PowerColor Launches First Official Radeon RX 590 GPU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


As a rule of thumb never, ever pre-order anything. Always wait for the independent reviews of any product before deciding to buy.

I was personally hoping that the RX 590 was going to be something that could compete against the GTX 1070Ti. Alas the RX 590 is apparently hoping to beat the GTX 1060... I mean seriously I want something to compete against the 1070(Ti) or GTX 1080. It would be nice to see the prices drop on the 1070(Ti), 1080 just a little bit more. I've been using my R9 290 too long and want something worthwhile upgrading to as was really hoping if AMD could come out with a RX 590 at the level of a 1070(Ti) priced around $300 then I could either pick it up or a 1070(Ti). As it stands the RX 580 and even GTX 1060 don't deliver enough of a performance advantage to justify the upgrade from the R9 290 and it looks like the RX 590 won't either. I guess there is still a chance the RX 590 may match performance of a 1070, but I doubt it.
 


Well I think there isn't much to ponder on this card. It's just a 580 + 5-10%. I wouldn't upgrade from a 290 either. I have 1070 and will be sticking with that for a while, but I need a card for 1080p gaming for somebody else and I think the 580/590 is still the best bet out there. Freesync eliminates the 1060 from the equation as a value proposition to me.
 


Yea, I have a healthy overclock on my R9 290. Its a Vapor X from Sapphire so it can be pushed pretty hard. I have it now so that it outperforms a stock R9 290X, not by a lot but by enough. The problem for someone with a card like mine is that RX 580 and RX 590 are sideways upgrades at best only real advantage is they are more efficient and produce less heat. The 1060 is a slight upgrade in performance and of course a good upgrade in efficiency and thermals but for the money just not worth the "upgrade". I'm hoping for a good Black Friday deal and pick up a 1070(Ti) or maybe even a 1080. They really aren't priced too bad at MicroCenter but I have to justify the purchase to the wife and she is savvy enough to realize I'm doing it for gaming. Really the 1070 and 1080 should be good cards for some time to come.
 
Given that they're an underdog who's playing catch-up, I've been trying to cut AMD some slack with these incremental product updates, but it's becoming harder as time goes on. First the initial 570/580 being slightly improved 400-series products, then the 570 marketed as a 580 Lite, now an overclocked 580 gets pushed out as a 590. There'd better be something genuinely significant coming down the pipe, or the remaining goodwill toward AMD's graphics division could evaporate.
 


The Vega 56 and Vega 64 do quite well in competing with a 1070ti or a regular 1080, at least performance wise. (Vega 56 probably more so with a regular 1070)

Yeah, I don't think the 590 will compete against a 1070... probably aimed more at one of the enhanced 1060 6GB models.

 


I know that Vega 56 and 64 compete vs a 1070(Ti) and maybe even the 1080, but they do so at higher power draw and are selling for near the same price or in some instances more than the 1070s and some 1080s. Heck I just watched a video where a modded Vega 56 outperformed a 2070 but again the power consumption was enormous. I was willing to go with a hotter card that draws more power back when the R9 290(X) launched as it was a good value and far undercut the competition in price, but the Vega 56 and 64 cards are being price gouged by retailers and selling at the same prices or even higher than 1070(Ti) and 1080s. If it were saving me money like the 290s did I would live with the higher power draw, but at the same price it just doesn't make sense. I like AMD but they have to bring their GPU market back into real contention.
 
Looks like Satan's hemorrhoid just fell off. Perhaps it's meant to be ugly as sin. But with 12% performance increase it's the King of mid-range GPUs hands-down.

Vega 56 and 64 still provide better performance than 1070, 1070ti and 1080 for less, but it seems like the RX590 is a clear winner.
 
It seems to me most people investing in a 1070 / Vega 56 or better are probably looking for more than 60fps. Once you've decided to go high Hz, you cannot simply ignore the massive value benefit of Freesync vs Gsync. It's like getting an extra $150 off the gpu.
 


I like AMD products, and I am usually there to defend them if warranted, but Vega 56 and 64 are not selling for less than the 1070Ti and 1080. There are several 1070Ti cards that are cheaper than Vega 56 and the same holds true for the 1080 and Vega 64. Unfortunately when they are at nearly the same price Vega 56 and 64 becomes a hard sell over the 1070Ti and 1080.
 

You've got that backwards, actually. The 570/580 would be better described as overclocked 470/480. That's why they both jumped by 30-35W TDP (comparing stock to stock). The 590 is actually produced on a slightly improved process, and so I'm not anticipating a large of a jump in TDP, if any. There's also the potential for a third-party variant with good power delivery and cooling, which has more overclocking headroom than any 580, and again potentially at lower power.

Time will tell. Either way, if you're building a new PC for yourself or someone, it may be a good option for a midrange system. It's not meant to be a massive leap, and it's not meant to make people upgrade. New gaming PCs get a new affordable option, that's all.
 


The "power bill" argument is not a very good one. First off even with a power hungry card, like the R9 290 series that I have, you will never notice the difference in the "extra power" consumed. The cost is so low your never going to see a noticeable difference with the electric company.

A much better argument is heat production, and that is something I can tell you is absolutely true. The RX 590 doubtless will run at less much wattage than my R9 290, especially with my overclock, however while your not going to actually be able to see a real difference in your power bill you will notice a significant difference in thermals. I have an open air cooler on my R9 290 with 3 cooling fans and a huge heat sink to keep it cool. The problem with open air coolers is they exhaust the hot air from the heat sink into your case. While you may never see a viable difference in operation costs you will notice a difference in the thermals inside your tower. I know virtually all modern cards are much more efficient than my old R9 290 but after having it this long I can say I've been very happy with the performance overall, but the thermals and exhausting hot air into my case have an impact on everything else, including how hot your processor is running. I've had to make up for the heat created by the R9 290 by adding 140mm case fans, a lot of 140mm case fans. The next card I get will be a blower model as I would like to see how cool I could keep my components without the GPU heating the interior of the tower.
 


I bought a zotac gtx1060 6gb mini for $250 over a year ago, and I was able to undervolt and overclock it substantially. According to HWInfo64 the card never uses more than 75w.......ever. It never breaks 70F either and is near silent while running maxed out. There is no way this gaudy monstrosity of a RX590 should be priced at $280, if you subtract the $180 game bundle and sell the card for $100 then maybe it would be worth buying.
 


Is that not what I said? Either way, it's what I meant.



True, though it still contradicts previous practice of an incremented tens place meaning a jump in class. The last *90 chip, the 290/390, was an entirely different beast from the *80 parts. It would seem more appropriate to me to have called it the 585 or 580X. There's precedent for both. In practice, it probably doesn't matter as long as the price isn't out of line.
 
When AMD first introduced 480 with Polaris, it wasn't a chip that was exploitable. I mean, they said you can't clock it past 1250 mhz without a few crashes here and there. With a change in the vbios, they gained a little more clock speed (somewhere @1330 mhz at top end) and cooler, too. Hence the 580.
Now comes the 590 that can reach 1500 mhz on clocks and still run cool. It seems obvious that this was the plan AMD had all along. To build a chip model that can be upgraded year after year with only a vbios flash while being a better, faster same thing. Sort of comparing it to how a car like the VW Beatle existed year after year. It wasn't a thunderous pony car but the same design with small yearly upgrades.
While not saying this is a bad thing since it saves AMD a huge amount of money, I think this was AMD's business game all along. To me, there's no telling how far you can take 7mn Polaris. Each time a new Polaris card is introduced, it's a bit faster and still cool. Kudos to AMD.
 


The biggest problem to AMD's GPU line right now it is just hasn't had the impact that in the recent year we have begun to look for with AMD. AMD's GPU line needs a Ryzen like competitor. I mean I can truly say that six months after purchasing my R7 2700X and even after Intel released their "9th Gen" processor line that I still have the best overall consumer grade workstation CPU available. I make that based on overall performance and total system build cost. The R7 2700X is even with the newly released i7 9700K in overall productivity while costing much less (especially factoring in the need of aftermarket cooling) and although it is beaten by the i9 9900K the cost of such a system build really places it in the next tier up--> enthusiast workstation build where it would have a much harder time vs Threadripper. Factoring in total system build costs, performance, and power utilization (biggest reflect here is thermals and the need of ever increasing premium after market cooling) I can rightly justify saying I have the best consumer grade workstation processor available today with my Ryzen R7 2700X.

On the GPU side AMD has nothing that can quote the same. The Vega 56 and 64 are generally outperformed by the GTX 1070Ti and 1080Ti and come in with retail pricing that basically is the same. If the Vega 56 costs the same (retail) as the 1070Ti and the Vega 64 costs about the same as the 1080Ti, but the GTX GPUs are using less power, running cooler, and have overall better performance then there is no reason to buy Vega and you can't make an argument for Vega being better. AMD needs a high end winner, not a mid range one. While the RX 590 may be the new king of the mid range it doesn't help anyone looking to upgrade from an already good mid range card.

There are a lot of people like me who have invested in their computers for work related tasks and also happen to game on those systems. My R7 2700X is a rendering and video editing beast, and is just perfect for my productivity needs. I already have an aged R9 290 heavily overclocked that is a very capable 1080p GPU. I would like to upgrade that (and will be shortly to the 1070Ti) but what has AMD released that is worthy? The RX 580, and RX 590 are going to be lateral upgrades that only offer slightly better performance and sure won't get me gaming properly at 2K and 4K resolutions. If I'm going to "upgrade" an already very capable 1080p gaming GPU I want to get my foot in the door of 2K and 4K gaming or its not an upgrade. I want a GPU that can unleash the full power of my amazing processor. AMD has Vega but 56 and 64 are running the same retail costs as the 1070Ti and 1080Ti that not only outperform them in games but use less power and are cooler while doing so. For someone like me (and I know I'm not alone) AMD just really doesn't have that "go to" GPU upgrade that has the performance and value.
 


Since the 1070ti is forced to perform under the 1080, the Vega 64 where it doesn't match or beat the 1080, isn't far behind. So I doubt that the 1070ti really outperforms the 64 by any significant figures, and especially across the board. If you want to call overclocking into the question, there are registry hacks that will push a Vega 64's power ceiling up 100% and have it take on the RTX2080 with great success. (I know, can't guaranty longevity of the GPU with such a hack.)

I know AMD has room for improvement, and needs to improve, but it sounds as if you've given up and surrendered to NVidia's "We're better and AMD will never touch us" propaganda.
 


I may not have been very clear, never meant to imply that a stock 1070Ti could outperform or even match the Vega 64 in performance. I meant that the 1070Ti outperformed the Vega 56. The GPU I meant to say outperforms the Vega 64 is the GTX 1080. I may not have been clear with that but I was pitting the 1070Ti vs Vega 56 and GTX 1080 vs the Vega 64. Generally speaking retail prices for the 1080 and Vega 64 are the same and the retail prices for the 1070Ti and Vega 56 are the same. But the GTX cards will outperform the Vega cards in the same retail price bracket. Not by much, but they will, and will while using less power with better thermals. If the Vega cards were priced lower I would already have one, but at the same price the GTX just makes more sense.

Far from giving up on AMD I am very hopeful for the next gen 7nm high performance GPUs. Unfortunately they are about 6 months away and when released if they do outperform Nvidia, as I personally believe they will, they will have a price tag to match. That leaves the GTX 1070Ti or 1080 as the best high end bang for the dollar available for a long time....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom