News Report: AMD ups Radeon RX 5600 XT Performance Amid Nvidia RTX 2060 Price Cut

King_V

Distinguished
Maybe - I kind of wonder if calling this a 5700 LT or something might make more sense now.

That said, it's one thing to up the clocks a little, it's another thing entirely for there to be faster VRAM... isn't it? 12Gbps vs 14Gbps isn't just a simple "up the clocks" situation from what I understand.

I wonder - did AMD understate what they had to keep Nvidia off-balance?
 
Reactions: alextheblue

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
503
199
19,160
0
Just what we need. Another RX570/RX580 situation.... c'mon AMD, don't throw power efficiency out the window again.
150w to 160w ... 10w? ... 160w is typical for a midrange card, and is they same as the 2060 - which it seeks to compete with.

So they gave consumers, more FPS, for free.
Since power consumption scales with fps potential on every line of cards ever made, I fail to see where the complaint is here ...

If they had gone from 220w to 250w to compete with a 160w rtx2060 - Then your complaint would make perfect sense. But that's not what happened.
 
Last edited:

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
503
199
19,160
0
...
I wonder - did AMD understate what they had to keep Nvidia off-balance?
Probably. AMD seems to be playing this game with NVidia. Forcing NVidia to drop prices on every AMD launch, or launch a new line of "super" cards to try to compete, or whatever - its always something drastic ...

The best NVidia can do is lower prices as soon as they find out some info on an AMD launch which alleviates it a bit by "appearing" like it wasn't in response, because it is before the launches. (but we know better)

The longer AMD forces NVidia to have to constantly be adjusting their marketing / pricing and products to try to compensate for everything AMD does, the worse it will look, and begs the question how badly do they see AMD as threat? And how badly are the customers getting ripped off if NVidia is left to their intentions? These aspects end up being highlighted.

I don't think NVidia sees this yet, but the longer this will drag out the worse it will be for NVidia, just like the sentiment toward Intel these days, especially as AMD continues to put out more competitive cards.

I also think AMD is confident it will be able to compete in the very high end - and when NVidia has the more expensive product, doesn't have the performance crown or has to share it, has less bang for buck value - all these factors will start to create the sentiment that we see towards Intel currently.

I think this time next year will be quite interesting in the GPU space - NVidia definitely has more to innovate with than Intel has had in the last 4 years, so I think the GPU fight might get intense ... not yet though ... we'll see in a year's time.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Herald
Probably. AMD seems to be playing this game with NVidia. Forcing NVidia to drop prices on every AMD launch, or launch a new line of "super" cards to try to compete, or whatever - its always something drastic ...

The best NVidia can do is lower prices as soon as they find out some info on an AMD launch which alleviates it a bit by "appearing" like it wasn't in response, because it is before the launches. (but we know better)

The longer AMD forces NVidia to have to constantly be adjusting their marketing / pricing and products to try to compensate for everything AMD does, the worse it will look, and begs the question how badly do they see AMD as threat? And how badly are the customers getting ripped off if NVidia is left to their intentions? These aspects end up being highlighted.

I don't think NVidia sees this yet, but the longer this will drag out the worse it will be for NVidia, just like the sentiment toward Intel these days, especially as AMD continues to put out more competitive cards.

I also think AMD is confident it will be able to compete in the very high end - and when NVidia has the more expensive product, doesn't have the performance crown or has to share it, has less bang for buck value - all these factors will start to create the sentiment that we see towards Intel currently.

I think this time next year will be quite interesting in the GPU space - NVidia definitely has more to innovate with than Intel has had in the last 4 years, so I think the GPU fight might get intense ... not yet though ... we'll see in a year's time.
I see this situation entirely differently. The fact that they are able to lower their prices means that they were enjoying months (a year in this case) of enhanced profit margins while they had no competition. And then when AMD finally manages to get something out to compete, all Nvidia has to do is lower MSRP and/or release a non-cutdown version of an existing GPU. And then within half a year Nvidia releases a new generation and gets to enjoy higher profit margins from lack of competition for another while. This has been going on for years, and I certainly wouldn't say it has been a drain on Nvidia, quite the opposite really.

Even if AMD manages to get a 2080 Ti competitor out Nvidia could just release an 2080 Ti Super with a fully enabled TU102 die. Or maybe Ampere will be out by that time, bringing a new level of performance and eliminating AMD's 7nm advantage. Either way, I see AMD continuing to be the one playing catch-up.

And it's not like reducing prices is a one way street. AMD does it all the time too, just look at what prices of RX 570/580s and Vegas did over the course of their lifespan as they faced increasing competition. Both companies often lower the price of the cards over time (either officially lower the MSRP or the retail prices just creep down), both in response to the other company or their own newer releases. If one drops their prices that isn't a win for the other.
 
Last edited:

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Herald
I don't know if I'd call it overcharging; they charged what the market will bear. They're a business whose goal is to make money, AMD would be doing the same thing if they could too.

I hardly think dropping MSRP by $50 a year after the product came out makes them look bad, or will garner consumer resentment. As I said above, both AMD and Nvidia drop prices all the time for a variety of reasons. RX 580 8GB MSRP is $230 but can be bought right now for less than $170, does that mean AMD was previously ripping people off?

Also remember all the non-recurring engineering costs that go into designing a GPU. You have to recoup and make profit on that investment, it's not just a matter of looking at what it costs them for each GPU and how much they sell it for.
 

King_V

Distinguished
Oh, people get all kinds of resentment for all kinds of reasons, valid or not.

I'm not too sure on previous gen stuff (500 series Polaris, Vega, and 10-series cards) because of how Crypto really threw things for a loop.

I would imagine, though, that most of the resentment would be from recent purchasers of the 2060 . . on the other hand, I'd be the guy that says "competition for it is coming out very soon, so WAIT, dude!"

Though, I imagine what the market will bear, what they can get away with, and overcharging are possibly a matter of semantics, with maybe overcharging being a bit strong of a term.

I guess it could be worse, though - I'm thinking of GTX 1080 prices up until the day the 1080Ti was released.
 

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
503
199
19,160
0
I see this situation entirely differently. The fact that they are able to lower their prices means that they were enjoying months (a year in this case) of enhanced profit margins while they had no competition. And then when AMD finally manages to get something out to compete, all Nvidia has to do is lower MSRP and/or release a non-cutdown version of an existing GPU. And then within half a year Nvidia releases a new generation and gets to enjoy higher profit margins from lack of competition for another while. This has been going on for years, and I certainly wouldn't say it has been a drain on Nvidia, quite the opposite really.
That was with Vega and Radeon7 - not many people even wanted those cards or could get them for their MSRP ... vega was priced completely out of any competitiveness with Nvidia because of the mining thing - there was no "bang for buck" with those AMD cards at all, so the environment and the effects were not the same as we are seeing with Navi.


And it's not like reducing prices is a one way street. AMD does it all the time too, just look at what prices of RX 570/580s and Vegas did over the course of their lifespan as they faced increasing competition. Both companies often lower the price of the cards over time (either officially lower the MSRP or the retail prices just creep down), both in response to the other company or their own newer releases. If one drops their prices that isn't a win for the other.
Same reasoning as I presented above ... and of course old cards get lower prices. "Super" wasn't old - it was a brand new line in response to the 5700's launching, that cannibilzed their non-super line at lower prices; the 2060 is a bit older, but still not old. Again, I wouldn't put that in the same camp I described earlier.

Intel became a victim of its own pricing, in the face of Ryzen ... 50% reduction on HEDT parts? What does that say to people who paid over a grand for 9980xe just last year?

Its about the mind sentiment that will build up over time ... just like what happened with Intel ... I can see AMD wanting to repeat that but in the GPU space. But like I said they'll need a performance crown (or to share it at least) and better prices / bang for buck together for that to properly happen .... I think AMD might stay committed to that model -- it does work, but takes time.
 
Last edited:

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Herald
Oh, people get all kinds of resentment for all kinds of reasons, valid or not.

I'm not too sure on previous gen stuff (500 series Polaris, Vega, and 10-series cards) because of how Crypto really threw things for a loop.

I would imagine, though, that most of the resentment would be from recent purchasers of the 2060 . . on the other hand, I'd be the guy that says "competition for it is coming out very soon, so WAIT, dude!"

Though, I imagine what the market will bear, what they can get away with, and overcharging are possibly a matter of semantics, with maybe overcharging being a bit strong of a term.

I guess it could be worse, though - I'm thinking of GTX 1080 prices up until the day the 1080Ti was released.
Like I said, the RTX 2060 came out a year ago. It took a year for suitable competition to come out for Nvidia to drop their MSRP. If you're going to hold off on buying something because you may have a better option within the next year, you'd never buy anything.

With regard to the GTX 1080, everyone should have known (or at least strongly suspected) a 1080 Ti was coming which would likely push down the cost of the 1080. The exact thing had happened the previous two generations. And something very similar had been going on for much longer (from both AMD and Nvidia), if you look at all the cases where last year's flagship gets rebadged one or two tiers down for the new generation.

You pay a premium to get a certain level of performance now compared to in the future.
 
Jan 17, 2020
1
0
10
0
Annnnd....the drivers are pure trash. Crashed in 3 games due to adrenaline 2020 locking up. If AMD could write some actually useful software they would be dangerous. Back to adrenaline 2019 for me on my 5700xt
 

artk2219

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2010
395
9
18,865
28
Annnnd....the drivers are pure trash. Crashed in 3 games due to adrenaline 2020 locking up. If AMD could write some actually useful software they would be dangerous. Back to adrenaline 2019 for me on my 5700xt
Did you have it remove all remnants of the old driver first? That could cause issues if you didn't, the 2020 drivers are working fine for me and my RX 5700.
 
Reactions: alextheblue
It's an interesting situation, which almost makes this card an RX 5700 6GB, though the memory bus deficiency should still create a notable performance hit depending on the game. If I had to guess, average performance across a wide selection of games might be pretty close to the 2060 now, albeit without any RT hardware. I was curious beforehand if overclocking might be able to do the same.

Personally though, I would have rather seen them keep the specs the same, and drop the price to around $250. At $280, there's still a rather large price gap between this and AMD's next cards down, and AMD still doesn't have a proper 1660 SUPER competitor, while it's been possible to find some dual-fan RX 5700s for around $310 lately. With the 2060's price dropping, we might not see much of a price difference between the 5700 and the 5600 XT, at which point it would probably be better to pay a little more for the version of the card with 8GB of VRAM and 33% more memory bandwidth.

That said, it's one thing to up the clocks a little, it's another thing entirely for there to be faster VRAM... isn't it? 12Gbps vs 14Gbps isn't just a simple "up the clocks" situation from what I understand.
Most likely, they all use the same VRAM modules, and AMD was just artificially limiting their clocks through the BIOS for product segmentation reasons. The same for the GPU cores, which now essentially match the 5700's clocks.

"Super" wasn't old - it was a brand new line in response to the 5700's launching, that cannibilzed their non-super line at lower prices; the 2060 is a bit older, but still not old.
Well, not exactly "brand new", seeing as they are essentially just slightly cut down versions of the card above them. The 2060 SUPER is a slightly cut down 2070, and the 2070 SUPER is a slightly more cut down 2080. It's effectively similar to a price drop, but they did it that way to save face about needing to cut prices so much just 9 months after those cards launched. This way, those who bought the pre-super variants might not feel quite as bad about those cards having their prices slashed by so much just 9 months after they came out, since their version of the card still performs a little better.
 

throwawayaccnt

Reputable
Apr 20, 2016
111
13
4,615
5
knocking off $20 with an additional $20 rebate is hardly price slashing, if you feel ripped off that you paid $40 more for a product X amount of months ago stop buying crap as soon as it comes out.
 
Jan 17, 2020
16
1
15
0
Just what we need. Another RX570/RX580 situation.... c'mon AMD, don't throw power efficiency out the window again.
I'm looking to replace an RX 500 with something better without a huge power demand. Looks like the 1650 is right up there with stuff like the 5500, with half the power draw.
 
Jan 17, 2020
16
1
15
0
So they gave consumers, more FPS, for free.
Since power consumption scales with fps potential on every line of cards ever made, I fail to see where the complaint is here ...
I think the issue was they artificially reduced FPS for their gain, they aren't particularly price competitive so they gave back the artificial declock.
 
Reactions: throwawayaccnt
I'm looking to replace an RX 500 with something better without a huge power demand. Looks like the 1650 is right up there with stuff like the 5500, with half the power draw.
A GTX 1650 SUPER wouldn't be much of an upgrade over an RX 570 or 580. On average, it tends to be only slightly faster than an RX 580, which is in turn only around 10-15% faster than an RX 570. So, not exactly a big uplift in performance over those. And the original 1650 (non-super) is actually slower than even an RX 570. Even the 1660 (non-super) is only about 15% faster than an RX 580. About the minimum worth upgrading to from an RX 580 would be a 1660 SUPER, which should be around 30% faster on average.

As for power draw, AMD's new 5000-series cards are nearly even with Nvidia's 16-series, typically only drawing slightly more power under load for a given level of performance, and much less than their prior 500-series. That's largely due to them moving to a new process node for this series of GPUs, which Nvidia hasn't done yet. As a result, the 5500 XT draws roughly the same amount of power as a 1650 SUPER while gaming. That said, much like a 1650 SUPER, the similar-performing 5500 XT is likewise only slightly faster than an RX 580, and not worth upgrading to from that card.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I don't know if I'd call it overcharging; they charged what the market will bear.
Yes and no.

