AMD Radeon RX 590 Launch Price, Other Details Revealed

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Valantar]

This pricing is ridiculous. Sure, DRAM prices are very high still, but this still doesn't qualify for a price increase compared to the 580. Did we get a price hike between Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000? No, we got a price drop - and that even had some architectural changes, unlike this which is a pure port between the two node revisions. Raising the MSRP is a big fat "eff you" to end-users.

 

[kastriot]

199$ is ideal price but no cigar.

 

[Rebe1]

This is the same thing we saw with NV: if those cards suppose to replace rx 580 then AMD is rising the price to sell out what is currently on stock. 3-4 months and rx 590 will hit the same price tag, ~$200. +10% in performance within the same price range it's a good "stick" for upcoming gtx 2060 premiere (Q1 2019)

 

[Assimilator]

This is the same thing we saw with NV: if those cards suppose to replace rx 580 then AMD is rising the price to sell out what is currently on stock. 3-4 months and rx 590 will hit the same price tag, ~$200. +10% in performance within the same price range it's a good "stick" for upcoming gtx 2060 premiere (Q1 2019)

Yup, that's exactly what's happening. Retailers already have huge inventories of RX 580 that will sit at the current price or drop even lower, the RX 590 is for people who want a little bit more oomph than 580/GTX 1060 can provide but aren't willing to fork out enough to step up to GTX 1070. It remains to be seen however if the "GTX 1060 GDDR5X" that is purportedly in the works, will rain on RX 590's parade.

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".

 

[SoNic67]

^ I agree. The "suggested" launch price is just to signal the "value" and to help clearing the RX580 inventory. Will be shortly (maybe as soon an Black Friday?) followed by rebates and discounts to bring it down to around $200-220 range.

 

[intelzen]

useless product at that price - in fact it will offer worse performance/price than rx 580 or rx 480 or gtx 1060. But many will buy, because it is "new" and it will be flooded with reviews that will conclude - "it is not ideal.... bla bla bla..., but it is faster than rx 580 and gtx 1060, so we recommend".
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".

 

[dj-electric]

We are living through the absolute dark ages of GPU market.

Only a few models have improved on 2014's GTX 970 price to performance ratio. This is bad, really, really bad.

 

[medi01]

useless product at that price - in fact it will offer worse performance/price than

Lol.

It's a 1060 priced card that wipes the floor with 1060, has 2GB of extra ram, supports FreeSync and comes with a game.

 

[intelzen]

Lol.

It's a 1060 priced card that wipes the floor with 1060, has 2GB of extra ram, supports FreeSync and comes with a game.

you missed the point and did steer it in oblivion, that is why manufacturers get away with new release - worse than previous one.

 

[medi01]

you missed the point

Whining at the wrong tree about GPU price increase is not making a point.

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".

 

[Valantar]

Whining at the wrong tree about GPU price increase is not making a point.

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 not useless, it's just a symptom of an entirely broken market. If it launched at $200, it'd be pretty darn good.

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.

This is the same thing we saw with NV: if those cards suppose to replace rx 580 then AMD is rising the price to sell out what is currently on stock. 3-4 months and rx 590 will hit the same price tag, ~$200. +10% in performance within the same price range it's a good "stick" for upcoming gtx 2060 premiere (Q1 2019)

Yup, that's exactly what's happening. Retailers already have huge inventories of RX 580 that will sit at the current price or drop even lower, the RX 590 is for people who want a little bit more oomph than 580/GTX 1060 can provide but aren't willing to fork out enough to step up to GTX 1070. It remains to be seen however if the "GTX 1060 GDDR5X" that is purportedly in the works, will rain on RX 590's parade.

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 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.

 

[Assimilator]

It's a 1060 priced card that wipes the floor with 1060

You're going to have to back up that claim with facts not just fanboyism, because pretty much every site that has done a comparison of them (example) concludes that the RX 580 is slightly faster at 1080p, but not enough to matter; it's only at 1440p that the GTX 1060 falls noticeably behind.

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.

