The test methodology has completely changed from our latest GPU assessments, which were probably for the GTX 1070 Ti series cards. Mostly, we have reviewed the host exam and been updated with new games. Our game selection is cautious: Time is limited, and after analyzing our previous testing methods, we identified deficiencies where we eventually waste time testing too many games that did not meaningfully different data from our other tested titles. To better optimize our time and try "smarter" (instead of "more", which was one of our previous goals), we have chosen games based on the following criteria:
- Game engine: Most games run on the same group popular engines. By choosing one game from each major engine (eg Unreal Engine), we can ensure that we represent a wide sweep of games that only use the built-in engine level optimizations
- API: We selected a selected group DirectX 1
- Popularity: Is There Something People Actually Play?
- Long Life: Whatever popularity, how long can we reasonably expect a game to go without updates? Game update can damage comparative data from previous tests, affecting our ability to cross comparison of new data and old, as old data may no longer be comparable to patch
Game graphics settings are defined in their respective charts.
We also test most games in all three popular resolutions – at least we are too high-end. This includes 4K, 1440p and 1080p, which allows us to determine GPU scalability across multiple screen types. More importantly, this allows us to begin identifying the cause of revocation, rather than simply saying there is performance abolition. If we know that performance increases harder at 4K than 1080p, we might call this the indication of a ROPs benefit, for example. Understanding that performance behaves as it does is crucial to the future expansion of our own knowledge, and therefore prepares our content for smarter analysis in the future.
For the test bench correctly we now use the following components:
GPU Test Bench (sponsored by Corsair)
AMD RX 590 vs GTX 1060, 1070 Benchmark
Sniper Elite 4 gives us a look at a well-implemented DirectX 12 title with near programming, including asynchronous calculation support. We start with our 4K results, as they are more complete and provide a good picture of scalability versus other hardware. Remember, the idea is that we can see how the RX 590 compares to other devices, not necessarily to see absolute performance. We look at other results with lower resolutions for that angle.
At 4K, Sniper uses as a kind of synthetic test for low level APIs, we see the XFX RX 590 Fatboy running on 43FPS AVG when stock or about 46FPS AVG when overclocked. Lows for both results are good, with 1% at 41FPS for OC and 37FPS for the stock result. This is an indication of fluid futures, something we look at in our future plot next. The supporter is not where we want it, but again, that's all in relation to the graphics settings. What is important is that the consistency of the future is there. Absolute numbers will increase with lower settings instantly. For the RX 580 – the real, MSI RX 580 Gaming X, not the RX 580 2048 SKU as AMD created – we end up on the 39FPS AVG for the 8GB Gaming X, which is the same as an overclocked RX 570, ie DATALAND RX 580 Overclocking the RX 580 to 1455MHz gets it to 41FPS AVG, barely related to the RX 590 stock. That's because an RX 590 is an RX 580 but pre-overclocked, so this makes sense.
Compared, the GTX 1070 SC ends up with 48FPS AVG, with the GTX 1060 6GB Gaming X on the 37FPS AVG. Just to be clear, it's the GTX 1060 6GB – not to be confused with the GTX 1060 3GB with a smaller SM, or GTX 1060 5GB, and certainly not the GTX 1060 6GB with 9GB memory, and certainly not the absolute GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5X card. Only GTX 1060 6GB. NVIDIA has ensured that any future mention of the GTX 1060 must be accompanied by this clarification statement.
The point is that the GTX 1060 is powered by the RX 590, which is functionally an overclocked RX 580, which was an overclocked RX 480. 1060 with an OC end up on the 40FPS AVG, within the striking range of the RX 590, but still beyond 7.8%. GTX 1070 surpasses stock RX 590 by about 12%, with 1070 Ti at 57FPS AVG, or leads 32% when comparing inventory only. The future delta is about 17.67ms versus 23ms on the RX 590, or 5.6ms.
Framtimes from the previous chart looks like this. The GTX 1070 designed the most frames, of course, and also managed to keep consistently tight futures with a frame-to-frame interval variation of +/- 1ms. This is incredibly good performance and is commendable for the card. Remember that futures are about consistency of delivery. Being lower on the chart is better, but being consistent is best. 1070 are both, but are also more expensive.
By drawing the RX 580, we see future plot trends higher, closer to 25-30m instead of 18-24ms of GTX 1070. Frame to frame consistency is still good, with ram-to-frame deviation of +/- 2ms. This is good performance and quite sensible. RX 590 Fatboy is next, plotting with a line that is competitive against GTX 1070 in the future consistency. Its frame rate is lower, and the number of images rendered is reduced, as we saw in the previous chart, but the consistency is reliable. This is good because the framerate can be solved with reduced graphics settings, but future consistency is difficult to fix. 590 does well, like the other cards.
Finally, we see GTX 1060 6GB for perspective, yet we see commendable future consistency, but generally reduced the forward rate. The higher position on the Y axis means that the GTX 1060 runs slower in the frame rate than the other cards in this chart, despite the competitive consistency of the fewer frames. The RX 590 ends between the GTX 1060 6GB and the GTX 1070 cards in both forward and future performance.
Enough 4K numbers, let's look at a truncated chart with only 1080p. We have not done so many low-end card tests in Sniper, so this chart is more limited in number of cards. Of these cards, the RX 590 drives the GTX 1060 and is somewhat more meaningful than the RX 580. The RX 570 matches the RX 580 when it is overclocked, which is a reminder of what the DATALAND RX 580 represents. The scary quotes around "580" are because it is a 570, a SKU AMD team recently. The distribution does not have too much spread against these devices, but the RX 590 is in a better position than the other cards on the chart. As before, 1070 will surpass 590, but 590 will outperform 1060.
F1 2018 – RX 590 Benchmark vs. GTX 1070, 1060
For F1 2018, we look at the counterpart of Sniper Elite 4 by benchmarking with a good example built DirectX 11 games. There are more API abstraction layers than with DirectX 12, but this game handles them well.
At 4K, the RX 590 terminates on the 38FPS AVG memory, which is barely associated with the overclocked variant's 40FPS surface. GTX 1070 ends with 46FPS AVG, and RX 580 8GB Gaming X runs 35.7FPS AVG when stock and 38FPS AVG reach overclock. The overclocked result puts it in line with the share RX 590, even though the overclocked 590 retracts marginally ahead.
1440p is a more sensible resolution for the RX 590, so we are moving to the chart now. 4K is not really the front end of the RX 590. At 1440p in F1 2018, the RX 590 8GB ends at 64FPS, with 1% low average at 47FPS. Overclocking didn't do much for us, and we got a supplement 3FPS AVG. The GTX 1070 is a distant next card, ranks on the 78FPS AVG and with the lows pace like the RX 590. The RX 590 surpasses the GTX 1060 6GB card when stock, runs 57FPS AVG and overclock, runs the 61FPS AVG with + 100 core offset. For reference, the 1060 6GB cards cost around $ 200 to $ 250, depending on the model and current sales. The RX 590 runs around $ 260 to $ 280, depending on the model. We'll talk more later. However, it is fully capable of 1440p and is between 1070 and 1060 6GB.
At 1080p, the RX 590 stops changing the 82FPS AVG when stock or 85FPS is overclocked. Again, overclocking is hardly useful for this GPU. The 590 performs the same as the RX 580 Gaming X when it is overclocked at 1455MHz, with both cards on the 80FPS AVG. 1060 overclocked is about the same performance, although gains against a baseline 1060 are remarkable. 1070 maintains a significant advantage over the RX 590 in these charts, plotting on 101FPS AVG for the stock version.
Far Cry 5 – RX 590 Benchmark vs GTX 1070, GTX 1060, Vega 56
Far Cry 5 gives us a look at Ubisoft's Dunia engine, draws a title with more geometric complexity and reflections on the screen area than any of the others the tests we have gone through so far. For this, the RX 590 Fatboy ends up on the 30FPS AVG, with an overclocking that suddenly pushes it to 31.5FPS AVG, so no gain. The GTX 1070 runs on the 36FPS AVG, while the overclocked MSI RX 580 Gaming X at 1455MHz runs the same frame rate as the RX 590 since you know, it's an overclocked RX 580. None of these are particularly playable, so let's move on to 1440p.
At 1440p, things become more affordable playable. The RX 590 bearing GPU drives an average frame rate of 55FPS, ahead of an overclocked GTX 1060 6GB card of about 3.9%. We are beyond standard deviation test-to-test, but not too much. This difference is imperceptible. For a fair comparison of inventory, the GTX 1060 ends 6GB without the OC on the 50FPS AVG, still within the reasonable range of the RX 590. 590 doesn't have as much benefit here as it has in any other titles. GTX 1070 SC's average forward rate on the 67FPS sets a 21% lead over the RX 590 stock GPU, with the RX 580 linked to the GTX 1060. 1% and 0.1% downs are well timed across all of these configurations.  The most important thing to learn from the multi-resolution test is whether the performance is scaled linearly across all resolutions. If it does not, it may be an indication of a pipeline limitation – ROP, for example, or perhaps the video memory or texture. At 1080p in the Far Cry 5, the RX 590 maintains a similar distance to the GTX 1060 and GTX 1060 overclocked card. It is tied up with overclocked 1060 and leads the shares 1060 by 6.7%. Overclocking the RX 590 gets it to 80FPS AVG, but there is just no more room left in this card to clarify any meaningful amount. We see gains from overclocking of only 2.4%. Finally, 1070 maintains a significant driver, and adds a 96FPS AVG over the RX 590s 78FPS AVG. It is also accompanied by a price increase and we would like to point out that Vega 56 does well in this title as well, and adds 104FPS AVG with the PowerColor models. The Vega 56 cards are about $ 450 to $ 470, so buyers of the 590 are probably not willing to stretch this high price.
The Shadow of Tomb Raider – RX 590 Review
The shadow of the Tomb Raider remains relatively new and is intended to be one of the leading RTX titles, although our benchmarking is standardized without any RTX features. The shadow of the Tomb Raider is on a modified crystal engine and uses DirectX 12 for its API. One note for this: We had trouble getting the overclock to stabilize in this game, but eventually got it running on the 1650-1660MHz core. 1650 seemed a bit more stable, but produced the same FPS figures.
4K is not so friendly with this class of device when using the settings we were, and placed the RX 590 Fatboy on the 28FPS AVG, with an overclock that did nothing efficiently. 1070 is also struggling, down on the 30FPS AVG, with 1070 Ti at 35FPS. Let's move on right away. We can't learn much here.
At 1440p, the RX 590 ends at 50FPS AVG, with the overclock just taking us to 51.4FPS. Not exciting, unfortunately. The MSI RX 580 Gaming X at 1455MHz hits 48FPS AVG, positioning itself close enough to 590 that differences are imperceptible. The GTX 1070 holds the 55FPS AVG, which marks the Shadow of the Tomb Raider as the title where the RX 590 strikes closest to the GTX 1070, to the point that the value of this game best favors 590. In terms of percentage, 1070 holds a 8.5% lead over 590, which has a lead of about 11% over stock 580 and overclock 1060.
Running 1080p instead, the RX 590 ends up on the 72FPS AVG, which is fully playable while using high graphics settings. The overclock is again, pitiful, and increases us only 1.9%. It's disappointing. The RX 580 with overclocking is again near the RX 590 memory GPU. GTA V – RX 590 vs GTX 1060, RX 580
GTA V is the latest and uses the RAGE engine, which is redundant, by Rockstar Games. It's not that exciting in general, but still an improvement. This reference is intensive on drawing distance, especially for geometric detail and long range shadow details. 4K is almost unplayable with our Very High and Ultra mix of RX 590 settings, positioning the results to 25FPS AVG for stock 590 Fatboy, or 23FPS for the 580 Gaming X stock. Let's skip to 1440p.
At 1440p, the GTA RX 590 Fatboy puts on the 51FPS AVG, tied exactly with the overclocked RX 580 Gaming X and marginally in front of the RX 580 store. Kind of boring if we're honest, but it's the nature of a refreshment. If you knew where the RX 580 was when stocking and overclocking, find out where the RX 590 is. In this game, the GTX 1060 performs over the RX 590. If GTA is the only one you play and if you find a GTX 1060 for about $ 200 to $ 220, it would be a better buy. However, branching to other games will change this priority. These results are consistent with other sites.
1080p for GTA V gives us our latest game test. The RX 590 and GTX 1060 maintain the same distance as before, with the GTX 1060 6GB card leading the RX 590 with large margins, marking the 83FPS stock against the 76FPS AVG stock. 1070 pulls even further ahead, lands on 106FPS AVG, and overclocked MSI RX 580 is about the same as 390X and RX 590 reaches 580.
Power Consumption – RX 590
For this we make total system power consumption logged so this is not for the individual card, but for the whole system. All system components are heavily controlled, with voltages, even small voltage rails, also all controlled to ensure data accuracy. RX 590 stock GPU total system consumption consumes an average of 320W, with the MSI RX 580 Gaming X system averaging 20-30W on average. GTX 1060 6 GB total system power is average 240W when 1060 is overclocked to + 100MHz core offset, as shown in previous charts.
Thermals – XFX RX 590 Fatboy Review
For thermocouples, we first tested the memory card VBIOS configuration, which is with the switch facing the PCIe connectors. The XFX says this is the faster VBIOS fan speed, but it was clearly inaccurate: the GPU core hits around 79-80 degrees Celsius at steady state, which is the temperature target for this VBIOS. This is the storage setting. Under these settings, the VRAM climbs to a high 91.8 degrees Celsius. This approaches the threshold value of GDDR5, and when it comes to measurement errors and the fact that we look at tCase and not Junction, it may even be at the limit. It is close enough to be disturbing. The MOSFET we have measured is 85 degrees. This is hot and non-competitive, but is technically well within the operating temperature specifications of the MOSFETs. Most FETs can take 125 to 150 degrees, so we're not in danger, here it's just not competitive with other coolers, and is indicative of inefficient design and use of an otherwise large cooler.
Fan speed for these VBIOS hits around 1500RPM to maintain 80 degrees on the GPU, but the problem is that the neighboring components are running heat.
With the left VBIOS switch engaged, not the bearing position, the GPU core drives 69-70 degrees Celsius, with VRAM now at 81 degrees – definitely more acceptable – and the MOSFET at 74 degrees. Given the fan speed is now 2000RPM, this is still competitive, but is more acceptable than stock measurements. You will switch to this mode for normal use, especially if you are in a warmer case that can push the environment higher than the 22C +/- 1 environment we tested.
There is a lot of choice in the market for GPUs right now, so it's not as simple as "buy X with $ Y and buy Z with $ A." We will try our best.
Let's start with the XFX part in this review: The cooler is not & # 39; Not good for size or price. The XFX goes hot in stock VBIOS and is generally unknown in noise to thermals when considering other cards. VRAM is almost not special with standard VBIOS, so we recommend that you manually set a fan speed curve if this card is to be used. The construction, which we showed in our demolition of the card, is generally poor.
It was the simple part. AMD's component, the actual GPU, is more difficult to weigh. We'll say it's unexciting – it's a re-refresh. It's a pre-overclocked RX 580, which is a pre-overclocked RX 480. Being unexciting doesn't make a card a bad buy, though, and the RX 590 makes a lot of sense to the $ 260 to $ 270 prize point. 1060 6GB in many scenarios, although the GTX 1060 takes the lead in GTA V. The future performance is highly competitive on the RX 590, which AMD's driver team has been working hard for some years now. The future consequence is neck and neck with NVIDIA, and on a given framerate the plots see the same. The GTX 1060 6GB has come down to $ 210 in many cases, in which case it's a compelling purchase, but it's (1) not always as low and often $ 240 and (2) a slightly different price / performance class.  We recommend the following: For a larger budget, the GTX 1070 or 1070 makes ten sense, but a rumor RTX 2060 may be worth waiting for. For a bigger budget and a personal interest in enthusiast overclocking – which means you are more buying the card to think about than just the game – we will still give our recommendation to Vega 56 as the most fun to overclock. The RX 590 will not even compete in this category, as peak height is functionally maxed. To just play out of the box, that's fine. It's not exciting and overclocking an RX 580 is equivalent to an RX 590, so we'll probably recommend that route if it's cheaper.
It's hard to simply recommend it. The RX 590 is good, it's just not particularly interesting. We can recommend it with confidence at around $ 260 when it is strictly about game development outside the boxes. We do not recommend the XFX Fatboy model, but there are other options.
Editorial, Testing: Steve Burke
Video: Josh Svoboda, Andrew Coleman