#rx 5500 xt 4gb pulse | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

entergamingxp · 5 years ago

Text

reference and OC models compared • Eurogamer.net

AMD continues its focus on the entry-level space with the release of the Radeon RX 5600 XT, a graphics card intended to sit between the RX 5500 XT and RX 5700 with strong 1080p performance at $279. Like so many recent graphics card launches though, the run-up to launch has been far from quiet, with both AMD and Nvidia repositioning their graphics cards to try and take a decisive advantage in the important sub-$300 price category.

AMD originally announced the 5600 XT as a competitor to the GTX 1660 Ti, offering higher frame-rates at the same price. In response, Nvidia has dropped prices on the next graphics card up, the RTX 2060, bringing their entry-level ray tracing GPU to $299. Now we’re seeing the counterplay from AMD – and rather than dropping prices themselves to retain their value leadership, Team Red has chosen to boost performance instead.

This takes the form of a new BIOS update available for some overclocked RX 5600 XT models, which features significantly higher core clock and memory clocks at the expense of a nominally higher TDP. As you can see in the table below, these upgrades go far beyond what we’d normally expect to see from an overclocked card, with the projected performance gain placing the RX 5600 XT OC in nearly the same ballpark as the $349 RX 5700.

Old BIOS New BIOS Game Clock 1560MHz 1615MHz Boost Clock 1620MHz 1750MHz Memory Clock 1500MHz (12Gbps) 1750MHz (14Gbps) TDP 150W 160W

The new BIOS will be available on “select” overclocked models from a range of manufacturers, including the Sapphire Pulse unit we were sent for review. However, it’s not yet clear precisely which other RX 5600 XT models will get the new BIOS, nor how this will actually be communicated to customers. At the moment, the best bet seems to be checking each card’s official specifications on its manufacturer’s website, where a 1750MHz boost clock, 14Gbps memory speed and 160W TDP indicate an upgraded card. If a new BIOS is available, you’ll need to download and flash it using the AMDVbFlash tool – thankfully, a pretty straightforward process that involves selecting the BIOS file you’ve downloaded, clicking the program button, waiting for the flash to complete and then restarting your computer. Be sure to save your card’s current BIOS file to your computer before you start, and double-check that the BIOS file you’re flashing is intended for your particular model before you begin.

Neither Nvidia nor AMD makes their graphics card lineup easy to understand. Nvidia has generally awarded new names to even slight variations – hence the simultaneous retail availability of the GTX 1660, GTX 1660 Super and GTX 1660 Ti – while AMD generally prefers to lump multiple versions under a single model name – think of the RX 560, a card that you could buy with 14 or 16 compute units, 2 or 4GB of RAM plus varying clock speeds and power requirements. Unfortunately, both approaches are pretty confusing.

The BIOS changes make testing the RX 5600 XT a little difficult – should we be reviewing the reference specification that will actually be available for the quoted $279 price point, or the upgraded ‘performance’ spec that shows what this card can do when pushed to the limit? Given the scope and scale of the changes between these two extremes, it makes more sense to consider them as two separate graphics cards – so that’s exactly what we’ll do in this review. The results marked ‘RX 5600 XT’ are based on the reference ‘silent’ BIOS, while those marked ‘RX 5600 XT OC’ used the overclocked ‘performance’ BIOS.

Before we get into the benchmark results, which incorporate a range of recent and legacy titles from 1080p to 1440p and 4K, let’s show off exactly what we’re testing.

This is the £255 Sapphire Pulse card, which opts for a fairly standard 2.3-slot design with two large axial fans in a black, white and red colour scheme. I/O is the usual modern loadout: three DisplayPort 1.4 and one HDMI 2.0, so users of older and/or entry-level DVI-D monitors will need to source an adapter. On the rear side, a metal back-plate is included. You can switch between the silent and performance BIOSes using a switch on the top of the card, near the I/O. However, as mentioned above, buyers of this card may need to installed the updated BIOS versions manually. Finally, an eight-pin power input is needed to satisfy that 160W TDP, as only 75W can be provided from the PCIe slot alone.

RX 5500 XT RX 5600 XT RX 5700 RX 5700 XT Compute Units 22 36 36 40 Stream Processors 1408 2304 2304 2560 TFLOPs 5.2 7.2 7.95 9.75 Game Clock 1717MHz 1375MHz 1625MHz 1755MHz Boost Clock 1845MHz 1560MHz 1725MHz 1905MHz Memory 4GB/8GB GDDR6 6GB GDDR6 8GB GDDR6 8GB GDDR6 Memory interface 128-bit 192-bit 256-bit 256-bit TDP 130W 150W 180W 225W RRP $169/$199 $279 $349 $399

As with its predecessors, the RX 5600 XT faces a stern challenge from Nvidia. While AMD claim its card has enough grunt to see off the similarly-priced GTX 1660 Super and GTX 1660 Ti, the newly discounted RTX 2060 should offer slightly better performance at just $20 more. The RTX 2060 also sports hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which is expected to appear in a greater proportion of games over the next few years due to the arrival of ray tracing-capable consoles from both Microsoft and Sony at the tail end of 2020.

However, far be it from us to call this race over before it’s started. The new BIOS upgrade should give the RX 5600 XT a much better chance, so let’s see how both variants of the card perform against their nearest competitors from both teams.

AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Analysis

from EnterGamingXP https://entergamingxp.com/2020/01/reference-and-oc-models-compared-%e2%80%a2-eurogamer-net/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reference-and-oc-models-compared-%25e2%2580%25a2-eurogamer-net

0 notes

gaminghardware0 · 5 years ago

Text

RX 5500 XT 4GB Sapphire Pulse review: for a few dollars more

With the bigger sibling out the way, it’s time to turn our attention to the runt of the litter: the RX 5500 XT 4GB. Don’t be mistaken, this GPU is packed with just as much graphics grunt as the AMD RX 5500 XT 8GB, the only discerning factor between the two being the smaller pool of addressable memory keeping its AMD Navi GPU fed with delicious data.

