Radeon RX 580  vs GeForce GTX 1080 

Yeah, now the RX is about the same price as 1080, add a bit ontop and just get a 1080 TI which is around 50% better than the RX 580 for gaming.

That was when they came out, now the RX 580 is about the same price as the 1080 so it makes more sense to get one of these or even the TI version which is slightly more expensive.

The main reasons for the top end prices is yield and new tech manufacturing costs. Yield= go for a 36-core Xeon but if there's a bad core in it toss it in a lower bin and sell it as a cheaper part. Obviously you need to profit from that, not only to keep investors off your back but to reinvest for the next manufacturing node, which, with silicon at least, is reaching the end of the road (5nm will be it if not 7nm). Every new node requires a new factory and the price of that doubles every time ($3B for 14nm). That's part of the reason why they had to add an extra tock to their tick cycle, 10nm was harder that they thought it would be in addition to cost (they fried a $50M UV laser litho machine in the attempt, 10nm plants will prob be $5-7B to build and equip). Going from silicon to exotic substrates like gallium arsenide won't help much, .999999 pure crystals of that stuff is 5000x the cost of silicon (why solar panels are seldom made from it even though they are 2x as efficient). Graphene probably even more and that's 10-20 years away from prime time (the bigger the sheet, the harder it is to make without defects, why they are all microscopic in size, never mind the 12" size of a current wafer). In short I don't see Intel stockholders getting rich at the expense of everyone else. In fact compared to their peak since 7-1-2000 shares have lost half their value even ignoring inflation. So I don't buy the common thinking that they are charging a high price just because they can. If that were true even the cheapest cpus would cost $2k to keep the stock price ahead of inflation and AMD would probably only slightly undercut that.

You got it backwards, it's not that AMD doesn't have quality and that's why they sell cheap, rather it's Intel and Nvidia that are WAY over priced and are ripping us off. Intel is at the top sure but their tech is not that revolutionary, they haven't innovated in years because they got fat and lazy and they think they can charge 1000$+ for a CPU because they can. Now that AMD is releasing new tech, now Intel is clenching it's butt cheeks and trying to release something new. Do you want to support companies like these?

recently few RXes 580 for 2000,- in my country while 1080 are available in every shop even for 2200,- all because fuc*&^ miners ; p

That's just it, AMD hasn't been better than Intel since 2005 with their top end FX cpu, and that was $1000 at the time (my last AMD build). It's doubtful they'd sell a part for 1/4 the price if performance is comparable, that would just be a stupid business decision. At best It might be undercut by 1%, if they decided to go toe-to-toe in a price war and both parts had equal performance.

Like the saying goes, a fool and their money are soon parted I pay for performance not for brand names, if an AMD part has 70% of the performance of an Intel/Nvidia part but at 1/4th the price, I will get the AMD part. Like everyone with a fully functioning brain should do

It can hold its own at stock. But seeing as most people dropping 500 for a cpu will be overclocking it is held back by its AWFUL overclocking ability to the point where you are better off with an intel Hexacore in most environments.

gtx 1080 he win why rx 580

Ryzen only has 24 pcie lanes (vs 2011 at 40), which could be a dealbreaker depending on what else you want to stick on the mobo. Like I said, you get what you pay for.

Except that AMD's best $500 8-core Ryzen can hold its own vs Intel's $1600 10-core i7 and makes mincemeat of the rest. But hey, if you like paying more just for the sake of paying more... Isn't it painful to live with a stick lodged up your ass, though?

You get what you pay for. Like everything else AMD, it's a budget component meant for poor people (ie starving artists and students). Last AMD cpu I owned was when they were actually better than Intel's best offering (a $1000 fx-5950 back in 2005).This review is like comparing AMD's best $500 8-core Ryzen vs Intel's $1600 10-core i7. Amd is best bang for buck for sure if you don't need nukes but can make do with cap guns. Obviously if cpu's and vid cards could be paralleled to infinity with the power bill the only limit AMD would be the way to go. Sadly that's not the case, I've never seen a mobo with more than 4 sockets and 8 pci-e 8x card slots and at a ridiculous price tag for that since all those are server-grade/priced, which kills the cheaper cpu price advantage. And don't compare cheaper dual cards vs single bigger ones.. SLi/eyefinity doesn't come without cpu overhead and 2 in sli is not 2x faster than a single card. It's more like 1.8x, assuming ideal conditions with no bottlenecks. Returns diminish fast with triple and quad card setups (2.6 and 3.3x or so, depending on the game and drivers).

for the price...definitely. but don't ever compare 2 lower gpus with 1 higher gpu

MOney should be an obvious factor when considering these cards. Im an Nvidia fan, but if the 1080 is more than twice the price of the amd 580 then the AMD is obviously better. Two 580s would be cheaper then a 1080 and better