News Get a Radeon RX 5600 XT for $100 Less Than an RTX 2060

hotaru.hino

Upstanding
Sep 1, 2020
339
108
370
4
Dang it, NewEgg/MSI, where was this deal back in March??!?

I am still tempted, but I think my XPS 8700 probably won't play nicely with current generation cards.
I would say get it anyway and see if you can make it work before the return period is up. But it's from NewEgg.
 
Reactions: King_V

Chung Leong

Upstanding
Dec 6, 2019
277
81
260
0
I wouldn't recommend buying a RX 5000 series graphics card at this point. Even if you don't care at all about ray-tracing, it's still a poor deal as the older card might be missing other next-gen techs like DirectStorage.
 
I wouldn't recommend buying a RX 5000 series graphics card at this point. Even if you don't care at all about ray-tracing, it's still a poor deal as the older card might be missing other next-gen techs like DirectStorage.
Well, I'm not buying anything, but for anyone even looking at an RTX 2060 Super, RTX 2060, or even a GTX 1660/1660 Super/1660 Ti, I would say they're foolish NOT to get this deal instead.

It's about price/performance, not about whether or not a technology that nobody is using yet is implemented.
 

Chung Leong

Upstanding
Dec 6, 2019
277
81
260
0
It's about price/performance, not about whether or not a technology that nobody is using yet is implemented.
Old Navi is also missing variable-rate shading. That's good for 20% to 30% boost in FPS. The 1650/1660 Super are better value if you must buy now.
 
Old Navi is also missing variable-rate shading. That's good for 20% to 30% boost in FPS. The 1650/1660 Super are better value if you must buy now.
No, they are not.

Variable rate shading's performance enhancements, if any, aren't part of the equation. The cards we're talking about already have had their performance measured - these are known quantities.


The 1650 is in a different performance class entirely, and a much lower tier of performance at that. There was ONE good deal on a 1650 recently, and I snapped one up for one of my systems, but that deal is gone now.

The 1660 Super cannot match the 5600 XT's performance, as, overall, the 5600 XT is approximately 20% faster than the 1660 Super. Or, if you prefer the math in the other direction, the 1660 Super is approximately 25% slower.

The 5600XT is slightly ahead of the 2060, and the 2060 is well ahead of the 1660 Super.

Yet, the cheapest 1660 Super today is about the same price as this deal on the 5600 XT. Most 1660 Super models cost more. How does paying equal or more money for a card that has less performance turn out to be a better value?

EDIT: The equation is very simple:

For a given approximate price bracket - if one card performs X% faster than the other, and costs Y% more money, where 0 ≤ Y < X, then the first card is the better value.
 
Last edited:

Chung Leong

Upstanding
Dec 6, 2019
277
81
260
0
EDIT: The equation is very simple:

For a given approximate price bracket - if one card performs X% faster than the other, and costs Y% more money, where 0 ≤ Y < X, then the first card is the better value.
That's a silly way of measuring value. If all you have is a 60hz monitor, then what value do you get from a card that can deliver 100FPS? The proper question to ask is for how long can you use these cards before they're obsolete. The Turing cards will hold up better because they support VRS. Nvidia has also stated that Turing will get DirectStorage support (whether there's decompression hardware in the older chip in a big question, however).

The best thing to do now is to wait. It's quite likely that AMD will release in the coming months a budget Big Navi card at that price range.
 
Yes, that IS a silly way of measuring it - if we were talking about radically different performing cards, which YOU were doing, by bringing in the GTX 1650.

But you seem to be fighting tooth and nail against this deal, and it seems to be because it is the RX 5600 XT.

You explicitly stated that the 1660 Super, which causes equal to or more than this RX 5600 XT deal, but performs less, is somehow better. Why would you insist on such an assertion?

Why are you so dead set against admitting that this deal is good?
 
Reactions: spentshells

Chung Leong

Upstanding
Dec 6, 2019
277
81
260
0
Yes, that IS a silly way of measuring it - if we were talking about radically different performing cards, which YOU were doing, by bringing in the GTX 1650.
Why would you spend more for performance that you can't actually see? A GTX 1650 Super will be perfectly sufficient for a budget set-up, where you only have a regular monitor. If you buy now, you'll have to upgrade in two years time anyway, as non-RT solution will be completely obsolete by then. Better to save the money for the next upgrade.
 
If a GTX 1650 super was sufficient for your needs, then you wouldn't be considering either a 1660 Super or an RTX 2060. However, you are the one who injected the 1650 Super into this conversation, where it's really out of place. That's a card that competes in the RX570/RX580/RX5500XT segment.

You threw that in when your blanket "don't buy an RX5000 card" statement fell apart. You tried to mention "but it doesn't have X technology in it." You then brought up the GTX 1650 (you didn't say Super before, you just added that in now), and the GTX 1660 Super, as being better cards.


You keep moving the goalposts in an attempt to refute it, even though you can't do so. Why are you fighting so hard against the RX 5000 cards, and why are you trying to pretend this deal is not worthwhile?

Keep in mind, this was my statement:

Well, I'm not buying anything, but for anyone even looking at an RTX 2060 Super, RTX 2060, or even a GTX 1660/1660 Super/1660 Ti, I would say they're foolish NOT to get this deal instead.

Stop moving goalposts and stick to the facts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS