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

[King_V]

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

Aaaand, so glad you created an account just to gripe on a thread not related to drivers.

Maybe it would help if you posted to a thread in the Graphics section, asking about your specific issue.

 

[TJ Hooker]

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.

From my understanding, pricing during the mining craze was dictated by retailers and their the ones that saw the higher profit margins. Did AMD/Nvidia have any control over that (other than rate of GPU production, which can be risky to ramp up due to the instability of mining demand), or see any of the increased profit per GPU?

Also, we're talking about the RTX 2060, which came out a while after the mining craze ended.

 

[InvalidError]

From my understanding, pricing during the mining craze was dictated by retailers and their the ones that saw the higher profit margins.

AMD and Nvidia may not have control over retail price of existing OEM supply contracts but they do have control over what happens with next-gen and even supplemental supply contracts for older parts. Both AMD and Nvidia did jack up MSRPs across the board to cash in on a market that got used to increased prices, which is why performance per dollar has regressed quite a bit since the RX570/580 across most current GPUs.

Another oddity in the market is that entry-level GPUs are leading performance per dollar. Historically, entry-level parts lagged significantly behind higher-end models simply due to overhead costs accounting for a larger chunk of total cost per card. That's another hint that MSRPs are significantly out of line.

 

[cfbcfb]

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.

For most of the benchmarks I've seen, the 1650 would be just fine, cost less, and draws less power. Everything you mentioned needs far more power than a 1650. I guess my point is that for low end, well performing, low power options that don't suck at gaming but are good enough to run most titles well, I don't have an under $150 option from AMD.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

For most of the benchmarks I've seen, the 1650 would be just fine, cost less, and draws less power. Everything you mentioned needs far more power than a 1650. I guess my point is that for low end, well performing, low power options that don't suck at gaming but are good enough to run most titles well, I don't have an under $150 option from AMD.

Er ... 1650 kinda sucks at gaming - that's about bottom of the heap as it gets. RX 570 is quite a bit faster (at least 12% (which is a lot at lower frame-rates)) ... and also cost $150 on Amazon right now. The ONLY thing the 1650 has going for it is low power - but that's partly because its a super low end performer.

If you play at 720p and for some reason "require" a 80w card, I guess its ok, but as far as perf / dollar goes, its pretty poor in that territory compared to everything else.

1050ti is still available - I see one an Amazon for $140 ... but that's even slightly worse performing than 1650 ...

 

[King_V]

For most of the benchmarks I've seen, the 1650 would be just fine, cost less, and draws less power. Everything you mentioned needs far more power than a 1650. I guess my point is that for low end, well performing, low power options that don't suck at gaming but are good enough to run most titles well, I don't have an under $150 option from AMD.

A 1650 SUPER would perform a little better than an RX570 or RX580, depending on the game.

A 1650 non-super performs less than an RX570.

What is the "RX500" card you're trying to upgrade from?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

That's not really how these things work. If you want to see it that way you have to also see very clearly that every "SUPER" card is an artificially de-clocked version of its next tier sibling (which it is, this has been proven - a 2060 "super" is a de-clocked 2070 - not a "souped up" 2060).

Nvidia created a whole new line of purposefully "declocked" cards ... does it matter? No. Price / performance is what matters (and maybe OC potential, but there's not much of that these days in any cards)

A 9700k is a 9900k "de-clocked" and has its hyper threading turned off.

That's just how all this works in this industry. The 5600xt is basically a 5700xt, that probably didn't quite live up to quality spec to be one, so it is rebinned as a 5600xt. Just as the "Super cards" are rebinned versions of their higher tier brethren. Again this industry uses the process called "binning" and sorts product segmentation this way.

AMD was trying to hit a certain price/perf point that would be attractive ... Nvidia countered, rendering it less attractive, so they sweetened it a little with a "software tune" for free. I'm pretty sure this was made clear in the article.

When you buy a sports car and put a "software chip tune in it", no one considers that it was "detuned" before it was chipped - those were the intended manufacturers specs, and the software "chip tune" tuned it up. And if you got a chip tune for free, you got free performance.

 

[cfbcfb]

That's not really how these things work. If you want to see it that way you have to also see very clearly that every "SUPER" card is an artificially de-clocked version of its next tier sibling (which it is, this has been proven - a 2060 "super" is a de-clocked 2070 - not a "souped up" 2060).

