Seems like a miss to me, banking on higher clocks on the GPU to try and remain within the realm of relevance in the wake of a GDDR5X clad 1060...But considering that refreshed-Polaris and Pascal on on their last legs, I wouldn't expect much effort from either team in terms of RnD to bring a much better product in that market segment until the next gen's medium range products hit the shelves...

warlord:

Fake results. We should wait for proper release and benchmarking.

as always... 🙂

only the diehard amd fanatics will get this, its just a product designed to milk that set of customers till Arcturus is competitive.

Sorry, but you sound like the exact person im referring to. the same group that paid for and rewarded the non competitive amd for years letting them remain complacent on the cpu front :\

RooiKreef:

Why not run faster DDR5X

DDR5X is very expensive, probably too expensive in this product segment. Secondly, I very much doubt the memory controller is compatible with it.

I don't need to test a rebrand.

Astyanax:

Sorry, but you sound like the exact person im referring to. the same group that paid for and rewarded the non competitive amd for years letting them remain complacent on the cpu front :\

Yeah I'm sure complacency was the reason why AMD's CPU division suffered and not the multiple times Intel abused the f*ck out it's monopoly. Clearly you'd rather see no one support AMD - even at price points whey they are competitive, so they vanish - because Intel hasn't been complacent at all, right? What a joke post.

Denial:

Yeah I'm sure complacency was the reason why AMD's CPU division suffered and not the multiple times Intel abused the f*ck out it's monopoly. Clearly you'd rather see no one support AMD - even at price points whey they are competitive, so they vanish - because Intel hasn't been complacent at all, right? What a joke post.

That court case in Europe was a sham. They fined intel because they gave discounts based on the quantity of purchase, which is a standard practice in every single product sector. The EU skewed this to say that intel gave incentives to not purchase AMD, because if you buy more Intel u have to buy less AMD, since you only have a certain quota of CPU purchases to make. Which is insanity. AMD was giving companies incentives in the exact same manner but somehow during discovery, they magically "lost" the documents which would have shown this. And what of AMD's corrupt behavior? Or are you forgetting that AMD had destroyed/deleted thousands of pages of documents in those cases that were under subpoena, yet the biased judge allowed the suit to proceed... which greatly hurt intel's ability to defend itself.

predictable flame wars. just stop as it pointless with zealots. i have a RX580 in my office where it is the best product for the application. and to be brutally honest, AMD is the best value under $400/euros, especially when you factor in the plethora of free-sync monitors. yes, on my high end systems i use Nvidia, but only for a lack of choice. which is the truth, not faint praise as i have extreme regard for the engineers and technology. also, i'm very fortunate in having access to the industry and the engineers, so it's far easier for me to be more impartial as i hear what Nvidia engineers like about AMD and vice versa. and there's a lot to be liked at both camps.

Andrew LB:

That court case in Europe was a sham. They fined intel because they gave discounts based on the quantity of purchase, which is a standard practice in every single product sector. The EU skewed this to say that intel gave incentives to not purchase AMD, because if you buy more Intel u have to buy less AMD, since you only have a certain quota of CPU purchases to make. Which is insanity. AMD was giving companies incentives in the exact same manner but somehow during discovery, they magically "lost" the documents which would have shown this.

AMD filed 3 different lawsuits against Intel over a decade for monopolistic/anti-competitive practices and three times the courts sided with AMD or Intel settled. Why does AMD doing the same thing matter? It's like the Apple/Safari arguments when Microsoft/IE were going through the wringer.. AMD didn't represent 36% of Dell's entire revenue stream, they didn't have 75+% marketshare in early 2000s - Intel did. When they utilized that marketshare to give cash payments in the form of rebates to vendors to stop purchasing competitor products that's anti-competitive. When they locked those vendors into contracts that have quotas on purchases for competitor products, that's anti-competitive. If it was 50/50 or even 60/40 or Intel didn't abuse it's position and instead just made good products, no one would have cared. Can't even find any resolution to Intel's suit against AMD for missing documents because its so negligible.

No one cares, the 1060 outperform it again in sales figure, unless this 590 will be much faster at the same price. AMD just lingering the moment till 7nm Vega.

Denial:

Yeah I'm sure complacency was the reason why AMD's CPU division suffered and not the multiple times Intel abused the f*ck out it's monopoly. Clearly you'd rather see no one support AMD - even at price points whey they are competitive, so they vanish - because Intel hasn't been complacent at all, right? What a joke post.

The same complacency that infected AMD did so to Intel prior, and has done to intel since, do not use intels activities as an excuse for AMD failing to innovate their products. Jim Keller should not have to return to save them every time. I have systems with AMD and Intel parts, I would not reward bad design decisions by buying a FX product, nor would i Reward lack of development by buying AMD rebrands. This chip is for the diehards that contribute to AMD entering its floundering periods consistently. I would choose Ryzen over Intel at this point because Intel have been exposed as killing their Validation team, which is why all these security and corurption flaws have turned up.

sverek:

I don't understand the meaning of RX590. Is it to lessen gap between vega and rx? What it suppose to compete against? RX580 is already on same level as GTX1060. And Vega is handling GTX1070.

fill gap between rx 580 and vega 56, nvidia doesn't have anything in that space.

Astyanax:

The same complacency that infected AMD did so to Intel prior, and has done to intel since, do not use intels activities as an excuse for AMD failing to innovate their products. Jim Keller should not have to return to save them every time. I have systems with AMD and Intel parts, I would not reward bad design decisions by buying a FX product, nor would i Reward lack of development by buying AMD rebrands. This chip is for the diehards that contribute to AMD entering its floundering periods consistently. I would choose Ryzen over Intel at this point because Intel have been exposed as killing their Validation team, which is why all these security and corurption flaws have turned up.

TIL: Taking massive design gambles that miss the mark, requiring you to sell your foundry and go $2B into debt is "complacency" - who knew? Clearly they should've gone for $4B in debt and did some kind of interim architecture redesign, said no competent business person ever. Jim Keller wasn't even the design lead on Zen. Lisa Su credited most of Zen's prowess to Mike Clarke and the MCM design to Mark Papermaster (Which was the real innovation). The rest of Zen's architecture improvements was mostly just following the same path Intel did. The whole circle jerk about Keller is overrated - he's a good engineer but if you think one person is making the difference on an architecture design you're clueless. The Spectre/Meltdown issues affected like every single Intel processor ever.. trying to use those recent discoveries, missed by literally the entire security sector for over several decades, as evidence of Intel "killing their validation team" is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.

Without Jim returning and teaching the team how to use chip optimisation tools, the same issue that ruined Bulldozer would have ruined Ryzen. As for the Validation team being killed off, https://danluu.com/cpu-bugs/

After writing this, a person claiming to be an ex-Intel employee said "even with your privileged access, you have no idea" and a pseudo-anonymous commenter on reddit made this comment: As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently. Why? Let me set the scene: It's late in 2013. Intel is frantic about losing the mobile CPU wars to ARM. Meetings with all the validation groups. Head honcho in charge of Validation says something to the effect of: "We need to move faster. Validation at Intel is taking much longer than it does for our competition. We need to do whatever we can to reduce those times... we can't live forever in the shadow of the early 90's FDIV bug, we need to move on. Our competition is moving much faster than we are" - I'm paraphrasing. Many of the engineers in the room could remember the FDIV bug and the ensuing problems caused for Intel 20 years prior. Many of us were aghast that someone highly placed would suggest we needed to cut corners in validation - that wasn't explicitly said, of course, but that was the implicit message. That meeting there in late 2013 signaled a sea change at Intel to many of us who were there. And it didn't seem like it was going to be a good kind of sea change. Some of us chose to get out while the getting was good. As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently.

Things might be different now that the warehouse manager isn't CEO anymore.