Originally Posted by SoloCamo
If accurate, I doubt it.
I just quoted from AMD's own site. I hope they're
wrong. If you look at the RX 570
pages you'll see the Max VRAM is listed at 8 GB (and of course they even list several AIB partner cards with 8 GB), so listing 4 GB for the RX 5500 doesn't seem like a mistake, but we'll see once AIB get their hands on the chips.
Originally Posted by AlphaC
For people that compare based off VRAM only, this is going to still sit in between GTX 1650 (Ti) + GTX 1060 / GTX 1660.
I looked at the other metrics AMD provided too, this will be at least as powerful as an RX 570, but probably more so, as in other metrics it's way better, such as the Pixel fill rate. And with the same 150w TDP as the RX 570, only if Navi was super mediocre as an arch scaled down, wouldn't it be quite a bit faster.
But what this seems like is a cost cutting measure to get the profit margins back up. They'll shave quite a bit of die size, getting in at probably 151mm² (Edit: TPU puts it at 158 mm²
). Navi 10 is 251 mm² and Polaris 20 is 232 mm². And then to compensate they'll clock it to the moon again, resulting in the stated 150w TDP.
Also, I found this amusing:
More Performance, Less Power.
Efficiently energetic, Radeon RX 5500 delivers more performance while consuming less power(6) mm² than its predecessor.
6. Testing done by AMD performance labs on August 29, 2019. Systems tested were: Radeon RX 5500 4GB with Ryzen 7 3800X. 16GB DDR4-3200MHz Win10 Pro x64 18362.175. AMD Driver Version 19.30-190812n Vs Radeon RX 480 8GB with Core i7-5960X (3.0GHz) 16GB DDR4-2666 MHz Win10 14393 AMD Driver version 16.10.1 The RX 5500 graphics card provides 1.6x performance per watt, and up to 1.7X performance per area compared to Radeon™ RX 480 graphics. PC manufacturers may vary configurations yielding different results. Actual performance may vary. RX-382
The RX 480 is the predecessor of the RX 5500? Huh? That's very interesting. Only in that scenario could they say that it uses less power. Surely this wasn't going to use less power than the RX 550 (50w TDP
). And yet at the same time, this should give an idea where they want to price this thing at. This won't be at RX 550 level pricing, it will be upwards (shock and surprise, 7nm + duopoly strikes again). And as to the VRAM, it's only ironic that they chose an 8 GB RX 480 to compare it to.
Also, I wonder how they did the testing, because those system specs... that's not how you test. Like, at all. It just looks like they took some old system with an RX 480 inside that they had lying around inside a closet since 2016, booted it up on the 29th of August, did a few benches and called it a day.
"Testing done by AMD performance labs", are you sure AMD? It looks more like the bullcrap department took over for that one.