For those of you still on the fence, we’ve put a handy guide explaining what to expect, and what you’ll forego, when choosing between the RX 5500 XT 8GB and 4GB models. Make sure to check that out. In doing so, you may even reconsider the slightly pared-back model altogether.

But assuming you’ve already settled on the ‘cheaper model,’ and I am reticent to call the RX 5500 XT the cheaper model on the whole, let’s get to it. In this specific instance, the Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT 4GB will set you back $180 (£170), a $11 (£10) increase over AMD’s supplied MSRP. And that’s for a card with a capable cooler. However, there are seemingly plenty of RX 5500 XT 4GB models that not only match the 8GB MSRP of $199 (£180), but even surpass it.

View the full site

from https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/radeon-rx-5500-xt-4gb-sapphire-pulse-review-benchmarks

0 notes

componentplanet · 5 years ago

Text

AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Challenges Nvidia’s GTX 1650, 1660 GPUs

This has been a hell of a year for AMD, and the company isn’t quite finished yet. So far in 2019, we’ve seen major 7nm refreshes in server and desktop CPUs, a new round of 12nm APUs, and two 7nm Navi-based GPUs that leveraged AMD’s new RDNA architecture to substantially improve performance and power consumption compared to their own previous generation of cards. The Radeon 5700 and 5700 XT haven’t made quite as big of a splash against Nvidia as Ryzen did against Intel in 2019, but they gave AMD a desperately-needed new architecture and an important boost to its overall competitiveness.

Up until now, however, AMD has filled in the lower-end of its product stack with older, Polaris GPUs like the RX 570, 580, and 590. These older 14nm cards have been shipping at fire-sale prices at multiple points in the past year, but it’s time to replace them with something more efficient. Enter the 5500 XT, based on the Navi 14 GPU.

The 5500 XT will debut in two flavors, 4GB and 8GB, based on the same GPU with 22 active compute units, 1408 cores, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPS. The 5500 XT is a 1408:88:32 configuration with a game clock at 1717MHz. The chart below compares the RX 5500 XT against the other major GPUs in AMD’s current lineup.

The key to what keeps the RX 5500 XT competitive with its older cousins is higher clocks. AMD has pushed the card up to a 1607MHz base, 1717MHz game, and 1845MHz boost clock, compared with a maximum 1.2GHz boost clock on the RX 570. That substantial clock increase allows the newer GPU to beat the RX 570 on fill rate and texture rate despite featuring the same number of ROPS and fewer texture units. Similarly, the 128-bit bus on Navi 14 is turbo-charged by the use of GDDR6. 224GB/s of memory bandwidth is more than enough to comfortably feed a 1080p GPU. The 5500 XT is expected to sell at $199 for the 8GB card and $169 for the 4GB variant.

AMD sampled us on the RX 5500 XT, but I have been on vacation before coming down sick with bronchitis and haven’t had time to put the GPU through its paces.

The big goals for AMD with the RX 5500 XT is to breathe new life into an arena that badly needs a refresh. The 14nm Polaris GPUs AMD has tapped for this space are now over three years old, and while AMD has kept them price-competitive, they’re older cards with significantly higher power consumption.

Test results from Anandtech, Hot Hardware, and PCMag show that the 5500 XT does a solid job competing with Nvidia’s GTX 1650 and 1660 cards, but if you were hoping for a blowout win you may be disappointed. Let’s take a look at a few competitive scenarios:

From PCMag, here’s Far Cry Primal, with the RX 5500 XT sharply outperforming the RX 570 at 1080p and 1440p. Overall performance from the 8GB card is well-matched against the GTX 1660. No 4GB 5500 XT results are included here, but overall reviews show that the 4GB card offers somewhat less performance in certain titles while matching the 8GB card in others. Multiple reviewers voiced concerns about the long-term advisability of buying a 4GB card when we’re on the verge of a major uplift in console graphics. I tend to agree — we’re starting to see a gap between 4GB and 8GB cards, even at 1080p, and if you can squeeze out the extra $30 it may be worth stepping up to an 8GB card today.

From Hot Hardware, here’s Shadow of War, showing the Radeon cards maintaining higher frame rates than their GeForce equivalents, but only by a whisker. There’s very little gap between the 5500 XT 8GB and 4GB in this test, and they both narrowly outpace the 1660 Super.

Finally, from Anandtech, performance in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Here, we see a significant gap between the 5500 XT 8GB and 4GB cards, and the GTX 1660 manages to maintain performance leadership over the 5500 XT 8GB. The story on power consumption for these cards is similar to what we saw with the 5700 and 5700 XT in July — they’re an improvement over AMD’s older hardware (Anand has the RX 5500 XT drawing 179W in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, compared to 204W for the RX 570), but they aren’t quite as good as Nvidia (the GTX 1660 and 1650 Super draw 171W and 176W, respectively).

A Solid Hit, But No Homerun

The consensus on the RX 5500 XT is that the GPU is… fine. Anandtech has a handy table that shows how it compares relative to other cards in the same class:

Compared with older cards like the RX 570 and RX 580, the RX 5500 XT is a win as far as performance is concerned, but it’s also somewhat more expensive. These GPUs aren’t a major value play, and the low prices on GPUs like the RX 570 and RX 580 mean closeout volumes on these cards may still be attractive to people. Against Nvidia, the new GPUs are certainly competitive, but they aren’t smash hits. Nobody is sure that buying a 4GB 5500 XT is a smart idea, but the GTX 1660 has a bit of a performance lead over the 5500 XT, while the 5500 XT has more RAM. It’s a bit of a toss-up there as well, in other words.

Hot Hardware writes: “If you’d like to take advantage of AMD’s latest GPU architecture for a mainstream gaming PC, and the cards fall within your budget, they are worthy of consideration,” while PCMag summarizes the situation as: “Judging by our Sapphire sample, this isn’t a bad card, by any means, but to me it falls at launch behind the GTX 1650 Super, in both value and consistency.”

The Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT wins particular praise for a whisper-silent experience, though the cooler is large. If you like AMD and you like quiet GPUs, this is definitely a card to check for near-silent frame rates.

Now Read:

How to Bypass Matlab’s ‘Cripple AMD CPU’ Function

AMD Threadripper 3970X, 3960X, and Intel Core i9-10980XE CPUs Tested: Intel Cuts Prices, AMD Redefines What’s Possible

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Review: This CPU Goes Way Past 11

from ExtremeTechExtremeTech https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/303355-amd-radeon-rx-5500-xt-review-roundup from Blogger http://componentplanet.blogspot.com/2019/12/amd-radeon-rx-5500-xt-challenges.html

#AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Challenges Nvidia’s GTX 1650 #1660 GPUs

0 notes

actutrends · 5 years ago

Text

AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT review — Efficient but not dominant

When it comes to video cards, not much has changed in the last three years for people using 1080p 60Hz monitors. The RX 480 debuted in 2016, and it proved more than enough for just about any game running at that resolution. And since most people run a 1080p60 display, it’s easy to point people to the RX 480 (or the slightly updated RX 500-series). But now AMD and Nvidia are both shaking up this category. And with the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and the Nvidia GTX 1650 Super, we can begin to leave those older cards in the past.

The Radeon RX 5500 XT is launching this month in $170 4GB and $200 8GB configurations. That puts it head-to-head with Nvidia’s 1650 Super, which you can get starting at $160. And at those prices, these cards are aiming at a mainstream, entry-level market.

But looking specifically at the 5500 XT, it’s an upgrade over recent, comparable cards. That’s thanks in large part to its much more energy-efficient 7nm design process as well as its fast GDDR6 memory. But it’s not necessarily the 1080p gaming king due to its price.

I tested the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB.

What you’ll like

Great for 1080p gaming

To reiterate, it’s tough to go wrong in the 1080p60 space right now when choosing a GPU. An RX 480 and its successors are still going to work great. The 1650 and 1650 Super are also more than powerful enough for almost any game. But the RX 5500 XT is still pushing things forward.

And it’s going to deliver what you are paying for. In my testing, the 5500XT was able to surpass an average of 60 frames per second at 1080p and high/ultra settings in many of the most recent games.

Here’s the rig I tested on:

AsRock X570 Taichi

Ryzen R7 3700X

NZXT Kraken X62 CPU cooler

16GB HyperX Predator CL16 memory at 3600MHz

Samsung 970 Evo 500GB SSD

EVGA 1000W PSU

For this testing, I’m not necessarily looking for the raw capability of the RX 5500 XT 4GB. I’m trying to determine its real-world performance.

Here are the results for the average frames per second in the following games:

Grand Theft Auto V (ultra): 105

Resident Evil 2 (maxed out): 71

Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 (high on DX12): 71

The Witcher 3 (high): 73

Red Dead Redemption 2 (high): 61

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (high): 65

Most games are going to run at high or ultra with no issues on the RX 5500 XT. You may need to drop some settings to maintain a smoother framerate in the most demanding games, however. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey both averaged over 60fps, but they also saw some significant drops. So you may end up playing those games on medium — or pair the card with a FreeSync monitor to smooth out noticeably variable frame rates.

Much more energy efficient than previous 1080p AMD cards

The RX 5500 XT is 30% more energy efficient than the RX 480, according to AMD. And that’s exactly what you would expect from the smaller 7nm manufacturing process. But despite using significantly less wattage, the card is about 12% more powerful than an RX480. That is a massive improvement in the performance-per-watt category.

This makes the RX 5500 XT ideal for energy-conscious gamers. If you play a lot of games and don’t want to see that reflected in your power bill, this is a smart option.

Excellent for quiet builds

That energy efficiency has other benefits. For example, the Sapphire card I tested is extremely quiet. The 7nm process is obviously producing less excess heat, and the GPU’s coolers are easily dealing with that.

For me, this makes the 5500XT an ideal video card for a media PC or a gaming PC to put in your living room next to your TV and where you sit. You can pop it into a small chassis, and you’ll never even hear it.

What you won’t like

It’s slightly too expensive

In my comparison testing, the RX 5500 XT loses some of its luster. Yes, it’s more energy efficient and quieter than previous-generation AMD cards. But the Nvidia 1650 and 1650 Super both use even less energy.

And when it comes to performance, the RX 5500 XT is about on par with the less expensive 1650 Super. In some games, the 5500 XT is slower than an RX 580 or standard 1650. That begins to break down the price comparison for AMD.

It’s not that the RX 5500 XT is a bad deal at $170. But it’s far from a slam dunk. If you are in this section of the market and you want to feel like you’re getting the best bang-for-your-buck, it’s possible that may end up being a 1650 Super or even an overclocked RX 580 (as long as you don’t mind giving up some efficiency).

Conclusion

If you’re in the market for a new, budget-friendly PC, the RX 5500 XT is definitely one of the cards you should consider. But it is not the obvious choice. You’ll want to shop around and get the deal that’s best for you. It’s worth noting, however, that AMD’s card comes with Monster Hunter: World and 3 months of Xbox Game Pass at no additional charge.

I think it’s fair for AMD to argue that anyone gaming at 1080p60 doesn’t need much more power than what the RX 580 already deliver. And as a more energy efficient, quieter version of what we already had, the 5500 XT is wonderful. I just wish it was at least $20 less expensive.

The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT is shipping this month for $170. AMD provided a sample unit for the purpose of this review.

The post AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT review — Efficient but not dominant appeared first on Actu Trends.

0 notes

tech-battery · 5 years ago

Text

ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D Review: Inexpensive, Well-performing

AMD’s RX 5500 XT release in December 2019 targeted the entry-level 1080p gaming segment and was, overall, received well by the public. In particular, the 8GB variants are enticing, as they don't take the performance hit of the 4GB cards in certain titles, though for now the card hasn't managed to break into our best graphics cards guide. That's partly because budget cards are pretty far down the GPU hierarchy, with higher pricing than many competing cards. The ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D we're reviewing comes with the full 8GB of VRAM, a factory overclock, an attractive price and a dual-fan cooling solution designed to keep the card cool and quiet while gaming.

