AMD does it again.

The GTX 1650 is a 75w card that doesn’t require a power connector. Any OEMs interested in it won’t be interested in rebranded Polaris.
then there's price. (one of the main reasons why oem's don't sell much nv oem gpu's.)
 
But what does that really accomplish? People can buy the RX 570 or 580 now if that is what they want.

It's to bring cohesion and make the lineup earlier to understand.

Let's say that you are the general consumer (not the type that visits [H]) looking to buy a video card, which lineup is easier to understand?

1.

Radeon VII
Radeon RX Vega 64
Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX 590
Radeon RX 580
Radeon RX 570
Radeon RX 560

OR

2.

Radeon RX 5800 XT
Radeon RX 5800
Radeon RX 5700 XT
Radeon RX 5700
Radeon RX 5600 XT
Radeon RX 5600
Radeon RX 5500 XT
Radeon RX 5500
 
It's to bring cohesion and make the lineup earlier to understand.

Let's say that you are the general consumer (not the type that visits [H]) looking to buy a video card, which lineup is easier to understand?

1.

Radeon VII
Radeon RX Vega 64
Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX 590
Radeon RX 580
Radeon RX 570
Radeon RX 560

OR

2.

Radeon RX 5800 XT
Radeon RX 5800
Radeon RX 5700 XT
Radeon RX 5700
Radeon RX 5600 XT
Radeon RX 5600
Radeon RX 5500 XT
Radeon RX 5500


If consumer came in, who has no clue he would see them as such (ref. stores = microcenter)

Radeon VII ~$700 (Best)
RX 5700 XT ~$425 (2nd Best)
RX Vega 64 ~$400 - can't find it in stores anymore. (3rd Best)
RX Vega 56 ~$250 (Middle)
RX 590 ~$200 (Entry to Middle)

and so on.
 
That is a very low end, very low margin market.

It doesn't make much sense for AMD to chase after that market.
you would be surprised, 70% of all workstations in corps use radeon's, then there are some nv from PNY that were cheap.
 
this is an OEM release. How many Radeon 8000 cards were seen on store shelves? How many GeForce 300 parts made it into people's boxes here?

They're not branding them as part of the RX 5000 series because actual lower-end RX 5000 cards with Navi are on the way.

this OEM release. For OEMs. and their OEM systems.
 
If consumer came in, who has no clue he would see them as such (ref. stores = microcenter)

Radeon VII ~$700 (Best)
RX 5700 XT ~$425 (2nd Best)
RX Vega 64 ~$400 - can't find it in stores anymore. (3rd Best)
RX Vega 56 ~$250 (Middle)
RX 590 ~$200 (Entry to Middle)

and so on.

1. Not everyone has a Micro Center nearby.

2. Are you saying that customers should assume the performance based on prices alone?
 
then there's price. (one of the main reasons why oem's don't sell much nv oem gpu's.)

Sure but price won’t matter if the card can’t fit or can’t run in the machine. You’re talking about a 185w vs 75w card. That’s a significant consideration for OEM builders.

AMD may be selling a lot of cheap OEM cards but they aren’t RX 580s pulling 185w.
 
What I am saying is that AMD could rebrand the Radeon RX 570 and Radeon RX 580 as the Radeon RX 5500 and Radeon RX 5500 XT, and slot them under the Radeon RX 5600 and Radeon RX 5600 XT.

GeForce RTX 1650 is no match for them.

I wonder if we see a 1650 ti soon. It looks like it has the shaders to compete with the GTX 1060(thus with RX 570-80) , but is kind of memory starved. A 1650Ti with DDR6 (possibly getting more affordable) could make it a contender vs the Polaris cards (whatever they are called), for entry level.
 
I wonder if we see a 1650 ti soon. It looks like it has the shaders to compete with the GTX 1060(thus with RX 570-80) , but is kind of memory starved. A 1650Ti with DDR6 (possibly getting more affordable) could make it a contender vs the Polaris cards (whatever they are called), for entry level.

That would be crazy!
 
I wonder if we see a 1650 ti soon. It looks like it has the shaders to compete with the GTX 1060(thus with RX 570-80) , but is kind of memory starved. A 1650Ti with DDR6 (possibly getting more affordable) could make it a contender vs the Polaris cards (whatever they are called), for entry level.

Well, the GeForce GTX 1660 uses GDDR5, so if there is a GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it wouldn't use GDDR6.
 
I understand what you are saying, but rebranding old cards with the new naming will become more confusing once the other cards come out.

They just need to bring out more Navi chips to fill out the line-up.

...except, why would AMD needs to release new cards below Radeon RX 5600?

Anything below that could just be rebrand of older cards.
 
Well, the GeForce GTX 1660 uses GDDR5, so if there is a GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it wouldn't use GDDR6.

That doesn't logically follow.

1660 non Ti uses GDDR5, Ti uses GDDR6.

They could follow that exact pattern for the 1650 with:

1650 non Ti getting GDDR5, Ti getting GDDR6.

The only issue is whether the price is too high for this end of the market.
 
That doesn't logically follow.

1660 non Ti uses GDDR5, Ti uses GDDR6.

They could follow that exact pattern for the 1650 with:

1650 non Ti getting GDDR5, Ti getting GDDR6.

The only issue is whether the price is too high for this end of the market.

Why would a lower end video card have better memory than a higher end video card?
 
Why would a lower end video card have better memory than a higher end video card?

1650Ti gets it for the same reason the 1660Ti gets it. To create a faster SKU, that brings in more customers.

Vega has better memory (HBM) than Navi(GDDR6).
 
1650Ti gets it for the same reason the 1660Ti gets it. To create a faster SKU, that brings in more customers.

That still doesn't make any sense.

Why would you put a faster memory in a slower video card?

It doesn't do anything except increase production cost.

Vega has better memory (HBM) than Navi(GDDR6).

That's completely different.

Switching from HBM2 to GDDR6 decreases the production cost.

Switching from GDDR5 to GDDR6 increases the production cost.
 
That still doesn't make any sense.

Why would you put a faster memory in a slower video card?

It doesn't do anything except increase production cost.

GTX 1650 It has the shaders to compete with GTX 1060, but falls very short.

Likely because GTX 1060 has 50% more memory bandwidth due to it's 50% wider bus.

So GTX 1650 appears bandwidth starved on it's 128 bit bus. Give it GDDR6 an it should be close to GTX 1060 performance, especially along with the shader core boost one would expect in the Ti model.

So faster memory is expected to do a LOT more than just increase production costs.
 
GTX 1650 It has the shaders to compete with GTX 1060, but falls very short.

Likely because GTX 1060 has 50% more memory bandwidth due to it's 50% wider bus.

So GTX 1650 appears bandwidth starved on it's 128 bit bus. Give it GDDR6 an it should be close to GTX 1060 performance, especially along with the shader core boost one would expect in the Ti model.

So faster memory is expected to do a LOT more than just increase production costs.

That's a problem with the bus size, not a problem with the type of memory it uses.
 
It's a problem with bandwidth.

Either a wider bus, or faster memory will solve that problem.

But the bus size is fixed, so faster memory is the only practical solution.

GeForce GTX 1060 3GB has a 192-bit bus.

There is no reason why the GeForce GTX 1650 can't have a 192-bit bus.
 
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB has a 192-bit bus.

There is no reason why the GeForce GTX 1650 can't have a 192-bit bus.

There were cost reasons why they went with a 128 bit bus for TU117, and now that the design is done, they are stuck with it.

TU116 is their 60 series 192 bit bus part (just like it was for 1060).

NVidia has never redesigned a chip just to increase it's bus size. TU117 has a 128 bit bus, and that isn't going to change.
 
its oem crap. Happens all the time in that area. So no one cares lol.

Yep, I have said that earlier on. But someone here keeps claiming the 570 and 580 should just be rebranded as a 5000 series card, which is not going to happen.
 
There were cost reasons why they went with a 128 bit bus for TU117, and now that the design is done, they are stuck with it.

TU116 is their 60 series 192 bit bus part (just like it was for 1060).

NVidia has never redesigned a chip just to increase it's bus size. TU117 has a 128 bit bus, and that isn't going to change.

If GeForce GTX 1650 Ti ever come to exist, it would probably be a cutdown of GeForce GTX 1660, with fewer CUDA cores and half the memory, but the same bus-size.
 
It's unfortunate, but it seems the more ridiculous of a premise you have, the more action you get on your post.
 
Those are for OEM... and likely you cannot buy them. They are meant for Dell, HP, Apple, etc.
basically AMD has too many 550x, and wants to sell them for same price as their 540x's but they can't just sell it as 550x just because OEM's already have per-defined products. Thus AMD or NV names them as 640, making 550x same price range as 540x prior.

btw. was amd 28nm done @ TSMC? (i thought it was done at GloFo) Sure they are re-brands, but its not because amd or nv wants to rebrands - its because oem's want to sell something new.

with the 7000 series they used tsmc's 28nm process, when they refresh/rebranded 7000 series under the R# ### branding they switched to glofo's 28nm process from what i can find.
 
1. Not everyone has a Micro Center nearby.

2. Are you saying that customers should assume the performance based on prices alone?
if they have no idea what they are buying they could also look at the pictures.
 
Sure but price won’t matter if the card can’t fit or can’t run in the machine. You’re talking about a 185w vs 75w card. That’s a significant consideration for OEM builders.

AMD may be selling a lot of cheap OEM cards but they aren’t RX 580s pulling 185w.
but they aren't selling 580 as oem. They are selling (highest 550x) which is 50W or below.
 
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti has 4GB

GeForce GTX 1060 3GB has 3GB

not exactly unprecedented

1060 3GB was barely acceptable when it came out, and that was ~3 years ago. A 3GB card at anything but the lowest of low end really doesn't work today.

If there is 1650 Ti, it will have 4GB of RAM on 128 bit bus. Hopefully it will be faster RAM to lift it's BW constraint.
 
what would be interesting is if they made a consumer-grade WX5100 and started selling it as their "low end" card for $100 or so
 
It's unfortunate, but it seems the more ridiculous of a premise you have, the more action you get on your post.

????????? and??????????? i think you underestimate how pathetic my life is and how red vs green drama threads are what makes this site great
 
No doubt. AMD really doesn’t have anything interesting under $400 right now.

I find AMD most interesting below US$400. I'd rather put in an AMD lower-end part on a price / performance basis if the Nvidia part at the same price does not have RT.

A custom-cooled RX580 8GB is one of the best buys today in the lower-end range IMO.
 
you would be surprised, 70% of all workstations in corps use radeon's, then there are some nv from PNY that were cheap.

Links please.

2. Are you saying that customers should assume the performance based on prices alone?

Should? No.

But they damn well do.

I wonder if we see a 1650 ti soon. It looks like it has the shaders to compete with the GTX 1060(thus with RX 570-80) , but is kind of memory starved. A 1650Ti with DDR6 (possibly getting more affordable) could make it a contender vs the Polaris cards (whatever they are called), for entry level.

Have a 1050Ti over a 1030/1050 and instead of a 1060 3GB specifically for three reasons: it has 4GB for future usage (for some reason 4k is associated with 4GB), it can be powered via the PCIe bus only (have an MSI compact version), and it has the updated transoding block that the 1030 lacks.

A hypothetical 1650Ti would fill a similar role, with the upgraded transcoding block- using my 1050Ti for Plex at the moment- which would be great for video quality, not that the 1050Ti is in anyway inadequate now.
 
Back
Top