Aorus RX 5700 XT 8G Review: As Fast as XT can Be?

The best Navi card for 1440p?

Reviews
By Joe Shields
last updated
Aorus RX 5700 XT 8G
(Image: © Gigabyte)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

The Aorus Radeon RX 5700 XT proved to be the fastest (of three) RX 5700 XTs we tested, even if that lead is only noticeable in benchmarks. The Aorus version of this card and its Windforce 3 cooler are a good match. The combination keeps this overclocked card running cool and quietly throughout testing. One potential drawback, however, is the three-slot cooler. It can eat up a PCIe slot or two and won’t play nice inside most compact systems.

As far as aesthetics go, RGB lighting is tastefully implemented with two lines on the front of the card. On top of the card, the Aorus branding and "No Fan" wording are also illuminated. The card will fit in with most build themes while not taking away from where you really have the bling.

(Image credit: Gigabyte)

If your budget is in the $450 range, the Aorus RX 5700 XT is a great card at that price point. It will deliver 60 fps at 2560 x 1440 with ultra settings across today's titles and does so quietly. But if value is forefront in your mind, there are other options available from both Gigabyte (the Gaming OC), and other card partners that deliver performance that’s nearly as good for less..

While all this sounds good, and it is, our main concern is the cost. This card is priced at $449.99 on Newegg, making it one of the more expensive RX 5700 XTs. The ASRock RX 5700 XT Taichi costs $10 less, performs as well, and also offers quiet cooling. The Gigabyte Gaming OC version is $50 less ($399) and only a couple of percent slower. So there are less expensive options available.

Looking at the bigger picture, the RTX 2070 Super Gaming OC costs $70 more ($520) and is around 5% faster. Meanwhile, the RTX 2060 Super Gaming OC is $50 less ($399) and 10% slower. That said, team green does offer hardware-accelerated ray tracing whereas we’ll likely have to wait for RDNA2 cards to see a similar feature on the AMD side.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Joe Shields
Joe Shields
Motherboard Reviewer

Joe Shields is a Freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US. He reviews motherboards.

8 Comments Comment from the forums
  • g-unit1111
    Love to see that AMD is coming very close to matching NVIDIA's best cards while at the same time costing a lot less than the comparable NVIDIA product. Some competition in the graphics department is very badly needed these days.
    Reply
  • pahbi
    I was all set to build a new all AMD pc, but seeing all the problems folks are having with 5700 XT GPUs pushed me back to a intel/nvidia build.

    Seems like crashes or under-whelming drivers should have been one of the cons to this card.

    - P
    Reply
  • mitch074
    pahbi said:
    I was all set to build a new all AMD pc, but seeing all the problems folks are having with 5700 XT GPUs pushed me back to a intel/nvidia build.

    Seems like crashes or under-whelming drivers should have been one of the cons to this card.

    - P
    Why would unstable GPU drivers make you buy an Intel CPU? Well, enjoy your CPU security vulnerabilities...
    Reply
  • waltc3
    pahbi said:
    I was all set to build a new all AMD pc, but seeing all the problems folks are having with 5700 XT GPUs pushed me back to a intel/nvidia build.

    Seems like crashes or under-whelming drivers should have been one of the cons to this card.

    - P

    But you see the problem is that with my 50th Ann. Ed 5700XT, I'm not having crashes or underwhelming drivers, so it's indeed hard to sympathize...;)
    Reply
  • JayGau
    Kind of disappointing to see 500$ range cards doing as good as my Evga RTX 2080 XC Ultra for which I paid 750$ five months ago. And even more disappointing to see that the "super" version of this model is now cheaper than that (730$ on Amazon). Maybe when the next gen cards will arrive I should buy the ti version right away. It cost an arm and a leg but at least you know your card will not be beaten by cheaper ones a few months later.
    Reply
  • waltc3
    JayGau said:
    Kind of disappointing to see 500$ range cards doing as good as my Evga RTX 2080 XC Ultra for which I paid 750$ five months ago. And even more disappointing to see that the "super" version of this model is now cheaper than that (730$ on Amazon). Maybe when the next gen cards will arrive I should buy the ti version right away. It cost an arm and a leg but at least you know your card will not be beaten by cheaper ones a few months later.

    Don't be so hard on yourself....;) Just be delighted you weren't one of those poor suckers who spent $1400 or more for a 3d card. Same thing will happen to those GPUs as well--only it may take a bit longer, is all. Progress is inevitable and inexorable. No matter what you buy it will be eclisped by something better it's only a matter of time. That's why it's best to spend as little as you can to get performance and quality that are acceptable to you--it leaves room for "next" GPU, and etc. and etc.
    Reply
  • JayGau
    waltc3 said:
    Don't be so hard on yourself....;) Just be delighted you weren't one of those poor suckers who spent $1400 or more for a 3d card. Same thing will happen to those GPUs as well--only it may take a bit longer, is all. Progress is inevitable and inexorable. No matter what you buy it will be eclisped by something better it's only a matter of time. That's why it's best to spend as little as you can to get performance and quality that are acceptable to you--it leaves room for "next" GPU, and etc. and etc.

    Thank you for the comforting I appreciate it :)

    I actually still like very much my 2080. It can run any games at 2K max details at above 70 fps. The only game I cannot max out without dropping below 50 fps is Control but according to benchmarks and reviews even the ti version struggles to run that game (thanks to the full scale implementation of ray tracing... ...and it's beautiful!).

    I know there will always be progress but my frustration is more about the price matching. I have been buying graphics cards for almost 20 years and the prices have never been so inconsistent. Having paid 750$ for a 2080 five months ago to see a 500$ 2070 doing the same performance is certainly disappointing at best.

    But I also understand that AMD's return to the market competition after years of NVIDIA domination can lead to some strangeness like that. At least the RTX 2080 doesn't seem to be available anymore (beside from third party sellers at ridiculously high price) and only the super versions can be purchased at a similar price the non super models were before. So it looks like the consistency is back but too bad it's five months too late for me!
    Reply
  • waltc3
    JayGau said:
    Thank you for the comforting I appreciate it :)

    I actually still like very much my 2080. It can run any games at 2K max details at above 70 fps. The only game I cannot max out without dropping below 50 fps is Control but according to benchmarks and reviews even the ti version struggles to run that game (thanks to the full scale implementation of ray tracing... ...and it's beautiful!).

    I know there will always be progress but my frustration is more about the price matching. I have been buying graphics cards for almost 20 years and the prices have never been so inconsistent. Having paid 750$ for a 2080 five months ago to see a 500$ 2070 doing the same performance is certainly disappointing at best.

    But I also understand that AMD's return to the market competition after years of NVIDIA domination can lead to some strangeness like that. At least the RTX 2080 doesn't seem to be available anymore (beside from third party sellers at ridiculously high price) and only the super versions can be purchased at a similar price the non super models were before. So it looks like the consistency is back but too bad it's five months too late for me!

    It's amusing to think about things...years ago, before 3dfx and the V1 then the V2, everything was 2d--"3d" hadn't yet come to market in a viable, playable form. Card to have in those days was the Matrox Millennium--the card cost $475-$575--probably like ~$800 today, with inflation--depending on where you bought them--I had one--it was a great card--but I cannot recall if it had 4 Megabytes of Vram or 8 MBs--anyway--for the same or a bit more money now look what we can get! GBs of onboard VRAM...processors maybe 1000X faster than in those days and infinitely faster in processing polygons! You're running 2k; I'm running 4k--but at either res it's still amazing to think how much things have improved! You seem very happy with your choice, and that's what it's all about, isn't it?....;) Of course, at 4k max eye-candy I don't get 70 fps most of the time, but in some games I get a tad more and when the fps drops to below 60--as it often does--it's still stutter free and smooth--so I'm happy, too! Anyway, "new and improved" is always there just around the bend...;) No such thing as "future proof"--learned that long ago! Happy gaming!
    Reply