AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 590: What is the difference?
65points
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
57points
AMD Radeon RX 590
Comparison winner
vs
54 facts in comparison
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
AMD Radeon RX 590
Why is AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT better than AMD Radeon RX 590?
- 50.26 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
99.8 GPixel/svs49.54 GPixel/s - 25W lower TDP?
150Wvs175W - 4000MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
12000MHzvs8000MHz - 32GB/s more memory bandwidth?
288GB/svs256GB/s - 4600million more transistors?
10300 millionvs5700 million - 13°C lower load GPU temperature?
68°Cvs81°C - 5nm smaller semiconductor size?
7nmvs12nm - 1 higher version of GDDR memory?
6vs5
Why is AMD Radeon RX 590 better than AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT?
- 339MHz faster GPU clock speed?
1469MHzvs1130MHz - 500MHz faster memory clock speed?
2000MHzvs1500MHz - 33. 33% more VRAM?
8GBvs6GB - 64bit wider memory bus width?
256bitvs192bit - 26mm narrower?
241mmvs267mm
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
AMD Radeon RX 580
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2060 OC
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
AMD Radeon RX 580
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
MSI Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
PowerColor Radeon RX 6500 XT ITX
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Asus Phoenix Radeon RX 6400
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
0 User reviews
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
0. 0/10
0 User reviews
AMD Radeon RX 590
1 User reviews
AMD Radeon RX 590
10.0/10
1 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
10.0/10
1 votes
Gaming
No reviews yet
10.0/10
1 votes
Performance
No reviews yet
10.0/10
1 votes
Fan noise
No reviews yet
10.0/10
1 votes
Reliability
No reviews yet
10.0/10
1 votes
Performance
1.GPU clock speed
1130MHz
1469MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.GPU turbo
1560MHz
1545MHz
When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
3.pixel rate
99. 8 GPixel/s
49.54 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
4.floating-point performance
7.19 TFLOPS
7.12 TFLOPS
Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.
5.texture rate
224.64 GTexels/s
222.48 GTexels/s
The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
1500MHz
2000MHz
The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.
7.shading units
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.
8.texture mapping units (TMUs)
TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.
9.render output units (ROPs)
The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.
Memory
1.effective memory speed
12000MHz
8000MHz
The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
288GB/s
256GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4.memory bus width
192bit
256bit
A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.
5.version of GDDR memory
Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.
6.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
Features
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
2.OpenGL version
OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
3.OpenCL version
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
4.Supports multi-display technology
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.
5.load GPU temperature
A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.
7.Supports 3D
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).
8. supports DLSS
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.
9.PassMark (G3D) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX 590)
This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.
Ports
1.has an HDMI output
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.
2.HDMI ports
More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.
3.HDMI version
HDMI 2.0
HDMI 2.0
Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4.DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.
6.mini DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best graphics cards?
Radeon RX 5600 XT vs Radeon RX 590
- Home
- VGA Benchmarks
- Radeon RX 5600 XT vs Radeon RX 590
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
136%
-
Radeon RX 590
100%
Relative performance
Reasons to consider Radeon RX 5600 XT |
36% higher gaming performance. |
Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
Supports FreeSync |
Supports ReLive (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
Reasons to consider Radeon RX 590 |
Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
Supports FreeSync |
Supports ReLive (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
Supports TrueAudio |
Based on an outdated architecture (AMD GCN), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
HWBench recommends Radeon RX 5600 XT
The Radeon RX 5600 XT is the better performing card based on the game benchmark suite used (54 combinations of games and resolutions).
Core Configuration
Radeon RX 5600 XT | Radeon RX 590 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
GPU Name | Navi 12 (Navi 12 XT) | vs | Polaris 30 (Polaris 30 XTX) | |
Fab Process | 7 nm | vs | 12 nm | |
Die Size | 0 mm² | vs | 244 mm² | |
Transistors | unknown | vs | 5,700 million | |
Shaders | 2048 | vs | 2304 | |
Compute Units | 32 | vs | 36 | |
Core clock | 1605 MHz | vs | 1257 MHz | |
ROPs | 64 | vs | 32 | |
TMUs | 128 | vs | 144 |
Memory Configuration
Radeon RX 5600 XT | Radeon RX 590 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Type | GDDR6 | vs | GDDR5 | |
Bus Width | 192 bit | vs | 256 bit | |
Memory Speed | 1500 MHz 12000 MHz effective |
vs | 2000 MHz 8000 MHz effective |
|
Memory Size | 6144 Mb | vs | 8192 Mb |
Additional details
Radeon RX 5600 XT | Radeon RX 590 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
TDP | 180 watts | vs | 0 watts | |
Release Date | UNRELEASED | vs | UNRELEASED |
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
121. 90 GP/s
-
Radeon RX 590
49.44 GP/s
GigaPixels — higher is better
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
243.80 GT/s
-
Radeon RX 590
222.50 GT/s
GigaTexels — higher is better
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
288.00 GB/s
-
Radeon RX 590
256.00 GB/s
GB/s — higher is better
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
7803.00 GFLOPs
-
Radeon RX 590
7119.00 GFLOPs
GFLOPs — higher is better
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
64
-
Radeon RX 590
46
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
105
-
Radeon RX 590
80
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
66
-
Radeon RX 590
46
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
130
-
Radeon RX 590
93
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
127
-
Radeon RX 590
96
FPS (higher is better)
Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
49
-
Radeon RX 590
31
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
116
-
Radeon RX 590
84
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
76
-
Radeon RX 590
58
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
105
-
Radeon RX 590
80
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
88
-
Radeon RX 590
77
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
147
-
Radeon RX 590
93
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
60
-
Radeon RX 590
42
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
38
-
Radeon RX 590
28
FPS (higher is better)
UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
51
-
Radeon RX 590
39
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
110
-
Radeon RX 590
90
FPS (higher is better)
Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
89
-
Radeon RX 590
63
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
120
-
Radeon RX 590
90
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
55
-
Radeon RX 590
36
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
49
-
Radeon RX 590
34
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
80
-
Radeon RX 590
59
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
48
-
Radeon RX 590
34
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
98
-
Radeon RX 590
66
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
102
-
Radeon RX 590
72
FPS (higher is better)
Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
31
-
Radeon RX 590
22
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
84
-
Radeon RX 590
60
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
61
-
Radeon RX 590
41
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
81
-
Radeon RX 590
58
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
61
-
Radeon RX 590
56
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
101
-
Radeon RX 590
62
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
47
-
Radeon RX 590
33
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
27
-
Radeon RX 590
21
FPS (higher is better)
UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
41
-
Radeon RX 590
32
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
72
-
Radeon RX 590
53
FPS (higher is better)
Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
59
-
Radeon RX 590
43
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
86
-
Radeon RX 590
64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
38
-
Radeon RX 590
28
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
19
-
Radeon RX 590
19
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
44
-
Radeon RX 590
33
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
26
-
Radeon RX 590
19
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
54
-
Radeon RX 590
39
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
55
-
Radeon RX 590
44
FPS (higher is better)
Windows 10 x64, Ultra quality, DirectX12
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
14
-
Radeon RX 590
11
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
45
-
Radeon RX 590
30
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
31
-
Radeon RX 590
19
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
43
-
Radeon RX 590
31
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
33
-
Radeon RX 590
30
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
54
-
Radeon RX 590
34
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
29
-
Radeon RX 590
21
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
11
-
Radeon RX 590
11
FPS (higher is better)
UltraTX Max Quality, Vulkan, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
29
-
Radeon RX 590
21
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
35
-
Radeon RX 590
30
FPS (higher is better)
Highest Details, Pure hair, HBAO+, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
29
-
Radeon RX 590
21
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
50
-
Radeon RX 590
38
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
-
Radeon RX 5600 XT
22
-
Radeon RX 590
16
FPS (higher is better)
VS | ||
Radeon RX 5600 XT | Radeon RX 6600 |
VS | ||
Radeon RX 5600 XT | Radeon RX 6600 XT |
VS | ||
Radeon RX 590 | Radeon RX 5500 |
VS | ||
Radeon RX 590 | GeForce GTX 1660 |
VS | ||
Radeon RX 6650 XT | GeForce RTX 2060 Super |
VS | ||
GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Radeon RX 5700 |
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
AMD Radeon RX 590 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
|
|
|
AMD Radeon RX 590 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the graphics cards, with AMD Radeon RX 590 on one side and AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, it has 2304 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,5 GHz, its lithography is 12 nm. The second is used on the desktop segment, it includes 2304 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,6 GHz, its lithography is 7 nm. The following table also compares the boost clock, the number of shading units (if indicated), of execution units, the amount of cache memory, the maximum memory capacity, the memory bus width, the release date, the number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in various benchmarks.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
Graphics card | AMD Radeon RX 590 | AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT | ||||||
Market (main) | Desktop | Desktop | ||||||
Release date | Q4 2018 | Q1 2020 | ||||||
Model number | 215-0922006, Polaris 30 XT | 215-0917338, Navi 10 XLE | ||||||
GPU name | Polaris 30 | Navi 10 | ||||||
Architecture | GCN 4. 0 | RDNA 1.0 | ||||||
Generation | Polaris RX 500 | Navi RX 5000 | ||||||
Lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm | ||||||
Transistors | 5.700.000.000 | 10.300.000.000 | ||||||
Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | ||||||
GPU base clock | 1,47 GHz | 1,13 GHz | ||||||
GPU boost clock | 1,55 GHz | 1,56 GHz | ||||||
Memory frequency | 2.000 MHz | 1.500 MHz | ||||||
Effective memory speed | 8 GB/s | 12 GB/s | ||||||
Memory size | 8 GB | 6 GB | ||||||
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | ||||||
Memory bus | 256 Bit | 192 Bit | ||||||
Memory bandwidth | 256,0 GB/s | 288,0 GB/s | ||||||
TDP | 175 W | 150 W | ||||||
Suggested PSU | 450W ATX Power Supply | 450W ATX Power Supply | ||||||
Multicard technology | — | — | ||||||
Outputs |
1x HDMI |
1x HDMI |
||||||
Cores (compute units, SM, SMX) | 36 | 36 | ||||||
Shading units | 2. 304 | 2.304 | ||||||
TMUs | 144 | 144 | ||||||
ROPs | 32 | 64 | ||||||
Cache memory | 2 MB | 3 MB | ||||||
Pixel fillrate | 49,4 GP/s | 99,8 GP/s | ||||||
Texture fillrate | 222,5 GT/s | 224,6 GT/s | ||||||
Performance FP16 (half) | 7,1 TFLOPS | 14,4 TFLOPS | ||||||
Performance FP32 (float) | 7,1 TFLOPS | 7,2 TFLOPS | ||||||
Performance FP64 (double) | 445 GFLOPS | 449,3 GFLOPS | ||||||
Amazon | ||||||||
eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two graphics cards.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
FP32 Performance in GFLOPS | |
---|---|
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT |
7.188 |
AMD Radeon RX 590 |
7.119 |
The difference is 1%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these graphics cards, you may get different results.
Single precision floating point format, also known as FP32, is a computer number format that typically occupies 32 bits in PC memory. This represents a wide dynamic range of numeric values that employs a floating point.
See also:
AMD Radeon RX 590 GME
Equivalence:
AMD Radeon RX 590 Nvidia equivalentAMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Nvidia equivalent
Disclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer’s website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.
RX 590 vs RX 5600 XT ⚙️
Argon2d-dyn116.544KH/s—W—KH/W
Argon2d-ninja0KH/s113W0KH/W
Astralhash19.14MH/s125W0.153MH/W
Autolykos271.101MH/s73W0.974MH/W
BCD12.786MH/s113W0.113MH/W
BeamHashII26.6H/s92W0.289H/W
BeamHashIII19H/s125W0. 152H/W
Blake (2b)1.504GH/s90W0.017GH/W
Blake (2s)3.997GH/s136W0.029GH/W
Blake (2s-Kadena)0.729GH/s—W—GH/W
C1116.268MH/s149W0.109MH/W
CNReverseWaltz1177.44H/s86W13.691H/W
Chukwa63.378KH/s129W0.491KH/W
Chukwa222.824KH/s121W0.189KH/W
Circcash1095.777KH/s80W13.697KH/W
CryptoNightConceal1911H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightFast—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightFastV2—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightGPU1635H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightHaven—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightHeavy—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightHeavyX510. 94H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightLiteV72.246KH/s—W—KH/W
CryptoNightR1012.19H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightSaber—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightStelliteV4—H/s—W—H/W
CryptoNightTurtle8.795KH/s—W—KH/W
CryptoNightUPX2—KH/s—W—KH/W
CryptoNightV8—KH/s—W—KH/W
Cuckaroo29S1.25H/s81W0.015H/W
Cuckaroo29b1.23H/s84W0.015H/W
CuckooBFC—H/s—W—H/W
CuckooCycle1. 3H/s62W0.021H/W
Dedal11.87MH/s145W0.082MH/W
Eaglesong0.685GH/s116W0.006GH/W
Equihash(125,4)24.57H/s94W0.261H/W
Equihash(144,5)46.51H/s107W0.435H/W
Equihash(192,7)29.57H/s117W0.253H/W
Equihash(210,9)127.26H/s105W1.212H/W
Equihash(96,5)—H/s—W—H/W
Equihash+Scrypt—H/s—W—H/W
Etchash40.454MH/s101W0.401MH/W
Ethash40. 454MH/s101W0.401MH/W
Globalhash15.277MH/s112W0.136MH/W
HMQ17257.495MH/s125W0.06MH/W
Handshake0.205GH/s—W—GH/W
HeavyHash141.422MH/s160W0.884MH/W
Hex9.285MH/s109W0.085MH/W
HoneyComb24.463MH/s100W0.245MH/W
Jeonghash6.048MH/s115W0.053MH/W
KAWPOW20.15MH/s160W0.126MH/W
KangarooTwelve1.231GH/s138W0.009GH/W
Lyra2REv237. 694MH/s97W0.389MH/W
Lyra2REv362.417MH/s159W0.393MH/W
Lyra2vc0ban41.767MH/s124W0.337MH/W
Lyra2z—MH/s—W—MH/W
Octopus11.488MH/s66W0.174MH/W
PHI161218.277MH/s124W0.147MH/W
PHI2—MH/s—W—MH/W
Padihash9.702MH/s133W0.073MH/W
Pawelhash7.091MH/s107W0.066MH/W
Phi53.245H/s116W0.028H/W
ProgPow—H/s—W—H/W
ProgPowSERO14. 57MH/s160W0.091MH/W
ProgPowZ12.812MH/s137W0.094MH/W
RandomKEVA—MH/s—W—MH/W
RandomSFX—MH/s—W—MH/W
RandomX757.765H/s—W—H/W
SHA-256csm1308.71MH/s95W13.776MH/W
Skein2430.937MH/s99W4.353MH/W
Skunkhash34.984MH/s121W0.289MH/W
SonoA1.763MH/s144W0.012MH/W
Tellor0.185GH/s—W—GH/W
TimeTravel1030. 334MH/s143W0.212MH/W
Tribus60.354MH/s84W0.719MH/W
Ubqhash38.1MH/s116W0.328MH/W
Verthash0.512MH/s112W0.005MH/W
VerusHash0.35MH/s88W0.004MH/W
X11k2.324MH/s109W0.021MH/W
X16R11.288MH/s103W0.11MH/W
X16RT11.27MH/s98W0.115MH/W
X16RTVEIL11.29MH/s97W0.116MH/W
X16Rv29.846MH/s103W0.096MH/W
X16S11. 313MH/s141W0.08MH/W
X1711.18MH/s101W0.111MH/W
X17R10.681MH/s141W0.076MH/W
X188.168MH/s91W0.09MH/W
X21S7.032MH/s89W0.079MH/W
X22i2.611MH/s93W0.028MH/W
X25X1.22MH/s85W0.014MH/W
Xevan3.66MH/s98W0.037MH/W
Zhash48.2H/s154W0.313H/W
cuckARood293.26H/s74W0.044H/W
cuckARoom290.52H/s73W0. 007H/W
cuckAToo310.62H/s143W0.004H/W
cuckAToo320.22H/s104W0.002H/W
vProgPow6.157MH/s146W0.042MH/W
AMD RX 5600 XT Vs Nvidia GTX 1660 Super: Which is Better Option?
The Nvidia GTX 1660 Super and AMD RX 5600 XT are both decent gaming graphics cards, but which should you pick? In this article, we’ll check out a bunch of games at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p to help you see the performance difference between them.
RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
BUY NOW | BUY NOW |
PROS | PROS |
Great 1080p ‘ultra’ performance, entry-level 1440p. Beats out the RTX 2060 in most titles. Uses less power than RTX 2060 too. |
Good 1080p performance. Better value than 1660 Ti. Proven Turing architecture. |
CONS | CONS |
Competing RTX 2060 has been on the market for a year | Missing RTX features. Crowded price point. |
OVERVIEW
The 5600 XT comes in $279, and has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory as well. I want to warn you, if you want to buy this video card, there are a few issues. The first problem will be the shipment of this GPU with two different bios, so you just don’t know exactly what you’re going to get for sure. The other thing with the RX 5600 XT is the drivers are still a little buggy.
The GTX 1660 Super is much stronger than the older GTX 1660. Coming in with a $229 price. It is cheaper than RX 5600 XT, and also has GDDR5 memory of 6 GB. It can still reach 70 FPS at 1440p in terms of efficiency, and is very playable at 1440p for most games.
SPECS COMPARISON
OVERVIEW | RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
Card Status | Released | Released |
Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |
Release Date | January 21st, 2020 | October 29th, 2019 |
Launch Price | $279 USD | $229 USD |
GPU | RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
GPU Model | NAVI 10 XLE (NAVI 10) | TU116-300 (TU116) |
Cores : TMUs : ROPs | 2560: 160: 64 | 1408: 88: 48 |
MEMORY | RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
Memory Size | 8192 MB | 6144 MB |
Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 192-bit |
Memory Bandwidth | 448. 0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
PHYSICAL | RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
Interface | PCI-Express 4.0 x16 | PCI-Express 3.0 x16 |
Recommended PSU | 450 W | 450 W |
CLOCKS | RX 5600 XT | GTX 1660 Super |
Base Clock | 1130 MHz | 1530 MHz |
Boost Clock | 1375 MHz | 1785 MHz |
Memory Clock (Effective) | 12000 Mbps | 14000 Mbps |
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
Anthem
Anthem was tested with the built in benchmark using ultra quality preset. At 1080p the RX 5600 XT is scoring 12% higher average FPS compared to the GTX 1660 Super in this game. At 1440p the 5600 XT is now getting 12.1% higher average FPS, and then at 4K it’s performing 13% better.
Apex Legends
Apex Legends was tested using the built in benchmark with ultra quality. At 1080p the 5600 XT was getting 18% higher average FPS. With the resolution set to 1440p the 5600 XT was now getting 17%. Finally at 4K there was a similar improvement to averages, 11% with the 5600 XT.
Far Cry New Dawn
Far Cry New Dawn was also tested using the built in benchmark. At 1080p the RX 5600 XT was getting 12% higher average FPS, 10% higher average FPS at 1440p, and then 12.5% higher at 4K.
Metro Exodus
Metro Exodus was tested using the built in benchmark at ultra settings. I’ve found this game to favour AMD’s graphics. At 1080p there was a 12% improvement to average FPS, a 12.5% improvement at 1440p, and then a 16% improvement at 4K.
Resident Evil 2
Resident Evil 2 was tested with the replay feature using the exact same replay with ultra settings. At both 1080p and 1440p there was a 14% increase to average FPS with the RX 5600 XT, and this lowered to a 13% improvement at 4K.
World War Z
World War Z was tested with the built in benchmark using ultra quality preset. At 1080p the RX 5600 XT is scoring 35% higher average FPS compared to the GTX 1660 Super in this game. At 1440p the 5600 XT is now getting 40% higher average FPS, and then at 4K it’s performing 37% better.
CONCLUSION
The RX 5600 XT is definitely winner here. However, both are very capable of providing a good gaming experience at 1080p and 1440p. If you already have GTX 1660 Super then there is no need to upgrade to RX 5600 XT. And if you are buying new today then probably you should go for RX 5600 XT.
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Review: A Bad, Really Bad Graphics Card
How to start this review. I thought of going for a fun little gag mocking the 6500 XT before completely tearing into it, but this thing is so bad it’s really spoiled the mood for me. I’ll cut right to it. In my opinion, this is the worst GPU release since I can remember, and I’ve been doing this job for over two decades.
Maybe just maybe there was something worse along the way. Stuff like the DDR4 version of the GT 1030 could be considered worse, but that was because it was a horrible anti-consumer tactic by Nvidia. But as far as new product releases go, I can’t think of anything worse.
The Radeon RX 6500 XT is so bad I don’t even know where to begin, and I know I’m kind of doing this review in reverse, but damn it I’m just flawed by AMD here. The 6500 XT is a combination of bad decisions that all point to AMD just taking advantage of the current market and therefore abusing ingenuous gamers in the process.
Radeon RX 580 | Radeon RX 5500 XT | Radeon RX 6500 XT | Radeon RX 6600 | Radeon RX 6600 XT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Price (MSRP) | $200 / $230 | $170 / $200 | $200 | $330 | $380 |
Release Date | April 18, 2017 | Dec 12, 2019 | Jan 19, 2022 | Oct 13, 2021 | Aug 11, 2021 |
Core Configuration | 2304 / 144 / 32 | 1408 / 88 / 32 | 1024 / 64 / 32 | 1792 / 112 / 64 | 2048 / 128 / 64 |
Die Size | 232 mm2 | 158 mm2 | 107 mm2 | 237 mm2 | |
Core / Boost Clock | 1257 / 1340 MHz | 1717 / 1845 MHz | 2610 / 2815 MHz | 1626 / 2491 MHz | 1968 / 2589 MHz |
Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 | |||
Memory Data Rate | 8 Gbps | 14 Gbps | 18 Gbps | 14 Gbps | 16 Gbps |
Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 128-bit | 64-bit | 128-bit | |
Memory Bandwidth | 256 GB/s | 224 GB/s | 144 GB/s | 224 GB/s | 256 GB/s |
VRAM Capacity | 4GB / 8GB | 4GB | 8GB | ||
TBP | 185 watts | 130 watts | 107 watts | 132 watts | 160 watts |
The 107mm2 Navi 24 die that the 6500 XT is based on was originally intended for use in laptops. In normal circumstances it probably wouldn’t make its way to desktop cards, and if it did, it certainly wouldn’t be a $200 product. Think more like sub-$100 RX 550 replacement. But due to current market conditions, AMD has decided to cash in with a product that makes no sense on the desktop. Worse still, it’s in most ways worse than products that have occupied this price point for half a decade.
The shortcomings with the 6500 XT include:
- 1) It’s limited to PCI Express x4 bandwidth.
- 2) It only comes with 4GB of VRAM, there’s no 8GB model.
- 3) Hardware encoding isn’t supported, so you can’t use ReLive to capture gameplay, which is a deal breaker, and
- 4) Because it was intended for use in laptops, only two display outputs are supported. This for $200… which could transform to $300+ after the initial run on MSRP cards disappear.
AMD claims these sacrifices were made in order to get the die size as small as they have, which allowed them to hit the $200 price point. This I believe is a lie, and even if it isn’t, it’s hard to justify releasing a product that is worse than products you had out in the market 5 years ago.
At this point we should probably just show you how underwhelming the gaming performance is, which as we’ve said is just one of the many problems with this abomination. For testing, we’re using our Ryzen 9 5950X GPU test system. Yes, we know no one is going to pair a budget graphics card with this CPU, but that’s not the point, we’re testing GPU performance and therefore wish to avoid introducing a CPU bottleneck which would skew the data.
We’ve collected 100% fresh benchmark data for this review. We’ve spent the last few weeks updating our mid-range GPU results and much of the testing has been done using medium quality settings, or settings that make sense for a given title. Please note the 6500 XT has been tested using both PCIe 4.0 and PCIe 3.0 on the same motherboard, toggling between the two specifications in the BIOS.
We’ve tested at 1080p and 1440p though most of our focus will be on 1080p results. Let’s get into it…
Benchmarks
Starting with Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, using the medium quality preset we find that when using PCIe 4.0 that the 6500 XT is only able to match the 5500 XT — and the 4GB version of the 5500 XT at that — a disappointing result right off the bat. It was also about to roughly match the RX 590, which is basically an RX 580, which was an overclocked RX 480, a GPU released 5 years ago.
But it gets worse for the 6500 XT because when we switch to PCIe 3.0, which is what the vast majority of 6500 XT owners would use, the average frame rate dropped by 9%, and more critically the 1% lows dropped by 14%. That’s a huge performance reduction and you’ll find as we look at more games that the reduction in PCIe bandwidth often hurts 1% low performance the most.
It’s also worth noting that all Turing based GPUs use PCIe 3.0, so the GTX 1650 Super, for example, has been tested using the 3. 0 spec, meaning when installed in a 3.0 system it’s up to 16% faster than the 6500 XT in this game. Even if we go off the average frame rate, the 1650 Super was 7% faster and it was released for $160 back in November 2019.
The Shadow of the Tomb Raider results paint quite the picture. Unlike Assassin’s Creed Valhalla which was tested using the medium quality preset, Shadow of the Tomb Raider has been tested using the highest quality preset as this is quite an old game now.
For most models performance is about the same, for example, the GTX 1650 averaged 65 fps in our Assassin’s Creed Valhalla test and we’re looking at 67 fps on average in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there’s also a 2 fps difference for the 6500 XT when using PCIe 4.0.
Once again the issue for the 6500 XT is PCIe 3.0 and in this game it’s a huge impediment. The 1650 Super is a PCIe 3.0 card, but it has full x16 bandwidth which helps to reduce and even remove any performance bottlenecks. But with the 6500 XT limited to x4 bandwidth performance falls off a cliff in the PCIe 3. 0 mode, dropping by up to 50%, seen when looking at the 1% lows.
The average frame rate also fell by 28% and this saw the 6500 XT go from 65 fps to just 47 fps. It also meant although it was able to match the 5500 XT when using PCIe 4.0, when installed in a PCIe 3.0 system you’re looking more at base GTX 1650 performance, which is worse than the RX 570. And for those of you who were around when I reviewed the 1650, you’ll know how I felt about that product.
The Watch Dogs: Legion performance using the medium quality preset is rather underwhelming. We’re looking at GTX 1650 Super-like performance making it a smidgen faster than the 5500 XT and RX 590. This time PCIe 3.0 only drops performance by 8% or 13% for the 1% lows, and while that’s far less than what was seen in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, I’d still consider this disastrous for an already struggling product.
In the PCIe 3.0 mode, the 6500 XT was slower than the RX 590 and only a few frames faster than the 4GB 5500 XT. Another horrible result for the new GPU AMD is trying to convince you is worth $200.
Quick disclaimer, we test Rainbow Six Siege using Vulkan not DX11 and we’ve done so for a long time now as it’s typically the superior API. However, after noticing how abnormally terrible the 6500 XT was, we tried again with DX11 and found performance using PCIe 4.0 improved by 14% to 133 fps.
Interestingly, that’s still much lower than what you’re going to see from some other reviewers who will probably have the 6500 XT up around 170-180 fps. The reason for this is the HD texture pack which we’ve always tested with installed. This highlights the PCIe bandwidth / VRAM capacity issue of the 6500 XT.
The reason we use the HD texture pack is because Rainbow Six Siege is a relatively old game. It’s had some updates since it was released 7 years ago, but fundamentally it isn’t a cutting edge title. You can see that GPUs such as the RX 590 can push over 180 fps using max quality and the HD texture pack installed.
Even though other 4GB graphics cards are just fine, the 6500 XT isn’t. Here it’s gimped by PCIe bandwidth even in the PCIe 4.0 x4 mode. When compared to the GTX 1650 Super, which is a 4GB graphics card, but uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the 6500 XT was 27% slower. But even more incredible, and I certainly mean incredible in a very bad way, even more incredible is the fact that when using PCIe 3.0 the 6500 XT was 46% slower than the GTX 1650 Super and wait for it, 53% slower than the RX 590.
Hell it was even slower than the RX 570, what a disgraceful result for the new 6500 XT. And look, you can argue that using the ultra quality settings isn’t realistic for a 4GB graphics card, but again the 1650 Super made out just fine, as did the RX 570. The 6500 XT is just a bad product with too many weaknesses to count.
Next we have F1 2021 and boy does the 6500 XT stink in this one. I should note that we’re using the high quality preset and no form of ray tracing is enabled. Our previous PCIe bandwidth testing also revealed the F1 2021 isn’t particularly bandwidth sensitive, so I’m not sure why the 6500 XT performs so poorly.
We re-ran this test and got the same data each time. So either this is a driver issue, or just a weakness of the Navi 24 design, but as it stands the 6500 XT is well down on where you’d expect it to be, typically hovering around the same level of performance as the 5500 XT.
As bad as the PCIe 4.0 performance is, switching to PCIe 3.0 just made it worse, dropping performance by almost 30% to the same level as the GTX 1050 Ti, ouch.
The 6500 XT is able to just edge out the 5500 XT in Horizon Zero Dawn using the ‘favor quality’ preset, delivering 7% more performance than the 4GB 5500 XT, so not amazing but certainly one of the better results. It was also much faster than the RX 590, offering around 20% more performance in this example. Though there is a ‘but’ here, using PCIe 3.0 crippled the 6500 XT, dropping the average frame rate to 53 fps, meaning it was 36% faster using PCIe 4.0.
For those of you using a PCIe 3.0 system, which again will be most looking at buying a budget GPU, the new 6500 XT is going to be no faster than the old RX 570 in this game.
Moving on to Far Cry 6 with the medium quality settings we find that the 6500 XT is delivering 5500 XT-like performance, though when using PCIe 4.0 it is able to mimic the performance of the 8GB model, so I suppose that’s a decent result, it also matched the RX 590 and is therefore delivering 580-like performance here.
That said, when used in the PCIe 3.0 mode the average frame rate dropped by 17% and the 1% low by 23%, so now we’re much closer to RX 570 performance. Again the 6500 XT doesn’t look half bad in our PCIe 4.0 system, but switching to the 3.0 spec really hurts performance to the point where I imagine it’s getting hard to justify this product, even if it were near the $200 MSRP.
Doom Eternal is another interesting game to test with as this one tries to avoid exceeding the memory buffer by limiting the level of quality settings you can use. Here we’ve used the ultra quality preset for both models, but for the 4GB version I have to reduce texture quality from ultra to medium before the game would allow me to apply the preset.
So at 1080p with the ultra quality preset and ultra textures the game uses up to 5.6 GB of VRAM in our test scene. Dropping the texture pool size to ‘medium’ reduced that figure to 4.1 GB.
This means that despite tweaking the settings, the 6500 XT is still 27% slower than the RX 590. Granted, the game’s perfectly playable with 98 fps on average, but that level of performance or much better has been achievable on a budget for years now. But again, this is how the 6500 XT performs when using PCIe 4.0, switching to PCIe 3.0 cripples it, dropping the average frame rate by 53% down to 46 fps on average. An embarrassment for AMD and worse than the old RX 570.
Resident Evil Village uses very little VRAM at 1080p with the balanced preset, we’re talking about a peak of just 3.4 GB in our test, so this is a best case result for the 6500 XT in a modern game. That said, the overall performance is a joke, only matching the old RX 570 with 75 fps, making it 18% slower than the RX 590 and 17% slower than the 5500 XT.
Even worse is that the 6500 XT was 17% faster using PCIe 4.0 compared to 3.0, with the previous bus spec dropping the average frame rate to just 64 fps, less than what you’ll receive from the GTX 1650, a GPU I once thought to be an embarrassment in this segment. AMD’s somehow gone and managed to make Nvidia look good 2 years later.
Death Stranding uses little VRAM with the ‘default’ quality preset and isn’t particularly bus bandwidth sensitive. So this is our best result for the new 6500 XT so far and it’s not exactly breathtaking, yes the performance overall is very good for a single player game, but it’s also no faster than the RX 590 and GTX 1650 Super.
Hitman 3 is another good showing for the 6500 XT, at least relative to what we’ve shown so far. Again it’s only roughly on par with the RX 590 and just 5% faster than the underwhelming 5500 XT, but like I said compared to what we’ve seen so far this is actually very good.
When using PCI Express 3. 0 performance did drop by 9% and now the 6500 XT is slower than the 5500 XT and just 5% faster than the 1650 Super, another poor result.
Last up we have Cyberpunk 2077 and it’s more of the same. Best case using PCIe 4.0 the 6500 XT is almost on par with the 5500 XT and is therefore a little slower than the RX 590. Then switching to PCIe 3.0 dropped performance by 17% and now we’re looking at just 39 fps on average while the RX 590 is good for 50 fps.
Power Consumption
But hey, maybe power consumption has something special for us. After all, this is the first 6nm GPU and AMD bragged to us how small and power efficient they’ve managed to make the 6500 XT.
Unfortunately, while this is the only positive aspect of this product, it’s not exactly class leading as the GTX 1650 Super not only uses less power, but is also faster. Compared to the old RX 590, it’s impressive, saving 130 watts when gaming, so that’s pretty good, but I’ll be honest I’d take the 590 every day of the week.
12 Game Average
Here’s a look at the 12 game average data and here you can see the reason why I’d take the RX 590 every day of the week. We see when using PCIe 4.0 that the 6500 XT was still 9% slower than the RX 590 across the dozen games tested at 1080p. That comparison speaks volumes about the 6500 XT, but it’s the PCIe 3.0 result that cements it as the worst GPU we’ve reviewed in recent times.
Using PCIe 3.0, the 6500 XT was 29% slower than the RX 590 and 25% slower than the GTX 1650 Super. Or another way to put it, the RX 590 was 40% faster and the GTX 1650 Super 34% faster.
That’s the same margin you’ll find when going from the $480 6700 XT to the $1,000 6900 XT. Anything over $200 for this level of performance is absurd, even in today’s market and let me show you why…
Cost per Frame — MSRP
We’ve got a few «cost per frame» graphs today, but let’s start in Fantasyland, because it’s fun to pretend. We’re talking MSRP here, as if all GPUs from the past and present were still available today at their MSRP, this is how they’d stack up.
The GTX 1650 Super would be the value king, followed by the 4GB 5500 XT. The 6500 XT in PCIe 4.0 mode would be below average, offering similar value to the old RX 570 and worse than the terrible GTX 1650, so that’s less than ideal. Then when valued using the PCIe 3.0 performance, the 6500 XT ends up being the worst value GPU to be released in the mid-range to low-end segment in the last 5 years, so that’s great news.
Cost per Frame — eBay Pricing
What if we look at typical eBay sale prices and go with a more realistic $300 asking price for the 6500 XT? If the PCIe 4.0 performance was the same performance you’d seen when using PCIe 3.0, then in today’s market it wouldn’t be terrible, assuming you only want dual monitor support and don’t require hardware encoding. If you want either of those features, then you might as well get the 1650 Super, or perhaps better still, the much cheaper RX 570 which can regularly be had for $220.
That’s $80 off for a card that supports full PCIe x16 bandwidth, hardware encoding and triple monitor support, some cards even do more. As far as cost per frame goes, it’s not bad at $300 but it’s not good either, but it might be useful to someone. The key problem is the PCIe 3.0 performance that kills the value of the 6500 XT, making it by far the worst graphics card available today in the $300 — $700 price range.
Wishful Thinking
We started in pricing Fantasyland and then quickly jumped to the harsh reality for all GPUs, but what about wishful thinking for just the 6500 XT? What if the 6500 XT was available for $200 in good numbers, while everything was priced as it currently is.
This is about the only way the 6500 XT makes sense and even then if you’re not using PCIe 4.0, it’s not a given that you’d go for AMD’s laptop GPU on a PCIe card. The PCIe 4.0 performance makes it by far the best value option, assuming you don’t need a feature like hardware encoding.
But for PCIe 3.0 users, even at $200 it’s a tough sell as you’ll get a similar level of value from the 4GB 5500 XT, while receiving twice the PCIe bandwidth, hardware encoding and triple monitor support. Or for similar money you can just snag a second hand RX 570, and again it has none of the shortcomings the 6500 XT suffers from.
SAM (AMD Smart Access Memory)
As a side note to the main testing, it’s worth noting that AMD’s own benchmarks of the 6500 XT are based on PCIe 4.0 performance, but they also have SAM enabled, AMD’s name for Resizable BAR. So we’ve gone back and tested Assassin’s Creed Valhalla with SAM enabled as this game sees between a 15-20% performance gain with the high-end GPUs such as the RX 6800, 6800 XT and 6900 XT.
In the case of the 6500 XT, it looks like SAM is significantly less effective as we’re only seeing a 5% performance bump in the PCIe 4.0 mode, which is helpful, though sadly there’s no performance gain to be had when using PCIe 3.0, at least in this example. So SAM doesn’t help alleviate the PCIe 3.0 bottleneck.
Preset Scaling
Before wrapping up the testing, I decided to take a look at preset scaling with the 6500 XT using PCIe 4. 0 and 3.0. Starting with Rainbow Six Siege using the Vulkan API, we find that it’s only the ‘ultra’ quality preset which cripples the PCIe 3.0 configuration, which is to be expected in this game.
If you’re an esports-type gamer using competitive settings then the PCIe bandwidth weakness of the 6500 XT is likely going to be far less of an issue.
I’ve also run the same tests using DX11 and curiously when memory limited the 6500 XT does better, seen when looking at the ultra and very high quality data, while the high and medium data is similar to what we saw when testing with Vulkan.
Watch Dogs Legion is interesting because previously this game was tested using the medium quality preset where we found PCIe 4.0 to be 9% faster, but even if we use the lowest quality preset that margin doesn’t really change, and in fact it grew to 11%. That means there’s going to be at least a 10% advantage for PCIe 4.0 over 3.0 in this title with the 6500 XT.
It’s also worth noting that if you like to play single player more and target 40-60 fps, with a priority on visual quality rather than high fps, the 6500 XT isn’t going to be for you, at least if you’re limited to PCIe 3. 0. Here the very high quality preset ran 29% faster using PCIe 4.0 with 44 fps at 1080p, opposed to just 34 fps using PCIe 3.0.
F1 2021 didn’t play nearly as well on the 6500 XT when limited to PCIe 3.0. We saw 47% stronger performance with the ultra high preset when using PCIe 4.0 and those of you prioritizing visuals over frame rates won’t be best served by the 6500 XT. Then we see that with the high quality preset the PCIe 4.0 configuration was 41% faster, then 37% faster using medium and quite shockingly still 24% faster using low.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a game that ran terribly using PCIe 3.0 relative to what we saw with 4.0, though I was using the highest quality preset. This saw 4.0 deliver 38% greater performance and that margin was heavily reduced to 18% with the high preset, then 9% with medium and then 6% with low. Still, the issue is that the game looks and runs great using the highest and high quality presets with PCIe 4.0, so dropping so much performance when using PCIe 3. 0 simply isn’t acceptable.
Who Is It For?
You’ve waited a long time for AMD to release a budget RDNA2 GPU, and you’ve waited even longer to replace your RX 460, 470, 480, 560, 570 or 580 and this is what you’re now faced with: the 6500 XT with an asking price of $200, which will likely end up being $300+.
I could have gotten on board with the whole, it only has 4GB of VRAM, so miners won’t buy it argument. If only the rest of the GPU wasn’t so heavily cut down.
If only the rest of the GPU wasn’t so heavily cut down.
Avoiding the PCIe 3.0 performance hit or significantly reducing it will be relatively easy in most games, just opt to use low quality textures. But is that really the point? I know some people are going to make this argument, so we’ll head it off by saying why? Why would you compromise on the most important visual quality setting to head off an unnecessary performance hit when used in a PCIe 3.0 system?
With the 6500 XT you’re forced into doing just that, but with the GTX 1650 Super, for example, you don’t have to despite also featuring a small 4GB VRAM buffer. This is because it supports the full PCIe x16 bandwidth. As a result, it’s able to deliver perfectly playable performance in Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p using the highest quality preset, with 67 fps on average.
Some will claim this testing to be unrealistic or unreasonable, but it’s really not. Even the 6500 XT was good for 65 fps in our Shadow of the Tomb Raider test… using PCIe 4.0. You can’t drop nearly 30% of the original performance when moving to a PCIe specification that can’t saturate an RTX 3090 and then blame anything but the graphics card.
The fact is, you can’t compromise on both VRAM capacity and PCIe bandwidth. To a degree you can get away with handicapping one or the other, but doing both is disastrous for performance. It also creates a situation where the 6500 XT is overly sensitive to exceeding the VRAM buffer, even by a little bit, whereas products such as the GTX 1650 Super have a lot more leeway.
But as I mentioned in the intro of this review, the PCIe x4 bandwidth limitation is just one of the major issues with the 6500 XT. Another problem is that encoding isn’t supported, so AMD’s version of ShadowPlay known as ReLive can’t be used with the 6500 XT, but if you had an old RX 470, for example, it could. No matter if you’re spending $200 or $2,000 on a GPU, you want to get hardware encoding. And frankly, GPU hardware encoding is more critical on low-end systems that simply don’t have the CPU resources to spare.
You’re also limited to just two display outputs, which could be a deal breaker for some. But most importantly, this was not a limitation on much older products such as the RX 480, for example.
The RX 6500 XT also forgoes AV1 decode support, making it fairly ordinary for use in a modern home theater PC. AV1 content is already pretty widespread today, so retiring this graphics card into a HTPC in a few years’ time won’t be an option for most.
Let’s assume for a second you’re happy sacrificing the features just mentioned, and also assuming you can achieve the PCIe 4.0 performance shown here on a PCIe 3. 0 system by heavily reducing texture quality, and likely other quality settings, what is the Radeon RX 6500 XT worth?
In our opinion, it’s a hard pass at $300. You’d be far better off buying a used graphics card such as the GTX 1650 Super, RX 5500 XT or RX 570/580 4GB. Given the GTX 1650 Super is a PCIe 3.0 x16 product, it’s going to be a much safer bet for the vast majority of gamers. Frankly, it’d need to be no more than $200, but even in this market, I’d rather spend $100 more on the GTX 1650 Super to get the features I need. Odds are you’d probably be gaming on a PCIe 3.0 system, making the GTX 1650 Super the obvious choice.
I can’t help but feel AMD could have done so much better here, but it looks as though the Radeon brand is destined to flounder. That’s a real shame given how competitive they became at the high-end this generation, though even there they’ve failed to capitalize due to supply woes.
Shopping Shortcuts:
- Radeon RX 6600 XT on Amazon
- Radeon RX 6800 on Amazon
- GeForce GTX 1650 Super on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 3060 on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 3070 Ti on Amazon
- Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon
- Intel Core i5-12400 on Amazon
- Intel Core i5-12600K on Amazon
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 590
: What is the difference?
65 BALLLA
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
57 Ballla
AMD Radeon RX 590 9000 Is Radeon RX 5600 XT better than AMD Radeon RX 590?
- 50. 26 GPixel/s higher pixel speed?
99.8 GPixel/s vs 49.54 GPixel/s - 25W below TDP?
150W vs 175W - 4000MHz higher effective clock speed?
12000MHz vs 8000MHz - 32GB/s more memory bandwidth?
288GB/s vs 256GB/s - 4600million more transistors?
10300 million vs 5700 million - 13°C lower GPU temperature at boot?
68°C vs 81°C - Smaller 5nm semiconductors?
7nm vs 12nm - 1 later versions of GDDR memory?
6 vs 5
- GPU frequency 339MHz higher?
1469MHz vs 1130MHz - 500MHz faster memory speed?
2000MHz vs 1500MHz - 33.33% more VRAM?
8GB vs 6GB - 64bit wider memory bus?
256bit vs 192bit - 26mm narrower?
241mm vs 267mm
Which comparisons are the most popular?
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2060
AMD Radeon RX 590
VS
AMD Radeon RX 6500 AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
9000 VS 9000 NVIT 9000 NVIT 9000 NVI000 NVA0003
AMD Radeon RX 590
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2060
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
VS
AMD Radeon RX 580
VS 9000) Radeon RX 5600 XT
VS
GIGABYTE GEFORCE RTX 2060 OC
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 580
9000 SPER 9000 SPER 9000 NVIDIA 9000 NVIDI0003
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
MSI Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 3050 TI Laptop
AMD Radeon RX 5903
VS
NVIDIA GTX 1070
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT XTA VS0004 PowerColor Radeon RX 6500 XT ITX
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT
AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
ASUS Phoenix Radeon RX 6400
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1070
AMD Radeon RX 590
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1080 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
021
users reviews
General rating
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
0 Reviews of Users
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
0. 0 /10 9000
0 Reviews of users
AMD RADEON RADEON RADEN
AMD Radeon RX 590
10.0 /10
1 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
10.0 /10
1 Votes
Games
Reviews not yet
10.0 /10
1 VOTES 9000
1 Votes
Fan noise
Reviews not yet
10.0255 /10
1 Votes
Reliability
Reviews still not
10.0 /10
1 Votes
Productivity
1. TECTION FECTION GP
1130MHz
1469MHz
GPU (GPU) has a higher tact frequency.
2.turbo GPU
1560MHz
1545MHz
When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
3.pixel speed
99. 8 GPixel/s
49.54 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
4.flops
7.19 TFLOPS
7.12 TFLOPS
FLOPS is a measurement of GPU processing power.
5.texture size
224.64 GTexels/s
222.48 GTexels/s
Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
1500MHz
2000MHz
Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.
7.shading patterns
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.
8.textured units (TMUs)
TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.
9 ROPs
ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.
Memory
1.memory effective speed
12000MHz
8000MHz
The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the size and data transfer rate of the memory. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.
2.max memory bandwidth
288GB/s
256GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4. memory bus width
192bit
256bit
Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.
5. GDDR memory versions
Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.
6. Supports memory debug code
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
Functions
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.
2nd version of OpenGL
The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.
OpenCL version 3.
Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.
4. Supports multi-monitor technology
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
The video card has the ability to connect multiple displays. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.
5.GPU Temperature at Boot
Lower boot temperature means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.
7. Supports 3D
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX 590
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.
9. PassMark result (G3D)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX 590)
This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.
Ports
1.has HDMI output
✔AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX 590
Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to the connected display.
2.HDMI connectors
More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.
HDMI 3.Version
HDMI 2.0
HDMI 2.0
New HDMI versions support higher bandwidth for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4. DisplayPort outputs
Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows connection to a display using DVI.
Mini DisplayPort 6.outs
Allows connection to a display using Mini DisplayPort.
Price match
Cancel
Which graphic cards are better?
Radeon RX 590 vs Radeon RX 5600 XT
Radeon RX 590 vs Radeon RX 5600 XT — Th200
Contents
- Introduction
- Features
- Tests
- Games
- Key differences
- Conclusion
- Comments
Video card
Video card
Introduction
We compared two graphics cards: AMD Radeon RX 590 vs. AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT. On this page, you will learn about the key differences between them, as well as which one is the best in terms of features and performance.
The AMD Radeon RX 590 is a Polaris (RX 500) generation GCN 4.0 graphics card released Nov 15th, 2018. It comes with 8GB of GDDR5 memory running at 2000MHz, has a 1x 8-pin power connector and consumes up to 165 W.
The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is a Navi (RX 5000) generation RDNA 1.0 graphics card released Jan 21st, 2020. It comes with 6GB of GDDR6 memory running at 1500MHz, has a 1x 8-pin power connector, and consumes up to 165 watts.
Characteristics
Graphics Card
Name
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
Release date
NOV 15TH, 2020 9000
0003
7.119 TFLOPS (1: 1)
14.38 TFLOPS (2: 1)
FP32 (FLOAT) Performance
7.119 TFLOPS
7.188 TFLOPS
FP64 (DOUBLE) PERFORMANCE 9000 9000.
449. 3 GFLOPS (1:16)
CLOCK Speeds
Basic frequency
1469 MHZ
1130 MHZ
Maximum frequency
1545 MHZ
1560 MHZ 9000.1,0000003
Render Config
Shading Units
2304
2304
Texture Units
144
144
Raster Units
32
64
Compute Units
36
36
Graphics Features
DirectX
12 (12_0)
12 (12_1)
Opengl
4.6
4.6
OpenCL
2.1
2.1
VULKAN
1.2
1.2
Board Design
Heating
175W
150W
Power Conventors
1x 8-Pin
1x 8-Pin
Daal-Slot 9000 Dual-SLOT 9000 DUAL-SLOT Benchmarks
3DMark Graphics
3DMark is a test tool designed and developed by UL to measure the performance of computer hardware. Upon completion, the program gives a score, where a higher value indicates better performance.
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
+62%
Blender bmw27
Blender is the most popular program for creating 3D content. It has its own test, which is widely used to determine the rendering speed of processors and video cards. We chose the bmw27 scene. The result of the test is the time taken to render the given scene.
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
+84%
Th200 RP
Th200 RP is a test created by Th200. It measures the raw power of the components and gives a score, with a higher value indicating better performance.
AMD Radeon RX 590
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
+32%
Games
1920×1080, Ultra
Game | Radeon RX 590 | Radeon RX 5600 XT |
---|---|---|
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | ||
Battlefield 5 | ||
Battlefield V | ||
Cyberpunk 2077 | ||
DOOM Eternal | ||
Far Cry 5 | ||
Grand Theft Auto V | ||
Hitman 2 | ||
Hitman 3 | ||
Metro Exodus | ||
Monster Hunter World | ||
Red Dead Redemption 2 | ||
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | ||
The Witcher 3 | ||
Average | 67. 62 fps | 90.02 fps |
2560×1440, Ultra
Game | Radeon RX 590 | Radeon RX 5600XT |
---|---|---|
Anno 1800 | ||
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | ||
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla | ||
Battlefield 5 | ||
Battlefield V | ||
Cyberpunk 2077 | ||
DOOM Eternal | ||
Far Cry 5 | ||
Grand Theft Auto V | ||
Hitman 2 | ||
Hitman 3 | ||
Metro Exodus | ||
Monster Hunter World | ||
Red Dead Redemption 2 | ||
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | ||
The Witcher 3 | ||
Average | 49. 96 fps | 65.73 fps |
3840×2160, Ultra
Game | Radeon RX 590 | Radeon RX 5600XT |
---|---|---|
Anno 1800 | ||
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | ||
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla | ||
Battlefield 5 | ||
Battlefield V | ||
Cyberpunk 2077 | ||
DOOM Eternal | ||
Far Cry 5 | ||
Grand Theft Auto V | ||
Hitman 2 | ||
Hitman 3 | ||
Metro Exodus | ||
Monster Hunter World | ||
Red Dead Redemption 2 | ||
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | ||
The Witcher 3 | ||
Average | 27. 30 fps | 36.49 fps |
Key Differences
Why is AMD Radeon RX 590 better than AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT?
Has 2 GB more memory
Has a slightly larger memory bus
Why is AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT better than AMD Radeon RX 590?
Newer — Released 1 year later
Has 32% higher average FPS in games at 1080p — 90.02 FPS versus 67.62 FPS
Has 32% higher average FPS in games at 1440p — 65.73 49.96 FPS
Has 34% higher versus average FPS in games at 2160p — 36.49 FPS versus 27.30 FPS
Uses 15% less power — 150W vs 175W
More modern manufacturing process — 7nm vs 12nm
More advanced memory type — GDDR6 vs GDDR5
Has 13% higher bandwidth — 288.0 GB/s vs 256.0 GB/s
Has 102% higher pixel fill rate — 99.84 GPixel/s vs 49.44 GPixel/s
Has 1% faster texture fill rate — 224.6 GTexel/s vs 222.5 GTexel/s
Has more raster units +32
Conclusion
Which is better Radeon RX 5600 XT or Radeon RX 590?
The Radeon RX 5600 XT delivers 32% better performance, consumes up to 15% less energy and holds 2 GB less memory. Based on our research, Radeon RX 5600 XT 3990X is more powerful than Radeon RX 590.
Is Radeon RX 5600 XT good today?
Radeon RX 5600 XT has 6 GB memory and shows an average of 65.73 FPS in 10 games at 1440p, making it an excellent choice for games in 2022.
This graphics card will give you a good experience in every game on reasonable graphics settings.
What AMD graphics cards is equivalent to Radeon RX 5600 XT?
The Radeon R9 Nano is AMD’s closest competitor to the Radeon RX 5600 XT. It is 4% more powerful, uses 17% more energy, and holds 2 GB more memory.
What NVIDIA graphics cards is equivalent to Radeon RX 5600 XT?
The GeForce GTX TITAN X is NVIDIA’s closest competitor to the Radeon RX 5600 XT. It is 3% more powerful, uses 67% more energy, and holds 6 GB less memory.
How does Radeon RX 590 perform compared to Radeon RX 5600 XT and other graphics cards?
Relative performance
Total performance
Bench performance
Problems and Solutions for AMD Radeon RX 5000 Series Graphics Cards — i2HARD
Articles
Anem
April 1, 2020
In the summer of 2019, AMD released a new generation of video cards based on the Navi architecture. Either way, users who are looking for Radeon graphics cards or rely on price-performance ratio couldn’t get past the RX 5000 series.
In this article, we will look at the features and problems that owners of RX 5000 video cards may encounter and how to solve them.
General advice for all new owners of this series
- Use the latest version of Windows 10 1903/1909.
- Connect video card power with separate cables to avoid possible problems with the power supply or video card.
- Use recommended power supplies:
- RX 5500 XT — 450W;
- RX 5600 XT — 550 W;
- RX 5700 — 600W;
- RX 5700 XT — 600 W.
When installing the card for the first time, you must:
- Install a clean OS (if you do not want to follow this recommendation, you must use the Display Driver Uninstaller
and remove all old video card drivers through OS safe mode). - Install chipset drivers (this recommendation applies more to AMD processors).
- Install the necessary drivers.
- Install the recommended drivers for the video card — on the AMD website in the download section next to this driver it says Recommended (WHQL).
- Follow the video card manufacturer’s recommendations in the instruction manual, if any.
Also, these recommendations apply to NVIDIA video cards.
Hardware features and problems
Before starting with the main hardware features and problems, let’s focus on problems after which you will need to use only one solution, namely the return of the video card to the store (subject to all general recommendations: constant black screens, crashes, blue screens, reboots, artifacts on the screen).
Monitor flickering/artifacts or computer shutdown
If you encounter artifacts or reboots, then do not rush to exchange the video card. The problem could be with the HDMI or DisplayPort cable. This problem occurs not only with owners of Radeon cards, but also with Nvidia. I have experienced intermittent monitor flickering when using an Nvidia card, and after switching to a Radeon card, I experienced exactly the same flickering.
For example, when using HDMI, there are screen flashes or artifacts in the form of incomprehensible dots or squares on the monitor screen. DisplayPort can have problems with pin 20, which can cause a reboot, there are two recommendations for this cable: use only proven and high-quality cables, or glue (bite off / break) pin 20 on the cable.
High temperatures GPU , Hot Spot and video memory (5700 XT , 5700, 5600 XT with updated BIOS ) 9000)
The previous series of Vega video cards was manufactured using a 14 nm process technology with a chip size of 486 mm 2 . In turn, a series of Navi video cards based on the 7 nm process technology with a size of 251 mm 2 , which is 51. 65 percent of the size of the Vega chip. As we can see, there was a reduction in the chip, while the number of transistors decreased by only 17.6 percent. Accordingly, the heating per unit area increased, as a result of which the heat removal using cooling systems worsened. It also now uses GDDR6 memory, which itself has a higher operating temperature. All in all, it gave us a natural increase in temperatures and the need for better cooling for new generation video cards.
Below is an example of graphics card temperature with voltage drop to 910mV on MSI Radeon RX 5700 Evoke GP OC graphics card:
The right bar indicates the maximum temperatures at 100% load.
With a base voltage of 970 mV at 100% load, the memory (GPU Memory Junction Temperature) heats up to 90 degrees, with a maximum allowable 95 and GPU Hot Spot Temperature up to 95 degrees, with critical 110.
I would also like to make a small clarification: Radeon video cards have many different sensors installed, including temperature sensors. Yes, NVIDIA does not give as much data on temperatures, and often indicates only the temperature of the GPU. But you and I, as people who take care of the purchased equipment, try to keep the temperatures lower and not go beyond the established limits. For example, if you want to look at the temperature of the memory using pyrometers or overhead thermocouples when overclocking an Nvidia video card, then you will realize that high temperatures are characteristic of most «average» and «above-average» performance video cards.
The first and most important decision is to buy video cards that have a fairly serious cooling system.
These include:
- Sapphire Radeon Nitro+ OC;
- Sapphire Radeon Nitro+ SE;
- MSI Gaming X;
- PowerColor Red Devil;
- ASrock Taichi.
These versions feature two-section additions, often 3 coolers, and some of them have separate heatsinks for the memory chips, such as the Sapphire Radeon Nitro+ OC.
In other versions of video cards, CO is used more modestly, and often manufacturers try to save on some little things, such as thermal pads:
The MSI Radeon RX 5700 Evoke GP OC has thermal pads that cover only a fraction of the area of the memory chips.
And the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5700 uses separate heatsinks for the memory chips, but the factory decided to use direct contact without the use of thermal paste or thermal pads, which affected the final temperatures for the worse.
Of course, in simpler versions, a single-section radiator is used, which is involved in cooling both the GPU and memory chips, and power circuits. In addition, these versions are much cheaper than those listed above.
As you can see in the example of the MSI Radeon RX 5700 Evoke GP, everything is on the same site and thus participates in the heating of each of the components of the video card.
Therefore, we will describe what measures can be taken if you have purchased or have this type of video card to improve the situation.
- Open the video card and change or install the necessary thermal interfaces.
- Change the rotation curve of coolers, increasing the rotation speed, but worsening the acoustic comfort.
- Downvolting can be done.
- Enable VSync or frame rate limit in games.
- As a last resort, replace the cooling system.
- Or, if the video card is new, then return within 14 days to the store
RX 5600 X 9 BIOS update0120
AMD, like any self-respecting company, looks at the current market and current competitors in the fight for the end customer. This time there were no exceptions and AMD changed the specifications of the 5600 XT video cards, increasing their GPU and memory frequencies. Each manufacturer of this series of video cards acted in their own way. ASRock, Gigabyte, PowerColor, Sapphire posted new BIOS versions on their website. MSI offers to use proprietary utility MSI Dragon Center. Of course, buyers were delighted to see such news, but, unfortunately, not everyone’s video card continued to work stably after the update. So, for example, the Gigabyte RX 5600 XT GAMING OC 6G has several revisions of video cards, on the update page of which the following is written:
- F1, it can only be updated with VBIOS versions F2-F9
- F10, it can only be updated with VBIOS versions F11-F19.
- F20, it can only be updated with VBIOS versions F21-F29.
As a result, when buying this video card, you need to check the BIOS version in the GPU-Z utility and only then download the correct version for updating. Other manufacturers are no exception either. So, PowerColor writes specific serial numbers for their video cards that are suitable for updating the BIOS.
So what to do in this case? First of all, study the information on the manufacturer’s website, make a backup copy of the BIOS that came out of the box, if necessary, if you have any questions, contact technical support, and only then, if everything is correct, then update. If you do not feel like an enthusiast, then just do not update the BIOS.
Squeak / squeal / rustle of throttles
Unfortunately, too many mechanical, hardware, or software factors can contribute to inductor noise. And here are a few solutions that can help get rid of noise (but may not give the desired effect):
- Clean driver installation again using Display Driver Uninstaller.
- Disable RGB lighting on graphics card and motherboard.
- Disable nearby PCI devices.
Software features and problems
Before moving on to software features and problems with their solutions, I would like to draw attention to one important point: on the video card driver download page there is a special Release Notes section, which indicates what is added in new drivers, what problems are solved, as well as known issues that are expected to be fixed in future drivers.
For example, driver 20.3.1 says the following:
These problems, depending on the video card, may be absent or present in all. For example, point 5 cannot be completely eliminated, but it is possible to minimize the stutter (freeze) passage time, this will be discussed a little lower.
AMD Radeon Software does not save voltages, frequencies, fan speeds after reboot
This problem does not occur to everyone, but it is impossible to pass by it. As a rule, AMD Radeon Software conflicts with other similar programs, such as MSI Afterburner.
There are several solutions:
- Completely uninstall MSI Afterburner and use only AMD software.
- Or leave MSI Afterburner and use only it. At the same time, some users have a problem that MSI Afterburner does not change the fan speed curve until the “Zero RPM” checkbox is unchecked in AMD Radeon Software, or the GPU frequency does not change until the “Advanced Control” mode is enabled. Then uninstall AMD Radeon Software.
- If the solutions above don’t help and you want to use AMD Radeon Software, then you can take the drastic method and write your default settings to the graphics card. To do this, we need 3 programs: GPU-Z, MorePowerTool (MPT) and NaviOffset, which was written by one good person. According to him, MorePowerTool will be updated soon and the NaviOffset functionality will be built in by default.
- Open GPU-Z and save the BIOS (highlighted in red) in any folder:
- Open MPT, press Load and open saved BIOSes.
- A window appears with filled lines and editing options
- In the Overdrive Limits tab, set the maximum possible settable GFX Maximum Clock frequency, which will be set in AMD Radeon Software, for example, 1850.
- Open the NaviOffset program, select the saved file (Open *.mrt).
- We enter in the Stock voltage points column the stock values that can be taken from AMD Radeon Software, while the lower voltage value must be taken from the graph:
- In the columns Modded voltage points — the values you need.
- Press Mod *.mpt, save to a folder. Open MPT again, press the Load button, then Write SPPT and restart the PC.
- The result is:
Now these settings for your video card will become the default, regardless of whether you have any software installed or not.
Reset color depth settings at some custom resolutions or screen refresh rates.
Suppose we add a custom screen resolution and frequency through Radeon Software, everything is applied, but the color depth drops from 8 bpc to 6 bpc.
To fix this, download the Custom Resolution Utility Custom Resolution Utility, run the program:
Click Add… A window appears:
In it, we change the resolution and set the required screen frequency.
For example, put 1920×1080 and 75Hz; press «OK».
As a result, the required resolution and refresh rate appear in the last line:
Click OK on the program and restart your PC.
Next, in Windows 10, go to «Display Settings» — «Advanced display settings» — «Properties of the video adapter for display 1», click the «Monitor» tab and select 75 Hz from the «Screen refresh rate» list, then click «Apply, Save changes and OK». Now 8 bpc will be used everywhere at this resolution and screen refresh rate.
Idle video memory frequency is not reset
And this also happens. The solution is to use the Custom Resolution Utility.
Find the «Detailed resolutions» item, click «Add», select «Automatic — CRT standard» in the «Timing» drop-down list, enter your frequency in the «Frequency» field, then click OK. Raise the created resolution with the up arrow above the old one, click OK again and reboot.
You should get the following:
Poor performance or constant stutters (freezes) in DX9-DX11 games
This problem is more common in older or unoptimized or «poorly written» games.
In this case, there are several solutions:
- setting all settings to the maximum possible values and removing FPS restrictions. In this case, we get the use of the video card by 99-100%. If it doesn’t help, then move on.
- Follow the link and download the latest wrapper version for Vulcan. In the downloaded archive, select the desired file depending on what your DX9 game uses, 10 or 11:
We place the file in the folder with the game, where the .exe file itself is located. After that, start the game; if the statters (friezes) do not go away, then go to the next step.
- Disable ULPS. To do this, open a text document and enter the following lines into it:
@ECHO off
SET /p STR="Set EnableULPS to 1 or 0:"IF «%STR%» == «0» (
ECHO Disabling ULPS reg keys
REG ADD «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0000» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD /d 0 9002 «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0001» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD /d 0
REG ADD «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\ {4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0002» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD /d 0
)IF «%STR%» == «1» (
ECHO Enabling ULPS reg keys
REG ADD «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E30325-10CEBE2 }\0000» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD /d 1
REG ADD «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0001» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD / d 1
REG ADD «HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0002» /v EnableUlps /t REG_DWORD /d 1
)PAUSE
We save the file with the . bat extension, after that we run it as an administrator and restart the PC.
If this time the stutters (freezes) remain, then we recall the entry about known problems in the AMD driver and expect fixes.
«Jumping» frequencies of GPU and video memory
A fairly global problem, and it very often overlaps with the problem described above, so some of the solutions above are also true for solving this problem.
To begin with, let’s consider why the frequencies of the video card «jump». Modern video cards have several frequency modes that change depending on the load on the processor or video card. For example, we have some game that is not demanding on the video card (which are the majority of online MMORPG projects) — the video card will choose the frequency that corresponds to the current load. In addition, the processor and video card can choose power-saving modes if the load is low enough. I would like to say that there is no problem, as such, due to the fact that everything happens in the same way on Nvidia video cards; frequencies also change depending on the load, only slightly different algorithms are used, but there are some solutions for users of AMD processors (based on the analysis of problems, these users have the most problems).
If the use of the general recommendations that are described at the beginning of the article do not help, then we start using the AMD Ryzen Balanced or AMD Ryzen High Performance power profile, and also enable the use of the «Minimum processor state at 99%» (All settings — Advanced power settings — Scheme settings Power Options — Change Advanced Power Options — Processor Power Management — Minimum Processor State).
Conclusion
As we have seen from this material, AMD Radeon video cards have a lot of potential problems, but for the sake of fairness, it should be said that many of the listed ones can also be attributed to NVIDIA video cards, but most importantly, they have solutions.
Separately, it should be said that if you are faced with critical problems and not a single recommendation and solution helps you, then you most likely have a defective video card. Nowadays, this is not uncommon, so we strongly recommend that you return the video card to the place of purchase, if possible.
And finally, I would like to add that, first of all, this material is intended for users who have questions about their video cards, and is not a guide for choosing NVIDIA video cards. There are problems everywhere and there are a lot of them, just no one talks about it.
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT review : GameZ=
Pros
- Nearly as fast as RX 5700
- Power efficiency
- Great for 1080p
Cons
- Slightly overpriced
- Can struggle at 1440p
- No ray tracing support
Today the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT joins the battle for the best graphics card. It’s fierce competition, especially when it comes to mainstream GPUs that cost around $300 or less. AMD’s RX 5600 XT announcement at CES 2020 is a great example of this, and I can’t help but think that AMD has been hounding Nvidia again. AMD revealed initial specs and pricing, and Nvidia responded with an official/unofficial RTX 2060 price cut (more on that in a moment). Then AMD — or at least AMD’s add-on board partners — counterattacked by releasing an updated RX 5600 XT VBIOS that boosted clock speeds and performance. It’s all a bit of an eye for an eye.
This is the rundown, and between the announcement in early January and today’s launch, the market has already changed to accommodate the newcomer. For example, the competing Nvidia GTX 1660 Super and GTX 1660 Ti graphics cards should nominally cost $229 and $279, respectively. I checked at the time of the RX 5600 XT announcement and found out that the cards start at $250 and $300 — perhaps with one or two models closer to Nvidia’s recommended starting price. It’s now much easier to find GTX 1660 Super cards at 229dollars, and 1660 Ti cards start at $245 after discount (or $260 without any discount).
As for the main hardware, the RX 5600 XT plays straight. It’s the same GPU as the RX 5700 (like Navi 10) but with 6GB GDDR6 instead of 8GB. It has the same 2304 GPU cores, but with a potentially lower clock speed. However, there are no «reference» RX 5600 XT cards, which means most GPUs will be factory overclocked. I’ve included the specs for both the base model RX 5600 XT and the Sapphire RX 5600 XT Pulse I’m using for this review.
The Sapphire card has much higher clock speeds than the reference RX 5600 XT on both the GPU core and GDDR6. This is after a VBIOS update that was reported in several places last week that improved performance by about 10 percent and also increased power consumption. The official TDP of the reference model is 150W, while the «performance» BIOS Sapphire Pulse has a TDP of 180W. Alternatively, there is a «silent» VBIOS that drops the TDP to 130W at lower clock speeds. In practice, power consumption with a high-performance BIOS during gaming tests did not reach 180 watts, although it is possible that some workloads will increase it.
I already talked about the AMD Navi / RDNA architecture, and since this is the same Navi 10 GPU, only with two GDDR6 chips removed, there is not much to say. Navi is AMD’s first «true» 7nm GPU. The Radeon VII doesn’t count in my book as it was overpriced and despite having 16GB HBM2 it never performed as well as I would like. It was a short-lived technology showcase for AMD, and as soon as the RX 5700 cards came out, it disappeared. The problem is that AMD is still missing a direct response to Nvidia’s ray-tracing-enabled RTX-series hardware that will likely arrive later this year (Navi 20 or Navi 21) as a high-end offering to compete with the likes of the RTX 2080 Super. . . Until then, the RX 5600 XT is expected to fill the gap between the RX 5500 XT and RX 5700. Except…
Compared to the RX 5600 XT, the video card market is filled with different cards at different price points, some of which are very close to each other. The GTX 1660 Super and 1660 Ti, for example, offer very similar performance, with the Super basically costing $40 less. The 1660 Ti is overkill at the moment, especially with the RTX 2060 nominally available for just $299. The same logic can be applied to the RX 5600 XT. At $279, it performs pretty well and easily outshines the GTX 1660 Ti and Super cards. The competition with the RTX 2060 is much closer, but the real difficulty is that AMD’s own RX 5700 often sells for $29.$9 and starts at $310 at the time of writing. The Sapphire card I’m using for this review is $289, so the extra $20 for extra VRAM on the RX 5700 makes a lot of sense.
Ultimately, even before we hit the performance charts, it seems like the RX 5600 XT is overpriced compared to the RX 5700. I wouldn’t be surprised if the street prices for these cards are high, then eventually fall closer to $250. However, the main $200 to $300 price point is very overpriced — there are plenty of options, including previous generation GPUs that are still common (e.g. Vega 56, RX 590, etc.).
Radeon RX 5600 XT gaming performance
I diligently rechecked a bunch of graphics cards with the latest drivers, OS updates, and a slightly modified test bench. My previous test rig used an overclocked 5.0GHz Core i7-8700K, but I’m switching to an upgraded build with a Core i9-9900K (still overclocked to 5GHz) just in case. This won’t affect the performance of budget and mid-range cards, but the fastest GPUs may benefit from switching to i9.-9900K (or i9-9900KS if you can find it reasonably priced). The goal is to show the best possible performance of various graphics cards as possible while eliminating other bottlenecks.
Note. Not all GPU results in charts are up to date as I didn’t have time to fully retest all previous generation cards. All current Nvidia Turing GPUs (RTX and GTX 16 series) and AMD RX 5000 GPUs are up to date, and performance is typically 3-5 percent faster than older drivers on cards I’ve tested. RX 59 results0 and RX 570 are also up to date, while Vega, RX 580 and GTX 10 series cards use outdated results (but can be considered as a rough starting point).
Tested at «medium» and «ultra» settings at 1080p (which may have different names depending on the game — see chart subheadings for details), and at 1440p and 4K at «ultra» settings. I’ve also added Red Dead Redemption 2 to the set of games I’m testing, bringing them up to a dozen. Each game is tested multiple times to ensure consistent performance.
Medium 1080p is an easy hurdle for the RX 5600 XT with an average frame rate of around 137fps in 12 games tested. Only the two most demanding games, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and Metro Exodus, fall below 100fps. If you mainly watch esports games, the frame rate will be even higher.
At these settings, the RX 5600 XT is 17 percent faster than the 1660 Ti, 20 percent faster than the 1660 Super, and 6 percent slower than the RX 5700. It is also 8 percent faster than the Vega 64 and 4 percent faster than the GTX 1080. For a $280 graphics card, that’s a good number, though let’s see how it handles at higher settings.
The 5600 XT is priced at the top of the mid-range GPU market or the bottom of the high-end GPU market. So it’s important to it that it performs well at 1080p ultra, and it does. All 12 test games still hit 60fps, with an average of 92fps. Less demanding games won’t be a problem.
RX 5600 XT and RTX 2060 continue to trade blows — Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Borderlands 3, The Division 2, Far Cry 5, Forza Horizon 4, Metro Exodus and Strange Brigade favor the 5600 XT slightly, while Hitman 2, The Outer Worlds, Red Dead 2, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War: Warhammer 2 are coming to the RTX 2060 in slightly larger numbers. It’s basically a draw: the 2060 holds a tiny 2% overall lead. As for the GTX 1660 Ti and GTX 1660 Super, they aren’t closer and actually lag a little behind.
AMD does not sell the RX 5600 XT as a 1440p or 4K card, although it can handle some games at these settings. At 1440p, the ultra 5600 XT closes the gap with the RTX 2060, but each GPU still claims individual wins in various games. The lead from the GTX 1660 Ti and Super is also widening, while the lead from the RX 5700 is also starting to grow. If you have a 1440p display, playing at medium or high settings should run at 60 fps or more in some games.
4K continues to widen the gap between different GPUs, but none of the mainstream cards are actually designed for 4K gaming. If you don’t want the console framerate of 30-40fps, I guess upscaling for better performance I suppose. Dropping from ultra settings to high or even medium settings will also boost performance a bit. This is one of the things a lot of people overlook when they think modern consoles can support 4K but PCs can’t: decent PCs can absolutely handle 4K, especially at lower quality settings and upscaling.
I’m not just saying this hypothetically. If you love the idea of gaming on a 4K console, AMD has added a new feature to their latest 2020 driver releases called Radeon Boost. It will dynamically downscale supported games and then upscale it to the resolution you choose. It’s not a panacea, but it can certainly make games run smoother (at the cost of a bit of image quality) when turned on.
Sapphire TriXX software also supports its own resolution scaling approach. It’s called TriXX Boost and it lets you choose lower rendering resolutions and then scales them up to your desired screen resolution. You can also use Radeon Image Sharpening to improve the quality of the resulting image. Again, it’s not perfect, but rendering 15-30 percent fewer pixels at 1440p or 4K can do wonders for frame rates.
Overclocked Radeon RX 5600 XT
I haven’t fully explored the overclocking potential of the RX 5600 XT, but it seems to behave the same as other Navi GPUs. The VBIOS «performance» update did improve performance by about 10 percent over the original «reference» clock, but that also likely means less headroom for additional overclocking. Less, but with some tweaking, you can get a little extra performance out of the GPU.
If you’re looking to increase the fan curve to improve cooling, getting another 10 percent or so off the GPU’s clock speed shouldn’t be too hard with enough persistence. One of the big limitations when overclocking AMD GPUs is the default power tables, but these can be bypassed (or at least changed) by opening the door to clock speeds up to 2. 0 GHz or more. Just keep an eye on the temperature to ensure the GPU doesn’t overheat if you go down this route.
You can also use AMD’s own Radeon software to tweak GPU settings (now under the Performance tab). However, without additional tools, you will run into artificial performance limits. Igor’s lab offers MorePowerTool to overcome these limitations, although I wouldn’t recommend it for inexperienced overclockers. You have been warned.
Cost AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
The Radeon RX 5600 XT performs well and is definitely worth considering, but is it worth it? Calculating «value» is not an exact science. There are many factors to consider. What resolution and settings do you want to use? What GPU do you currently have, how much will it cost to upgrade, or are you building a new gaming PC from scratch? In the latter case, it is better to spend more on the GPU. On the other hand, if you want to upgrade, I always warn you that you should only upgrade if your current hardware isn’t enough for the games and settings you want to play. If so, well…
For a graphics card only, the RX 5600 XT represents a decent price — better than some cards, but not as good as others. It also depends on regional pricing, not to mention the sales you can find, but in terms of performance, the RX 5600 XT is a great option, usually ahead of the RX 5700 and RTX 2060.
For those building a full midrange gaming PC (about $650 not counting the graphics card), it’s worth considering spending a little more. The RX 5700 XT ends up topping all three regions for FPS per money spent on an entire PC, with the RX 5700, RTX 2070 Super, and RTX 2070 also topping the charts. And again, this is purely based on performance and price — features like ray tracing support are irrelevant.
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT: A Tight Squeeze at $280
AMD continues to fill gaps in its RX 5000 series graphics card lineup, with the RX 5600 XT very close to the RX 5700 in both price and performance. Good card, but is better than , is it an alternative? When studying competitors, there are several ways to look at things.
First, the RX 5600 XT easily outperforms the GTX 1660 Ti, outperforming the GTX 1660 Ti by an average of 17 percent at 1080p. Considering that both the 1660 Ti and 5600 XT have similar specs — the 1660 Ti doesn’t support hardware ray tracing — at the same prices, the RX 5600 XT is the clear winner. The GTX 1660 Super is slightly slower than the 1660 Ti at a lower price point. At best, it’s a draw against the RX 5600 XT, and I’d give the win to AMD.
What about the RTX 2060? It’s harder to name because RTX 2060 availability and pricing is constantly changing and all we need is the official RX 5600 XT starting price. Performance is mostly a draw, Nvidia has a very slight edge based on my testing — look at the games you want to play though as each GPU has a few wins and losses. There is a personal opinion here, but I would choose an Nvidia card simply because there are enough games with ray tracing support now that my fomo fires if I don’t have a card that supports this feature.
As I noted in the introduction, GPU pricing is still a bit off, so keep an eye out for sales and price drops. At its current price, the RX 5600 XT isn’t a must-buy, but it’s worth looking out for 1080p gamers who want to save a little money over other alternatives. Given that the RX 5600 XT and RX 5700 share the same core GPU specs, just with different amounts of VRAM, I’m really wondering if they both stick around for long. Phase-out of the 5700 and just keeping the 5600 XT and 5700 XT would be a good idea. Again, Nvidia still has 10 different Turing-based GPUs (plus two «discontinued» parts that are still on sale). I think the more the merrier.
However, there’s one other aspect of the RX 5600 XT that hasn’t settled down either, and that’s the updated VBIOS. Any cards sold today cannot have the new VBIOS as it was only released last week. I personally have no problem flashing the VBIOS on the GPU — I’ve done it countless times over the years. But people less savvy with PC hardware without a spare GPU in case something goes wrong? Yes, it’s not great. And will all entry-level RX 5600 XT cards get the same 10% boost I saw on the Sapphire Pulse? Absolutely not. If you’re planning on getting the RX 5600 XT, be careful. This is not a long term issue, but the first wave of cards may not work properly without a VBIOS update.
My biggest gripe with the RX 5600 XT is something that AMD has struggled with repeatedly over the past few years: timeliness. A year ago, this would have been an amazing GPU, and could provide Nvidia RTX 20-series graphics cards with some much-needed competition. After 12 months, it’s no surprise that Nvidia was able to steal AMD’s rumble by dropping the price of the RTX 2060. Even if AMD tried to coax Nvidia into showing its hand by announcing specs early, only for some change by launching with significantly faster factory overclocked cards, the fact is that The Nvidia RTX 2060 is still a competitive card despite being released almost exactly one year ago.
When exactly will Nvidia’s next generation Ampere GPUs be available? No one can say for sure, but this year is pretty much a given. AMD Navi GPUs are definitely more competitive than previous generation Polaris and Vega GPUs, but I haven’t seen AMD claim a clear win in the graphics card arena over the past decade. It would be great to see AMD not just challenge, but actually beat Nvidia’s RTX 2080 Ti. Unfortunately, this will require a little more than Navi 10.
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
84%
Total
The Radeon RX 5600 XT nearly matches the RX 5700 in performance, about $50 less. It’s competitive enough that Nvidia has slashed the prices of the RTX 2060 Founders Edition.
Power consumption of AMD Radeon video cards in the table
Skip to content
Such a parameter as the power consumption of a video card is very important to consider when assembling or modifying a computer. Knowing the amount of energy consumed by the components will help in calculating the required power supply for the system. In the table below, we offer exact figures for the power consumption of AMD’s Radeon graphics cards. These figures are taken from official sources at the time of the video card’s release. However, it is possible that manufacturers can make minor adjustments to this parameter.
The power consumption of video cards is indicated at maximum load. Also in the right column is the recommended power supply required for a computer system with the specified graphics adapter. If you change the video card and plan to «overclock» it in the future, do not forget to take into account the necessary power reserve for these purposes.
A similar table with NVIDIA GeForce video cards can be found on the corresponding page.
Video card model | Power consumption | Min. power supply capacity |
Radeon RX 6900 XT | 300W | 850 W |
Radeon RX 6800 XT | 300W | 750 W |
Radeon RX 6800 | 250 W | 650 W |
Radeon RX 6700 XT | 230 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX 6600 XT | 160 W | 500 W |
Radeon RX 6600 | 132 W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 6500 XT | 107W | 400 W |
Radeon RX 6400 | 53W | 350 W |
Radeon VII | 295 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX 5700XT | 225 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX 5700 | 180 W | 500 W |
Radeon RX 5600 XT | 150 W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 5500 XT | 130W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 5500 | 150 W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 5300 | 100W | 350 W |
Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid | 345W | 700 W |
Radeon RX Vega 64 | 295 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX Vega 56 | 210 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX 590 | 225 W | 600 W |
Radeon RX 580 | 185 W | 500 W |
Radeon RX 570 | 150 W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 560 | 80 W | 350 W |
Radeon RX 550 | 50W | 300W |
Radeon RX 480 | 150 W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 470 | 120W | 450 W |
Radeon RX 460 | 75W | 350 W |
Radeon Pro Duo | 350 W | 700 W |
Radeon R9 Nano | 175 W | 500 W |
Radeon R9 Fury X | 275 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 Fury | 275 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 390X | 275 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 390 | 230 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 380X | 190 W | 500 W |
Radeon R9 380 | 190 W | 500 W |
Radeon R9 370X | 140 W | 450 W |
Radeon R9 370 | 110 W | 450 W |
Radeon R9 360 | 115 W | 450 W |
Radeon R9 350 | 95W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 370 | 110 W | 450 W |
Radeon R7 360E | 75W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 360 | 100W | 360 W |
Radeon R7 350X | 30W | 300W |
Radeon R7 350 | 65 W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 340 | 65 W | 350 W |
Radeon R5 340X | 30W | 300W |
Radeon R5 340 | 65 W | 350 W |
Radeon R5 330 | 50W | 300W |
Radeon R5 310 | 27W | 300W |
Radeon R9 290X | 300W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 290 | 230 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 285 | 190 W | 500 W |
Radeon R9 280X | 250 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 280 | 250 W | 600 W |
Radeon R9 270X | 180 W | 500 W |
Radeon R9 270 | 150 W | 600 W |
Radeon R7 265 | 150 W | 400 W |
Radeon R7 260X | 115 W | 450 W |
Radeon R9 260 | 85W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 260 | 95W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 250X | 95W | 300W |
Radeon R7 250XE | 95W | 300W |
Radeon R7 250E | 55W | 350 W |
Radeon R7 250 | 65 W | 350 W |
Radeon R5 240 | 50W | 300W |
Radeon R7 240 | 30W | 300W |
Radeon R5 235X | 40W | 300W |
Radeon R5 235 | 35W | 300W |
Radeon R5 230 | 18W | 300W |
Radeon R5 220 | 19W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8990 | 375 W | 750 W |
Radeon HD 8950 | 200 W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 8870 | 190 W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 8860 | 175 W | 400 W |
Radeon HD 8770 | 85W | 350 W |
Radeon HD 8760 | 80 W | 350 W |
Radeon HD 8740 | 75W | 400 W |
Radeon HD 8730 | 47W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8670 | 75W | 350 W |
Radeon HD 8570 | 50W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8550 | 60 W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8510 | 60 W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8450 | 18W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8470 | 27W | 300W |
Radeon HD 8350 | 19W | 300W |
Radeon HD 7990 | 375 W | 750 W |
Radeon HD 7970 | 230 W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 7950 | 200 W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 7870XT | 185 W | 400W |
Radeon HD 7850 | 150 W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 7790 | 85W | 500 W |
Radeon HD 7750 | 75W | 400 W |
Radeon HD 7730 | 47W | 300W |
Radeon HD 7570 | 60 W | 300W |
Radeon HD 7450 | 18W | 300W |
Radeon HD 7470 | 27W | 300W |
Radeon HD 7350 | 19W | 300W |
Save page or share
Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT
Review Page:
1- Introduction & Specifications, Map & PCB Analysis, Test Setup Performance & Consumption6- Temperatures & Noise, Overclocking & Power Caps7- Rating & Review
AMD has finally launched its highly anticipated Radeon RX 5600 XT today, with the main goal of capturing the sub-$300 graphics market. With a starting price of $279, the product sits between the 8GB RX 5500 XT and the RX 5700. Launched just a few weeks ago, the RX 5500 XT is quite capable of 1080p gaming, just like the GTX 1650 Super. What AMD lacked in its product stack, however, was a card capable of pitting the GTX 1660 Ti against the GTX 1660 Super—something that could offer 1080p gaming at peak detail or high frame rates in esports titles. That’s where the RX 5600 XT comes into play, with the promise of future proofing your 1080p rig over the next few years. In this review, we are presented with the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 X video card, which, by the way, received factory overclocking.
The Radeon RX 5600 XT is designed to be significantly faster than the RX 590, which was launched to serve this important market segment but fell behind the GTX 1660-series. This is a head to head battle between AMD and NVIDIA as neither brand naturally offers real-time ray tracing for this segment. The RX 5600 XT is priced to match the GTX 1660 Ti. AMD already made its point in terms of performance in its keynote address at CES 2020, where the RX 5600 XT took down the GTX 1660 Ti. NVIDIA recently sacrificed its RTX 2060, cutting the price down to $299. This is NVIDIA’s cheapest ray tracing card and has barely changed in price, $350 so far. It’s obvious to many here that this was NVIDIA’s bait to get the user to spend a little more on ray tracing, but AMD has a surprise of its own.
Table of contents:
Just a few days ago, AMD revised the custom design limits for the RX 5600 XT. These include roughly a 10% increase in GPU frequency, a staggering 15% increase in memory clocks, and higher power limits so the GPU can better support boost clocks. The idea here is to undermine the performance that the RTX 2060 had against the original RX 5600 XT specs, but there was a big hitch. Stocks of the original spec RX 5600 XT have already been shipped worldwide for their scheduled market launch on January 21st; this means that the revised specifications must be implemented via a BIOS update.
AMD cut out the Radeon RX 5600 XT from the 7 nm Navi 10 die, allowing the «fresh» as many compute units as the RX 5700 by 36, but narrowing the GDDR6 memory bus to 192-bit, and reducing its size to 6 GB. So, 36 RDNA computing units work on 2304 stream processors. Other important features include 144 TMUs and 64 ROPs. Initially, the RX 5600 XT’s memory clock was set to 12 Gb/s (GDDR6-efficient), which was 288 GB/s of bandwidth. In theory, the GPU was supposed to work at a “gaming” frequency of 1375 MHz, and with boost up to 1560 MHz, yes, but with the new BIOS, these frequencies on the Sapphire RX 5600 XT Pulse increase significantly, up to 1615 MHz (“gaming”) and 1750 MHz ( boost) respectively. These frequencies change from partner to partner, adding to the confusion. In this review, the card will be tested with the original Sapphire Pulse BIOS and its new version to highlight the real performance difference between the two versions.
The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is equipped with the company’s proven Dual-X cooler, which provides, among other things, an idle fan stop and a highly optimized fan curve to reduce noise. The card is powered by a single 8-pin PCIe power connector, like most RX 5600 XT cards, which retail for around $279 or so. The Sapphire Radeon RX 5600 XT Pulse is priced at $289, a tiny $10 premium over the MSRP.
Specifications
Price | Shaders | Blocks | Core clock | Acceleration | Memory frequency | GPU | Transistors | Memory | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RX 590 | 200 $ | 2304 | 32 | 1469 MHz | 1545 MHz | 2000 MHz | Polaris 30 | 5700M | 8GB GDDR5 256bit |
GTX 1660 | 200 $ | 1408 | 48 | 1530 MHz | 1785 MHz | 2000 MHz | TU116 | 6600M | 6 GB GDDR5 192 bit |
GTX 1070 | 300 $ | 1920 | 64 | 1506 MHz | 1683 MHz | 2002 MHz | GP104 | 7200M | 8GB GDDR5 256bit |
RX Vega 56 | 260 $ | 3584 | 64 | 1156 MHz | 1471 MHz | 800 MHz | Vega 10 | 12500M | 8 GB HBM2 2048 bit |
GTX 1660 Super | 230 $ | 1536 | 48 | 1530 MHz | 1785 MHz | 1750 MHz | TU116 | 6600M | 6GB GDDR6 192bit |
GTX 1660 Ti | 270 $ | 1536 | 48 | 1500 MHz | 1770 MHz | 1500 MHz | TU116 | 6600M | 6GB GDDR6 192bit |
GTX 1070 Ti | 450 $ | 2432 | 64 | 1607 MHz | 1683 MHz | 2002 MHz | GP104 | 7200M | 8GB GDDR5 256bit |
RX 5600 XT | 280 $ | 2304 | 64 | 1375 MHz | 1560 MHz | 1500 MHz | Navi 10 | 10300M | 6GB GDDR6 192bit |
Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT |
290 $ | 2304 | 64 | 1615 MHz | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz | Navi 10 | 10300M | 6GB GDDR6 192bit |
RTX 2060 | 300 $ | 1920 | 48 | 1365 MHz | 1680 MHz | 1750 MHz | GP106 | 10800M | 6GB GDDR6 192bit |
RX 5700 | 330 $ | 2304 | 64 | 1465 MHz | 1625 MHz | 1750 MHz | Navi 10 | 10300M | 8GB GDDR6 256bit |
GTX 1080 | 500 $ | 2560 | 64 | 1607 MHz | 1733 MHz | 1251 MHz | GP104 | 7200M | 8GB GDDR5 256bit |
RTX 2060 Super | 300 $ | 2176 | 64 | 1470 MHz | 1650 MHz | 1750 MHz | TU106 | 10800M | 8GB GDDR6 256bit |
RX Vega 64 | 375 $ | 4096 | 64 | 1247 MHz | 1546 MHz | 953 MHz | Vega 10 | 12500M | 8 GB HBM2 2048 bit |
GTX 1080 Ti | 700 $ | 3584 | 88 | 1481 MHz | 1582 MHz | 1376 MHz | GP102 | 12200M | 11GB GDDR5X 352bit |
RX 5700 XT | 380 $ | 2560 | 64 | 1605 MHz | 1755 MHz | 1750 MHz | Navi 10 | 10300M | 8GB GDDR6 256bit |
Packaging and contents
Scope of delivery:
- Video card
- Documentation
Card
Sapphire card looks identical to Pulse RX 5700 XT. It uses relatively clean geometry paired with eye-catching red and silver accents. The metal back panel continues the Pulse theme with a heartbeat line.
Dimensions: 254 x 135 x 46.5(mm).
The card is 2.3 slots thick, so it can be considered a 3-slot card.
Outputs:
- 3x DisplayPort (v1.4)
- 1x HDMI (2.0b)
One optional 8-pin power connector offers 225W total input power.
AMD Navi GPUs no longer support CrossFire. DirectX 12 includes its own set of multi-GPU capabilities, but in order to use it, game developers must devote serious time to developing a feature, but using it requires serious time from game developers to develop a feature that only a small part of their customers can use.
In this area you will also find a switch for dual BIOS, with the default setting «Boost» and another option, «Silent». The second BIOS not only offers a quieter fan curve, but also comes with slightly lower frequencies and voltages, which helps the card stay cool even at lower fan speeds.
Disassembly
The Sapphire thermal solution consists of two separate parts, the fan assembly and the cooling plate. The turntables themselves are large, 100 mm in diameter.
Under the hood we find a copper base plate paired with three heatpipes to quickly dissipate heat from the chip. Unlike the RX 5700 XT Pulse, this part of the cooler also provides cooling for the memory chips and voltage regulation circuitry.
Backplate made of metal; it adds to the aesthetics of the card and protects the components on the PCB while handling the card.
PCB Pictures
These pictures are for voltmodders and people who want to see finer details on the PCB.
PCB analysis
The GPU VRM is a 5-phase unit controlled by the International Rectifier IR35217 controller.
VRAM The VRM is single-phase and controlled by the OnSemi NCP81022 controller (another top-of-the-line item originally designed for 4 phases).
The GDDR6 memory chips are manufactured by Micron and have model number D9WCW, which decodes to MT61K256M32JE-14:A. The chips are designed to operate at a frequency of 1750 MHz (effective GDDR6 14 Gb / s).
The AMD Navi 10 GPU is the first chip to use the new RDNA architecture. It is manufactured in a 7nm process at TSMC, Taiwan and has a transistor count of 10.3 billion with a die area of 251 mm².
The Navi 10 GPUs on the RX5700 and RX5700 XT had a reddish finish on the die, this is not the case on the Navy 10 XLE used on the RX 5600 XT.
Test configuration
Test configuration — VGA Rev. 2019.3 | |
Processor | Intel Core i9-9900K @ 5.0 GHz (Coffee Lake, 12MB Cache) |
---|---|
Motherboard | EVGA Z390 DARK Intel Z390 |
RAM | 16 GB DDR4 @ 3867 MHz 18-19-19-39 |
Accumulator | 2x 960 GB SSD |
Power: | Seasonic Prime Ultra Titanium 850W |
Cooler | Cryorig R1 Universal 2x 140mm fan |
Operating system | Windows 10 Professional 64-bit Version 1903 (May 2019 Update) |
Drivers |
RX 5600 XT: Radeon 20. 1.1 Jan13 RC5 RX 5500, RX 5700, RX 5700 XT: Radeon 20.1.1 Beta GTX 1650 Super: 441.20 WHQL All others AMD: Radeon 19.10.1 WHQL All others NVIDIA: 4QL4 |
Display | Acer CB240HYKbmjdpr 24″ 3840×2160 |
Test results in other reviews are only comparable when using a similar configuration.o
- All games and cards are tested with the drivers listed above — no performance results are recycled between test systems. Only this exact system with exactly the same configuration is used.
- All games are tested using the same version.
- All games are set to their highest quality unless otherwise noted.
- AA and AF are applied through in-game settings, not through the driver’s control panel.
- Before starting measurements, the card is heated for each test to ensure that a steady state is being tested.
- This ensures that the card does not surge to unrealistically high frequencies in just a few seconds until it warms up.