One Power Hungry GPU: AMD Radeon Vega 56 Revisited in 2020
After covering the wave of GeForce Super GPUs late last year and the mainstream Navi-based Radeon graphics cards that followed, we’ve been revisiting several GPUs to see how previous generation products compete at their new discounted prices.
Today we’re looking at AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 56, originally a $400 product that was meant to compete against the GTX 1070 in mid 2017. If you’re wondering why is this relevant, we’d say the main reason is that to this very day, you can buy a Vega 56 graphics cards at a discount. Right now they’re selling for as little as $250 in the US. In that same ballpark you can find the GTX 1660 Super for around $230 and AMD’s own 5600 XT that starts at $280.
However you should know that the cheapest Vega 56 cards on sale are not good. The $250 MSI Air Boost is the cheapest we could find and it’s a hot, loud blower model. There’s also the Gigabyte Gaming OC for $280 but it’s arguably even worse, the failure rate with this model is worryingly high. Good quality models such as the PowerColor Red Dragon or Sapphire Pulse sell for much higher prices, making them a write off.
For testing we’ll be using the Asus Strix model which we upgraded with the correct VRM thermal pads, so it doesn’t thermal throttle. Thus, we’ll be showing you the best out of the box performance of a Vega 56 card, but we won’t be undervolting or tweaking the card in any way. We don’t like to test these cards overclocked or undervolted, which is essentially the same thing, because while some cards will feature a stud of a GPU, others will have duds and unless you’re willing to buy maybe half a dozen before you win the silicon lottery, testing with the GPU undervolted and acting like that’s the norm, can be very misleading.
All testing was performed in our GPU test rig powered by a Core i9-9900K overclocked to 5 GHz with 16GB of DDR4-3400 memory. But before getting into the fps charts, let’s take a look at power consumption.
Vega 56 was a power pig and Navi has gone a long way to correct that.
Here we see that total system usage has been dropped by almost 40% with the 5600 XT, that’s obviously a huge power saving, so it will be interesting to see how they compare in terms of performance.
Benchmarks
First up we have the Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and here the 5600 XT was 8% faster than Vega 56 at 1080p and 7% faster at 1440p. This is not a massive difference, but given how much more efficient the 5600 XT is, this really is a huge step forward for AMD.
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order is another example where the 5600 XT is up to 10% faster than Vega 56, an impressive gain given the difference in power consumption.
The Outer Worlds results are interesting as traditionally AMD has struggled with their GCN architecture in games using the Unreal Engine. Here the 5600 XT offers big performance gains of almost 30% when looking at 1% low performance and 18% for the average frame rate, so a big step up in performance from Vega 56.
We’re back to a 9% performance advantage in favor of the 5600 XT when testing with Call of Duty Modern Warfare at 1080p.
The extra 2GB of VRAM will be helping out Vega 56 in Red Dead Redemption 2, but even so performance is still very close with the 5600 XT only tailing by a 7% margin.
Performance in Control is even, here the 5600 XT was less than 5% faster at both tested resolutions when comparing the average frame rates.
Performance in World War Z is also competitive, we suspect Vega 56 does a little better at 1440p due to the extra VRAM, but overall we’re looking at a very similar gaming experience with either GPU.
The F1 2019 results are very surprising. In the past Vega performed well in the F1 titles, though we tested with DX11. We’d expect Vega 56 to perform very well using DX12, but that’s not the case here, at least relative to the 5600 XT. The 5600 XT was a whopping 26% faster at 1080p and 22% faster at 1440p, so a significant uplift for the newer Navi.
We see virtually identical performance in Rainbow Six Siege using the new Vulkan API, though Vega 56 does pull away ever so slightly at 1440p and again we believe this is due to that extra 2GB of VRAM.
The 5600 XT is also able to edge ahead of Vega 56 in Fortnite, delivering 8% more frames on average at 1080p. Performance at 1440p is basically identical.
Next up we have Gears 5 and here the 5600 XT offers strong gains over Vega 56, boost performance at 1080p by 17% and 13% at 1440p.
The Shadow of the Tomb Raider results are competitive and here the 5600 XT is just 6% faster at 1080p while delivering virtually identical performance at 1440p.
A more typical 13% performance boost is seen when testing with Apex Legends at 1080p and as we’ve seen many times now, the margin is reduced at 1440p, this time down to 7% in favor of the 5600 XT.
Last up we checked out PUBG which typically isn’t a strong title for AMD. Navi does go a long way in improving AMD’s position, at both tested resolutions the 5600 XT was 14% faster than Vega 56.
Performance Summary
Given how massive the Vega 56 die is and the fact that it packs more transistors, way more cores, and sports HBM2 memory for over a 20% increase in bandwidth, it’s remarkable what AMD has achieved with the much smaller Navi die.
Yes, a portion of the gains can be attributed to the 7nm process, but there’s also a big chunk of this that can be attributed to the RDNA architecture. Before we go too far into that conversation, here’s a look at how Vega 56 and the 5600 XT compare head to head in the 32 titles we tested.
We can see that at 1080p, the 5600 XT was on average 8% faster than Vega 56. The only title where Vega 56 enjoyed a significant performance advantage was Sniper Elite 4, a title which was optimized for the GCN architecture, so that makes sense. Vega was also a tad faster in Red Dead Redemption 2 which we believeis more of a VRAM issue. We also saw identical performance in Strange Brigade, World War Z, Resident Evil 2, Rainbow Six Siege, Battlefield V, DiRT Rally and Control.
Many other titles favored Navi including F1 2019, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, The Outer Worlds, Gears 5, The Witcher 3, PUBG and a number of other titles.
Moving to 1440p we see more of the same though the 5600 XT’s lead erodes a little.
At this higher resolution the newer Navi GPU was 6% faster, and overall a more consistent performer.
What We Learned
AMD has made a gigantic leap with the RDNA architecture and 7nm manufacturing process. The Radeon 5600 XT uses around half the power of a Vega 56 GPU, while also delivering a little extra performance. These results are inline with AMD’s own claims of a 50% performance uplift with RDNA when compared to a GCN-based GPU using the same level of power. They also claim that ~20-25% of this uplift is delivered by the 7nm process shrink, with the bulk coming from their improvement in performance per clock.
Clearly given the massive efficiency improvement, and the fact that it’s faster out of the box, we believe you’re far better off with the newer Radeon GPU. Moving forward AMD will be spending more time optimizing gaming performance for RDNA, so expect the gap to widen over time.
Shopping Shortcuts:
- AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 2070 Super on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 2060 Super on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 2060 on Amazon
- GeForce GTX 1660 Super on Amazon
- AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT on Amazon
- GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on Amazon
Radeon RX Vega 56 vs Radeon RX 6600 XT
Availability
MSRP in USD: $399
Sapphire Radeon RX VEGA 56 8GB HBM2 HDMI / TRIPLE DP PCI-E Graphics Card 21276-00-20G
Buy on Amazon
$699
In Stock
Same as Founder’s Edition
Updated 93 minutes ago
Availability
MSRP in USD: $379
MSI Gaming AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 128-bit 8GB GDDR6 DP/HDMI Dual Torx Fans FreeSync DirectX 12 VR Ready OC Graphics Card (RX 6600 XT MECH 2X 8G OC)
Buy on Amazon
$339.
99
In Stock
1968 2033 MHz
Base Clock
2589 2602 MHz
Boost Clock
Updated 93 minutes agoSapphire Technology Sapphire 11309-01-20G Nitro+ AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB GDDR6 HDMI/3DisplayPort PCI-Express 4.0 Video Card
Buy on Amazon
$384.98
In Stock
1968 2064 MHz
Base Clock
2589 2607 MHz
Boost Clock
Updated 93 minutes agoXFX Speedster QICK308 Radeon RX 6600 XT Black Gaming Graphics Card with 8GB GDDR6 HDMI 3xDP, AMD RDNA 2 RX-66XT8LBDQ
Buy on Amazon
$419.99
In Stock
Same as Founder’s Edition
Updated 93 minutes agoXFX Speedster SWFT210 Radeon RX 6600 XT CORE Gaming Graphics Card with 8GB GDDR6 HDMI 3xDP, AMD RDNA 2 RX-66XT8DFDQ
Buy on Amazon
$499.99
In Stock
Same as Founder’s Edition
Updated 93 minutes agoPowerColor Fighter AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming Graphics Card with 8GB GDDR6 Memory, Powered by AMD RDNA 2, HDMI 2.1
Buy on Amazon
$508.
22
In Stock
Same as Founder’s Edition
Updated 93 minutes agoPowerColor Red Devil AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming Graphics Card with 8GB GDDR6 Memory, Powered by AMD RDNA 2, HDMI 2.1 w/ Ducky One 2 SF RGB Mechanical Keyboard with Kailh Brown Switches
Buy on Amazon
$508.38
In Stock
1968 2064 MHz
Base Clock
2589 2607 MHz
Boost Clock
Updated 93 minutes agoSapphire 11309-03-20G Pulse AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming Graphics Card with 8GB GDDR6, AMD RDNA 2
Buy on Amazon
$529.99
In Stock
1968 2000 MHz
Base Clock
2589 2593 MHz
Boost Clock
Updated 93 minutes ago
Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Radeon RX 6600 XT outperforms the more expensive Radeon RX Vega 56 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Radeon RX 6600 XT is 1446 days newer than the more expensive Radeon RX Vega 56.
Advantages of AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT
-
Performs up to 11% better in VALORANT than Radeon RX Vega 56 — 380 vs 343 FPS
-
Up to 51% cheaper than Radeon RX Vega 56 — $339.99 vs $699.0
-
Up to 56% better value when playing VALORANT than Radeon RX Vega 56 — $0.89 vs $2.04 per FPS
-
Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 — 160 vs 210 Watts
VALORANT
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Radeon RX Vega 56
Desktop • Aug 14th, 2017
FPS
343
90%
Value, $/FPS
$2.04/FPS
-29%
Price, $
$699
48%
Sapphire Radeon RX VEGA 56 8GB HBM2 HDMI / TRIPLE DP PCI-E Graphics Card 21276-00-20G
Buy for $699 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 93 minutes ago
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Desktop • Jul 30th, 2021
FPS
380
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.
89/FPS
100%
Price, $
$339.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
MSI Gaming AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 128-bit 8GB GDDR6 DP/HDMI Dual Torx Fans FreeSync DirectX 12 VR Ready OC Graphics Card (RX 6600 XT MECH 2X 8G OC)
Buy for $339.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 93 minutes ago
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Radeon RX Vega 56
Desktop • Aug 14th, 2017
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Desktop • Jul 30th, 2021
343
FPS
380
FPS
VALORANT
766
FPS
830
FPS
League of Legends
210
FPS
231
FPS
Apex Legends
178
FPS
205
FPS
Grand Theft Auto V
188
FPS
223
FPS
Fortnite
Theoretical Performance
Radeon RX Vega 56
Desktop • Aug 14th, 2017
Pixel Fillrate
94.14 GPixel/s
57%
Texel Fillrate
329.5 GTexel/s
99%
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Desktop • Jul 30th, 2021
Pixel Fillrate
165.
7 GPixel/s
100%
Texel Fillrate
331.4 GTexel/s
100%
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 |
vs |
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 14th, 2017 | Release Date |
Jul 30th, 2021 |
| Vega | Generation | Navi II |
| $399 | MSRP |
$379 |
| 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 2x 8-pin | Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin |
|
Desktop |
Segment |
Desktop |
| 8 GB | Memory | 8 GB |
| HBM2 | Type | GDDR6 |
| 2048-bit | Bus | 128-bit |
|
409.6 GB/s |
Bandwidth | 256 GB/s |
| 1156 MHz | Base Clock Speed |
1968 MHz |
| 1471 MHz | Boost Clock Speed |
2589 MHz |
| 800 MHz | Memory Clock Speed |
2000 MHz |
Builds Using Radeon RX Vega 56 or Radeon RX 6600 XT
VALORANT, 1080p, High
HP OMEN Gaming Premium Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.
25/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$839.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN 30L Gaming Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.32/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
16 GB, 512 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$864.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN 30L Gaming Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.45/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
16 GB, 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$914.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN Gaming Premium Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.49/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
32 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$929.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN Gaming Premium Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.52/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
16 GB, 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$939.
99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN 30L Gaming Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.63/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
32 GB, 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$979.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN Gaming Premium Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.68/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
32 GB, 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$999.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP OMEN 30L Gaming Desktop PC
373 FPS
$2.98/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 5600G
64 GB, 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$1,109.99
In Stock
Updated 75 minutes ago
HP Pavilion Gaming PC
391 FPS
$3.09/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 7 5700G
16 GB, 512 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,208.95
In Stock
Updated 84 minutes ago
Victus by HP 15L Gaming Desktop PC
391 FPS
$3.
22/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 7 5700G
16 GB, N/A Storage
Buy on Amazon
$1,259.99
In Stock
Updated 77 minutes ago
Select from the most popular similar graphics card comparisons. Most compared graphics card combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
Radeon RX 6650 XT
$336.36
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 5600 XT
Radeon RX 590
N/A Stock
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 480
GeForce RTX 3070 Ti
$709.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
$369.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 6700 XT
$419.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
Radeon RX 6600
$249.99
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.99
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
$229.56
Radeon RX 6600 XT
$339.
99
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega Mobile
The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don’t have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.
For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List
log 02. 11:07:45
#0 checking url part for id 9830 +0s … 0s
#1 checking url part for id 8640 +0s … 0s
#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s
#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:27:11 +0200 +0s … 0s
#4 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.048s … 0.048s
#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.
005s … 0.053s
#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.053s
#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.053s
#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.053s
#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.053s
#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.053s
#11 composed specs +0s … 0.053s
#12 did output specs +0s … 0.053s
#13 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s … 0.053s
#14 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.03s … 0.083s
#15 getting avg benchmarks for device 9830 +0s … 0.084s
#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.084s
#17 got single benchmarks 9830 +0.007s … 0.091s
#18 getting avg benchmarks for device 8640 +0s … 0.091s
#19 got single benchmarks 8640 +0s … 0.091s
#20 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.091s
#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.091s
#22 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.092s
#23 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.092s
#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.092s
#25 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.093s
#26 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.093s
#27 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.094s
#28 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.094s
#29 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.094s
#30 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.095s
#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.095s
#32 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.096s
#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.096s
#34 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.097s
#35 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.097s
#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.098s
#37 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.098s
#38 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.099s
#39 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.099s
#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.1s
#41 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.1s
#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.1s
#43 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.101s
#44 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.101s
#45 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.101s
#46 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#48 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#49 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.103s
#50 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.103s
#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.103s
#52 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.104s
#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.104s
#54 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.104s
#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.105s
#56 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.105s
#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.106s
#58 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.106s
#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.106s
#60 min, max, avg, median took s +0s … 0.107s
#61 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.107s
#62 Got 236 rows for game benchmarks. +0.016s … 0.122s
#63 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.122s
#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#65 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.123s
#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#68 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#69 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#75 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#76 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#77 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#78 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#79 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#80 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.123s
#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#84 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.123s
#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.123s
#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s
#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.124s
#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.124s
#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.124s
#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.124s
#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s
#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.125s
#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.125s
#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.125s
#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.125s
#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s
#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.126s
#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.126s
#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s
#258 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.001s … 0.127s
#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.128s
#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s
#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s
#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s
#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s
#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.128s
#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.129s
#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.129s
#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.129s
#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.129s
#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.129s
#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.129s
#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.13s
#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.13s
#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.13s
#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s
#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.131s
#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s
#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.132s
#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s
#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s
#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.132s
#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s
#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s
#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.133s
#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s
#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s
#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s
#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s
#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s
#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.134s
#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.134s
#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.134s
#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.134s
#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.135s
#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.135s
#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.135s
#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.135s
#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.135s
#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.135s
#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.136s
#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.136s
#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.136s
#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.136s
#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.136s
#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.136s
#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.137s
#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.137s
#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.137s
#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.138s
#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.139s
#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.139s
#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.139s
#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.14s
#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.141s
#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.141s
#363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.141s
#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.142s
#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.142s
#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.143s
#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.144s
#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#388 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.144s
#391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.144s
#392 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#394 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#396 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.145s
#398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#399 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.146s
#404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.146s
#405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#407 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.146s
#410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#413 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#414 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#415 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.147s
#416 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.147s
#419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#420 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.148s
#421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#422 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#425 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.148s
#426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.149s
#430 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.149s
#431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.149s
#432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.149s
#433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.149s
#434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.149s
#435 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.15s
#436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#437 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.15s
#441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.15s
#443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.151s
#444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.151s
#445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.151s
#446 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.151s
#447 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.151s
#448 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.151s
#449 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.151s
#450 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.152s
#451 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s
#452 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s
#453 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s
#454 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s
#455 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.153s
#456 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#457 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#458 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#459 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#460 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.
