Friday, January 17th 2020

AMD Allegedly Bolstering Radeon RX 5600 XT in Response to RTX 2060 Price Cut

AMD has allegedly changed the specifications of its Radeon RX 5600 XT graphics card through a BIOS update being pushed to manufacturers, according to an HKEPC report. According to the report, AMD has increased clock-speeds of the RX 5600 XT to 1615 MHz gaming and 1750 MHz boost, versus 1375 MHz gaming and 1560 MHz on AMD's CES press-event slides detailing the card. Confirmation of this comes from the product page of Sapphire's RX 5600 XT Pulse graphics card, which doesn't bear any "OC" marking in either the product name or box art, but yet has an updated specs tab, referencing the new clock speed.

Increased GPU (engine) clocks isn't all, Sapphire also increased memory clock speeds from 12 Gbps to 14 Gbps (a 15% increase in memory bandwidth). Also, the typical board power ("power consumption") value has gone up from 150 W to 160 W, indicating a possible power-limit increase. These last-minute changes could probably significantly change the performance numbers of the RX 5600 XT in a bid to make it more competitive to the GeForce RTX 2060. Earlier today, it was reported that NVIDIA formally cut prices of the RTX 2060 down to $299, which would put it within $20 of the RX 5600 XT with its launch price of $279.
Sources: HKEPC, VideoCardz
Add your own comment

98 Comments on AMD Allegedly Bolstering Radeon RX 5600 XT in Response to RTX 2060 Price Cut

#1
Xuper
heh , Did Nvidia know it before? I think AMD used an 5700 chip to block any Nvidia movement , cause , yield is good.
Posted on Reply
#2
Gungar
Its going to make the 5600XT VERY interesting and the 5700 a lot less interesting for the difference in pricing.
Posted on Reply
#4
Unregistered
I do not like this trend of manufacturers sandbagging performance like this.

Unless these can continue to be easily accessible via overclocking, and not hardware locked.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
yakk
I do not like this trend of manufacturers sandbagging performance like this.

Unless these can continue to be easily accessible via overclocking, and not hardware locked.
Huh? This is AMD gaming Nvidia by announcing lower specs to see what their response would be. No sandbagging.
Posted on Reply
#6
Sempron Guy
aren't reviews suppose to come out in a few days now? Does it mean reviewers have to test it again assuming they are already currently testing or just finished testing the card?
Posted on Reply
#7
Bruno Vieira
yakk
I do not like this trend of manufacturers sandbagging performance like this.

Unless these can continue to be easily accessible via overclocking, and not hardware locked.
sandbagging is when you atificially limits the perf of a chip. 5700XT is the maximum perf possible of navi10. You just have to pay more for it.
Posted on Reply
#8
Unregistered
TheLostSwede
Huh? This is AMD gaming Nvidia by announcing lower specs to see what their response would be. No sandbagging.
My comment applies to both of them, meaning nvidia started sandbagging performance because they didn't have enough competition and purposefully limited their product line performance. Then upgrading them back up again with their "Super" branding where needed to address competition.

Now AMD is officially issuing an artificially lower spec product in the 5600xt while withholding full engineered performance to see nvidia's response before unlocking performance, seemingly only if needed. If AMD did not need to unlock this performance then they probably wouldn't either since that would increase their yield and lower production costs.

This limited duopoly situation only looks to be magnifying these business practices.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#9
HwGeek
we could all guess that the 5600XT will reach 5700 clocks anyway because its almost the same card/pcb.
so now AMD will just make the 5600XT look even better at stock settings ;-).
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
yakk
My comment applies to both of them, meaning nvidia started sandbagging performance because they didn't have enough competition and purposefully limited their product line performance. Then upgrading them back up again with their "Super" branding where needed to address competition.

Now AMD is officially issuing an artificially lower spec product in the 5600xt while withholding full engineered performance to see nvidia's response before unlocking performance, seemingly only if needed. If AMD did not need to unlock this performance then they probably wouldn't either since that would increase their yield and lower production costs.

This limited duopoly situation only looks to be magnifying these business practices.
Again, not really what happened. Nvidia chose to deliver a certain amount of performance until there was competition, so they then released a new line of cards. This is not the first time they've done something like this, hence why we've had GS, GT, GTS, GTX, GTX+, Ultra models and what not. Even the Ti branding is being used quite liberally now to fill in spots where the competition is ahead.

I doubt this does either of what you claim, but please, provide some proof and then we can discuss it. Right now, you're just flinging muck to see if it'll stick.

You can call it bad business practice and that I can agree on, but that's a different matter entirely. However, as you've pointed out, we only have two choices when it comes to buying graphics cards...

I can agree on the last point and it's been a rotten situation for too long, but no-one is willing to step up and compete with Nvidia. I doubt Intel will be the knight in shining armour that people have been waiting for.
Posted on Reply
#11
drABcoat
Bruno Vieira
grabing my popcorn
Literally my first thoughts, it's so nice to see AMD back in the game in such a strong way this past year. I hope they can get enough traction before 30xx series NVIDIA GPUs hit market though, I'm not sure AMD has a trick up their sleeve to deal with it. I keep hearing about "Big Navi", but I don't see anything about it.

Intel on the other hand...lol. Hopefully they can get up and running again, it would be great to see a proper 3-player game in these spaces.
Posted on Reply
#12
BakerMan1971
If we see this at the highend it could make for a very very interesting couple of years
Posted on Reply
#13
Unregistered
TheLostSwede
Again, not really what happened. Nvidia chose to deliver a certain amount of performance until there was competition, so they then released a new line of cards. This is not the first time they've done something like this, hence why we've had GS, GT, GTS, GTX, GTX+, Ultra models and what not. Even the Ti branding is being used quite liberally now to fill in spots where the competition is ahead.

I doubt this does either of what you claim, but please, provide some proof and then we can discuss it. Right now, you're just flinging muck to see if it'll stick.

You can call it bad business practice and that I can agree on, but that's a different matter entirely. However, as you've pointed out, we only have two choices when it comes to buying graphics cards...

I can agree on the last point and it's been a rotten situation for too long, but no-one is willing to step up and compete with Nvidia. I doubt Intel will be the knight in shining armour that people have been waiting for.
Your first paragraph describes well enough what I was mentioning. It's not about any muck, when a company plans product releases they balance production costs with the minimum they need to deliver to satisfy market demand, or a bit more than that to gain market share. When the market doesn't move as planned they may need to adjust which can either affect production costs or OHP related to selling price. If the market doesn't require them to they just won't and leave performance untapped on the table.

I do not see Intel looking to compete with nvidia short term on the desktop, that wouldn't seem to be in their best interest and where they could make the most profit from.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#14
EarthDog
Sempron Guy
aren't reviews suppose to come out in a few days now? Does it mean reviewers have to test it again assuming they are already currently testing or just finished testing the card?
For those that had testing completed before they reached out to reviewers, yes. From what I have heard, at least with one AIB card, the performance difference is quite significant from what it shipped with to what it does now.
Posted on Reply
#15
kapone32
If AMD prices this card right it might be their best seller. What they need to do in my opinion is relax the clocks on their next release so that the community can feel an OC like we were able to get with Tahiti. There is no better promotion for a GPU than it's OC potential.
Posted on Reply
#16
EarthDog
kapone32
If AMD prices this card right it might be their best seller. What they need to do in my opinion is relax the clocks on their next release so that the community can feel an OC like we were able to get with Tahiti. There is no better promotion for a GPU than it's OC potential.
They already listed the price, chief... $279 and up. :)
Posted on Reply
#17
kings
So, I guess we have to thank Nvidia for forcing AMD to make its product better. Without the price cut on the RTX 2060, the consumer would not have this "free" performance.

Competition is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Posted on Reply
#18
kapone32
EarthDog
They already listed the price, chief... $279 and up. :)
I know if they were smart(er) they would have made the MSRP $199 and they would sell like hotcakes.
Posted on Reply
#19
EarthDog
kapone32
I know if they were smart(er) they would have made the MSRP $199 and they would sell like hotcakes.
They are a for profit company and all...$199 for this card would be utterly ridiculous.

Truth be told, it will be priced right...
Posted on Reply
#20
kapone32
EarthDog
They are a for profit company and all...$199 for this card would be utterly ridiculous.

Truth be told, it will be priced right...
What I am looking at is vs the 5700. At $279+ it is too close to the 5700 for me @ $309.99. I don't think it would be ridiculous either. I honestly believe they would sell 3 or 4 times more cards @ $199 vs $279 I understand that that is the price point the 5500Xt sits in so I will revise it to $249.99 which is still a decent price and much more acceptable than $279 +.

www.amazon.com/XFX-1750MHz-Express-Graphics-Rx-57XL8LBD6/dp/B07XVMXBQW/ref=pd_cp_147_1/261-6075723-2899132?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B07XVMXBQW&pd_rd_r=66329dac-bca4-4803-a354-402e43fb83e8&pd_rd_w=YaD5v&pd_rd_wg=wtUUo&pf_rd_p=0e5324e1-c848-4872-bbd5-5be6baedf80e&pf_rd_r=GCGHF5WWHKY53P3KCRSW&psc=1&refRID=GCGHF5WWHKY53P3KCRSW
Posted on Reply
#21
john_
TheLostSwede
Huh? This is AMD gaming Nvidia by announcing lower specs to see what their response would be. No sandbagging.
I don't buy this. I didn't bought that other thing in the past, jebaited and stuff, when they lowered the 5700/5700XT prices. These are responses in panic, covered with nice marketing wording. AMD can't and won't provoke Nvidia this time, because they don't have the performance/feature advantage and also they don't have the manufacturing capacity(from TMSC) to try to flood the market with cheaper products.

Nvidia is feeling the heat of a resurging AMD and will probably try to serpond more often than what we have used to in the past. If Nvidia leaves AMD to enjoy a nice income from GPUs, while getting all that success in CPUs, in a couple of years will have to face a competitor as strong as itself. So, Nvidia is responding and AMD reacts in any way it can, either that is price cuts or new BIOSes just days before the release of a new product .
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
There is literally ONE card at $310 and it is on sale...the rest are all $360+ at amazon, note. $250 is a lot more realistic on so many fronts...

... but as I said, I don't think many will shake a stick at the current price point. ;)
Posted on Reply
#23
drABcoat
john_
I don't buy this. I didn't bought that other thing in the past, jebaited and stuff, when they lowered the 5700/5700XT prices. These are responses in panic, covered with nice marketing wording. AMD can't and won't provoke Nvidia this time, because they don't have the performance/feature advantage and also they don't have the manufacturing capacity(from TMSC) to try to flood the market with cheaper products.

Nvidia is feeling the heat of a resurging AMD and will probably try to serpond more often than what we have used to in the past. If Nvidia leaves AMD to enjoy a nice income from GPUs, while getting all that success in CPUs, in a couple of years will have to face a competitor as strong as itself. So, Nvidia is responding and AMD reacts in any way it can, either that is price cuts or new BIOSes just days before the release of a new product .
This seems right on the money...AMD needs to do *something* to keep their foothold, and they have a great stride right now. This is a stop-gap while they cook the next thing up in the lab, I just wish they had something to fight in the flagship space.
Posted on Reply
#24
HD64G
If that info is accurate (I doubt it and think that it is a oc model that has those clocks that are equal to RX5700 pulse) it makes no sense to have the same specs to 2 different models. Probably a typo on sapphire website.
Posted on Reply
#25
kapone32
EarthDog
There is literally ONE card at $310 and it is on sale...the rest are all $360+ at amazon, note. $250 is a lot more realistic on so many fronts...

... but as I said, I don't think many will shake a stick at the current price point. ;)
I know it is really sad that mid range GPUs command such a price premium when the mining craze is gone. I will patiently wait and see how this card compares to the 5700 and 5500XT.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment