The Radeon RX 5700 XT dissipates slightly more power than the vanilla 5700 at idle, though it’s a minor 2 percent difference.
Like its Radeon RX 5700, AMD’s higher-end 5700 XT averages less power consumption through our three-loop benchmark sequence than the company’s 225W board power specification. A single 243W peak is nothing to worry about.
The two dips in our chart correspond to breaks between loops in our Metro benchmark sequence. Otherwise, power consumption over time is relatively steady.
Radeon RX 5700 XT averages ~5W-higher power consumption compared to Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 2070 Super in this workload. Again, AMD made serious headway in improving performance per watt, contrasted by the Radeon VII’s >300W average.
Average power through 15 minutes of FurMark rises slightly versus what we saw under Metro. The Radeon RX 5700 XT keeps its trend line under 225W, though.
A peak measurement of almost 264W is a one-time event caused by a spike to 11.98A following a dip to 5.53A.
Notice that every power consumption spike is preceded by a dip, but not every dip is compensated for with a spike. Both Navi-based Radeons, then, demonstrate similar behavior under extreme workloads like FurMark. Check out the previous page for AMD’s explanation. In short, both Radeon RX 5700-series cards are protecting themselves from this taxing application.
Noisy readings aside, the Radeon RX 5700 XT does use more power than GeForce RTX 2070 Super, but significantly less than Radeon VII.
These are the current measurements that multiply into each rail’s voltage to yield power. The eight-pin connector is by far the most affected by FurMark’s demands, through the six-pin and motherboard slot demonstrate similar behavior.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: GPU Benchmarks
MORE: All Graphics Content
Why? Wasn't your line GTX 1080 performance at RX 580 prices? points at Navi This is not that.
Who ever promised that? They are 10-11% faster than same-priced Nvidia models. They're not going to drop 5700 $100 bucks when they're already ahead by 11%, even though I would love lower prices, there's no incentive for them to do so.
You didn't read the review. Ignoring the Furmark results which don't mirror any realworld scenario. The 5700xt is slower than the 2070 Super while using more power and running over 10degrees C hotter in gaming.
Factor in the performance gain (in AT's suite it was 11% for the XT and 12 for vanilla 5700) and you'll see their power consumption is pretty good. Average that with TH's results in Metro: LL and the final efficiency is pretty neck and neck with their direct competitors.
I didn't say they didn't run hot. For people that don't like blowers (as I already said) there will be cooler, quieter third party options.
In all honesty, all these cards are expensive. $350 would have been the most I wanted to pay for a 5700XT. And the card does run hot. Pascal was a small move up in prices. Turing was just insane pricing wise.
That being said I bought one today and said "F"-it. I just don't like NVIDIA's business ethics. It will get the job done for two to three years.
I think this release is a bit underwhelming. Local pricing here makes the RX 5700 fairly unattractive compared to a 2060, but the XT is better positioned against the 2070. Not sure it's really worthwhile upgrading a 970 though.
Worth it? Could someone not dig out the previous AMD midrange value demon to test against? C'mon...