Radeon RX 5600 XT Launch Review Round Up

pendragon1 said:
i was just noticing that too. trying to find a 5600xt online and they are few and far between but the 5700 and xt seems to be on sale all over and not much more than the 5600xt. thinking about it...
Click to expand...

Yeah, If I was looking to replace my RX 570 I'd look at a 5700 on sale. I may do that in the near future if the driver issues are worked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
kac77 said:
That's literally in the link I provided. So this topic is obviously more for you than me. I at least observe fact good grief.
Click to expand...

The link states that AMD did not provide sufficient time for AIBs to do any sort of validation. It in no way supports your claim.

I’ll leave it to someone else to explain it to you as it’s apparently beyond my capacity to do so.
 
kac77 said:
AMD does fuck things up but this isn't anything that Nvidia hasn't done.

How would it have been perfect? Oh your mad because the card performs better. Ah I get it unless every launch AMD loses you're not happy.
Click to expand...

"Nvidia did it too" isn't the slam dunk defense you think it is. AMD panicked and shoved a BIOS update out the doors, turning the launch into a mess. It won't hurt you to admit it. No matter how much you like AMD (and liking any company to the extreme you seem to is fucking stupid, but whatever) you should never ignore when they make a mistake.
 
Derangel said:
"Nvidia did it too" isn't the slam dunk defense you think it is. AMD panicked and shoved a BIOS update out the doors, turning the launch into a mess. It won't hurt you to admit it. No matter how much you like AMD (and liking any company to the extreme you seem to is fucking stupid, but whatever) you should never ignore when they make a mistake.
Click to expand...

Seriously

"well yeah rape is bad but this person also rapes people so.."

Fanboy argument.
 
Snowdog said:
GN video after talking more to AIB partners:
Click to expand...


A few quotes of AIB sources from the gamer nexus video

Screenshot_2020-01-27-11-50-45-492.jpeg


Screenshot_2020-01-27-11-52-06-499.jpeg


Screenshot_2020-01-27-11-53-22-832.jpeg
 
5150Joker said:
Rather than create 2 different skus or lower the price AMD chose this bone headed solution.
Click to expand...

$250 5600 targetting 1660ti
&
$300 5600 XT targetting RTX 2060
would have been perfect

Too bad they tried to save margin on the 5700 & pretended as if the RTX 2060 didn't exist, till Nvidia used EVGA to deliver a rude awakening to them

Hope they learn lessons from this for future
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
DukenukemX said:
The 5600 XT at $280 is stupid. Not worth buying. You can find a Vega 56 for $250 and it has 2GB more VRAM. The RTX 2060 KO can be found for $300. The RX 5700 is only $300. So who exactly is this $280 card for? The Vega 56 performs the same with more VRAM, while the RTX 2060 is just $20 more with Ray-Tracing. You know the 5600 XT's won't be $280 for a while, despite what AMD says. The 5600 XT should have been a $220 graphics card, and it should have just been called the 5600.
Click to expand...

fwiw

Very few 2060s have actually been available @ $300.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
sabrewolf732 said:
fwiw

Very few 2060s have actually been available @ $300.
Click to expand...
Long before Black Friday of 2019 the RTX 2060's could be had for $320, which is still a better buy than the 5600 XT. Even before Christmas of 2019 the 5700 was often $290, but prices went up because right now stores are looking to cash in on gift cards that people received for Christmas. Right now both AMD and Nvidia are having a hard time selling graphic cards, because all their cards are selling much cheaper than the MSRP. That's why the Steam hardware survey looks like something from 2016, because the prices have gone up while performance has barely. It's dominated by the GTX 1060, 1050, 1050 Ti, and the 1070. The RTX 2060 does make an appearance of nearly 4%, but that's it. AMD hasn't done better at all with majority of their cards being RX 570's, 580's, 470's, 480's.

Rather than lowering prices as AMD should have done, for some reason AMD is keeping prices high because people will buy their hardware for $20 less? Surprisingly there are a few that are $280, but as expected the vast majority are over $300, at least according to PCPartPicker. So it's literally the 5600 XT vs 5700 vs RTX 2060. You can add the Vega 56 in there as well but it's not fair since that's cheaper and offers 2GB more VRAM. At $280 the 5600 XT is dumb.
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
5150Joker said:
Yep so plenty of 2060s for $300 if one spends 2 minutes googling (is that a word? lol)
Click to expand...

Oh nice,

I was looking last week and couldn't find any in stock. I was wondering if it was a burst sku/temp thing to just rain on AMD's parade (though AMD did it themselves)
 
5150Joker said:
This has been in stock for awhile now: https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=06G-P4-2066-KR
Click to expand...

Amazon has it for $10 more
NewEgg out of stock
Microcenter is only for instore pickup

I believe only EVGA & Nvidia will be able to offer RTX 2060 at $300, because Nvidia would be offering rebates to exclusive partners, like intel offered Dell

DukenukemX said:
The Vega 56 performs the same
Click to expand...

From TechpowerUp review of MSI Gaming Z (should be same as $290 Saphire pulse), the memory overclocked 14Gbps 5600 XT beats the vega 64 while the 12Gbps 5600 XT falls just (5% on average) behind

The 12Gbps XFX 5600 XT is available for $280
 
Marees said:
From TechpowerUp review of MSI Gaming Z (should be same as $290 Saphire pulse), the memory overclocked 14Gbps 5600 XT beats the vega 64 while the 12Gbps 5600 XT falls just (5% on average) behind

The 12Gbps XFX 5600 XT is available for $280
Click to expand...
If the card is overclocked then sure it'll beat a Vega 56 and Vega64, but that may or may not be a good idea to do. With the power mod you can overclock a Vega 56 beyond a Vega 64. That may or may not be also be a good idea to do to a Vega 56. I got my XFX Vega 56 with a reference cooler to run at 62C in FurMark with no increase in fan speed, and I'm not interested in overclocking because I don't want this card to blow up one day. Overclocking my Ryzen 7 1700 to 3.7Ghz is fine because I barely increased the voltage to achieve it, but getting it to 3.8Ghz or 3.9Ghz would require serious power and generate serious heat. I would not gain much in performance, but the CPU wouldn't last for more than 2-3 years.

 
DukenukemX said:
The 5600 XT at $280 is stupid. Not worth buying. You can find a Vega 56 for $250 and it has 2GB more VRAM. The RTX 2060 KO can be found for $300. The RX 5700 is only $300. So who exactly is this $280 card for? The Vega 56 performs the same with more VRAM, while the RTX 2060 is just $20 more with Ray-Tracing. You know the 5600 XT's won't be $280 for a while, despite what AMD says. The 5600 XT should have been a $220 graphics card, and it should have just been called the 5600.
Click to expand...

I'd pick up the 2060 if RT were of interest, and I'd toss between the 5600XT and 5700 based on noise, really.

I don't see why an old AMD spaceheater would be of interest unless the compute performance of that specific model were of utility to the purchaser.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
IdiotInCharge said:
I'd pick up the 2060 if RT were of interest, and I'd toss between the 5600XT and 5700 based on noise, really.

I don't see why an old AMD spaceheater would be of interest unless the compute performance of that specific model were of utility to the purchaser.
Click to expand...
If we put value on VRAM then a 8GB Vega 56 would be better. If you think about it, AMD's take on VRAM is really silly. The 5500 4GB is $170 but the 5500 XT 8GB is $200. The RX 480's and 580's have 8GB versions. The R9 390's can only be found in 8GB version. So why is the 5600 XT 6GB? Does 8GB not matter? Besides the Vega 56 only consumes 80w more power than a 5600XT. The Vega 64 is a different beast and eats massive amounts of power, stock.

Personally if you must have a graphics card at this performance range then buy a RTX 2060. The PS5 and Xbox Series X will have Ray-Tracing hardware, so at least the RTX 2060 will be able to play those games, assuming some games require Ray-Tracing capable hardware. Which means anyone buying a RX 5600 or RX 5700 is wasting their money. Unless AMD does a sorta hybrid Ray-Tracing where the CPU does the Ray-Casting while the GPU does the imagine clean up? Which may allow older GPU's like RDNA to Ray-Trace but slower than RDNA2.0.
 
DukenukemX said:
So why is the 5600 XT 6GB? Does 8GB not matter?
Click to expand...
the memory limit is due to the bit bus* limit and no not really at 1080p. ive never broken 4GB on my 8GB 580 @1080p.

*edit: idiot just used the correct term
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
If we put value on VRAM then a 8GB Vega 56 would be better.
Click to expand...

Well, generally speaking, I don't. Now, that's not that I don't find having enough VRAM important, but rather, that I find I'm not as interested as many are in terms of pushing the limits. In my experience (and I realize that this isn't always true), if you're overrunning VRAM you're also likely introducing rendering loads that are hitting the GPU hard too, so I find more often than not that the hit to performance and particularly responsiveness isn't worth the upgrade in fidelity.

DukenukemX said:
If you think about it, AMD's take on VRAM is really silly. The 5500 4GB is $170 but the 5500 XT 8GB is $200. The RX 480's and 580's have 8GB versions. The R9 390's can only be found in 8GB version. So why is the 5600 XT 6GB?
Click to expand...

Why do the 1080Ti and 2080Ti have 11GB, of all capacities? Easy: memory bus width. Same for the 5500.

DukenukemX said:
Besides the Vega 56 only consumes 80w more power than a 5600XT. The Vega 64 is a different beast and eats massive amounts of power, stock.
Click to expand...

Both will eat power when pushed, unless one encounters a very good example. Also, 80W is a lot in this class, approaching a 50% increase. An increase in heat and noise is unnavoidable, and that needs to be factored in. Though as I mentioned, if the additional compute prowess is useful, that may be a desirable tradeoff.

DukenukemX said:
Personally if you must have a graphics card at this performance range then buy a RTX 2060.
Click to expand...

I'm personally expecting future RT implementations in games to make lower-end RT hardware more viable with it enabled, but that's just a guess. Obviously I'd prefer to have it than not, but if I can get a better overall card (cooling, size, and so on) with the 5600XT, I do see it becoming a tossup.

DukenukemX said:
The PS5 and Xbox Series X will have Ray-Tracing hardware, so at least the RTX 2060 will be able to play those games, assuming some games require Ray-Tracing capable hardware. Which means anyone buying a RX 5600 or RX 5700 is wasting their money. Unless AMD does a sorta hybrid Ray-Tracing where the CPU does the Ray-Casting while the GPU does the imagine clean up? Which may allow older GPU's like RDNA to Ray-Trace but slower than RDNA2.0.
Click to expand...

Given the very limited hardware budgets available to consoles, I'm wondering if the first round of titles will be very heavy into RT, if even at all, really. Enabling RT is absurdly easy -- getting it running well has proven extremely difficult.

Granted that console developers have had plenty of heads up and time to practice, and that console hardware is static between releases, we might see limited implementations, but I'm betting that titles intended for platforms beyond the two new consoles will have a raster-only implementation ready.
 
pendragon1 said:
the memory limit is due to the bit limit and no not really at 1080p. ive never broken 4GB on my 8GB 580 @1080p.
Click to expand...

I've made the GTX970 in my second rig crap itself at 1440p; for most AAA games made in the last five years or so, I'm burying detail settings to keep frametimes down and responsiveness up.
 
Bying a sapphire rx5600xt from amazon should ship sometime in February. It’s replacing my Evga 970 which does alright at 1080 but wish to play at 1440.at 1440 it no longer cuts the mustard. On the 970 textures quality does matter. shadows is the big killer
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
I've made the GTX970 in my second rig crap itself at 1440p; for most AAA games made in the last five years or so, I'm burying detail settings to keep frametimes down and responsiveness up.
Click to expand...
ok. your 3.5GB 970 cant handle 1440p but im talking 4GBs and 1080p. am i misunderstanding?
 
DrDoU said:
Bying a sapphire rx5600xt from amazon should ship sometime in February. It’s replacing my Evga 970 which does alright at 1080 but wish to play at 1440.at 1440 it no longer cuts the mustard. On the 970 textures quality does matter. shadows is the big killer
Click to expand...
the 5600xt is meant for 1080. you may be disappointed with 1440p or youll need lower settings.
 
DukenukemX said:
If the card is overclocked then sure it'll beat a Vega 56 and Vega64, but that may or may not be a good idea to do. With the power mod you can overclock a Vega 56 beyond a Vega 64. That may or may not be also be a good idea to do to a Vega 56. I got my XFX Vega 56 with a reference cooler to run at 62C in FurMark with no increase in fan speed, and I'm not interested in overclocking because I don't want this card to blow up one day. Overclocking my Ryzen 7 1700 to 3.7Ghz is fine because I barely increased the voltage to achieve it, but getting it to 3.8Ghz or 3.9Ghz would require serious power and generate serious heat. I would not gain much in performance, but the CPU wouldn't last for more than 2-3 years.