GPU prices got grossly inflated in a hurry thanks to the crypto boom which got enough people used to paying double what they used to for GPU designers to continue charging stupid amounts. Now that most crypto has either gone bust or is no longer practical on general-purpose hardware, price points are slowly coasting back down as the crypto trauma fades and the pool of people who can still be bothered with disproportionately costly incrementally faster GPUs shrinks.
 
Reactions: King_V
Can’t help but wonder where graphic card prices would be without the ray tracing crap nvidia has been pushing as the next great thing. It is a costly low value tech most will never benefit from. It is a shame seeing AMD and Intel drinking the koolaide cause Nvidia fan boys made a big deal about it Now we can all pay for this over rated costly crap.
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2019
72
21
35
0
I see this situation entirely differently. The fact that they are able to lower their prices means that they were enjoying months (a year in this case) of enhanced profit margins while they had no competition. And then when AMD finally manages to get something out to compete, all Nvidia has to do is lower MSRP and/or release a non-cutdown version of an existing GPU. And then within half a year Nvidia releases a new generation and gets to enjoy higher profit margins from lack of competition for another while. This has been going on for years, and I certainly wouldn't say it has been a drain on Nvidia, quite the opposite really.
R&D and advertising are both massive costs that are largely paid before a product is released. That money needs to be recouped, preferably as quickly as possible. Dropping prices down the line does not necessarily indicate gouging, it also indicates that some of the early costs have been covered so a high price isn't needed to maintain profit margins.

Intel's HEDT platform is an example of gouging. When you release a new product that is basically the same as the old one and the price drops in half, that's suspicious. Though it seems Cascade Lake X prices are lower than Intel wants to sell as you can't find them anywhere, and I doubt that is because of demand. Intel seems to have no interest in selling those CPU's.
 
Can’t help but wonder where graphic card prices would be without the ray tracing crap nvidia has been pushing as the next great thing. It is a costly low value tech most will never benefit from.
I really don't think it's actually all that costly. From what I can tell, raytracing only takes up a relatively small portion of the graphics processor in the current 20-series cards. Judging by the die-sizes of the full 16 and 20-series cards compared to their relative performance, I estimate that the RT portion of the 20-series cards likely doesn't take up more than 10% of the chip. And of course, that chip is only one part of the card, with other components like VRAM taking up a decent portion of a card's cost as well. So, I wouldn't be surprised if raytracing didn't add much more than 5% to the manufacturing cost of those cards.

The mediocre pricing has more to do with Nvidia sticking with a similar manufacturing node for their graphics chips as the previous generation of cards. To add substantially more performance, they would need to make the chips substantially larger, not only increasing the cost of the chips, but also increasing power draw and heat output. So, they weren't likely to add substantially more performance for the money whether RT was there or not. Just look at the 16-series cards. Even without RT, it's not like they added a large amount of performance relative to their predecessors. The 1660 wasn't much more than 15% faster than a 1060 6GB on average, while costing only slightly less, the better part of 3 years after that card came out.

And of course, the lack of competition from AMD didn't help 20-series pricing either. Without any really viable competition, Nvidia was able to price those cards as they pleased. That's not related to RT, it's just them not having any pressure to offer significantly more value than they did. Once AMD finally arrived at the party close to a year later, Nvidia cut into their margins and started offering more value for the money in the form of their SUPER cards. The current pricing of their lineup is arguably closer to what the 16 and 20-series should have launched for, and it probably would have if AMD had their new generation of cards launching around that time.

Of course, AMD needed to wait for 7nm production to be ready, and even now, it seems like they are being limited by production capacity of the chips. I suspect that AMD probably makes more money per wafer off their CPUs than their GPUs, and they are also responsible for a lot of chips for the upcoming consoles, which is likely why the pricing of the 5000-series cards has been kind of mediocre as well.

RT itself is a fine technology. Performance is rather poor with these first-generation cards, but that will undoubtedly improve with future hardware. With Nvidia finally moving to a new process node for their next cards, they should have more headroom to improve RT performance, and my guess is that the 30-series will handle these effects a lot better. With the new consoles supporting the feature in some capacity, and AMD likely to add it in future cards as well, I suspect it will become the new standard for ultra graphics for the next generation of games.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
2,988
60
20,870
2
Hmm I wonder if the rumored 5600 Vanilla will also see faster memory? If not, we'll have to see what RAM they equip them with... might be able to unlock them and get a full 5600 XT for less. Of course, if they do launch a 5600, they need to drop the price of the 5500 (which is already a smidge overpriced unless you overclock it).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts