Confirmed: AMD to Cut RX 5700-series Prices at Launch

[efikkan]

Marginally beating RTX 2060 Super, while consuming ~220W and being hot and noisy…
Sounds to me like another case where 9 out of 10 buyers will go for the Nvidia option.

٪5 in tpu means %10 in real world because TPU test methods always make Nvidia cards look better.
But still %5 is a clear win

~5% would usually be within the margin of error, and if you knew what that meant you wouldn't call it a clear win.
TPU reviews are not biased towards Nvidia, if anything the game selection is slightly favoring AMD. But the game selection is fairly large, so the effect of outliers should be minor.
My concern with most reviews is the testing on an open rig or an open case.

 

[bug]

~5% would usually be within the margin of error, and if you knew what that meant you wouldn't call it a clear win.
TPU reviews are not biased towards Nvidia, if anything the game selection is slightly favoring AMD. But the game selection is fairly large, so the effect of outliers should be minor.
My concern with most reviews is the testing on an open rig or an open case.

If this was an athletic challenge, then yes 5% would be a sound victory.
But when talking about video cards and processors, parts withing 5% of each other are indistinguishable. 5-10% apart may make a difference here and there. 10%+ is what I would consider if I was upgrading.
Not to mention Nvidia has adaptive shading which can make their cards soar past Navi. But let's not go there when we're having difficulty with arithmetic

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's 5% faster than the 2060 Super, over 10% worse in perf/W. If that's "soundly beating", I'd like to see what's "win by a nose" in your view

Few people are going to care about an extra 10% power usage when the performance and price are better.

Well, no. 5% is within margin of error

Sorry, no it isn't. 2% is within margin of error. 5% consistently measured is not.

٪5 in tpu means %10 in real world because TPU test methods always make Nvidia cards look better.

That is patently false. All tests that TPU runs can be replicated by anyone.

 

[bug]

Few people are going to care about an extra 10% power usage when the performance and price are better.

I was just explaining why I basically see a draw where this guy sees a "soundly beating".

 

[lexluthermiester]

I was just explaining why I basically see a draw where this guy sees a "soundly beating".

But that's the point I was trying to make, no one cares about an extra power usage of 10%. They do care about price and performance and in both of those areas, the 5700 wins clearly and handily.

 

[efikkan]

Few people are going to care about an extra 10% power usage when the performance and price are better.

First of all, it's more like ~20%.
And it all comes down to comparable options. If there were no competitors, then people would be more inclined to accept it, but when there is a competitor, it will be viewed as a disadvantage.
The direct competitor to RX 5700 XT will be RTX 2060 Super, and RX 5700 XT offers the advantage of ~5% more performance, while being very hot, noisy and consuming ~20% more energy. I believe the RX 5700 XT will be a hard sell, but if it offered 15% more performance it would be more justified.
Partner cards may of course help with the noise and temperature, but the other disadvantages will remain.

 

[bug]

But that's the point I was trying to make, no one cares about an extra power usage of 10%. They do care about price and performance and in both of those areas, the 5700 wins clearly and handily.

The original assertion was about the 5700XT.
Talking 5700, it wins clearly and handily against what? It's 5% faster than the similarly priced 2060. It's a tremendous (nice) surprise that it matches the 2060 in perf/W as well, but when you look at the 5700XT you see the perf/W ratio already can't keep up. Which kinda puts a lid on future faster Navi cards.

 

[lexluthermiester]

First of all, it's more like ~20%.

No, it's not. TPU's own numbers show the 5700 right around a 6% average difference between the 2060 6GB and is 4% lower than the 2060Super.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 Review

The Radeon RX 5700 is the second Navi card AMD launches today. Priced at $349, it is more affordable than anything NVIDIA has to offer in this segment, yet brings more performance to the table than the RX Vega 64. What really impressed us is the greatly improved power efficiency that's just as...

www.techpowerup.com

With the 5700XT, the power usage AND performance is comparable to the 2070 & 2070Super(and edges close to the 2080 in some tests) and is within 10% of the numbers of those cards.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Review

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is based on AMD's all-new Navi 10 GPU featuring the RDNA architecture. We thoroughly test the card's gaming performance and look at power, heat, noise, overclocking, and clock frequency stability, too, sometimes with surprising results.

www.techpowerup.com

If you're going to make comparisons, make sure your comparisons are both within context and meet with logic and reason.

 

[Vayra86]

Guys, guys.

AMD made another, smaller Vega, calls it Navi and the performance is still stalling at GTX 1080 levels, give or take. Has been for the past two years now. They made a leap on price (if you don't look at the now discounted Vega cards that have been around since forever at similar price), and a leap on perf/watt and some minor architecture optimizations. The biggest win here is GDDR6.

If people really think these will sell like hotcakes, I do wonder why they didn't bother to jump on any of the half-dozen similar cards that have been out now for quite a while.

