confirmed: AMD's big Navi launch to disrupt 4K gaming

[Zarathustra[H]]

Almost no one overclocks their video cards, why do you think so many factory overclocked cards are for sale if everyone overclocks their cards? Only time I even overclock my current video card is if I feel the I actually need that little bit extra. Plus it makes little sense unless your at 4K as a 5700XT or Nvidia equivalent is more then capable of playing at 1440p.

Are you sure about that?

CPU's I understand. CPU overclocking barely makes sense anymore, at least on the AMD side, but GPU's?

That's where most people are limited in gaming.

My Threadripper 3960x runs stock clocks, and barely ever breaks a sweat, but I can't imagine running any title without a carefully tweaked overclocking profile for max clocks. I need all the performance I can get.

As far as factory overclocked boards go, I buy them, but mostly that is to benefit from the added binning taking place at the board partners, allowing me to potentially push them even higher in my own overclocking once I install a water block...

 

[kirbyrj]

I'd have to verify your numbers (too lazy for pointless, circular GPU arguments that don't change anyone's mind anyway), but taking your word for it, that all might be true for stock settings. But who buys NV and runs stock? Add another 25-33% OC margin on NV - even on reference cards, and what - 5-10% on 5700XT with the best triple fan or AIO @ nearly 450W?

Gotta factor everything when making a purchasing decision. Hopefully Big Navi changes the game.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1874-amd-navi-vs-nvidia-turing-architecture/

Here's an interesting article. All things being equal (clockspeed, etc.), Turing draws 10W less and averages out to 2% faster at the same clocks in the Techspot game suite. They specifically did not include price in their assessment. Obviously, you can overclock past these points. And any card you overclock is going to throw off power consumption numbers. That isn't just an AMD feature.

 

[sabrewolf732]

AMD is not going to charge $1200 for Big Navi, this is not Nvidia, after all. True, it will cost more than the 5700XT but, that only makes sense.

Why wouldn't they?

fury was super pricey. I don't think it will be $1200, but AMD has matched and exceeded intel and Nvidia on both price before. Historically AMD has offered a better value, but where is value today? The 5500xt and 5600xt are both arguably trash vs. turing counterparts as they are the same price and offer less features. The rx580/570, and 5700 and 5700xt are the only AMD gpu's that you can make a strong argument for value wise.

Odd, I just finished Red Dead Redemption 2 at over 100 hours of playtime. I did not notice any speed or lack of features on either of the computers I was playing the game on.

Completing one game doesn't mean Navi is not lacking in features vs turning. RTX exists. DLSS exists.

I'd have to verify your numbers (too lazy for pointless, circular GPU arguments that don't change anyone's mind anyway), but taking your word for it, that all might be true for stock settings. But who buys NV and runs stock? Add another 25-33% OC margin on NV - even on reference cards, and what - 5-10% on 5700XT with the best triple fan or AIO @ nearly 450W?

Gotta factor everything when making a purchasing decision. Hopefully Big Navi changes the game.

wut?

You didn't verify any numbers but you're spouting numbers? What 2070 super is hitting 2400mhz? They come stock at ~1800mhz and hit around ~2000 on the core. Navi comes at ~1800 and hits around 2100 on the core. In terms of performance gain, they both gain around 10% overclocked. And 450 watts overclocked? Are you confusing navi with vega? HWboxed gets 500 watt total system load on the liquid devil 5700xt.

source:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/aorus_radeon_rx_5700_xt_8g_review,27.html
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2070_super_gaming_z_trio_review,24.html

 

[odditory]

You didn't verify any numbers but you're spouting numbers? What 2070 super is hitting 2400mhz? They come stock at ~1800mhz and hit around ~2000 on the core. Navi comes at ~1800 and hits around 2100 on the core. In terms of performance gain, they both gain around 10% overclocked. And 450 watts overclocked? Are you confusing navi with vega?

I'm spouting a rule of thumb, as in what's been generally true in my experience for at least the last three gens of Nvidia GPUs I've owned up and down the product stack - that they *generally* ship with around 25% of bonus performance in the form of OC headroom. Cherrypicked counterexamples don't really disprove the rule.

And the point really is just to factor everything into a purchasing decision. Lack of OC headroom has kept me away from Radeon. If that changes with Big Navi and it does it with better price/performance ratio and not-shit drivers, I'll buy it asap.

 

[Grimlakin]

I'm spouting a rule of thumb, as in what's been generally true in my experience for at least the last three gens of Nvidia GPUs I've owned up and down the product stack - that they *generally* ship with around 25% of bonus performance in the form of OC headroom. Cherrypicked counterexamples don't really disprove the rule.

And the point really is just to factor everything into a purchasing decision. Lack of OC headroom has kept me away from Radeon. If that changes with Big Navi and it does it with better price/performance ratio and not-shit drivers, I'll buy it asap.

I've not seen this... on a base 2000 mhz card you're saying the average Nvidia card at that base clock can OC to 2500 mhz? From articles I've read that simply isn't the case.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

AMD is not going to charge $1200 for Big Navi, this is not Nvidia, after all. True, it will cost more than the 5700XT but, that only makes sense.

AMD will price their products wherever it makes sense in the marketplace.

If they are able to take the performance crown above the top Ampere model, you bet they will be expensive.

Remember the Athlon 64 X2 days? When AMD has a winner they charge a lot as well.

While Nvidias business practices are a bit shitty, just like Intel, there are no "good guys" in business. AMD's goals are the same as any corporations goals, and that is to get as much of your hard earned cash as they can get away with.

If they have a product that takes the performance crown, prices will be up there. If they have a product that roughly ties Nvidia we will likely see a price war which will be awesome for consumers. If they are slightly behind Nvidia they will continue to sell products at value pricing.

They may - in the short term - choose to sell slightly cheaper in order to build up market share, but this would only be to cement their position so they can charge more in the future.

Again, there are no good guys in business, and AMD is a business like all others.

 

[kirbyrj]

I'm spouting a rule of thumb, as in what's been generally true in my experience for at least the last three gens of Nvidia GPUs I've owned up and down the product stack - that they *generally* ship with around 25% of bonus performance in the form of OC headroom. Cherrypicked counterexamples don't really disprove the rule.

And the point really is just to factor everything into a purchasing decision. Lack of OC headroom has kept me away from Radeon. If that changes with Big Navi and it does it with better price/performance ratio and not-shit drivers, I'll buy it asap.

Show me one example of 25% OC headroom with Turing... That's not cherrypicking anything. That's just being realistic. I know Nvidia bins their GPU's, but I've never seen that kind of leap with this gen.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I'm spouting a rule of thumb, as in what's been generally true in my experience for at least the last three gens of Nvidia GPUs I've owned up and down the product stack - that they *generally* ship with around 25% of bonus performance in the form of OC headroom. Cherrypicked counterexamples don't really disprove the rule.

And the point really is just to factor everything into a purchasing decision. Lack of OC headroom has kept me away from Radeon. If that changes with Big Navi and it does it with better price/performance ratio and not-shit drivers, I'll buy it asap.

Yep, I got 35% above the stated boost clocks by overclocking my Pascal Titan X

Nvidias spec for boost clocks is 1,531 Mhz.

Depending on the title I tend to boost from 2,060 to 2,080 MHz in game.

 

[kirbyrj]

Yep, I got 35% above the stated boost clocks by overclocking my Pascal Titan X

We aren't talking about Pascal though...I haven't seen that with a Turing card yet.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

We aren't talking about Pascal though...I haven't seen that with a Turing card yet.

I can't speak to turning. I have 0 experience with them.

 

[Gideon]

Are you sure about that?

CPU's I understand. CPU overclocking barely makes sense anymore, at least on the AMD side, but GPU's?

That's where most people are limited in gaming.

My Threadripper 3960x runs stock clocks, and barely ever breaks a sweat, but I can't imagine running any title without a carefully tweaked overclocking profile for max clocks. I need all the performance I can get.

As far as factory overclocked boards go, I buy them, but mostly that is to benefit from the added binning taking place at the board partners, allowing me to potentially push them even higher in my own overclocking once I install a water block...

Keep in mind your not the typical consumer I would be talking about and many use laptops these days to game on as well. Most people I know that still game don't overclock anything anymore.

 

[Algrim]

I'll take driver issues over the first run or two of video cards having space invader hardware failures in rather surprisingly large volumes. Not 100%. But those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

First off, I don't own any RTX cards nor any space invaders cards. I have my 1070 and my needs are covered adequately by the hardware I have. But I guess I can't talk about RTX at all as I don't have a card that supports it. Nor can I have an opinion on space invaders cards as I have never owned one. And, should my current card bite the dust, I guess I can't talk about current RTG cards even though my next card will be built by AMD regardless of what AMD or nVidia produce in the future which makes my current interest in Navi issues very fucking relevant.

I'm not the one living in a glass house. They tend to interfere with throwing stones.

 

[Grimlakin]

First off, I don't own any RTX cards nor any space invaders cards. I have my 1070 and my needs are covered adequately by the hardware I have. But I guess I can't talk about RTX at all as I don't have a card that supports it. Nor can I have an opinion on space invaders cards as I have never owned one. And, should my current card bite the dust, I guess I can't talk about current RTG cards even though my next card will be built by AMD regardless of what AMD or nVidia produce in the future which makes my current interest in Navi issues very fucking relevant.

I'm not the one living in a glass house. They tend to interfere with throwing stones.

You shouldn't call out one company for x in this type of market without acknowledging the other is my entire point.

 

[Algrim]

You shouldn't call out one company for x in this type of market without acknowledging the other is my entire point.

We're in a Navi thread which makes Navi issues a relevant topic. As far as I know, nVidia has no direct control over Navi and its issues.

You can go through some nVidia threads where I've discussed nVidia issues if you feel like getting balanced coverage.

 

[sabrewolf732]

I'm spouting a rule of thumb, as in what's been generally true in my experience for at least the last three gens of Nvidia GPUs I've owned up and down the product stack - that they *generally* ship with around 25% of bonus performance in the form of OC headroom. Cherrypicked counterexamples don't really disprove the rule.

And the point really is just to factor everything into a purchasing decision. Lack of OC headroom has kept me away from Radeon. If that changes with Big Navi and it does it with better price/performance ratio and not-shit drivers, I'll buy it asap.

It's not cherry picked, you're making things up. Your rule of thumb is completely fabricated. These cards are shipping at 1800MHz and seem to all top out at 2000-2100mhz so you're looking at a 16% (still no where near you "rule of thumb" 25%) performance gain at best assuming everything scales linearly, doesn't end up that way.

2070 super and navi have similar oc headroom and both gain 5-10% from overclocking.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_rtx_2070_super_gamingpro_review,23.html 2070 super with 8% gain over reference
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_rtx_2080_super_gamingpro_review,24.html 2080 super with 9% gain over reference
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/galax_geforce_rtx_2070_super_hof_ae_review,25.html 2070 super with 10% gain over reference
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/galax_geforce_rtx_2070_super_wtf_review,24.html 2070 super with 8% gain over reference

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/xfx_radeon_rx_5700_xt_thicc_iii_ultra_review,28.html 5700xt 7% gain
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/xfx_radeon_rx_5600_xt_thicc_3_review,27.html 5600xt 10% gain
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/powercolor_radeon_rx_5600_xt_red_dragon_review,27.html 5600xt 10% gain
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asrock_radeon_rx_5700_xt_taichi_oc_review,28.html 7% gain
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_rx_5700_xt_gaming_x_review,26.html 7% gain

Yeh, super cherry picked.

 

[ManofGod]

AMD will price their products wherever it makes sense in the marketplace.

If they are able to take the performance crown above the top Ampere model, you bet they will be expensive.

Remember the Athlon 64 X2 days? When AMD has a winner they charge a lot as well.

While Nvidias business practices are a bit shitty, just like Intel, there are no "good guys" in business. AMD's goals are the same as any corporations goals, and that is to get as much of your hard earned cash as they can get away with.

If they have a product that takes the performance crown, prices will be up there. If they have a product that roughly ties Nvidia we will likely see a price war which will be awesome for consumers. If they are slightly behind Nvidia they will continue to sell products at value pricing.

They may - in the short term - choose to sell slightly cheaper in order to build up market share, but this would only be to cement their position so they can charge more in the future.

Again, there are no good guys in business, and AMD is a business like all others.

AMD is not and never again going to price their products in that price range, as long as Lisa Su is in charge. This is not the AMD of old nor is it the AMD that Hector Ruinez wrecked. Yes, AMD is a look more aware of the market as it is and why things have not moved forward. Therefore, they are fully aware of what actually needs to be done, what works and what does not. The old Althon 64 X 2 days do not count in regards to modern AMD.

 

[sabrewolf732]

AMD is not and never again going to price their products in that price range, as long as Lisa Su is in charge. This is not the AMD of old nor is it the AMD that Hector Ruinez wrecked. Yes, AMD is a look more aware of the market as it is and why things have not moved forward. Therefore, they are fully aware of what actually needs to be done, what works and what does not. The old Althon 64 X 2 days do not count in regards to modern AMD.

the 5600xt and 5500xt are arguably priced poorly though...

so where's your argument for that?

 

[ManofGod]

Why wouldn't they?

fury was super pricey. I don't think it will be $1200, but AMD has matched and exceeded intel and Nvidia on both price before. Historically AMD has offered a better value, but where is value today? The 5500xt and 5600xt are both arguably trash vs. turing counterparts as they are the same price and offer less features. The rx580/570, and 5700 and 5700xt are the only AMD gpu's that you can make a strong argument for value wise.



Completing one game doesn't mean Navi is not lacking in features vs turning. RTX exists. DLSS exists.



wut?

You didn't verify any numbers but you're spouting numbers? What 2070 super is hitting 2400mhz? They come stock at ~1800mhz and hit around ~2000 on the core. Navi comes at ~1800 and hits around 2100 on the core. In terms of performance gain, they both gain around 10% overclocked. And 450 watts overclocked? Are you confusing navi with vega? HWboxed gets 500 watt total system load on the liquid devil 5700xt.

source:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/aorus_radeon_rx_5700_xt_8g_review,27.html
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2070_super_gaming_z_trio_review,24.html

LOL to your response to my comments. Red Dead Redemption 2 is the new Crysis and as such....... Also, they would not because they know what sells and what does not. And no, the 5500XT and 5600XT are not trash, just because your opinion of them say otherwise.

 

[ManofGod]

the 5600xt and 5500xt are arguably priced poorly though...

so where's your argument for that?

No, those cards are priced right where they should be and are not overpriced, at all. You can argue about it but ultimately, they are not.

 

[kirbyrj]

No, those cards are priced right where they should be and are not overpriced, at all. You can argue about it but ultimately, they are not.

That's an opinion though. I will not buy them at their current prices. On the one hand you get essentially the same performance as an RX 580. And on the other you are too close in price to the much better performing 5700.

 

[Aireoth]

It depends on the price point... If a 2070 Super was a $350 card, I'd say absolutely buy it over Navi. But it's not... At similar price points, Navi tends to punch over it's weight and Turing under it's weight. So it comes down to whether or not you plan on using RTX features and if your particular game supports them. I've been a staunch critic of the lack of RTX features available when games launch and this isn't likely to change anytime prior to next gen parts launching. Here's an example of an interview with Doom: Eternal's developer. If you need more speed than what Navi offers, then you have to buy Nvidia. No one is denying that.

If your are running at 1080p then GPU choice hardly matters, might as well go cheap.

If you are running at 1440p then GPU choice kinda matters, budget dictates.

If you are running at 3440/1440 or 4k, or pushing high HZ on 1440p+, then Nvidia.

 

[Aireoth]

No, those cards are priced right where they should be and are not overpriced, at all. You can argue about it but ultimately, they are not.

Guess what, so are the nVidia cards. If they where overpriced, you'd see their price dropping.

I am not sure what the price argument ever accomplishes other then arguing, Yes, contrary to your opinion AMD would charge a premium if they could deliver a premium product. Yes AMD prices below nVidia because they need to compete. Yes nVidia prices high because people will buy it.

Those factors change (among others in a generally capitalist system) and the tables turn, prices change, and life goes on.

* I could see AMD pricing low if they could deliver a premium product to undercut nVidia in the first generation and capture market share. It wouldn't last, and I strongly doubt AMD's ability to compete in that space.

 

[sabrewolf732]

No, those cards are priced right where they should be and are not overpriced, at all. You can argue about it but ultimately, they are not.

The 5600xt reaches parity with the 2060, does not have rtx, does not have DLSS. The 5700 is often a similar price. 5600xt is overpriced when you have competition from Nvidia offering the SAME performance with MORE features at the SAME price.

The 5500xt offers RX580 performance for nearly $200, this has been available via the rx580 for ~$125 or so for a very long time.

 

[legcramp]

Everyone I know buys Nvidia and don't overclock, myself included. lol

 

[Aireoth]

Everyone I know buys Nvidia and don't overclock, myself included. lol

This is Hard overclocked product. lol. (this is just a joke, fyi)

I rarely OC my 2080 ti these days, but some titles I'll bust out the OC tools.

 

[5150Joker]

Everyone I know buys Nvidia and don't overclock, myself included. lol

Then you're missing out on a decent amount of performance. I have my 2080 Ti memory at +800 and core +133 (2100 MHz core) and it nets me a lot of performance, especially the memory overclock. I still have leftover headroom too because the memory can break 1k+ easy.

 

[ManofGod]

If your are running at 1080p then GPU choice hardly matters, might as well go cheap.

If you are running at 1440p then GPU choice kinda matters, budget dictates.

If you are running at 3440/1440 or 4k, or pushing high HZ on 1440p+, then Nvidia.

At 1080p, the gpu choice most definitely matters as well. Going cheap is not always a good idea, unless that is all you can afford. High refresh rate, high fps in games makes a huge difference, even at 1080p.

 

[ManofGod]

The 5600xt reaches parity with the 2060, does not have rtx, does not have DLSS. The 5700 is often a similar price. 5600xt is overpriced when you have competition from Nvidia offering the SAME performance with MORE features at the SAME price.

The 5500xt offers RX580 performance for nearly $200, this has been available via the rx580 for ~$125 or so for a very long time.

The RTX and DLSS on a 2060 really is more for show than go. As for the 5500XT, there are multiple versions, as well as 4GB and 8GB models. And today, you are not buying a new RX580 with 8GB for $125 and nowadays, not even used, unfortunately.

 

[ManofGod]

Guess what, so are the nVidia cards. If they where overpriced, you'd see their price dropping.

I am not sure what the price argument ever accomplishes other then arguing, Yes, contrary to your opinion AMD would charge a premium if they could deliver a premium product. Yes AMD prices below nVidia because they need to compete. Yes nVidia prices high because people will buy it.

Those factors change (among others in a generally capitalist system) and the tables turn, prices change, and life goes on.

* I could see AMD pricing low if they could deliver a premium product to undercut nVidia in the first generation and capture market share. It wouldn't last, and I strongly doubt AMD's ability to compete in that space.

I believe that my opinion is accurate and based upon the modern AMD, as a whole. AMD is not Nvidia and AMD is not going to price gouge us with $1200 video cards.

 

[ManofGod]

That's an opinion though. I will not buy them at their current prices. On the one hand you get essentially the same performance as an RX 580. And on the other you are too close in price to the much better performing 5700.

If I were looking for a sub $200 card, a 5500XT is better than the RX580, long term. As for the 5600XT, getting one of those for under $300 is a fantastic deal. That said, I bought my Reference 5700 at $284 from Microcenter as an Open Box back in July of 2019.

 

[noko]

I believe that my opinion is accurate and based upon the modern AMD, as a whole. AMD is not Nvidia and AMD is not going to price gouge us with $1200 video cards.

I do expect a Titan level solution from AMD, 16gb+, maybe even 32gb -> $1200 would be awesome, more like less than $2000. Those console developers need to have those AMD GPU's to support their next gen console work I would say

Maybe even having a drive switch for PS5 or XBox Series X performance levels for testing to work along with the AMD CPU set to the same performance levels.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

So did Space Invaders...it happened. It's not an issue now. Neither is the Navi driver issues for most people. I had plenty of non-space invader RTX cards so I don't consider that a relevant issue in choosing a video card. Nor do I consider Navi driver issues a relevant issue in choosing a video card.

That's not any less egregious, you're right; but pointing that out also isn't grounds for putting labels on others to make a point.

 

[5150Joker]

If your are running at 1080p then GPU choice hardly matters, might as well go cheap.

If you are running at 1440p then GPU choice kinda matters, budget dictates.

If you are running at 3440/1440 or 4k, or pushing high HZ on 1440p+, then Nvidia.

Haha so not true. Some of us want to push high framerates in FPS games with BFI on and 1080p is the best way to do it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I rarely OC my 2080 ti these days, but some titles I'll bust out the OC tools.

That's usually the first thing I do when I install a new GPU, before I even launch any title at all, I load up Heaven Benchmark (or whatever the next heavy "benchmark on a loop" is and try to find the highest stable clock, followed by a overnight (at least) stability test. if it fails, change settings again, and try over, until I ahve arrived at mac GPU OC. First then do I fire up my first game.

 

[sabrewolf732]

The RTX and DLSS on a 2060 really is more for show than go. As for the 5500XT, there are multiple versions, as well as 4GB and 8GB models. And today, you are not buying a new RX580 with 8GB for $125 and nowadays, not even used, unfortunately.

How is RDR2 the new crysis? Crysis pushed the envelope and actually scaled well with different hardware. RD2 is just very poorly optimized.

So you're saying RTX and DLSS are not viable features because a limited (but growing) number of games offer support....but you're justifying Navi based on you playing ONE title which doesn't support these features?

What?

I could easily say, "I beat control this weekend and it has DLSS 2.0 and RTX so navi is trash, control is the new crysis", it's just as silly of a comment.

Facts:
2060 offers the same performance as the 5600xt. 1660 super offers better performance than the 8GB 5500xt. They're priced the same. Turing uses less power. Turing offers better encoding performance. 2060 gives you rtx and DLSS regardless of how many games use it, they're still features AMD doesn't currently offer. In what way is the 5500xt and 5600xt a good buy? They lose in every single metric. Sure, say you like AMD and want to support the small guy, but to just ignore facts and say they're priced well is silly.

 

[Lakados]

How is RDR2 the new crysis? Crysis pushed the envelope and actually scaled well with different hardware. RD2 is just very poorly optimized.

So you're saying RTX and DLSS are not viable features because a limited (but growing) number of games offer support....but you're justifying Navi based on you playing ONE title which doesn't support these features?

What?

I could easily say, "I beat control this weekend and it has DLSS 2.0 and RTX so navi is trash, control is the new crysis", it's just as silly of a comment.

Facts:
2060 offers the same performance as the 5600xt. 1660 super offers better performance than the 8GB 5500xt. They're priced the same. Turing uses less power. Turing offers better encoding performance. 2060 gives you rtx and DLSS regardless of how many games use it, they're still features AMD doesn't currently offer. In what way is the 5500xt and 5600xt a good buy? They lose in every single metric. Sure say you like AMD and want to support the small guy, but to just ignore facts is say they're priced well is silly.

I don’t want to agree with this because nVidia eats so much of my money every year and every ounce of me wants an alternative but it is 100% correct.

 

[Gideon]

Facts:
2060 offers the same performance as the 5600xt. 1660 super offers better performance than the 8GB 5500xt. They're priced the same. Turing uses less power. Turing offers better encoding performance. 2060 gives you rtx and DLSS regardless of how many games use it, they're still features AMD doesn't currently offer. In what way is the 5500xt and 5600xt a good buy? They lose in every single metric. Sure say you like AMD and want to support the small guy, but to just ignore facts is say they're priced well is silly.

Ok the 1660 super is priced a bit higher then the 5500xt,about 60 bucks higher when I looked. Turing does offer better encoding performance if thats important to you, the power one is bunk as they use about the same power for same performance or very close to it. A 2060 using RTX is a joke and DLSS 2.0 is the only thing worth discussing when it comes to that and that is only in 3 games. The 5500XT and 5600XT may not be stellar values for their performance but neither is a 1660 super. All the cards of this generation have moved up a price point that are less then ideal for the performance they give. I guess I should be thrilled tho as it makes my 1080 worth more then it should be at this point. It's really hard to argue value with the current generation of cards. I hope the coming cards offer good performance at a lower price point then the current cards.

 

[sabrewolf732]

I don’t want to agree with this because nVidia eats so much of my money every year and every ounce of me wants an alternative but it is 100% correct.

Ok the 1660 super is priced a bit higher then the 5500xt,about 60 bucks higher when I looked. Turing does offer better encoding performance if thats important to you, the power one is bunk as they use about the same power for same performance or very close to it. A 2060 using RTX is a joke and DLSS 2.0 is the only thing worth discussing when it comes to that and that is only in 3 games. The 5500XT and 5600XT may not be stellar values for their performance but neither is a 1660 super. All the cards of this generation have moved up a price point that are less then ideal for the performance they give. I guess I should be thrilled tho as it makes my 1080 worth more then it should be at this point. It's really hard to argue value with the current generation of cards. I hope the coming cards offer good performance at a lower price point then the current cards.

Just checked Newegg, 1660 supers are ~225-240 and 8GB 5500xts are ~200-230. I'd probably take the 1660 super with the better performance. The 5500xt also uses slightly more than the better performing 1660 super.

And yeah, mid range has been trash for a while. We're getting slightly above rx480 performance which launched at what, $200 4 years ago? We're still getting similar performance at a similar price. Shitty situation for sure.

 

[ManofGod]

How is RDR2 the new crysis? Crysis pushed the envelope and actually scaled well with different hardware. RD2 is just very poorly optimized.

So you're saying RTX and DLSS are not viable features because a limited (but growing) number of games offer support....but you're justifying Navi based on you playing ONE title which doesn't support these features?

What?

I could easily say, "I beat control this weekend and it has DLSS 2.0 and RTX so navi is trash, control is the new crysis", it's just as silly of a comment.

Facts:
2060 offers the same performance as the 5600xt. 1660 super offers better performance than the 8GB 5500xt. They're priced the same. Turing uses less power. Turing offers better encoding performance. 2060 gives you rtx and DLSS regardless of how many games use it, they're still features AMD doesn't currently offer. In what way is the 5500xt and 5600xt a good buy? They lose in every single metric. Sure, say you like AMD and want to support the small guy, but to just ignore facts and say they're priced well is silly.

Crysis was accused of being poorly optimized, the more things change, the more they stay the same. RDR2 is the new Crysis because of what it is and what can be pushed to do. At this time, nothing can handle the game at max settings and high resolution, at least in any playable fashion. The fact that you are offended by that......

As for your objectivity, I would most certainly say it is not evident here, in my opinion. Heck, the 2060 had to reduce it's price, and then only one or two models even achieved that, to be competitive with the 5600XT.

Edit: Also, maybe you meant the 1650 Super because, the 1660 Super is not priced the same as a 5500XT of any version. In fact, the biggest price difference between models can be upwards of 70 dollars or so.

 

[ManofGod]

Ok the 1660 super is priced a bit higher then the 5500xt,about 60 bucks higher when I looked. Turing does offer better encoding performance if thats important to you, the power one is bunk as they use about the same power for same performance or very close to it. A 2060 using RTX is a joke and DLSS 2.0 is the only thing worth discussing when it comes to that and that is only in 3 games. The 5500XT and 5600XT may not be stellar values for their performance but neither is a 1660 super. All the cards of this generation have moved up a price point that are less then ideal for the performance they give. I guess I should be thrilled tho as it makes my 1080 worth more then it should be at this point. It's really hard to argue value with the current generation of cards. I hope the coming cards offer good performance at a lower price point then the current cards.

I do not entirely agree with your point here, I have no issues with the pricing at this time. That said, this is what happens when Nvidia price gouges and takes advantage of their customers for the last few years. They did not have to reduce their pricing because there was no need to nor was there any reason to bother increasing their performance in each tier, for the most part, since people were willing to pay for it.