 MHz2000 MHz0.950 V)
> 932 mhz? Seems to bit strange to me


yeah that's the frequency, it looked strange to me too


----------



## Imsochobo (Nov 15, 2018)

Frick said:


> Where do you find 580's so cheap?



For me it's cheaper than a GTX1060 3gb, performance way above 1060 6gb.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Saddly, that isn't the case in the states. The cheapest Vega64 is $410 and it's the crappy reference cooler version. The cheapest version with a decent aftermarket cooler is $500. Right now, in the US, Vega64 is a horrible buy, but Vega56 isn't that bad _if_ you're ok with the loud reference cooler otherwise Vega56 isn't really a good buy either.


I was tempted myself, it is new after all but it's a pass since I'm saving to replace my cpu with a better one


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Imsochobo said:


> For me it's cheaper than a GTX1060 3gb, performance way above 1060 6gb.


How would you find a 580 having "performance way above 1060 6gb", when this card right here is only like 10-15% faster than 1060?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2018)

Gasaraki said:


> What a joke article. This got a "Highly Recommended" even though it is more expensive, has super high power draw, lower performance per $, lower performance per watt, no overclocking headroom than a 1060 6GB.


you forgot to cherry pick individual benchmarks where the 1060 is faster


----------



## buildzoid (Nov 15, 2018)

The exposed top of an IR3578 is connected to the switch node not ground.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 15, 2018)

Standalone, this is too expensive. It should be $250 tops. If you want any of the 3 free games though, then sure, it's a good deal.

But for only occasional gamers like me (I'm talking 1-2 games a year), that promotion is lost on me unless I sell them each.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> you forgot to cherry pick individual benchmarks where the 1060 is faster


You mean if you had $300 on your hands, you'd seriously consider getting one of these?

Also, two of the bundled titles come with Denuvo and the other one is from Ubisoft. I'm not sure that's an automatic pro for everyone. I know I have thrown out some "free" titles before because of online activation crap.


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 15, 2018)

Gasaraki said:


> What a joke article. This got a "Highly Recommended" even though it is more expensive, has super high power draw, lower performance per $, lower performance per watt, no overclocking headroom than a 1060 6GB.



You should know that was more like a “participation trophy” : Congrats to RTG for releasing SOMETHING in 2018 so people still remember they also sell GPUs


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2018)

bug said:


> You mean if you had $300 on your hands, you'd seriously consider getting one of these?


Yeah, why not?


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Yeah, why not?


Because you can get performance in the same ballpark for $50 less. Lower power draw, too, if you go green.
I was just asking because I wasn't sure these were worth anything to you.


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 15, 2018)

W1zzard, any plans to do a crossfire review? Say take the Sapphire 590 and the XFX 590?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2018)

Ravenas said:


> W1zzard, any plans to do a crossfire review? Say take the Sapphire 590 and the XFX 590?


No plans, multi-GPU is a waste of time these days


----------



## Supercrit (Nov 15, 2018)

At 12nm but has nearly the same performance and power consumption as a 28nm Fury X, either way past efficiency peak or terribly memory starved.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 15, 2018)

Supercrit said:


> At 12nm but has nearly the same performance and power consumption as a 28nm Fury X, either way past efficiency peak or terribly memory starved.



Yeah performance per watt is still worse than Maxwell too. I doubt even 7nm would get it to close the likes of Pascal.

The game bundle at least sweetens the deal for what is a rather mediocre card.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Nope your wrong, your comparing the "founders" 1080 ti to an aftermarket card
> That's my 1080 ti ftw3 power consumption, My 1080 ti draws more than "230w average"
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/evga-gtx-1080-ti-ftw3-gaming,5061-5.html
> Besides, your forgetting the pricing difference between the 1080 ti and rx 590 - it's a stupid comparison.



Yes, your top end FTW 1080ti pulls 280 watts for gaming workload, still below your 300 watt proposal.  Maybe your should read the chart. 

You were the one who brought up the 1080ti power consumption, I never said anything about price.  Honestly, there is nothing to really compare the 2 GPUs other than power consumption as that is the only thing that is close.

Furthermore, I don't even know what you are trying to accomplish here.  You berate someone for having a Radeon HD and say they know nothing and then you start blathering about your 1080ti's power consumption.  Sounds like you are trying to make up for something you are lacking by bragging about your 1080ti and tearing other people down.


----------



## gamerman (Nov 15, 2018)

its clear,, i mean gpu of that kind should banned and not toleraded for sale!

tx 590 'fat boy' indeed, nmassive FAT powerdraw, i mean its NEED for average gaming 100%... yes you read right 100% times more juice to have gtx 1060 performance!

games performance different is so little that gtx 1060 6gb is 100 times better gpu.

powerdraw peak rx 590 'fatboy power earth eater' need 130% more juice, what mus be new universum record!.. well vega 64 might win..

i think techpowerup give it too high reward,its not deserve anykind reward. 'not recomended' is right

abosluly junk!

p.s. its sure that gtx 1060 6b with gddr5x mems beat it easily... in fact ANY of nvidia gpu,even jurasic park old 980 ti beat it ..from games speed and also 980 ti eat less power...also its cost lower huh!


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

FeelinFroggy said:


> 1080ti pulls 280 watts for gaming workload, still below your 300 watt proposal.


20w difference isn't much at all, compared to the 50w more on average it pulls than a founders card.


FeelinFroggy said:


> Sounds like you are trying to make up for something you are lacking by bragging about your 1080ti and tearing other people down.


Nice BS there, he knew nothing, fanboys mostly from nvidia are flocking here to throw their weight calling it a "refresh" "bad" and all that nonsense, guess fanboys like you never learn. 


FeelinFroggy said:


> Honestly, there is nothing to really compare the 2 GPUs other than power consumption as that is the only thing that is close.


Still, what do you achieve by comparing power consumption against a top end card to one designed for the mid-end market? It's not like all the buyers would see it has the same power consumption and spend a little more for a 1080 ti - there's a massive difference.
The fanboyism in here is unreal.

In summary for everyone who just arrived here:


----------



## SniperHF (Nov 15, 2018)

Is there some sort of evidence that a large number of consumers actually care all that much about the power consumption?
I get why people around here might care, technological reasons, perhaps you live where power is expensive.    
But I think it might be worth looking outside your own opinion to think about if the market at large actually cares.

If you gamed 8 hours a day 7 days a week using the power consumption in the review it would cost you (at average rate, 12.15c/kwh) $82  vs $41 for a 1060.

Do you actually game 8 hours a day 7 days a week?  Then the math starts to make sense to worry about power consumption.  If you were going to own the card two years+ it might actually make sense to outright buy a 1070 instead.  But that's assuming you want to make the initial $ investment now.  


3 hours a day, more reasonable number but still well above average:
$30  vs $15

If you play games at the average rate (6hr per week) 
$8.74 vs $4.32


Are you sweating $15?  I'm not.  I'm certainly not sweating $4 or everything in between.


The big complaint is the per dollar, not per watt.  Outside of absurd amounts of gaming or mining the wattage just doesn't move the needle for the vast majority of gamers.


----------



## anubis44 (Nov 15, 2018)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Powerdraw of a 1080TI, performance of a 1060. I don't see this taking a bite out of 1070, which it's supposed to be competing with.



It's supposed to compete with, and beat the GTX1060 6GB, which it does handily.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 15, 2018)

"It is produced on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries and has a transistor count of 5.7 billion, with a die size of 232 mm², which is the same as the 14 nm "Polaris 10." "

So the "12nm" is just marketing BS just like excepted since the chip is 100% the same, isn't it just optimized 14nm?


----------



## medi01 (Nov 15, 2018)

Hmm, Fury X beats 980 Ti at 1440p now?



gamerman said:


> its clear,, i mean gpu of that kind should banned and not toleraded for sale!


Oh look, a card that is 12% faster than 580 consumes 15% more power.
Don't forget to ban 980Ti while you are at it.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> 20w difference isn't much at all, compared to the 50w more on average it pulls than a founders card.
> 
> Nice BS there, he knew nothing, fanboys mostly from nvidia are flocking here to throw their weight calling it a "refresh" "bad" and all that nonsense, guess fanboys like you never learn.
> 
> ...



You have posted 13 times to this one article. Give your trolling a rest for awhile because everyone is tired of your BS.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 15, 2018)

FeelinFroggy said:


> You have posted 13 times to this one article


Uneducated or just plain stupid? It's a forum open to discussion and ideas, If you can't handle it get off this forum simple as that. 


FeelinFroggy said:


> Give your trolling a rest for awhile because everyone is tired of your BS.


Last time I checked, the definition of "everyone" didn't mean nvidia suck ups.

Stay on topic, in case you haven't noticed the title of the thread isn't "flame war" so quit being a douche and respond to the arguments you failed to propose without being invalidated.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

SniperHF said:


> Is there some sort of evidence that a large number of consumers actually care all that much about the power consumption?
> I get why people around here might care, technological reasons, perhaps you live where power is expensive.
> But I think it might be worth looking outside your own opinion to think about if the market at large actually cares.
> 
> ...


Dude, I know the red camp has been lagging behind for so long they've convinced themselves power draw is a non issue. But this offers like 10% more gaming performance than my GTX 1060 in exchange for 110W more.
You don't care about that? It's fine. Just don't expect _everyone_ to sweep that under the rug.


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 15, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> No plans, multi-GPU is a waste of time these days


I’m really just interested in multi GPU mining.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Ravenas said:


> I’m really just interested in multi GPU mining.


If you were, you'd knew GPU mining is dead. Multi or not


----------



## HammerON (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Uneducated or just plain stupid? It's a forum open to discussion and ideas, If you can't handle it get off this forum simple as that.
> 
> Last time I checked, the definition of "everyone" didn't mean nvidia suck ups.
> 
> Stay on topic, in case you haven't noticed the title of the thread isn't "flame war" so quit being a douche and respond to the arguments you failed to propose without being invalidated.



Warning issued for your inability to play nice in your conversations.  Please refrain from calling other's fanboys and/or stupid or uneducated.  You have no right telling others to "get off this forum" or to "quite being a douche".


----------



## Midland Dog (Nov 15, 2018)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Powerdraw of a 1080TI, performance of a 1060. I don't see this taking a bite out of 1070, which it's supposed to be competing with.


swing 4 at the 1060 and still barely beats it while pulling the same power of the rtx 2080, a 1080ti class card oof


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 15, 2018)

bug said:


> If you were, you'd knew GPU mining is dead. Multi or not



Can’t be dead when I’m doing so.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Ravenas said:


> Can’t be dead when I’m doing so.


Trinity, is that you?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 15, 2018)

Functionally on par with a 980ti

might be behind the curve, but if the price is good its enough (and it will drop over time) its enough for 1440p 144hz gaming with no problems


----------



## Jism (Nov 15, 2018)

Wizzard, too bad you did'nt really go through the full refinement differences. Hardware.info reports that on same clocks there's a 50W power difference. When undervolting and keeping on stock it goes back to 0.900mv. Your OC seems really bad compared to others, who made a almost 1700mhz with just 0.100mv increase. Where you OC'ing with stock voltage?

Yeah the power enveloppe is bad knowing the 1080 does 2/3rd more then this card. Oh and, you could increase the max memory clock by flashing the card.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Uneducated or just plain stupid? It's a forum open to discussion and ideas, If you can't handle it get off this forum simple as that.
> 
> Last time I checked, the definition of "everyone" didn't mean nvidia suck ups.
> 
> Stay on topic, in case you haven't noticed the title of the thread isn't "flame war" so quit being a douche and respond to the arguments you failed to propose without being invalidated.



Your not discussing open ideas. You are insulting people and inciting arguments (trolling). 

When someone shows that your statements are wrong you throw a temper tantrum like a small child calling them fanboys.  Personally I have a 1950x, 8700k, and (2) 1080ti’s.  I think I have put enough money (won’t tell my wife exactly how much) into each AMD, Nvidia, and Intel that calling me a fanboy of one Is utterly laughable.

You claim someone does not know anything because they have a Radeon HD hardware.  When someone disagrees with you opinion you call the “uneducated or stupid”.   Does the word shallow mean anything to you?  

Here is a nickle’s worth of free advice. Learn how to speak to people, even on the internet.  Treat them with respect, especially if you disagree with them.  If you do that, most people will take you seriously and actually listen to what you have to say. If you don’t, they will tune you out like a repetitive commercial on the radio.


----------



## bug (Nov 15, 2018)

Mussels said:


> Functionally on par with a 980ti
> 
> might be behind the curve, but if the price is good its enough (and it will drop over time) its enough for 1440p 144hz gaming with no problems


Seriously, "1440p 144hz gaming with no problems"?
Out of curiosity I went back and read the review again. Of the 23 games included, this card averages over 60fps in 11. And a couple of them are just barely above 60fps. In no game does this card average 100fps at 1440p.
Sure, you don't need to max everything out and you can push more titles above 60fps. But 144?!?


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Nov 16, 2018)

I bet you can overclock the GTX1060 to get a 10% boost to match this RX590 card and the 1060 would still consume far less power than this RX590 card.


----------



## Jism (Nov 16, 2018)

Yeah but that was'nt my point. The stock OC woud'nt gain net high results compared to increasing the voltage with another 100mv or so. Some sites reported almost 1700Mhz core OC.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2018)

Jism said:


> Where you OC'ing with stock voltage?


What does it say in the review? Please check for me, I didn't read it


----------



## Imsochobo (Nov 16, 2018)

bug said:


> How would you find a 580 having "performance way above 1060 6gb", when this card right here is only like 10-15% faster than 1060?


I was hinting to RX590 being cheaper and way faster.
10% on average is way faster


----------



## laszlo (Nov 16, 2018)

i bought yesterday the rx 580 nitro+ ....  today i saw the fatboy (BF) available  and is with 5$ more... anyway i don't regret the purchase as i'll have a lower power bill


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2018)

Imsochobo said:


> I was hinting to RX590 being cheaper and way faster.
> 10% on average is way faster


Not from an engineering point of view. And from a gamer's point of view, if won't let you play a higher resolution. The best you can hope from +10%HP if turning up a notch one or maybe two settings.
And you don't have to take my word for it. Just head over to HardOCP, that guy frequently includes "highest playable settings" in his reviews and he has reviewed this very card.


----------



## PerfectWave (Nov 16, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> yeah that's the frequency, it looked strange to me too



I have rx480 and in multimonitor only the ram ramps to 2000 mhz the cpu clock stay at 300 mhz.


----------



## phill (Nov 16, 2018)

I'm a little underwhelmed with the 590.  If it was getting closer to the 1070 or at least faster than the 980 Ti for the same money, then it might be a more of a bargain than it currently is.  I'm not sure why they have released it in a way as it's priced a little high for the performance (in my opinion) it gives..

The RX 580 should have been around the GTX 980 performance or slightly higher and this RX 590 should have been around at least 980 Ti performance and closer to the 1070 if it was trying to compete in my eyes..  You can get GTX 980's around the £175 to £200 mark then 980 Ti's around the £250 mark..


----------



## AMX85 (Nov 16, 2018)

rvalencia said:


> RX-580 needs 64 ROPS update and faster memory speeds.


 has memory bottleneck, check OC numbers, 2.5% OC on GPU, 12.5% on VRAM and 5.8% higher performance

greetings


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2018)

phill said:


> I'm a little underwhelmed with the 590.  If it was getting closer to the 1070 or at least faster than the 980 Ti for the same money, then it might be a more of a bargain than it currently is.  I'm not sure why they have released it in a way as it's priced a little high for the performance (in my opinion) it gives..
> 
> The RX 580 should have been around the GTX 980 performance or slightly higher and this RX 590 should have been around at least 980 Ti performance and closer to the 1070 if it was trying to compete in my eyes..  You can get GTX 980's around the £175 to £200 mark then 980 Ti's around the £250 mark..


Imho, it if offered the same performance as the 580 with reduced power draw and for a tad cheaper, it would have made more sense.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 16, 2018)

Based on the info available and the conversation here, one has to wonder if the 590 is an outright replacement for the 580?


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 16, 2018)

PerfectWave said:


> I have rx480 and in multimonitor only the ram ramps to 2000 mhz the cpu clock stay at 300 mhz.



W1z's previous reviews of the RX 480 confirm that you are correct.  Perhaps the high multi-monitor core clock and hence power consumption is just a driver bug.



lexluthermiester said:


> Based on the info available and the conversation here, one has to wonder if the 590 is an outright replacement for the 580?



Pricing suggests it is not.


----------



## theravenesia (Nov 16, 2018)

wish i've that vga card


----------



## Jism (Nov 17, 2018)

Man, half internet is exploding over the fact that the RX590 uses more power then a 1070. Well duh... it's a 2nm refinement which is compared to a RX580 ~ 50 watts less (if you take undervolting into accounts with identical 1380mhz clocks from the RX580). It's never intended to be a better chip but due to the better proces, it allows for higher clocks up to 1700Mhz and perhaps even some more too, since not many reviewers tried watercooling or so.

At RX580 speeds your looking at a <150W card and once clocked like this sample it's doing 225W. It's already out of spec once you OC it. This card is no upgrade coming from a 480 or 1060 card at all. It's just a refinement proces which gives some advantages over a 480/580.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 18, 2018)

No doubt it would be more efficient at the original 480 or later 580 clocks, but it would still be less efficient than the 1060 and obviously no faster still... in short kinda defeating the point of it's existence.

It's a shame clocks are pushed at the expence of efficiency, and joe pub having to undervolt is a fix rather than a bonus on top of improved efficency savings, but hey ho, here we are.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 19, 2018)

Polaris arch isn't as clock-high friendly as Vega and thus, to up its clock you need much higher consumption. To be able to get 980Ti performance on average and higher than that in most recent games for $275 with 3 new games though (close to $100 of added value), it isn't bad as a product at all. In fact it is placed where nVidia doesn't have an offering at all. Imho, that's a smart move from AMD considering their restraints until next year's Navi arrives. And 570-580 are in good prices now also getting 2 of the 3 games offered with 590.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 20, 2018)

People keep comparing apples with oranges. I cannot understand complains about a card that's $280 ( RX590, newegg), having the same performance as a card that's $360 (GTX1070), almost 30% higher.
I think this card has it's place on market.


----------



## bug (Nov 20, 2018)

SoNic67 said:


> People keep comparing apples with oranges. I cannot understand complains about a card that's $280 ( RX590, newegg), having the same performance as a card that's $360 (GTX1070), almost 30% higher.
> I think this card has it's place on market.


But I'm not complaining about that. I'm complaining both the 580 and the 1060 are within 10% of this, but cost $50 less (that's 20-25% less). Both having tamer power requirements. Sure, if you want to look strictly at performance and disregard everything else, this card is great.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 20, 2018)

AMD was always famous for it's high power requirements, why ruin that reputation?


----------



## bug (Nov 20, 2018)

SoNic67 said:


> AMD was always famous for it's high power requirements, why ruin that reputation?


They've had better days.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 20, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Pricing suggests it is not.


Intro pricing.  They want to give AIBs a chance to move all of their RX 580s before pricing cutting the RX 590 to where the RX 580 is today.  This is RX 480 all over again (RX 580 debuted for high price then replaced it).  RX 480, RX 580, and RX 590 are all effectively the same card with the only difference of note to consumers is higher clockspeeds.


----------



## SoNic67 (Nov 20, 2018)

Yeah, why are we surprised by that pricing game? It's just normal business practice.
Also, they have small fixes for the bugs - like the issue of dual monitor with different resolutions that affected 480 power draw is not present in 580.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 23, 2018)

Some interesting findings on Polaris 30 vs 20 efficiency and undervolting tests. 12nm give much more efficiency if tuned properly and AMD continues to sell heavily overvoltaged chips for some reason.

https://www.tomshw.de/2018/11/22/ef...n-erkenntnissen-beim-untervolting-igorslab/2/


----------



## hat (Nov 24, 2018)

If only I had a decent board in my secondary rig. I'd shove my 1070s over there for mining, and get one of these cards (or one close to it) to support team red...


----------



## bug (Nov 24, 2018)

HD64G said:


> Some interesting findings on Polaris 30 vs 20 efficiency and undervolting tests. 12nm give much more efficiency if tuned properly and AMD continues to sell heavily overvoltaged chips for some reason.
> 
> https://www.tomshw.de/2018/11/22/ef...n-erkenntnissen-beim-untervolting-igorslab/2/


Those graphs are dead-wrong. The last graph says there's almost a 30% power saving for 590 at 1500MHz. And yet, if you scroll up, you will find that 30% difference in the core voltage graph. The power draw graph shows something like a 15-20% improvement (hard to tell since it's not labeled right).

Anyway, what do you think is going on here?
a. AMD doesn't know their own products
b. The cards probably need those voltages to be stable outside of a few (unspecified length) benchmarks?


----------



## hat (Nov 24, 2018)

Why should anyone have to undervolt their graphics card? Flashy graphs that say "look, it's not that bad! (when undervolted)" don't mean squat to me.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 24, 2018)

bug said:


> Those graphs are dead-wrong. The last graph says there's almost a 30% power saving for 590 at 1500MHz. And yet, if you scroll up, you will find that 30% difference in the core voltage graph. The power draw graph shows something like a 15-20% improvement (hard to tell since it's not labeled right).
> 
> Anyway, what do you think is going on here?
> a. AMD doesn't know their own products
> b. The cards probably need those voltages to be stable outside of a few (unspecified length) benchmarks?



Apart from the graphs not being perfect there are 2 major points when thinking of those results.

1st point is that Polaris 30 has much better power consumption for the same clocks than Polaris 20. 
2nd point is that AMD tends to set their GPU's voltage much higher than they could. Why they do that? That's a nice topic for tech journalists to seek for answers.


----------



## bug (Nov 24, 2018)

HD64G said:


> Apart from the graphs not being perfect there are 2 major points when thinking of those results.


Wrong != not perfect.



HD64G said:


> 1st point is that Polaris 30 has much better power consumption for the same clocks than Polaris 20.


Smaller production nodes are more efficient than bigger ones. Congrats on discovering warm water!


HD64G said:


> 2nd point is that AMD tends to set their GPU's voltage much higher than they could. Why they do that? That's a nice topic for tech journalists to seek for answers.


Assumptions... As I have already told you, voltage levels are set to ensure stable operation. But you choose not to see that.

Seriously, if you have nothing to add, not posting _is _an option.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 24, 2018)

HD64G said:


> 2nd point is that AMD tends to set their GPU's voltage much higher than they could. Why they do that? That's a nice topic for tech journalists to seek for answers.


Yields


----------



## HD64G (Nov 24, 2018)

bug said:


> Wrong != not perfect.
> 
> 
> Smaller production nodes are more efficient than bigger ones. Congrats on discovering warm water!
> ...



The irony about 12nm helping efficiency of Polaris 30 vs 20 is just showing your ignorance. 12nm isn't so much different as you think-suppose.

As for the graphs in my post, there are faults indeed for the % of power saving in stock vs uv testing. But the curves' difference of voltage/clock scaling show much about how much more efficient the new chip can become if tuned by hand. For instance when using 150W, the 580 can run @1225MHz and the 590 @+1400Mhz while at 200W they can run @1370 and 1580MHz respectively.

Vega GPUs increase of performance through undervolting is a fact. My RX580 is also stable 0.1V below the default core voltage.And my FX8350 works perfectly fine for months now at 1.3V where the motherboards default-auto core voltage is 1.4V. Another proof of AMD's overvolting their chips above their needs.



W1zzard said:


> Yields



I hear that @W1zzard and might be the best shot indeed. Imho, the biggest reason behind all that is that the software (drivers-OS) isn't so advanced to always keep up with the flactuations happening in the cpu-gpu's  clock/voltage combos-steps, especially now that the GPUs have more complex turbo features built into them with many sensors sending data to decide what is the max limit in any specific moment. As a result, binning chips has become more time consuming than before and they don't have so much time-money to spend in it. So, AMD plays that on the safe side and one has to manually find the chip's lowest stable voltage.


----------

