AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Review: Navi at $280, RTX 2060 down to $300

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Lol, this doesn't counter anything I said.
I can link cards and quote comments but its pretty easy to see them.
16% of steam gamers used Radeons, thats all you need to know.
Ouch.






I could quote these all day, 25% are 3 star or lower on the first GPU I looked at, but 16% of Steam gamers is really all you need to know. Isn't the truth a pain in the ***?
Yeah, its ok.
If Radeons were priced much lower to make up for thier inferior software and and more issues, they wouldn't be at a pitiful 16% of steam users.
There's some facts for you.
I can't wait to hear your argument, see more links to Nvidia issues and some comment about how their the same..please, enlighten me!
AAhhhhhhahahahaaha!
Hey I can do this too!






If you look at Nvidia cards and then AMD cards, both have about the same number of cards 3 stars or under. Of course, with the exception of the 2080 Ti having 12 models 3 stars or under despite having much less models then Nvidia's lower end products. Many of the complaints stemming from failing cards. If you are so inclined, why not take the data and make an average? Cherry picking results from a single card proves nothing,
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision

amstech

IT Overlord
Cherry picking results from a single card proves nothing,
16%.
There is no argument, no angle, no quote and no data you can use to argue the absolute truth about those cards and their software, you just end up looking like the biased AMD fool you are, again.
AMD being used by 16% of steam users and has a pitiful 20% of discrete GPU market share is all you need to know.
End of discussion.
They need to be priced cheaper to make up for thier shortcomings, and Steam gamers...in fact, all gamers, know this.
Nvidia isn't perfect, but they are FAR better, which is why they have 80% of the discrete GPU share, and are used by 84% of Steam users.
Live in denial all you want and pretend they are just as good as one another, just don't confuse that with the truth and god forbid, turn a blind eye to those ridiculously one sided numbers...which are one sided for a reason.

This is so obvious only a fanboy would argue against those numbers. If it was the other way around you wouldn't see me saying Nvidia was as good as AMD, I wouldn't dare say anything so foolish and glaringly stupid. Not trying to be harsh...jeesh I can't remember the last time you won a debate against me now...starting to feel bad Eve.
I know your not that dumb.
 
Last edited:

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
16%.
There is no argument, no angle, no quote and no data you can use to argue the absolute truth about those cards and their software, you just end up looking like the biased AMD fool you are, again.
AMD being used by 16% of steam users and has a pitiful 20% of discrete GPU market share is all you need to know.
End of discussion.
They need to be priced cheaper to make up for thier shortcomings, and Steam gamers...in fact, all gamers, know this.
Nvidia isn't perfect, but they are FAR better, which is why they have 80% of the discrete GPU share, and are used by 84% of Steam users.
Live in denial all you want and pretend they are just as good as one another, just don't confuse that with the truth and god forbid, turn a blind eye to those ridiculously one sided numbers...which are one sided for a reason.

This is so obvious only a fanboy would argue against those numbers. If it was the other way around you wouldn't see me saying Nvidia was as good as AMD, I wouldn't dare say anything so foolish and glaringly stupid. Not trying to be harsh...jeesh I can't remember the last time you won a debate against me now...starting to feel bad Eve.
I know your not that dumb.
I think the only point he was making was that your arguments are generally baseless ... and yes he won that one, by using the same metric you used to show how "bad" AMD cards are, to show you how "bad" Nvidia cards are and got the same results.

What did that prove? Only that you are more than willing to use erroneous data and false pretenses to justify your stance ... kinda like that other guy. It does nothing but devalues your posts.

Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, market share tells what happened before, not what is happening now ... and then there's China. This should be obvious to everyone.

Bentley owns only about 0.02% of the vehicle market share. What pieces of crud those Bentley's are compared to Ford, who owns 14% of the market share - these numbers say it all. At 14%, Ford obviously produces the highest quality and highest luxury vehicles ever made. Not Rolls Royce, not Bentley, not Mercedes ... Ford. Because that is how you are supposed to evaluate things to get accurate evaluations ... right?

Walmart market share is well over 20% - way more than any one other retailer, and that means that Walmart sells only the best products on the market. We all know that.

Cheap Chinese products have flooded the market in North America - but because there is more of them than American made goods, that means they are way better in quality AND value.

When an argument's "logic" is based on a logical fallacy, and you are throwing in ad- hominems, etc. the argument holds no water. Just like using "stars" ratings to prove that AMD cards are bad - as opposed to actually having experience with the cards, like the people countering the arguments do.

So I'm not too sure what you think you are winning at there ... I'm failing to see any of that.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
16%.
There is no argument, no angle, no quote and no data you can use to argue the absolute truth about those cards and their software, you just end up looking like the biased AMD fool you are, again.
AMD being used by 16% of steam users and has a pitiful 20% of discrete GPU market share is all you need to know.
End of discussion.
They need to be priced cheaper to make up for thier shortcomings, and Steam gamers...in fact, all gamers, know this.
Nvidia isn't perfect, but they are FAR better, which is why they have 80% of the discrete GPU share, and are used by 84% of Steam users.
Live in denial all you want and pretend they are just as good as one another, just don't confuse that with the truth and god forbid, turn a blind eye to those ridiculously one sided numbers...which are one sided for a reason.

This is so obvious only a fanboy would argue against those numbers. If it was the other way around you wouldn't see me saying Nvidia was as good as AMD, I wouldn't dare say anything so foolish and glaringly stupid. Not trying to be harsh...jeesh I can't remember the last time you won a debate against me now...starting to feel bad Eve.
I know your not that dumb.
The steam survey also shows simplified Chinese jumping by over 14% in a single month and is now sitting at a 37.87%. That's higher then English which is at 30.43%.

I guess game developers should be using Chinese as the primary language they make their games for! Makes sense if you actually believe steam's survey numbers are an accurate representation of what people who buy games own. I wonder why most games don't, what reason could they ever have?? That same survey has 1/3rd of people with a screen below 1080p. Totally normal (even though you can't even buy monitors lower then 1080p unless you are looking used). In case you missed it, that was sarcasm.

See this is the problem with presenting what you perceive as an infallible argument. It is all too easy to point out things in the steam survey that most certainly don't represent real life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
The steam survey also shows simplified Chinese jumping by over 14% in a single month and is now sitting at a 37.87%. That's higher then English which is at 30.43%.

I guess game developers should be using Chinese as the primary language they make their games for! Makes sense if you actually believe steam's survey numbers are an accurate representation of what people who buy games own. I wonder why most games don't, what reason could they ever have?? That same survey has 1/3rd of people with a screen below 1080p. Totally normal (even though you can't even buy monitors lower then 1080p unless you are looking used). In case you missed it, that was sarcasm.

See this is the problem with presenting what you perceive as an infallible argument. It is all too easy to point out things in the steam survey that most certainly don't represent real life.
I thought everyone already knew the major fallacies of trying to use Steam Survey data to defend their inner fan ... thing. I guess some people never got the memo.


"The error involves Steam counting every individual login at internet cafes (which are particularly popular in Asian countries) as separate PC configurations. So, if 10 people log into Steam on a single Intel-powered PC at an internet café – and opts in to the Steam Hardware Survey – then the survey will count it as 10 separate machines.

... this has resulted in AMD’s hardware popularity being under represented compared to its competitors.

This could explain why AMD seems to be doing so well recently – especially with its processor – yet recent Steam Hardware Surveys don’t show a corresponding growth in AMD adoption.

It seems that while Valve – the company behind Steam – has made some tweaks to fix this ... “they did change their algorithm a little bit, but they really aren’t motivated to go in and change this…
because the purpose of their data is not for market share.”
Edited for brevity

Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-is-on-a-winning-streak-so-why-does-steam-hardware-survey-not-show-that


My point is not that AMD has larger marketshare, it doesn't - but market share data doesn't say anything about recent happenings and current sentiment, in fact it dilutes that info heavily, especially considering that 90% of all processor produced in the last 7 years are probably still in use and counts toward that market share.

The important metric is adoption rate - this is what indicates sentiment and mind share - Amazon.com has had AMD CPUs in the top 10 best selling spots for many months now - the adoption rate for AMD cpus is incredibly high right now, yet Intel will still hold larger market share for years to come. Even if they stop producing CPUs or just pump out garbage. Again, market share tells so little, and then, using Steam survey to try to indicate market share is about the least accurate way to get market share data.

This shouldn't be a secret anymore ... but I think I'm on his ignore list ... lol.
 
Last edited:

MSIGamer

TS Member
Hilarious these discussions about vRAM. It's like those years ago when they started to release 4GB models of cards instead of 2GB cards and people were sure that 4GB could never be used. Even then The Elder Scrolls was mentioned as example and hundreds of comments and trolling commences ;D

Good times, good times ;D

It's fun that it only matters when you don't have enough. For some people this is always the case if they play heavily modded game, in other cases it doesn't matter at all. Now let the fights begin and tell other people what they should buy based on the games only I play!
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Hilarious these discussions about vRAM. It's like those years ago when they started to release 4GB models of cards instead of 2GB cards and people were sure that 4GB could never be used. Even then The Elder Scrolls was mentioned as example and hundreds of comments and trolling commences ;D

Good times, good times ;D

It's fun that it only matters when you don't have enough. For some people this is always the case if they play heavily modded game, in other cases it doesn't matter at all. Now let the fights begin and tell other people what they should buy based on the games only I play!
For sure, when you don't have enough it is very obvious. I remember when the 3GB GTX 1060 was launched and it has issues in some games with frame times. That was one of the more questionable cards, where you really did need more VRAM for most games if you intended to play modern titles. I can't imagine it is doing well now. The RX 480 had just the right amount of VRAM at 4GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSIGamer

veLa

TS Evangelist
May be worth checking the 2060 KO reviews (TPU has one).

If a 2060 were on my shopping list, I'd definitely go for the FE instead of the "El cheapo" edition that's using RTX 16xx series cooling (as compared to the 5600 XT which has the same cooling solution as the next better model).
Well, if you watch the Gamers Nexus video from yesterday, you'd learn that EVGA's RTX 2060 KO has a different GPU die from the typical RTX 2060. It is in fact actually an RTX 2080 in disguise.
 

Ravalo

TS Addict
Its 2020 and mainstream is still on 2k aka 1920x1080
surly 2.5k aka 2560x1440 should be mainstream now.
Actually 1920x1080 isnt 2k
2k would be something like 2048x1536 4:3 or 2048x1440 16:10 (if that exists) since its a category

Even tho I have a 1440p 144hz monitor, I can understand that 1080p is “good enough” for most people since it works well on the more commonly used 24” and 21.5” monitors and 1080p monitors are not very expensive (140-200$ for 1080p 144hz vs 270-350$ for 1440p 144hz)
 

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
Jimbo,

Your two post were good here thanks for adding in your two cents. Nice to see unbias logical points.
Thank you for the kind words sir! I agree that we, without a doubt, need more unbiased sentiment and sound reasoning based on a proper perspective of the arguments, stats and facts, within some of these threads. 🙄
 

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
Actually 1920x1080 isnt 2k
2k would be something like 2048x1536 4:3 or 2048x1440 16:10 (if that exists) since its a category
...
Technically, 1920x1080 can be considered 2k.

1920 x 1080
1920 x 1440
2048 x 1080
2048 x 1440
2048 x 1536

All technically 2k. "criteria" for 2k is ~2000 pixels wide - height doesn't really matter.
 

m3tavision

TS Evangelist
nVidia can not compete with AMD's new NAVI.

nVidia has tried, but they can not match AMD's price/performance ratio, nor can they match AMD's gaming technology. nVidia had to re-brand their whole entire "RTX" line up, and reduce prices in their GTX sku's, just to stay relevant..!

2060 Super = $399
5700xt = $379
5700 = $329
5600xt = $279

AMD's 5700 beats the rtx2060 SUPER in many games. nVidia = epic fail
 

BigBoomBoom

TS Booster
nVidia can not compete with AMD's new NAVI.

nVidia has tried, but they can not match AMD's price/performance ratio, nor can they match AMD's gaming technology. nVidia had to re-brand their whole entire "RTX" line up, and reduce prices in their GTX sku's, just to stay relevant..!

2060 Super = $399
5700xt = $379
5700 = $329
5600xt = $279

AMD's 5700 beats the rtx2060 SUPER in many games. nVidia = epic fail
Yea, except Navi is 12+ months newer and on 7nm process. NVIDIA hasn't even moved to 7nm and Navi is still trying to fight against their now 2 years old cards line up. I don't see how that's epic fail, except for consumers. It's almost 3 years since the GTX 1080 Ti release and almost 4 years since GTX 1080 release and here we are, still mostly concerned about cards around those old cards performance level. We should have cards that are twice as fast (100% faster) than GTX 1080 for the same release price by now ($600). Four years! I'm hoping the big Navi and NVIDIA 7nm Ampere actually bring some serious performance increase because, ffs RTX 2080 Ti is still not much of an improvement over Pascal for twice the asking price.
 

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
Yea, except Navi is 12+ months newer and on 7nm process. NVIDIA hasn't even moved to 7nm and Navi is still trying to fight against their now 2 years old cards line up. I don't see how that's epic fail, except for consumers. It's almost 3 years since the GTX 1080 Ti release and almost 4 years since GTX 1080 release and here we are, still mostly concerned about cards around those old cards performance level. We should have cards that are twice as fast (100% faster) than GTX 1080 for the same release price by now ($600). Four years! I'm hoping the big Navi and NVIDIA 7nm Ampere actually bring some serious performance increase because, ffs RTX 2080 Ti is still not much of an improvement over Pascal for twice the asking price.
Yeah I agree that there's a lot of ground to gain overall. Almost as much ground to cover as AMD had with bulldozer vs core.

Keep in mind it took AMD 3 years after getting a good jump on Intel for them to come out ahead there (good job Intel on that 14nm - who said old cows can't give good milk? ... but there are limits), and so at best I see the next iteration of Navi maybe being that "jump",(I did hear an AMD guy say that current navi is actually a GCN / Navi hybrid and that full "navi" won't be out till 2020- can't find that source tho), but then, let's see what the next three years look like before we declare "victory" for AMD.

I would like to see it it, but realistically, if it were to happen, I think would take a bit of time, and a more fierce battle than we see in the CPU space. Intel really didn't respond proper to Ryzen at all - to their detriment. Jensen seems more than willing to to "get in the ring" with Lisa. ;)