AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review
-
Page 1:AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB
-
Page 2:MSI RX 550 Aero ITX 2GB
-
Page 3:Test System & Methodology
-
Page 4:Battlefield 1 (DX12)
-
Page 5:Civilization VI (DX12)
-
Page 6:Doom (Vulkan)
-
Page 7:Dota 2 (Vulkan)
-
Page 8:StarCraft II (DX9)
-
Page 9:World of Warcraft (DX11)
-
Page 10:Power Consumption
-
Page 11:Temperature & Frequency
-
Page 12:Fan Speed & Noise
-
Page 13:Final Analysis
Dota 2 (Vulkan)
Medium Results
- fps
- frame rate over time
- frame time over run
- frame time variance
- frame time
- unevenness
Dota 2 yields similar results as Civilization VI, illustrating that the Radeons all behave similarly in their triumph over Intel’s HD Graphics 530.
An almost-76% advantage proves that Radeon RX 550 is a big upgrade over an integrated GPU at 1920x1080. But we wouldn’t expect Polaris 12 to lead AMD’s other cards in a comparison like this. What's going on there?
In order to generate usable results for our Core i3 host processor, quality dropped to the second-lowest preset. Let’s pull Intel’s graphics out of the list, max out Dota 2’s quality slider, and see if the Radeons land in the same order.
Best Looking Results
- fps
- frame rate over time
- frame time over run
- frame time variance
- frame time
- unevenness
A 15% slow-down brings Radeon RX 550 back below the other two cards, though it’s still plenty playable averaging 60 FPS. We do record some big frame time spikes, but they register on the other cards as well.
The fact that AMD’s Radeon RX 460 only gives up 2% of its performance shifting to Dota 2’s top quality setting suggests a host processing bottleneck. In other words, generating higher frame rates calls for something faster than a Core i3.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
This is an 85$ GPU, competing with more the likes of a GT 740. So don't expect good details at such a low price point. $30 GPUs are worse than IGPUs BTW.
However, you can still find GTX 750s and 750 tis used for the price of a 550 and it performs much better.
Its hard to buy a card that you know can't keep up with the consoles. What happens when a big game comes out and you don't have the horse power to actually play it? The 460 and 560 can keep up, but the 550 might he left behind.
Save your pennies for another couple weeks and buy something better, its worth the wait
On a side note, images finally load correctly using Firefox on Android.
That's the value proposition that should be explored. the A10 w. integrated, or the 550 discreet.
There is a very simple reason nobody makes new GPUs for under $80: there is next to no profit to be made from them.
Keep in mind that out of that $80 MSRP, there is a ~60% distributor and retailer markup on the manufacturer's own price, so the manufacturer itself only sees ~$50 of it to cover DRAM, GPU chip, PCB, support components, HSF, assembly, testing, packaging, R&D, marketing, gross profit margin, etc. In other words, manufacturers barely break even on those and don't want you to buy them unless your choice boils down to either that or nothing. They'd much prefer that you buy the RX560 for $20-30 more which translates to $10-20 more gross profit for the manufacturer.
Who are you going to get an alternative sub-$100 GPU from? Nvidia has bailed out of that market altogether to focus on $150+ (launch-time MSRP) GPUs.
So you're saying you're not a fan of alphabetical order?
Not true at all.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page2.html
At 1080p, a GTX 750Ti paired with an i7-6700K gets trounced by the RX 550 paired with an i3-6320. Had they paired the RX 550 with an i7, it probably would have gained another 10% in performance (http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html)...which, with the Vulkan updates, would put it more on par with the GTX 1050 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/page2.html), or at least between the 1050 & the 950 (both of which also blow the 750Ti out of the water).
Because the actual percentage of "gamers" that are playing on triple 4K monitors with dual GTX 1080Tis, running on nitrogen cooling, & using the Insane quality settings, is extremely small?
Even with more 1440p & 4K monitors coming out, & even with the expansion of 144Hz/1440p monitors, the majority of users (especially on services like Steam) are still playing at 1080p or lower resolutions.
Basically, what this shows is that it's the perfect card for 720p gaming...but if you're still using a 1080p or sub-1080p 60Hz monitor, these tests show that you can still expect decent results on more demanding games if you're willing to turn down the detail settings. As they pointed out in the review, that makes this perfect for a "casual" (i.e. eSports) gamer, or someone looking for a cheap/low-power/cool-running dedicated GPU for an HTPC
nVidia gt 1030
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gt-1030-gp108-gpu-performance-benchmark/
Might do it at a slightly lower resolution or setting render scale lower. I can get surprisingly close on an old GCN APU.
Well it starts at $80, so that's $25. Anyway they should drop starting price to $70, but either way this has some use for things like HTPC... they should release LP versions though. Power draw is also lower, so if you've got a shoddy non-standard OEM unit, the less power the better. Otherwise yes, get a 1050 or 460 ($90). If we were talking about serious gaming cards instead of low-power cards, then I'd say power use is substantially less important