AMD officially announces RX 5500 series, obliterates GTX 1650

[Okjoek]

What is AMD doing differently this time around? Is this just the 7nm process or does AMD have some architecture improvements going on?

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Ouch. Must be painful after seeing those numbers on the 5500M. 52% faster in one of the games! That is nothing short of astonishing performance. I don't think any of us were expecting quite this much. Caught me by surprise seeing those numbers. Literally makes a mockery of the 1650. Standing in solidarity at this painful time

btw AMD's own website says the 5500 non XT does use 14Gbps GDDR6.

 

But yeah that's very painful.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

What is AMD doing differently this time around? Is this just the 7nm process or does AMD have some architecture improvements going on?

This is using AMD's new RDNA 1.0 architecture which has much better performance per watt (1600-1700MHz 22 Navi CUs is able to match and/or beat 1200-1300MHz 36 Polaris CU).

 

It also happens to be using GDDR6, and 7nm for lower power usage.

[thorhammerz]

If price & performance numbers are as rumored, will be looking forward to the price pressures on 2nd-hand Rx 470/570/480/580's.

[SPARTAN VI]

Their relative performance slides leave a bit to be desired. They're comparing their latest RX 5500 to 14nm Polaris? Why not the RX 580 or RX 590 (12nm)? Is it because the RX 5500 doesn't look as favorable when comparing to its actual last gen (or current gen, depending how you look at it) offering? 

 

Not that most of us would care for these manufacturer marketing slides anyway. 

[MeatFeastMan]

2 minutes ago, SPARTAN VI said:

Their relative performance slides leave a bit to be desired. They're comparing their latest RX 5500 to 14nm Polaris? Why not the RX 580 or RX 590 (12nm)? Is it because the RX 5500 doesn't look as favorable when comparing to its actual last gen (or current gen, depending how you look at it) offering? 

 

Not that most of us would care for these manufacturing marketing slides anyway. 

Because these aren't pitted against those. They are supposed to replace the RX 570 and demolish the GTX 1650.

 

AMD have said that these aren't the FULL Navi 14's. These are cut down Navi 14's, meaning the 5500XT seems to be the one that has 24 or 26CU's. Or maybe a 5600 series. Those should be the ones competing against the 1660 Super and Ti.

[MeatFeastMan]

7 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

the page for the 5500 card says 22 CU ._. admittedly with a 2 CU difference I'm not sure how much leverage that'll have...

Well..1845mhz is the game frequency for the 5500, and it only has 110w. 2 more CU's AND another like 100mhz, maybe even 200mhz..I think there's a solid 10% gap there which would put it in between the 1660 and 1660 Super at least.

 

AMD still have frequency left on the table here, quite a lot actually.

[SPARTAN VI]

2 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Because these aren't pitted against those. They are supposed to replace the RX 570 and demolish the GTX 1650.

 

AMD have said that these aren't the FULL Navi 14's. These are cut down Navi 14's, meaning the 5500XT seems to be the one that has 24 or 26CU's. Or maybe a 5600 series. Those should be the ones competing against the 1660 Super and Ti.

RX 580 and 480 are on the same 14nm node though. Their performance is roughly identical with a 1-2% spread in favor of the RX 580. Just seems disingenuous to compare the RX 5500 to Polaris 10, which is largely not even on store shelves anymore. 

 

If the goal was to replace the RX 570, then why didn't they do that in the slide? That actually would have been a more favorable comparison in terms of relative performance and performance per watt. 

[MeatFeastMan]

Just now, SPARTAN VI said:

RX 580 and 480 are on the same 14nm node though. Their performance is roughly identical with a 1-2% spread in favor of the RX 580. Just seems disingenuous to compare the RX 5500 to Polaris 10, which is largely not even on store shelves anymore. 

 

If the goal was to replace the RX 570, then why didn't they do that in the slide? That actually would have been a more favorable comparison in terms of relative performance and performance per watt. 

RX 480 is equal to the RX 570 in performance. They are just portraying the best scenario they can I guess, in a sneaky way.

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, SPARTAN VI said:

RX 580 and 480 are on the same 14nm node though. Their performance is roughly identical with a 1-2% spread in favor of the RX 580. Just seems disingenuous to compare the RX 5500 to Polaris 10, which is largely not even on store shelves anymore. 

 

If the goal was to replace the RX 570, then why didn't they do that in the slide? That actually would have been a more favorable comparison in terms of relative performance and performance per watt. 

 

4 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

RX 480 is equal to the RX 570 in performance. They are just portraying the best scenario they can I guess, in a sneaky way.

yes and no, 480 is more efficient than the latter cards so their efficiency comparison would look even better with the 580/570

[cj09beira]

they are saying that there will be no stock cooler, has amd finally learned their lesson, YESSS

[Deli]

Waiting for reviews. Who will have the first review posted on Youtube?

[SPARTAN VI]

10 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

RX 480 is equal to the RX 570 in performance. They are just portraying the best scenario they can I guess, in a sneaky way.

But it's really not, the RX 480 is much more relatively similar to the RX 580 than it is to the RX 570 both in real world performance and its spec sheet. Other than base/boost/mem clocks, the RX 480/580 are identical on paper (shading units, CUs, ROPs, etc.) while the 580 tends to consume more power to create its performance spread. My bottomline, their slides really should have been pointed at something that's on the shelves now if their intention was to replace the 570/580's shelf space.

