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

AMD’s propensity for slowly dribbling out information about upcoming products keeps our news desk buzzing but also serves to illustrate the company’s play book months in advance. That drawn-out tease definitely worked against AMD last generation. By the time Radeon RX Vega landed in our lab, expectations had boiled over beyond what the card could deliver, particularly at its cryptocurrency-affected prices.

This time around, AMD used the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles as the launch pad for a Navi deets, pouring out all the architectural details it was willing to divulge with less than 24 hours to write it up, then complicating matters by prohibiting audio or video recordings of the technical deep dives. But even rushing the particulars for reasons unknown couldn’t stop Nvidia from squeezing in a Turing refresh prior to Radeon RX 5700 and Radeon RX 5700 XT availability.

The two Navi-based cards originally took aim at GeForce RTX 2070 and GeForce RTX 2060. Just days before reviews were scheduled to go live, however, AMD found itself staring down the barrel of GeForce RTX 2060, 2060 Super, and 2070 Super. Its hardware was already baked, so the company turned another dial to stay competitive: it dropped the price of Radeon RX 5700 XT to $400, matching GeForce RTX 2060 Super, and lowered Radeon RX 5700 to $350, pulling up alongside GeForce RTX 2060. AMD is clearly feeling good enough about its performance story to go up against the GeForces at identical pricing. Is that confidence well-placed or is AMD underestimating the appeal of real-time ray tracing support?

Meet Radeon RX 5700 XT

Both AMD Radeon RX 5700-series cards are based on the same Navi GPU. Manufactured on TSMC’s 7nm FinFET process and composed of 10.3 billion transistors, these chips occupy a scant 251 mm². Vega was much larger. Manufactured on GlobalFoundries’ 14nm LPP process, it packed 12.5 billion transistors into a 495 mm² die. For some additional context, Nvidia’s competing GeForce RTX 2060-series cards employ TU106, a 10.8-billion-transistor chip measuring 445 mm² and built using TSMC’s 12nm FinFET process.

We confirmed with AMD that Radeon RX 5700 XT employs a fully-enabled version of the Navi GPU—no part of the chip is turned off to improve yields or leave room for a more resource-rich model in the future. It exposes 40 RDNA Compute Units, each with 64 Stream processors, totaling 2,560 ALUs across the processor. The CUs host four texture units, just as they did in AMD’s Graphics Core Next design, adding up to 160 in a complete Navi GPU. Four render back-ends per quadrant are capable of 16 pixels per clock cycle, yielding 64 ROPs.

That’s clearly a more compact configuration than Radeon RX Vega 64, which featured 64 CUs with 4,096 Stream processors and 256 texture units. And yet our benchmarks will show that Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 15%-higher frame rates than Vega 64. Almost 60% of the architecture’s speed-up comes from performance per clock enhancements, according to AMD. Another 25% is attributable to gains enabled by 7nm manufacturing. The reminder falls under design frequency and power improvement, which includes more effective clock gating.

The specifications for Radeon RX 5700 XT curiously define its base clock rate as “up to 1,605 MHz.” At first, we didn’t think anything of this. After subjecting the 5700 XT to synthetic workloads like FurMark, however, and observing frequencies as low as 1,575 MHz, it appears that the base can be violated under the right (or wrong) conditions, favoring a consistent acoustic experience over strict performance boundaries. AMD also specifies a Game GPU clock of “up to 1,755 MHz” and a Boost GPU clock of “up to 1,905 MHz.” As you might guess, both ratings are subject to certain conditions. In fact, we saw Boost frequencies well above 1,905 MHz at the start of many games. As the card warms up, though, expect to see clock rates closer to the Game GPU clock.

Let’s just throw this out there: We’d prefer that AMD not create a third frequency rating. Because it is fleeting, it’s subject to abuse. In fact, AMD is already using that peak figure to calculate its 9.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance figure. The more sustainable 1,755 MHz Game GPU clock translates to 9 TFLOPS, and that just doesn’t look as thunderous next to GeForce RTX 2060 Super’s 7.2 TFLOPS, right? Navi does carry over support for rapid-packed math, so AMD cites half-precision performance of up to 19.5 TFLOPS.

An aggregate 256-bit pathway is populated by 8GB of GDDR6 operating at 14 Gb/s. This gives Radeon RX 5700 XT up to 448 GBps of memory bandwidth—slightly less than Radeon RX Vega 64’s 484 GBps but significantly more than Radeon RX 590’s 256 GBps. AMD claims other notable improvements throughout Navi’s memory hierarchy, from reduced congestion in its 4MB L2 cache to a new 128KB L1 cache per quadrant that helps reduce latency.

AMD considers PCIe 4.0 support one of its most noteworthy competitive advantages. The Radeon RX 5700 XT and standard 5700 both enable the latest standard’s 16 GT/s transfer rate on compatible platforms. However, we don’t have the requisite hardware to test for PCIe 4.0’s theoretical 32 GBps of throughput (two of our other labs received the X570-based setups for Ryzen testing). If AMD is going to say the time isn’t right for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, then surely the need for more bus bandwidth falls ever further down the priority list for gamers.

Although Radeon RX 5700 XT hosts a much more sophisticated GPU than Radeon RX 590 and is indeed faster than Radeon RX Vega 64, its total board power rating is 225W. That’s the same TBP as RX 590. As we’ll see in our power analysis, the 5700 XT dutifully obeys this ceiling, too.

AMD covers Navi 10 with a much more artistic shroud than we’ve seen the company use previously. Representatives claim the contour design helps optimize airflow and minimize acoustic output, and we can attest that the 5700 XT is one of the quietest AMD reference cards we've tested. An aluminum alloy shell wraps around this card’s top, front, and bottom, enveloping the entire cooler. One end is open, facilitating ambient air intake, yet is still decorated with red pinstripes, Radeon branding, and black-painted aluminum fins.

The other end is loaded with slats for ventilation. Three DisplayPort 1.4 connectors and one HDMI 2.0b interface run along the PCB’s edge. It’s worth noting that Navi is AMD’s first GPU with Display Stream Compression technology, supporting 4K monitors at 144 Hz through a single cable without resorting to chroma subsampling.  

Up top, eight- and six-pin auxiliary connectors feed the 5700 XT’s seven-phase power system. Another pair of pin stripes add a sporty accent, while that Radeon logo lights up red.

Around back, an aluminum plate covers most of the PCA, protecting it from accidental drops.

Ambient air is pulled in to the 70mm centrifugal fan and blown through an array of aluminum fins sitting on top of a vapor chamber cooler. The heated air is exhausted out the back of your chassis rather than recirculated. Of course, the downside of this design is more noise than many axial fan-based solutions and less airflow, resulting in higher GPU temperatures.

AMD’s reference 5700 XT is quite a bit longer than Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 2060 Super: it measures 10.75 inches from the expansion bracket to back edge. The Nvidia card is roughly 9 inches long in comparison. They’re close to the same height though, and the two cards similarly fit into a dual-slot form factor. It comes as no surprise that AMD’s vapor chamber adds notable heft. Whereas the reference GeForce RTX 2060 Super registers 2lb 2.2oz on our scale, Radeon RX 5700 XT weighs in at 2lb 7.2oz.

Meet Radeon RX 5700

Radeon RX 5700 is a close relative of the higher-end model. It’s based on the same graphics processor, sits on the same circuit board, and utilizes a similar thermal solution. The 5700’s appearance just isn’t as fancy. An aluminum shroud does wrap around the cooler, including its back edge. But instead of LED lighting, racing stripes, or textured ridges, it’s a plain shade of flat grey with a couple of red Radeon decals. That's fine by us; the clean colors and lines look good.

A 185W board power rating justifies eight- and six-pin auxiliary connectors up top, along with the same 70mm blower-style fan and vapor chamber cooler found on Radeon RX 5700 XT. You don’t get a backplate this time around. Nevertheless, Radeon RX 5700 still weighs more than GeForce RTX 2060 Super. At 2lb 3.2oz, it carries an extra ounce around its hips.

AMD brings similar display connectivity here, so you get three DisplayPort connectors and one HDMI port.

Under the hood, Navi is trimmed down slightly. Thirty-six of the chip’s 40 Compute Units remain active, cutting its Stream processor and texture unit count to 2,304 and 144, respectively. AMD also detunes Navi’s clock rates. The base frequency is “up to 1,465 MHz,” the Game clock is “up to 1,625 MHz,” and the so-called Boost rating is “up to 1,725 MHz.” AMD uses those figures to claim a peak FP32 rate of 7.95 TFLOPS, though a more practical specification would land between the Boost and Game frequencies based on our measurements.

Aside from the four missing CUs, Navi remains otherwise intact for Radeon RX 5700. That means all its caches remain active, along with the 256-bit memory bus hosting 8GB of 14 Gb/s GDDR6.

Priced at $350, Radeon RX 5700 finds itself going up against GeForce RTX 2060.


Radeon RX 5700 XT
GeForce RTX 2060 Super
Radeon RX 5700
GeForce RTX 2060 FE
Architecture (GPU)
RDNA (Navi 10)
Turing (TU106)RDNA (Navi 10)
Turing (TU106)
ALUs
2560
2176
2304
1920
Peak FP32 Compute
(Based on Typical Boost)
9 TFLOPS
7.2 TFLOPS
7.5 TFLOPS
6.45 TFLOPS
Tensor Cores
N/A
272
N/A
240
RT Cores
N/A
34
N/A
30
Texture Units
160
136
144
120
Base Clock Rate
1605 MHz
1470 MHz
1465 MHz
1365 MHz
Nvidia Boost/AMD Game Rate
1755 MHz
1650 MHz
1625 MHz
1680 MHz
AMD Boost Rate
1905 MHz
N/A
1725 MHz
N/A
Memory Capacity
8GB GDDR68GB GDDR6
8GB GDDR66GB GDDR6
Memory Bus
256-bit
256-bit
256-bit
192-bit
Memory Bandwidth
448 GB/s448 GB/s
448 GB/s336 GB/s
ROPs
64
64
64
48
L2 Cache
4MB4MB4MB3MB
TDP
225W
175W
185W
160W
Transistor Count
10.3 billion10.8 billion
10.3 billion10.8 billion
Die Size
251 mm² 445 mm² 251 mm² 445 mm²

How We Tested Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 5700

AMD shipped us its Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT cards with plenty of time to test. But Nvidia cut in with the GeForce RTX 2060 Super and 2070 Super, condensing our schedule considerably. Regardless, we still managed to test all four cards on a brand-new platform powered by Intel’s Core i7-8086K six-core CPU on a Z370 Aorus Ultra Gaming motherboard with 64GB of a Corsair CMK128GX4M8A2400OC14 kit. We’re still using a couple of 500GB Crucial MX200 SSDs for our gaming suite, along with Noctua’s NH-D15S heat sink/fan combo.

Of course, this required building a new library of data with a limited amount of time to do it. We started with a selection of cards relevant to the new GeForces, and then added AMD’s Radeon RX 5700-series boards. From Nvidia, that includes GeForce RTX 2080GeForce RTX 2070GeForce RTX 2060GeForce GTX 1080 TiGeForce GTX 1080GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, and GeForce GTX 1070. All of those cards are represented by Nvidia’s own Founders Edition models except for the 1070 Ti, which is an MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Gaming 8G. AMD’s own Radeon VII is part of the comparison as well, along with Sapphire’s Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 and Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 56. Those partner cards ensure we don’t see the frequency/throttling issues encountered with our reference models.

Loading...

Our benchmark selection includes Battlefield VDestiny 2, Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XV, Forza Horizon 4, Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusShadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeTom Clancy’s The Division 2Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon WildlandsThe Witcher 3 and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus.

The testing methodology we're using comes from PresentMon: Performance In DirectX, OpenGL, And Vulkan. In short, these games are evaluated using a combination of OCAT and our own in-house GUI for PresentMon, with logging via GPU-Z.

We’re using driver build 431.16 for Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 2060 and 2070 Super and build 430.86 for all the other Nvidia cards. On AMD’s side, we’re using Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.6.3 for all three existing cards, plus 19.7.1 for the Radeon RX 5700-series cards.

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.