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
Regulation of these markets also doesnt always pan out, see AT&T or ISPs in general. Self regulating markets may be a lie, but competition lowering prices is not, by any stretch of the imagination. The prices you see now are symptom of nvidia having nearly uncontested control of the GPU market for three years now. If AMD had a proper 2070 competitor, the price of 2070 and lower GPUs would be in line with what we expect, not these dramatically overinflated prices.
AMD is positioning the 590 in an attempt to clear out stagnant 580 territory most likely, still a bonehead move to release this GPU in my opinion.In part, it really is to an extent. ATI was crippled by AMD paying altogether WAY TO MUCH for them, and AMD simply doesnt have the resources to compete with both intel and nvidia at the same time. This means as long as AMD wants good CPUs, Radeon cards might as well not exist, you have a monopoly with team green, and once AMD starts competing with nvidia, they get their hind quarters whooped by intel. Watch, a couple years from now, if navi gets a huge investment, watch zen development screech to a halt.
ATI being owned by samsung, or micron, or literally anybody other then AMD (or nvidia) would be better for them right now.
im still gonna buy one though, im stuck on R9 390 :(
- The US ISP market is essentially unregulated, and due to that is divided into bordering monopolies. Stricter regulation would combat this, as the current system is a direct product of weak and/or ineffective regulation, with loopholes galore. Check out the current court cases where ISPs are trying to stop community-organized ISPs from being established, for example. If there was effective regulation, you'd have a balanced system, as the whole point of regulation is maintaining balance.
- GPUs exist as a trade good, regardless of their purpose. Regulation of trade goods is a good idea, as trade is otherwise rife with corruption, espionage, price fixing, cartels, and similar anti-consumer practices. Their purpose has little bearing on the need for regulation of the production and trade of this good. And, as a trade good, enforceable regulation with checks to avoid corruption would ultimately gain the consumer, no matter what. A corporation's only real interest (at least under current US law, and as such much of international law) is making a profit. This is diametrically opposed to consumers' interests, as it ultimately means squeezing as much money from them as possible, while giving as little as possible back. Regulation will guard against this, which is reasonable, as consumers are the weak and vulnerable party here, not corporations.
- Saying that enforcing international trade regulations would noticeably impact the sale price of any good is ridiculous. How many GPUs are sold in a year? 10 million? 50? More? Add $1-3 to each of them, and you could finance a significant regulatory body without anybody noticing. Though of course this wouldn't be specific to GPUs or computer components, but international trade in general. Which, well, is so overwhelmingly huge that a 0.000001% levy on it could finance any regulatory body needed.
- You reading me saying "international trade really should have better protections against abuse" as me saying "I want the government to control your entertainment" speaks to a high level of anti-government paranoia in your reading, I'm afraid. You ought to check that just a bit.
- And, lastly, with the risk of repeating myself: effective regulation would ensure that we didn't have didn't get into the mess of Nvidia owning the market like they've done for a while in the first place. Why? Because a) they'd be stopped from using "unfair business practices" (aka. bribes, scams and other illegalities - boy does the business world love its euphemisms) which to a significant degree is the reason for AMD's current disadvantaged position, b) they'd be stopped from price gouging, c) we'd have effective anti-monopoly legislation (as the US has, but never uses, which can forcibly split monopolistic companies into smaller entities). Fair and enforceable regulations ensure a level playing field, which increases competition, and thus lowers prices in the long run. You're framing this as "Oh, AMD screwed up, it's their fault we don't have competition." Which is quite ridiculous.
On current price gap between 580 and 1060.In US, perhaps.nVidia chose +6% perf for the same price as 2 years before, customers happily buy the cards, what do you expect the underdog do?
#cluelessbuygreen leads to AMD having to offer more for the same bucks, AMD is not in a position for overly aggressive pricing and in the range in which they are competing, margins are not that great either.
So what are they supposed to do, sell Vega 56 for $349, Vega 64 for $400? I was told they do in US.
I miss having an AMD GFX but not that much.
AMD can sustain perfectly fine margins without price gouging, and frankly, Nvidia has such an existing advantage in resources that them making bigger margins than AMD doesn't do anything to make things worse at this point. AMD isn't going to catch up to Nvidia at all by increasing sales prices on existing products.AMD's margins are fine. They don't need to artificially inflate prices on mid-range GPUs to get by. Not to mention that the "#cluelessbuygreen" point directly contradicts your previous point: if AMD needs lower prices to convince customers that they're a viable alternative to Nvidia (which it is at least partly true that they do, no matter how sad/crazy it is that this perception lingers), increasing prices alongside Nviida makes absolutely zero sense.
With this MSRP, this launch will fizzle out, barely be noticed, and ultimately be deemed a failure pretty much regardless of the card's performance - a bunch of dolts will still buy 1060 stock dregs, and a lot more will be holding out for a 2060. If they did the sensible thing - cut both the 570 and 580 by about $20 and launched this at the 580's MSRP or below - it'd sell like gangbusters. Even as a stopgap measure until Navi arrives, this seems like bad strategy, focused on incredibly short-term gains ("$50 more per card sold!") rather than countering their brand perception deficit compared to Nvidia.
And then you go an pull out "but but but AMD was unfairly marginalized by intel and nvidia bribing! ITS NOT AMDS FAULT!". AMD overpayed for ATI by over 2 BILLION DOLLARS. That would have bought a LOT of CPU and GPU development. AMD sat on their laurels with athlon 64, and when core 2 came out, it took AMD over 2 YEARS to respond, and the chip they created wasnt as fast as core 2.
You know when AMD finally released a proper core 2 competitor? 2009. three YEARS later. Perhaps if AMD hadnt overspent by 2 BILLION dollars in 2006, they could have competed. Ever think about that? Or how about with evergreen, they had nvidia on the ropes, they had their highest marketshare in ATi's history, they made bank on sales. So what did they do? Well, they rebranded of course! Only to then be completely blindsided by the fact that nvidia didnt, in fact, simply lay down and surrender, they fixed fermi and took back the performance crown. Or how about the utter disaster that was bulldozer, and how AMD pushed it out anyway despite knowing it was a dumpster fire. Or how about AMD pulling out of the server and high performance desktop markets entirely for 3 years, giving intel a monopoly on high volume, high margin products? Or AMD rebranding their 7000 series 3 TIMES as nvidia was making better arches every 18 months! Or AMD ignoring their customer base for over a freaking DECADE involving their driver problems, only to be caught with their pants down, again, by nvidia's frame pacing tool showing just how awful radeon catalyst truly was? Or how about AMD seceding the mid range and up GPU market to their only competitor, giving nvidia ~85% of the profits from the GPU front? Or the price gouging with the OG FX CPUs? Do you not remember the days of $1000 single core chips? Do you think AMD never price gouged?
And, of course, nobody can forget AMD's biggest fuckup, the development of global foundries, which sucked up billions upon billions from AMD's coffers, nearly bankrupted them, and helped kickstart their horrible decisions later down the line.
ALL of this, ALL of it, is AMD's fault. AMD has, time and time again, screwed up their own future with short sighted, almost suicidal at times, business decisions. Yes, OK, intel's bribes hurt them. Do you know when that happened? The pentium IV days! 2001-2005 (and notice, right there, that despite the bribes AMD still made enough cash to develop enough credit to spend BILLIONS on ATi)! Everything past then is AMD's fault, AMD is in their current position because they spend way too much money on developing poor drivers and chasing features the average user doesnt need (mantle and trueaudio for instance) instead of focusing on decent drivers, good chips, and competitive designs.
Saying AMD is responsible for AMD's fuckups isnt ridiculous unless you have no concept of personal responsibility. if it wasnt for lisa su and jim keller, at this point AMD would have been beyond bankrupt.
That AMD argument is VERY suspicious, as well as bringing up early 2000's bribes. It suggests you want government regulation on GPU prices because AMD is currently non-competitive, and you want AMD to be competitive. A red team fan perhaps? Sorry, but for those of us that have been building PCs for years, we know that AMD, above all else, is responsible for AMD's horrible decisions, abysmal business practices, wasted capital, and lazy, outdated designs arriving years late to market. AMD over promised and under delivered for nearly a decade, and users stopped trusting them. This led to lower sales, which led to less R+D money, which led to worse chips that under delivered, which led to lower sales. Yes, intel and OEMs hurt them, but AMD is responsible for the decade+ of screw-ups since then, and those screwups are the reason for high prices, not the lack of regulation. Demanding regulation because a company has become noncompetitive shows a blatant lack of understanding free markets, market forces, and basic economics.
Enforcing GPU price regulations, or attempting to anyway, is only going to piss off the companies involved, and they WILL find other ways of making money (paid driver subscriptions and aggressive data mining anybody?). And hilariously, it will end up hurting AMD, as they wont be able to overcharge for 2+ year old chips and make money off of fanbois willing to fork over the cash. This restriction limits what goes into AMD's R+D budget. By lowering GPU prices artifically with arbitrary regulations, you would do more harm then good.
WTF.6GB vs. 8GB VRAM makes NO DIFFERENCE in 1080p gaming. You need more than 6GB if you're going above 2560x1440 at ultra and 5XX series and 1060 series can't do that so the memory is useless.
The subject was whether there was progress or not in the midrange on GPU. And there isn't. 10% isn't progress, and it certainly isn't progress when the perf/dollar of OLDER hardware is much better.
10% is a vague best case scenario that currently consists of guesswork, because there aren't any reviews yet, and you base this on clockspeed, but that doesn't have to be linear (it rarely is). And even so, 10% is not really much progress is it, from a node shrink + clock bump?
VRAM is only an argument if it leads to greater performance or consistency and for this performance level, it barely ever does. 6GB is sufficient and even somewhat less than that is alright. Not ideal, but certainly alright.
Free games also do not change the perf/dollar of a GPU. The price to buy one is the same, and the games don't magically run better. Besides, looking at launch price, you're practically paying them anyway.
You could, for a change, try to create ONE forum post that doesn't have 'boi' in whatever context in it. Try it! Maybe you'll like the response you get.Yeah with some AREZ stickers on the fans because 'oops forgot' :roll:
30%~40% more money, for 10%~15% more performance compared to RX 580... I guess AMD is learning something from Nvidia!
I'll put most/all of this in a spoiler tag as it's mostly off-topic anyhow.
As to this price well it's not the MSRP I considered, but given all such cards will rise with incoming tariffs I'm saying if you can grab a nice unit for $280 at launch all while looking for a card that can offer decent 1440p FreeSync purchase them fast because those two parts together now will really be seen as a deal after the first of the year!
I can't see them moving production that fast or gambling the investment to move or sit and see if this falls apart in several months. Last would you like to purchase any complicated component like a GPU, PSU from some new assemble group that sprouted up in some new country, it almost assuredly means quality issues.
www.techpowerup.com/249227/seasonic-announces-us-market-pricing-changes
As for the former: if you don't care if you're being screwed over by te company you're supporting by buying their product vs. being screwed over by factors outside of yours and their control, well, that's on you. I prefer at the very least being an informed consumer, and if I find the former to be likely, I'm far less likely to support said company. Not rewarding corporations for being assholes is kind of fundamental.
Now tell me please, why should 1060's newegg price (since people are so focused on US in this forum) start at $229, with most at $449 mark, while 580 starts at $159, with most at $199?
How could 960 outsell 280/280x/380/380x combined, while being more expensive?
I mean, do you seriously want to push "people know what they buy" that is so apparently wrong?You seem to suffer from dementia, perhaps? No, it was not "lack of progress", greenboi, it was you calling the card "useless" that I've commented on.