PowerColor Launches First Official Radeon RX 590 GPU

[valeman2012]

The Power Consumption plays factor of pricing against Nvidia Mid range (GTX 1060-6GB)

Cant perform like GTX 1080, but use as much power use as GTX 1080..

AMD GPU going start being way too power hungry jacking your power bills and not able beat Nvidia completion GPU`s from Mid Tier to High End Gaming?

 

[Redneck5439]

The Power Consumption plays factor of pricing against Nvidia Mid range (GTX 1060-6GB)

Cant perform like GTX 1080, but use as much power use as GTX 1080..

AMD GPU going start being way too power hungry jacking your power bills and not able beat Nvidia completion GPU`s from Mid Tier to High End Gaming?

Let me make this as crystal clear as possible- power consumption as it is related to your power bill is a non-issue. Cranked to its maximum and run 24/ 7 all month the most power hungry GPU or CPU will only use $1 or so more a month as compared to their much more efficient counterparts. The power bill argument has been studied ever since the old power hungry FX processor line and was debunked way back then. End of story.

Where power consumption becomes an issue is related to thermals, not the power bill. The more power a card uses the higher the thermals and the more extreme the cooling needs. This usually means that your not going to be using a blower version of the card but an open air version with 2 - 3 fans and a very big heat sink. The problem with open air GPUs (of ANY manufacture and brand) is they vent the hot air expelled from the GPU directly into your case causing all the other components to run hot. The more power efficient the GPU the less heat produced, the better it is for all your equipment. In fact the 'healthiest" GPUs for your equipment as a whole is blower versions as they expel the hot air from the GPU outside of your case and not inside of it. Their drawback is they usually can't be overclocked as high as the GPU itself will run hotter than the open air models.

Power consumption of a CPU or GPU is a concern only when related to thermals to the component and the surrounding hardware/ components. The actual real difference in your power bill is so low it is inconsequential.

 

[valeman2012]

The Power Consumption plays factor of pricing against Nvidia Mid range (GTX 1060-6GB)

Cant perform like GTX 1080, but use as much power use as GTX 1080..

AMD GPU going start being way too power hungry jacking your power bills and not able beat Nvidia completion GPU`s from Mid Tier to High End Gaming?

Let me make this as crystal clear as possible- power consumption as it is related to your power bill is a non-issue. Cranked to its maximum and run 24/ 7 all month the most power hungry GPU or CPU will only use $1 or so more a month as compared to their much more efficient counterparts. The power bill argument has been studied ever since the old power hungry FX processor line and was debunked way back then. End of story.

Where power consumption becomes an issue is related to thermals, not the power bill. The more power a card uses the higher the thermals and the more extreme the cooling needs. This usually means that your not going to be using a blower version of the card but an open air version with 2 - 3 fans and a very big heat sink. The problem with open air GPUs (of ANY manufacture and brand) is they vent the hot air expelled from the GPU directly into your case causing all the other components to run hot. The more power efficient the GPU the less heat produced, the better it is for all your equipment. In fact the 'healthiest" GPUs for your equipment as a whole is blower versions as they expel the hot air from the GPU outside of your case and not inside of it. Their drawback is they usually can't be overclocked as high as the GPU itself will run hotter than the open air models.

Power consumption of a CPU or GPU is a concern only when related to thermals to the component and the surrounding hardware/ components. The actual real difference in your power bill is so low it is inconsequential.

You don`t get it, i dont how you defending AMD RX590 underperfromance GPU is not power hungry. the more power being consumed the more electricity is being used.

 

[Redneck5439]

The Power Consumption plays factor of pricing against Nvidia Mid range (GTX 1060-6GB)

Cant perform like GTX 1080, but use as much power use as GTX 1080..

AMD GPU going start being way too power hungry jacking your power bills and not able beat Nvidia completion GPU`s from Mid Tier to High End Gaming?

Let me make this as crystal clear as possible- power consumption as it is related to your power bill is a non-issue. Cranked to its maximum and run 24/ 7 all month the most power hungry GPU or CPU will only use $1 or so more a month as compared to their much more efficient counterparts. The power bill argument has been studied ever since the old power hungry FX processor line and was debunked way back then. End of story.

Where power consumption becomes an issue is related to thermals, not the power bill. The more power a card uses the higher the thermals and the more extreme the cooling needs. This usually means that your not going to be using a blower version of the card but an open air version with 2 - 3 fans and a very big heat sink. The problem with open air GPUs (of ANY manufacture and brand) is they vent the hot air expelled from the GPU directly into your case causing all the other components to run hot. The more power efficient the GPU the less heat produced, the better it is for all your equipment. In fact the 'healthiest" GPUs for your equipment as a whole is blower versions as they expel the hot air from the GPU outside of your case and not inside of it. Their drawback is they usually can't be overclocked as high as the GPU itself will run hotter than the open air models.

Power consumption of a CPU or GPU is a concern only when related to thermals to the component and the surrounding hardware/ components. The actual real difference in your power bill is so low it is inconsequential.

You don`t get it, i dont how you defending AMD RX590 underperfromance GPU is not power hungry. the more power being consumed the more electricity is being used.

You don't get it, I'm not defending the RX 590. I personally wouldn't buy one as it isn't a real upgrade from my R9 290. I'm personally saying that right now the GTX 1070Ti is the best bang for the dollar for a 2K/ 4K upgrade based upon performance and retail cost.

I am also saying that the argument that its going to cost a lot of extra money on your power bill is total bullsh*t and has been debunked with CPUs and GPUs for a very long time. Even the old FX processors like the FX 9590 with its huge power usage under load wouldn't jack your power bill over a much more efficient Haswell processor of the same era, it was proven way back then that it came to around $0.75 a month extra. The cost per month of running a RX 590 over a GTX 1060 would be literally $1 a month tops, and more than likely less than that. The true "cost" of running at higher wattage is increased heat production which will be a limiting factor in overclocking and may even add additional heat to all the other components in the tower.

If I were recommending a GPU to someone building a new rig that wanted to only game at 1080p the RX 590 would actually be one of the top recommendations (depending a lot of retail costs at he time). The RX 590 does outperform the GTX 1060 in almost every game you throw at it, not by a huge margin but it is the best of the mid range cards now based on performance. However for someone who already has a capable mid range card ie RX 580, GTX 1060 then its not a real upgrade that is worthwhile.

 

[Rexer]

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....

All I've heard from AMD's leadership is they're concentrating on work station GPUs. Doesn't sound good and I hope I'm wrong. I've owned a Vega 64 for a year and I'm happy with it. It's got a modest clock right now at 1630/ 1690 mhz, mem 960mhz/1000mhz and remains around 53c to 72c (room is air conditioned). And I'm confident with a V-bios flash it can gain higher figures. (I don't plan to push it).
I hope AMD doesn't back-off chasing Nvidia simply because of market monopoly. I'm not an AMD fan boy (I also own a an Nvidia1070 as well as an older 970) but I do hate the 'Only game in town' product strategy Nvidia seems to be eclipsing.