The short of the results at 1080p Ultra settings is that the 8GB version of AMD’s RX 5500 XT showed marked improvement over the 4GB card in titles where VRAM was an issue. This includes Forza Horizon 4 (62 to 90 fps), Battlefield V (66 to 89 fps), Far Cry V (63 to 82 fps) and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (59 to 65 fps). In titles where VRAM capacity isn’t an issue, both 4GB and 8GB cards performed similarly, with the Gigabyte often taking a very small lead.
Compared to Nvidia counterparts, specifically the GTX 1650 Super, the 8GB variant kept performance levels up in all titles. In fact, in nine of our 11 test games, the Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC 8G was the faster card. Sometimes it was within the margin of error (Strange Brigade) and others, such as Ghost Recon and Gears of War 5, the difference was more significant. But given the $220 8GB card is priced much higher than the $160-plus 1650 Super, we would expect that result. When comparing the 8GB Gigabyte RX 5500 XT to the GTX 1660, it is around 8% slower across all of our tested titles. With the GTX 1660 priced similarly (starting at $210 (opens in new tab)), Nvidia seems to hold the price-to-performance lead at this price point, although sales and price cuts can always muddy the waters or shift the balance.
For those who are specifically looking for an AMD card that can run run AAA titles at ultra settings at 1080p, it’s easy to recommend going with the 8GB card. In games that gobble up VRAM, the performance hit is significant for the 4GB model -- so much so that performance drops close to or even below the GTX 1650. Get the 8GB for 1080p ultra gaming, or the GTX 1660 if you want somewhat better performance for a little less.
The Division 2
Ghost Recon: Breakpoint
Gears of War 5
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Far Cry 5
Final Fantasy XIV
Forza Horizon 4
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
That's from: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/overclock-your-radeon-rx-5500-xt-to-21-ghz-on-air-with-this-tool
I don't agree that the AMD would need a custom water loop, but if it did that would throw the price to an absurd amount for that chip.
Intel still wins in the areas where it matters. The only time I would consider the AMD chip would be if my job was to constantly encode videos or unzip files. IE, if I were a creator. Most people are not creators. They may think they are, but they are not.
Software still favors Intel's platform as well. Maybe in 3 more years AMD would be a viable option for most at the high end, but I am just not seeing it. The size of process nodes play no role in my decision as I would never have a reason to care, I just want what is fastest for most applications, and this article leads me to believe that is Intel hands down.
For those videos I use Sony Vegas for twice a year, I guess I will have to wait 120 more seconds than normal.