We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

AMD Navi Discussion

  • #2
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,073 mod cherryghost


    Embargo lifts tomorrow. Some leaked benchmarks look good. AMD heavily rumoured to discount the GPUs at launch, putting them at direct competition with the 2060S and 2070S, at which it seems to peg or better them.

    Competition is great for consumers. :D


«13456781

Comments

  • #2


    Leaked benchmarks are here. Early drivers and no overclocking support yet so there's room for improvement.

    https://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-and-rx-5700-launch-price-drop-benchmarks-leak/


  • #2


    Benchmarks are out.

    With the price cuts, the RX 5700 series cards are better buys than RTX 2060/Super unless you absolutely want to try out Nvidia raytracing, or don't like loud cards (Computerbase.de has them as loud as reference Vega 56 @ 47dB)
    Verdict:
    Decent results, good value compared to Nvidia - but hampered (as always) by a mediocre blower cooler.
    Wait for AIB models if you can.


  • #2


    Also the big one:

    The RX 5700 has caught up to Nvidia in performance-per-watt!
    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700/29.html


  • #2


    Why do they do it to themselves,just give us a half decent reference cooler for f**k sake.

    People get the impression the cards are always gonna run hot not knowing its just the reference cooler and that kinda impression sticks around.


  • #2


    Yeah AMD's reference blowers are always terrible. Looking forward to 3rd party card reviews with newer drivers and overclocking to see what these cards can really do. I'm leaning towards the 5700xt over the 2060S now although the 2070S looks worth the extra €100.

    At last some good options in the €350-500 range though. The 5700xt is only 40CU's as well and compete's with the 2070. The 2080ti is around 50% faster than the 2070.

    They could easily go up to 64 CU's with this architecture and compete with the 2080ti when yields improve.


  • #2


    When anandtech's review started with "anyone looking for a clear recommendation is going to get a nuanced answer here" (paraphrasing) I closed I it. Expensive cards that don't beat nvidia, not interested. When an xbox that compares well with pc 's costs the same as a graphics card, there's no sale in my book.


  • #2


    When anandtech's review started with "anyone looking for a clear recommendation is going to get a nuanced answer here" (paraphrasing) I closed I it. Expensive cards that don't beat nvidia, not interested. When an xbox that compares well with pc 's costs the same as a graphics card, there's no sale in my book.

    An xbox doesn't compare well with a PC though. Unless you like low resolutions and framerates.

    If you want to game at 2560x1440/144Hz you need something with around the power of these cards at a minimum.

    These cards are in the price range that a big section of the market buys at. Add 1 more lower tier covering the €200-350 range and it will be well over 80% of the market that buys discrete cards for gaming.

    I'm guessing you have an already powerful Nvidia card so ye it's nothing exciting for you. For poor saps like me still using a 970 though they are exciting cards.


  • #2


    BloodBath wrote: »
    An xbox doesn't compare well with a PC though. Unless you like low resolutions and framerates.

    If you want to game at 2560x1440/144Hz you need something with around the power of these cards at a minimum.

    These cards are in the price range that a big section of the market buys at. Add 1 more lower tier covering the €200-350 range and it will be well over 80% of the market that buys discrete cards for gaming.

    I'm guessing you have an already powerful Nvidia card so ye it's nothing exciting for you. For poor saps like me still using a 970 though they are exciting cards.

    I'm using a gts250 sooo....

    The one x will do 4k hdr and the one s will do 2k at 120hz, and 144hz is only useful if you're doing competitive shooters, which I couldn't care less about. The gap between console and pc has narrowed dramatically, and the amount you have to spend on pc hardware to see a significant difference is farcical. €200-300 used to be the premium range. And according to steam, a lot of gamers still game at 1080.

    There's barely a reason I can see to spend money on pc as a gaming platform, certainly not at these prices. That's not an AMD problem either, it's been driven by lots of vendors. Cases costing 200 that looks like something that fell out of a Halfords. Clc coolers that are noisy, barely more effective than air cooling and cost 120. Ram was more than a whole console not that long ago.


  • #2


    4k in some games for the One X alright,mostly with a settings on par with medium on PC,sometimes lower,sometime higher. Most will still use dynamic scalers with 4k being the top end of that scaler but on average the real resolution will be lower amd they nearly all run at 30fps. I have to laugh how people swallowed that 4k hype for consoles.

    As for the One S doing 120hz,pull the other one. Maybe some indie title that could also run on a calculator but id love to see a list of games that can run at 120hz on that console. Half the games on console dont even maintain a solid 30fps.

    Your also missing out on the utility a PC has,can do a lot more with one than you can do with a console and your not locked into any particular eco system.

    Maybe you place zero value on any of that,and maybe consoles are for you,but just a blanket statement,in the pc building forums no less,saying consoles are better is just silly.

    I also beleieve that the consoles we should see end of year next year may be pricier than people expect if the spec leaks are accurate.


  • #2


    EoinHef wrote: »
    4k in some games for the One X alright,mostly with a settings on par with medium on PC,sometimes lower,sometime higher. Most will still use dynamic scalers with 4k being the top end of that scaler but on average the real resolution will be lower amd they nearly all run at 30fps. I have to laugh how people swallowed that 4k hype for consoles.

    As for the One S doing 120hz,pull the other one. Maybe some indie title that could also run on a calculator but id love to see a list of games that can run at 120hz on that console. Half the games on console dont even maintain a solid 30fps.

    Your also missing out on the utility a PC has,can do a lot more with one than you can do with a console and your not locked into any particular eco system.

    Maybe you place zero value on any of that,and maybe consoles are for you,but just a blanket statement,in the pc building forums no less,saying consoles are better is just silly.

    I also beleieve that the consoles we should see end of year next year may be pricier than people expect if the spec leaks are accurate.

    I place a lot of value on that, which is why I work on a pc and game on a console. Sure, if you placed two screens side by side most people would be able to see the difference between an xbox and a high end pc (and these cards are high end as far as I am concerned), but that wasn't my point. My point is that for everyone who isn't an e-peen obsessive, the days when consoles were staggeringly awful and there was a meaningful gap are gone. If pc gamers cared so much about having the best of he best, why do so many do it at 1080? Same reason if someone says to me "your xbox is locked to 60fps" my response is "so ****ing what?" I do enough comparing numbers in my day job.


  • #2


    One X 4K HDR? Yes, with dynamic resolution in most games, and equivalent to low/medium settings on PC in others, sometimes a combination of both, sometimes locked at 1080p upscaled, sometimes locked at 30fps...

    Even take Overwatch, a completely undemanding game by PC standards, neither the One X or PS4PRo runs in native 4K, One X is better but can't hold it, PS4 Pro runs at 1080p even I think.

    One S 2K 120hz? Just no. Most games are 720P upscaled at the equivalent of medium settings, and unless you're talking about Chips Challenge remastered, 120hz is ridiculous. Some can't even hold stable 30fps due to the weak CPU on both consoles, which trip badly on CPU heavy titles.

    The Xbox and PS4 are very often locked to 30fps, not 60fps. I don't think I've ever heard a broad argument that being locked to 60fps is a problem for consoles, it's the fact that they settle for 30fps in a great many cases. 90% of PC Gamers if not more play at 60fps, it's still the widespread standard.

    The gap is still there between console and PC. I've got both and both are great in their own ways, but it's most definitely there, and you don't need a monster PC to see it. Sure, the visuals are better on One X compared to baseline console and not unlike a mainstream PC, but framerates on PC are incomparably better and in a very perceivable way, even on a modest system like Ryzen 1600 or a semi-modern i5.

    Let's not forget the actual cost of the One X now too; these days it costs very similar to build a better performing PC system (eg, Ryzen 2600, RX570, 8GB RAM can be built for about 480 quid).

    It's the next gen that will really narrow the gap as the new consoles will be Ryzen based. Up until now, AMD's mobile CPU's have really hamstringed them, and are the reason for the generally poor CPU performance. Next gen should bring proper, universal 60fps at 4K native at reasonable settings.

    A PC will a 5700XT destroys an XBox One X performance wise, so there's really no merit in saying "when it costs as much as an Xbox that compares well with PC" because it's such a broad, completely unquantified statement.

    I'm happy to play my PS4 or XBox, love playing Overwatch or Apex with friends who also have the consoles. But the difference is night and day. It's up to the individual as to whether that matters one bit, for most it doesn't, but pretending it's not there or downplaying the extent to which it is there is just silly.


  • #2



    Let's not forget the actual cost of the One X now too; these days it costs very similar to build a better performing PC system (eg, Ryzen 2600, RX570, 8GB RAM can be built for about 480 quid).

    You can get a One X fairly regularly for around €350. Curry's PC World in the UK have it for £299 at the minute.


  • #2


    So based on what I've seen so far, there's no real reason to upgrade from a 1080ti?


  • #2


    When anandtech's review started with "anyone looking for a clear recommendation is going to get a nuanced answer here" (paraphrasing) I closed I it. Expensive cards that don't beat nvidia, not interested. When an xbox that compares well with pc 's costs the same as a graphics card, there's no sale in my book.

