AMD Launches Navi-Based Radeon RX 5600XT To Battle GeForce RTX 2060 Under $300 (hothardware.com) 57
MojoKid writes: Today AMD launched its latest midrange graphics card based on the company's all new Navi architecture. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT slots in under $300 ($279 MSRP) and is based on the same Navi 10 GPU as AMD's current high-end Radeon RX 5700 series cards. AMD's Radeon RX 5600 XT is outfitted with 36 compute units, with a total of 2,304 stream processors and is essentially a Radeon 5700 spec GPU with 2GB less GDDR 6 memory (6GB total) and a narrower 192-bit interface, versus Radeon RX 5700's 8GB, 256-bit config. HotHardware took a Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT around the benchmark track and this card has a BIOS switch on-board that toggles between performance and silent/quiet modes. In performance mode, the card has a 160W power target, 14Gbps memory data rate, a Boost Clock of 1,750MHz and a Game Clock of 1,615MHz. In silent/quiet mode, things are a bit more tame with a 135W power target, 12Gbps memory, and 1,620 MHz/1,460MHz Boost and Game Clocks, respectively. In the gaming benchmarks, the new Radeon RX 5600 XT is generally faster than NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2060 overall, with the exception of a few titles that are more NVIDIA-optimized and in VR. Though it lacks the capability for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, the new AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT weighs in $20-30 less than NVIDIA's closest competitor and offers similar if not better performance.
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Finally I can throw this card with only 2,203 stream processors in the garbage. That is some Hot Hardware! What do you think, Mojokid?
Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Getting busted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Burning enough electricity to make a Swedish teenager cry, this thing is going to get houses raided by police searching for a grow room!
Re: (Score:2)
160 watt TDP really isn't all that much (Score:3)
The real news is the cards were gimped to keep them from competing with the 5700 and AMD had to fix it with a Bios upgrade so they could hang with the 2060 after nVidia's price drop.
Also I have to admit I'm not sure I'd want a Navi based GPU right now. My Rx 580 is rock solid after the last round of driver updates, but there's still a lot of issues with Navi. There's also some really crappy after market coolers out there (I'm lookin' at you Asus, son, I am disappoint).
Re: (Score:2)
The real news is the cards were gimped to keep them from competing with the 5700
Hasn't that been a common thing for hardware manufacturers to do since the i486SX / i487SX days?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the troll mod?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the troll mod?
We found the Russian.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you're trolling or just woefully out of touch with hardware requirements. Most gaming GPUs draw upwards of 250W.
Re: Getting busted (Score:2)
Re: Getting busted (Score:2)
I had no idea gaming PCs were so greedy.
Right, because you thought they were supposed to deliver more performance than console GPU's through magical violations of the 2nd law of thermodyamics.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Core 2 Quad with dual SLI'd GTX480s. It made me upgrade to a 1,500W UPS because the 850W would blurt out overload warnings during gaming.
250W... hah
Good for business, not so much progress (Score:2)
Bought the GTX 1080 Ti almost three years ago, AMD still doesn't have a card to top it though to be fair they don't cost $699 either. We need big Navi to get at least some resemblance of competition back at the high end, the RTX series is gouging just as badly as Intel was pre-Zen. I know this is the kind of card that'll make AMD money but as enthusiasts it's performance that's nothing out of the ordinary just good value.
I'm not sure what you're talking about (Score:5, Informative)
Where AMD can't compete is at the top end. They don't have a 2080 equivalent. That's also an $1100 dollar part. I don't blame them, there's no money in making those parts. You do it for bragging rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I'm not sure what you're talking about (Score:4, Informative)
the 5700 XT hangs quite nicely with a 1080 TI
They're pretty much neck and neck yes, but it's 2020 and it's still not a clearly better card. Anandtech puts the 5700XT at -5% [anandtech.com] compared to the 2070 Super, the 2070 Super -4% [anandtech.com] compared to the 2080 (original) and the 2080 (original) +8% [anandtech.com] faster than the 1080 Ti. In other words, practically equal.
Where AMD can't compete is at the top end. They don't have a 2080 equivalent. That's also an $1100 dollar part.
That's the 2080 Ti, they don't have a 2080 Super or 2080 (original) equivalent either. Even against the 2070 Super it's winning on price, not performance.
I don't blame them, there's no money in making those parts. You do it for bragging rights.
Steam has 90 million active users and 0.5% use a 2080 Ti, at $1100 that's $500 million worth of revenue. It's been 15 months since launch and they've had $6.7 billion worth of gaming revenue in that period so about 8% of their revenue. Probably a way bigger part of their profit, since the profit margin is probably obscene. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Winning on price isn't a bad thing (Score:2)
I doubt they're pushing a 50% profit margin on the 2080 Ti. The yields are going to be low. And the margins on Graphics cards are already notoriously bad. 3DFX (god I'm old) went out of business while their cards were flying off the shelves because nobody wanted to take a risk and loan t
Re: (Score:2)
3DfX, that's a name I have not heard in a long time.
I had the Orchid Righteous 3D, the very first 3DFX card released. When I played Descent with that card at the lan parties, all the ladies panties dropped (who am I kidding, there were no women. But people were damn impressed).
Some of the guys I knew wore panties (Score:2)
And before you ask no, they didn't drop. I had a Voodoo Rush, that thing wasn't dropping anything but frames.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they're pushing a 50% profit margin on the 2080 Ti. The yields are going to be low. And the margins on Graphics cards are already notoriously bad.
Don't know about that.
Their cost of revenue has gone *down* per dollar of revenue, according to their financials.
I don't think you have any evidence to judge their yields negatively, or imply that the margins on the cards are bad since they are currently operating with a cost of revenue of under half of their actual revenue.
AMD, as an example, typically runs at 60-70% or higher on cost of revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
You do it for bragging rights.
I take it you don't play modern generation games. Control / Battlefield struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p with modern graphical features enabled. Take any normal game and throw it in a VR headset (e.g. Subnautica) and you'll quickly find at the higher display resolution you can't maintain that critical 90fps that prevent motion sickness.
Games are finally (after years of Xbox360 induced stagnation) finally taxing PC hardware again. The development of the high end GPUs is nothing more than an expansion of t
I do (Score:2)
AMD is generally giving equivalient performance for 10-20% less. At the low end (e.g. my RX 580) they're doing even better. Finally if you want one of the free games they're giving away they're crushing it. At one point you could get the Division 2, Resident Evil 2 and something else I forget with a $140 RX 570 or a $180 RX 580. You can still get Boarderlan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty big, since all the card manufacturers just bump everything down a notch when they release the new hot stuff. Those 2080RTX chips are going to be your $50 specials in a few years.
AMD has traditionally been more successful at going for the integrated market than Nvidia has, which is indeed *way* bigger than the discrete card market.
used cards are still not cheap (Score:3)
There are cards from several generations / years ago that still sell for over $200 used (i.e. Craigslist). As an example, the Nvidia GTX 980 TI was a second-tier card when released beneath the Titan X in 2015. After five years, that card is hard to find on the used market for less than $200..
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Nvidia slowed things down a lot when they could unload as many cards as they could make into the bitcoin mining market. "A few" might be more like six. Either way, Nvidia, and everyone else, milks enthusiasts and special purpose customers for what they can, then cycles things down to lower tiers. At some point it actually becomes cheaper for them to sell you a stripped down version of a more up to date card, so they do that too. That 2080RTX TI that sells for $1200 is the same basic parts (and thus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how big of a market do you really think there is for $700-$2K+ gamer cards
Big enough that NVIDIA has historically always catered to that end of the market and found it profitable enough to continue doing so going forward.
Ryzen + Nvidia (Score:2)
I switched to Ryzen for the ridiculous value advantage on the CPU side, but Nvidia GPUs have too many goof-around extras for me to pass up. All the weird compute-heavy projects I want to play with use CUDA. Blender 2.8 can even use RTX acceleration now, with only minor fiddling, for a very noticeable performance boost.
Re:Ryzen + Nvidia (Score:5, Insightful)
Blender does OpenCL [blendernation.com] Knowing that, why would you hobble yourself with NVidia's proprietary CUDA, knowing your code is going to be orphaned sooner or later? NVidia also supports OpenCL. Why? Because high end HPC and cluster users demand it. OpenCL is a standard. OpenCL is now equivalent to CUDA in performance and features. CUDA is therefore a proprietary cul de sac, rely on it at your own risk.
Re: (Score:2)
As nice as RTX looks the performance is crippling on anything but the top 3 cards. Even with a 2070 Super you can't sustain 60fps at 1080p.
I would not pick Nvidia for a budget card, but definitely recommend them for high end performance. The 2060 is not high end.
Re:Though it lacks the capability ... (Score:5, Insightful)
it lacks the capability for hardware-accelerated ray tracing ...
And nothing of value was lost, unless stuttery ray traced puddles are really big with you. RTX simply lacks the compute power to ray trace properly on NVidia high end cards, let alone cut down consumer ones. Equivalent or better [youtube.com] results have been achieved on an ordinary Vega.
When AMD introduces its raytracing hardware (said to be central to PS5 and next gen XBox) then it will be mainstream. NVidia's take on it is garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Equivalent or better
Nope. [cryengine.com]
FTA:
However, RTX will allow the effects to run at a higher resolution. At the moment on GTX 1080, we usually compute reflections and refractions at half-screen resolution. RTX will probably allow full-screen 4k resolution. It will also help us to have more dynamic elements in the scene, whereas currently, we have some limitations. Broadly speaking, RTX will not allow new features in CRYENGINE, but it will enable better performance and more details.
Re: (Score:2)
"will probably." [cryengine.com]
Believe it when you see it. And I am not talking about some wibbly weird AI scaling filter.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused about what RTX is.
When you get into DLSS, stuff gets weird, but RTX is just path-tracing cores. Any RT implementation is going to include that functionality- including crytek's.
There's absolutely no reason to think their renderer won't be able to use RTX to take over work they're currently doing (inefficiently) on compute shaders.
If you RTFA, you'll see that they're cutting a lot of corners to get fluid perfo
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused about what RTX is.
No, I'm confused about why RTX is. Being the decelerator it is, with unremarkable graphical results.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm confused about why RTX is. Being the decelerator it is, with unremarkable graphical results.
That's more about how it is used. Why it is, is simple. Because to implement path tracing, RT cores can do it drastically faster than computer shaders- as CryTek clearly points out in their discussion as to what Neon Noir is, and as the post-DXR support benchmorks clearly show.
It is true that it's a decelerator where it is used generally, but that's because it's being compared to pure rasterization engines, which isn't a fair comparison.
In Neon Noir, it provides a *huge* speed increase.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no reason to think their renderer won't be able to use RTX to take over work they're currently doing (inefficiently) on compute shaders.
There's a very good reason to think that - they didn't do it. Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
The released version of Neon Noir uses DXR acceleration where available.
Re: (Score:2)
The speedup offered by the RTX cores is immediately apparent.
Granted- a 2080Ti can't do 4K at 60fps, it *can* do it at almost 50, while the top of the line AMD is limping along at almost 20.
Thus, in Neon Noir, an RTX 2060 Super is *faster* than an RX 5700 XT, a card that it usually just barely matches or loses to in other benchmarks.
This means, if you're using CryTek RT, an RTX 2060 Super is now a better buy in performance per dollar than an RX
Unfortunately still not good for ML (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GTX 1660 price/performance (Score:2)
It still doesn't hit the price/performance or the performance/watt of the GTX 1660. For most practical purposes, the previous generation of cards was superior. If somebody overclocked the whoozits out of that card, it would beat Nvidia's current RTX line, at least until more games use the ray tracing features.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about the 1660 or the 1660 family? Price/performance it does hit the 1660 Super and Ti. Multiple reviewers have already commented that the new card effectively kills the 1660 Super and Ti in the under $300 range like this one from PC gamer [pcgamer.com]. While it isn’t as cheap as the some versions of 1660 Super or Ti, reviewers’ opinion is that consumers should spend the little bit extra for a lot more performance.
That’s why EVGA and NVidia came out with a special 2060 KO for under $300
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that article, that's the exact comparison I am trying to think through. I'm excited about the possibility, but we won't know until the real street pricing comes out, and the are benchmarks are done on the production cards.
A funny thing about the 1660 "series" is that the Passmark scores are <5% different between the plain GTX 1660 and the Super/Ti versions. Even with 50% better memory bandwidth. That is surprising.
Multiple reviewers have already commented that the new card effectively kills the 1660 Super and Ti in the under $300 range like this one from PC gamer [pcgamer.com].
Reading the article, I don't see them saying that. They seem to say that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don’t go below $250.
Passmark's GPU list [videocardbenchmark.net] has the super at $229 which I can confirm at my local Micro Center [microcenter.com]. Not that you need to spend any extra bucks on it since it is only 3.5% faster than the plain GTX which is $209. They've been at that price point for months.
Re: (Score:2)
RDNA or not? (Score:2)
So is this a pure RDNA card or is it still a mix with the previousarchitecture?
Personally I'm just waiting for an AMD card that owns 1440p ultrawide.