Click to expand...

Your wimpy overclocking doesn't match your forum title!! :D (just having some fun)
 
pendragon1 said:
the memory limit is due to the bit bus* limit and no not really at 1080p. ive never broken 4GB on my 8GB 580 @1080p.

*edit: idiot just used the correct term
Click to expand...
I agree, but it shows that AMD can't keep VRAM consistent in their GPU's. Just to give an idea the RX 480 has a die size of 232mm2, while the 5600 XT is 251mm2. RX 480 256 bit bus vs 5600 XT's 192 bit bus. The 5600 XT has even less VRAM than the RX 480 8GB. So why does it cost so much more than the RX 480's MSRP?

IdiotInCharge said:
Both will eat power when pushed, unless one encounters a very good example. Also, 80W is a lot in this class, approaching a 50% increase. An increase in heat and noise is unnavoidable, and that needs to be factored in. Though as I mentioned, if the additional compute prowess is useful, that may be a desirable tradeoff.
Click to expand...
80W is a concern if you play games 24/7, but most people don't. Idle power is more of a concern and the Vega 56 is fine there.

I'm personally expecting future RT implementations in games to make lower-end RT hardware more viable with it enabled, but that's just a guess. Obviously I'd prefer to have it than not, but if I can get a better overall card (cooling, size, and so on) with the 5600XT, I do see it becoming a tossup.
Click to expand...
I believe that some developers will get lazy and make some games that require Ray-Tracing because they don't want to make it without Ray-Tracing. So some Ray-Tracing is better than no Ray-Tracing.

Given the very limited hardware budgets available to consoles, I'm wondering if the first round of titles will be very heavy into RT, if even at all, really. Enabling RT is absurdly easy -- getting it running well has proven extremely difficult.
Click to expand...
Sony and Microsoft will push for the feature, as well as Nvidia. It'll be a good 2-3 years before most games utilize RT, but some will when the PS5 and Xbox Series X launches.
 
got tired of trying to find a 5600xt in canada, splurged on a xfx 5700 for ~$40CAN more. figure ill be able to recoup a good chunk of it selling off my 470 and 580, maybe...
 
DukenukemX said:
I agree, but it shows that AMD can't keep VRAM consistent in their GPU's. Just to give an idea the RX 480 has a die size of 232mm2, while the 5600 XT is 251mm2. RX 480 256 bit bus vs 5600 XT's 192 bit bus. The 5600 XT has even less VRAM than the RX 480 8GB. So why does it cost so much more than the RX 480's MSRP?
Click to expand...
couple gen newer tech and much higher performance. ram isnt the only thing price is based on.
 
pendragon1 said:
couple gen newer tech and much higher performance. ram isnt the only thing price is based on.
Click to expand...
Much higher performance than a RX 480, but not more than a Vega 56. The only downside of the Vega 56 is power consumption but it is cheaper and has more VRAM. On top of that the RTX 2060 is only $20 more, as well as some RX 5700's. AMD can justify the price of the 5600 XT all they want but nobody in their right mind should buy it. RTX 2060 is the best choice because it performs the same or better and has Ray-Tracing. Not good Ray-Tracing but that's more than what AMD can say about any of their current graphic cards.

This has always been the issue for AMD in that they can't price their GPU's appropriately. The price of their CPU's is exquisite but GPU pricing has been awful forever. Can't remember if ATI pricing was better but AMD pricing is awful.
 
DukenukemX said:
Much higher performance than a RX 480, but not more than a Vega 56. The only downside of the Vega 56 is power consumption but it is cheaper and has more VRAM. On top of that the RTX 2060 is only $20 more, as well as some RX 5700's. AMD can justify the price of the 5600 XT all they want but nobody in their right mind should buy it. RTX 2060 is the best choice because it performs the same or better and has Ray-Tracing. Not good Ray-Tracing but that's more than what AMD can say about any of their current graphic cards.

This has always been the issue for AMD in that they can't price their GPU's appropriately. The price of their CPU's is exquisite but GPU pricing has been awful forever. Can't remember if ATI pricing was better but AMD pricing is awful.
Click to expand...
you said 480 now its vega? you complained about 6gb vs 8gb and now tout the 2060?! make up your mind.
in canada a 5600xt* starts at about $400, a 5700 starts at about $440, a 2060 starts at about $450. price seems fine to me.

