XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy OC+ Video Card Review @ [H]

DigitalGriffin said:
NVIDIA also claimed no new cards are coming about 1 month before 20xx series was announced. You endanger sales of the current product stack with an early release of next-gen products.

The amount of money invested to create a 7nm Vega cannot be justified for the pro market alone. There will be an excess capacity of Vegas @ 7nm for sure.
Click to expand...
Doubt it this time. Much like the Pro Duo Polaris... and the Pro Duo before it.
Steam Survey: Radeon RX Vega 0.16% take it with a grain of salt as it's steam survey but even so it would be a larger percentage if it sold more. Remember Vega was unavailable for nearly a year to most gamers. It's just not worth the driver investment, Most Vegas were mined on or Datacentre/professional use. That's their main target. Vega isn't even being restocked in my country... and AIBs are still supplying stock of reference cards, with very few aftermarket models around which is perfect for me. AIBs are selling for 100 dollar premium. A 400 dollar V64 is a good deal, a 500 dollar one isn't if you are a modder.
 
Sodapopjones said:
In all fairness they were/are selling the 64 for $399 on ebay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SAPPHIRE-R...h=item5914a7ec17:g:hMEAAOSw0QBbyyjA:rk:4:pf:0

the 56 is still $349 with games, we are going on week 3 of this now:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814930006&Description=vega 56&cm_re=vega_56-_-14-930-006-_-Product

Canadian pricing is bizarro, but I found a 580 for $279 with 2 games, when you do the math its only $212 USD which isn't too far off from what we are paying, the 590 still makes no sense at $399 Canadian... Still waiting for that compelling reason why its a good buy, I imagine someone from Uzbekistan is going to tell me a story, but I will wait for that one.
https://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produ...cription=580&cm_re=580-_-14-131-720-_-Product
Click to expand...

Even for US pricing, the card is only a good buy if you want to upgrade AND you want the bundled games. The AMD gpu is priced the way it is mainly because of NVidia's extreme over-pricing for most of its middle range and the entirety of its upper range product stack. If it were not for the market's unfortunate acceptance of NVidia's ridiculous pricing scheme then the 590 would almost certainly have launched at a cheaper price than the 580 initially did, just as the rehashed 580 launched for a bit less than the 480.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Teenyman45 said:
Even for US pricing, the card is only a good buy if you want to upgrade AND you want the bundled games. The AMD gpu is priced the way it is mainly because of NVidia's extreme over-pricing for most of its middle range and the entirety of its upper range product stack. If it were not for the market's unfortunate acceptance of NVidia's ridiculous pricing scheme then the 590 would almost certainly have launched at a cheaper price than the 580 initially did, just as the rehashed 580 launched for a bit less than the 480.
Click to expand...

It might even be the case that AMD said that AIB can ask a little bit more for it at launch and until they clear their stocks of 580 they can lower the price at some point.

People buying AMD GPU did mostly on price/performance and AIB know this , however it seems that the RX 590 positioned below GTX 1070 and above 1060 . Which in a way makes sense. That more or less also is clear why it is the price it is. And the GTX 1070 is not crazy over priced.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It might even be the case that AMD said that AIB can ask a little bit more for it at launch and until they clear their stocks of 580 they can lower the price at some point.

People buying AMD GPU did mostly on price/performance and AIB know this , however it seems that the RX 590 positioned below GTX 1070 and above 1060 . Which in a way makes sense. That more or less also is clear why it is the price it is. And the GTX 1070 is not crazy over priced.
Click to expand...

The 1070's are overpriced. Badly. Read the early reviews and comments comparing the massive price increase of the 1070's as compared to the 970's as well the 1060's compared to the 960's. The 970's launched at $329, which effectively became $299 for many after the $30 settlement when it was revealed that Nvidia was being purposefully misleading about the size of the 970's memory. Conversely, the 1070 which was a direct replacement in the product stack for the 970 launched at $449 because the Founder's Edition surcharge became the de facto minimum MSRP for the entire 1070 line and it is only with the cards on clearance due to the release of the RTX 20XX series that some 1070's are within roughly $30 of the original suggested non-FE MSRP.

So in short, that's a $449 price for what should have been a $320-$350 video card.

When Nvidia priced the 1060 6GB at $299 (again Founder's Edition surcharge) it was because they could get away with it and AMD priced the 480 8GB at about $240. AMD's card gave roughly the same performance depending on the game for a much lower retail price at the expense of higher power consumption that would equalize costs after several years of daily gaming.
 
Teenyman45 said:
The 1070's are overpriced. Badly. Read the early reviews and comments comparing the massive price increase of the 1070's as compared to the 970's as well the 1060's compared to the 960's. The 970's launched at $329, which effectively became $299 for many after the $30 settlement when it was revealed that Nvidia was being purposefully misleading about the size of the 970's memory. Conversely, the 1070 which was a direct replacement in the product stack for the 970 launched at $449 because the Founder's Edition surcharge became the de facto minimum MSRP for the entire 1070 line and it is only with the cards on clearance due to the release of the RTX 20XX series that some 1070's are within roughly $30 of the original suggested non-FE MSRP.

So in short, that's a $449 price for what should have been a $320-$350 video card.

When Nvidia priced the 1060 6GB at $299 (again Founder's Edition surcharge) it was because they could get away with it and AMD priced the 480 8GB at about $240. AMD's card gave roughly the same performance depending on the game for a much lower retail price at the expense of higher power consumption that would equalize costs after several years of daily gaming.
Click to expand...
At the US average of 13.3¢ per kwh, using it for intense gaming 5hr a day every day, the whole year, you'd spend $24 more per year if it used 100W more.

I suspect nonprofessional gamers who have full-time jobs generally spend less time than that gaming, though I couldn't say how much less. If you assumed 16hr on weekends and 2hr on weekdays it'd be less, at $18/yr.
 
Nobu:

So even for a professional gamer, back then it would have taken approximately two years or more for the cost of ownership to equalize, when not accounting for often included game bundles AMD and Nvidia have periodically offered for the 480 / 580 and the 1060.

I posted about the silliness of the power usage versus price argument earlier in this thread (using 3 hours per day) and in one of the original AMD to Nvidia 1060 comparison review threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
[QUOTE="Not really an excuse, import it yourself from a trusted [H]'r and be creative.[/QUOTE]
Spoken like you live in the U.S.
It isn't that easy bruh. Taxes, Duties, Dollar differences, and of course SHIPPING! The last is the most annoying as it is often fabricated as being in the farthest regions of Earth, when in fact it is just over the boarder. Go look at New Egg . ca and feel very, very lucky you get to purchase where you do. Should easily bring you down a cocky level if you can sympathize.
 
Keep Calm 2.png
 
Power and heat maybe a valid consideration, for instance when I built my daughter a mITX system I selected a 1060 over the 480, not for the performance because both were not really that far apart but for the power/heat. Some systems as in the whole build may make the 1060 a better option.

Now that does not rule out the 590 superior performance over the 1060, while AMD has been tweaking and improving Polaris and charging the same price for each iteration. Nvidia has not done much of anything for the 1060 and yet still selling it for the same price. If one is looking at game performance, new with a warranty for the unexpected I can't see anything that Nvidia sells for less than $300 as being particularly a good deal next to AMD.

Since gaming is not solely a video card decision, AMD opens up other considerations and options dealing with making a smooth experience an utter silky smooth experience with better, higher quality panel options using FreeSync over Gsync. For the 590 personally I would go with an extra wide gaming monitor with FreeSync, the 2560x1080p. Which you can get for less than $300. Nothing with Gsync is even close.
In addition the Radeon 580's 8gb versions can be found for less than $200! 570's less than $150. The 1060's are way overprice, they should be less than $200 cards plus the 6gb of ram vice 8gb of the Polaris line for 580 and 590 can come into play with higher settings, textures etc.
 
Last edited:
It amazes me that the Nvidia Defenders are clinging to a 100W power difference as the point of failure of this card. Or the $279 MSRP. You get 3 AAA games (let's drop their price from the normal $60 to $45...That is still $135 worth of extra value...Nvidia gives you 1 $45 game, so now AMD offers $90 worth of extra value)...Let's not forget the extra 2GB of VRAM that is becoming VERY important (and costs the AIBs $10~13 extra per card).

Now let's get to game play..This excellent AIB card, for $279, Crushes the 1060 6GB in every way. MAx OC to OC, you are seeing 8~20+% difference, and more importantly, gaining a very playable 1440P experience in almost every game out there. Add in the value of FreeSync, and it's a no brainer. AMD delivered a home run, and Brent rewarded it as such.

If I were in the market for top notch 1080P performance, or very good 1440P experience coupled with the buttery smoothness of FreeSync, I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat. The wonderful game bundle is just extra icing on the cake!
 
IMO the power efficiency wildcard works best when performance is comparable. The point made sense with GTX1060 vs RX580 as the former would draw less power than the other even when overclocked. I mean there's a reason the 1060 was a miners favorite.

But with the RX590 that extra power translates into much better performance so you get less MPG but you get much better 1/4 mile times :D:D
 
You guys are being really unfair on the price. You're comparing it to the 580 which is $200.

Just a month ago the 580 was $250 easily for new stock. The 580's are likely going away so what you are seeing is EOL inventory blowouts. This means 580's won't be available for long at $200. I consider a $20 price jump more than acceptable for the 12nm part.
 
Stoly said:
I was under the impression that a die shrink was not as efficient if the design was not intended for the smaller process in the first place. Then again I guess AMD had plenty of time to properly adapt Polaris for 12nm.

I can't remember any examples of a "pure die shrink" on a GPU. Is this the first time?
Click to expand...

wasn't the Radeon 4770, a die shrink from 55nm to 40nm?

ATI/Radeon are well versed with the tick-tock model

in the case of the 590, it is a quickie, like a one night stand. Not properly optimised for 12nm, as that would have taken more time

anyways Navi will drop in next year at this same price ($299) and offer gtx1070/1080 performance
 
Marees said:
wasn't the Radeon 4770, a die shrink from 55nm to 40nm?

ATI/Radeon are well versed with the tick-tock model

in the case of the 590, it is a quickie, like a one night stand. Not properly optimised for 12nm, as that would have taken more time

anyways Navi will drop in next year at this same price ($299) and offer gtx1070/1080 performance
Click to expand...

pretty much.. it was a test for the 40nm process before it went into production for the 5k series. personally i think the 600 series will be more of a vega architecture on a 12nm process while navi will replace the vega series. i have a feeling this was the agreement that glofo and AMD came up with so that AMD could use the TSMC 7nm process without breaking their contract with glofo.
 
Marees said:
wasn't the Radeon 4770, a die shrink from 55nm to 40nm?

ATI/Radeon are well versed with the tick-tock model

in the case of the 590, it is a quickie, like a one night stand. Not properly optimised for 12nm, as that would have taken more time

anyways Navi will drop in next year at this same price ($299) and offer gtx1070/1080 performance
Click to expand...
Lol@One night stand!
12 and 16nm are so close there is very little work to do. Just like Zen+ didn't take them so long as it was a relatively minor tweak.

I would expect navi12 to be closer to V56 than 1080/V64 levels. It is a small die remember and I put my money where my mouth is by buying a V64 on the weekend. Can't pass up >400USD V64 performance.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We have an official response back from XFX on the default poition of the BIOS switch for this video card.

"Just got confirmation that the position closer to the power connectors is the Quiet BIOS, and is the current default shipping position."

So there you have it, the default position is "Quiet" mode on this video card, which has the switch closer to the power connectors. That is how our card came shipped to us, that is how we tested it, that is how the card will come shipped to everyone. Quiet mode will keep the fans at lower RPM, but it will not affect performance. If you want a more aggressive fan profile you can switch the BIOS switch over to "Performance" mode. The difference is about 10c on GPU temp.

No data needs to be re-captured for the review. I will update Page 14 with this new information.
Click to expand...

After reading 4 other reviews on this card, you are the only one to have spotted this discrepancy that I have seen. The rest of them just tested as is, while others flame the card for not being able to maintain clocks when installed in a case, not bothering to question the position of the BIOS switch. Once again [H] gets down to the brass tacks. Good job Brent! :)

Stoly said:
I was under the impression that a die shrink was not as efficient if the design was not intended for the smaller process in the first place. Then again I guess AMD had plenty of time to properly adapt Polaris for 12nm.

I can't remember any examples of a "pure die shrink" on a GPU. Is this the first time?
Click to expand...

Not sure if this counts...I know the 9800GT ( G92a/b/a2 ) which was a rebrand of the 8800GT, came in 65nm and 55nm flavors, and had Hybrid SLI where as the 8800GT ( G92) was 65nm only without the Hybrid SLI.
The 9800GTX+ ( G92b ) was 55nm vs the 9800GTX ( G92 ) at 65nm, with higher clocks and shaders, rest of the specs were the same.
 
I see where AMD has gone as 8Gb 570 $149 > 8Gb 580 $189 > 8Gb 590 $229 should be the real price once the game codes run dry ,
 
Hey, good review, guys.! I just ordered one of these Fatboys myself--not much of a jump from my 480--but I am running my current 480 8GB @ 1.305GHz--the overclocked stock speed of this Asus card--it's rock-solid at that speed--but this 480 is pushed to the limit at 1.305Ghz--I cannot get even a 5MHz increase out of it! Oh, it will clock 5Mhz faster, and in some games it will even run when clocked even higher--but the problem is many games simply crash after a few minutes--even at a 5MHz overclock! But, at 1.305 GHz, everything runs perfectly without a problem. Mainly, I'm thinking I want to try Crossfire between my 480 and the 590--which I think should work. Both GPUs will clock to 1.305Ghz, of course, but the resulting frame-rates should produce much, much faster performance than merely the 590 Fatboy by itself, even @ 1.6Ghz. Or so I hope..! (Yes, and the 256-bit bus of the RX 4/5xx vs. the 1060's 192-bit wide bus, and the addition of 2 more GBs of dedicated ram (8 vs 6), and the ability to X-Fire the RX-4/5xx but not the 1060--adds in a lot more value, too!) I bought the 480 over a year ago, so adding another RX GPU was my least expensive option at this time. Wish me luck.

Basically, I'm gaming at 3840x2160 these days, so I wanted to try this little Crossfire experiment, and have been surprised at how well the 480 8GB holds up--Definitive Edition of D: OS2 for instance runs very well--no stuttering/skipping frames--very smooth, actually--with all IQ options maxed--except motion blur and DoF, which are turned off. Even Bard's Tale IV is running stutter-free @ 4k but sometimes drops down to 15 fps. Sometimes it runs at 50 fps. Still, though--there's little to no stutter. Max IQ settings there, too, except I pulled back to High for shadows and view distance--and turned off DoF and motion blur--which I always turn off regardless of resolution. I'm just not paying over $300 per GPU--ever. I'm looking forward to see what AMD can bring to the table next year for < $300...!

A quick word about Afterburner 4.6 beta 9. As with earlier versions of AB, I cannot get it to play nice with the Adrenalins/WattMan. When it's installed--even when the AB settings are set to *defaults*--when I play games they always crash at some point after I start playing. Things don't return to perfect stability until I uninstall AB. I think the problem is an AB conflict with AMD's Wattman--it's possible that if I only installed the base Adrenalin driver set, which I would presume does not include Wattman (I've never actually done that, so I don't know), that AB would cause no problems with system stability when games are running--as has been my experience for sometime. I'm not so crazy about Wattman, actually--as for inexplicable reasons Wattman keeps dropping back to defaults--even though I save the settings I want. Oh, well. Maybe it's just something I am doing.. I'll get back here with the results of my Crossfire experiment...

BTW, I paid $279 for it @ NewEgg, and got the three-game bundle with it. I usually go Amazon--but Amazon has this habit lately of only charging MSRP for this card when they are *out of stock*, but when they get restocked then they bump the price up by $40-$50--plus, they aren't offering the game bundle, either. So no Amazon for me this time! That sort of price gouging really burns me up! We all got quite enough of that during the mining heyday--which is now over, thank goodness!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top