Was there any expectation that it would outperform the 1660? I mean, nice if does in final form, but I didn't think anyone was expecting it.Performance-wise, AMD puts this card up against a GTX 1650 in order to compare it to “similarly positioned products.” In AMD’s internal testing, the RX 5500 beats the GTX 1650 (both mobile and desktop cards) by a fair amount, but does so with notably higher power consumption -- which we’ll touch on shortly. According to AMD’s press materials, we can expect 90 fps in Gears 5, 82 fps in Borderlands 3, and 60 fps in Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, while eSports titles such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, PUBG, WoW, Overwatch, and Rainbow Six: Seige are all 90 fps or above.
Hardware Unboxed hacked GPU drivers to run its 1650S without waiting for review drivers and it is ~10% slower than the plain 1660 and ~5% slower than the RX580.Now, if it turns out that the 1650 Super performs on the level of the 1660 non-Super, then AMD has a bit of a problem on its hands, and the price is definitely going to have to undercut the 1650 Super.
Hardware Unboxed hacked GPU drivers to run its 1650S without waiting for review drivers and it is ~10% slower than the plain 1660 and ~5% slower than the RX580.
Looks like the RX5500 and GTX1650S are going to be pretty close. The MSRP on 1650S won't be any higher than $165 (the price of UB's 1650S review sample), so AMD shouldn't be able to charge any more than that.
I'm not surprised. Between all of the unit costs of making complex products like GPUs and getting them to store / e-tailer shelves, there isn't much room for anything under $100 to be economically viable, so everything at the lower end gets squeezed between that ~$100 minimum viable MSRP and remnants of the crypto-mining bust.I'm still surprised the RX 560 is about the same price as the 570, and that the RX 550 isn't significantly cheaper than it currently is.
Indeed. Also of (lesser) note is that the comparison is between an OEM 5500 and a pair of aftermarket designs. So final clocks of similar aftermarket 5500 designs will probably be a smidge higher.But, I suspect that, if they're offering near-1660 performance for 1650 money, then they're in a good place with this.
Last I checked, entry-level (the minimum commercially viable GPU) was closer to $100. Once you get to $200, you are in mainstream territory where buyers expect actually useful gaming performance.Getting prices back to $200 for entry level is a difficult proposition
I think the target window for main stream is high framerate (100fps) 1080p or mid frame rate 1440p. So I would consider a 1660 ti /2060/5700 mainstream now.Last I checked, entry-level (the minimum commercially viable GPU) was closer to $100. Once you get to $200, you are in mainstream territory where buyers expect actually useful gaming performance.
The main reasons for mainstream GPUs pushing the $200 mark a few years ago was GDDR5 costing ~$20/GB so 8GB of memory accounted for ~$160 of manufacturing cost concurrently with the crypto-boom draining the market dry. Both justifications are no longer applicable, pressure to provide better performance at lower price points is coming back on and we're finally seeing some significant movement below the $200 mark..
The latest Steam survey says 1440p has lost ground (-0.1% to 5.5%) while 1080p is still rising (+1.1% to 65.4%) so we're nowhere close to anything resembling a "tipping point" in the general public yet. Enthusiasts may talk about 1440p a lot but normal people don't.We have been stuck at 1080p for a long long time. And if you look at steam stats youll see 1440p monitors are reaching the tipping point.
Im not looking at short term trends but long term ones. (Even 4k suffered the last month) 1440p has increased 1% over the last year. However the concavity remains positive indicating exponential growth.The latest Steam survey says 1440p has lost ground (-0.1% to 5.5%) while 1080p is still rising (+1.1% to 65.4%) so we're nowhere close to anything resembling a "tipping point" in the general public yet. Enthusiasts may talk about 1440p a lot but normal people don't.
My prediction is that the same thing will happen to 1440p as has happened to all other resolutions near1080p: UHD is getting cheaper faster than 1440p is simply from being the next all-encompassing world-wide resolution standard and once UHD starts under-cutting everything else like 1080p did, most intermediate resolutions will get relegated to often overpriced niches like 1200p and 1600p did. If you look at what is happening in the TV space, FHD didn't gain massive momentum until it reached price parity with lower resolution TVs. Now, UHD has been undercutting FHD TVs for about a year and FHD is getting phased out of the market place. UHD is well on its way to becoming the de-facto standard for the unwashed masses as anything less no longer makes economic sense.
Only thing missing is affordable GPUs to drive 4k at playable frame rates and with the RX5500/GTX1650S, we should be just about there for low-ish detail. It may not be good enough for you, but it'll be good enough for a large chunk of people playing Steam games.
The "window" is shifting upward only for enthusiasts. The rest of people make-do with whatever makes economic sense. On the Steam survey, only ~8% of people own anything faster than a GTX1660/GTX1070, so performance equivalent to modern sub-$250 GPUs outnumber $250+ equivalents by a factor of about 10:1.The target window of performance has shifted upwards.
All within the context of time. A few years ago that would have been a 960. And we know how much faster a 1660 is relatively speaking.The "window" is shifting upward only for enthusiasts. The rest of people make-do with whatever makes economic sense. On the Steam survey, only ~8% of people own anything faster than a GTX1660/GTX1070, so performance equivalent to modern sub-$250 GPUs outnumber $250+ equivalents by a factor of about 10:1.
The "window" may be shifting up for enthusiasts but normal people still heavily favor more conservatively priced options offering greater bang-per-buck.
While people may "expect advancement", only 5-8% of gamers can be bothered with GPUs costing much over $200. AMD didn't focus around the $200 price point by accident when it couldn't spare resources for halo products and came up with the RX470-590, high volume products is where the sustainable money is.video card designers aren't giving incentive to people looking for next gen. People expect advancement.
From the benchmarks I saw shortly following the game's release, only the 1060 really struggled. That went for the Pascal cards in general, as the RX 580 performed close to a 1070, while the 1060 6GB performed well below even a 4GB RX 570 with high graphics settings enabled in that game. I don't know whether the subsequent patches might have addressed any of those performance issues though, or whether its just down to the game being compute-heavy or something.For example a 580 and 1060 struggle with rdr2 at 1080p.
Those prices seem a bit off. At least at US online retailers like Newegg, there are a large number of 1080p 144Hz adaptive sync screens for around $200 or a bit less. But there are also a large number of 1440p 144Hz monitors with adaptive Sync in the $300-$400 range. I guess the ratio isn't that far off though.What we might be experiencing is significantly cheaper vrr displays at high refresh rates. Getting a 144hz display at 1080p is easy at $240. The same display at 1440p will cost you around $500.