*cant find one online though...
 
Whats the performance difference of the 5700 with flashed bios vs 5600xt and 2060? Wouldnt the 5700 be the superior card if rt isnt a concern?
Ive been under the impression that an oced 5700 was a far better option price to performance.
 
hititnquitit said:
Whats the performance difference of the 5700 with flashed bios vs 5600xt and 2060? Wouldnt the 5700 be the superior card if rt isnt a concern?
Ive been under the impression that an oced 5700 was a far better option price to performance.
Click to expand...
no idea but from what ive seen the regular 5700 beats the 2060 in a lot of stuff. so the 5600xt being a little worse than a 2060 and ~50 cheaper makes sense.
 
pendragon1 said:
you said 480 now its vega? you complained about 6gb vs 8gb and now tout the 2060?! make up your mind.
in canada a 5600xt* starts at about $400, a 5700 starts at about $440, a 2060 starts at about $450. price seems fine to me.

*cant find one online though...
Click to expand...

I have to wonder about folks complaining about 6gb (in 5500 XT) AND praising ray tracing in 2060 in same comment

How does the RTX 2060 perform in ray tracing? Has anyone discussed about that
 
pendragon1 said:
you said 480 now its vega? you complained about 6gb vs 8gb and now tout the 2060?! make up your mind.
in canada a 5600xt* starts at about $400, a 5700 starts at about $440, a 2060 starts at about $450. price seems fine to me.

*cant find one online though...
Click to expand...
The RX 480 was showing that in terms in manufacturing the cost of making a 5600 XT would be cheaper than it was to make a RX 480. They have no reason to ask for a higher price other than we make technologies into it so give us more monies. 192-bit vs 256-bit, 6GB vs 8GB, and a slightly larger GPU die size. In terms of cost to the consumer the Vega 56 is the better buy. I wouldn't know where to shop as a Canadian but as an American the 5600XT is awful.
 
Marees said:
I have to wonder about folks complaining about 6gb (in 5500 XT) AND praising ray tracing in 2060 in same comment
Click to expand...
My point is that AMD doesn't keep their specs consistent and will charge more for the higher VRAM version, but here we see the 5600 XT with only 6GB and also costing more than their previous GCN products. What I'm saying is that the 5600 XT should be priced much lower. Also, anyone notice it's called the 5600 XT and not 5600? So either AMD is playing around with marketing or they'll eventually release a 5600 regular?
How does the RTX 2060 perform in ray tracing? Has anyone discussed about that
Click to expand...
Like all the RTX cards Nvidia has made... it'll be awful. The reason you want the feature is because future game consoles are going to utilize Ray-Tracing, which means if you want your $280 purchase to last 1 year from now then you want Ray-Tracing. The RTX 2060 will be terrible at Ray-Tracing but at least you can still play the games that require it, albeit at lower settings and frame rates. I'm not saying that you should go all in and buy RTX 2070's and 2080's because that would be stupid. Nvidia later this year will release their RTX 3000 series and they'll do a better job at Ray-Tracing... hopefully.

If you must have that level of performance and your GTX 660 finally died on you then the RTX 2060 is the best choice. Personally, I would avoid buying any GPU at this time because later this year AMD and Nvidia are going to release new products, so why regret your purchase later this year? If Intel does pull a rabbit out of their hat, their new GPU's could be an option, or at the very least lower prices of other GPU's.
 
DukenukemX said:
The RTX 2060 will be terrible at Ray-Tracing but at least you can still play the games that require it, albeit at lower settings and frame rates
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better to buy a RTX 2060 super because it has 8gb RAM ?

I was genuinely wondering about performance of RTX 2060 in ray tracing. Something like a Hardocp review which lists the settings & framerates for playing raytracing games using RTX 2060 (& not the higher memory RTX cards)
 
DukenukemX said:
My point is that AMD doesn't keep their specs consistent and will charge more for the higher VRAM version, but here we see the 5600 XT with only 6GB and also costing more than their previous GCN products. What I'm saying is that the 5600 XT should be priced much lower. Also, anyone notice it's called the 5600 XT and not 5600? So either AMD is playing around with marketing or they'll eventually release a 5600 regular?