 

But me hammering on this makes it seem like I care more than I do. It's just something I noticed in passing that made me SMH. 

[normpearii]

Probably comparing it to the 480 to convince people to buy it over the used stock on ebay / Polaris is 3 years old and if I remember right the average upgrade window is ~3 years. The 1650 for obvious competition reasons.

[williamcll]

I wonder what CPU will the 5500M laptop will be paired with?

[MeatFeastMan]

5 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I wonder what CPU will the 5500M laptop will be paired with?

On the MSI laptop they are using the 3750H, which I'm guessing is Zen+ rather than Zen2.

[Taf the Ghost]

10 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I wonder what CPU will the 5500M laptop will be paired with?

Core i5s in most configurations. It's an independent product for AMD and won't likely be tied to their APUs. 

[ZestyJalapeno]

4 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

 

Nvidia also has the 1660ti and even the 1660 Super coming in at this $250-ish price range, will be interesting to see who can get better prices

Wtf? Nvidia with a masterclass on how to cannibalise your own sales, second only to Canon

[Anomnomnomaly]

1 hour ago, Okjoek said:

What is AMD doing differently this time around? Is this just the 7nm process or does AMD have some architecture improvements going on?

I could be wrong here, but does the 1650 use GDDR5?  So just moving to GDDR6 would offer a decent boost in performance. My 5700XT is a great card doing everything I can throw at it @1440p 75fps on max settings. It will do more but my monitors are only 27" 75hz. So until such a time as I get a decent 32" ultrawide 120hz or more... I'm a happy bunny.

[DeScruff]

Oh good. I was actually kind afraid that the 5700 and 5700XT were going to be another set of "One off" cards with a random name like the Fury, Vega 56/64 and Radeon VII kinda were, rather then a proper series that is easy to follow.
Cause.. I dunno about you guys, but I know people who want to upgrade their GPU, to something relatively new, and under $250. While the GTX 1660, and 1650 do fit that bill, they are the only things that fit that bill, and it be nice to have a selection again.

Now I have 1 very important question... Why is this series starting at 5000?
I remember AMD went from the X1000 to HDRadeon 2000 - Okay makes sense. Then from HDRadeon 7000 to R 200... (a change in naming convention whatever, weird they started at 200 though) and now they jump from... R 500 to... 5000? okaay?

[MeatFeastMan]

Just now, Sypran said:

Oh good. I was actually kind afraid that the 5700 and 5700XT were going to be another set of "One off" cards with a random name like the Fury, Vega 56/64 and Radeon VII kinda were, rather then a proper series that is easy to follow.
Cause.. I dunno about you guys, but I know people who want to upgrade their GPU, to something relatively new, and under $250. While the GTX 1660, and 1650 do fit that bill, they are the only things that fit that bill, and it be nice to have a selection again.

Now I have 1 very important question... Why is this series starting at 5000?
I remember AMD went from the X1000 to HDRadeon 2000 - Okay makes sense. Then from HDRadeon 7000 to R 200... (a change in naming convention whatever, weird they started at 200 though) and now they jump from... R 500 to... 5000? okaay?

AMD's 50th anniversary is the main reason, although they were originally going to call the RX 5700XT the 'RX 690' but changed at the last minute. There was also the rumors of the 3000 series to 1 up Nvidia, but Nvidia trademarked it. So they settled on 5000.

[Jurrunio]

2 hours ago, SPARTAN VI said:

all hail the tilted die

 

1 hour ago, Dogeystyle said:

Wtf? Nvidia with a masterclass on how to cannibalise your own sales, second only to Canon

just a different way to cut prices, by using cheaper new releases to replace more expensive exisiting products. Otherwise the partners will be sad when a card they expect to sell for $500 is now worth $400 and they have to take that from their profit margins instead of building a cheaper card from the start.

[cj09beira]

9 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Oh good. I was actually kind afraid that the 5700 and 5700XT were going to be another set of "One off" cards with a random name like the Fury, Vega 56/64 and Radeon VII kinda were, rather then a proper series that is easy to follow.
Cause.. I dunno about you guys, but I know people who want to upgrade their GPU, to something relatively new, and under $250. While the GTX 1660, and 1650 do fit that bill, they are the only things that fit that bill, and it be nice to have a selection again.

Now I have 1 very important question... Why is this series starting at 5000?
I remember AMD went from the X1000 to HDRadeon 2000 - Okay makes sense. Then from HDRadeon 7000 to R 200... (a change in naming convention whatever, weird they started at 200 though) and now they jump from... R 500 to... 5000? okaay?

they wanted to converge the cpu's and gpu's naming schemes to make it more uniform and consistent but nvidia broke that plan by trademarking the 3000 series

6 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

AMD's 50th anniversary is the main reason, although they were originally going to call the RX 5700XT the 'RX 690' but changed at the last minute. There was also the rumors of the 3000 series to 1 up Nvidia, but Nvidia trademarked it. So they settled on 5000.

690 as probably never one of the options it was just a place holder name on a render of a gpu, as they are also working on a bigger gpu so it wouldn't be the x90 card,

[Fasauceome]

K but is it 75 watts?

[MeatFeastMan]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

K but is it 75 watts?

85w for 5500M, 110w for 5500. Although that's not set in stone, it's clear with lower clocks they can still beat the 1650 and be within 75w. So we might still see a 75w card.

 

There are also 5300M's popping up, so maybe a 5300 4gb could be a 75w card if it exists?