AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and RX 5700 Review Roundup

You know... It really looks like AMD underpromised and overdelivered with the 5700s. A little shocked to see how closely they run to the VII.

Bravo.

Not sure if my Fury is done yet but this is compelling enough to consider it. If only because we know these will get even better with further driver finessing.
 
Snowdog said:
It's seems silly to me to not take a new forward looking feature if it were free. It isn't like it harms you having it there.

You may take that kind of view point, but I would bet it is shared by only a small minority.
Click to expand...

CORRECT^

So the forward looking features in a 2060S.. are a faulty ray-tracing engine that takes a 30% performance hit just to render. (<--- not free, you have to pay extra for it)
-or-
Navi which has PCIe4.0
Navi which has RDNA
Navi which has better thermals
Navi which has better efficiencies

So when weighing those options... do you pay more (for less performance = RTX On), or just buy Navi that has all the latest standards and technology..?
 
Last edited:
jmilcher said:
Hmm. Lateral move to sell my 1080ti and play with a 5700xt? Have a full AMD system for the first time in a decade or more?
Click to expand...

A slight downgrade, in fact. It looks like the 1080 ti edges out the 5700 xt in most cases by ~10%.

I moved from a 1080 ti to a Vega VII a few months back mostly out of boredom. The VII is a fine card, but definitely was a sidegrade in most ways. Sidegrades are, by definition, not worth your time or money.
 
division2-1440p-5700xt.png
 
Centauri said:
You know... It really looks like AMD underpromised and overdelivered with the 5700s. A little shocked to see how closely they run to the VII.

Bravo.

Not sure if my Fury is done yet but this is compelling enough to consider it. If only because we know these will get even better with further driver finessing.
Click to expand...

Yar, agreed. I thought the price drop was a bit of a desperation move, but the performance is decent and I'm feeling pretty positive about the future Navi products. Looks like AMD might've reached near parity with this release.

The focus on RTX as the main differentiator between products smells more like a desperation move considering the current state of Raytracing in games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Gamer X said:
CORRECT^

So the forward looking features in a 2060S.. are a faulty ray-tracing engine that takes a 30% performance hit just to render. (<--- not free, you have to pay extra for it)
-or-
Navi which has PCIe4.0
Navi which has RDNA
Navi which has better thermals
Navi which has better efficiencies

So when weighing those options... do you pay more (for less performance = RTX On), or just buy Navi that has all the latest standards and technology..?
Click to expand...

Your posts are always so full of wrong.

PCIe4.0 is completely irrelevant for these GPUs, and unlike Ray Tracing, that will never change. More and more futures games will use Ray Tracing. PCIe4.0 is never going to make these cards faster.
RDNA is new architecture for the current improvements, so it's already baked into results.
Navi has worse thermals - thanks to the blower.
Navi has at best equal efficiency (trades blows in reviews).

So again RTX is something tangible. 30% performance hit to at least optionally experiment with something new. Sure why not? You can always turn it off.
 
Mylex said:
they have a crazy bundle going.
https://microcenterinsider.com/pub/sf/FormLink?_ri_=X0Gzc2X=YQpglLjHJlTQGoH9TBUlqXYSijzbzbLHgOulu4X7zczbmu47H2yRchDitiFjWjw4bTgSVXMtX=YQpglLjHJlTQGgBzbes4AGJcjwza6FiMOzfR4Nvc65dIrodzem2FiS59NUB8zbsdbnHoW&_ei_=ElvdWoU0Jr6paDU_rCP-Ptmiy-_MsfL5m-e3oNn4jtwTDZvj8c7VYniBV2kIVAXKUTPwjHjUlG2vChb5R_mqRkQ2-jftsEkvaPMNl7TwZE_eEAsvE_J04qArM-MWm_gneMj3R1m-Y9YQdZHVeGqXODWLI9i5Bchr3R5vJvpzQ5Y7TbmXDBKGU9ef_ri35Wa1UDI.
Click to expand...

It's essentially the same as the $40 off a motherboard. That's not the price out the door, it's the price Microcenter is hooking you into buying a new system with, instead of just a video card.

They assume you will buy other products to make up the loss.
 
Hmm no offense but it's dumb to do comparison of these cards at 4k to claim parity.

I don't think that many gamers expect anything short of the 2080ti to handle that.

