That's odd, how is the "performance per dollar" worked out?? Both the 2060 and 5700 are currently priced at $350 and yet the 5700 beats the 2060 by a pretty sizeable margin in 3 of my favourite and currently played titles:
I find the way "performance per dollar" is normally done a weak barometer of value. Also "performance ranking". Lets tackle the 2nd one 1st
1. In the performance summary, TPU lists the 5700 as 100% and the 2060 at 96% @ 1080p. That's "outta the box"; do you run your GPUs at the speeds they left the factory ? If not the data is not relevant to you ... to most. The 5700 overclocked 2.6%. All data from TPU reviews
5700 = 100% x 102.6 / 100 = 102.6
2060 = 95% x 109.5 / 100 = 105.1
5700 = 100% x 102.6 / 100 = 102.6
2060 = 95% x 109.5 / 100 = 104.0 .... 2060 is faster @ 1440p
5700 = 100% x 102.6 / 100 = 102.6
2060 = 94% x 109.5 / 100 = 102.9 .... 2060 is faster @ 2160p
So if you are like 95+ % of this forum's audience, you have to do a little math to see what is best for you. Since the 2xx series, the historical difference between AMDs and Nvidias OC ability has been large and it's a significant undertaking to account for that in reviews, especially considering "your mileage may vary".
2. Performance per dollar is affected not only by the above but but "real cost" .... real purchase + ongoing, .... Let's do initial 1st:
You are building a new 1080p build and set a budget of $1200. Now is your purchase price $350 for the card ? ... or is it $1200 for the build ? You can not play games with just a video card. A faster card makes the whole system go faster, not just the card. Let's say the 2060 is available for $360 and the 5700 is available for $350. Will multiply both by 1000 so as to get numbers left of the decimal
5700 = 102.6 x 1000 / $1200 = 85.5
2060 = 105.1 x 1000 / $1210 = 86.9 ... better value
Now of course if this is an upgrade, argument could be made either way. In it's truest sense should be done the same way, ... on the other hand, it's probably just as valid to say,... 'that's history' in which case the value is new card purchase versus old card sale.
3. But is that it ?
Power usage and heat are factors and for the 1st time in almost a decade, AMD has kept it close here. In the past, this killed AMD w/ cards > 100 watts above the competition .... but now with just a difference of 10 watts:
a) You don't need to spend extra money on a bigger PSU.
b) You don't need to spend money on extra fan(s) to handle the extra heat
c) Difference in power costs over the build's lifetime @ average US rate of $ 0.11 per kw are now under $10
So with the 5700 you can pretty much ignore this... not with the Radeon VII. This is the biggest change with the 5700 series and AMD deserves a big pat on the back here
Secondary considerations ...
5700 = 83C / 2060 = 73C ... that's 10C
5700 = 43 dbA / 2060 = 32 dbA ...
that's 2.14 times louder.
Unfortunately, to ask a reviewer to do all this for us is a monumental task. Would be great to have a performance value tool that pulled in all the referenced numbers including current web pricing. I have done a spreadsheet version with the upper tier cards but it still requires manual input and doesn't just spit out an answer.
My view of the 5700:
a) It's a wake up call for nVidia ... in a sense. AMD almost matched nVidia in power efficiency and I think this is the biggest takeaway
b) AIB 2060s are selling as low as $294.99 on newegg. Tho with both cards OC'd, nVidia gets the win, it's close enough that we can ignore the performance difference. But with AIB 2060s costing less, the reference 5700 can not maintain the $350. I have since seen MSI, Powercolor, Gigabyte etc cards and they are the same reference design.
c) Given the sound and temperature differences ... I'd want to save at least $50 to put up with just the noise on its own but I am very discerning oin that issue. For most buyers tho, I think they might bite at $25 cheaper.
d) OTOH, every 5700 card we have seen so far is a reference design .... on the 2060 side, AIB designs come with better cooler, passive 0 dbA idle cooling and improved performance. That's worth another $25.
In summary, looking at the 2060s position, the 5700 needs to be priced at $20 - $50 less than the AIB 2060 in order to appeal to all but the most ardent AMD fans. But now we already have AIB 2060 Supers... and I am talking the 'top end' AIB ones, selling for $399. At that price, it's real hard to make an argument for the 5700.
Nevertheless, this was a "shot over the bow" so to speak by AMD. They didn't win a battle but they showed they are getting close and this is important. Unfortunately, nVidias profit margins are much higher than AMDs ... they could more easily afford a $50 price cut ... AMD has already done that, it will be a lot harder to do that again.
It must be considered that this is only AMDs 1st shot at this die size; that is important. It can be reasonably expected their next iteration,( their "Super" if you will) will see a substantial improvement.
I'm optimistic that third parties will be able to deliver RX 5700 series products that enthusiasts actually want to buy. I just wish that AMD had been the one to deliver those products.
You think this will happen ? I read that they would be out in August. But now w/ just about every AMD card parttner already out with reference designs on newgg, I'm 2nd guessing that. If so that might be a game changer but they won't be able to sell them much above the reference pricing given current AIB 20160 pricing
AMD's under $200 GPU still beats 1050/1050Ti/1650.
Good 580 models are now at $185 ... so it fits that price break ... but it's seeing competition from the 1660 now which is down to $215 ..... that's 18% faster for a 16% increase in price.... and that's w/o factoring in the 1660s better OC ability