001s … 0.153s
#461 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#462 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#463 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#464 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s
#465 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.154s
#466 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s
#467 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s
#468 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s
#469 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s
#470 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.155s
#471 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.155s
#472 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.155s
#473 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.155s
#474 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.155s
#475 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.156s
#476 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#477 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#478 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#479 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#480 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.156s
#481 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#482 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s
#483 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.157s
#484 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.157s
#485 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.158s
#486 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#487 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#488 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.158s
#489 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#490 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.158s
#491 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#492 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#493 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#494 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s
#495 benchmarks composed for output. +0s … 0.158s
#496 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.158s
#497 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.159s
#498 return log +0.002s … 0.162s
Radeon RX 5700 XT laut AMD 30 Prozent schneller als RX Vega 56
Laut eigenen Benchmarks von AMD soll die kommende Radeon RX 5700 XT mehr als 30 Prozent schneller sein als die RX Vega 56.
AMD hat in weiteren, der Presse zugänglichen Präsentationsfolien die am 7. Juli 2019 erscheinende Radeon RX 5700 XT mit der Radeon RX Vega 56 verglichen.
Laut den Benchmark-Ergebnissen ist die RX 5700 XT in der getesteten WQHD-Auflösung um über 30 Prozent schneller als die RX Vega 56.
Unter dem Titel »A Worthy Upgrade« zeigt AMD einen Benchmark-Vergleich aus zehn aktuellen Spielen verschiedener Genres zwischen der RX 5700 XT und RX Vega 56. Die Basis bildet dabei die Vega-Grafikkarte, um den Vorsprung des Navi-Neulings zu verdeutlichen.
Alles zu AMDs Radeon RX 5700 (XT) — Preis, Performance, Anti-Lag
AMD hat beide Grafikkarten in 10 Spielen verglichen. Die neue RX 5700 XT soll in WQHD-Auflösung mit maximalen Details je nach Spiel um 24 bis 41 Prozent schneller sein.
AMD nutzt für den Vergleich die WQHD-Auflösung (2560 x 1440 Pixel) mit maximierten Details. Das Ergebnis geht deutlich zu Gunsten der Navi-Grafikkarte aus: Die RX 5700 XT ist im Durchschnitt über 30 Prozent schneller. Am deutlichsten fällt der Vorsprung mit jeweils 41 Prozent in Dirt Rally 2 und Metro Exodus aus.
Grundlage des Testsystems bildete ein Intel Core i9 9900K mit 16 GByte DDR4-RAM und 3.200 MHz Takt. Softwareseitig wurde auf Windows 10 64 Bit gesetzt, die Treiberversionen lauteten 19.30 für RX 5700 XT und 19.10-190502a für RX Vega 56.
Navi ist schneller mit deutlich weniger Rohleistung
Der Navi-10-Chip auf der RX 5700 XT besitzt deutlich weniger Shader- und Textur-Einheiten als der Grafikchip der RX Vega 56 und soll trotzdem klar schneller sein.
Die von AMD veröffentlichten Ergebnissen zeigen aber nicht nur die höhere Spiele-Leistung, mit Blick auf die technischen Details beider Grafikkarten wird außerdem deutlich, dass die feinere Fertigung in 7 Nanometer und die neue RDNA-Architektur weitere Vorteile bieten.
Die Radeon RX 5700 XT besitzt im Vergleich zur Radeon RX Vega 56 deutlich weniger Shader (2.560 vs. 3.584) und Textur-Einheiten (160 vs. 224). Die Chiptaktraten (maximaler Boost 1.
905 vs 1.471 MHz) fallen aber klar höher aus als bei Vega und die TDP in Form der Total Board Power ist mit 225 zu 210 Watt nur leicht höher.
All das sind erste Anzeichen für die Versprechen AMDs, die neue RDNA-Architektur an entscheidenden Stellschrauben optimiert zu haben. Inwiefern die unterschiedlichen Videospeicher-Typen (GDDR6 vs. HBM2) die Leistung beeinflussen, lässt sich nur schwer beurteilen.
Wann bringt AMD Raytracing?
RX 5700 auch schneller als RX Vega 56?
Auch die Radeon RX 5700 könnte der RX Vega 56 gefährlich werden, immerhin vermarktet sie AMD als Konkurrent zur RTX 2060 und die ist etwas schneller als die Vega-Grafikkarte.
Auch die ebenfalls am 7. Juli 2019 erscheinende Radeon RX 5700 dürfte der RX Vega 56 in Spielen sehr gefährlich werden und sie vermutlich um einige Prozent in die Schranken verweisen. Laut AMD soll die RX 5700 mit Nvidias Geforce RTX 2060 konkurrieren, die in unseren Benchmarks etwas schneller als die RX Vega 56 ist.
Mit Blick auf den anvisierten Preis für die kommenden Navi-Grafikkarten RX 5700 XT für 449 US-Dollar und RX 5700 für 379 US-Dollar müssen die neuesten Modelle aus dem Hause AMD allerdings auch mit viel Leistung überzeugen. Die Radeon RX Vega 56 wird derzeit ab 250 Euro im Handel verkauft.
Erst unabhängige Tests zu Radeon RX 5700 (XT) werden Klarheit zur Spiele-Leistung und der Leistungsaufnahme schaffen und dürften, sofern sich AMD treu bleibt, spätestens zum Verkaufsstart am 7. Juli 2019 erscheinen.
Die besten Grafikkarten für Spieler
Technische Details
|
RX Vega 56 |
Radeon RX 5700 XT |
Radeon RX 5700 |
|
|
Grafikchip |
Vega 10 |
Navi 10 |
Navi 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Fertigungsverfahren |
|||
|
Compute Units |
|||
|
Shader |
|||
|
TMUs |
|||
|
ROPs |
|||
|
Chiptakt |
1. |
1.605 MHz Basis-Takt |
1.465 MHz Basis-Takt |
|
Videospeicher |
8 GByte HBM2 |
8 GByte GDDR6 |
8 GByte GDDR6 |
|
VRAM-Takt |
1,6 GHz |
14 GHz |
14 GHz |
|
Speicherinterface |
2.048 Bit |
256 Bit |
256 Bit |
|
Speicherbandbreite |
410 GByte/s |
448 GByte/s |
448 GByte/s |
|
TDP (Board Power) |
210 Watt |
225 Watt |
180 Watt |
|
Preis |
ab 250 Euro |
449 US-Dollar |
379 US-Dollar |
|
Veröffentlichung |
August 2017 |
7. |
7. Juli 2019 |
156 MHz Basis-Takt
Juli 2019AMD Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT Review: Are They Super Enough?
AMD’s RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT are competitive, but still playing catch-up
By
Luke Larsen
Dan Baker/Digital Trends
Ryzen processors have given AMD all the weapons it needed to wage its underdog battle against Intel. But AMD fights its war on two fronts, and in the graphics department, the company hasn’t picked up nearly as much momentum in the past couple of years.
Contents
- Making a dent in the market
- Can they game?
- AMD still has a lot to prove
With the Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT, AMD hopes to change all that. Armed with a new graphics architecture, these Radeon cards have their eyes set on Nvidia’s RTX 2060 and RTX 2070.
With the new “Super” versions of those cards, though, can the RX 5700 and 5700 XT still make the strong showing AMD needs?
Making a dent in the market
The Radeon VII had its strengths, but it wasn’t the power move AMD needed to match the absolute brawn of the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti. More than that, it didn’t undercut the price of the RTX 2080 by any significant amount.
AMD hopes to take a more aggressive approach with the Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT. These are the first cards in the new RDNA graphics architecture. More importantly, these cards are AMD’s effort to undercut Nvidia in price and over-deliver in power across mid-range price points.
Anticipating the impact of Nvidia’s RTX Super cards, AMD countered with a price drop, even before the cards actually dropped. The RX 5700 XT received a $50 price cut from its initial announcement price, coming down to $399. That’s a full $100 below the RTX 2070 Super. The RX 5700 was cut by an additional $20, bringing it down to $349, which is now $50 less than the RTX 2060 Super.
There’s plenty to say about the price drop, but it clearly places the RX 5700 XT in a different category than the RTX 2070 Super. As you’ll see in the performance results later, this was likely AMD’s only choice.
With all the last-minute price shuffling in the mix, here’s how the high end of AMD’s graphics card lineup now stacks up:
| Radeon VII | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Radeon RX 5700 | Radeon Vega 64 | Radeon Vega 56 | |
| Architecture | GCN 5th gen | RDNA | RDNA | GCN 5th gen | GCN 5th gen |
| Compute units | 60 | 40 | 36 | 64 | 56 |
| Base clock | 1,400MHz | 1,605MHz | 1,465MHz | 1,247MHz | 1,156MHz |
| Game clock | n/a | 1,755MHz | 1,625MHz | n/a | n/a |
| Boost clock | 1,750MHz | 1,905MHz | 1,725MHz | 1,546MHz | 1,471MHz |
| Memory | 16GB HMB2 | 8GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 | 8GB HBM2 | 8GB HBM2 |
| Bandwidth | 616 GBps | 448GBps | 448GBps | 483GBps | 448GBps |
| TDP | 300w | 225w | 180w | 295w | 185w |
| Price | $699 | $399 | $349 | $400 | $300 |
From the specs alone, you might be a little confused as to how AMD intends to distinguish each of these cards from each other.
Trying to understand the difference between the Radeon VII and the Radeon RX 5700 XT isn’t as simple as it should be.
As for the physical design of the cards themselves, they have a basic, minimal aesthetic. They’re nothing special. If anything, the RX 5700’s grey plastic looks a bit drab, even compared to previous designs like the Vega 64 or Vega 56. The RX 5700 XT’s “dent” in the middle of the shroud is certainly head-turning, but perhaps not for the reason AMD might want.
Similar to its predecessors, the RX 5000-series cards are blower-style designs, with a single fan compared to the three on the Radeon VII. While it’s not quite as loud as that card, AMD’s newest are still louder than their competitors.
Connectivity on both cards is limited to DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI. Though quite a large power requirement differentiates them, both cards use a six-pin power connector. That’s different from Nvidia’s new RTX 2060 Super, which uses a four-pin connector and includes both a USB-C port and even an old-school VGA port.
AMD keeps it simple.
Can they game?
Let’s get into the real promise of these new cards. Power and value. When AMD was first pitching its new RX 5000-series, its competitors were the RTX 2070 and RTX 2060. But as of this week, those cards have been replaced by newer, more powerful Nvidia cards, and now the targets have moved.
I tested all five of the following cards on the same system, which included a six-core Intel Core i7-8086K processor, 16GB of RAM, and a 512GB M.2 SSD. Here’s how they lined up in our first test, 3DMark’s Time Spy.
This DirectX 12 benchmark showed me right off the bat that AMD was in a bit of trouble. The RTX 2060 Super doesn’t just beat the RX 5700, it’s even taking down the RX 5700 XT. The 5700 XT keeps 8% between itself and the 5700, but it’s neck-and-neck with the Radeon VII.
That means AMD has two expensive graphics cards, neither of which can surpass the RTX 2060 Super. That’s not a good sign. The RX 5700 XT is 20% cheaper than the RTX 2070 Super and 11% slower.
The RX 5700? It’s 15% less than the RTX 2060 Super and is 9% slower. But thanks to AMD’s last-minute price cut, the 5700 XT now competes more directly with the RTX 2060 Super. In that match-up, they’re neck-and-neck.
If you compare two popular options from the previous generation of cards, the GTX 1080 and Vega 64, AMD was within 2% of its rival in this benchmark. They were both $499, but they lined up a bit more closely in terms of performance. In this generation, AMD can’t compete on the high-end — but the middle ground leaves some opportunity for these cards to shine.
That’s just one benchmark, so let’s get to some games.
Our first test game, and the one you’re most likely to play yourself, is Fortnite. The RX 5700 and 5700 XT are both high-end cards, so they both play the game beautifully in 1080p and 1440p on the highest graphics settings. These high framerates are perfect for 144Hz refresh rate monitors, which are increasingly popular.
But when you look at the competition, the picture isn’t quite as pretty.
The RTX 2060 Super beats the RX 5700 by 9%, while the RTX 2070 Super’s lead on the RX 5700 XT is a bit more substantial at 18%. In higher resolutions, the RTX 2060 Super even begins to edge past the 5700 XT.
The differences in performance between the RX 5700 XT and its competitors aren’t as noticeable in Civilization VI, at least not in lower resolutions. The powerful CPU in our rig was doing most of the heavy lifting there. But not with the RX 5700. That little guy delivers framerates a worrying 26% behind the RTX 2060 Super. Civilization VI is another example of a popular game where the RTX 2060 Super smashes the RX 5700.
Dan Baker/Digital Trends
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is a tough game for even the most powerful graphics cards to run well, and these AMD cards don’t change that. It’s nearly unplayable at 4K without lowering graphics settings, though they average over 60 FPS in 1080p at the maxed Ultra High settings.
Comparatively, though, AMD is behind.
In all of our runs across settings and resolutions, the RX 5700 is always a few FPS behind the RTX 2060 Super. Here, it’s the 5700 XT with the uphill climb, lagging behind the RTX 2070 Super by as much as 14% in 1080p at maximum detail.
As I noted in my review of the RTX Super cards, the one big exception in all our results is Battlefield V. It’s a game the Radeon VII excelled at, and these new cards are no different. Even the RX 5700 hits a buttery smooth 117 FPS (frames per second), a solid 8% over the RTX 2060 Super. The 5700 XT just barely slides in over the RTX 2070 Super. As I moved higher up in resolution, the AMD cards performed admirably, with the 5700 XT averaging 60 FPS in 4K. The other cards can manage that feat too, but only at medium detail.
AMD still has a lot to prove
While the $699 Radeon VII wasn’t shy about competing with the skyrocketing prices of Nvidia’s cards, the 5700 and 5700 XT feel more modest.
The RX 5700 XT undercuts the GeForce RTX 2070 Super by $100, while the 5700 is now $50 cheaper than the GeForce RTX 2060 Super.
When you look at the performance differences, those prices make sense. The RX 5700 XT in particular sits in an excellent position as a $400 graphics card, now competing directly with the RTX 2060 Super. In that match-up, AMD’s card stands a chance. However, in the majority of our test games, the RTX 2060 Super still edges past the RX 5700 XT.
The real problem for AMD is its missing high-end competitor. Even setting ray tracing aside, right now, Nvidia is likely the more compelling option for most gamers. AMD has made impressive strides in this generation, but it still has work to do.
Editors’ Recommendations
-
Developer says it can turn your AMD 6800 XT into an Nvidia 3090 Ti
-
AMD Ryzen 7000: Everything we know about Zen 4 CPUs
-
AMD Ryzen 7000 vs. Ryzen 5000: specs, performance, and more compared
-
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs. Intel Core i9-12900K: Two flagships face off
-
AMD cuts GPU prices at just the right time to pull ahead of Nvidia
HWMONITOR-PRO | Softwares | CPUID
HWMONITOR-PRO | Softwares | CPUID
HWMonitor PRO is the extended version of HWMonitor.
In comparison to its classic counterpart, HWMonitor PRO adds the following features :
- Remote Monitoring :
Watch the sensors of one or several distant PCs or Android devices using a simple TCP/IP connection. - Graph Generator :
Save monitoring data and generate logging graphs as bitmap files. - Improved Interface :
Sensors in system tray, editable sensors labels …
Register HWMonitor PRO!
Unlimited usage duration, and get up to 20 remote connections and 2 years of free update with the extended license.
Register Your License
CLASSIC VERSIONS
Version 1.47 for windows®
- Improved sensors organization in tree display.
- New «max» sensors for CPU VID and CPU core temperatures.
- Glenfly Arise-GT10C0 GPU.
- Intel Core i9 12900KS.
- Intel Core i9-12900T, Core i5-12600T (35W).
- Intel Core i7-1280P/1270P/1260P, Core i5-1250P/1240P, Core i3-1220P (28W).
- Intel Core i7-1265U/1255U, Core i5 1245U/1235U, Core i3 1215U (15W).
- Intel Core i7-1260U/1250U, Core i5 1240U/1230U, Core i3 1210U (9W).
- Intel Xeon Platinum, Gold and Silver «Ice Lake-SP» (10nm, FCLGA4189).
- Intel Atom x6427FE, x6425RE, x6425E, x6414RE, x6413E, x6212RE, x6211E, x6200FE (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Intel Pentium J6425, N6415 (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Intel Celeron J6413, N6211 (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Preliminary support for Intel Raptor Lake.
- Preliminary support for Intel ARC 3/5/7 (DG2).
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
- AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE, Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE, Ryzen 5 PRO 5650GE, Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE (CZN).
- AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, Ryzen 5 5600/5500.
- AMD Ryzen 7 5825U, Ryzen 5 5625U, Ryzen 3 5425U (15W).
- AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (15W).
- AMD Ryzen 9 6980HX, 6900HX, Ryzen 7 6800H, Ryzen 5 6600H (45W).
- AMD Ryzen 9 6980HS, 6900HS, Ryzen 7 6800HS, Ryzen 5 6600HS (35W).
- AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, Ryzen 5 6600U (15-28W).
- Preliminary support for AMD Raphael (Zen 4).
- AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (Navi 24 XT), Radeon RX 6400 (Navi 24 XL).
- AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (Navi 22).
- AMD RX 6800S, RX 6700S, RX 6650M, RX 6650M XT (Navi 23).
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (GA102-350, 450W).
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
OLD VERSIONS
INSTALL & CONFIGURATION FAQ & TROUBLESHOOTING
Installation
CPUID HWMonitor Pro is available as a setup version (that does automatically install the 32-bit or the 64-bit binaries depending on your Windows version, creates the application entries in start menu and on desktop) and as a .zip file that contains the two binaries.
Installation
Run the setup executable file, and let it guide you for the installation process. The setup installs a service, that is started the first time that you run HWMonitor Pro.
If you already have a registration key, you can either copy the pvk file in the installation directory (typically c:\Program Files\CPUID), or run the register process again from the program with the key sent in the registration e-mail.
Removal
You can remove the program either from the Add or Remove Programs window (from Settings, Control Panel), or choose Uninstall HWMonitor Pro from Start menu, Programs, CPUID. Please note that the directory CPUID won\’t be deleted since it contains the ini file and possibly your registration key.
Interface customization
Editable labels
Sensor labels can be manually edited.
To achieve that, select the sensor line, then press F2 to activate the edition. You can also select View in the main menu, then Edit Selection Label.
System tray
To add a sensor in the system tray, select it and right-click to make the floating menu appear, then choose Add to tray. You can also select View in the main menu, then Add Selection to Tray.
Tray icons are colored depending on the sensor type :
— Voltages
— Temperature
— Fan
— Fan PWM
— Power
— Clock Speed
— Utilization
— Bandwidth
If all icons are not visible, you can setup Windows in order it does always display all icons in the system tray :
— Windows 7 : right-click on the task bar, choose Properties. Click on the Customize button in the Notification Area group. Then check Always show all icons and notifications in the taskbar.
— Windows 10 : right-click on the task bar, choose Properties. Click on the Customize button in the Notification Area group. Select Notification and actions, then Select which icons appear on the taskbar, and turn on Always show all icons in the notification area.
Sensors tray icons can be individually removed by right clicking on each of them and choose Remove in the popup menu. Choose Remove All to remove all sensors icons from tray.
HWMonitor Pro can be minimized to tray by choosing View menu, Minimize to Tray. If you check «Minimize to Tray» in the option dialog, the program will be minimized to tray everytime
it is minimized. Once minimized to tray, double-click on the program tray icon to restore the interface.
Display Mode by Sensor Type
By default, HWMonitor PRO groups the sensors by device, but you can also choose to group them by type.
That display mode is the one used in the Android version of HWMonitor PRO.
Remote Monitoring
The remote monitoring feature in HWMonitor Pro stands in the ability to monitor one or several distant PCs with a simple TCP/IP connection, as shown on this picture. PCs can be
monitored from another PC, or from an Android mobile device thanks to the dedicated application.
Firewall considerations
The instances of HWMonitor Pro exchange data through port 25021. In order to keep your system secure, firewalls programs are detecting non declared port accesses, henceforth, before using the remote features of HWmonitor Pro, you need to declare the program to your custom firewall, or by default to Windows XP and Vista integrated firewalls. Depending on how your firewall is configured, you may be prompted to grant access to the program once the firewall requires it (typically as soon as you run a command related to remote monitoring).
If a popup like this one appears, unblock HWMonitor Pro. You can also manually configure a firewall exception, in order it grants access to HWMonitor Pro. As an example, here are the steps to follow for Windows integrated firewall :
Open Windows Firewall (Settings, then Control Panel), then click on the tab Exceptions. Choose Add Port…, then enter CPUID Hardware Monitor Pro as name, 25021 as port number, and check TCP
Click on OK to go back to the Firewall Exceptions tab. The name associated with the port must appear in the programs and ports list.
Click on OK to confirm and close the Firewall dialog box.
In no case you have to disable or stop your firewall in order to make HWMonitor Pro remote feature work. Doing this would make your system vulnerable.
If the unblocking process does not work, please make sure you followed all steps correctly.
Remote a PC from another PC
The steps to display the monitoring data of PC2 on PC1 are as following :
- Start HWMonitor Pro on PC1 and PC2. Please make sure that the firewalls are correctly configured on the two machines, as explained in the previous paragraph.
- Switch to «listening mode» to ON on PC2 : open menu Network, then check Listening Mode if it is not already checked. You\’ll be notify with a message in the status bar.
When in listening mode, the program instance sends its data to all other instances connected to it. You can force the program to start in listening mode : open the option dialog (menu Tools, Options), then check Enter in listening mode at startup. - We can now connect PC1 on PC2. On PC1, open menu Network, Connect and Enum Network to display a list of the network neighborhood of PC1.
- Select the machine you want to connect to, then click on Connect. Note that you can select multiple lines and therefore connect to several machines in one click.
If you know the IP address of the machine you want to connect to, select Network, Connect and IP Address. - Once the connection is established, you will be prompted in the status bar. After a moment, the remote machine appears in the list with all monitoring data. If the network connection is slow or you want to reduce traffic, open the options dialog on PC2 (menu Tools, Options) and increase the data broadcast frequency (available options are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15 and 20 seconds).
- A right click on the network machine root node causes a floating menu to appear, that allows to:
— close the connection
— open or reopen the connection
— remove the machine from the view
By default, when a machine is disconnected, the associated monitoring tree is deleted.
You can optionnaly prevent the tree to be deleted, if you for example need to have a look at the latest values of the sensors returned by the machine that has been deconnected. In order to achieve that, open the options dialog (Tools, Options), then uncheck Clear disconnected machines.
Remote a PC from the Android application
The Android add-on for HWMonitor PRO was introduced with version 1.19. However, please note that
the use of the add-on does not require version 1.19 and can be used with the previous versions as well
.
- Start HWMonitor PRO on the PC, and switch to «listening mode» (menu Network, check Listening Mode).
- Install HWMonitor PRO for Android on your mobile device, then start it. If you wish to monitor a system on a local network, make sure to activate WiFi on your Android device, so it will
be able to access to the systems by the local IPs.
- Add a Computer by clicking on the Computer icon in the action bar or from the application menu. Enter machine name or IP, then click OK.
If you enter both machine name and IP, the program will 1st use the IP address to connect to the machine. If you enter only one of the two data, the other one will be automatically
filled once the connection will be done. Click on the machine in the list in order to connect. - In order to remove a machine from the list, do a long click on it. You will be prompted to ask if you really want to remove the machine from the list.
Data logging
CPUID HWMonitor Pro includes a graph generator that displays sensor data in as many graphs as there are sensors in the machine. Each graph is saved as a bitmap file.
Recording Options (requires version 1.
08+)
Select Tools in the main menu, then Options to display recording options.
The graph generator can create two sets of graphs, in two different sizes. The program can also create .csv files, that you will easily open with a spreadsheet program.
In order to avoid memory overflow, data are saved automatically every 250, 500, 1000, 1500 or 2000 samples.
From version 1.20, HWMonitor PRO generates multi-curves graphs : for devices that contain more than one temperature, power, voltage, utilization or fan sensor, a graph is
generated that displays all sensors.
Start Recording
Select Tools in the main menu, then Logs and Start Recording, or press F5 key. The Log Status indicator in the status bar changes to ON to indicate that the recording is in progress.
Graphs
The graphs are saved in the Logs directory.
This directory is automatically created in the directory that contains HWMonitor Pro. In the Logs directory, each recording session is saved in
a dedicated directory, named as following :
[DAY MONTH YEAR — HOUR MINUTE]. For example : [7 JUN 2008 — 15h20]
In case of several machines are monitored (remote), the data for all the machines are recorded. They are stored in a folder that has the same name as the machine.
By default, graphs are sized 1280 x 960 pixels. You can optionally change the size through the Options dialog box (menu Tools, then Options). You can also change the curve thickness (version 1.20
and above).
Finally, check Automatically open folder after generation if you want that the folder opens by itself after the graphs are saved.
PWM Control (for ESA compliant devices)
HWMonitor Pro includes PWM Control capabilities. When a PWM type sensor appears in the program, you can change its current value by right-clicking on the sensor and select «Control».
1.
Does the Pro version of Hardware Monitor report more monitoring information than the classic and free version ?
The PRO version scans the network adapter speeds, whereas the classic version does not. Other than that, the two programs have the same monitoring capabilities.
2.
I’ve downloaded the latest version of Hardware Monitor PRO, but at startup the programs asked my registration key again. When I enter it, it does not work and keeps asking it.
Your license included an update period (one yeae for the classic version, two years for the extended version), meaning that you can use all versions of HWMonitor PRO released during that period.
You can either download a previous version from the versions history, either renew your license.
3.
I’ve upgraded my hardware, but HWMonitor PRO keeps recognizing the old device.
You need to clean the configuration file. Open an explorer, type %LocalAppData%\CPUID in the address bar and press enter. Then delete hwmprow.ini, or just hwmprow if your explorer does not show the files extensions.
4.
Hardware Monitor Pro reports inconsistent monitoring values. What can I do ?
Please save a dump as a txt file (menu File, and Save Monitoring Data), then paste the content of the file in the bug report form.
5.
HWMonitor Pro causes my PC to reboot or to freeze.
Edit hwmonitorw.ini, then replace:
USE_ACPI=1
USE_SMBUS=1
USE_SMART=1
USE_DISPLAY=1
with :
USE_ACPI=0
USE_SMBUS=0
USE_SMART=0
USE_DISPLAY=0
Run HWMonitor Pro again. If the program works, restore every «1» one by one, until the program causes the problem again.
- Improved sensors organization in tree display.
- New «max» sensors for CPU VID and CPU core temperatures.
- Glenfly Arise-GT10C0 GPU.
- Intel Core i9 12900KS.
- Intel Core i9-12900T, Core i5-12600T (35W).
- Intel Core i7-1280P/1270P/1260P, Core i5-1250P/1240P, Core i3-1220P (28W).
- Intel Core i7-1265U/1255U, Core i5 1245U/1235U, Core i3 1215U (15W).
- Intel Core i7-1260U/1250U, Core i5 1240U/1230U, Core i3 1210U (9W).
- Intel Xeon Platinum, Gold and Silver «Ice Lake-SP» (10nm, FCLGA4189).
- Intel Atom x6427FE, x6425RE, x6425E, x6414RE, x6413E, x6212RE, x6211E, x6200FE (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Intel Pentium J6425, N6415 (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Intel Celeron J6413, N6211 (EHL, FCBGA1493).
- Preliminary support for Intel Raptor Lake.
- Preliminary support for Intel ARC 3/5/7 (DG2).
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
- AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE, Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE, Ryzen 5 PRO 5650GE, Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE (CZN).
- AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, Ryzen 5 5600/5500.
- AMD Ryzen 7 5825U, Ryzen 5 5625U, Ryzen 3 5425U (15W).
- AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (15W).
- AMD Ryzen 9 6980HX, 6900HX, Ryzen 7 6800H, Ryzen 5 6600H (45W).
- AMD Ryzen 9 6980HS, 6900HS, Ryzen 7 6800HS, Ryzen 5 6600HS (35W).
- AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, Ryzen 5 6600U (15-28W).
- Preliminary support for AMD Raphael (Zen 4).
- AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (Navi 24 XT), Radeon RX 6400 (Navi 24 XL).
- AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (Navi 22).
- AMD RX 6800S, RX 6700S, RX 6650M, RX 6650M XT (Navi 23).
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (GA102-350, 450W).
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Intel Core 12th gen «Alder Lake» and Z6xx platform.
- DDR5 memory temperature.
- Added hard disks activity and read/write speeds.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Added hotspot and GDDR6 temperatures on NVIDIA GPUs.
- Preliminary support of Intel Alder Lake.
- Speedup of graphs generation.
- Fix tray icons displaying the wrong temperature unit.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Fix IP selection when multiple IP are available.
- Fix saving minimized and tray modes.
- Fix tray icons bugs.
- Add auto start.
- Intel Core 11th generation «Rocket Lake» and Z590 chipset..
- AMD Ryzen 5000 «Zen 3» Vermeer.
- AMD ThreadRipper PRO 3995WX, 3975WX, 3955WX, 3945WX and WRX80 chipset.
- AMD Cezanne and Lucienne APUs.
- AMD Radeon 6000 GPUs.
- NVIDIA RTX 3000 GPUs
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 4750G, Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G, Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G processors.
- Intel Tiger Lake platform.
- AMD Ryzen 5000 «Vermeer» preliminary support.
- Intel Rocket Lake preliminary support.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Fix window position and size issue.
- AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT, Ryzen 5 3600XT, Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X, and «Renoir» APU.
- AMD B550 chipset.
- Intel Z490/W480/B460 Comet Lake platform support.
- Hygon processors preliminary support.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Dark mode.
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, 3970X and 3990X and TRX40 chipset.
- Intel Core 10xxx Comet Lake processors.
- Centaur new CPU with AI coprocessor preliminary support.
- Zhaoxin processors.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Threadripper 3000.
- Intel Comet Lake preliminary support.
- NVIDIA RTX 2070 and 2080 Super.
- AMD Radeon RX 5700/5700XT.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Ryzen 3000 processors.
- Intel Cascade Lake processors.
- Zhaoxin processors support.
- Default IP saving when multiple IPs are available.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Radeon VII (Vega 20) monitoring.
- Improved monitoring on AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 & 64 (Vega 10).
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- NVIDIA GeForce RTX serie 20 (multiple fans)
- Intel Basin Falls Skylake-X refresh
- Intel Gemini Lake processors family
- Intel Xeon E processors
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Intel 9th generation core family and Z390 chipset.
- New performance limits indicators (NVIDIA GPUs)
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Threadripper 2000 processors
- Fix HDD temperature update issue.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Intel 9th generation Core family.
- Improved support of NVMe hard drives monitoring.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Ryzen 2000 processors.
- Intel Xeon Bronze / Silver / Gold / Platinium processors.
- Improved Intel IGP monitoring.
- Improved HDD monitoring.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Added CPU and GPU utilization.
- Added DRAM power (Haswell processors).
- New multi-curves graphs.
- AMD Athlon 5350 & 5150, Sempron 3850 & 2650 (Kabini), A10-7850K, A10-7800, A10-7700K, A8-7600, A6-7400K, A4-7300 (Kaveri), A6-6420K, A4-6320, A4-4020 (Richland).
- Intel X99 platform (DDR4, Haswell-E) and Devil’s Canyon processors.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Automatic graphs saving feature (options dialog).
- Intel CPUs : Ivy Bridge-E/EP/EX, Core i5 and Core i3-4xxx (including Haswell refresh : i7-4790, i5-4690, i5-4590, i5-4460), Celeron Haswell (G1830, G1820), Bay Trail (Atom, Celeron, Pentium).
- AMD Kaveri APUs.
- Fan speed report on ATI GPUs.
- ITE IT8603 and IT8623 SIOs (Asus FM2+ mainboards).
- Nuvoton NCT6106 and SMSC SCH5636 SIOs (Fujitsu mainboards).
- Microsoft Windows 8.
1.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- AMD Opteron X1150 and X2150, 3200 and 3300 series, FX-9590 and FX-9370 processors.
- Intel Core i3-4xxx, Core ix-4xxxHQ «Crystalwell», Pentium «Haswell» G3430, G3420, G3220, Core i7-3910K processors.
- Intel 8-series chipset.
- ITE IT8603, IT8323, IT8732 SIOs.
- Microsoft Windows 8.1 (Windows Blue) support improved.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 32 or 64-bit version
- Fixed package temperature on AMD FX (Zambezi and Vishera).
- Report real-time power on AMD FX (Zambezi and Vishera).
- Support complete telemetry on AMD APU (Trinity).
- Fixed package power on multi-CPU Intel platforms.
- Added support of Nuvoton NCT7904D chip.
- Added option «Minimize to tray».
- Support for Antec CC watercoolers. That support is preliminary, it requires the use of the 32-bit version of HWMonitorPRO, and requires that the ChilControl application does NOT run in the same time.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 64-bit version
zip • english 32-bit version
- Intel Core i7-3960X, 3930K and 3820 (Sandy Bridge-E) and X79 chipset.
- Intel Xeon E3 (SandyBridge-WS).
- Intel Ivy Bridge processors and Z77 chipset.
- AMD Opteron Interlagos and Valencia (Bulldozer).
- AMD «Trinity» APU Preliminary support.
- Improved voltages report for lot of new mainboards.
- New loading screen.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 64-bit version
zip • english 32-bit version
- New sensor chips : Fintek F71862, F71869, F71889, F81865, CHIL CHL8266, ITE IT8721, Analog Device ADM1033.
- Intel QST 2.0.
- Asus ROG monitoring.
- Gigabyte DES monitoring.
setup • english32 and 64-bit version
zip • english 64-bit version
zip • english 32-bit version
zip • english Windows 98 version
System Monitoring SDK
System Development Kits
Your application is a few minutes away from being able to keep an eye on most PC systems health sensors: voltages, temperatures & fan speeds.
View more
CPUID ©2001-2022 — All website content subjected to copyright
- terms of service
- privacy policy
- credits
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 56: What is the difference?
57 BALLLA
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
44 BALLLA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
54 Facts compared to
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Is XT better than AMD Radeon RX Vega 56?
- GPU frequency 449MHz higher?
1605MHz vs 1156MHz - 27.
76 GPixel/s higher pixel speed?
121.9 GPixel/s vs 94.14 GPixel/s - 950MHz faster memory speed?
1750MHz vs 800MHz - 12400MHz higher effective clock speed?
14000MHz vs 1600MHz - 38GB/s more memory bandwidth?
448GB/s vs 410GB/s - 434MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
1905MHz vs 1471MHz - Are 7nm smaller semiconductors?
7nm vs 14nm - 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
4 vs 3
- 0.75 TFLOPS above FLOPS?
10.5 TFLOPS vs 9.75 TFLOPS - 15W below TDP?
210W vs 225W - 24.7 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels?
329.5 GTexels/s vs 304.8 GTexels/s - 1792bit wider memory bus?
2048bit vs 256bit - 1024 more stream processors?
3584 vs 2560 - 2200million more transistors?
12500 million vs 10300 million - 64 more texture units (TMUs)?
224 vs 160
Which comparisons are the most popular?
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
VS
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
VS
AMD RADEON RX 580
AMD RADEON RX 5000 VS 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID 9000 NVID AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1070
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
VS
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT RAT RADEON RADEON RX VEGA 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VEGA 9000 AMD 9000 AMD 9000 AMD 9000 AMD0003
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
VS
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
VS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 30 AMD Radeon RX 5000 ° C 9000 VS 9000 NVIT 9000 VS 9000 NVIT 9000 NV Ti
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
VS
GIGABYTE RADEON RX 6600 XT EAGLE
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
VS
AMD Radeon Ride 9000)0004 Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
vs
MSI Radeon RX 6600 XT Gaming
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
vs
AMD Radeon Pro Duo
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
vs
Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
vs
MSI Radeon RX 6700 XT Mech 2X
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 Super
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
10.
0 /10
1 reviews of users
Functions
Price and quality ratio
8.0 /10
1 votes
10.0 /10 9000 /10
1 Votes
10.0 /10
1 Votes
performance
10.0 /10
1 VOTES
10.0 /10 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
004 1 Votes
Fan noise
5.0 /10
1 Votes
4.0 /10
1 Votes
Reliability
7.0261 /10 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000) /
1 votes
Performance
1.GPU clock speed
1605MHz
1156MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.turbo GPU
1905MHz
1471MHz
When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
3.
pixel rate
121.9 GPixel/s
94.14 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
4.flops
9.75 TFLOPS
10.5 TFLOPS
FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.
5.texture size
304.8 GTexels/s
329.5 GTexels/s
The number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
1750MHz
800MHz
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 take textured units and map 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
14000MHz
1600MHz
The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.
2.max memory bandwidth
448GB/s
410GB/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
256bit
2048bit
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
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 56)
Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.
6. Supports memory debug code
✖AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
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 5700 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
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
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 56)
Lower boot temperature means the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.
7. Supports 3D
✔AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
✖AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
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 5700XT)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX Vega 56)
This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.
Ports
1.has HDMI output
✔AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
✔AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
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, resulting in 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 graphics cards are better?
Video card rx vega 56 in Ukraine. RX Vega 56 graphics card prices for Prom.ua
Sapphire PCI-EX Radeon RX Vega 56 Pulse 8GB HBM2 (2048BIT)
Delivery in Ukraine
15 500 UAH
ITUNIT
9000 56 Red Dragon 8GB 1177MHz
Delivery across Ukraine
15 600 UAH
Buy
ITUNIT
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT WindForce OC 6GB (GV-R56XTWF2OC-6GD)
In stock
14,0004
Buy
Rua Msi LP low profile HA5010h22SF-Z set of 2 pcs (№56)
Delivery from Zhytomyr
340 uah
Buy
Kozatchok
BGA direct heating stencil AMD RX Vega 56 Vega 10 XL4216)
Delivery from Borispol
719 UAH
Buy
VNGSM.
com.ua
Kit 3 fan ASUS STRIX GTX 1060/1070/1080 RX VEGA 64 RX 480/580 R9 390/Fury
Delivery in Ukraine
1 199 UAH
799 UAH
Buy
Contact IF Computer Company
Radeon RX VEGA 56 8GB 2048BIT ASROCK PHANTOM Video AMD, GTX1080TI, 5700XTX2060 9000 9000
24 210 UAH
Buy
Wind-SOLAR
Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB 2048BIT MSI AIR BOOST Video, AMD, GTX1080.5700XT, RTX2060 RTX3060
9000
WIND-SOLAR
Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB 2048BIT SAPPHire OC Video Card in excellent condition AMD, GTX1080TI, 5700XT RTX2060
Delivery from the city of Dnipro
26 410 UAH
004 Buy
Wind-Solar
AMD Radeon RX 5600XT 6GB Core: 1620MHz GV-R56XTWF2GD
Delivery in Ukraine
14 789.25 UAH 9000 6GB GDDR6 Core: 15 60MHz GV-R56XTWF2-6GD
Delivery in Ukraine
14 581.35 UAH
Buy
TOV «LAKI SELZ»
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC 6G (PCI-E.0/192BIT) (GV-R56XTGAMING OC-6GD)
It ends
Delivery in Ukraine
39 008 UAH
Buy
IPEOPLE STORE AND SERVICE
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT WindForce OC (GV-R56XTWF2C-6GD) 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
14 514 UAH
Buy
TAX FREE!
Video card Gigabyte AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT WindForce GV-R56XTWF2-6GD
Delivery within Ukraine
UAH 14,465
UAH 13,845
graphics card RX 5600 XT 6GB GIGABYTE WINDFORCE OC (GV-R56XTWF2OC-6GD) Refurbished (TF)
Available
11 300 UAH
9,0003 9000 Videookarty 87mm 5pin ASUS Strix GTX 1060/1070/1080 RX VEGA 64 RX 480/580 R9 390/Fury
Unavailable
329 UAH
269 UAH
Video company
6144Mb WINDFORCE (GV-R56XTWF2-6GD)
21 311 UAH
13 755 UAH
Watch
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT 6144MB WF2 OC (GV-R56XTWF2GD)
140004,000 ROG-STRIX-RXVEGA56-O8G-GAMING RXVEGA56-O8G-GAMING)
Inaccessible
900 900 UAH
Watch
Controllash Control 9000 CompSoft-online store of computer components, network equipment and licensed software
Video card Asus Radeon RX Vega 64 (ROG-STRIX-RXVEGA64-O8G-GAMING)
Unavailable
29 400 UAH
RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT Review: RDNA brings Radeon back into play
The AMD RX 5700 and AMD RX 5700 XT are the Reds’ new attempt to improve their position against Nvidia.
The new graphics cards don’t have RTX support promoted by the competitor, but AMD plans to wow buyers with performance boosts, additional features, and updated designs.
First of all, a note about the price. AMD Announces 5700 and 5700 XT Retail Prices at $379and $450. However, at launch they dropped to $350 for the 5700 and just $400 for the RX 5700 XT.
Meanwhile, Nvidia has updated its RTX GPU lineup with the 2060 Super, 2070 Super, and 2080 Super. Two of them have already come out, showing decent performance for their money. The RTX 2060S is on par with the RTX 2070 (and costs $100 less), and the RTX 2070S is only slightly behind the RTX 2080. Pay attention to the specifications of the Radeon RX 5700 and Vega 64. On paper, the latter has a significant advantage in memory bandwidth of 484 GB / s versus 448 GB / s. Vega 64 has 4096 GPU cores, while the RX 5700 has less — 2304. You might think that the Vega 64 will come out victorious in any fight.
And you will be wrong.
The design of the cards is still low-key, continuing the direction set by Radeon VII at the beginning of the year. The reference 5700 has smooth edges, while the 5700 XT draws attention with a recess on the shroud.
What to look out for
Navi graphics cards had an impact on the market even before they were released: Nvidia wouldn’t drop Turing prices out of the goodness of their hearts.
The last time AMD took the lead in performance was six years ago with Hawaii. Lines that came out later — Fury, Polaris, Vega — lost the battle, each in its own way. AMD often pushes its architecture to the limit to match or nearly match Nvidia. The operation of the chip at the limit of its capabilities significantly affects the power consumption of , and in this regard, AMD has not competed with Nvidia since Pascal.
When announcing the RDNA architecture at E3, AMD talked about the increased efficiency, faster instruction execution, and improved power consumption of the 5700 and 5700 XT.
The change in process technology from 14 nm to 7 nm for the consumer implies a significant jump in performance and efficiency.
AMD also decided not to integrate ray tracing into its models yet, although Nvidia has been actively promoting the technology all last year. This is the second point that makes it difficult to compare video cards from two manufacturers. Companies don’t have to strive for maximum similarity of models, but the consumer usually wants to observe their comparative value.
We will compare the performance and overall efficiency of the 5700 XT with the Radeon Vega 64 and Radeon VII. Vega 64 is the closest in performance to the 5700 of the cards on the old process technology, and Radeon VII was the first example of the new one, although it represents the previous GCN architecture. We don’t think the 5700 XT will outperform the Radeon VII, but the numbers will still tell us something interesting about the differences between the architectures. Results for 2560×1440:
| 1440p | Radeon RX 5700XT | Radeon RX 5700 | Radeon VII | Vega 64 | RTX 2070 Super |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 72 | 66 | 76 | 61 | 72 |
| Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | 68 | 56 | 67 | 54 | 70 |
| The Division 2 | 65 | 57 | 67 | 60 | 73 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99 | 87 | 84 | 82 | 90 |
And at 1920×1080:
| 1080p | Radeon RX 5700XT | Radeon RX 5700 | Radeon VII | Vega 64 | RTX 2070 Super |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 105 | 93 | 104 | 87 | 105 |
| Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | 90 | 81 | 85 | 77 | 85 |
| The Division 2 | 100 | 85 | 101 | 90 | 110 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 116 | 108 | 99 | 107 | 108 |
Power consumption and noise
I don’t have a sound level meter accurate enough to measure the noise of video cards, but even without one I can easily tell the difference between the new products and almost any of AMD’s reference models released since 2013.
RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT are quiet. No, they are not silent, but in this respect they are head and shoulders above other cards in the similar price range from AMD.
So. The RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT are much quieter than the Vega 64 or Radeon VII. And what about energy consumption?
| Radeon RX 5700XT | Radeon RX 5700 | Radeon VII | Vega 64 | RTX 2070 Super | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Load consumption W | 275 | 235 | 360 | 370 | 300 |
| Load temperature, C | 82 | 80 | 80 | 81 | 74 |
| Noise under load, dB | 54 | 50 | 61 | 62 | 46 |
The results obtained can be viewed in different ways. First, let’s compare the RX 5700 and Vega 64. The RX 5700 is not inferior to the Vega 64 in almost any test, but consumes almost a third less energy.
The Radeon RX 5700 XT consumes less than the RTX 2070S. At the same time, the difference in power consumption is approximately at the level of the difference in performance.
Of course, we should not forget the obvious: AMD’s new products are manufactured using the 7 nm process technology, while Nvidia remains at 12 nm. This is an objective argument in favor of the fact that AMD is still in the role of catching up on the overall efficiency of chips.
This is not surprising. More than five years passed between the arrival of Jim Keller at AMD and the release of Ryzen. After the depressing reviews of Vega in 2017, rumors began to spread that all the resources of the company were thrown into the early development of Ryzen. Since then, AMD has been focusing more on GPUs, but it’s been far too short for major changes.
The Navi line couldn’t close the power efficiency gap all at once, but still managed to break far ahead of previous models and even compete with Nvidia’s offerings.
Conclusion: more performance, less features
I could tell you a lot more about Navi, the current state of the market, and the wisdom of investing in ray tracing after Nvidia’s price cuts. But two processors and two video cards, released on the same day, require you to take a break and collect your thoughts.
In any case, the Navi have become the most impressive AMD graphics cards since at least the HD 7970 . This may sound surprising, because the line does not take the lead on all fronts and does not put the competition on the shoulder blades — although this would be a completely different conclusion if Nvidia did not lower prices.
AMD has been on the sidelines for several years now on the graphics card market. The company needs a model that is competitive in both performance and power consumption. An architecture is needed that allows you to get to peak frequency values. Ever since Fury, it seemed like AMD was constantly hitting a power efficiency ceiling, desperately clinging to any performance boost.