Radeon RX 590 vs. RX 580 vs. GeForce GTX 1060

Today we're checking out the new-ish Radeon RX 590 and on hand for testing nosotros have the XFX Radeon RX 590 'Fatboy'. This is technically a new GPU, just kind of not new at the same time. What we have here is Polaris 20 XT on the 12nm FinFET process, and this minor change translates into slightly better clock speeds.

There are no additional stream processors, no fancy GDDR6 memory, or even GDDR5X retention for that matter. Then in essence we're getting the aforementioned RX 580 with a xv% overclock, at least when comparing the reference clock speeds. However since most entry-level RX 580 models are clocked at 1380 to 1410 MHz, this gives the RX 590 a x-12% clock frequency advantage out of the box. Then in that location's the higher-finish models like the Gigabyte Aorus RX 580 XTR, which we use for testing, and that particular model comes clocked at 1425 MHz, reducing the RX 590's clock speed advantage to 8%.

It's important to clarify this context because for testing nosotros felt information technology would be misleading to compare the RX 590 with a base model RX 580 using the AMD reference clocks. AMD has sullied this launch past pricing the RX 590 at $280, which is a considerably premium for this slightly overclocked RX 580. Meanwhile, the RX 580 comes in at effectually $230 (MSRP), and right now can be found for every bit little as $200.

AMD claims upwardly to a 12% functioning boost over a reference clocked RX 580, yet they think that ways they can increase the MSRP by 22%, so this should be interesting, or upsetting depending on your position.

For testing nosotros're using the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy and information technology 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 discover the absense of more affordable models such as the RX 570 and 3GB GTX 1060, though nosotros included equally many results as we could. If y'all don't heed extrapolating nonetheless, previous tests will give yous plenty of straight GPU comparisons if that's what y'all want (RX 590 excluded of course).

Our benchmarks were ran using a Core i7-8700K clocked at 5GHz and 32GB of Vengeance DDR4-3400 memory. In total we have results for 21 games at two resolutions, 1080p and 1440p but the commentary will be focused on 7 of the more recently released titles.

Benchmarks

Outset upward we have Battlefield V results (don't miss our recent RTX ray tracing test!) and here 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 divergence is reduced to only iii% at 1440p. On the upside, the RX 590 was a full xx% faster than our GTX 1060 card.

Strange Brigade results at 1080p have the RX 590 performing 5% above the 580 and 16% faster than the GTX 1060. At 1440p nosotros see the aforementioned five% margin, here the 590 provided an boosted 3 fps over the Aorus RX 580 XTR, not exactly heady stuff is it?

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

This is our starting time fourth dimension benchmarking with Hitman 2... shame it'south not a more exciting occasion. Hither the RX 590 offered a v% performance bump over the 580 and that meant it was 11% faster than the 1060 at 1080p. Then at 1440p the margin betwixt the 580 and 590 is reduced to but 2fps, a 4% performance advantage going the fashion of the 590.

Another 5% performance gain is seen in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, rendering 63 fps on boilerplate opposed to the 580's threescore fps.

At 1440p we see just a single frame advantage going to the 590, that said it was 14% 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 nosotros did encounter a x% performance boost at 1440p, I suspect with a reference clocked 580 you'd see more double digit gains and I'll look into this in a moment.

Of the 21 games nosotros've tested the last one we're going to discuss is Monster Hunter World. At 1080p we run across another unexciting 4% performance proceeds over the 580, though the 590 was ten% faster than the GTX 1060. Then at 1440p we see a unmarried actress frame and I don't know well-nigh you, but that's about all the single digit gains I tin handle in a review.

Overclocking

Overclocking the XFX Fatboy landed united states of america a core clock speed of 1620 MHz with a GDDR5 retentiveness frequency of 2250 MHz, resulting in a transfer speed of 9 Gbps. This boosted Battlefield 5 1080p performance by four% with similar gains seen at 1440p.

You volition notation that the Aorus RX 580 XTR is a ability hungry 580 model, using ~10% more than power than a more standard 580. With that said, nosotros see XFX'south RX 590 pushing total system consumption slightly higher, and that resulted in a 42% increase over the GTX 1060 configuration, which is no small difference.

Realistically, your power supply won't have an issue with this increase and you're not exactly going to discover it on the power pecker either, unless you game 24/7. The simply real effect is dealing with the extra heat that's dumped in your case. If you accept a well ventilated case then this is less of an issue, but for budget builds this will heat things up.

Operating Temps

Nether load for an 60 minutes, the XFX Radeon RX 590 Fatboy peaked at 79 degrees which is reasonable, but also starting to get up there. The good news is at this temperature it was relatively silent every bit the fans were just spinning at upward to 1380 RPM.

Overclocking actually reduced the temperature to 78 degrees every bit the fans were now 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 nothing like a Vega reference cooled card.

Putting It All Together, Cost Per Frame

Coming in first place past a country mile is the Radeon RX 580. You tin can currently buy 8GB models for $200 which is a super buy. Not that long ago gamers would have sacrificed a finger for a price like that on a mid-range graphics card.

The GTX 1060 is as well down at the MSRP, though the 9Gbps models are likely going to toll a bit more. Honestly they are a gimmick for the most part, nosotros never saw much of a performance uplift over the standard models. In any case, the RX 580 costs 20% less per frame then it'south the obvious value choice. The RX 590 is far less highly-seasoned at $280, coming out at a cost of $four per frame or 32% more expensive on a price per frame footing. Instead nosotros'd rather spend $100 more and get 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 so far -- simply pricing is what'south killed this offering. Nosotros're merely hoping this is a situation where AMD innovate it at $280 and then axe pricing down to a $250 street price before the year is over. At $250 information technology matches the GTX 1060 while offering superior operation. Given AMD'southward electric current position in the GPU market they need to offer compelling options and that'southward what a $250 RX 590 would be.

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

Lesser line, the RX 590 is not a bad product, it's just got the wrong cost sticker. If you're in the market for a new graphics card these holidays, in that location are plenty of GPUs on offer at bonny prices which is a welcome change from where we were a year ago.