I don't understand the meaning of RX590. Is it to lessen gap between vega and rx? What it suppose to compete against? RX580 is already on same level as GTX1060. And Vega is handling GTX1070.

sverek:

I don't understand the meaning of RX590. Is it to lessen gap between vega and rx? What it suppose to compete against? RX580 is already on same level as GTX1060. And Vega is handling GTX1070.

fill gap between rx 580 and vega 56, nvidia doesn't have anything in that space.

sverek:

I don't understand the meaning of RX590. Is it to lessen gap between vega and rx? What it suppose to compete against? RX580 is already on same level as GTX1060. And Vega is handling GTX1070.

There's one benchmark floating on inet. That's all we've got. So, we actually do not know what RX-590 is. But it is likely based on something old enough as AMD does not want to give it name indicating that it belongs to new line of products. Will it have impact? Probably not. It can be 20% faster per $, ahve better energy efficiency than anything nVidia has around it... And people will still prefer nVidia. And they will complain at same time that AMD's product is not competitive.

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.

TIL: Taking massive design gambles that miss the mark, requiring you to sell your foundry and go $2B into debt is "complacency" - who knew? Clearly they should've gone for $4B in debt and did some kind of interim architecture redesign, said no competent business person ever. Jim Keller wasn't even the design lead on Zen. Lisa Su credited most of Zen's prowess to Mike Clarke and the MCM design to Mark Papermaster (Which was the real innovation). The rest of Zen's architecture improvements was mostly just following the same path Intel did. The whole circle jerk about Keller is overrated - he's a good engineer but if you think one person is making the difference on an architecture design you're clueless. The Spectre/Meltdown issues affected like every single Intel processor ever.. trying to use those recent discoveries, missed by literally the entire security sector for over several decades, as evidence of Intel "killing their validation team" is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.

Without Jim returning and teaching the team how to use chip optimisation tools, the same issue that ruined Bulldozer would have ruined Ryzen. As for the Validation team being killed off, https://danluu.com/cpu-bugs/

After writing this, a person claiming to be an ex-Intel employee said "even with your privileged access, you have no idea" and a pseudo-anonymous commenter on reddit made this comment: As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently. Why? Let me set the scene: It's late in 2013. Intel is frantic about losing the mobile CPU wars to ARM. Meetings with all the validation groups. Head honcho in charge of Validation says something to the effect of: "We need to move faster. Validation at Intel is taking much longer than it does for our competition. We need to do whatever we can to reduce those times... we can't live forever in the shadow of the early 90's FDIV bug, we need to move on. Our competition is moving much faster than we are" - I'm paraphrasing. Many of the engineers in the room could remember the FDIV bug and the ensuing problems caused for Intel 20 years prior. Many of us were aghast that someone highly placed would suggest we needed to cut corners in validation - that wasn't explicitly said, of course, but that was the implicit message. That meeting there in late 2013 signaled a sea change at Intel to many of us who were there. And it didn't seem like it was going to be a good kind of sea change. Some of us chose to get out while the getting was good. As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently.

Things might be different now that the warehouse manager isn't CEO anymore.