The situation may be almost the same at 1440p but it makes more sense since there are less bottlenecks at that one and being more widely adopted and used as a sweet spot for gaming atm. (remember that the jump from 1440p to 2160p requires 2.25x performance).
 
Snowdog said:
Your posts are always so full of wrong.

PCIe4.0 is completely irrelevant for these GPUs, and unlike Ray Tracing, that will never change. More and more futures games will use Ray Tracing. PCIe4.0 is never going to make these cards faster.
RDNA is new architecture for the current improvements, so it's already baked into results.
Navi has worse thermals - thanks to the blower.
Navi has at best equal efficiency (trades blows in reviews).

So again RTX is something tangible. 30% performance hit to at least optionally experiment with something new. Sure why not? You can always turn it off.
Click to expand...


Turing's ray-tracing is a flop...! (Proven by every review ever done)

It is not a feature worth owning currently and it will never get better over time. It will take a new architecture from AMD, or Nvidia. So stop with RTX being some sort of futuristic feature, because (again), Turing based cards are not going to get better over time, they will be EOL in 10 months.



RDNA is the future of Gaming. That is the architecture that nearly all Developers will be going to in the future. It is a feature that is free, that you can't buy on Nvidia.
 
Snowdog said:
It looks like you can buy the CPU and either get $50 off the MB, or off the GPU.




Very nice for anyone getting a new CPU and GPU. Another $50 off the GPU pushes it over the top.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that person buying a 3600 and MB now can afford that 5700xt for 5700 prices. Solid build at that price then cheap memory in that crucial discount.
 
One of the thing that is missing here in the GPU comparison is of the same 7nm transistor size. We won't find the actual answer now other than making an intelligent guesses. Perhaps we will have to wait for ampere (7nm) to come out and see how it stacks against navi, possibly against an improved navi by that time. Hoping that AMD can continue to make improvement in their RDNA architecture. Hypothetically speaking what if the 5700 is based on 14nm and had to compare it with Turing? My gut feeling is that Nvidia will still stay on top.

At least AMD is on top of the 7nm process now and have products on hand to sell.
 
pututu said:
One of the thing that is missing here in the GPU comparison is of the same 7nm transistor size. We won't find the actual answer now other than making an intelligent guesses. Perhaps we will have to wait for ampere (7nm) to come out and see how it stacks against navi, possibly against an improved navi by that time. Hoping that AMD can continue to make improvement in their RDNA architecture. Hypothetically speaking what if the 5700 is based on 14nm and had to compare it with Turing? My gut feeling is that Nvidia will still stay on top.

At least AMD is on top of the 7nm process now and have products on hand to sell.
Click to expand...


Nvidia's Ampere is a year away. By that time AMD will be on their 3rd generation 7nm GPU.
 
Snowdog said:
Obviously Super was planned to mess with the AMD launch, and it would have wreaked havoc, if AMD didn't adjust their pricing to compensate.
Click to expand...

Could say the same if nvidia didn't release super

graphics cards seem to be in a much better place in the mid/lower high end than we were a year ago.

Balance has been restored.
 
harmattan said:
A slight downgrade, in fact. It looks like the 1080 ti edges out the 5700 xt in most cases by ~10%.

I moved from a 1080 ti to a Vega VII a few months back mostly out of boredom. The VII is a fine card, but definitely was a sidegrade in most ways. Sidegrades are, by definition, not worth your time or money.
Click to expand...
Yea it’s looking that way. I game at 1440 @ 165 hz, and it’s looking like the 1080ti still holds its own. Probably not worth the hassle to sell it and buy a new card
 
Snowdog said:
Your posts are always so full of wrong.

PCIe4.0 is completely irrelevant for these GPUs, and unlike Ray Tracing, that will never change. More and more futures games will use Ray Tracing. PCIe4.0 is never going to make these cards faster.
RDNA is new architecture for the current improvements, so it's already baked into results.
Navi has worse thermals - thanks to the blower.
Navi has at best equal efficiency (trades blows in reviews).

So again RTX is something tangible. 30% performance hit to at least optionally experiment with something new. Sure why not? You can always turn it off.
Click to expand...

Features you can't really use in real world gaming are useless.

Raytracing just to to turn it on and see what it looks like ? Just watch a video on youtube.

The cards the 5700s are competting against will NEVER be able to play any future game with ray tracing turned on. Does anyone really think the 2060 super... and even the 2070 super are going to be playable at even 1080p in a game like Cyberpunk with tracing turned on ? Based on other gaames.... without tracing the best the 2070s and 5700xt class are going to do is 60-75fps in that game... turning tracing on and running at an average of 30-40fps is not a real feature.

Yes hybrid ray tracing may become a major boring everyday thing in the future. Todays hardware will not be powering it... outside of perhaps the 2080ti which is still going to dorp you from smooth high refresh freindly FPS to something far far less.

First generation is forgetable. If AMD had released the 5700 when the RTX hype train was just pulling out of the station it would have been a slaughter... today however with the train fighting to get up that hill, its not going to be a big factor in peoples decisions. (save the 100 or so bucks today... and put that toward an earlier upgrade later to a 2nd or 3rd generation RT card)

EDIT also on the blower... we all know there will be third party cards soon enough with better cooler options. Its not like Nvidia didn't release blowers as well.
 
Curious to see what modding/performance can be squeezed out of the RX 5700 non-XT. Anyone spy a dual BIOS switch?
 
Something hardware Canucks did that a LOT of review sites fail to do is test the most popular PC games on the market like fortnite, pubg, R6S etc. I'm tired of seeing canned benchmarks of irrelevant games nobody plays as they aren't representative of what most pc gamers are playing or streaming.

These numbers were a big yikes and AMD has work to do:


305F4000-8FB2-4205-8112-4B8DB53CFD71.png DD1F26DA-C0E1-44D5-80B9-F4CFE715B69A.png 06DE427F-8F25-47AE-8EFE-9D353C98258A.png
 
Last edited:
Riccochet said:
The XT at $400 provides exceptional value when compared to the 2070 Super. A couple FPS, give or take, difference is awesome.

AMD is back!
Click to expand...

That is the price the RTX 2070 should have been, with a good cooler and factory OC. I'll take a loss when selling my RTX 2070 I suppose, but hopefully Nvidia's next generation is priced lower now that AMD seems to be on track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/132296-amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700/

"They" keep bringing up RTX, so want i would want to see is 5700 XT game performance Vs same RTX game with competing nvidia cards but with RTX on, and then see the numbers.
And hear if those people think thats worth it.
Current non RTX games look fine to me, so i would rather save money and play non RTX and at my lower resolution,,,,, at least this side of that historical lotto win i am told are in my future :LOL:
 
Oldmodder said:
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/132296-amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700/

"They" keep bringing up RTX, so want i would want to see is 5700 XT game performance Vs same RTX game with competing nvidia cards but with RTX on, and then see the numbers.
And hear if those people think thats worth it.
Current non RTX games look fine to me, so i would rather save money and play non RTX and at my lower resolution,,,,, at least this side of that historical lotto win i am told are in my future :LOL:
Click to expand...

Why would you need 100+ fps in an SP game? I'd want max eye candy even if I'm below 60 fps as I could enable gsync/freesync to smooth it out. What you just said made no sense, it's not like the Super RTX cards are lacking in raw performance --they win in that metric too while having a better stock cooler AND RT. Also look up at my previous post, Navi is faring poor in games that PC gamers actually play (pubg, Fortnite) which means more waiting on AMD to fix their drivers all the while nVidia....just works.
 
5150Joker said:
Also look up at my previous post, Navi is faring poor in games that PC gamers actually play (pubg, Fortnite) which means more waiting on AMD to fix their drivers all the while nVidia....just works.
Click to expand...

Those are games popular with streamers and the competitive scene.

Don’t fool yourself, we all know plenty of other games are played by PC gamers. There are in fact popular games that just don’t need the same brute force to be ran and are as such not worth benchmarking.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you are wrong, those games you mentioned absolutely should also be included due to their popularity. But let’s not pretend they paint the entire picture of the PC gaming scene. Because if those were the only games....well it would be a pretty boring hobby.

Now I’m going back to playing Bloodstained.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Those are games popular with streamers and the competitive scene.

Don’t fool yourself, we all know plenty of other games are played by PC gamers. There are in fact popular games that just don’t need the same brute force to be ran and are as such not worth benchmarking.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you are wrong, those games you mentioned absolutely should also be included due to their popularity. But let’s not pretend they paint the entire picture of the PC gaming scene. Because if those were the only games....well it would be a pretty boring hobby.

Now I’m going back to playing Bloodstained.
Click to expand...

Those games are popular period. Streamers, gamers, everyone. Fortnite, R6:S, PUBG, Apex Legends, LoL, and WoW probably eclipse any other game on the market in terms of sheer numbers and hours played. They should absolutely be included in every review and the fact they aren't means most reviewers are lazy or at worst incompetent. Who really cares about a benchmark for some obscure game nobody plays? I certainly don't. If I'm in the market for a new video card, I'd want to know how it does in the latest and greatest, not some random game nobody touches.

Also a little off topic, but some people and reviewers probably justify the canned benchmarks as "well it's testing the engine/DX load rather than just the game" but that is also wrong. You can take several UE4 games and the performance delta between them will be night and day depending on the game and developer. The same is true for Unity, Source, Crytek and many other engines out there regardless of DX and featureset. Each studio has their own set of skills and even when they share the same engine, the performance can be wildly different so it is vital to test the most important/popular games on the market. This is probably another reason so many people are turning to YT/Reddit for information now because you get benchmarks of those games available in some form but these so-called big tech websites like Anand, Toms etc don't ever venture out of their comfort zone. Even hard|ocp when in its heyday never went that direction which I always found lacking.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
Something hardware Canucks did that a LOT of review sites fail to do is test the most popular PC games on the market like fortnite, pubg, R6S etc. I'm tired of seeing canned benchmarks of irrelevant games nobody plays as they aren't representative of what most pc gamers are playing or streaming.

These numbers were a big yikes and AMD has work to do:


View attachment 172489 View attachment 172490 View attachment 172491
Click to expand...

I'd like to see apex numbers

PUBG historically runs like shit on amd hardware

I'm really contemplating scooping a 3600 and navi today from microcenter with the $50 off discount

Can compare to my 1080ti on water

HMMM
 
sabrewolf732 said:
I'd like to see apex numbers

PUBG historically runs like shit on amd hardware

I'm really contemplating scooping a 3600 and navi today from microcenter with the $50 off discount

Can compare to my 1080ti on water

HMMM
Click to expand...
sounds like a wasted experiment compared to your 1080ti. Great price though, if you still had a 9series or older card then sure but this will be a sidegrade at best.
 
Indeed.
I have always cranked eye candy up playing solo, why wouldn't you, but i would not get a RTX card just for SP gaming.
For competitive gaming i have turned GFX settings down,,,,, way down in game and playing resolution as back than you could do that on a CRT screen.
I was playing at resolutions no way near the max that was supported by my 22" CRT screen.

I cant even recall what kind of hit you take in games that support RTX if you turn it on, when those came out just like now with Navi i just breezed thru reviews.
I just assume there are some kind of hit, and most want to play multiplayer as single player seem to be more and more rare.

Long gone are the years where i could ramble on for hours on hardware, the time i spend on that now to keep up are less than 10 % of what i use to do every day when it was just gaming and hardware in my life.

And i have no idea what i will play when my computer are ready for that, or if i am going to play at all, i am known for over killing on hardware, the phone i just got are 80% stronger than i will ever need, and at least 50% more expensive that i should have paid for a damn phone.

I can say for sure that none of the current games are anything but slightly interesting to me, so in regard to gaming i have painted myself into a corner and have to sit here all night while the paint dries.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Did you even read the rest of my post you fucking troglodyte? I agreed with you, except that the pure fact is other games are also played. Not just obscure ones either.
Click to expand...

You mentioned those specific games being popular with "streamers and the competitive scene" which is what I addressed. Don't know exactly what you got upset about buddy.

sabrewolf732 said:
I'd like to see apex numbers

PUBG historically runs like shit on amd hardware

I'm really contemplating scooping a 3600 and navi today from microcenter with the $50 off discount

Can compare to my 1080ti on water

HMMM
Click to expand...

What's funny is AMD brought up PUBG during their Computex keynote heh:



I wish more websites would put in the hard work to start benchmarking these games. While MP is variable, you can get pretty reliable numbers by going to the same drops/areas 5-6 times and taking an average.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
Something hardware Canucks did that a LOT of review sites fail to do is test the most popular PC games on the market like fortnite, pubg, R6S etc. I'm tired of seeing canned benchmarks of irrelevant games nobody plays as they aren't representative of what most pc gamers are playing or streaming.

These numbers were a big yikes and AMD has work to do:


View attachment 172489 View attachment 172490 View attachment 172491
Click to expand...

Poor performance in Fortnite, but it seems like a solid value for PUBG and R6S considering their price competitor matches the 5700 XT with the 2060 Super, which AMD outperforms in both.

Overall, RX 5700 vs Super this-and-that is such a bummer to me as a GTX 1080 owner. Looks like I've got to wait another year for a meaningful upgrade.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Poor performance in Fortnite, but it seems like a solid value for PUBG and R6S considering their price competitor matches the 5700 XT with the 2060 Super, which AMD outperforms in both.

Overall, RX 5700 vs Super this-and-that is such a bummer to me as a GTX 1080 owner. Looks like I've got to wait another year for a meaningful upgrade.
Click to expand...

Check out the 1% numbers. In an MP title, those are vital. They're not too bad in R6:S but lacking in Fortnite and PUBG. But overall still weak in all 3 games.
 
5150Joker said:
Those games are popular period. Streamers, gamers, everyone. Fortnite, R6:S, PUBG, Apex Legends, LoL, and WoW probably eclipse any other game on the market in terms of sheer numbers and hours played. They should absolutely be included in every review and the fact they aren't means most reviewers are lazy or at worst incompetent. Who really cares about a benchmark for some obscure game nobody plays? I certainly don't. If I'm in the market for a new video card, I'd want to know how it does in the latest and greatest, not some random game nobody touches.

Also a little off topic, but some people and reviewers probably justify the canned benchmarks as "well it's testing the engine/DX load rather than just the game" but that is also wrong. You can take several UE4 games and the performance delta between them will be night and day depending on the game and developer. The same is true for Unity, Source, Crytek and many other engines out there regardless of DX and featureset. Each studio has their own set of skills and even when they share the same engine, the performance can be wildly different so it is vital to test the most important/popular games on the market. This is probably another reason so many people are turning to YT/Reddit for information now because you get benchmarks of those games available in some form but these so-called big tech websites like Anand, Toms etc don't ever venture out of their comfort zone. Even hard|ocp when in its heyday never went that direction which I always found lacking.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying the Super reviews were ran with canned benchmarks, got it. Seemed to me many of those reviews were dictated by the Nvidia marketing department, at least in the way they were represented.
 
I think these are good cards, but AMD really missed with the launch cooling.


I just looked at Techpowerup's breakdown of the 5700xt and 5700. They are shipping these cards with graphite/epoxy pads on the GPU core, instead of thermal paste.

I'm not gonna say "guarantee". But I would be super surprised if a quality thermal paste is not much better. Personally, I would remove the heatsink and do the swap.

Alllllso, if the heatsink has open fins underneathe the fan shroud: you could remove the shroud and turbine fan and then strap a fan to the top of the heatsink (unfortunately, techpowerup didn't remove the shroud to reveal the heatsink). If you have lots of space in your case, 80mm case fans are awesome for this. If you are limited on space, Noctua makes a 90mm slim fan. Which is also awesome for this. I have a couple strapped to my 7870 with twist ties. That's gonna be a giant improvment over the turbine fan. I don't use cases with windows anymore. So i don't care if it looks stupid.
 
Snowdog said:
Your posts are always so full of wrong.

PCIe4.0 is completely irrelevant for these GPUs, and unlike Ray Tracing, that will never change. More and more futures games will use Ray Tracing. PCIe4.0 is never going to make these cards faster.
RDNA is new architecture for the current improvements, so it's already baked into results.
Navi has worse thermals - thanks to the blower.
Navi has at best equal efficiency (trades blows in reviews).

So again RTX is something tangible. 30% performance hit to at least optionally experiment with something new. Sure why not? You can always turn it off.
Click to expand...


It's more than a 30% performance hit at 3840x1600. It's downright unplayable, and I'm not dropping resolution to use it.
 
Pretty impressive launch for Navi, looks like people have real choice again. I am surprised how well the 5700xt does, expected bit more of a gap from it to a VII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top