Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Guru3D] ASUS Radeon RX 580 STRIX review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Guru3D] ASUS Radeon RX 580 STRIX review - Page 7

post #61 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liranan View Post

You can get the performance of a 1000 USD Intel chip for a third of the price (1700), if that's not an epic blow then what is?

PC hardware hasn't excited me in a long time. There was a time I used to read every single rumour thread, now I don't get excited at all so even if Vega and Volta turn out to bring 10x the performance I still won't be excited as my PC still does what I need of it, which is mostly VM's now. I rarely play games so fps don't excite me anymore and I can't even remember the last time I ran a benchmark.


That's not really a blow, as that just AMD choosing to go the budget path.
If Intel decided to change their prices, the panorama would change.
post #62 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ValValdesky View Post

That's not really a blow, as that just AMD choosing to go the budget path.
If Intel decided to change their prices, the panorama would change.

That is "if"... Maybe "if" people stopped paying ridiculous prices things wouldn't be this way.
post #63 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ValValdesky View Post

That's not really a blow, as that just AMD choosing to go the budget path.
If Intel decided to change their prices, the panorama would change.
AMD has little to spend in R&D, so technically they need little returns. Intel spends a bunch on R&D and comes up with extremely small increments in performance improvements, but they still have to pay for those huge R&D costs, which is why they charge so much.

Are they overcharging? Maybe. But it's not as if they can actually go as low as AMD either. Not for long anyway.
post #64 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightAntilli View Post

AMD has little to spend in R&D, so technically they need little returns. Intel spends a bunch on R&D and comes up with extremely small increments in performance improvements, but they still have to pay for those huge R&D costs, which is why they charge so much.

Are they overcharging? Maybe. But it's not as if they can actually go as low as AMD either. Not for long anyway.

Still a their processros that cost $1000-$1700 are terrible no matter how much they spend on R&D. A quad for $350? gunner.gif
post #65 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightAntilli View Post

AMD has little to spend in R&D, so technically they need little returns. Intel spends a bunch on R&D and comes up with extremely small increments in performance improvements, but they still have to pay for those huge R&D costs, which is why they charge so much.

Are they overcharging? Maybe. But it's not as if they can actually go as low as AMD either. Not for long anyway.

I highly doubt the majority of their R&D is for those incremental updates.
Darkness
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4690k asus z97-ar gigabyte 980 ti g1 gaming G-Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
WD Black Samsung EVO 840 Windows 8 Pro 64Bit Ultrasharp 27" 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP W2338H 23" Black Widow Ultimate Corsair HK1000W Corsair 600T SE 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2 Zowie (Pure exellence) dt880 sound blaster recon3d 
Audio
swan m10 
  hide details  
Reply
Darkness
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4690k asus z97-ar gigabyte 980 ti g1 gaming G-Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
WD Black Samsung EVO 840 Windows 8 Pro 64Bit Ultrasharp 27" 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP W2338H 23" Black Widow Ultimate Corsair HK1000W Corsair 600T SE 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Zowie EC2 Zowie (Pure exellence) dt880 sound blaster recon3d 
Audio
swan m10 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightAntilli View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValValdesky View Post

That's not really a blow, as that just AMD choosing to go the budget path.
If Intel decided to change their prices, the panorama would change.
AMD has little to spend in R&D, so technically they need little returns. Intel spends a bunch on R&D and comes up with extremely small increments in performance improvements, but they still have to pay for those huge R&D costs, which is why they charge so much.

Are they overcharging? Maybe. But it's not as if they can actually go as low as AMD either. Not for long anyway.

Going quite off-topic but part of the reason that AMD can produce these chips at low cost is because it lacks alot of features the Intel chip has. Quad memory, 40pcie lanes and other features.

getting back on track, With vega being so close to release I doubt they would replace cards like the 580 with a vega variant. This means vega starting price,msrp, might start at 300$
post #67 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureBlackFire View Post

yawn.... re-packaged RX480. remember the days when AMD used to come out with cards that offered new performance levels instead of constant rebrands or cards that perform at or below the level of much older cards? seems like forever.
The days where AMD would innovate generation after generation, and Nvidia would send out rebands and still outsold AMD's GPUs by a large margin?
And now they're at such a financial disadvantage they literally do not have the funds for said innovation?

Boy, consumers really screwed the pooch on this one.
post #68 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

Performance just tanks as res goes up.

mad.gif

With 32 ROPs, that was inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerapar88 View Post

ATI was even smaller than AMD and it delivered blows to Nvidia all the time.

ATI was able to compete on more even footing with NVIDIA in those days than AMD is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucdan View Post

You know, the 580 should've been the specs and power that the 480 should've been from the beginning. They really did just try to brute force higher clocks in exchange for more wattage. it seems like even after a 200mhz overclock over stock, the 580 hit a wall in only getting 8 fps on average versus a stock 480.

So, out of all of the cards, which is series is best? Still seems like the 480 is the better card considering power consumption.

They almost certainly did not have the yields to clock the 480s this high out of the gate, no matter what level of power consumption they were willing to accept. Most 580s are also almost certainly going to be more power efficient than most 480s at the same clocks.

Since the RX 480 is only 10% less expensive than the RX 580, I can't imagine recommending the former over the latter.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #69 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

With 32 ROPs, that was inevitable.
ATI was able to compete on more even footing with NVIDIA in those days than AMD is now.
They almost certainly did not have the yields to clock the 480s this high out of the gate, no matter what level of power consumption they were willing to accept. Most 580s are also almost certainly going to be more power efficient than most 480s at the same clocks.

Since the RX 480 is only 10% less expensive than the RX 580, I can't imagine recommending the former over the latter.

AMD has a video up saying smooth 1440p gaming with 580... So i was not expecting performance to tank that much.
post #70 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by b.walker36 View Post

I highly doubt the majority of their R&D is for those incremental updates.
It's not. It most likely goes into node shrinks and so on, which they are having a lot of problems with. Doesn't mean that they're not trying to cover those costs by charging more for CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yttrium View Post

Going quite off-topic but part of the reason that AMD can produce these chips at low cost is because it lacks alot of features the Intel chip has. Quad memory, 40pcie lanes and other features.

getting back on track, With vega being so close to release I doubt they would replace cards like the 580 with a vega variant. This means vega starting price,msrp, might start at 300$
The biggest cost in chip product is the yield per wafer. Those 'features' are irrelevant for the cost really, unless they decrease yields significantly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Guru3D] ASUS Radeon RX 580 STRIX review