    This was hit on a good while back with the introduction of DX12/Vulkan and will only get worse as time goes on. AMD, Nvidia and soon to be Intel, will perform better or worse in a relative sense, based on the game engine, API and developer. There are games/scenarios where the 5700XT could get close to the 2080ti, while their relative power is vastly different.

    The new cards are a good successor to Polaris and I expect that AMD could drop the price further if they wanted.


  • #2


    Saadyst wrote: »
    So based on what I've seen so far, there's no real reason to upgrade from a 1080ti?

    The 2080 super could be a decent upgrade when it hits, or at least I'm hoping it is. be nice if amd released a 5800 or 5900 to go for the higher end stuff as well


  • #2


    Sapphire have registered 5800/5900 trademarks; would make sense that AMD will release new cards sometime for the €500/600+ market.


  • #2


    The 2080 super could be a decent upgrade when it hits, or at least I'm hoping it is. be nice if amd released a 5800 or 5900 to go for the higher end stuff as well

    Hmm yeah potentially. But I'm thinking the performance difference isn't that great to make it worth my while (and money) to upgrade (I'm not really looking to use ray tracing).

    Maybe next year!


  • #2


    The 2080 super could be a decent upgrade when it hits, or at least I'm hoping it is. be nice if amd released a 5800 or 5900 to go for the higher end stuff as well

    Same boat here,hoping for a few cards with a bit more ooomph from AMD.

    Kinda peeved i didnt got for a 1080ti over a 1080 a few years ago. If id have known how long id have a 10 series card i woulda spent the extra for a Ti


  • #2


    At least coming from a 1080ti we are beginning to see options open up, I mean the 5700xt isn't far off performance wise.


  • #2


    5700 and 5700xt seem to be pretty good, but quite similar to RTX 2060 Super and 2070 Super. I might be interested if you could get a quieter one for less than a NVIDIA card, but if the prices are the same then I'm not too sure. RT isn't very interesting at the moment, but if it comes as a "free" extra..


  • #2


    Prices aren't the same though. 2070S is €100 more than the 5700xt although it looks maybe worth the extra €100 especially if you can make use of the RT and Tensor cores. Some productivity software is starting to support it.

    Be interesting to see if AMD or the third parties remove the frequency lock on the normal 5700. It would be a lot closer to the 5700xt without it. They also overclock very nicely over 2000Mhz if you can keep them cool and it's early drivers. Still some room for these cards to improve by 10-20%.


  • #2


    You're right of course, 5700XT launch price is $399 and not $499 like I thought.


  • #2
  • #2


    I bought a 3600 and 5700XT anyway, just to show some support for team red. Will see how I feel about the reference cooler.


  • #2


    Nice. I'll be getting a 5700xt as well when we get some 3rd party support next month unless the 2070S is close in pricing. 5700xt already compares against it though with a crappy cooler and early drivers. Nvidias oem coolers are much better so I think AMD have a bit more headroom to improve there. People are getting 2100 and 2150 putting the fan to 100%.

    Will get a 3700/3800x to go with it later.


  • #2


    Yeah I was looking at the 2070 super but it's £100 more expensive and the gap is pretty small, and will likely narrow even more. I'll be happy enough with it either way. All I ever play is Apex and Overwatch so I really don't need any more performance than it offers, as much as I tend to daydream about 2080ti's and 2080 supers. In fact I probably would've been grand with a 1660Ti but I do genuinely want to support AMD on Ryzen and Navi, they deserve it for rolling out such amazing products on a fraction of the funding available to either Intel or Nvidia.

    It's the reason I got rid of my 9600K in favor of 3600....less performance in games but close enough, and can't turn down those extra threads either. Went from 9600K + RTX2080 to 3600 + 5700XT, plus got a proper NVME drive and better gold psu, otherwise the build is identical (same case etc), and cost €250 less than what I got for the old machine. Reasonable trade really.


  • #2


    Im hearing that amd have navi 20 cards coming soon that will compete with the 2080 super and 2080ti..i really hope that happens sooner rather than later,as i too want to support amd


  • #2


    They are probably waiting for 7nm yields to improve before making bigger gpu's. 5700xt is only 40 CU's.

    Still have the 64CU limit but with the power consumption on these cards they could easily go up to 60-64CU's which would make it roughly 50% faster than the 5700xt.

    That would put it directly in competition with the 2080ti.


  • #2


    Yeah, the mooted 5800 cards is where I'll be looking, I think. If I can hold out that long!


Society & Culture