If you're insisting that the RX590 is a rebrand, then congratulations, so are the Super cards - because Nvidia have done the exact same thing here (wait for yields and consistency to improve and use that to edge out a little more performance from the same silicon).
You can spot the Nvidia shills because they show up yelling as though only AMD do rebrands, and as if a rebrand is somehow a form of robbery. Fact is it's been something both companies have done for decades now. Pretty sure G92 was the first product to go through three names (8800 GTS 512MB / 9800 GTX / GTS 240) and Nvidia's low-end products are even more prone to this.
FWIW: AMD's 500 series was clocked higher because the process had been improved, not because AMD wanted to make life worse for us by sandbagging on the 400 series. The 590 was just a cheap way to place something in between the 580 and Vega 56 and it was on a smaller node, so it's not *just* a rebrand. The RX 200 and 300 series were mostly rebrands, but if I'm an early adopter, how much trouble is it to check and find out that a card is just a rebrand and then not buy?
These cards exist because yields got better since the architecture was launched last year. Not because of some sort of conspiracy by Nvidia to trick people into upgrading already. It's not bait-and-switch, mostly because you don't know the definition of bait-and-switch.
You don't need a card "without the ray trace crap being shoved in" because in games without RTX features, the RT cores don't do anything to harm performance in any way. The RTX 2080 performs essentially the same as a theoretical GTX 2080.
I won't address the rest of your tirade because it's clear you're just angry that Nvidia didn't come ask you personally what you wanted in a video card. While RTX hasn't been exactly a success, we should be encouraging Nvidia and AMD to find ways to improve game visuals besides higher resolution
They might need to have stocked up a sufficient number of chips of a certain quality in order to satisfy demand. It's little good announcing a card that renders another card redundant and not having enough chips to sell. You'll just get people buying neither of those cards.
Given the performance of AMD, it doesn't look like NVIDIA had to release anything. Their top card Radeon VII is supposed to be EOL. Looks like AMD are still far behind. Anything good on the horizon from AMD?
They are behind at the highest end, but they're competitive in the mid-range which is where all the money is for them, so not a big deal when you look at it like that. They also power the current gen xb1/ps4 and next gen.
Radeon isn't operating at a loss. Apple reportedly paid a part of Vega development and they needed a gpu for their apus (i.e. all mobile parts). Vega is great at compute, earning AMD some extra revenue. Google placed a large order. Sony and Microsoft paid a part of Navi development and placed a huge order. Navi will be used in apus once again, bringing in some revenue. Desktop gpus is not AMDs only gpu market, they need the same development for their other divisions.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
Korguz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
Maxiking, wow you hate amd.. but to be fair, nvidia is also guilty for the re brands as well, probably not as bad as amd.. but still bad :600 series
510 -> 605 (Fermi GF119)
GT520 -> GT610, GT620 (OEM), 705 (Fermi GF119)
GT530 -> GT620 (retail) (Fermi GF119)
GT440 (DDR3) -> GT630 (DDR3), GT730 (DDR3, 128-bit) (Fermi GF108)
GT440 (GDDR5) -> GT630 (GDDR5) (Fermi GF108)
GT545 (DDR3) -> GT640 (OEM) (Fermi GF116)
GTX560 SE (OEM) -> GT645 (Fermi GF114-400-A1)
700 series
GT630 (Kepler) -> GT740 (Kepler GK107)
GT630 (Kepler rev 2) -> GT710, GT720, GT730 (128-bit & GDDR5) (Kepler GK208)
210 -> 405 (OEM) (Tesla GT218)
GTX680 -> GTX770 (Kepler GK104)
but i am sure you will find some way to refute and ignore this fact.. but what ever man.
Spunjji - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
If you're insisting that the RX590 is a rebrand, then congratulations, so are the Super cards - because Nvidia have done the exact same thing here (wait for yields and consistency to improve and use that to edge out a little more performance from the same silicon).You can spot the Nvidia shills because they show up yelling as though only AMD do rebrands, and as if a rebrand is somehow a form of robbery. Fact is it's been something both companies have done for decades now. Pretty sure G92 was the first product to go through three names (8800 GTS 512MB / 9800 GTX / GTS 240) and Nvidia's low-end products are even more prone to this.
ballsystemlord - Saturday, July 27, 2019 - link
FWIW: AMD's 500 series was clocked higher because the process had been improved, not because AMD wanted to make life worse for us by sandbagging on the 400 series. The 590 was just a cheap way to place something in between the 580 and Vega 56 and it was on a smaller node, so it's not *just* a rebrand. The RX 200 and 300 series were mostly rebrands, but if I'm an early adopter, how much trouble is it to check and find out that a card is just a rebrand and then not buy?jordanclock - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
That is a lot of words to be wrong.These cards exist because yields got better since the architecture was launched last year. Not because of some sort of conspiracy by Nvidia to trick people into upgrading already. It's not bait-and-switch, mostly because you don't know the definition of bait-and-switch.
You don't need a card "without the ray trace crap being shoved in" because in games without RTX features, the RT cores don't do anything to harm performance in any way. The RTX 2080 performs essentially the same as a theoretical GTX 2080.
I won't address the rest of your tirade because it's clear you're just angry that Nvidia didn't come ask you personally what you wanted in a video card. While RTX hasn't been exactly a success, we should be encouraging Nvidia and AMD to find ways to improve game visuals besides higher resolution
GreenReaper - Wednesday, July 24, 2019 - link
They might need to have stocked up a sufficient number of chips of a certain quality in order to satisfy demand. It's little good announcing a card that renders another card redundant and not having enough chips to sell. You'll just get people buying neither of those cards.YB1064 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
Given the performance of AMD, it doesn't look like NVIDIA had to release anything. Their top card Radeon VII is supposed to be EOL. Looks like AMD are still far behind. Anything good on the horizon from AMD?Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
Yeah, that fabricated 4.7ghz boost on Ryzen 3950x.designgears - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
They are behind at the highest end, but they're competitive in the mid-range which is where all the money is for them, so not a big deal when you look at it like that. They also power the current gen xb1/ps4 and next gen.Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
Obviously the money aren't there, the gpu division is constantly operating at a loss.Rudde - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Radeon isn't operating at a loss. Apple reportedly paid a part of Vega development and they needed a gpu for their apus (i.e. all mobile parts). Vega is great at compute, earning AMD some extra revenue. Google placed a large order.Sony and Microsoft paid a part of Navi development and placed a huge order. Navi will be used in apus once again, bringing in some revenue.
Desktop gpus is not AMDs only gpu market, they need the same development for their other divisions.