AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 5700 Review: New Prices Keep Navi In The Game

Conclusion

At the original price points AMD set for Radeon RX 5700 and Radeon RX 5700 XT, it was going to end up stuck between GeForce RTX 2070 Super, GeForce RTX 2060 Super, and GeForce RTX 2060. But with Radeon RX 5700 pinned at $350 and Radeon RX 5700 XT selling for $400, they’re head-to-head against Nvidia’s 2060s. The result is a much more straightforward comparison.

Across our benchmark suite, Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 9.9%-higher frame rates than the GeForce RTX 2060 Super. Radeon RX 5700 averages 11%-higher frame rates than the GeForce RTX 2060. The GeForce RTX 2070 Super does serve up average frame rates 6.9% higher than Radeon RX 5700 XT, but it costs an extra 25%.

Compared to AMD’s previous generation, Radeon RX 5700 XT achieves 15%-higher average frame rates than Radeon RX Vega 64 at a $100-lower launch price and 76% of the power consumption. And get this—the boutique Radeon VII averages just 3.8%-higher frame rates across our suite and costs 70% more!

Assuming AMD’s lower prices stick, and assuming Nvidia doesn’t clap back, the Navi-based Radeon RX 5700-series cards storm onto the scene with strength that many enthusiasts weren’t expecting. Matching the competition’s fourth- and fifth-fastest gaming cards doesn’t sound particularly impressive. But remember that the Vega generation never caught up to Nvidia’s Pascal-based line-up. And although the Turing GPUs were derided for their high prices, they did bump performance up at least one tier. To AMD’s credit, Navi delivers its speed-up with more grace than past launches. Both 5700s use less power than their predecessors. They generate appreciably less noise. And the Radeon RX 5700s serve up almost universally better performance than competing GeForce RTX 2060s at the same prices.

So now that AMD sports superior performance per dollar in a great many of today’s games, the company asks gamers to answer the million-dollar question: Just how much does real-time ray tracing mean to you in 2019, really? Everyone’s response is going to be different and there is no incorrect opinion. For those who’d rather not spend today’s money on a small (but growing) list of games with ray tracing support, AMD has a couple of relatively high-end solutions worth considering. On the other hand, if you’re willing to trade some performance for Nvidia’s RT and Tensor cores, these Radeons probably weren’t going to change your mind since they can’t do ray tracing anyway.

Let’s talk power consumption. Radeon RX 5700 XT uses about 20% more power than GeForce RTX 2060 Super through our Metro benchmark sequence. The Radeon RX 5700 uses about 11% more power through the same test compared to GeForce RTX 2060. If we take each card’s average frame rate across our benchmark suite and divide by the typical gaming power consumption we measured, the Radeon RX 5700 XT provides 0.43 FPS/watt. Radeon RX 5700 achieves 0.47 FPS/watt, as does the GeForce RTX 2060 Super. Nvidia’s vanilla 2060 is only slightly more efficient at 0.48 FPS/watt. So relative to the competition, AMD’s Radeon RX 5700-series fares well in efficiency. Naturally, the company is leaning hard on its early move to 7nm manufacturing and architectural improvements that facilitate Navi’s improved performance per watt. There’s no doubt Nvidia will make a similar move, likely in 2020, and derive all the benefits of a process change as well. But for now, AMD is playing catch-up by any means necessary.

To counter Nvidia’s Wolfenstein/Control game bundle, AMD is giving Radeon RX 5700-series customers three-month access to Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass for PC, including the upcoming Gears 5. You won’t have anything to show for the bundle once three months is up, but we think that’s enough time to pick through the 100+ available titles and play through the most exciting ones.

Not all is perfect in Navi-land, though. The flagship Radeon RX 5700 XT runs really hot. AMD did commit to bringing down the noise levels of its reference cooler, which means the fan doesn’t spin up past a certain point. Under duress, clock rates can be pushed below AMD’s rated base specification as junction temperatures exceed 100 degrees C. Our power consumption measurements show the card’s sensors intervening to keep thermals under control.

The Radeon RX 5700 demonstrated other strange behaviors. Mainly, it consistently dialed fan speeds back under even normal gaming workloads, causing temperatures to increase. AMD won’t go into detail on what’s happening there. If we were to guess, though, it looks like the fan responds quickly to a rapid increase in temperature, up to its maximum rotational speed. As the change in temperature slows, the fan slows to allow higher thermal readings and better acoustics. This theory falls apart somewhat when we see the same behavior under FurMark, where clock rates clearly suffer as the fan does something similar. It’d be far preferable for AMD’s thermal solution to ramp up gradually like Nvidia’s Founders Edition cards. We’ll continue experimenting with the fan curve to see if it’s reacting deliberately or if this is a bug that needs to be addressed. Fortunately, none of what we saw seems to adversely affect gaming on Radeon RX 5700 or Radeon RX 5700 XT.

We still have a lot of work to do with these cards. Because the power, thermal, fan speed, and clock rate experimenting ate up a couple of afternoons, there wasn’t time to tackle AMD’s Anti-Lag or Radeon Image Sharpening technologies. We also know GeForce RTX 2080 Super is landing in a few days. We’re just one week into July and it has already been 2019’s busiest month in graphics. Stay tuned as the Tom’s Hardware labs continue cranking out data and analysis.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

22 comments
    Your comment
  • ICWiener
    Honestly I'd pay the extra just for Nvidia's decent cooler, let alone power consumption, RTX, etc. Hard pass on another blower.
  • justin.m.beauvais
    Dear AMD,
    Why? Wasn't your line GTX 1080 performance at RX 580 prices? points at Navi This is not that.
    Regrettably yours,
    Your Fans
  • alextheblue
    Quote:
    Honestly I'd pay the extra just for Nvidia's decent cooler, let alone power consumption, RTX, etc. Hard pass on another blower.
    I read the review, don't know what you mean by "let alone power consumption". Efficiency is virtually the same. I personally prefer blowers as long as they're not crazy loud, and the review says they're not so I'm all for it. If you DON'T like blowers, I'm sure there will be third-party coolers that improve cooling performance and acoustics further (and dump heat into the chassis like crazy).
    Quote:
    Dear AMD, Why? Wasn't your line GTX 1080 performance at RX 580 prices? points at Navi This is not that. Regrettably yours, Your Fans
    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.
  • face-plants
    I'm pleasantly surprised by both the performance AND the last-minute drop in price. Personally I don't like blower style cards and will be on the lookout for third-party offerings with more traditional dual fan coolers. This is totally personal preference as I tend to build in bigger cases with plenty of ventilation to deal with the extra heat. If the prices don't get too out of line from the AIBs then I'll gladly give a few of these cards a go in upcoming builds. I'm also expecting a decent improvement in thermals so hopefully these FE cards aren't exemplary of the best cooling you can get on air. The prospect of building all AMD machines in the coming months has got me totally nerding out.
  • kinggremlin
    Quote:
    I read the review, don't know what you mean by "let alone power consumption". Efficiency is virtually the same. I personally prefer blowers as long as they're not crazy loud, and the review says they're not so I'm all for it. If you DON'T like blowers, I'm sure there will be third-party coolers that improve cooling performance and acoustics further (and dump heat into the chassis like crazy). 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.
  • alextheblue
    Quote:
    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.

    Yes, I did, stop being obstinate. Ah, I get it, you must have read "efficiency" in my post as "power consumption", or something. Why are you comparing it to the 2070 Super? The 5700 is the same price as the 2060 and 11-12% faster on average (between TH and AT), and the 5700XT is the same price as the 2060 Super and roughly 10-11% (TH-AT) faster. Yes, they use more power, but they're faster. As a result the efficiency is pretty close. It varies based on workload (game title), but I have read the reviews here and AT (so far, haven't looked at a third review yet). Here:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/14618/the-amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700-review/15

    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.
  • digitalgriffin
    Quote:
    I read the review, don't know what you mean by "let alone power consumption". Efficiency is virtually the same. I personally prefer blowers as long as they're not crazy loud, and the review says they're not so I'm all for it. If you DON'T like blowers, I'm sure there will be third-party coolers that improve cooling performance and acoustics further (and dump heat into the chassis like crazy). 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.


    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.
  • Axiss
    any idea when the board partner cards come out?
  • randomizer
    How many engineers looked at those fan curves in lab testing and thought they were good?

    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.
  • daglesj
    So for the many of us on a RX480?...

    Worth it? Could someone not dig out the previous AMD midrange value demon to test against? C'mon...
  • feelinfroggy777
    The last $200 card AMD has released was 2.5 years ago. Let that sink in for a minute.
  • jeremyj_83
    Quote:
    How many engineers looked at those fan curves in lab testing and thought they were good? 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.

    On average the 5700XT is about twice as fast as the GTX 980 and the 980 is 10-15% faster on average than the 970. That means that going to the XT will double your framerate assuming your CPU can keep up. I would say that is a worthwhile upgrade.
    https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2522?vs=2529
  • randomizer
    Quote:
    On average the 5700XT is about twice as fast as the GTX 980 and the 980 is 10-15% faster on average than the 970. That means that going to the XT will double your framerate assuming your CPU can keep up. I would say that is a worthwhile upgrade. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2522?vs=2529


    I usually like to triple my framerates while sticking to a similar price bracket :)

    Also I don't think I can afford to run that space heater in summer.
  • redgarl
    For anyone that want to know what matter...

    https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost.png
    https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost1.png

    With the actual scoring, this review is a joke. Navi is disrupting pricing and almost match a 1080 TI for 400$... however at tomshardware it sux.
  • alextheblue
    Quote:
    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.
    They ARE expensive - both Nvidia and AMD. This is the new "mid-range" unfortunately. I'd like to see Xe undercut them both and force this tier back down to the ~$250 range. I still might end up getting one, we'll see.
    Quote:
    How many engineers looked at those fan curves in lab testing and thought they were good? 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.
    If you're talking about the erratic behavior with the speed dropping over time, that looks to me like a bug or an issue with that sample. Their XT didn't act that way. Pricing can suck depending where you are... in the US it certainly offers more bang for the buck than the 2060. Maybe pricing will be more reasonable when partner boards become widespread. Like your icon, BTW, big fan of new Genesis/MD titles - awaiting Xeno Crisis currently.
  • randomizer
    Quote:
    If you're talking about the erratic behavior with the speed dropping over time, that looks to me like a bug or an issue with that sample. Their XT didn't act that way


    While not as bad, I wouldn't call the XT's fan curve good either. It's going to start roaring the moment you get to the main menu (and you'll probably notice the sudden change) and it won't stop until you're back at the desktop.

    Quote:
    Like your icon, BTW, big fan of new Genesis/MD titles - awaiting Xeno Crisis currently.


    It is actually from a Genesis/MD game, but one that was released last year, not in the 90s. :)
  • TJ Hooker
    Quote:
    For anyone that want to know what matter... https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost.png https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost1.png With the actual scoring, this review is a joke. Navi is disrupting pricing and almost match a 1080 TI for 400$... however at tomshardware it sux.

    Those performance numbers aren't very different than what TH is reporting. And values will obviously vary depending on your test suite. This review reflects the fact that these otherwise great value cards are paired with a mediocre blower cooler, it hardly says the cards "suck". Which amounts to saying that we should wait for AIB cards, which is pretty common advice for every GPU launch.
  • AgentLozen
    Quote:
    For anyone that want to know what matter... https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost.png https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1870/bench/Cost1.png With the actual scoring, this review is a joke. Navi is disrupting pricing and almost match a 1080 TI for 400$... however at tomshardware it sux.


    While I was reading this article I was thinking "please please please let redgarl post in the forums!!" My wish was granted and Redgarl definitely provided.

    Redgarl describes this review as a "joke". He claims that Navi is "disrupting pricing" and "almost match a 1080 TI". He provides links to the TechSpot 5700 review for "anyone that want to know what matter..." This made me genuinely really curious. Is today the day that redgarl proves Tomshardware is run by a bunch of hacks? I had to know for myself.

    First of all I looked at the test setups for each review. Techspot uses a 9900K Intel CPU and 32GB DDR4-3200. Tomshardware's build is different. They use a 8086K Intel CPU and 64GB of DDR4 2400. Tomshardware documents the drivers used as 431.16 Nvidia Driver for the 2060Super and 2070Super but the 430.86 for every other Nvidia card. For AMD cards, they use the 19.7.1 driver with the RX 5700 cards and the 19.6.3 driver for everything else. By comparison, Techspot reports that they used the "latest drivers available at the time". Its not clear how that compares to Tomshardware. The test machine on each respective site is different and that may cause differences in benchmarks. I predict (jk. I've already seen the results) the Tech Spot benchmarks may be a little higher judging by the faster memory and the better CPU.

    I then compared Techspots benchmarks to those featured on Tomshardware. First I looked at the Assassin's Creed Odyssey results. At 1440p, Techspot reports the Radeon RX 5700XT hit an average of 70fps. Meanwhile, Tomshardware was showing... oh dear, Odyssey wasn't featured on Tom's. Let's just move on. The Techspot's Destiny 2 1440p results show that.. uh oh, it's happening again. Techspot didn't feature Destiny 2 benchmarks. This is a problem because you can't compare apples-to-apples when the same benchmarks aren't used.

    Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Destiny 2, DiRT Rally 2.0, Far Cry 5, Far Cry New Dawn, Final Fantasy XV, GTA V, Resident Evil 2, Strange Brigade, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, World War Z, The Witcher 3, Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus are either benchmarked by Tom's or TechSpot but not both. The only overlapping games are Battlefield V, Forza Horizon 4, Metro Exodus, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Tom Clancy's The Division 2.

    Let's look at the Shadow of the Tomb Raider results. Techspot and Tom's ran the game at 1440p, highest quality.... oh no. Tomshardware used SMAAT2x in it's Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark. Techspot didn't report using that setting. Well that's not apples-to-apples either. A similar situation happens with Battlefield V where Tomshardware uses DX12 and Techspot uses DX11.

    For Tom Clancy's The Division 2, I double checked to make sure the software is the same between both Techspot and Tom's platforms. DX12, 1440p, Ultra quality. Check. Now here is something that appears to be genuinely inconsistent between reviews. Techspot's averages for the GeForce 2080, 2070 Super, 2060 Super, Radeon RX 5700, and 5700XT are higher than the Tomshardware numbers. Well there you have it. Redgarl has proven that "With the actual scoring, this review is a joke." Tomshardware losses, redgarl wins. Except that the test systems between Tomshardware and TechSpot are different. Isn't this a roller coaster? TechSpot has a better CPU and faster ram. I looked carefully at the trends between both reviews and lo and behold they show the same thing. Both sites list the video card pecking order as: 2080, 2070 Super, Radeon VII, 1080 Ti, 5700XT, 2070, 2060 Super, Vega 64, 5700, 1080, 2060, and so on and so forth. It's very plausible that the differences in specific numbers can be chalked up to differences in platforms or margin of error.

    The charts that redgarl cherry picked show the results between Toms and Techspot are totally different. If you only considered those charts then you might think Tomshardware has an incompetent staff the way redgarl wants you to believe. However, when you look at the whole picture, its obvious that you can't directly compare the benchmark results between both sites. A total of 19 games were reviewed by both sites. Only five overlap. I threw out Shadow of the Tomb Raider because we can't be sure both sites used the same settings. That leaves four. When we directly compare results, the numbers vary probably due to differences in test hardware, but the trends are consistent. In conclusion: there isn't enough evidence to prove that the Tomshardware review did anything wrong.

    To redgarl, this is just for fun my dude. No hard feelings.
  • alextheblue
    Quote:
    It is actually from a Genesis/MD game, but one that was released last year, not in the 90s. :)
    Yeah I know, that's why I pointed it out. It's from Tanglewood. That's what I was talking about when I said I am a fan of new Genesis games. Xeno Crisis, for example, isn't even (quite) out yet.
  • randomizer
    Quote:
    Yeah I know, that's why I pointed it out. It's from Tanglewood. That's what I was talking about when I said I am a fan of new Genesis games. Xeno Crisis, for example, isn't even (quite) out yet.


    Righto, I thought it was just the style that reminded you of Genesis games. I didn't expect to run into anyone else who had actually heard of this game :LOL:
  • treetops422
    "Across our benchmark suite, Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 9.9%-higher frame rates than the GeForce RTX 2060 Super at 2560 x 1440. Radeon RX 5700 averages 11%-higher frame rates than the GeForce RTX 2060 at the same resolution. The GeForce RTX 2070 Super does serve up average frame rates 6.9% higher than Radeon RX 5700 XT, but it costs 25% more. "
    That's all I need to know. Who would RT and half their performance? Esp on a 2060
  • B-Real85
    Quote:
    Honestly I'd pay the extra just for Nvidia's decent cooler, let alone power consumption, RTX, etc. Hard pass on another blower.

    • Most consumers buy AIB models, so it's not a problem.
    • Power consumption? RX 5700 consumes about the same as the RTX 2060 , therefore it has better performance/W ratio. The RX 5700 XT is near the 2070's ratio.
    • RT: 3 games so far, in which only the RTX 2080 Ti can produce tolerable fps with about 40-45 minimums, and it's still on FHD. RTX 2060 produces 50-60 average and 30 lows... That's what you expect from a 350$ card? Don't think so.

    Quote:
    Dear AMD, Why? Wasn't your line GTX 1080 performance at RX 580 prices? points at Navi This is not that. Regrettably yours, Your Fans


    No, sadly not. There was only a rumoured news on WCCFTech. There was 7 or 8 models with 200$ Vega 56 and so on. But AMD never spoke about such prices. That was only a rumour (sadly).

    Quote:
    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.



    And costs 100$ more. And, wow, really, 5W more than a 2070 Super, fantastic. AIB models help you. As 99% of the NV customers also buy AIB NV models.

    Quote:
    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.


    You are 100% right, just mentioning: if someone needs performance over RT feature, RX5700 is absolutely better than the RTX 2060 and the RX5700XT is absolutely better than the RTX2060 Super and RTX 2070.