Let's just focus on Ryzen release because this is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Its June 8 2019 and we're discussing cards that do May 2016 performance as if they're relevant. Get real

 

[Xaled]

Guys, guys.

AMD made another, smaller Vega, calls it Navi and the performance is still stalling at GTX 1080 levels, give or take. Has been for the past two years now. They made a leap on price (if you don't look at the now discounted Vega cards that have been around since forever at similar price), and a leap on perf/watt and some minor architecture optimizations. The biggest win here is GDDR6.

If people really think these will sell like hotcakes, I do wonder why they didn't bother to jump on any of the half-dozen similar cards that have been out now for quite a while.

Let's just focus on Ryzen release because this is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Its June 8 2019 and we're discussing cards that do May 2016 performance as if they're relevant. Get real

What matters most for most people is price/performance ratio. Nobody would've won anything if AMD made a card that is faster than 2080ti but priced it at 1500$.

And 5700xt still offers a good value when compared to nvidia because it offered 20% faster card that gtx 1080 and %20 cheaper option.

 

[Vayra86]

What matters most for most people is price/performance ratio. Nobody would've won anything if AMD made a card that is faster than 2080ti but priced it at 1500$.

And 5700xt still offers a good value when compared to nvidia because it offered 20% faster card that gtx 1080 and %20 cheaper option.

3 years later, and only if you completely ignored Vega. I really don't see the price/perf jump. The 2060 already made that.

 

[Xaled]

3 years later, and only if you completely ignored Vega. I really don't see the price/perf jump. The 2060 already made that.

57xx made more than what 2060 did in much shorter period and it actually killed it. 2060 is now the most nonsense card on the market, ahead of its little less retarded younger brother, the 2060 Super.

 

[Vayra86]

57xx made more than what 2060 did in much shorter period and it actually killed it. 2060 is now the most nonsense card on the market, ahead of its little less retarded younger brother, the 2060 Super.

Okay. We'll watch the sales figures to see what really happens. Just telling you what it'll be ahead of time - and why it will be so.

 

[Xaled]

Okay. We'll watch the sales figures to see what really happens. Just telling you what it'll be ahead of time - and why it will be so.

Let's just hope Nvidia pull the prices down instead of realising yet another card

 

[Vayra86]

Let's just hope Nvidia pull the prices down instead of realising yet another card

Agreed. I reckon they will probably pull it down $50 as well, or they will toss in bundles. Its progress... but its sooo late and slow, and minor. I'm still not feeling any sort of urge to upgrade this 2016 card, go figure...

I mean the 5700XT is half-decent, but its performance is all over the place. Best case it gets around 1080ti levels, but then in many, many games it really does not, making it effectively pointless. And its hot, really, really hot at doing so. Then there is the 5700 which looks a lot more balanced overall and comfy to use, but that one lacks the absolute performance to make a dent.

I'm getting a real Hawaii/Hawaii XT feeling with these cards. I really hope we can get another Sapphire Tri-X miracle here - which doesn't get priced to the moon at that. That's a lot of stars needing to align to make a good offer.

 

[bug]

Agreed. I reckon they will probably pull it down $50 as well, or they will toss in bundles. Its progress... but its sooo late and slow, and minor. I'm still not feeling any sort of urge to upgrade this 2016 card, go figure...

I mean the 5700XT is half-decent, but its performance is all over the place. Best case it gets around 1080ti levels, but then in many, many games it really does not, making it effectively pointless. And its hot, really, really hot at doing so. Then there is the 5700 which looks a lot more balanced overall and comfy to use, but that one lacks the absolute performance to make a dent.

I'm getting a real Hawaii/Hawaii XT feeling with these cards. I really hope we can get another Sapphire Tri-X miracle here - which doesn't get priced to the moon at that. That's a lot of stars needing to align to make a good offer.

Yup, these cards are the very definition of "me too". Same performance, same price point as card we could buy last year. But it's interesting both of these fare much better under Linux, go figure...

 

[medi01]

AMD made another, smaller Vega, calls it Navi and the performance is still stalling at GTX 1080 levels, give or take

Amount ot BS you have managed to squeeze into a single sentence is amazing.
RDNA is the same microarch as Vega?
Making Vega smaller somehow makes it faster? (it's 10.3 billion transistors minus around 10% for 5700, vs 12.5 billion on Vega 64)
Wah?

And being 17% faster than 1080 and 7% slower than 1080Ti, means having "1080 levels give or take", really?

Basicaly a faster than 1080 card, with slightly better power consumption, for $350.

Let's just hope Nvidia pull the prices down instead of realising yet another card

Nah. Even though NVs inventory keeps growing, I'd rather greed wins and no price cuts. Team green doesn't deserve them.

 

[efikkan]

No, it's not. TPU's own numbers show the 5700 right around a 6% average difference between the 2060 6GB and is 4% lower than the 2060Super.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 Review

The Radeon RX 5700 is the second Navi card AMD launches today. Priced at $349, it is more affordable than anything NVIDIA has to offer in this segment, yet brings more performance to the table than the RX Vega 64. What really impressed us is the greatly improved power efficiency that's just as...

www.techpowerup.com

With the 5700XT, the power usage AND performance is comparable to the 2070 & 2070Super(and edges close to the 2080 in some tests) and is within 10% of the numbers of those cards.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Review

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is based on AMD's all-new Navi 10 GPU featuring the RDNA architecture. We thoroughly test the card's gaming performance and look at power, heat, noise, overclocking, and clock frequency stability, too, sometimes with surprising results.

www.techpowerup.com

If you're going to make comparisons, make sure your comparisons are both within context and meet with logic and reason.

Power consumption Average (gaming):
RTX 2060 Super: 184 W
RX 5700 XT: 219 W

219/184=1.190217391

Unless the laws of mathematics has changed recently, that's a little more than 19% higher.

 

[medi01]

Power consumption Average (gaming):
RTX 2060 Super: 184 W
RX 5700 XT: 219 W

RTX 2060: 170w
RX 5700: 180w
RTX 2060 super: 192w
RTX 2070: 203w
RTX 2070Super: 220w
RX 5700XT: 227w

And, why compare apples to bananas at all, perf per watt is directly presented by TPU:

And, oh noes, 2060 and 2060 super are both beaten by 5700, XT is 14% behind.
5700 consumes 10w more than 2060, but beats it by perf/watt, hmm... wait for it, because it is FASTER.

 

[bug]

It's so funny seeing people arguing about which card is faster when the difference is about 5%.
My 1060 is 20% slower than these and I still don't feel like upgrading (I would, for the performance, but not at these price points). To me picking one card over another because of +/- 5% performance difference is just crazy.
(God I miss HardOCP's "highest playable settings" reviews. Those would have been quick to end these useless conversations)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Power consumption Average (gaming):
RTX 2060 Super: 184 W
RX 5700 XT: 219 W

219/184=1.190217391

Unless the laws of mathematics has changed recently, that's a little more than 19% higher.

Reading comprehension on your part needs improvement. I compared the 5700 to the 2060's and the 5700XT to the 2070's because that is the comparable performance levels and with those comparisons, the power usage is less than 10%.

Comparing cards in price brackets(what you seem to be doing) is not a valid comparison because prices fluctuate.

AMD made another, smaller Vega, calls it Navi and the performance is still stalling at GTX 1080 levels

You seem to be forgetting naming conventions. The 5700's will be superseded by the 5800's and 5900's... The 5700's are the launch offerings. More to come.

 

[bug]

Reading comprehension on your part needs improvement. I compared the 5700 to the 2060's and the 5700XT to the 2070's because that is the comparable performance levels and with those comparisons, the power usage is less than 10%.

Comparing cards in price brackets(what you seem to be doing) is not a valid comparison because prices fluctuate.

Only goes to show AMD cards look god when you compare them to discontinued parts (ok, the 2060 will be around for a while, but I couldn't help it)

You seem to be forgetting naming conventions. The 5700's will be superseded by the 5800's and 5900's... The 5700's are the launch offerings. More to come.

Not if you look at how the perf/W goes. We might see an egg frying appliance in the form of a 5800, but definitely no 5900 this time around. Not a biggie per se, I mean who cares about whether the 2080Ti has competition or not, but just saying.

 

[lexluthermiester]

We might see an egg frying appliance in the form of a 5800, but definitely no 5900 this time around.

It's too early to call that. Time will tell.

I mean who cares about whether the 2080Ti has competition or not, but just saying.

The thing is this, the 2080ti and RTX Titan are way out of the price-ranges of 99.5% of gamers so even making reference to them is pointless except to show what the big-dog cards are.

 

[bug]

It's too early to call that. Time will tell.

It's not. The 5700 matches 2060's perf/W, while 5700XT has ~10% worse perf/W than 2070. Navi scales worse than Turing, it won't go much higher. (for comparison, 2060, 2070 and 2080 are all within 5% in this regard)

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's not. The 5700 matches 2060's perf/W, while 5700XT has ~10% worse perf/W than 2070. Navi scales worse than Turing, it won't go much higher.

Again, it's WAY too early to tell. AMD has been refining and improving Ryzen very well. Radeon7 and Navi are unlikely to be any different. AMD is smart, they're not going to let loose everything they've got in the first round.

(for comparison, 2060, 2070 and 2080 are all within 5% in this regard)

If you're talking about FE cards than maybe(honestly haven't checked). However, AIB cards are different and your statement is most definitively not correct.