Hold on to those christmas wishlists - AIB RX 5500 to be released + review

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

780 reference was without a question a worse product when at the same price as a 290 Tri-X(louder, hotter and around the same performance, with only a slightly advantage of power consumption), but it was still recommended over it. That is what i was referring to.

 

I think that both 780 reference and 290 Tri-X were costing around $700 converted at the time with some other lower-end coolers of the 290 getting closer to $650, while AIB 780 costed closer to $750, it is a huge price difference when considering that they were so similar performance wise.

What do you mean without question?   Neither 780 nor 290X was king of the heap at that time, the 7990  and 7970 were still pulling punches even above titan and the ti version hadn't been released.   You can't cheery pick two cards and say hay, this is better value for money,  there were literally 5 or 6 other cards on the market at the time, some offered better thermals, some offered better performance and some were even quieter.    

 

As I said,  Anyone who bought 290 or 290x's weren't left wanting,  those cards were great, they just didn't market well with many Nvidia cards still taking the sales. 

[williamcll]

Update, RX 5500 will remain OEM, and the XT version will carry the same specs as the non-XT version, the official price in china is currently around 213 USD

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 11/29/2019 at 6:14 PM, Mark Kaine said:

I want an actual competition to Nvidia like everyone else trust me,  but in its current state AMD isn't that.  They're successful with their CPUs and they should just focus on that honestly,  and I think that's actually what they're doing...

That's literally the same thing people were saying a few years ago (I think you can find posts in this same forum)... except swapping CPU and GPU around. A new A8, A10 or whatever would launch and people would start moaning, "whyyyy, you need something twice as good as X99 at half the price or bust, CPU division is dead, just focus on GPUs and give us a worthy successor of [insert GCN rebrand]".

Look where ignoring those claims brought us

As long as it's a viable business long term for them, I don't see where they should abandon one of the areas they work in. And as long as they want a bite in the FirePro / Instinct / whatever-they-call-their-Qadros-next market, they won't stop designing GPUs, they won't stop focusing on energy efficiency, and they won't stop releasing gaming GPUs as a byproduct.

 

 On 11/29/2019 at 6:38 PM, Mark Kaine said:

 

Just that they need something to compete with NV at the high end.  Which means have at least one offer at 2080ti levels. 

That's debatable. For example, I would never shop at that price point, I'm already going overkill way below it. Therefore, what they release or don't release there bears no relevance to who makes the sale to people like me.

Now, it would seem so people do spend ridiculous amounts in GPUs (there certainly seems to be a lot of people worried about the >$500 market situation in this thread/forum), so of course you need a product there to get their purchase, which usually (unless you use HBM, that is) entails higher margins. Then again, there aren't as many (I'm not including the professional market, since that's a separate market even when consumer GPUs are suitable), so only serving them is hardly enough to have a gaming line at all.

All in all, the obvious conclusion: since there are buyers at different segments, it makes no sense to argue that a company "needs" to be competitive, or even present, at any particular market segment. Rather, I'd argue that a company needs to be competitive in the segments it chooses to serve, and avoiding ticking boxes with bad products in the others.

 

On 11/29/2019 at 6:38 PM, Mark Kaine said:

 

This is all about perception,  market penetration,  mind share. 

Stupidity, in other words. Still relevant, though: if consumers truly look at the i9-10980XE benchmarks to decide if they buy an i3 or not then you have to release an i9 and make it look as good as possible, even if it doesn't make sense as a businesess (coughVegacough), which is very inefficient and sooner or later the consumer has to pay for (or you just go bankrupt ).

 

 

On 11/29/2019 at 6:38 PM, Mark Kaine said:

 

As it it is now NV could crush them completely with competitive pricing, the only reason they don't is because that would surely be against tons of market regulation laws

 

No, I can assure you there are no market regulation laws forcing you to rip off consumers

The reason why Nvidia don't drop their prices, and Intel didn't drop their prices, it's because higher sales at lower prices doesn't equate higher profits, especially when you already have a large market share. You are selling a few more cards, but lowering the price on all cards you were going to sell anyway, and some people would still not buy because fanboyism or whatever. That's monopoly 101: restrict quantities to avoid excessively low prices, such that you maximize profits. As much as as fanboys like to think of competition as wars of extermination, the truths is that companies aren't driven by a desire to see other companies disappear, but by a desire to make the most money for their shareholders. Sweeping competitors is useful when there are many and they eat into your ability to obtain high margins, but when you already are at a position where you can milk the market at will, and your only limit is demand elasticity, then focusing on your competitors is a waste of time and money. You don't want a monopoly per se, you just want to charge monopoly prices - I don't think Nvidia has a problem in that front...

 

Bottom line: I can understand people not being persoanlly interested in non-high end releases, but I don't understand people getting mad at a company for releasing a product they don't want to buy, or arguing that having an improved product at a given price point is a bad thing. Like, the guy looking to upgrade his Titan can be indifferent to this, but not angry. The only group I could see getting angry would be fanboys, who are not looking for a GPU, but rather for a benchmark graph to through around in flame wars.

Come to think about it, who was angry (not indifferent, but angry) at AMD pre-Zen CPU releases?

[Otto_iii]

Besides for use in laptops, due to lower power draw, i don't really see this as a advancement.  I was excited about 5500(XT) but now i wish the standard model was just the presumed higher clocked 5500XT at 1650 prices, i can't see this being worth a upgrade for anybody on a 1060-1070 or rx570-rx590, save the very few people with insanely high power prices in their region where saving 50W at certain hours of a day might actually matter to their wallet on a monthly basis. 

I want to root on AMD, but they need to be more competitive on price and performance here.  The 5700s atleast shook things up a little with its price to performance, but this things really boring.  Cute, but boring. 
 

On 11/29/2019 at 3:19 AM, Trik'Stari said:

I'm not holding my breath. They seem convinced that the low end is the way to go, not realizing that a lack of any top tier product that challenges their competition makes them look like the "weird, cheap brand that isn't really worth using".

I disagree with the Hi-point comparison as they've obviously done well with the 5700s, but agree without competing or ideally beating Nvidea they aren't ever going to have a big enough image to really take on Nvidea.  That said keeping 7nm supply going for EPYC as well as avoiding another Radeon VII probably weighs on them heavily, but hoping they can keep value high and actually come out with a top-tier card everybody would reference in CPU benchmark, something all the streamers would want, etc, 

I can't think of better marketing then that. 

Hard to confirm what Coreteks is saying here as fact, but its worth keeping a eye on if hes right

(video time-stamped to relevant part about original planned rx5500 prices)

[Bombastinator]

22 minutes ago, Otto_iii said:

Besides for use in laptops, due to lower power draw, i don't really see this as a advancement.  I was excited about 5500(XT) but now i wish the standard model was just the presumed higher clocked 5500XT at 1650 prices, i can't see this being worth a upgrade for anybody on a 1060-1070 or rx570-rx590, save the very few people with insanely high power prices in their region where saving 50W at certain hours of a day might actually matter to their wallet on a monthly basis. 

I want to root on AMD, but they need to be more competitive on price and performance here.  The 5700s atleast shook things up a little with its price to performance, but this things really boring.  Cute, but boring. 
 

I disagree with the Hi-point comparison as they've obviously done well with the 5700s, but agree without competing or ideally beating Nvidea they aren't ever going to have a big enough image to really take on Nvidea.  That said keeping 7nm supply going for EPYC as well as avoiding another Radeon VII probably weighs on them heavily, but hoping they can keep value high and actually come out with a top-tier card everybody would reference in CPU benchmark, something all the streamers would want, etc, 

I can't think of better marketing then that. 

Hard to confirm what Coreteks is saying here as fact, but its worth keeping a eye on if hes right

(video time-stamped to relevant part about original planned rx5500 prices)

I agree.  I could see them manipulating the market though and making to old one “incompatible” I guess.

[amdorintel]

On 11/28/2019 at 7:17 AM, williamcll said:

Update, RX 5500 will remain OEM, and the XT version will carry the same specs as the non-XT version, the official price in china is currently around 213 USD

looks like a decent price, is that the best value out there right now?

[Otto_iii]

On 11/29/2019 at 3:19 AM, Trik'Stari said:

I'm not holding my breath. They seem convinced that the low end is the way to go, not realizing that a lack of any top tier product that challenges their competition makes them look like the "weird, cheap brand that isn't really worth using".

I don't expect them to make rx580 incompatible or anything like that, and tbh so far as OEMs are concerned the 5500s a great card, finally something that doesn;t drink power like a blackhole and they can label their system All-AMD and probably get discounts from AMD doing so.

The issue is because there are only 2 Desktop CPU companies (AMD and Intel), and 2 GPU companies (AMD/Radeon and Nvidea), and both Intel and Nvidea already overcharge and have set a high standard for margins, now that AMD actually has shareholders attention there is risk both segments turn slowly more into duopolies with no real alternatives, at which point being a PC Enthusiast, a Gamer just isn't reasonable for nearly as many people anymore. 

[thechinchinsong]

On 11/29/2019 at 2:35 AM, mr moose said:

 

It's been like 2 years + of shit average from them,  then over the last few months we have had some promising news come out and sneak peaks at what looked like AMD might actually be a contender,  then you blink your eyes and we are back to releasing middle of the road stuff again and these big navi rumors are once again somewhere in the unknown future.

Once you exit a market segment, especially for the amount of time AMD has, it's hard to reenter. If they don't get it good the first re-entry, enthusiasts will never give them another chance. With their current track record on even mid end launches, I'm guessing (and hoping) they are taking their time with a well planned out launch and not some radeon vii crap.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

Once you exit a market segment, especially for the amount of time AMD has, it's hard to reenter. If they don't get it good the first re-entry, enthusiasts will never give them another chance. With their current track record on even mid end launches, I'm guessing (and hoping) they are taking their time with a well planned out launch and not some radeon vii crap.

I hope so too. 

[williamcll]

Reviews are now coming out

 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Reviews are now coming out

 

Wondering how the 5500xt compares to a 580 myself.

[KaitouX]

AMD pulled the Nvidia and released a card with the same price/performance as a 3 year old card, i kinda expected it after the 5700(XT) but in this case it is even worse as Nvidia cards are straight up better in every single way, the 8gb should cost $150 to be decent, maybe around $120 or so to be actually good.

 

TL;DW for the reviews of the 8GB model: It's the RX590 with lower power consumption, so get the 1650 Super to get almost the same performance for less money and power, or get the 1660 Super to get a faster card for not so much more money and the same power.

For the 4GB model: It shouldn't exist.

[Sakkura]

22 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

AMD pulled the Nvidia and released a card with the same price/performance as a 3 year old card, i kinda expected it after the 5700(XT) but in this case it is even worse as Nvidia cards are straight up better in every single way, the 8gb should cost $150 to be decent, maybe around $120 or so to be actually good.

 

TL;DW for the reviews of the 8GB model: It's the RX590 with lower power consumption, so get the 1650 Super to get almost the same performance for less money and power, or get the 1660 Super to get a faster card for not so much more money and the same power.

For the 4GB model: It shouldn't exist.

The 1650 Super is 4GB too, so why wouldn't the 5500XT exist with 4GB? The 5500XT costs about the same and performs maybe slightly better, pretty reasonable.

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

The 1650 Super is 4GB too, so why wouldn't the 5500XT exist with 4GB? The 5500XT costs about the same and performs maybe slightly better, pretty reasonable.

The 5500XT 4GB is basically identical to the 1650S while costing a bit more and using slightly more power. Plus 4GB shouldn't be a thing in what is basically a 2020 card(the 1650S also should have more memory), which shows in some games where the 4GB is clearly the limiting factor introducing stutters and lower performance. According to the ComputerBase review the 5500XT 4GB was barely faster than the 570/1650 in Planet Zoo and COD:MW at 1080p due to memory, neither did the 8GB model or the 1650S have the problem, supposedly due to the better memory management on Nvidia even when the 1650S also have only 4gb memory. But the 1650S clearly drops performance on 1440p just like the 5500XT 4GB which really show that it will probably end up showing some time in the future also in 1080p.

 

[Sakkura]

14 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The 5500XT 4GB is basically identical to the 1650S while costing a bit more and using slightly more power. Plus 4GB shouldn't be a thing in what is basically a 2020 card(the 1650S also should have more memory), which shows in some games where the 4GB is clearly the limiting factor introducing stutters and lower performance. According to the ComputerBase review the 5500XT 4GB was barely faster than the 570/1650 in Planet Zoo and COD:MW at 1080p due to memory, neither did the 8GB model or the 1650S have the problem, supposedly due to the better memory management on Nvidia even when the 1650S also have only 4gb memory. But the 1650S clearly drops performance on 1440p just like the 5500XT 4GB which really show that it will probably end up showing some time in the future also in 1080p.

 

It's a budget card. Last gen, the 1050 had 2GB of VRAM.

[KaitouX]

32 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's a budget card. Last gen, the 1050 had 2GB of VRAM.

And? Having the memory as expire date over the performance of the GPU itself is stupid and shouldn't be a thing at anything that isn't around $100, textures are often "free" quality improvements as long you have enough memory, having to deal either with lower performance or quality only due to lack of memory doesn't make sense. Also if it costed less I probably wouldn't mind 4gb, it just doesn't make sense when the price is so close to the options with more memory(this goes for both 5500XT 4GB and 1650S) and performance.

I think the biggest problem for the 5500XT 4GB over the 1650S and 580 is that it doesn't add anything to the price point, compared to the 1650S it loses in every way, compared to the 580 it is slightly faster and more efficient, but that comes with a price premium and less memory.

[F.E.A.R.]

The pricing is the problem, but I don't understand how'd they managed to make the RX 5500/XT to be less powerful than the RX 580/590 seeing the test results from Hardware Unboxed and GN. I guess the cards are gonna get better with updates just like their Polaris counterparts.