AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs. Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660: The Battle for Mainstream Gaming Supremacy

AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs. GeForce GTX 1660

(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • joeblowsmynose
    I would have given features to AMD easily for the goodies they add to their driver suite.

    Overclocking GPU and VRAM, voltage adjustments on both, power state programming for both, fan curve tuning (when it works properly), Radeon Boost, etc. ...
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    You tested the old 1660, and the 8GB RX 5500? The two cards nobody should buy?

    Test the 1650 Super and the RX 5500 4GB next time. Useless article. If you're not getting one of those, you should be looking at a 1660 Super, or RX 5600 or 5700.
    Reply
  • maestro0428
    Some graphs for us visual people would be nice...
    Reply
  • artk2219
    AlistairAB said:
    You tested the old 1660, and the 8GB RX 5500? The two cards nobody should buy?

    Test the 1650 Super and the RX 5500 4GB next time. Useless article. If you're not getting one of those, you should be looking at a 1660 Super, or RX 5600 or 5700.

    If you plan on keeping it a few years those extra 4gb are definitely needed. It will be a better card in the long run, as even the 6gb on the 1660 can be a bottleneck in some titles (the 6gb VRAM is also something i'm not keen on with the new RX 5600). If you plan to upgrade every two years, meh.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    We can’t call the Radeon RX 5500 XT a bad deal. It’s far and away a better card than you would have bought for the same price a year ago.
    That's simply not true. A year ago, you could get an RX 580 8GB for about the same price, and a 5500 XT isn't much more than 5% faster. Even 3 years ago, one could get an RX 480 8GB for around $200, which is within 15% of the performance of this card. The only notable advantage the 5500 XT has over those older models is improved power efficiency. The performance gains are relatively poor after 3 years, and even Nvidia's lineup is offering better performance for the money right now.

    AlistairAB said:
    What the heck? You tested the non-super 1660, and the 8GB RX 5500? The two cards nobody should buy?

    Test the 1650 Super and the RX 5500 4GB next time. Useless article. If you're not getting one of those, you should be looking at a 1660 Super, or RX 5600 or 5700.
    Why should no one buy a 1660? Keep in mind that while the 1660 SUPER might perform around 10% faster, at current prices (online, in the US), it also typically costs at least 10% more, so both versions of the card tend to offer similar value for someone buying a graphics card as an upgrade.

    And in the case of the 5500 XT, the 4GB model's limited VRAM is a notable concern, particularly since the card only uses an x8 PCIe connection, causing performance to tank more than usual when VRAM is exceeded. Neither version of the 5500 XT is all that competitively priced right now. The 4GB model needs to be priced lower than a 1650 SUPER, not higher, and the 8GB model needs to be priced lower than a 1660, which is simply a faster card. Both versions of the card should have launched for around $20 less than they did.
    Reply
  • dorsai
    Personally I would hesitate to try multiplayer gaming on either of these cards...they seem more low end than mainstream.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    I'd like to see those cards tested battling while overclocked. IMHO the 5500 XT is a bit overpriced, but they seem to have decent headroom.
    AlistairAB said:
    Test the 1650 Super and the RX 5500 4GB next time. Useless article. If you're not getting one of those, you should be looking at a 1660 Super, or RX 5600 or 5700.
    This has already been discussed. If you're running these kinds of settings, there are already games that are hindered by the lack of RAM. The is only going to get worse. This problem is exacerbated if you're on a PCIe 3.0 platform, since Navi 14 only has 8 lanes.

    But yes, if you can get a good deal on one, the Super offers superb bang for the buck.
    Reply
  • NP
    Strangely, the RX 5500 XT is a stronger competitor with medium settings, but why would you settle for medium if you don’t need to?
    I own an nVidia, and will probably buy another geforce card when I need to upgrade, but I still don't under why you assume the answer would be "Obviously for no reason" ?

    I think there is valid reason for not settling for, but deliberately picking medium. You pick medium, because the added frame rates allow you to perform better in any competitive online FPS you intend to play with either RX 5500XT or GTX 1600 range gpu.

    That either is or is not a consideration for you, but it is nevertheless among considerations that many people would regard of key importance when buying a new gpu.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    The RX5500 is a pitiful upgrade over what was already available for sub-$200 three years ago. If there was true competition between AMD and Nvidia GPUs, the 4GB RX5500 would be a $120 GPU.

    Also, most people who buy RX5500-class GPUs will be stuck on PCIe 3.0x8 for the foreseeable future where it incurs sometimes significant performance penalties, which makes it a "nope" GPU in my book.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    InvalidError said:
    The RX5500 is a pitiful upgrade over what was already available for sub-$200 three years ago. If there was true competition between AMD and Nvidia GPUs, the 4GB RX5500 would be a $120 GPU.

    Also, most people who buy RX5500-class GPUs will be stuck on PCIe 3.0x8 for the foreseeable future where it incurs sometimes significant performance penalties, which makes it a "nope" GPU in my book.
    True - but a couple months from now, the RX5500 4Gb will be a nice pairing with B550 based motherboards in PCIE 4.0 for mainstream gaming rigs. By then its price may have dropped a bit.

    In the mean time, I'll pray the my reference RX480 8Gb doesn't fry - still going strong since I bought it in summer 2016.
    Reply