AMD Radeon RX 590 Would Now launch 15 November
Click here to post a comment for AMD Radeon RX 590 Would Now launch 15 November on our message forum
RooiKreef
Why on earth will AMD stay with the same memory on this card? Why not run faster DDR5X or atleast 9000Mhz DDR5??? Basically Nvidia will launch the GTX1060 with DDR5X and it will be once again on par with the new RX590... Why will AMD not push the boundaries???
Enizax
Seems like a miss to me, banking on higher clocks on the GPU to try and remain within the realm of relevance in the wake of a GDDR5X clad 1060...But considering that refreshed-Polaris and Pascal on on their last legs, I wouldn't expect much effort from either team in terms of RnD to bring a much better product in that market segment until the next gen's medium range products hit the shelves...
LEEc337
Is it me or could the differences in scores be down to better cpu scores or even the difference in driver versions but for the next level the 590 has nothing more to offer to 580.
warlord
Fake results. We should wait for proper release and benchmarking.
rl66
as always... 🙂
Killian38
I'll wait and see what happens with the reviews. I really hope the 590 and 1060 are pretty good jumps over their predecessor. Not some 2% crap. All I will ever buy is mid range cards and if they want me to buy it, it better have a good price and get the job done. If this is what they are making for now it better fit into that small box.
Killian38
I'm thinking the 1060 with DDR5X will beat the 590 by 5% or more in every test. I'm with yeah for sure. Memory speed has always helped me more when clocking a GPU. Maybe AMD knows something we don't? I hope so. We need them to step up in this range.
Astyanax
only the diehard amd fanatics will get this, its just a product designed to milk that set of customers till Arcturus is competitive.
Fox2232
I could see how you wrote 4 years ago:
"only the diehard amd fanatics will get this, its just a product designed to milk that set of customers till Polaris is competitive."
= = = =
If it is in your price range and performs better for your use case than competition in that price range,... you need to be fanatic for other camp to ignore it. (Yes, you basically said that no matter what RX-590 is bad card for stupid people. Reality is that possibilities exist till they are proven wrong. So, maybe AMD pushes performance per $ bar a bit higher... in contrast of nVidia which comfortably keeps same performance to price ratio and that's why you get super expensive cards people are unhappy about.)
And as for reality... is nVidia better in every price category out there to outsell AMD 3:1~4:1? No, so if you want to look for fanatics, you'll find more there. (But, hard to say what's difference between fanatic and individual brainwashed due to his herd mentality.)
Astyanax
Sorry, but you sound like the exact person im referring to. the same group that paid for and rewarded the non competitive amd for years letting them remain complacent on the cpu front :\
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
DDR5X is very expensive, probably too expensive in this product segment. Secondly, I very much doubt the memory controller is compatible with it.
Fox2232
"You" who (are you refering to)? Use quote system. It's there to prevent me from lashing on you when you meant someone else. But if you would be referring to me. I can tell you that I did promote i5s over FX chips. I quite realistically say what's good or bad on nVidia's HW and AMD's.
While you clearly behave like you already had RX-590 in hand. Tested hell out of it and then threw it into garbage because you deemed it to be exactly that.
Astyanax
I don't need to test a rebrand.
Denial
Yeah I'm sure complacency was the reason why AMD's CPU division suffered and not the multiple times Intel abused the f*ck out it's monopoly. Clearly you'd rather see no one support AMD - even at price points whey they are competitive, so they vanish - because Intel hasn't been complacent at all, right?
What a joke post.
warlord
590 should be between Fury X and Vega 56. If not, it has better to not be released at all with that price it is a fool's choice.
Andrew LB
That court case in Europe was a sham. They fined intel because they gave discounts based on the quantity of purchase, which is a standard practice in every single product sector. The EU skewed this to say that intel gave incentives to not purchase AMD, because if you buy more Intel u have to buy less AMD, since you only have a certain quota of CPU purchases to make. Which is insanity. AMD was giving companies incentives in the exact same manner but somehow during discovery, they magically "lost" the documents which would have shown this.
And what of AMD's corrupt behavior? Or are you forgetting that AMD had destroyed/deleted thousands of pages of documents in those cases that were under subpoena, yet the biased judge allowed the suit to proceed... which greatly hurt intel's ability to defend itself.
tunejunky
predictable flame wars.
just stop as it pointless with zealots.
i have a RX580 in my office where it is the best product for the application.
and to be brutally honest, AMD is the best value under $400/euros, especially when you factor in the plethora of free-sync monitors.
yes, on my high end systems i use Nvidia, but only for a lack of choice. which is the truth, not faint praise as i have extreme regard for the engineers and technology.
also, i'm very fortunate in having access to the industry and the engineers, so it's far easier for me to be more impartial as i hear what Nvidia engineers like about AMD and vice versa.
and there's a lot to be liked at both camps.
Denial
AMD filed 3 different lawsuits against Intel over a decade for monopolistic/anti-competitive practices and three times the courts sided with AMD or Intel settled.
Why does AMD doing the same thing matter? It's like the Apple/Safari arguments when Microsoft/IE were going through the wringer.. AMD didn't represent 36% of Dell's entire revenue stream, they didn't have 75+% marketshare in early 2000s - Intel did. When they utilized that marketshare to give cash payments in the form of rebates to vendors to stop purchasing competitor products that's anti-competitive. When they locked those vendors into contracts that have quotas on purchases for competitor products, that's anti-competitive. If it was 50/50 or even 60/40 or Intel didn't abuse it's position and instead just made good products, no one would have cared.
Can't even find any resolution to Intel's suit against AMD for missing documents because its so negligible.
moab600
No one cares, the 1060 outperform it again in sales figure, unless this 590 will be much faster at the same price.
AMD just lingering the moment till 7nm Vega.
Astyanax
The same complacency that infected AMD did so to Intel prior, and has done to intel since, do not use intels activities as an excuse for AMD failing to innovate their products. Jim Keller should not have to return to save them every time.
I have systems with AMD and Intel parts, I would not reward bad design decisions by buying a FX product, nor would i Reward lack of development by buying AMD rebrands.
This chip is for the diehards that contribute to AMD entering its floundering periods consistently.
I would choose Ryzen over Intel at this point because Intel have been exposed as killing their Validation team, which is why all these security and corurption flaws have turned up.
