RX 580 Out Now

K

KAC

Whatever
Rage3D Subscriber
Can't believe nobody even talked about this. Why do this? I am really not sure.

ASUS RX 580 Review Comments.

Final Words

It is a little crazy to see a product that sits in this performance range with a 30cm cooler. It is indicative of the fact that the new RX 580 cards require more voltage, produce more heat and thus have higher power consumption. Apparently ASUS felt the need to apply a three slot cooler with three fans onto this product. Whatever you think of that fact, it works well though as the cooler is silent and the temperatures remain under control. Our one gripe with our sample was coil whine, we had significant amounts of it. As stated we'll have to check up some other reviews and/or user experiences and do hope this was an isolated issue on our sample. The card performance nicely and with the 8GB of graphics memory you can game at 2560x1440 really well for a fair amount of money. There's just nothing wrong with the Radeon RX 580 as it offers great value at the same price as last years RX 480. The 269 ~ 279 USD for a customized AIB version is merely a tenner or two over reference and that makes this an attractive 1080p and even 1440p graphics card. However if you already own a R9 390 / Fury / Rx 470 or 480 then you're already good to go as there is no need or necessity to upgrade as we need bigger performance improvements to make that happen. While it is more of the same we'll still recommend the product as the Radeon RX 580 certainly deserves a that. Remember though, it has three fans, eats three slots and is 30 cm in length! But yes, it's a great performing card up-to that and including the WQHD domain.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_rx_580_strix_review,1.html

:nuts:
 
The most intersting thing is that you brought it up about a rebrand of Polaris rx480 with a refined 14nm process maturity so it clocks higher than before.
This is not Vega btw.Vega will be a 350$ and up lineup.
With Rx580 they brought the rx480 to gtx1060 level of performance.The rx580 may be a replacement for my gtx980 with the advantage of dx12, vulkan and 8gb ram..I can leave with power consumption.The thing is the gtx 1070 on second hand market is around 30-50$ more than a new rx580 so it kinda lost it's apealing.The custom rx580 costs around 320$ in my country brand new...As kitguru UK put it the card is too expensive at 290 pounds...

http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...hire-rx-580-nitro-limited-edition-8gb-review/

System owners looking to upgrade their graphics card will find that the RX 580 is a compelling option, provided that pricing is right.

AMD PR sent this price list just before launch:

RX 580 8GB: £219.99 inc VAT
RX 580 4GB: £184.99 inc VAT
RX 570 4GB: £164.99 in VAT

and based on conversations with leading etailers today this seems rather optimistic. We were even told before launch from an etailer that the price of this Sapphire card is likely going to be closer to £290 inc vat. Prices over the coming weeks will be the key factor.

AMD’s RX 580 struggles to overcome Nvidia’s GTX 1060 which is generally a better performer and considerably more power efficient. In short, the RX 580 is the less desirable option of the two, even if board partners like Sapphire have done a stellar job in presenting the graphics card in a refined and well-built package.

Gamers looking to upgrade from popular GPUs like the GTX 970 and R9 390 may still be able to put off that mid-range upgrade for a while longer. The RX 580 is, on average, a faster graphics card but not enough so to warrant any urgency in making an upgrade.

EDIT: 2.30pm April 18th. Overclockers UK confirm a £289.99 inc vat retail price. This is in our opinion too expensive, and the price needs to drop by at least £30 to become truly competitive. To make matters worse for AMD and Sapphire we have seen Nvidia GTX 1060 partner cards for as little as £215 (HERE and HERE) online today.
Click to expand...


PS: Is intersting that you are interested in peasants 1080p cards ... :)
 
It is indicative of the fact that the new RX 580 cards require more voltage, produce more heat and thus have higher power consumption.
Click to expand...
That says it all right there...why this and why now so close to Vega? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for newer and faster cards but this makes little sense.
 
Higgy10 said:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...127-amd-rx-580-8gb-performance-review-20.html

"So I’m going to wrap this up here and now. I think the RX 580 is the best possible drop-in upgrade solution that money can buy provided your PSU is up to the task of powering it and there’s full awareness of the very limited overclocking headroom."

odd, isnt that site considered pro-nv?
Click to expand...

Wow they are actually selling at suggested retail prices...$225 shipped gets you an 8GB 580. Anything close to that for NV side?
 
Higgy10 said:
i just looked at newegg and was kinda shocked, custom models starting $229(msi, powercolor,gigabyte)
Click to expand...

maybe AMD applied a different strategy than with rx480...If Vega was not around corner i would think selling the GTX980 to buy this rx580...
 
Must suck to be an AIB for amd only these days. Flashing a vbios and reprinting a box is an easier job I guess. :nag: :bleh:

Might as well just start selling a gpu dlc bios for next gen. I get the market segment for this card but it was utterly pointless in my eyes to release a 580 and 570.
 
Last edited:
AMD probably just has a surplus of RX 480 series chips. So before Vega cards hit the market they are just trying another sales pitch to sell more of these budget cards. Makes sense.
 
Does it suck that it is a rebrand, yes. Is the card terrible? I think it depends on what you're comparing it to. A $200-225 mid-grade card that is capable at 1080/1440 for delivering roughly 60FPS at some added quality settings. The $200 market is both Nvidia's and AMD's money maker; if AMD hadn't refreshed this design and strictly had Vega without an accompanying product family behind/below it, they'd be leaving money on the table. We all know the high end card performance helps sell the middle/lower ones. When Vega is released and if the only option below it with any amount of quantity left from AMD was the 480, do you think people would want to purchase their "last gen" card that came out around 10 months ago? More than likely not. They get to improve on yields, speeds, etc. while getting more out of their R&D into the chip. If you have a 480, should you rush out for a 580, no. That is like thinking that because Sony released a Slim version of the PS4 as a general revamp of their manufacturing process, that you must buy it. Newer isn't always "best" for the consumer, much of the time it is done to capitalize on the cheaper manufacturing process now available after the time of release, as it increases the profit per unit sold from the previous generation.

With that said; where the **** is Vega?
 
http://semiaccurate.com/2017/04/18/amds-radeon-rx-580-review/

Not A Rebrand Per Se
According to AMD this isn’t just a straight re-branding of the RX 400 series. Based on our testing we believe them. First up AMD’s improved the power consumption profile of its RX 500 series products most notably in desktop idle and multi-monitor scenarios. Thanks to a year’s worth of 14nm FinFET process improvements and better binning the RX 580 is also clocked a bit higher than the old RX 480. Because AMD’s partners are coming to market with custom designs the specific number is variable but our RX 580 sample is clocked at 1380 Mhz which is 9% boost over the reference RX 480 we tested last year. AMD has also improved memory clock-speeds by 14% from 1750 Mhz on the ‘reference’ RX 480 to a cool 2 Ghz on our RX 580.

While this is a bigger improvement than what we saw during the R9 2xx to R9 3xx transition it’s still a pretty mild performance advancement. This is especially true when it comes to memory clock speeds which on most RX 480’s is already at 2 Ghz. The reality of the situation is that we’re still waiting for AMD’s Radeon RX Vega to significantly upset the graphics market. The impact of AMD’s RX 500 series on the existing pricing stack is minor.

If you own a RX 480 or RX 470 you have no reason to be covetous of these new RX 500 series graphics cards. This is why AMD is once again pitching its new graphics cards as a good upgrade from older 200 and 300 series GPUs.
Click to expand...
 
Card is slower than a Fury or Fury X and costs only 20 bucks less. I don't know who in their right minds would buy it. You can nab a Fury for around 250 in most places.
 
They were never fixed either by dev or AMD.Is a very slim chance that they will ever be fixed.The Fury line feels kinda forgotten by AMD.
 
badsykes said:
The Fury line has some anomalies in some games in the min's department...Rx480 / 580 series doesn't.


http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/72...ideo-card-review-hbm-water-cooler/index7.html


http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/72...ideo-card-review-hbm-water-cooler/index8.html


Look Fury X mins ... there's unusual low number like 1fps, 16fps , 7 fps ...
Click to expand...

KAC said:
Seems like a driver issue and not a card / hardware issue.
Click to expand...

It's not a driver issue. That's what happens when you have too little VRAM. The game scene's complexity does not suddenly jump by over an order of magnitude, requiring massively more computational resources and eliciting such an increase in frame times. The only thing that can cause this is a stall in the pipeline which is *usually* caused by needing to page to system RAM for data.

At this point I would recommend an 8GB 580 over a Fury X, despite the Fury X having more bandwidth and ALUs. If you can get a deal on an 8GB 480 that's just as good as there is 10% or less difference between 480 and 580.
 
Last edited:
ShaidarHaran said:
It's not a driver issue. That's what happens when you have too little VRAM. The game scene's complexity does not suddenly jump by over an order of magnitude, requiring massively more computational resources and eliciting such an increase in frame times. The only thing that can cause this is a stall in the pipeline which is *usually* caused by needing to page to system RAM for data.

At this point I would recommend an 8GB 580 over a Fury X, despite the Fury X having more bandwidth and ALUs. If you can get a deal on an 8GB 480 that's just as good as there is 10% or less difference between 480 and 580.
Click to expand...

It has ZERO to do with VRAM, otherwise it would be an issue with ALL but 2 of the cards tested, and the GTX 970 would be hit harder than the Fury X since it has only 3.5 GB of VRAM, not to mention that the Fury would be doing worse, not better on the lows than the Fury X since they both have the same specs but the fury x is clocked faster. If it was VRAM, it would be even more apparent at 4k, which it isn't, both resolutions are 16 fps in GTA V per the benchmarks in the link, this is not a VRAM issue.
 
Last edited:
I remember that there was more than 1 review when the rx480 apeared that had the R9 Fury line in comparision and there were some anomalies in 1080p versus rx480 in the minimum department.It affected all 3 furies but not rx480.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top