Like all the RTX cards Nvidia has made... it'll be awful. The reason you want the feature is because future game consoles are going to utilize Ray-Tracing, which means if you want your $280 purchase to last 1 year from now then you want Ray-Tracing. The RTX 2060 will be terrible at Ray-Tracing but at least you can still play the games that require it, albeit at lower settings and frame rates. I'm not saying that you should go all in and buy RTX 2070's and 2080's because that would be stupid. Nvidia later this year will release their RTX 3000 series and they'll do a better job at Ray-Tracing... hopefully.

If you must have that level of performance and your GTX 660 finally died on you then the RTX 2060 is the best choice. Personally, I would avoid buying any GPU at this time because later this year AMD and Nvidia are going to release new products, so why regret your purchase later this year? If Intel does pull a rabbit out of their hat, their new GPU's could be an option, or at the very least lower prices of other GPU's.
Click to expand...

Except your RTX argument makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, if ray tracing is absolutely necessary to run a game it's going to be quite a few years down the line before that happens. Even with two consoles capable of ray tracing the performance will not be good and it will not be a requirement. There simply isn't enough ray tracing capable hardware to make it a requirement and won't be for years to come. And that's assuming they can do much with it without completely tanking performance.

The second problem is that there has practically never been a time when bad performing first gen hardware features were later made to run faster than on release. The rule is that the hardware requirements to run the new features increase due to increased use of the new feature. The 2060 doesn't do ray tracing worth a damn now and it's only going to get worse later. Later iterations of hardware tend to become more powerful and it's only then that games make use of the feature since the hardware can run it without crippling framerates.

I'll say it right now. Attempting to "future proof" your system with first generation ray tracing is going to be an exercise in futility. We've already seen that even the top of the line RTX card gets hammered when ray tracing is turned on and that's with the relatively few effects current games have. It seems like half the games featuring ray tracing turned down the ray tracing effects considerably just to get a somewhat playable framerate since release. Performance simply isn't going to get any better in future games featuring ray tracing on the current hardware.
 
SmokeRngs said:
The second problem is that there has practically never been a time when bad performing first gen hardware features were later made to run faster than on release. The rule is that the hardware requirements to run the new features increase due to increased use of the new feature. The 2060 doesn't do ray tracing worth a damn now and it's only going to get worse later. Later iterations of hardware tend to become more powerful and it's only then that games make use of the feature since the hardware can run it without crippling framerates.

I'll say it right now. Attempting to "future proof" your system with first generation ray tracing is going to be an exercise in futility. We've already seen that even the top of the line RTX card gets hammered when ray tracing is turned on and that's with the relatively few effects current games have. It seems like half the games featuring ray tracing turned down the ray tracing effects considerably just to get a somewhat playable framerate since release. Performance simply isn't going to get any better in future games featuring ray tracing on the current hardware.
Click to expand...

We are already seeing counter arguments to your claim.

Developers are getting better at using Ray Tracing Effects with less impact, and DLSS has shown multiple jumps in improvements.

Far from crushing a high end card. They can run Wolf Youngblood with RT and DLSS on at the same FPS as with it off.

Here they run RT on, with DLSS. They can run as fast on a 2060 with RT effects, as a 5600 xt with no Ray tracing.


He concludes that you would be nuts to play without RT and thats on the lowest end RT card in existence. There really is negligible downside to turning it on with the current version of DLSS and RT in this game.

Ultimately RT HW is a bonus here. It absolutely will let you play some games with RT effects on, others maybe it wont' be practical. But some is better than NONE.

The argument that this bonus isn't worth the price, carries some weight when we are talking about the $100 difference between 5700XT and 2070 Super.

But that argument really doesn't carry weight when the difference in price drops to $20.

$20 bucks more for Ray Tracing, Better Video Encoding, and more stable drivers is pretty much the sensible choice, and obvious choice.

AMD did well with the pricing on 5700 cards, but 5500/5600 cards really don't deliver any kind of win. 5500/5600 cards are AMD fan only cards.
 
Snowdog said:
They can run as fast on a 2060 with RT effects, as a 5600 xt with no Ray tracing
Click to expand...

Just to be pedantic, isn't that with TAA on

Does everyone play with TAA on

What is the framerate & quality if TAA is turned off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top