Rx 590 Vs Gtx 1050 Ti

Today we're checking out the new-ish Radeon RX 590 and on manus for testing we accept the XFX Radeon RX 590 'Fatboy'. This is technically a new GPU, but kind of non new at the aforementioned fourth dimension. What we take here is Polaris 20 XT on the 12nm FinFET process, and this small modify translates into slightly better clock speeds.

There are no additional stream processors, no fancy GDDR6 retention, or even GDDR5X memory for that matter. So in essence we're getting the same RX 580 with a 15% overclock, at to the lowest degree when comparing the reference clock speeds. Still since almost entry-level RX 580 models are clocked at 1380 to 1410 MHz, this gives the RX 590 a 10-12% clock frequency reward out of the box. And then there's the higher-end models similar the Gigabyte Aorus RX 580 XTR, which we utilise for testing, and that detail model comes clocked at 1425 MHz, reducing the RX 590's clock speed advantage to eight%.

It'south important to analyze this context because for testing we felt it would be misleading to compare the RX 590 with a base model RX 580 using the AMD reference clocks. AMD has sullied this launch by pricing the RX 590 at $280, which is a considerably premium for this slightly overclocked RX 580. Meanwhile, the RX 580 comes in at around $230 (MSRP), and right at present can exist found for as little as $200.

AMD claims up to a 12% operation boost over a reference clocked RX 580, yet they retrieve that means they can increment the MSRP by 22%, and then this should be interesting, or upsetting depending on your position.

For testing we're using the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy and it will exist compared to the Gigabyte Aorus RX 580 XTR and MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X+. We were unable to test the usual big bombardment of GPUs for this review, so you'll find the absense of more affordable models such as the RX 570 and 3GB GTX 1060, though we included every bit many results equally nosotros could. If you don't mind extrapolating however, previous tests will give you plenty of straight GPU comparisons if that's what yous want (RX 590 excluded of course).

Our benchmarks were ran using a Cadre i7-8700K clocked at 5GHz and 32GB of Vengeance DDR4-3400 memory. In total nosotros have results for 21 games at two resolutions, 1080p and 1440p simply the commentary volition be focused on vii of the more recently released titles.

Benchmarks

First up we have Battlefield V results (don't miss our recent RTX ray tracing exam!) and hither the XFX 590 was 7% faster than the Aorus 580 XTR, taking the average frame rate from 85 fps to 91 fps. This is the kind of margin we were expecting, though that deviation is reduced to only 3% at 1440p. On the upside, the RX 590 was a full 20% faster than our GTX 1060 card.

Foreign Brigade results at 1080p have the RX 590 performing 5% to a higher place the 580 and 16% faster than the GTX 1060. At 1440p we see the same 5% margin, here the 590 provided an additional 3 fps over the Aorus RX 580 XTR, not exactly heady stuff is it?

The Assassin'southward Creed series has been a bit savage for AMD recently and Odyssey is no different. Here the 580 and 590 are easily beaten past the GTX 1060 at 1080p. We find a similar story at 1440p. The RX 590 was 7% slower than the GTX 1060 and just 6% faster than the 580, which equates to ii extra frames.

This is our outset fourth dimension benchmarking with Hitman ii... shame it's not a more exciting occasion. Here the RX 590 offered a v% performance crash-land over the 580 and that meant it was 11% faster than the 1060 at 1080p. Then at 1440p the margin between the 580 and 590 is reduced to just 2fps, a 4% operation advantage going the way of the 590.

Another 5% performance gain is seen in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, rendering 63 fps on average opposed to the 580'south 60 fps.

At 1440p we see just a single frame advantage going to the 590, that said it was xiv% faster than the GTX 1060.

Forza Horizon 4 played really well on the RX 590 at 1080p as frame rates never dipped below 80fps. Oddly we did come across a x% performance boost at 1440p, I suspect with a reference clocked 580 you'd run across more double digit gains and I'll look into this in a moment.

Of the 21 games we've tested the last one nosotros're going to discuss is Monster Hunter World. At 1080p we see another unexciting 4% performance gain over the 580, though the 590 was 10% faster than the GTX 1060. Then at 1440p we see a single extra frame and I don't know about you, just that's about all the single digit gains I can handle in a review.

Overclocking

Overclocking the XFX Fatboy landed us a core clock speed of 1620 MHz with a GDDR5 memory frequency of 2250 MHz, resulting in a transfer speed of ix Gbps. This boosted Battlefield V 1080p performance past four% with like gains seen at 1440p.

You volition note that the Aorus RX 580 XTR is a power hungry 580 model, using ~ten% more than ability than a more standard 580. With that said, we see XFX's RX 590 pushing total organisation consumption slightly higher, and that resulted in a 42% increment over the GTX 1060 configuration, which is no small difference.

Realistically, your power supply won't take an issue with this increment and you're non exactly going to notice it on the power bill either, unless yous game 24/7. The only existent issue is dealing with the actress oestrus that'south dumped in your example. If you have a well ventilated case then this is less of an issue, but for budget builds this will oestrus things up.

Operating Temps

Under load for an hr, the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy peaked at 79 degrees which is reasonable, just likewise starting to get upwards there. The good news is at this temperature it was relatively silent as the fans were only spinning at up to 1380 RPM.

Overclocking actually reduced the temperature to 78 degrees as the fans were at present spinning at up to 1600 RPM and here they could be heard over the case fans. The operating volume wasn't unacceptably loud and certainly zip like a Vega reference cooled card.

Putting It All Together, Cost Per Frame

Coming in first place by a country mile is the Radeon RX 580. Y'all can currently buy 8GB models for $200 which is a super purchase. Non that long ago gamers would take sacrificed a finger for a price like that on a mid-range graphics card.

The GTX 1060 is also downwardly at the MSRP, though the 9Gbps models are likely going to cost a bit more than. Honestly they are a gimmick for the virtually part, we never saw much of a functioning uplift over the standard models. In any case, the RX 580 costs 20% less per frame so it's the obvious value choice. The RX 590 is far less highly-seasoned at $280, coming out at a cost of $4 per frame or 32% more expensive on a cost per frame basis. Instead we'd rather spend $100 more than and go a GTX 1070 or the 1070 Ti.

Performance-wise the Radeon RX 590 was always going to be unexciting -- a mildly overclocked RX 580 is only going to take you lot and then far -- only pricing is what'southward killed this offering. Nosotros're merely hoping this is a situation where AMD innovate it at $280 so axe pricing down to a $250 street cost before the year is over. At $250 it matches the GTX 1060 while offering superior performance. Given AMD'south current position in the GPU market they need to offer compelling options and that's what a $250 RX 590 would exist.

The RX 590 might consume more power and while non ideal, information technology makes upwards for that with a healthy ecosystem of affordable FreeSync monitors and an extra 2GB of VRAM. But as a mid-range value offering, its biggest problem is having to exist sold alongside a $200 RX 580. And the biggest trouble the RX 580 faces is the $150 RX 570, so it appears AMD is AMDying themselves...

Bottom line, the RX 590 is non a bad product, it's only got the wrong price sticker. If yous're in the market for a new graphics card these holidays, in that location are plenty of GPUs on offer at attractive prices which is a welcome modify from where we were a twelvemonth ago.