Radeon vii vs 5700 xt: AMD Radeon-VII vs RX 5700-XT

6 февраля, 2023

RTX 2080 vs. Radeon VII vs. 5700 XT: Rendering and Compute Performance [Updated]

  • By Joel Hruska on August 26, 2019 at 8:24 am

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Most of our GPU coverage focuses on the consumer side of the business and on game benchmarking, but I promised to examine the compute side of performance back when the Radeon VII launched. With the 5700 XT having debuted recently, we had an opportunity to return to this question with a new GPU architecture from AMD and compare RDNA against GCN.

In fact, the overall compute situation is at an interesting crossroads. AMD has declared that it wishes to be a more serious player in enterprise compute environments but has also said that GCN will continue to exist alongside RDNA in this space. The Radeon VII is a consumer variant of AMD’s MI50 accelerator, with half-speed FP64 support. If you know you need double-precision FP64 compute, for example, the Radeon VII fills that niche in a way that no other GPU in this comparison does.

The Radeon VII has the highest RAM bandwidth and it’s the only GPU in this comparison to offer much in the way of double-precision performance. But while these GPUs have relatively similar on-paper specs, there’s significant variance between them in terms of performance — and the numbers don’t always break the way you think they would.

One of AMD’s major talking points with the 5700 XT is now Navi represents a fundamentally new GPU architecture. The 5700 XT proved itself to be moderately faster than the Vega 64 in our testing on the consumer side of the equation, but we wanted to check the situation in compute as well. Keep in mind, however, that the 5700 XT’s newness also works against us a bit here. Some applications may need to be updated to take full advantage of its capabilities.

Regarding Blender 2.80

Our test results contain data from both Blender 2.80 and the standalone Blender benchmark, 1.0beta2 (released August 2018). Blender 2.80 is a major release for the application, and it contains a number of significant changes. The standalone benchmark is not compatible with Nvidia’s RTX family, which necessitated testing with the latest version of the software. Initially, we tested the Blender 2.80 beta, but then the final version dropped — so we dumped the beta results and retested.

Image by Blender

There are significant performance differences between the Blender 1.0beta2 benchmark and 2.80 and one scene, Classroom, does not render properly in the new version. This scene has been dropped from our 2.80 comparisons. Blender allows the user to specify a tile size in pixels to control how much of the scene is worked on at once. Code in the Blender 1.0beta2 benchmark’s Python files indicates that the test uses a tile size of 512×512 (X/Y coordinates) for GPUs and 16×16 for CPUs. Most of the scene files actually contained within the benchmark, however, actually use a tile size of 32×32 by default if loaded within Blender 2.80.

We tested Blender 2.80 in two different modes. First, we tested all compatible scenes using the default tile size those scenes loaded with. This was 16×16 for Barbershop_Interior, and 32×32 for all other scenes. Next, we tested the same renders with a default tile size of 512×512. Up until now, the rule with tile sizes has been that larger sizes were good for GPUs, while smaller sizes were good for CPUs. This appears to have changed somewhat with Blender 2.80. AMD and Nvidia GPUs show very different responses to larger tile sizes, with AMD GPUs accelerating with higher tile sizes and Nvidia GPUs losing performance.

Because the scene files we are testing were created in an older version of Blender, it’s possible that this might be impacting our overall results. We have worked extensively with AMD for several weeks to explore aspects of Blender performance on GCN GPUs. GCN, Pascal, Turing, and RDNA all show a different pattern of results when moving from 32×32 to 512×512, with Turing losing less performance than Pascal and RDNA gaining more performance in most circumstances than GCN.

All of our GPUs benefited substantially from not using a 16×16 tile size for Barbershop_Interior. While this test defaults to 16×16 it does not render very well at that tile size on any GPU.

Troubleshooting the different results we saw in the Blender 1.0Beta2 benchmark versus the Blender 2.80 beta and finally Blender 2.80 final has held up this review for several weeks and we’ve swapped through several AMD drivers while working on it. All of our Blender 2.80 results were, therefore, run using Adrenaline 2019 Edition 19.8.1.

Test Setup and Notes

All GPUs were tested on an Intel Core i7-8086K system using an Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard. The Vega 64, Radeon RX 5700 XT, and Radeon VII were all tested using Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.7.2 (7/16/2019) for everything but Blender 2.80. All Blender 2.80 tests were run using 19.8.1, not 19.7.2. The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 and Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 were both tested using Nvidia’s 431.60 Game Ready Driver (7/23/2019).

CompuBench 2.0 runs GPUs through a series of tests intended to measure various aspects of their compute performance. Kishonti, developers of CompuBench, don’t appear to offer any significant breakdown on how they’ve designed their tests, however. Level set simulation may refer to using level sets for the analysis of surfaces and shapes. Catmull-Clark Subdivision is a technique used to create smooth surfaces. N-body simulations are simulations of dynamic particle systems under the influence of forces like gravity. TV-L1 optical flow is an implementation of an optical flow estimation method, used in computer vision.

SPEC Workstation 3.1 contains many of the same workloads as SPECViewPerf, but also has additional GPU compute workloads, which we’ll break out separately. A complete breakdown of the workstation test and its application suite can be found here. SPEC Workstation 3.1 was run in its 4K native test mode. While this test run was not submitted to SPEC for formal publication, our testing of SPEC Workstation 3.1 obeyed the organization’s stated rules for testing, which can be found here.

Nvidia GPUs were always tested with CUDA when CUDA was available.

We’ve cooked up two sets of results for you — a synthetic series of benchmarks, created with SiSoft Sandra and investigating various aspects of how these chips compare, including processing power, memory latency, and internal characteristics, and a wider suite of tests that touch on compute and rendering performance in various applications. Since the SiSoft Sandra 2020 tests are all unique to that application, we’ve opted to break them out into their own slideshow.

The Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 results should be read as approximately equivalent to an RTX 2070S. The two GPUs perform nearly identically in consumer workloads and should match each other in workstation as well.

SiSoft Sandra 2020

SiSoft Sandra is a general-purpose system information utility and full-featured performance evaluation suite. While it’s a synthetic test, it’s probably the most full-featured synthetic evaluation utility available, and Adrian Silasi, its developer, has spent decades refining and improving it, adding new features and tests as CPUs and GPUs evolve.

Our SiSoft Sandra-specific results are below. Some of our OpenCL results are a little odd where the 5700 XT is concerned, but according to Adrian, he’s not yet had the chance to optimize code for execution on the 5700 XT. Consider these results to be preliminary — interesting, but perhaps not yet indicative — as far as that GPU is concerned.

[metaslider id=”297168″]

Our SiSoft Sandra 2020 benchmarks point largely in the same direction. If you need double-precision floating-point, the Radeon VII is a compute monster. While it’s not clear how many buyers fall into that category, there are certain places, like image processing and high-precision workloads, where the Radeon VII shines.

The RDNA-based Radeon 5700 XT does less to distinguish itself in these tests, but we’re also in contact with Silasi concerning the issues we ran into during testing. Improved support may change some of these results in months ahead.

Test Results

Now that we’ve addressed Sandra performance, let’s turn to the rest of our benchmark suite. Our other results are included in the slideshow below:

[metaslider id=”297188″]

Conclusions

What do these results tell us? A lot of rather interesting things. First of all, RDNA is downright impressive. Keep in mind that we’ve tested this GPU in professional and compute-oriented applications, none of which have been updated or patched to run on it. There are clear signs that this has impacted our benchmark results, including some tests that either wouldn’t run or it ran slowly. Even so, the 5700 XT impresses.

Radeon VII impresses too, but in different ways than the 5700 XT. SiSoft Sandra 2020 shows the advantage this card can bring to double-precision workloads, where it offers far more performance than anything else on the market. AI and machine learning have become much more important of late, but if you’re working in an area where GPU double-precision is key, Radeon VII packs an awful lot of firepower. SiSoft Sandra does include tests that rely on D3D11 rather than OpenCL. But given that OpenCL is the chief competitor to CUDA, I opted to stick with it in all cases save for the memory latency tests, which globally showed lower latencies for all GPUs when D3D was used compared with OpenCL.

In workstation tests, like SPEC Workstation 3.1, the Radeon 5700 XT generally outperforms Vega 64. It’s a closer comparison for Radeon VII in many respects, despite driver immaturity, lower memory bandwidth, and less RAM. This GPU family should have potential in the workstation market, at least long-term.

AMD has previously said that it intends to keep GCN in-market for compute, with Navi oriented towards the consumer market, but there’s no indication that the firm intends to continue evolving GCN on a separate trajectory from RDNA. The more likely meaning of this is that GCN won’t be replaced at the top of the compute market until Big Navi is ready at some point in 2020. Based on what we’ve seen, there’s a lot to be excited about on that front. There are already applications where RDNA is significantly faster than Radeon VII, despite the vast difference between the cards in terms of double-precision capability, RAM bandwidth, and memory capacity.

Blender 2.80 presents an interesting series of comparisons between RDNA, GCN, and CUDA. Using higher tile sizes has an enormous impact on GPU performance, but whether that difference is good or bad depends on which brand of GPU you use and which architectural family it belongs to. Pascal and Turing GPUs performed better with smaller tile sizes, while GCN GPUs performed better with larger ones. The 512×512 tile size was better in total for all GPUs, but only because it improved the total rendering time on Barbershop_Interior by more than it harmed the render time of every other scene for Turing and Pascal GPUs. The RTX 2080 was the fastest GPU in our Blender benchmarks, but the 5700 XT put up excellent performance results overall.

I do not want to make global pronouncements about Blender 2.80 settings; I am not a 3D rendering expert. These test results suggest that Blender performs better with larger tile settings on AMD GPUs but that smaller tile settings may produce better results for Nvidia GPUs. In the past, both AMD and Nvidia GPUs have benefited from larger tile sizes. This pattern could also be linked to the specific scenes in question, however. If you run Blender, I suggest experimenting with different scenes and tile sizes.

Ultimately, what these results suggest is that there’s more variation in GPU performance in some of these professional markets than we might expect for gaming. There are specific tests where the 5700 XT is markedly faster than the RTX 2080 or Radeon VII and other tests where it falls sharply behind them. OpenCL driver immaturity may account for some of this, but we see flashes of brilliance in these performance figures. The Radeon VII’s double-precision performance put it in a class of its own in certain respects, but the Radeon RX 5700 XT is a far less expensive and quieter card. Depending on what your target application is, AMD’s new $400 GPU might be the best choice on the market. In other scenarios, both the Radeon VII and the RTX 2080 make specific and particular claim to being the fastest card available.

Feature image is the final render of the Benchmark_Pavilion scene included in the Blender 1.02beta standalone benchmark. 

Update (8/27/2019): The SPEC Workstation 3.1 benchmark does not notify the user if the test falls back to a lower output resolution than the one specified. This caused our original 5700 XT results to be run at a lower resolution than the 4K test we intended. These graphs have been updated with results validated in 4K. The 5700 XT still offers impressive performance in these modes, though it doesn’t quite crack the sky the way we first thought it had. ET regrets the error.

Now Read:

  • AMD, Nvidia High-End GPUs Are Much Better Deals Now Than 6 Months Ago
  • Why 110-Degree Temps Are Normal for AMD’s Radeon 5700, 5700 XT
  • Welcome to the Second Golden Age of AMD

Tagged In

    This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

    ExtremeTech Newsletter

    Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

    This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
    Terms of Use and
    Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.

    More articles

    Radeon VII vs RX 5700 XT ⚙️

    0x1015652490.633MH/s175W89442.804MH/W

    Argon2d-dyn33.945KH/s124W0.274KH/W

    Argon2d-ninja0KH/s191W0KH/W

    Argon2d409657.791KH/s—W—KH/W

    Astralhash21.53MH/s183W0.118MH/W

    Autolykos290.374MH/s108W0.837MH/W

    BCD15.389MH/s181W0.085MH/W

    BMW512776. 76MH/s85W9.138MH/W

    BeamHashII30.357H/s109W0.279H/W

    BeamHashIII24.4H/s121W0.202H/W

    Blake (2b)1.484GH/s86W0.017GH/W

    Blake (2b-BTCC)—GH/s—W—GH/W

    Blake (2s)4.623GH/s190W0.024GH/W

    Blake (2s-Kadena)—GH/s—W—GH/W

    C1118.444MH/s123W0.15MH/W

    CNReverseWaltz1465.64H/s147W9.97H/W

    Chukwa80.217KH/s179W0.448KH/W

    Chukwa230. 116KH/s189W0.159KH/W

    Circcash1460.498KH/s169W8.642KH/W

    CryptoNightAlloy562.77H/s141W3.991H/W

    CryptoNightArto1122.93H/s142W7.908H/W

    CryptoNightB2N—H/s—W—H/W

    CryptoNightConceal2275.1H/s147W15.477H/W

    CryptoNightFast50537.857H/s191W264.596H/W

    CryptoNightFastV2—H/s—W—H/W

    CryptoNightGPU1938H/s90W21.533H/W

    CryptoNightHaven1293.56H/s82W15. 775H/W

    CryptoNightHeavy51113.5H/s188W271.88H/W

    CryptoNightHeavyX568.47H/s—W—H/W

    CryptoNightItalo—H/s—W—H/W

    CryptoNightLiteV751.11KH/s188W0.272KH/W

    CryptoNightR1062.73H/s180W5.904H/W

    CryptoNightSaber—H/s—W—H/W

    CryptoNightStelliteV41182.1H/s142W8.325H/W

    CryptoNightStelliteV52110.3H/s200W10.552H/W

    CryptoNightTalleo0.01MH/s27W0MH/W

    CryptoNightTurtle9. 582KH/s193W0.05KH/W

    CryptoNightUPX2—KH/s—W—KH/W

    CryptoNightV71.182KH/s143W0.008KH/W

    CryptoNightV81084H/s168W6.452H/W

    CryptoNightWOW1097.9H/s88W12.476H/W

    CryptoNightZLS1443.385H/s99W14.58H/W

    Cuckaroo29S4.2H/s194W0.022H/W

    Cuckaroo29b3.797H/s108W0.035H/W

    CuckooBFC—H/s—W—H/W

    CuckooCycle4.48H/s180W0.025H/W

    Curvehash3947981765469. 3H/s66W59817905537.414H/W

    Darkcoin1.913GH/s180W0.011GH/W

    Dedal14.134MH/s187W0.076MH/W

    Eaglesong0.753GH/s190W0.004GH/W

    Equihash—GH/s—W—GH/W

    Equihash(125,4)32.29H/s177W0.182H/W

    Equihash(144,5)55.83H/s160W0.349H/W

    Equihash(150,5)—H/s—W—H/W

    Equihash(192,7)35H/s179W0.196H/W

    Equihash(210,9)178.24H/s160W1.114H/W

    Equihash(96,5)—H/s—W—H/W

    Etchash54. 282MH/s91W0.597MH/W

    Ethash54.282MH/s91W0.597MH/W

    FiroPoW23.48MH/s121W0.194MH/W

    Globalhash19.149MH/s173W0.111MH/W

    HMQ17258.901MH/s169W0.053MH/W

    Handshake0.197GH/s100W0.002GH/W

    HeavyHash211.874MH/s109W1.944MH/W

    Hex11.654MH/s198W0.059MH/W

    HoneyComb29.678MH/s170W0.175MH/W

    Jeonghash7.61MH/s184W0.041MH/W

    KAWPOW26. 19MH/s141W0.186MH/W

    KangarooTwelve1.437GH/s180W0.008GH/W

    Lyra2REv253.191MH/s152W0.35MH/W

    Lyra2REv371.694MH/s179W0.401MH/W

    Lyra2vc0ban61.271MH/s179W0.342MH/W

    Lyra2z—MH/s—W—MH/W

    MTP2.261MH/s111W0.02MH/W

    NeoScrypt—MH/s—W—MH/W

    Octopus22.34MH/s210W0.106MH/W

    PHI161222.659MH/s194W0.117MH/W

    PHI2—MH/s—W—MH/W

    Padihash11. 986MH/s196W0.061MH/W

    Pawelhash8.995MH/s180W0.05MH/W

    Phi56.866H/s192W0.036H/W

    ProgPow16.427MH/s180W0.091MH/W

    ProgPowSERO16.96MH/s195W0.087MH/W

    ProgPowZ17.498MH/s179W0.098MH/W

    RandomKEVA1013.96H/s164W6.183H/W

    RandomSFX1012.975H/s164W6.177H/W

    RandomX—H/s—W—H/W

    SHA-256csm1661.216MH/s179W9.281MH/W

    Skein2546. 626MH/s194W2.818MH/W

    Skunkhash43.05MH/s172W0.25MH/W

    SonoA2.252MH/s174W0.013MH/W

    Tellor0.193GH/s—W—GH/W

    TimeTravel1037.07MH/s194W0.191MH/W

    Tribus79.821MH/s189W0.422MH/W

    Ubqhash49.732MH/s195W0.255MH/W

    Verthash0.698MH/s163W0.004MH/W

    VerusHash0.47MH/s140W0.003MH/W

    X11k2.827MH/s178W0.016MH/W

    X16R14. 959MH/s183W0.082MH/W

    X16RT14.982MH/s187W0.08MH/W

    X16RTVEIL15.045MH/s185W0.081MH/W

    X16Rv212.778MH/s190W0.067MH/W

    X16S14.952MH/s183W0.082MH/W

    X1714.778MH/s185W0.08MH/W

    X17R13.12MH/s192W0.068MH/W

    X1810.73MH/s175W0.061MH/W

    X21S9.075MH/s182W0.05MH/W

    X22i3.303MH/s151W0.022MH/W

    X25X1.651MH/s163W0. 01MH/W

    Xevan4.86MH/s189W0.026MH/W

    Zhash56.38H/s159W0.355H/W

    cuckARoo29—H/s—W—H/W

    cuckARood294.49H/s128W0.035H/W

    cuckARoom291.26H/s108W0.012H/W

    cuckAToo310.4H/s84W0.005H/W

    cuckAToo320.19H/s110W0.002H/W

    vProgPow8.041MH/s190W0.042MH/W

    What is better than AMD Radeon VII or Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 5700 XT

    Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 5700 XT

    AMD Radeon VII

    GPU

    GPU.

    1770MHz

    max 2457

    Average: 938 MHz

    1400MHz

    max 2457

    Average: 938MHz

    GPU memory frequency

    This is an important aspect calculating memory bandwidth

    1750MHz

    max 16000

    Average: 1326.6 MHz

    1000MHz

    max 16000

    Average: 1326.6 MHz

    FLOPS

    The measurement of processing power of a processor is called FLOPS.

    9.84TFLOPS

    max 1142.32

    Average: 92. 5 TFLOPS

    13.6TFLOPS

    max 1142.32

    Average: 92.5 TFLOPS

    Turbo GPU

    If the GPU speed drops below its limit, it can switch to a high clock speed to improve performance.
    Show all

    2010MHz

    max 2903

    Average: 1375.8 MHz

    1750MHz

    max 2903

    Average: 1375.8 MHz

    Texture size

    A certain number of textured pixels are displayed on the screen every second.
    Show all

    321.6 GTexels/s

    max 756.8

    Average: 145.4 GTexels/s

    432 GTexels/s

    max 756. 8

    Average: 145.4 GTexels/s

    Architecture name

    NAVI / RDNA

    GCN 5.1

    The name of the graphic processor

    NAVI 10

    VEGA 20

    memory capacity

    is the speed with which the device saves or reads information.

    448GB/s

    max 2656

    Average: 198.3 GB/s

    1.024GB/s

    max 2656

    Average: 198.3 GB/s

    Effective memory speed

    The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and information transfer rate of the memory. The performance of the device in applications depends on the clock frequency. The higher it is, the better.
    Show all

    14000MHz

    max 19500

    Average: 6984. 5 MHz

    2000MHz

    max 19500

    Average: 6984.5 MHz

    RAM

    8 GB

    max 128

    Average: 4.6 GB

    16GB

    max 128

    Average: 4.6 GB

    GDDR Memory Versions

    Latest GDDR memory versions provide high data transfer rates to improve overall performance
    Show all

    6

    Average: 4.5

    Average: 4.5

    Memory bus width

    A wide memory bus means that it can transfer more information in one cycle. This property affects the performance of the memory as well as the overall performance of the device’s graphics card.
    Show all

    256bit

    max 8192

    Average: 290.1bit

    4096bit

    max 8192

    Average: 290.1bit

    Heat dissipation (TDP)

    Heat dissipation requirement (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that can be dissipated by the cooling system. The lower the TDP, the less power will be consumed.
    Show all

    225W

    Average: 140.4W

    295W

    Average: 140.4W

    Process technology

    The small size of the semiconductor means it is a new generation chip.

    7 nm

    Average: 47. 5 nm

    7 nm

    Average: 47.5 nm

    Number of transistors

    The higher their number, the more processor power it indicates

    10300 million

    max 80000

    Average: 5043 million

    13230 million

    max 80000

    Average: 5043 million

    PCIe version

    Considerable speed is provided by the expansion card used to connect the computer to peripherals. The updated versions have impressive throughput and provide high performance.
    Show all

    four

    Mean: 2.8

    four

    Mean: 2. 8

    Width

    306mm

    max 421.7

    Average: 242.6mm

    305mm

    max 421.7

    Average: 242.6mm

    Height

    135mm

    max 180

    Average: 119.1mm

    mm

    max 180

    Average: 119.1mm

    DirectX

    Used in demanding games providing enhanced graphics

    12

    max 12.2

    Average: 11.1

    12

    max 12.2

    Average: 11. 1

    OpenCL version

    Used by some applications to enable GPU power for non-graphical calculations. The newer the version, the more functional it will be
    Show all

    2

    max 4.6

    Average: 1.7

    2.1

    max 4.6

    Average: 1.7

    opengl version

    Later versions provide better game graphics

    4.6

    max 4.6

    Average: 4

    4.6

    max 4.6

    Average: 4

    Shader model version

    6.5

    max 6.6

    Average: 5. 5

    6.4

    max 6.6

    Average: 5.5

    Vulkan version

    1.2

    1.2

    Has HDMI output

    HDMI output allows you to connect devices with HDMI or mini-HDMI ports. They can transmit video and audio to the display.
    Show all

    Yes

    Yes

    HDMI version

    The latest version provides a wide signal transmission channel due to the increased number of audio channels, frames per second, etc.
    Show all

    2

    max 2.1

    Average: 2

    max 2.1

    Average: 2

    DisplayPort

    Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort

    2

    Average: 2

    3

    Average: 2

    Number of HDMI sockets

    The more there are, the more devices can be connected at the same time (for example, game/TV type consoles)
    Show all

    2

    Average: 1. 1

    one

    Average: 1.1

    HDMI

    Yes

    Yes

    Passmark score

    16495

    max 29325

    Average: 7628.6

    16723

    max 29325

    Average: 7628.6

    3DMark Cloud Gate GPU test score

    138294

    max 191204

    Average: 80042.3

    143172

    max 191204

    Average: 80042.3

    3DMark Fire Strike Score

    21686

    max 38276

    Average: 12463

    21796

    max 38276

    Average: 12463

    3DMark Fire Strike Graphics test score

    24914

    max 49575

    Average: 11859. 1

    26900

    max 49575

    Average: 11859.1

    3DMark 11 Performance GPU Score

    34866

    max 57937

    Average: 18799.9

    37123

    max 57937

    Average: 18799.9

    3DMark Vantage Performance score

    65107

    max 97887

    Average: 37830.6

    60885

    max 97887

    Average: 37830.6

    3DMark Ice Storm GPU score

    446992

    max 533357

    Average: 372425. 7

    421567

    max 533357

    Average: 372425.7

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 sw-03

    98

    max 202

    Average: 64

    85

    max 202

    Average: 64

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 showcase-01

    136

    max 232

    Average: 121.3

    max 232

    Average: 121.3

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — Showcase

    135

    max 175

    Average: 108.4

    max 175

    Average: 108. 4

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 mediacal-01

    45

    max 107

    Average: 39

    fifty

    max 107

    Average: 39

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 maya-04

    99

    max 180

    Average: 132.8

    108

    max 180

    Average: 132.8

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 energy-01

    12

    max 21

    Average: 10.7

    17

    max 21

    Average: 10. 7

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 creo-01

    73

    max 153

    Average: 52.5

    61

    max 153

    Average: 52.5

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 catia-04

    163

    max 189

    Average: 91.5

    167

    max 189

    Average: 91.5

    SPECviewperf 12 evaluation — Catia

    156

    max 189

    Average: 88.6

    156

    max 189

    Average: 88. 6

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 3dsmax-05

    183

    max 316

    Average: 189.5

    172

    max 316

    Average: 189.5

    SPECviewperf 12 test score — 3ds Max

    166

    max 269

    Average: 169.8

    159

    max 269

    Average: 169.8

    AMD Radeon RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT in Review — Vega ray tracing without sargnagel and up to 2.1GHz watch underwater | Page 14

    Summary

    First, let’s put price history aside and focus on the purely technical. If you only look at pure gaming performance, the Radeon RX 5700 XT is only sorted a whopping 3% behind the Radeon VII, which is getting old, even if large HBM2 memory is still tempting. The Radeon RX 5700 XT is also significantly behind the GeForce RTX 2070 Super, although this can vary greatly from game to game. At the very least, the updated RTX 2070 with S on the label obviously served the purpose of salting AMD a bit. Because a normal GeForce RTX 2070 can be built with approx. 7% distance behind you.

    This is similar to the Radeon XT 5700 because while the normal GeForce RTX 2060 6GB is still in control, the GeForce RTX 2060 Super with 8GB memory will be nothing. However, the gap in the amount of games is not as extreme as originally thought, on the contrary. Considering pure performance relative to the «old» GeForce RTX 2070 FE, it was quite a point of honor for Nvidia to squeeze new products in between.

    Let’s get to the well accepted phrase «Still works and sucks like a hole…». AmD got drunk on it. The power consumption of the respective class opponents is not as far apart as feared because the Radeon RX 5700 XT is not far from the GeForce RTX 2070 Super. The distance between the Radeon RX 5700 and the GeForce RTX 2060 Super is already slightly longer. But both remainders also reflect the difference in performance at the end.

    However, amD must be certified to take an amazing step forward here. How much soil can be made up, you can use the RX Vega 64 as well as the Radeon VII. There are now not only worlds, but already a small galaxy between them. You really have to commend AMD, because a smaller frame width doesn’t automatically mean higher efficiency. It was well done, and especially at idle, Nvidia was even caught in. It was slightly overtaken. It means something.

    Without Raytracing you can certainly live very well at the moment, but it remains to be seen whether the radiation advertising train won’t get any further. Then at least you have one less function on the menu. From now on, the next analysis shows that the price can be compensated again. The price/performance winner is still called the RX Vega 64, but given that the card is not only EOL, it also doesn’t see the trick against both Navi cards. You really have to think if this is still a deal. The casual player, however, will certainly be pleased with this. But this is not for the future.

    The fact that the two AMD cards are almost equal in terms of P/L ratio is amazing. Which, in turn, proves that our benchmarks (a) can’t be that wrong, and manufacturer (b) has also balanced their prices pretty well. Even if the lead isn’t big, the GeForce RTX 2060 Super is still the winner, while the RTX 2070 Super can be clearly beaten. Despite the tie, I think the Radeon RX 5700 XT is the better and more interesting of the two Navi cards.

    It’s not much more expensive and therefore faster than the RX 5700 relative to price, but it can overclock much better and also has significantly more headroom. From this point of view, the prices are at least true between each other, even if the GeForce RTX 2060 Super steals the show somewhat from both Navi cards.

    Two reference models, of course, only the first clue, because the partner card board will certainly be able to solve my criticism in terms of warm and GPU temperature more elegant. That’s why I’m not going to go any further. Because if someone buys reference cards, it is safe because of the water cooling. And the boards must confirm that they are smart layouts and have been very well stocked. Therefore, you must not make any concessions

    Conclusion

    Catch up yes, caught up (yet) not quite. But at least you are at least close enough to be able to play again. And if Nvidia hadn’t ousted all sorts of things, you might even have beaten the target opponents this time around. This in itself is an announcement and an announcement, even if it is still hanging in the finish line. The drivers are annoying, Wattman is unhijackable and many games probably only taste over time 2 Radeons. The fact that Afterburner offers quite casually and purely voluntarily as a replacement for Wattman, is also such a thing with some side taste. The reference to mid-July for a working OC driver is no real consolation.

    Navi will find its customers, I am very sure, even if the current reference maps only seem suitable for water games or various workstations.