Performance of the Phantom Gaming D was just where we expected it, competing with the other RX 5500 XT 8GB variants tested. It ends up faster than the GeForce GTX 1650 Super and slower than the Geforce GTX 1660. Compared to the other 8GB RX 5500 XT cards we've tested, the ASRock performed the same with less than 1% difference between them. The card averages almost 72 frames per second (fps) at 1080p using ultra settings across all games. Only Metro: Exodus and Borderlands 3 fell below the 60 fps threshold (37.7 and 42.9 fps, respectively). When lowering the settings to medium, the average increased to 102 fps and all titles were above the 60 fps threshold and ran smoothly.

At the time of writing, the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D is $199.99 on Newegg, the least expensive 8GB card in this roundup. It also comes with the Resident Evil 3 remaster, Ghost Recon: Breakpoint and three months of Xbox Game Pass for PC. We pit the ASRock against Gigabyte’s RX 5500 XT Gaming 8G at $219.99, the Asus ROG Strix RX 5500 XT O8G Gaming for $229.99, and the 4GB Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT priced at $179.99. Between the 8GB cards, there is a $30 price difference while the 4GB model used for testing is $20 cheaper.

On the Nvidia side of things, the Zotac GTX 1650 Super has the lowest price at $159.99 while the Zotac GTX 1660 is $239.99, the most expensive card in this article. Worth noting is the GTX 1660 Super can be found for $229.99, and other GTX 1660 cards can be found starting at $209.99. We've also previously compared the Radeon RX 5500 XT vs. GeForce GTX 1660.

We’ll detail how the ASRock card performed against its peers and competition, how well it performed thermally, and other important details so you can make a more informed buying decision.

Features

All Radeon RX 5500 XT’s use the Navi 14 GPU and first-generation RDNA architecture. TSMC produced the 7nm die with 6.4 million transistors cut into a 158mm² area. This includes 1,408 shaders, 32 ROPs, and 88 TMUs across 22 Compute Units (CUs). Clocks speeds on the ASRock Phantom Gaming D are 1,737 MHz Game clock and 1,845 MHz boost clock—a 57 MHz increase over the reference clock speed (1,680 MHz) and the same as the Asus ROG Strix used here.

The 8GB of GDDR6 memory sits on a 128-bit bus and runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps)—the standard speed for the Navi 14 GPU. This configuration yields 224 GB/s bandwidth, and the RX 5500 XT comes in 4GB and 8GB variants. Unless you plan to game at 1080p using reduced settings, you’ll want to get the 8GB over the 4GB cards. With VRAM needs increasing as time goes on, 4GB is now considered the minimum for most users while 6-8GB for those who would like to use ultra settings.

AMD’s RX 5500 XT’s Total Board Power (TBP) is listed at 130W and recommends a 450W power supply. ASRock, like most board partners, does not list the TBP for the Phantom Gaming D, though it raises AMD’s power supply recommendation of 450W up to 500W. Actual power use will vary between partner cards due to higher clock speeds and where the power limit is set. Feeding power to the card is a single 8-pin PCIe connector capable of delivering more power than this card will need, including any overclocking.

Additional specifications for each of the compared cards are listed in the chart below.

Design

The ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D is a two-slot video card measuring 9.5 x 5 x 1.6 inches (241 x 127 x 42mm). Though the heatsink extends past the PCB lengthwise, the card’s overall length should allow it to fit in most chassis, including some small form factor (SFF) builds. Be sure to verify the space inside your case before buying this or any other video card.

Covering the heatsink and surrounding the two 85mm fans (which have a 0db silent cooling feature) is a plastic shroud that fits with the ASRock Phantom Gaming theme, including black and red accents along with a faux brushed aluminum finish. The rear of the card is protected by a backplate, also matching the card’s theme, and doubles as a passive heatsink via thermal pads.

The Phantom Gaming D adds a bit of RGB flare as well with the Phantom Gaming name and symbol illuminated on the top of the card. For its size, the color is bright and saturated, though being so small it won’t take over the inside of your case.

In order to keep the card cool, ASRock uses a dual-fan setup along with a good size heatsink. The GPU die makes contact with the heatsink through a copper plate, which then sends the heat into the fin array via three large copper heatpipes. The heatsink cools all critical parts of the video card including the VRMs and memory, all of which connect to the fin array through an aluminum plate.

The ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D3 routes power through a 6+1 phase VRM with the GPU and VRAM controlled by two OnSemi NCP81022 (4-phase) controllers. The GDDR6 chips on this card are made by Samsung and specified to run at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps). This configuration will deliver plenty of clean power to handle both stock and overclocked operations.

Outputs on the Phantom Gaming D are standard fare consisting of three DisplayPorts (1.4 with DSC 1.2a) and a single HDMI (2.0b) output. This should be plenty for most users.

How We Tested the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D

Our current graphics card test system consists of Intel's Core i9-9900K, an 8-core/16-thread CPU that routinely ranks as the fastest overall gaming CPU. The MSI MEG Z390 Ace motherboard is paired with 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB DDR4-3200 CL16 memory (CMK32GX4M2B3200C16). Keeping the CPU cool is a Corsair H150i Pro RGB AIO, along with a 120mm Sharkoon fan for general airflow across the test system. Storing our OS and gaming suite is a single 2TB Kingston KC2000 NVMe PCIe 3.0 x4 drive.

The motherboard is running BIOS version 7B12v16. Optimized defaults were used to set up the system. We then enabled the memory's XMP profile to get the memory running at the rated 3200 MHz CL16 specification. No other BIOS changes or performance enhancements were enabled. The latest version of Windows 10 (1909) is used and is fully updated as of February 2020.

Our GPU hierarchy provides a complete overview of graphics cards and how the various models stack up against each other. For these individual third-party card reviews, we include GPUs that compete with and are close in performance to the card being reviewed. On the AMD side, we have the Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT, Asus ROG Strix RX 5500 XT O8G Gaming and the Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC. Nvidia cards include the Zotac GTX 1650 Super and the Zotac GTX 1660 Amp.

Our list of test games is currently Battlefield V, Borderlands 3, The Division 2, Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers, Forza Horizon 4, Gears of War 5, Metro Exodus, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Strange Brigade. These titles represent a broad spectrum of genres and APIs, which gives us a good idea of the performance differences between the cards. We're using driver build 441.20 for the Nvidia cards and Adrenalin 2020 Edition 19.12.2 for AMD cards, although the 5600 XT was tested using 20.1.2 beta drivers.

We capture our frames per second (fps) and frame time information by running OCAT during our benchmarks. For clock and fan speed, temperature and power, we use GPU-Z's logging capabilities. We'll be resuming our use of the Powenetics-based system from previous reviews in the near future.

Beginning with the 1080p ultra results, the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D averaged 71.9 fps across all titles. At these settings, all but three titles—Metro: Exodus (37.7 fps), The Division 2 (57.9 fps) and Borderlands 3 (42.9 fps)—are able to average at least 60 fps and provide a smooth gaming experience. All of AMD’s RX 5500 XT cards are capable 1080p ultra video cards, though some games will need to reduce settings to reach 60 fps.

Looking at the other RX 5500 XT cards in this review, the ASRock card is just as fast as the other 8GB variants—all averaging over 71 fps with the Asus O8G Gaming averaging 71.7 fps and the Gigabyte 71.3 fps. The Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT 4GB is well behind at 63 fps (or 13% slower) because some titles showed a severe performance drop due to the 4GB memory and PCIe 3.0 x8 configuration.

If we include the two Nvidia based GPUs, our ASRock review card is almost 4% faster than the much less expensive Zotac GTX 1650 Super (69.3 fps average), and over 6% slower than the slightly more expensive Zotac GTX 1660 Amp (76.6 average). Since these Turing based video cards do not support ray tracing or DLSS, the decision between some of these cards will come down to price, performance (both thermal and fps) and card features.

Staying at 1080p resolution but lowering the image quality settings to medium allowed all the games to reach over 60 fps. The ASRock Phantom Gaming D averaged 102 fps along with the Asus. The Gigabyte Gaming OC averaged 101 fps—all are within 1% of each other, which is basically the margin of error for our testing and wouldn’t be noticeable in gaming.

At these settings, the Sapphire Pulse didn’t choke on its 4GB of VRAM with medium settings and ended up only 4% behind. Most games were over 80 fps with a few (The Division 2, Strange Brigade, Final Fantasy XIV, Forza Horizon 4 and Battlefield V) averaging well over 100 fps. Dropping down to the medium settings shows a significant performance increase over ultra.

Performance differences between the ASRock Phantom Gaming D and the Nvidia cards are similar to the 1080p ultra results, with the GTX 1650 Super about 5% slower and the GTX 1660 almost 4% faster. This is a more CPU bound setting so the performance gaps tend to shrink at these settings compared to higher resolutions and image quality.

We use GPU-Z logging to measure each card's power consumption with the Metro Exodus benchmark running at 2560 x 1440 using the default ultra settings. The card is warmed up prior to testing and logging is started after settling to an idle temperature (after about 10 minutes). The benchmark is looped a total of five times, which yields around 10 minutes of testing. In the charts, you will see a few blips in power use that are a result of the benchmark ending one loop and starting the next.

We also use FurMark to capture worst-case power readings. Although both Nvidia and AMD consider the application a "power virus," or a program that deliberately taxes the components beyond normal limits, the data we can gather from it offers useful information about a card's capabilities outside of typical gaming loads. For example, certain GPU compute workloads including cryptocurrency mining have power use that can track close to FurMark, sometimes even exceeding it.

Starting with the gaming tests, the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D averaged 114W, the most of all RX 5500 XT cards tested so far. The Asus was just behind it at 104W, the Sapphire Pulse at 102W, followed by the Gigabyte sipping power at 89W. As an end-user, you will be hard-pressed to see these differences on your power bill. We also need to be cognizant that our current recording method, GPU-Z only records the chip power and not Total Board Power (TBP) for AMD GPUs. This means actual power use is going to be a bit higher on these cards.

The Zotac GTX 1650 Super averaged 97W—a few watts lower than most of the RX 5500 XT’s we’ve tested. The faster Zotac GTX 1660 Amp (not pictured in the chart) used even less power at 89W. This shows that Nvidia’s 12nm Turing architecture is still slightly more efficient than the 7nm Navi, considering the difference in lithography.

Power consumption using Furmark shows much more consistent power use across the test. In this case, The ASRock averaged 129W with the Asus and Sapphire cards both using 133W. The Gigabyte again comes in the lowest reaching 122W. The GTX 1650 Super barely budged from the game tests averaging 99W, which is less power than all of the RX 5500 XT cards we’ve tested.

Temperatures, Fan Speeds and Clock Rates

To see how each video card behaves with temperatures and fan speeds, like the power testing, we use GPU-Z logging in one-second intervals to capture data. These items are captured by looping the Metro Exodus benchmark five times, running at 2560x1440 and ultra settings.

Additionally, we also use FurMark to capture the data below, which offers a more consistent load and uses slightly more power, regardless of the fact that the clock speeds and voltages are limited. These data sets give insight into worst-case situations along with a non-gaming workload.

Gaming

Temperatures for the ASRock Phantom Gaming D averaged almost 62 degrees Celsius during gaming testing. This result places it in the middle with the Gigabyte Gaming OC. The Sapphire Pulse ran the warmest at 69 degrees Celsius, at least partly because its fan speeds are lower, while the much larger Asus ROG Strix RX 5500 XT O8G Gaming ran the coolest at 54 degrees Celsius. Though the Phantom Gaming D didn’t have the best cooling solution, it worked quietly and kept the video card running well within specification.

Fan speeds during the Metro: Exodus test show all cards except for the Sapphire Pulse have significantly varying fan speeds. The ASRock varied throughout the test from around 1600 RPM to a peak of 2,000 RPM. The higher fan speeds were more noticeable over the slower spinning Asus and Gigabyte cards, but none were particularly loud or off-putting. During more typical gaming loads (where there isn’t a scene change every 100 seconds) users should not see this fan behavior.

Clock speeds on the ASRock Phantom Gaming D averaged 1,818 MHz during the last phase of the gaming test. This result is over 20 MHz faster than the Sapphire Pulse (1,794 MHz), 10 MHz faster than the Gigabyte and 2 MHz faster than the Aus. This result makes sense considering the 8GB cards' clock speeds are similar out of the box. Another noteworthy fact is how much the 4GB of memory on the Sapphire card affects results with core clock speeds being similar to all the other tested cards.

Furmark

Temperatures in Furmark ran a couple of degrees warmer than game testing across all tested cards. The ASRock Phantom Gaming D and Gigabyte Gaming OC both peaked at 67 degrees Celsius with the Asus again coming in the coolest running at 60 degrees Celsius. The slower Sapphire card peaked at 74 degrees Celsius with a similar size cooling solution as the Phantom Gaming D.

Fan speeds during Furmark testing stabilized across all cards with the ASRock again peaking around 2,000 RPM. Unlike the Asus O8G Gaming, the ASRock Phantom Gaming D maintained these speeds throughout the test. While the ASRock video card doesn’t have the best cooling solution, it kept the card well within specification and did so relatively quietly.

Clock rates during the Furmark testing averaged 1,661 MHz, which is the lowest value by far of all three RX 5500 XT 8GB cards tested. Compared to the game test, the result for the Phantom Gaming D is over 150 MHz less than game testing.

Along with AMD’s software suite that's included with the driver package, ASRock has its own monitoring and tweaking software, named ASRock Tweak. This lightweight application is able to overclock the core and memory speed, though it's manual only—there's no automatic scanner.

The software displays current core and memory speeds, GPU and memory use, along with temperatures and fan speeds. Unlike similar applications from other card partners, ASRock Tweak doesn’t include real-time hardware monitoring in chart form.

Overall, the software works fine for its intended purpose, but it's not as feature-rich as some of the other solutions. More granular control over AMD video cards can be found within the driver software.

The ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D’s testing showed the card to be a competent 1080p ultra gamer across the majority of titles in our test suite. Although it did not have the large cooler and three fans some of the other cards did, the Phantom Gaming D kept the card running well within specification and did so rather quietly—not quite as quiet or as well as the much larger Asus card, but it was effective nonetheless.

Priced at $199.99, the Phantom Gaming D is the least expensive card compared to the other 8GB AMD RX 5500 XT cards we've tested. The Gigabyte is priced at $219.99 and the Asus O8G $229.99. The 4GB Sapphire Pulse is listed at $179.99, though the 4GB VRAM makes it a less desirable choice. Between the 8GB cards, some titles may show one performing slightly better than the other, but it's mostly just typical fluctuations and in the end, they all averaged out to perform the same. Where they set themselves apart is the cooling and other features.

Opening up considerations to Nvidia GPUs, we know the 5500 XT 8GB cards are slightly faster than the less expensive GTX 1650 Super, and a few percent slower than the GTX 1660. The GTX 1660 Super also makes for an intriguing buy as well. Priced from $229.99, it's about 15% faster than the GTX 1660 while being priced around the same. If you can stretch the budget to $230, it does offer a better price to performance ratio than any RX 5500 XT.

Right now, if you want the most well-rounded RX 5500 XT 8GB card, it's the ASRock Phantom Gaming D. While it doesn’t cool as well as the larger Asus card, it cools as good as the Gigabyte Gaming OC version while being smaller, and it costs less. Its two fans spin faster and create more noise than the Gigabyte and Asus cards, but it wasn't intrusive. Outside of that, all three have some form of RGB lighting as well as backplates. The difference between their VRMs won’t affect the ambient overclocker and they're all robust solutions.

Overall, the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D is a good performing graphics card for both 1080p ultra and 1080p medium settings. As the least expensive 8GB 5500 XT, this card will give you the same performance as more expensive options and does so with a much smaller footprint. If you're looking for a good 1080p ultra/medium video card around the $200 price point, the Phantom Gaming D is a good option.

0 notes

tech-battery · 5 years ago

Text

ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D Review: Inexpensive, Well-performing

We’ll detail how the ASRock card performed against its peers and competition, how well it performed thermally, and other important details so you can make a more informed buying decision.

Features

Additional specifications for each of the compared cards are listed in the chart below.

Design

Outputs on the Phantom Gaming D are standard fare consisting of three DisplayPorts (1.4 with DSC 1.2a) and a single HDMI (2.0b) output. This should be plenty for most users.

How We Tested the ASRock RX 5500 XT Phantom Gaming D

Power Draw

Temperatures, Fan Speeds and Clock Rates

Gaming

Furmark

0 notes

tech-battery · 5 years ago

Text

AMD RADEON RX 5500 XT 8GB REVIEW

AMD's retail Radeon RX 5500 XT series of graphics cards are here, bringing additional options to the budget and mid-range graphics card market. I looked at the Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB last week for the launch, and now it's time for a review of the 8GB card. Just how much does doubling down on VRAM do for performance? As you'd expect, it depends on the games and settings you're running.

If you haven't read the 4GB model review, I suggest you start there. AMD's Navi / RDNA architecture hasn't changed, though Navi 14 does cut the potential number of compute units (CUs) from a maximum of 40 down to a maximum of 24—with the 5500 XT enabling 22 of the CUs. The two cards I'm reviewing look identical, which is expected as both are Sapphire Pulse models. The only difference is the VRAM and a $30 increase in price.

While the specs might not have changed, other than VRAM, the price increase has some ramifications. The 5500 XT 4GB card matches up against the GTX 1650 Super, and the two are effectively tied in performance. The 8GB card meanwhile has to take on the GTX 1660, and Nvidia's card has the same number of GPU cores, 1,408. The problem for AMD is that Nvidia's GPU cores tend to perform a bit better overall, so the GTX 1660 is likely to come out ahead in performance. At least the TDP is basically the same—120W vs 130W won't really matter either way.

There's little difference in features to speak of. Technically, Nvidia's GTX 1660 can enable ray tracing in games that support it. In practice, the 1660 isn't fast enough to make ray tracing worthwhile. There are other facets of performance—AMD GPUs often perform better in DirectX 12 games, Nvidia GPUs can do better in DX11 and other games—but overall the two sides are evenly matched in the mid-range and lower markets.

There's also a jump in generational pricing, especially looking at current street prices. The RX 590 originally launched at $279 last year; today, you can get that same card for $179. It uses more power, but performance is going to be very similar to the RX 5500 XT 8GB. Even AMD's own numbers say as much, where AMD compares the 5500 XT to the older RX 480 cards and claims a 30 percent improvement in performance. AMD's not wrong, but the RX 470/480 are three years old, so a 30 percent improvement at only slightly lower prices isn't all that impressive.

Which brings me to the real question: How does the RX 5500 XT 8GB perform? Let's get to the benchmarks.

Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB gaming performance

My standard testbed features an overclocked Core i7-8700K running at 5.0GHz. For budget and midrange cards, the CPU might be overkill, but it shows the highest potential performance for the graphics cards. Anyone considering the RX 5500 XT will probably be running a slightly slower CPU, but anything from the past several years should be sufficient. I've tested 11 games for this review, with a reasonable split between games that favor AMD hardware, and games that run better on Nvidia hardware.

Testing is done at 1080p 'medium' and 'ultra' settings (which may go by different names, depending on the game), as well as 1440p and 'ultra' settings. Each game is tested multiple times, using the median result, to ensure consistency of performance. I've included a few more GPUs this time, mostly for reference—if you're thinking about upgrading from a Vega 56, for example, the 5500 XT isn't going to be very compelling. It looks better against the old GTX 970 and R9 390, however.

At 1080p medium, there's no real benefit to the 8GB RX 5500 XT compared to the 4GB model. A few games even perform slightly faster with the 4GB card, which is a bit odd—it's probably just slight differences in memory latency. The RX 5500 XT cards are also tied with the GTX 1650 Super in overall performance, but the GTX 1660 is about 5 percent faster. Running medium quality at 1080p isn't really the goal if you're going to pay extra for the 8GB card, however.

Stepping up to 1080p ultra starts to favor the 8GB model over its lesser sibling, though it's only a seven percent improvement on average. Individual games show much larger gains, though—Shadow of the Tomb Raider performance improves by 9 percent, Forza Horizon 4 runs 15 percent faster, Borderlands 3 is 18 percent faster, and Assassin's Creed Odyssey opens up a 33 percent gap. The remaining seven games all show relatively similar performance, but there have been quite a few recent games that I'm not showing here where having more VRAM would also be beneficial (eg, Red Dead Redemption 2).

The difficulty AMD faces is that at 1080p—which is really the resolution you should plan on using with a mid-range or budget GPU—even at maxed out quality there aren't a ton of games that truly need more VRAM. And of the games that benefit from more VRAM, none of them seem to need more than 6GB. That means once again that the GTX 1660 costs as much as the 5500 XT 8GB but performs about five percent better.

At 1440p ultra, the 5500 XT 8GB shows its largest lead yet relative to the 4GB cards. It's now 12 percent faster, but we're also looking at average performance across the test suite of 45 fps. Every game still stays above 30 fps, which means performance is still generally better than current consoles, but only two of the tested games (Strange Brigade and Forza Horizon 4) average 60 fps or more. Lighter esports games like CS:GO and Overwatch should be viable at 1440p, however.

I'm not showing 4K charts, because framerates are about half what you get at 1440p, but if you're wondering: the 8GB card ends up with a 25 percent average performance lead over the 4GB model. It also comes out tied with the 1660 at 4K ultra, though both sit at 25 fps. Long-term, the 6GB and 8GB cards are a safer choice than a 4GB card, and I wouldn't touch a 2GB model at this point, but if you want more performance, you'll still be better off getting a faster GPU rather than doubling VRAM.

AMD Radeon XT 5500 XT 8GB: more and less

As a general rule, I advise people not to skimp on VRAM. I've been saying that since the GTX 1060 3GB/6GB and RX 570/580 4GB/8GB launches several years back. Yes, it costs more for the higher VRAM models, and performance doesn't always improve a lot with the extra memory. Except when it does, and then you could end up very sad that you cheaped out on your graphics card and now have to turn down some settings. The RX 5500 XT 8GB is a continuation of that recommendation. You can save $30 by purchasing the 4GB model, but long-term I don't think that's the best plan.

That's the "more" part of the equation, but it's not a clear win and there's a reason I've scored this card slightly lower than the 4GB model. First, even across 11 games, the improvement in performance at 1080p ultra is mostly minor (with a few exceptions). In an AMD-only world, I still recommend buying the 8GB model, but AMD isn't alone, there are multiple other options. Nvidia's GTX 1660 costs the same as the 5500 XT 8GB, or you can spend another $30 to get a GTX 1660 Super.

Alternatively, look at more than just the price of the graphics card and its performance. Spending 15 percent more ($230) for a 20 percent increase in framerates (ie, GTX 1660 Super) is reasonable. However, if you're putting that card into a gaming PC that costs $500 for the other components, it's really $730 vs. $700—a mere 4 percent increase in total cost, for the same 20 percent improvement in performance. That's basically what the GTX 1660 Super offers. Or you could upgrade to an RTX 2060 and it would be $800 vs $700, a 14 percent increase in PC costs for a 45 percent jump in performance. Spending a bit more money for each higher tier of graphics performance is a slippery slope, but even if you stop at the $200 mark, the RX 5500 XT 8GB doesn't come out as the champion.

Ultimately, AMD's Radeon RX 5500 XT series is a reasonable offering in the budget to midrange graphics card market. It's not clearly superior to other options, but it's also not clearly worse. If you're looking to buy a new graphics card, whether as an upgrade to an existing PC or as part of a new gaming PC build, it's worth a look. Performance of the 5500 XT 8GB is basically equal to the outgoing RX 590, while using about 100W less power. You wouldn't want to "upgrade" from a 590 to a 5500 XT, in other words, but if you're trying to choose between those two AMD options, I'd grab the newer model. If you're not set on AMD, however, I'd look to the GTX 1660 or 1660 Super.

0 notes

entergamingxp · 5 years ago

Text

the big 1080p face-off • Eurogamer.net

AMD’s Radeon RX 570 and RX 580 have dominated performance in the lower end of the enthusiast graphics card market for a while now, so the announcement of a successor in the form of RX 5500 earlier this year drew a lot of interest. The RX 5500 has since made its debut as an option for pre-built desktops from vendors like Acer and HP but the promised standalone cards never materialised. That changes today as custom designs from a range of AMD partners debut under a new name: the Radeon RX 5500 XT.

So what differences exist between the RX 5500 and 5500 XT? Looking at the reference specifications, there’s only a couple of changes – a slightly higher power target of 130W for the XT compared to 110W for the vanilla model, alongside tweaks for clock speeds. However, the custom boards produced by the likes of PowerColor, MSI and Sapphire are free to made their own modifications and both of the cards we were sent by AMD to review are overclocked models with beefy cooling solutions and higher TDPs.

Like the RX 570 and RX 580 before them, both 4GB and 8GB variants are available, priced at £159/$169 and £179/$199 respectively. AMD supplied one of each to test: our 4GB model is the Sapphire Pulse overclocked to 1815MHz, while the 8GB model is a PowerColor Red Dragon running at 1830MHz. One of the biggest questions we want to answer with this review is whether the 8GB model is worth the extra cost as the 4GB option is otherwise just as powerful as its bigger brother. Through testing a range of games at different resolutions, we can show just how important that extra VRAM is – plus where it doesn’t make any difference at all.

The reference RX 5500 graphics card used by OEMs is a two-slot 18cm design with a single fan, two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and HDMI 2.0b, but custom RX 5500 XT designs are free to deviate from this significantly – and generally do. The Sapphire Pulse 4GB model is also a two-slotter, but it’s substantially longer at 24cm, providing room for two fans plus more ports: three DisplayPorts and one HDMI. Meanwhile, the PowerColor Red Dragon 8GB card is closer to 23cm with two fans and one each of the three most popular ports: DisplayPort, HDMI and DVI-D. Both of these custom designs also include a backplate, which isn’t present on the reference RX 5500, and an eight-pin auxiliary power input, which is.

RX 5500 XT RX 5700 RX 5700 XT Compute Units 22 36 40 Stream Processors 1408 2304 2560 TFLOPs 5.2 7.95 9.75 Game Clock 1717MHz 1625MHz 1755MHz Boost Clock 1845MHz 1725MHz 1905MHz Memory 4GB/8GB GDDR6 8GB GDDR6 8GB GDDR6 Memory interface 128-bit 256-bit 256-bit TDP 130W 180W 225W RRP $169/$199 $349 $399

In terms of the competitive landscape, the RX 5500 XT faces a tough challenge. First of all, it seems to be a replacement product to the Polaris 10 line-up of GCN graphics cards from AMD but using the advantages of the 7nm production node to radically reduce the size of the die, presumably making for a cheaper, more flexible product. The Navi 14 chip used by the 5500 line is just 158mm2 in size, up against the 232mm2 found in the 14nm/12nm Polaris products. There’s also a substantial reduction in TDP, the 7nm process’ significant efficiency improvements bringing out a cooler, more efficient offering that can work in the smaller form factors that Polaris 10 never could.

However, in terms of raw performance, we need to go into this one with our eyes open. The RX 580 and RX 590 both feature 36 compute units based on the GCN architecture. AMD’s new Navi technology is a lot more efficient, but fundamentally, it’s only using 22 CUs – and while they are clocked significantly higher and radically revamped in architectural terms, that’s still a big gap to close.

And then there’s the Nvidia offerings to consider. The entry-level GTX 1650 was never really a contender in the 1080p gaming space – not when the Polaris-based RX 570 was the same price or cheaper and so much more capable. However, the GTX 1650 Super 4GB – its replacement – offers a relatively large boost to frame-rates, bringing it more into line with the last-gen GTX 1060 6GB – just with less VRAM. While the 1650 Super is the key competitor AMD is highlighting, the pricing of the RX 5500 XT in its 8GB iteration actually moves it closer to the more expensive GTX 1660. Nvidia’s offering there has less memory, but the increase in performance over the GTX 1650 Super is significant.

But there are opportunities here for AMD: the GTX 1650 Super could be out-performed by the four gig RX 5500 XT, while the compute power is there to take the fight to the GTX 1660 too, while offering more memory with a lower price than the 1660 with the higher-end 8GB variant. However, it would be remiss of us to ignore the elephant in the room: the GTX 1660 Super. It’s more expensive than AMD’s launch pricing and it’s still a 6GB card. But it’s a fair bit faster and as important as pricing is at this end of the market, some might say that the price vs performance ratio is just as important – if not more so. With all of this in mind, let’s dig into some benchmarks.

AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs GTX 16-Series Analysis

from EnterGamingXP https://entergamingxp.com/2019/12/the-big-1080p-face-off-%e2%80%a2-eurogamer-net/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-big-1080p-face-off-%25e2%2580%25a2-eurogamer-net

0 notes