Monday, May 13th 2019

AMD Readies Radeon RX 640, an RX 550X Re-brand

by
btarunr
 Discuss (19 Comments)
One of our readers discovered an interesting entry in the INF file of AMD's Adrenalin 19.4.3 graphics drivers. It includes two instances of "Radeon RX 640," and has the same device ID as the Radeon RX 550X from the current generation. The branding flies in the face of reports suggesting that with its next-generation "Navi" GPUs, AMD could refresh its client-segment nomenclature to follow the "Radeon RX 3000" series, but it's possible that the RX 600 series was carved out to re-brand the existing "Polaris" based low-end chips one step-down (i.e. RX 550X re-branding as RX 640, RX 560 possibly as RX 650, etc.).

The move to create the RX 600 series could also be driven by AMD's need to contain all "Navi" based SKUs in the RX 3000 series, and re-branded "Polaris" based ones in the RX 600, so that, at least initially, consumers aren't led to believe they're buying a re-branded "Polaris" SKU opting for an RX 3000-series graphics card. It's also possible that AMD may not create low-end chips based on "Navi" initially, and focus on the performance-segment with the highest sale volumes among serious gamers, the $200-400 price-range. Based on the 14 nm "Lexa" silicon, the RX 550X is equipped with 640 stream processors, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory across a 128-bit wide memory bus. Given the performance gains expected from Intel's Gen11 "Ice Lake" iGPU and AMD's own refreshed "Picasso" APU, the RX 640 could at best be a cheap iGPU replacement for systems that lack it.
Image Credit: Just Some Noise (TechPowerUp Forums)

Related News

Add your own comment

19 Comments on AMD Readies Radeon RX 640, an RX 550X Re-brand

#1
IceShroom
I think that RX 640 for laptop (Apple) or for OEM.
Posted on Reply
#2
Casecutter
Yea, it not like they'd use 7nm production to do this segment, while don't have to revamp memory to GDDR6, just continue with cost effective GDDR5. Probably move them to GloFlo 12nm, and juggle clock up while holding or slight reduction in power. A RX 560 (Polaris 21 XT 1024 Stream Processors) could see boost clocks move 1320Mhz and perhaps hold to it's reference 75W TDP. All while still not have to change the original MSRP of $100. I mean after what Nvidia gave with a GTX 1650 is AMD suppose to use R&D resources to make something, they'd rather intend APU's to work in this low end market.
Posted on Reply
#3
jabbadap
CasecutterYea, it not like they'd use 7nm production to do this segment, while don't have to revamp memory to GDDR6, just continue with cost effective GDDR5. Probably move them to GloFlo 12nm, and juggle clock up while holding or slight reduction in power. A RX 560 (Polaris 21 XT 1024 Stream Processors) could see boost clocks move 1320Mhz and perhaps hold to it's reference 75W TDP. All while still not have to change the original MSRP of $100. I mean after what Nvidia gave with a GTX 1650 is AMD suppose to use R&D resources to make something, they'd rather intend APU's to work in this low end market.
I doubt 7nm APU could rival 1650s, that's is just out of power budget for them.

Don't know really, I for one would like to see 7nm sub 75W Navi close to RX 570 performance. That would make it very good 1080p laptop gpu. Something like gtx1650 is on laptop side(Desktop part is over priced, but that mobile gtx1650 is couple percent faster than gtx1060 maxq).
Posted on Reply
#4
EarthDog
IceShroomI think that RX 640 for laptop (Apple) or for OEM.
What makes you think that?
Posted on Reply
#5
IceShroom
EarthDogWhat makes you think that?
RX 550X used in Macbooks. Apple may want to replace with new GPU(name). Though it a guess.
Posted on Reply
#6
jabbadap
IceShroomRX 550X used in Macbooks. Apple may want to replace with new GPU(name). Though it a guess.
Apple uses Radeon Pros and the inf is from windows driver for plain RX 640s. And for the top model they have that Radeon pro vega 20 and 16.

Safest bet would be laptop OEM skus to compete with main rival, which rebranded main compitors not long ago(mx250 and mx230).
Posted on Reply
#7
IceShroom
jabbadapApple uses Radeon Pros and the inf is from windows driver for plain RX 640s. And for the top model they have that Radeon pro vega 20 and 16.

Safest bet would be laptop OEM skus to compete with main rival, which rebranded main compitors not long ago(mx250 and mx230).
Apple also use Polaris GPU's on their Macbook series laptops too.
Posted on Reply
#8
jabbadap
IceShroomApple also use Polaris GPU's on their Macbook series laptops too.
Are they? Granted I haven't really cared anything Apple produces for ages and quick look at their site gives only intel igpus for macbooks and macbooks Airs, 15" Macbook pros have Radeon Pro RX 555/RX 560/vega 20/vega 16 while 13" ave intel iris pro igpu.
Posted on Reply
#9
trog100
jabbadapI doubt 7nm APU could rival 1650s, that's is just out of power budget for them.

