Wednesday, November 14th 2018
AMD Radeon RX 590 Launch Price, Other Details Revealed
AMD is very close to launching its new Radeon RX 590 graphics card, targeting a middle-of-market segment that sells in high volumes, particularly with Holiday around the corner. The card is based on the new 12 nm "Polaris 30" silicon, which has the same exact specifications as the "Polaris 20" silicon, and the original "Polaris 10," but comes with significantly higher clock-speed headroom thanks to the new silicon fabrication process, which AMD and its partners will use to dial up engine clock speed by 10-15% over those of the RX 580. While the memory is still 8 Gbps 256-bit GDDR5, some partners will ship overclocked memory.
According to a slide deck seen by VideoCardz, AMD is setting the baseline price of the Radeon RX 590 at USD $279.99, which is about $50 higher than RX 580 8 GB, and $40 higher than the price the RX 480 launched at. AMD will add value to that price by bundling three AAA games, including "Tom Clancy's The Division 2," "Devil May Cry 5," and "Resident Evil 2." The latter two titles are unreleased, and the three games together pose a $120-150 value. AMD will also work with monitor manufacturers to come up with graphics card + AMD FreeSync monitor bundles.
Source:
VideoCardz
According to a slide deck seen by VideoCardz, AMD is setting the baseline price of the Radeon RX 590 at USD $279.99, which is about $50 higher than RX 580 8 GB, and $40 higher than the price the RX 480 launched at. AMD will add value to that price by bundling three AAA games, including "Tom Clancy's The Division 2," "Devil May Cry 5," and "Resident Evil 2." The latter two titles are unreleased, and the three games together pose a $120-150 value. AMD will also work with monitor manufacturers to come up with graphics card + AMD FreeSync monitor bundles.
49 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 590 Launch Price, Other Details Revealed
tl;dr RX 590 isn't supposed to replace RX 580, it's supposed to complement it in the same way that GTX 1070 Ti complemented the 1070. That's also why AMD didn't name it "RX 680".
I just hope this new trend new release worse performance/price than old one will stop ASAP, because this trend is ridiculous and what is more alarming is that no one calls it out in reviews and those who understand it always attach some misleading caveats like: "yes it is true - that is bad, but it still is faster or better or newer".
Only a few models have improved on 2014's GTX 970 price to performance ratio. This is bad, really, really bad.
It's a 1060 priced card that wipes the floor with 1060, has 2GB of extra ram, supports FreeSync and comes with a game.
AMD is about to match competitor's price, but offer 10% more performance, 33% more RAM, FreeSync support and a free game.
Even by greenboi metrics, it takes an extraordinary effort to dare call this "a useless card".
It's times like these when I really wish there existed some form of effective international trade regulations and enforcement of said regulations, and not just ineffective national laws. Self-regulating markets are a flat-out lie, and the current DRAM and GPU markets prove this aplenty. This isn't AMD's fault, mind you, and I'd say it's reasonable to place far more blame on Nvidia (given both initial GTX 10XX and RTX pricing), but nonetheless, this is serious grounds for not buying any hardware until stuff returns to a semblance of normalcy.I do hope you're right, though there is an alternative that's been used broadly at earlier launches (including the 1080Ti launch, which also paved the way for the price gap filled by the 1070Ti): cut prices of existing models, give OEMs/distributors a minor subsidy to offset this, and give customers a chance to make a bargain. They'd sell out old stock faster if they did this, and garner a lot of good will. We've only recently seen RX 580s return to MSRP - at which they launched nearly 20 months ago. Cutting them makes sense.
Also: there's no logic behind this pricing. 12nm is no more expensive to produce than 14nm (it's a minor revision of the same process, after all, and far more mature than 14nm was when Polaris first launched). Component and assembly costs are otherwise the same, as ... well, components and assembly is identical. There is of course the R&D cost for porting the design that needs to be amortized. But that applied for both the 480 and 580 too, in particular the former as it was a whole new GCN revision. So, even with DRAM prices being noticeably higher now than in 2016 (likely around $20 more for 8x8Gb), a price increase of $50 simply can't be defended. Outside of DRAM, every other cost is the same or less, and the R&D to be amortized is tiny compared to earlier cards.
Is this as atrocious as Nvidia's recent apparent decision that "from now on, new generations will keep the price/perf of old ones, with higher-performing tiers at ever higher premiums."? No, of course not. But it's still bloody ridiculous. I'm glad I'm not in the market for a new GPU.
Guess what the most popular display resolution is, especially among people who are buying cards of this performance level.
Guess how many people looking to buy these cards know or care about FreeSync, or even own a FreeSync monitor.
Guess how many people care about 33% more RAM.
10% performance vs 580, Agreed.
33% more ram. Irrelevant
FreeSync support, Questionable.
If it proves to be slower than the 1060 with GDDR5x then yes, it will be a useless card no matter the ram amount the free game or the freesync sticker.
As for the other metrics, that is either not true or has no relevance as to the perf/dollar of these GPUs and how it is stagnant, which is the subject. The subject is not 'who's doing better and who is a fanboy' which is clearly all that you can think of, everywhere you shitpost on this forum.
For that price, I would scoop up quite a few of these to upgrade all of my relative's rigs in short order, but NOT at $279 or even $229 :)
Matching price with 10% higher performance, more RAM and perks is "matching while performance doesn't increase".
Makes sense.
Sort of.
#teamgreenWe are talking about 590 here.I don't know US prices.
All 580 level priced 1060 on mindfactory.de are 3Gb versions.Why does it need to be SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN 10%+ SLOWER COMPETITOR, even if we ignore the fact it's bundled with a game???
Ignore mode on.
You have literally sited BOLDED text stating 10% performance advantage (which someone posting on tech forum should realize is more than realistic, given 15% clock bump) but still tried to twist it greenboi ways.
Pathetic.It's the biggest German retailer of computer hardware that I know.
There are 82 million living in Germany, just to give you some scale.
Regardless of the impact German pricing has on the rest of the world (although, apparently, it would be mostly the same in EU) , that's the prices that are relevant to me, as a customer.
a) What are you basing the 590 being cheaper than the 1060 on? The only leaked prices are in US dollars, and no Euro MSRP has been leaked. What we know is that there is (roughly) price parity between the 1060 range and the 580, though with some 1060s being more expensive on the high end. We also know that the 590 will be significantly more expensive ($229 -> $279, $50 up or 22%) than the 580 (based on known MSRPs - retail prices differ, but it's likely they'll differ similarly for the new card). As such, how do you extrapolate "matching price" from that? Here in Norway, RX 580s and GTX 1060 6GBs start at the exact same price, and span a very similar range.
b) Why does it need to be cheaper? Because of progress, time passing, costs lowering. As I explained above, for the 590 ($279) vs. the 580 ($229) or 480 ($229) fab costs should be equal or lower, parts costs equal or lower (outside of DRAM, which might cost ~$20 more for 8GB than in 2016), R&D amortization significantly lower. There is zero reason for this to cost more. At worst, it should launch at the same price. Anything else is just padding margins and screwing over customers - for no other reason that the messed-up market of today makes it possible. "Our competitors are screwing over their customers, so we might just as well do it too" is a piss-poor excuse.
The RX 590 that nobody knows the performance characteristics of?
There's only one fanboy making unverifiable and just plain wrong claims in this thread, and it's you. At this rate, even if RX 590 is 10% faster than GTX 1060, it's also 20% more expensive...