 

[I No]

Whining at the wrong tree about GPU price increase is not making a point.

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".

The cheapest RX 580 is currently on newegg at $199 while the cheapest 1060 6GB is surprise surprise $199, where's that matching then? Unless you been living under a rock you can tell that AMD jacked up the price as well, it's all fair though.
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.

 

[Vayra86]

Whining at the wrong tree about GPU price increase is not making a point.

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".

You realize that if competitors keep matching each other's pricing while performance doesn't increase, there is no progress, yes?

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.

 

[SIGSEGV]

remove the bundles and give this card with the base price around (+/-) 200$ and profit

Guess how many people care about 33% more RAM.

I do care and lots of people care about the number of RAM now especially VRAM

 

[bonehead123]

SO,,,,, if $279 is the "launch price" with the unneeded (to me) $150 worth of games included, can I buy just the card for $129 ??????

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

 

[Vayra86]

remove the bundles and give this card with the price around (+/-) 210$ and profit

Those bundles are cheap. Keys for vanilla games are worth nothing these days, the money is in MTX and DLC.

 

[medi01]

You realize that if competitors keep matching each other's pricing while performance doesn't increase

Ah.
Matching price with 10% higher performance, more RAM and perks is "matching while performance doesn't increase".
Makes sense.
Sort of.
#teamgreen

You're going to have to back up that claim with facts not just fanboyism, because pretty much every site that has done a comparison of them (example) concludes that the RX 580 is slightly faster at 1080p, but not enough to matter; it's only at 1440p that the GTX 1060 falls noticeably behind.

We are talking about 590 here.

The cheapest RX 580 is currently on newegg at $199 while the cheapest 1060 6GB is surprise surprise $199, where's that matching then?

I don't know US prices.
All 580 level priced 1060 on mindfactory.de are 3Gb versions.

If it launched at $200, it'd be pretty darn good.

Why does it need to be SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN 10%+ SLOWER COMPETITOR, even if we ignore the fact it's bundled with a game???

 

[Vayra86]

Ah.
Matching price with 10% higher performance, more RAM and perks is "matching while performance doesn't increase".
Makes sense.
Sort of.
#teamgreen



We 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???

Wow, you suck. If you quote me, don't quote just the bit you want to troll about, and read the whole post.

Ignore mode on.

 

[I No]

Ah.
Matching price with 10% higher performance, more RAM and perks is "matching while performance doesn't increase".
Makes sense.
Sort of.
#teamgreen



We 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???

You do know that the US dictates the price right? Not some backwater village german retailer.

 

[medi01]

Wow, you suck.

There are many ways to be a greenboi, but oh boy, your levels are hard to reach.

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.

backwater village german retailer.

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.

 

[I No]

There are many ways to be a greenboi, but oh boy, your levels are hard to reach.

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.

Nobody cares as long as the companies are US based. And neither of them care about the 82 milion living in Germany when they calculate the MSRP in US dollars.

 

[Valantar]

I do care and lots of people care about the number of RAM now especially VRAM

Inflated VRAM numbers for gaming below 4k is utterly useless, and people who care about them are deceiving themselves. My 4GB Fury X has not once run out of VRAM in a game where it's able to sustain playable framerates at 1440p. I've seen ~3.5GB used, but that's rare. The 580, 1060 (all versions) and 590 will all be slower than the Fury X (though by an ever smaller margin), and will thus have lower VRAM requirements. The 6GB of the 1060 is plenty, and the 580/590 gain exactly 0 advantage from having an addtional 2GB of VRAM over them. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself. Arguably, at identical clocks there would be little-to-no reason to buy an 8GB card vs. a 4GB card.

Ah.
Matching price with 10% higher performance, more RAM and perks is "matching while performance doesn't increase".
Makes sense.
Sort of.
#teamgreen

We 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???

Sorry, but you're quite a bit off here.

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.

 

[Imsochobo]

We are living through the absolute dark ages of GPU market.

Only a few models have improved on 2014's GTX 970 price to performance ratio. This is bad, really, really bad.

Amen to that.