Don't know really, I for one would like to see 7nm sub 75W Navi close to RX 570 performance. That would make it very good 1080p laptop gpu. Something like gtx1650 is on laptop side(Desktop part is over priced, but that mobile gtx1650 is couple percent faster than gtx1060 maxq).
i have a 1650 in a small desktop machine.. the 1060 max-q in my dell G5 laptop is noticeably faster.. i have just been comparing them out of curiosity..

trog
Posted on Reply
#10
ShurikN
trog100i have a 1650 in a small desktop machine.. the 1060 max-q in my dell G5 laptop is noticeably faster.. i have just been comparing them out of curiosity..

trog
If the max-q is noticeably faster than a deskop 1650, there's something horribly wrong with your "small desktop machine".

Posted on Reply
#11
Casecutter
jabbadapI doubt 7nm APU could rival 1650s, that's is just out of power budget for them.
Sorry, didn't mean to leave that impressing, just meant as Nvidia did such a little bump to the $150 price point AMD has not reason to really move their $100 placeholder for entry either.

I could consider a Navi APU get into the RX 550 ,or basically encroaching on what higher end card of 2009-2010 were.... that's crazy!
Posted on Reply
#12
trog100
ShurikNIf the max-q is noticeably faster than a deskop 1650, there's something horribly wrong with your "small desktop machine".

i dont have witcher 3 installed but i can give you some timepsy comparisons.. the little deskotp machine with the 1650 scores 3590..

the G5 with the 1060 max-q scores 3950.. both machines have a moderate gpu overclock..

the G5 has an 8th generation I5 cpu and the desktop machine a 4th generation I5.. i doubt the cpu difference makes much of a difference if any..

i see what i see in reality you read what someone else sees..

trog

ps.. i think both timespy score are good for the machines that produced them.. but from what i see my laptop 1060 max-q is noticeably faster than my desktop 1650.. and you are just gonna have to takes my word for the fact there is bugger all wrong with my little desktop machine.. if there was i would fix it.. i aint f-cking daft.. he he
Posted on Reply
#13
jabbadap
trog100i dont have witcher 3 installed but i can give you some timepsy comparisons.. the little deskotp machine with the 1650 scores 3590..

the G5 with the 1060 max-q scores 3950.. both machines have a moderate gpu overclock..

the G5 has an 8th generation I5 cpu and the desktop machine a 4th generation I5.. i doubt the cpu difference makes much of a difference if any..

i see what i see in reality you read what someone else sees..

trog

ps.. i think both timespy score are good for the machines that produced them.. but from what i see my laptop 1060 max-q is noticeably faster than my desktop 1650.. and you are just gonna have to takes my word for the fact there is bugger all wrong with my little desktop machine.. if there was i would fix it.. i aint f-cking daft.. he he
Graphics score, or? Well that haswell i5 might actually bottleneck your gtx1650, if it's on some prebuild machine. And 8th gen i5 is 4c/8t processor while i5 haswell is 4c/4t processor.

Edit: There's actually more games tested with gtx1650 on notebookcheck. It's actually quite game to game which one is faster 1060maxq or 1650. Some games just likes Turing more than Pascal arch. But all this is quite off topic so I apologies.

www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1650-Laptop-GPU.416044.0.html
Posted on Reply
#14
trog100
jabbadapGraphics score, or? Well that haswell i5 might actually bottleneck your gtx1650, if it's on some prebuild machine. And 8th gen i5 is 4c/8t processor while i5 haswell is 4c/4t processor.

Edit: There's actually more games tested with gtx1650 on notebookcheck. It's actually quite game to game which one is faster 1060maxq or 1650. Some games just likes Turing more than Pascal arch. But all this is quite off topic so I apologies.

www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1650-Laptop-GPU.416044.0.html
true which is why i like using timespy which is universal.. also i doubt the 4 core I5 cpu is bottle necking a 1650 which is pretty low end chip..

it does tend to suggest a properly cooled 1060 max-q plus a little overclock performs better than some people think.. mine seems to..

but as you say we have gone off topic.. :)

trog
Posted on Reply
#15
GoldenX
Great, another rebrand. Let's add it to the pile.
Posted on Reply
#17
jabbadap
WindysonNavi -> RX700 , 7 -> 7nm
Well that would be nice rational naming, but it really does not have future iterations when nano meters goes down not up.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
Polaris is fast going the way of being the next Pitcairn.

Navi can't come soon enough
Posted on Reply
#19
jabbadap
Vayra86Polaris is fast going the way of being the next Pitcairn.

Navi can't come soon enough
It already is, been AMDs high-end mobile chip offering since 2016. Pitcairn's mobile throne lasted 2012-2014 to be outdone by Tonga in late 2014.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 23rd, 2024 05:02 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts