Considering a 5600 XT

Grimham

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,521
I'm considering getting a 5600 XT, specifically this one. From what I'm reading, it's one of the best bang for the buck cards out there. But you don't (or at least I don't) hear much about the 5600 XT cards.
Am I missing something here? I hear things about the drivers being poor, but I also read where others say they have no issues. Basically, I'm just trying to gather some data to make a better purchase
decision. This card does have the BIOS update available for 14Gbps (if it's not already on it).

This will be paired with a Ryzen 1600AF CPU (probably will be replaced by a 3700x in the near future)
32 GB 3200 ram
Asrock B450M Pro4

It will be replacing a 1060 3GB.

Pros/cons to this card or AMD GPUs in general? Thanks.
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
23,544
I'm considering getting a 5600 XT, specifically this one. From what I'm reading, it's one of the best bang for the buck cards out there. But you don't (or at least I don't) hear much about the 5600 XT cards.
Am I missing something here? I hear things about the drivers being poor, but I also read where others say they have no issues. Basically, I'm just trying to gather some data to make a better purchase
decision. This card does have the BIOS update available for 14Gbps (if it's not already on it).

This will be paired with a Ryzen 1600AF CPU (probably will be replaced by a 3700x in the near future)
32 GB 3200 ram
Asrock B450M Pro4

It will be replacing a 1060 3GB.

Pros/cons to this card or AMD GPUs in general? Thanks.
its got 192 instead of 256bit and slightly lower clocks. its almost a 5700, dont see why not to grab it. it will be a great 1080p card. some will come in and say the drivers are crap blah blah blah. theyre not. there was some issues in feb releases but theyve been fixed. id grab it before the freebies end.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,428
Yeah, as far as I know they are just fine. It's a decent mid range card, just don't expect 144hz 4k gaming (that wasn't a dig on AMD, that is just the price range). It seems the driver issues tend to be random. I personally don't have a newer card, but I do have 5 desktops with AMD cards (from radeon fury -> rx570) and have zero issues. There were some teething issues but it seems they are mostly worked out (although, you still do hear some stuff once in a while). They seem like pretty good cards, and the available 14Gb/s update being available won't hurt. Do you already have the 1600AF? Just asking because if you look for prices you may be unpleasantly surprised right now and would be better off with a 3300x. If you got it before the ridiculous price increase, then it was probably well worth the cost!
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
AMD drivers being poor is a myth perpetuated mostly by people who do not use AMD cards. Sure, there were instances where there were some issues but it is not like Nvidia had clean record either and most of the issues with drivers people have had were not even on AMD GPUs but originate from ATI Radeon HD2xxx and HD3xxx and partially HD4xxx but at this point they improved drivers a lot. All GCN based GPUs had pretty good drivers and AMD definitely did great job at keeping drivers up to date even for older cards.

That said currently AMD have no GPU that I could recommend because none of their cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate, there is no alternative to DLSS and no alternative to Nvenc.
DirectX 12 Ultimate have the same features as upcoming next gen consoles. RTX cards already have full support.
People complain about DXR performance on RTX 2xxx cards but actually even with lowly RTX 2060 at 1080p you can play most games at around 60fps just fine. There is also quite a lot of games supporting it and more are to come.
New DX12 also have something called Variable Rate Shading which can increase framerates and most if not all games released also for next games will utilize.
RTX cards also have DLSS which can increase framerate by quite a lot. With DLSS 2.0 you get near native quality.

I also suspect that resell value of RTX cards will be higher than Navi.
When Geforce 6800 launched with SM 3.0 and Radeon x800 still had SM 2.0 people who recommended ATI cards were saying the same things that these new fancy features are not important and little to no game uses it and if it does it does nothing worthwhile. Some time passed, new consoles used SM 3.0 hardware and some games started to be SM 3.0. What do you think this did to resell values of SM 2.0 cards?
Given both next generation consoles will have ray-tracing it might so happen that some PC ports of console games will either have eg. terrible or no proper lighting or won't run without DXR at all. It actually takes a lot of effort to create nice looking lighting in games and many modern games use techniques which won't make any sense to when developing for RT capable game. It might be not worth for game developers to spend money on old hardware on PC platform which is already minority when it comes to game sales.

Price difference between 5600XT and 2060 is not worth getting already obsolete hardware.
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
23,544
Price difference between 5600XT and 2060 is not worth getting already obsolete hardware.
in your opinion. no dlss isnt a deal breaker for most. that shit has a long way to go before its mainstream tech.
 

DrDoU

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,634
I know this came out just a few days ago, he compared 12 different models of 5600XT.

look at this review. I have a xfx rx 5600xt that i flashed. Now memory will boost to 1860 and 1820 gpu clock. run the fan at 50% and cool as a cucumber. i use head phones so i do not hear the fan. Never liked silent mode
 

UltraTaco

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Messages
992
.... It's a decent mid range card, just don't expect 144hz 4k gaming (that wasn't a dig on AMD, that is just the price range).
...

Why would he be expecting 144hz 4k gaming for a sub $300 card? Even then, are there many cards out there that can game 144hz 4k?
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,428
Why would he be expecting 144hz 4k gaming for a sub $300 card? Even then, are there many cards out there that can game 144hz 4k?
Sorry it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic/jokingly saying that. My point was if he has realistic expectations he wouldn't be disappointed (as in, 4k 144hz is not realistic).
 

Grimham

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,521
Sorry it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic/jokingly saying that. My point was if he has realistic expectations he wouldn't be disappointed (as in, 4k 144hz is not realistic).

Yes, I’m realistic and am only expecting solid 1080p Performance. I know what you meant though.
 

Grimham

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,521
That said currently AMD have no GPU that I could recommend because none of their cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate, there is no alternative to DLSS and no alternative to Nvenc.

Now this brings up an interesting point that I didn't think about. This PC is not my dedicated box, it's more of a HTPC that I also game on. But besides that it's also my Plex server. Most of my videos play direct stream, but there are a few instances where it transcodes and the 1060 is very nice with that. I looked briefly about AMD and their support with Plex, but there's sparse info. I never would have thought of that if i didn't post here asking for opinions.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
in your opinion. no dlss isnt a deal breaker for most. that shit has a long way to go before its mainstream tech.
It is not my opinion that Navi is obsolete because it really only has features from previous generation cards/consoles.
DLSS is Nvidia propertiary solution so it may never really become mainstream. It is however already supported and will be supported by various games. What is maybe even important is the hardware behind it which will allow any similar feature to be enabled.

Navi simply does not offer anything that Turing has.
It does not even have anything new that OP did not already have with Pascal card...
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
23,544
It is not my opinion that Navi is obsolete because it really only has features from previous generation cards/consoles.
DLSS is Nvidia propertiary solution so it may never really become mainstream. It is however already supported and will be supported by various games. What is maybe even important is the hardware behind it which will allow any similar feature to be enabled.

Navi simply does not offer anything that Turing has.
It does not even have anything new that OP did not already have with Pascal card...
you are just repeating yourself and its still just your opinion.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
I would not recommend a 5600XT since there so close in cost to a 5700. MSI card after rebate and discount ->$302
https://www.newegg.com/msi-radeon-rx-5700-rx-5700-mech-oc/p/N82E16814137466
More memory, wider bus, more shaders, can really push the card towards 5700XT levels. The cheapest 5600 XT on Newegg is $269 which I would not recommend, talking about a roughly $30 difference here but a great difference in performance and potential. Other 5600XTs are $279+ making them even less worth it compared to a well priced 5700. Couple weeks ago 5700XT (reference model) were being sold for $349 at Dell which is more costly but also has more potential.

Now if I had only two choices, a 5600XT or 2060KO, I think the KO would win out. The performance between the two are close enough but the 2060KO has way more features that maybe will be usable. Except a 5700 would win out every time at least for me at this price range.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,428
Now this brings up an interesting point that I didn't think about. This PC is not my dedicated box, it's more of a HTPC that I also game on. But besides that it's also my Plex server. Most of my videos play direct stream, but there are a few instances where it transcodes and the 1060 is very nice with that. I looked briefly about AMD and their support with Plex, but there's sparse info. I never would have thought of that if i didn't post here asking for opinions.
Nvidia is further ahead of AMD for transcode quality. Both are supported by ffmpeg and plex, however I don't have a GPU in my Plex server so I can't comment to much how well either works besides what I've read. You also need a Plex pass (not free version) to enabled hardware transcoding as well. I mostly direct play and when I don't my dual xeons keep up fine. My next build I plan to add hardware transcoding so my CPU do with have to ramp up and work so hard (aka, less power). CPU has the best quality but I normally run lower quality on CPU so it doesn't use as much power (I don't care if my shows look perfect, so 720p 3mb/s is my normal target, but it will easily handle 1080p full quality if ask it to).
 

rhansen5_99

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2001
Messages
2,147
For plex remember you are limited by nvidia for the number of transcode streams to I think 2 on consumer level stuff, I think a quattro can go way higher to 8 plus. I had a 5600xt as a filler for 1080ti rma, and it was okay, the bios flash helped it a lot to 14gbps. Definitely a 1080p class card. I would say prob my choice 5700>2060s>2060>5600xt=1660super based on price to performance.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,496
It's pretty clear and factual, that Navi 1x lacks next gen features.

Turing, PS5, XBSX, Navi 2x, all have next get feature sets and all (except PS5) support DX12 Ultimate.

Why doesn't ps5 support dx12 ultimate but xsx does? They have nearly the same specs. Did I miss something?

Also in regards to DLSS, 2.0 looks SUPER good and can deliver huge performance improvements. Very promising. I'd probably scoop a 2060 at ~300 over a 5600xt. 5700 flashed to XT at $300 is also a good option if you just want lots of raw raster perf. for cheap. Unless you can get the 5600xt closer to $250 IMO not worth it.
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
23,544
It's pretty clear and factual, that Navi 1x lacks next gen features.

Turing, PS5, XBSX, Navi 2x, all have next get feature sets and all (except PS5) support DX12 Ultimate.
that doesnt make it obsolete and by your logic it makes the ps5 obsolete before it even comes out.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,239
I bought a 5600XT a few months ago (check sig): it's been doing great at 1920x1200. I'm very happy with it. It replaced a GTX970.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
It's pretty clear and factual, that Navi 1x lacks next gen features.

Turing, PS5, XBSX, Navi 2x, all have next get feature sets and all (except PS5) support DX12 Ultimate.
So? DX 12 Ultimate came out this year, when do you think games will use variable rate shading, mesh shaders, Sample Feedback?
Then again any DX 12 Ultimate game will play on non DX 12 Ultimate hardware minus those features.

Did you say that with Pascal hardware? Where now it is having difficulty keeping up even to Vega's?


Wait, Pascal had more features than AMD hardware except AMD Hardware is now kicking Nvidia's ass in newer titles. This is like clockwork, Nvidia after a generation will totally ignore optimizations it seems in drivers repeatedly. Does not matter if Nvidia has more features if they are not used or not effectively supported. No one has a crystal ball in other words.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
that doesnt make it obsolete and by your logic it makes the ps5 obsolete before it even comes out.
ef8.jpg
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,714
At this point in time I wouldn't consider anything less than a RTX2070Super
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
yes by your guys' logic ps5 doesnt support every next-gen feature, dx12 ult, so its obsolete out of the gate. just using your logic...
DirectX 12 Ultimate is API for Microsoft consoles and operating systems. PS5 does not use DirectX because they use their own API
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
23,544
DirectX 12 Ultimate is API for Microsoft consoles and operating systems. PS5 does not use DirectX because they use their own API
oh i see. well i guess our definition of obsolete, which is what we were talking about before the other guy confused me, are different. not having absolutely every feature doent make something obsolete.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,714
oh i see. well i guess our definition of obsolete, which is what we were talking about before the other guy confused me, are different. not having absolutely every feature doent make something obsolete.
Not having a major feature that will be standard by years end kind of does. :D :D
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
you think dx12ult will be standard by years end? i dont. or do you mean the dlss they started arguing with?!
Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X will have these features and over time developers will concentrate less and less on devices without it.
It happened few times already. At first games became pretty ugly on older hardware, much uglier than games designed for this older hardware and broken at times. Then older hardware stopped being supported altogether. Straight console ports usually require all the features console had or they do not run.
Navi 5600XT is newer than RTX 2060 but mentally it is as new as Radeon 7xxx cards are. When was it... 8 years ago 🤣

Right now consoles are not even released yet and it might take some time before not having their features become an issue but when it does then resell value of card that cannot run all software will be terrible. So even assuming you really are not interested in any of these features and choose AMD card because it is slightly cheaper then I just do not see the point and that is my main point.

Used RTX card like 2060 will hold price much better. Not only because Nvidia cards usually do but exactly because of the fact they support required APIs which will make them much more interesting purchase, especially for developers who will want to learn programming ray tracing and such and do not really need great performance but still hardware with all features for testing their code.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
Wow! New games are still coming out with just DX 11 :eek: but DX 12 Ultimate that came out this year will make everything that don't support the few features obsolete by the end of this year :abrb:. Some, I actually do believe, think that somehow Turing will start performing much better in ray tracing and the the 2060 will be pouncing away with RT 2022 games at 200 fps-> Reality is all those features will be virtually worthless for any intensive future game, 6gb way to small and even 8gb will be asking too much, 2080 Super and down . They will depreciate like the cards before them taking up space in a garbage can 👇. Well cards in general may indeed start performing with a form of raytracing much faster than current generation and not even using dedicated RT based fixed function units, Unreal V and/or Crytek game engines which may make those 8gb 5700 way more hot than those 6gb, less bandwidth 2060's.

Anyways next gen for GPU's/Consoles are right around the corner, if you want the newest feature set, that will be a good place to start. Like it is for every generation.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Wow! New games are still coming out with just DX 11 :eek: but DX 12 Ultimate that came out this year will make everything that don't support the few features obsolete by the end of this year :abrb:. Some, I actually do believe, think that somehow Turing will start performing much better in ray tracing and the the 2060 will be pouncing away with RT 2022 games at 200 fps-> Reality is all those features will be virtually worthless for any intensive future game, 6gb way to small and even 8gb will be asking too much, 2080 Super and down . They will depreciate like the cards before them taking up space in a garbage can 👇. Well cards in general may indeed start performing with a form of raytracing much faster than current generation and not even using dedicated RT based fixed function units, Unreal V and/or Crytek game engines which may make those 8gb 5700 way more hot than those 6gb, less bandwidth 2060's.

Anyways next gen for GPU's/Consoles are right around the corner, if you want the newest feature set, that will be a good place to start. Like it is for every generation.

I'll be so glad, when AMD catches up on features, so AMD fans no longer feel the need to defend/rationalize AMD lack of them.

Some features are performance boosting features, like DLSS, Variable rate shading. Things that will make a 2060 have a longer lifespan, than a 5600. Both of which have 6GB of memory BTW.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
I'll be so glad, when AMD catches up on features, so AMD fans no longer feel the need to defend/rationalize AMD lack of them.

Some features are performance boosting features, like DLSS, Variable rate shading. Things that will make a 2060 have a longer lifespan, than a 5600. Both of which have 6GB of memory BTW.
lol, fan of true performance and not make believe. DLSS is very cool and hopefully will be implemented more, variable rate shading is an optimization which can affect visual quality, Radeon Boost is kinda cool but like DLSS limited to just a few games and Boost performance when rapidly moving the mouse which can also affect visual quality but is masked by monitor pixel response time.

If the gaming Ampere performance is similar to GA100 over GV100 we will most likely forget about Turing, rather quickly. AMD will most likely have a tall order to follow or short period of time leading unless they have some good surprises. GA100 in short is out of this world in performance jump if Jensen is even remotely straight about it. The performance from AMD should be strong we just don't know enough about either one at this time. Then again it is not one or the other, it can be both if they are both worth it. Turing just was never really worth it if one already had a previous generation high end card, never really performed well with the added feature set nor were there sufficient games to effectively use it. Assuming at some point in time a magical game will come along and just blow you away is probably what a real fan person blinded by a given emblem would propagate.

Now at the moment I wouldn't mind having a RTX card, playing Control on the RTX 5700 XT AE, getting around 65 FPS, 1440p, great game! The added effects from RTX would probably help with the atmosphere but if I had to degrade other quality settings that would not really get the ball in the hoop, DLSS 2.0 solved that for the most part I do believe. Of all the games I've played in the last two years that would be the only one in my view that it would be nice having RTX, Wolfenstein already looked great, ran great but probably some benefit with reflections using DLSS 2 to keep performance up. Of all the other games I've played, not having RTX made zero difference, in short Turing was never really enticing at least to me.

Next generation it maybe worth while having hardware RT capability, I still think games will be slow coming using it even on the next gen consoles. Any tack on after thought RT would most likely be BS and be pointless. Other more efficient ways for rendering, like Unreal 5 Engine can produce may win the day in the end.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,065
If game developers will care about optimizing non-RT implementations depends solely on RT performance of RDNA2. If AMD f**k this up then yeah, RT will remain some kind of fancy NV-exclusive feature and we will see more effort put on non-RT implementations for few years to come. If it is similar to Turing then it will be used here and there, depending on implementation and performance costs. If it is much better then there is no point in not using it. All Global Illumination implementations are costly, that is why most games do not have it already.

So far the only advantage of 5600XT over 2060 is that it is about 30 bucks less. Otherwise inferior card which will most probably have much worse resell value and you also need to be the person which "do not need all the new features" which I personally do not really know how it works but I assume those would be all people who do not want to go through hassle of upgrading their already good GPU, waiting for next GPU series and of course die hard AMD fanboys :)
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,125
It is, quite frankly, laughable that anyone uses RT or DLSS as a factor in their buying purchases given the almost universal lack of support for games when they launch. Months down the road you "might" get a patch to enable these features. Jensen Huang is a con-artist who convinced people that these features would be relevant during the lifespan of the first generation RTX cards back in August 2018. Which clearly they aren't unless you replay games just to look at shiny reflections in one of the handful of games that are supported.

The 5600XT and the 2060 are about as dead even as they come in terms of rasterized performance and power draw. The lowest rung 1st gen RTX card is going to be about as useful as a non-RTX card in the future.

There are plenty of reasons to NOT buy a 5600XT. The vanilla 5700 cost difference (usually not much on sale) and performance difference (somewhat significant) are the biggest reasons IMO.
 

lukart

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
200
Personally I dont see any new cards at this price point anytime soon, so talking that this card is dead is a bit excessive. What, the man should just wait 4-5 months?
That 5600XT is great, for the price is a good deal, go for it.
 
Top