AMD forgets about RX Vega, launching the RX 500 Series, some really pathetic graphics and NVIDIA already thinks about Volta

AMD RX 500 Series is a pathetic and regrettable rehash, which does not offer substantial performance improvement and consumes much more, while AMD RX Vega is still missing in action and NVIDIA already threatens with Volta.

AMD's situation is bad and hopeless in many ways. Currently AMD is far behind Intel in processors, although the AMD Ryzen are very good processors, they do not work as they should and it is expected that these processors will evolve and improve over time. Yes, it is true that they are worth less than Intel processors and others, but we are not interested in talking about Ryzen right now, we want to talk about graphics cards. AMD has just launched the AMD RX 500 Series, a rehash of the AMD RX 400 Series.

These new AMD graphics cards do not know what they respond to and of course, those most responsible for them such as Lisa Su and Raja Koduri should give explanations of why they launch this piece of junk on the market. The RX 500 Series arrive just half a year after the launch of the RX 400 series, graphics cards that at most compete with the mid-range of NVIDIA (GTX 1060 and some cases with a lot of OC and others, with the GTX 1070). AMD has modified very slightly GPU manufacturing processing, He has put a dose of overclocking to the beast and has launched them on the market with an absurd consumption.

The first benchmarks stand out, where we can see that the difference between an NVIDIA GTX 1060 Founders Edition graphics card and the PowerColor Red Devil RX 580 is around 100W. The RX 570 (factory) consumes about 30W more than the GTX 1060 and the RX 580 (factory), it consumes about 30W more than the GTX 1070 and 60W more than the GTX 1060. The difference in consumption is not reflected in a performance improvement and they continue to be in the benchmarks, these new AMD graphics, below the NVIDIA.

We can be talking that AMD does not currently have graphic solutions that compete with the mid-range, which is true, because with higher consumption and lower performance, it is preferable to pay the difference, since in the end we will save money, because if we save now € 50, that we will pay more than in the difference in consumption, therefore in electricity. The data speaks very clearly and no one can deny that AMD has done the worst it could do, but what is the reason?

I have to reaffirm myself that AMD RX Vega does not exist and the RX 500 Series are a desperate solution to buy time. I do not mean that there are no RX Vega chips or that there are no graphics based on this architecture, no, I mean that there are no Vega-based graphics processors in production, I mean that AMD would only have GPUs in the development phase, in the engineering phase , because they would have encountered an obstacle. It is the only explanation why AMD RX Vega has disappeared without a trace and these RX 500 Series have come out. There is no other explanation.

NVIDIA has so much left over that it has launched two graphics cards, such as the GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp, it has told the different assemblers to change the memories of the GTX 1060 and GTX 1080, for the new ones if they want, to offer a little better performance to its graphics and has even announced the GTX 1030, a discrete graphics card to compete with the RX 550. We add to all this that NVIDIA Volta arrived earlier than planned, specifically after the summer, seeing the first data already in September and graphics cards in October or November.

Can AMD RX Vega with NVIDIA Volta? With the data we have, everything points to no joke. The only advantage of AMD currently over NVIDIA lies in the support for DirectX 12, since NVIDIA under this technology does not perform as well as AMD solutions, but this is over. Volta will be the first NVIDIA graphics to support this technology through hardware and the drivers are expected to provide good support. This would cause NVIDIA to shoot performance under this graphics technology and AMD would be behind again.

AMD has a problem (one more, one less) and it is time. It has never been enough in this field, but of course, the weather is getting worse. AMD cannot afford to launch Vega shortly before Volta, it needs to do it at least three or four months in advance to achieve a good volume of sales, but they also need powerful graphics so that when Volta arrives, the difference in performance between the two graphics families are not abysmal and NVIDIA prevails again.

Show more

Robert Sole

Director of Contents and Writing of this same website, technician in renewable energy generation systems and low voltage electrical technician. I work in front of a PC, in my free time I am in front of a PC and when I leave the house I am glued to the screen of my smartphone. Every morning when I wake up I walk across the Stargate to make some coffee and start watching YouTube videos. I once saw a dragon ... or was it a Dragonite?

Related publications


  1. A somewhat rude way of explaining the reality of AMD in terms of video cards, according to techpowerup the Radeon 580 consumes the same as the Geforce 1080Ti which is pathetic as the publication says, however the problem goes more Beyond this, if the arrival of Volta is confirmed for the third quarter of the year this would mean that Nvidia is giving the final touches to its new architecture and almost certainly have already begun to develop its next architecture while AMD still has no competitor for Pascal, as if that were not enough in the “filtered” images of Vega the double 8-pin electrical connector was very evident, be careful because Vega could consume more than the old Radeon 290 and 290X.

    Paradoxically, salvation for AMD comes through the dominance of 1080p, a resolution that remains predominant and for which AMD can afford to launch cards like the Radeon 550, a resolution that in the long term will play against Nvidia since they offer Power to spare most of its product line so that many potential buyers do not need a short-term change and this has been evidenced by decreasing the number of sales.

    1. What stupidity they say please..ryzen came out and already takes advantage of Intel being that it still needs to polish, it is in full growth and if ryzen generates a guarantee, perhaps for 2018 we have ryzen 2 at full with ddr5.
      Another thing the rx 500 are the high-end of amd and wait for vega that is on its way to come out..they are saying that amd this or that the 1080ti is the same rehash as the 980ti and the titan z, titan, titan black, titan x, titan xp absurd plates brave 800dls and they walk with 256 bit of data bus and gddr5 hahaha, why don't you see the 290x, the r9 fury series, r9 fury nano plates that up to more than 256 bit of data bus and hbm memories And where does that leave nvidia stopped? What is the use of having a motherboard with 8gb and 8000mhz core clock and 2100 cuda cores if the data bus is 256 and the ram is gddr5.
      Let's cut with the nonsense of the greens and like it or not, amd manages to make Intel lose its way and make refried foods like them.

      1. the rx 5XX are not high they have dedicated to competing with the gtx 1060 which is average, if amd wanted to, it would have taken out a polaris like the nano and then double it, perhaps it would be the high end of amd, but from experience the high end are wealthy majority And nvidia fan boy, it would have little market for that old technology, they sell to the popular class, so it falls to the people, the vega is something else with lower tdp and better prices there will be the high range of amd is supposed

      2. 1.-AMD does not usually launch new architectures every year, among other things because they do not have enough income to spend on research and development like Nvidia or Intel, it is said that AMD's next big leap will come in 4 years with small updates every year .

        2.-To think that Intel is defeated is naive, the answer to Ryzen is not the Intel Kaby Lake, Intel has kept a lot for a long time, it is necessary for Intel to move tab and from the beginning they are not scared since neither the prices have dropped, paradoxically AMD already low prices as indicated in some places.

        3.-You comment as a fan about AMD graphics however ...

        AMD doesn't need cheerleaders! You need to sell and Nvidia sells more because their cards consume and heat up less, it is a serious problem that AMD has had for a long time, in reference to refried the same things from fans unless you have AMD shares.

        By the way, I hope you are not like "nem", I hope you identify him since he is everywhere proclaiming in favor of AMD and has hardware from Intel and I think also from Nvidia.

      1. The Guru3D consumption tests do not enlarge me and I give more validity to TechPowerUp among other things because they show more various scenarios, a matter of opinions however in the conclusions of the Radeon 580 offered by Guru3D they timidly comment on the consumption which is a problem of AMD that has been reported on other sites, I am left with the conclusion of TechPowerUp "Very high gaming power consumption".

        1. The "big problem" of consumption in desktop GPUs is not as big as many paint it... To recover the "investment" that Solé proposes in his "article" in an nVidia graphics card with similar performance to an AMD in electrical current, depending on the place where you have your electrical installation, it can vary between 5 and 10 years assuming that you play many hours a day... Excessive electrical consumption in computers is a lie. Even having Workstations you will not see an excessive increase in monthly consumption. Of course it depends on many factors but it would be good to make specific numbers according to your city and neighborhood.

  2. I think you're wrong about a couple of things. First you said (and I quote): "Currently AMD is far behind Intel in processors." I don't think so, Intel gets a few more measly FPS in games, and in Workstation Ryzen they are indisputably polished. You also say (and I quote again): "AMD does not currently have graphics solutions that compete with the mid-range." The RX480 competes directly with the GTX 1060, I don't know where you get that it doesn't have solutions to compete in the mid-range. And if you are so concerned about consumption, I repeat that Ryzen consumes less and has more cores.

    1. I think AMD is just trying to buy time so that when vega comes out they are polished, that's what I think. And about this post I think that it is a tabloid like all of Roberto.

      1. amd is not a big factory like intel or nvidia they have spent time on processors now the ryzen 3, that's why the lag of their vega graphics

        1. Vicious circle! While AMD takes care of Intel Nvidia takes advantage, later when AMD takes care of Nvidia Intel will take advantage (Intel needs to respond to Ryzen).

          1. You are an AMD fanboy and no, I always comment based on experience 17 Geforce, 10 Radeon, 10 years using Intel processors and another 10 from AMD, I am not here to comment on the hardware I have had, but not to commiserate AMD, is a company are not my friends.

          2. Meeeeeck… Error. I have been a user of ati and amd graphics since I don't even remember. My first own pc, with a crappy p4 at 160, that wasn't going backwards, would have had to be an atlhon xp if memory serves. They yielded more, better and were cheaper. But ignorance has those things. When that pc was not enough for more ... I went from a mmx to a 9200 ... And I was able to play the first far cry at a minimum of 1024. When I could not play anything, it was just the moment of the launch of the first core 2 duo and core two quad. They broke the market in a brutal way. At brutal prices, it's also true. If I remember correctly, in terms of graphics, go through 3950, 4770 and 7790. The latter accompanied by a second-hand purchase of a q6600 that ran until 3600 (it was a g0 and they had not squeezed his ear too much). A year ago ... With that pot you could not do anything in terms of games. I inform myself ad nauseam. Intel was more expensive. It yielded more but was more expensive than amd in processors. And I wanted a processor that could withstand at least two graphics changes (counting the downgrade in graphics settings, I do not change pc every two years). Target, the 980. Cucumber in every way. Reality? The 295 x2 was totally out of my budget, without valuing anything else. Same as the 980. 970 vs 390x even though it was a gastona… I opted for the 390x. Because I had faith in amd. I was not disappointed. It has improved over the months. She is very greedy, but she is the only one but that I can have towards her. Makes little less than a 580. Take something else (I was looking at it yesterday). It's not my fault that I bought what seemed best to me at one point a year ago and that my processor choice was not amd. And I am happy that given the purpose of my team (to play) today, I consider that I chose well.
            I love what amd has achieved with ryzen 7. But it's not my league. As it was not a year ago in 2011. By price. And from the meaning of these two ranges, which is not playing, but working 24 hours a day, 7 hours a week. Ryzen 5 is a good product for gaming? This is how amd sells it. Is the best? I'm not saying the cheapest. Is it the best in gaming? I leave the question in the air. I know what your answer is. I do not share it. But I respect her. Although you may never know how to do the same.

          3. The AMD SoC is the one that is in the XBox One and One S, PlayStation 4 and 4 Pro, it will be in the Xbox Scorpio and in the PS5.
            I think AMD has already taken care of nVidia very well.
            And also, Intel has just grown dwarfs, because Qualcomm has gotten into the fight of x86 CPUs by making its SnapDragon 835 compatible with them, even more so that Microsoft has just announced support for ARM for the next Windows update 10, RedStone 3, which is expected to be released by the end of the year.

    2. AMD is behind in architecture (inferior to skylake / kabylake), but far ahead in price / performance if you use programs that benefit from multicore.
      PS: I think that with mid-range it refers to the terrain of the 1070 not the 1060.

      1. In performance I do not believe in price if, where am I from latam, the ryzen is expensive especially the 1800x and the plate, and as far as it has surpassed the fourth generation I do not believe it

        1. Why are you going to buy the 1800x if you have the ryzen 1700 with little overclcok, do you match it? The ryzen 5 1500x with 4 cores 8 threads you have a decent pc at a low price

      2. no, they will be behind in games (due to optimization and microcode issues) but in rendering, encoding and other professional tasks they are on par or even surpass intel

      3. It is because of the high clock of kaby lake 4,2ghz, I show you that in the same GHz of the 1500x it is similar

        ryzen 5 1500x @ 3.5ghz 4 cores 8 wires 822cb

        Core i7 [email protected] 4 cores 8 wires 888 cb

        Core i7 [email protected] 4 cores 8 wires 913 cb

        ryzen 5 [email protected] 4cores 8 wires 917 cb

        1. Well, the high frequencies are also a consequence of a good architecture, the processors must be tested with all their capabilities including the ability to work at high frequencies.

          1. No, rather they are mainly a consequence of the manufacturing process that is used in the chip. In the case of Intel they are in control of the process (14nm 3D gate) and in that case they have the freedom to choose between the available Fabs, in the case of nVidia they are free to choose between TSMC and Global Foundries and in the case from AMD they are stuck with Global Foundries until their contract ends around 2019/20 and have restrictions and penalties for using other processes.

          2. If the frequencies are increased to the Intel, it should also increase its consumption, right?
            Just what is criticized for the RX500 GPUs, which increase their consumption because they work with higher frequencies.

  3. It is true that the Ryzen Bios are a couple of months away to be polished and have compatibility with all RAM frequencies and it is true that for games they are not perfect due to the separation into groups of cores, but the first is just a matter of time, for workstations they are the best CPUs in quality / price, and in games they are not asphyxiated, ensuring that they will last you in time even if you have high latencies in return.

    That Ryzen is not perfect that does not mean that it has been a hard blow on the table, a real competition to Intel.

    And about the 500 series, it is true that taking advantage of the input range output of Polaris they have created a new series that is the same, and that the 580 is a bad investment (I would recommend getting the 480 cheap), but it has nothing to see with Vega.

    Who is interested in Vega, is not interested in the medium-high range, the 500 series does nothing to save time.

    About Vega itself, only time will tell if it was worth the wait, although it is time for them to give new information, people are getting tired of waiting, and with good reason.

    PS: I hope the Vega delay is to put HDMI 2.1 with the image synchronization of that standard (Scorpio has a Vega-Polaris and will carry this technology, so it is possible)

    1. In general, I agree with you. The ryzen are a hit on the amd table in terms of productivity and price of their r7s. But I am not as optimistic as you about its performance in games for many reasons that are long to explain. We summarize it in architecture and latency problems of the L3 cache and we leave it there. And a reflection… if a 580 is a medium-high range… what is a 1070? 1080? a 1080ti? and a titan? medium high, high, extreme and GMO?

        1. There are people like you with whom you can talk, Moisés. And for the record, it would be very clear if I dedicated myself to professional video, image editing, etc. that my next processor would be a ryzen 7. I mean, not if from time to time I edited a video of my cousin's communion, my sister's wedding or God who came down from heaven. And if it were to play ... it would be clear that the ryzen 7 are not for me, as 2011-3 was not. If it were to play ... I think I would get an i7. But you would have to watch many videos and read many, many reviews.
          Well, the OMG thing was to degrease a bit, hahaha. Thanks Moisés, it's nice to talk to reasonable people.

          1. Well, I don't know, but in these graphs I see a Ryzen 1500x that stands up to an i7-7700K at stock speed. They won't be that bad. And let's see that they cost one and the other.

          2. I don't like biases at all. Because they can be misleading. Excluding the first two games that show where the 1500x wins by a certain amount, the others could be considered a technical draw. But you didn't do the full comparison. And one thing for after the images I leave.

   c77f2fc4057224b70.png ed73bbea326c93.png
            And it would not be bad if you posted something about minimums. Comparison that is also. Others won't know why minimum fps is important in a game. You and me yes. Also… I say again, do not bias the facts in your favor and partially. In the reviews they use 1070 minimum. Then the people who read the words and see the images of people who are "creative" with reality play with a 480 and what happens happens. You have to be much more honest when playing with the illusion of the people, Hugo Bravo.

          3. I don't like biases at all. Because they can be misleading. Excluding the first two games you show where the 1500x scores loose in its favor, the others could be considered a technical draw. But you didn't do the full comparison. And some I leave for after the images of performance in games.


            Are we talking about minimums? you and I know its importance. But I better illustrate it for you.


            In the review they use a 1080. Then the people who read the words and see the images of people who are "creative" with reality play with a 480 and what happens happens. You have to be much more honest when playing with the illusion of the people, Hugo Bravo. Maybe it won't cost you anything to change the "jar" every two years. But there are people who find it difficult to save every penny that is spent. To move in a biased reality that adjusts to what interests us is to do them a disservice.

            Are we talking about oc, temperatures and consumption? You are not going to buy an x ​​to have it in stock. And those temperatures with a noctua nh-d15, one of the best heatsinks that can be found by air. And with a voltage of 1.41. Almost nothing.


            And even if you want, we can talk about productivity. But that I already let you hang it if you are interested. And finally of price. Exceptional price performance, as you imagine. And the world, by extension. Yes I know. The 1600x improves on that and continues to be cheaper. But in everything else, Everything and getting better, it becomes a very similar scenario to the one presented with the 1500x.
            Then we can enter if bios updates that improve problems with memory speeds, that if microcode to improve performance in games and productivity, that if it hopes that game developers learn to work with ryzen, that if the latency problem of the cache L3 is something fictitious or that if the grandmother smokes. A pleasure, Hugo Bravo.

          4. I wanted to tell you something about the temperatures. It is true that perhaps they are a bit high, but compared to what? In that table that you attach, for example, the i7 7700k has very similar temperatures making use of a corsair h115 liquid cooling (the most expensive of Corsair and that costs € 150, almost double that used in the ryzen). Look at the temperatures on other websites. That table is very misleading, because CPUs do not have the same heatsink. Call me crazy but the ryzen with the corsair cooling would drop at least 10 degrees. Where have you seen a 7700k at 52 degrees in full? The 7700k on a heatsink of 80-90 euros, at full you have it at about 75 degrees. The Ryzen have no temperature problems. Now they will come to me with that if I defend AMD and shit. I only defend what I think is fair.
            PS: I have an i5 xD

          5. Let's see ... As I understand it, the tdp is the heat that a processor generates expressed in Watts. Nothing to do with what a processor consumes and is expressed in volts. I'm just saying that for a 65 Watt tdp of ryzen ... Either the processor consumes a lot or the amd heatsinks are quite regular. I'm not at home and I can't search for links… Well, I don't feel like it… But even with two different manufacturers and two different architectures, PDT means the same for amd as it does for Intel. When I get home I'll look for more information.

          6. Yes, yes, whatever you want, but the temperatures have to be compared YES OR YES AND ALWAYS with the same dissipation. That of using a liquid in Intel and not in AMD is nothing more than TRAP.

          7. Oks, you are right. I'm just saying that I believed that attending to his tdp the ryzen would be cooler. And I also say that wraith spire leaves a lot to be desired as a heatsink. Watch from 3:55 on:
            I have a 6700k and I have had it to 4,5 to test with a cooler master 212. Voltage 1,34. That's why I say the ocs that I see from ryzen seem like a lot of voltage and taking into account the difference in tdp between ryzen and the i7.
            As for catches, sorry, I have not. Maximum temperature with Aida, I think I remember 77. But don't take my word for it if you don't want to.
            In short, if you scale the temperatures vs frequencies, if the 1600 went up to 4,5, the temperatures would be even higher than those of my 6700k 4,5 with the same heatsink. And a 7700k is still a rehash of 6700k with oc included. And the voltage well ... through the roof.
            I'm just saying that the stock coler is ... weak, very weak. And that unlike tdp I thought ryzen would be much cooler, that's all.

  4. try to charge a lot and fast, because with notes like this (and other similar ones where readers have already said the same thing) they have taken the short course through the ravine of disrepute

  5. I rather think that they should put trained and expert people at the time of making a review or publishing some news about new hardware I wonder how many dollars nvidia and intel have paid to make this publication so rude starting with what I publish about amd processors that They are far behind Intel when many real benchmarks have been seen in both rendering and gaming that surpass these new amd ryzen to the core i5 and i7 of 6th and 7th generation and in some games it may be that amd ryzen loses without being Games optimized even for amd ryzen and even so much it loses by 10 or 5 fps of difference that is almost nothing and on top of that a ryzen 1600x for example in games performs like a core i5 and i7 and even better and in rendering not to mention It leaves it far behind the core i7 7700k and it comes out the same or cheaper than a core i5 7600k yielding more and with respect to the amd radeon video cards the 400 series came out very good they come to compete with the mid-range and many forget the old amd radeon r9 295 x2 that video card is more than 4 years old has hbm memory and is capable of fighting the gtx 1070 and gtx 1080 being the latter much more modern and more expensive and not to mention the beast that is the amd radeon r9 fury seriously the only pathetic thing here is who published this review it is clear from afar that they paid him or maybe he does not know a damn thing about anything and starts to comment pure nonsense.

    1. Without going into evaluating the nonsense about ryzen ... do you remember that a 295 x2 was worth at launch? the consumption you have? the dissipation that mounts to avoid spontaneous combustion? what did amd have to do to tell nvidia that it was bigger? join two r9? Briefcases? silly stuff? The user (me) of a 390x laughs for not crying about the fiasco and rehash of the 580. PUSSY. That two iterations after the card I buy… the 580 performs practically the same while consuming the same… which is why the 390x was highly criticized. THAT ARE FUCKING REFRITES, LET'S SEE IF WE FIND OUT, THAT 480 (SOME) MUTE INTO 580 BY THE ART OF THE BIRLI BIRLOQUE. Do you know what Vega is today? the image that I show you seasoned by a few very cool power points.
      Send eggs that someone said you don't even know who he is and to whom I don't have the slightest sympathy. You are conspiranoids. Briefcases, nonsense, bought benchs ... au cacau. What there is to read.

        1. Do not bother to reply to this person, leave them with their nonsense, they are blocked on the web and their comments go directly to Spam and are deleted. Stupidity has no cure.

          1. I know exactly where it comes from since the “moñicote” comes from. (and others). You're right, foolish words... There is already an eci. The English Court. Let's not turn this into another eca.

          2. I don't know what the ECI is about: they have also launched the RX500 range there.

          3. Let him not worry let him be stupid, if he feels happy being that way, let him continue to be so, it is more I think a dictionary would be good for him. What amuses me, users like this, as well as the one who made this post, how little informed they are on the subject of hardware, these new video cards, if they are refined polaris, nothing to do with what Las Vegas will be, those will be of the most range High that opens and with different architecture, Las Vegas from what I read will have hbm2 memory and will surely be twice as fast as the current polaris are, those if they will be the ones that will fight the nvidia volta, which makes me laugh too They talk about refried when nvidia with the 600 and 700 series did practically the same thing as Intel is doing it now with its new microprocessors, to which I am going that you do not have to be a fanboy of any brand and find out more before publishing such reviews bad like this guy.

      1. 1) the 390x consumes much more than the 580.
        2) For the price, Ryzen is unbeatable.
        3) Vega is out in a few months.
        4) That is no reason to dismiss any platform or technology.
        5) AMD has just won several arm wrestling in the market ... people without vision believe that AMD is still dead, when 15 months ago its shares were worth 1/6 q now. Ryzen is a winning product. The 500 series was not intended to be high-end, but to coexist with VEGA for the manufacturing price that the new generation has, for using HBM 2.
        6) FreeSync - Project Scorpio, Play Station 5. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, and its importance, you can't comment on absolutely anything in the world of technology.

        1. 1. About 70W more reference card vs. reference card. Just yesterday I was looking at it.
          2. Ryzen 7 I do not deny it. Ryzen 5, it depends on your degree of obfuscation.
          3. I am not a shareholder in either the Reds or the Blues.
          4. I do not dismiss it. I think ryzen 7 is a great platform and an unbeatable price as long as it is clear which market it is focused on. Like Intel's 2011, come on. If not, they wouldn't call it professional.
          5. That amd survives in graphics thanks to the consoles, since it has been since the 295 x2 without a real TOP.

          1. 1) Does 70 W seem like little difference?
            2) If you only play, it can be. But even for browsing, 12 threads, or 8, are much better than just 4 cores from an i5. And that, without counting a thousand other applications for processors.
            3) I do. Where I see good opportunities, I invest and spend.
            4) Ryzen 7 is not professional. It's what the future calls for: Vulkan and DX 12 lead to parallelization of processing, not just on GPUs. It is natural that processors with more cores begin to exist. Professional, it will be Zen with up to 16 cores.
            5) Again, you don't know what you're talking about. FreeSync is going to be integrated into Project Scorpio and the next PlayStation. That means that it is the standard to be accepted by all televisions from 2018 onwards. The second version uses an AMD chip. The level of money that will mean for AMD is unprecedented. At $ 13 a share, it is one of the most undervalued companies.

            Money means better products. There is no logical reason to do something against AMD. Much less, when the APUs, the processors for servers and VEGA are still missing.

          2. 1. Yes.
            2. Just play. A ryzen 7 or a 2011 is disproportionate for home use. And ... About cores and threads to navigate, not comnent. What do you have, 150 thousand tabs open at the same time?
            3. Ergo, since you make money by moving red stocks, you defend them. Very logical. From 3 to about 15 dollars is a good bag depending on the actions you handle. Congratulations.
            4. Don't confuse professional with servers. Those eat separately.
            5. Jo. If 4k are already quite expensive, they just need to come with freesync. Hey ... Beware of revealing such long-term data around here ... That could still be detrimental to your company. Big brother we are all, you know, Orwell wrote it.
            Well, they could have thrown themselves a bit on the roll with 580. Or 480. Or ryzen 5. Anyway, thanks for enlightening me, threatening shareholder.

          3. 1) It is not little. We are talking about 1/3 of consumption.
            2) You are part of the 0.02% of consumers who only gamble. Buy Intel and go. But you are not trained to do reviews. Yes, there are those who work on the basis of many tabs. It's called organizations and work.
            3) I earn with what you earn. AMD was investment, not out of fanaticism, but because of understanding what was happening. You still don't understand it. Therefore, you think mine is horrible ... but I go for the one that makes me earn money. I don't have a bias. You do.
            4) They are two different segments, servers and professionals. Up to 32 cores is what will be given in servers ... but only up to 16 for the professional sector that rumor says will be called Ryzen 9. Investigate.
            5) The cost is low on televisions, but it makes sense to start asking for variable refresh rate. Actually, there are already many who were waiting for it to happen ... only that AMD has just taken over that entire market. Do you understand Or do you need me to explain it to you with a little drawing?

          4. 1. It still seems little to me. Call me obtuse.
            2. So only 0,015 people worldwide go to the movies, right? Given that the video game business has surpassed the cinema in terms of profits… In the last two, three years? And even so the cinema lately is inspired more and more by video games. Curious. 150 thousand? Insurance?
            3. Sounds good to me. I don't think it's fanaticism. Money is out of all fanaticism unless it is fanaticism to get more money. The bias thing ... I admit I don't know what you mean.
            4. Ah, the rumor. Without acrimony… Show me something other than fine vega. Also the rumor said that they were going to get p4 at 5 ghz. Texas, but memory can fool me. And the thing about those pentiums is beyond doubt. I mean ... It's not a rumor.
            5. Do not confuse Microsoft's wishes that future televisions have something that will make the pseudo 4k that scopio will show look better with what people are going to buy. If so, the one would have been imposed in this ... Half generation? As a home multimedia center and as a console. I mean ... Amd has gotten something of nothing, since Scorpio is not yet for sale. Do it to me if you like, I'll appreciate it. You are a brilliant mind and I mean it without the slightest bit of derision.

          5. I have the impression that you have a problem with those who do not love Nidia and Intel like you ...

    2. All good except for the fact that the 290 ride HBM ... The only ones that ride HBM to date are the Fury.

  6. Well, from what is said, vega is a facelift to what is radeon and polaris 11 and 10 is an experiment of consumption and finfet since the complete cores change instead of an update as it has been these years and is that As explained, they are going to go from full rendering to rendering by tiles that nvidia uses since maxwell, so maxwell was a tremendous improvement for nvidia and it is the only one that its graphics do not render the entire scene but only render what is seen in time real while intel and amd graphically render everything even if it is not seen, so nvidia with less raw power achieves more frames than amd in any case the amd maneuvers seem to me if not the best acceptable instead of being premature with the launch of the high-end and let's face it, amd doesn't want to launch a high-end when what makes them money the most is the mainstream range, so it gives them time to refine the vega architecture while they polish the finfet lithography and earn moneyWith the mid-range so when Vega comes out they will already have experience of working with the finfet + in any case with the simple fact of changing the complete rendering to slabs if it comes out as envy it would be a great performance pull

    1. I think you are not understanding the difference between rendering in 2 d, and calculating all objects in 3D, and based on that rendering only the foreground. That is being done in Vega. In doing this, they will even implement sound technology playing with echoes and different material properties. There is a big difference between the two.

  7. The light was off while I was reading the article, as I was going to sleep. But, boy, have you taken away my sleep. And I'll be precise: I know where AMD stands right now and things like this article just make me think that there are people with a lot of hatred in this world. PS: I hope nVidia reads your article to give you a handout.

  8. I have read many reviews on this page, and the truth is that all the time that AMD is named is bad, A REVIEW must be OBJECTIVE, WITHOUT going into PERSONAL VALUATIONS, I when EVERY time I read something about AMD on this website is bad, in This case may not be a marvel what it exposes, but is it necessary to put in the Title a personal assessment that makes the text lose all OBJECTIVITY? Pathetic graphics cards? I to this publication between saying I am not going to enter because surely they say that Everything that came out and will come out of AMD is bullshit, I will definitely not read Hardwaresfera again.

    "RX 500 Series is a pathetic and pitiful rehash" Objectivity? HAHAHA finally put in the title that it is a personal assessment of an AMD Hater

    1. “AMD is currently far behind Intel in processors”

      You only have to see this sentence to realize how polarized the writing is. AMD has launched multi-core processors that beat Intel in the same number of cores, the same 14nm but with lower power consumption and at half the price and they dare to say that it is “far behind”. It is true that in game they do not reach those of Intel but it is fair to say that in game they are "slightly" behind because the differences are not great.

  9. I just want to say that with this class of articles the only wrongdoer is the author. The forms it uses invalidate anything I want to express, whether I have a foundation or not.
    It doesn't provide any new data, but if you omit the ones that suit you: AMD has rehashed the 400 series without increasing the price. If perhaps the new 500 series does not contribute anything compared to the 400 series, I think any buyer will appreciate buying the 500 model with the consequent improvements in manufacturing, at the same price as the corresponding 400.
    Regarding the possibility of converting a 400 into a 500, such a thing is not possible. What I know has been talked about in the forums is that the 500 series BIOS works on the 400 and allows you to bypass the overclock limitations, which does not mean that you can speed it up as much as a 500.
    And Ryzen has shown much more computing power than Intel's i7 series, for a much lower price. If, despite this, the i7 performs better in games than this, it can only be said that the code does not manage to extract all the available calculation power, not that Ryzen is "a failure".

    1. Converting a 480 by flashing the bios of a 580 and tapping voltages on it. That's what a 580 is. A 480 with factory oc.

      1. If you do and significantly shorten the life of the rx 480, and the rx 580 does not have that problem, AMD named it for marketing or Intel has never done that, look at the kaby lake and the skylake.

  10. This character who writes these articles seems to have something personal with AMD ... After reading 3 articles obsessively criticizing said brand using totally disparaging and excessive adjectives.
    I think I would have to make him look because it is not normal. When all the pages praise the good performance of the Ryzen this same criticizes them without coming to mind since supposedly he is talking about gpus ...
    You can see the duster. As I said in another comment, a fanboy without any objectivity.

  11. Obviously the person who wrote this is a fanboy, gamer, and an Nvidia shareholder. Already start the note saying that Ryzen does not perform as intel, please dear hater… .. Ryzen CRUSHED the intel x99 platform, pulverized it with prices. He left her in complete oblivion in complete obsolescence. What a cheek to talk about ryzen like that. Oh my God. Starting the note like this is already disgusting just reading it. Please inquire.
    Not to mention the immense optimization that Ryzen has had in the short time it has been on the market. Just look at the numbers, look at the cinebench benchmarks, see what ryzen has achieved at a more affordable price than intel.

    For its part, La rx vega is already developed. That it has not been released does not mean that it is still in development. AMD is going to mount HBM5 memories in the rx vega, and in 4k I'm sure it will be a 1080ti killer, totally, since there are AMD products that are already better than the gtx 1080 in 4k (Lèase r9 295 × 2, Radeon Pro duo).

    Today any ignorant writes columns.

  12. if they are going to sell graphics chips to intel they will have good resources to improve their products which is what amd lacks to compete with nvidia because it has fewer engineers and what are good will go away

  13. I think that as this person says that Vega does not exist, it may well be true. It seems that there is talk of a new architecture and it is already taken for granted that it must already be present on the market. Let us give time for the products that are being mentioned to appear and then we can discuss objectively. What do current RX not perform like Nvidia? Well it can also be, but personally and in my most modest opinion I do not spend the more than 1.000 euros that a graphics card from the prestigious Nvidia costs when with other very good graphics such as AMD they cost less than half of these offering very good results even if they consume something else. I also emphasize that these six 500 are honestly over.

    Currently I have an FX with 95 watts of consumption as a processor and a 6790 graphic that they say consumes a lot. Well, compared to Intel's 65 watts and a very normal graphic for it, there is no relevant increase in light between AMD and Intel, being precisely the first as the most used system.

  14. javron says:

    Well, I give you different alternatives to the botched jobs full of multi-account fanboys, very computer and neoteo, maybe you already know them.

  15. Refried cigars from the 400 series, what does amd plan to do with people who buy an rx 480 now? pathetic. But what does this have to do with volta? apart threat? if it still did not show anything. In price / performance vega is going to be victorious and it was always like that in amd, and people know it

  16. I doubt that the volta graphics are as good as they say and the safest thing is that AMD with their vega will give them where it hurts the most, for saying AMD surpasses all of Intel on the subject of processors.

Leave your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Button back to top