Nvidia created a whole new line of purposefully "declocked" cards ... does it matter? No. Price / performance is what matters (and maybe OC potential, but there's not much of that these days in any cards)

A 9700k is a 9900k "de-clocked" and has its hyper threading turned off.

That's just how all this works in this industry. The 5600xt is basically a 5700xt, that probably didn't quite live up to quality spec to be one, so it is rebinned as a 5600xt. Just as the "Super cards" are rebinned versions of their higher tier brethren. Again this industry uses the process called "binning" and sorts product segmentation this way.

AMD was trying to hit a certain price/perf point that would be attractive ... Nvidia countered, rendering it less attractive, so they sweetened it a little with a "software tune" for free. I'm pretty sure this was made clear in the article.

When you buy a sports car and put a "software chip tune in it", no one considers that it was "detuned" before it was chipped - those were the intended manufacturers specs, and the software "chip tune" tuned it up. And if you got a chip tune for free, you got free performance.

Well, thats exactly how it worked unless you're a fanboy. They intentionally declocked the part to deliver less performance, and when competition showed up, they re-clocked it up. LOL "Sweetened". Did you mean "Got caught"?

 

[cfbcfb]

A 1650 SUPER would perform a little better than an RX570 or RX580, depending on the game.

A 1650 non-super performs less than an RX570.

What is the "RX500" card you're trying to upgrade from?

My bad, its an AMD RX 550. Basically last years "low end" card. The 1650 would be about 6-8 times faster. Which is way more than I need.

 

[cfbcfb]

Er ... 1650 kinda sucks at gaming - that's about bottom of the heap as it gets. RX 570 is quite a bit faster (at least 12% (which is a lot at lower frame-rates)) ... and also cost $150 on Amazon right now. The ONLY thing the 1650 has going for it is low power - but that's partly because its a super low end performer.

If you play at 720p and for some reason "require" a 80w card, I guess its ok, but as far as perf / dollar goes, its pretty poor in that territory compared to everything else.

1050ti is still available - I see one an Amazon for $140 ... but that's even slightly worse performing than 1650 ...

The 1650 is just fine and then some for my needs. I don't want a hotter running older card. And yes, the machine its going into has a proprietary power supply and motherboard. So 150w cards are out. Why does everyone want me to spend more for a card I don't need when a cheaper one fits my needs and then some?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

... Did you mean "Got caught"?

Got caught at what?

 

[King_V]

The 1650 is just fine and then some for my needs. I don't want a hotter running older card. And yes, the machine its going into has a proprietary power supply and motherboard. So 150w cards are out. Why does everyone want me to spend more for a card I don't need when a cheaper one fits my needs and then some?

I don't think anyone's actually doing that - also, this card recommendation discussion more appropriately belongs in its own thread rather than in an thread about the article covering AMD's increasing the specs of the 5600XT.

 

[cryoburner]

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.

From a performance standpoint, the 1650 (non-SUPER) is at least 25% slower than a 5500 XT 4GB on average, so it makes sense that power consumption is notably lower, as the cards are targeting somewhat different performance brackets. The 1650 SUPER typically performs about the same as a 5500 XT 4GB, but that card also draws nearly as much power as the 5500 XT.

Well, thats exactly how it worked unless you're a fanboy. They intentionally declocked the part to deliver less performance, and when competition showed up, they re-clocked it up. LOL "Sweetened". Did you mean "Got caught"?

By that logic, the 1650 was also "intentionally declocked", seeing as it is clocked lower than any other 16-series card. That's part of why its power draw is so low. And the same goes for the 5600 XT's original BIOS. It's technically possible for them to clock any of these cards up near their limits to extract a bit more performance out of them, but that leads to higher power draw under load and in turn more heat output and in many cases a pricier cooling solution.

In any case, the 5600 XT and the 1650 are not exactly targeting similar price or performance brackets at all, considering the 5600 XT is around twice as fast, and costs nearly twice as much.

My bad, its an AMD RX 550. Basically last years "low end" card. The 1650 would be about 6-8 times faster. Which is way more than I need.

From an RX 550, a GTX 1650 would actually be a pretty decent upgrade, though you would probably be seeing more like 3 times the graphics performance in most cases. That's still a rather large difference though, and probably about the best you can get if you are on a limited-capacity proprietary power supply without PCIe power connectors. If the PSU has PCIe power connectors though, it might be worth looking into something like a 1650 SUPER though, as that card delivers notably more performance without costing much more, and the power demands are still fairly reasonable at around 100 watts. The same would go for the similar-performing RX 5500 4GB, though the prices of those are not as good currently.