Gigabyte RX 5600 XT Gaming OC 6G Review: Priced Right, Performs Well

This RX 5600 XT is inexpensive, quiet, and performs well: Can we ask for more?

By published

Gigabyte RX 5600 XT Gaming OC 6G
(Image: © Gigabyte)

The Gigabyte RX 5600 XT Gaming OC 6G proved itself a capable video card that was able to play nearly all our tested games at over 60 fps at 1080p with ultra settings. When going up in resolution to 1440p and using medium settings, it was able to reach 60 fps there as well. Some lighter games, like Battlefield V, Forza Horizon 4, and Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers, offer a smooth gaming experience when using ultra settings at the higher resolutionas well. Cards using AMD's RX 5600 XT can be an entry into 1440p gaming, but some image quality sacrifices need to happen in some games.

(Image credit: Gigabyte)

Between the other RX 5600 XT cards we've tested, the Gigabyte Gaming OC card is just as fast as the Sapphire Pulse. The two traded wins, and both ended up a few percent faster than the Asus and its slower memory speeds. Between the Sapphire and Gigabyte cards, both coolers worked well keeping the card well within operating range, but the Gigabyte's Windforce 3 cooler did so with less apparent noise and lower temperatures. Our only concern here is with inconsistent loads, where the fan speeds on the Gigabyte card fluctuate more than others. With the price difference between these two cards only $10, it comes down to appearance and size.

Compared with Nvidia's reference RTX 2060, the Gigabyte RX 5600 XT Gaming OC 6G ended up 3% faster and used less power. It can be a difficult choice between these two GPUs, as on one hand, AMD's GPU is slightly faster in many games, while the RTX 2060 is just slightly slower but includes ray tracing and DLSS capabilities. Pricing is similar enough, with overclocked RTX 2060 cards like the EVGA RTX 2060 KO starting out at $299, that it comes down to feature sets and aesthetics.

AMD's RX 5600 XT has been a disruptive product targeting the $300 price point, taking the crown from Nvidia in the performance and price to performance markets. Gigabyte's Gaming OC 6G's $299 price point and performance should put this on your shortlist to buy, thanks to its good cooling and 14 Gbps memory.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Joe Shields
Joe Shields

Joe Shields is a Freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US. He reviews motherboards.
18 Comments Comment from the forums
  • King_V
    Interesting that the fan speeds were higher than that of the Sapphire Pulse, yet the conclusion has "less apparent noise" relative to the Pulse.

    And, by the graphs, kept things several degrees cooler.

    I think that this Gigabyte model might beat out the Pulse on which one I choose when I do the GPU upgrade for my son's computer.
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    King_V said:
    Interesting that the fan speeds were higher than that of the Sapphire Pulse, yet the conclusion has "less apparent noise" relative to the Pulse.

    And, by the graphs, kept things several degrees cooler.

    I think that this Gigabyte model might beat out the Pulse on which one I choose when I do the GPU upgrade for my son's computer.

    Gigabyte can have wacky fan behaviour married to good fans. I usually just set a fixed rpm and call it a day with them, as their zero rpm mode can be bad. Same as Zotac. If you want good zero rpm modes, you have to buy MSI usually.
    Reply
  • g-unit1111
    I got the XFX Thicc II 5600XT and I've been pretty pleased with it so far. It's good to see AMD upping their GPU game after losing to NVIDIA for so long.
    Reply
  • Nick_C
    IceQueen0607 said:
    How does this compare to the MSI GTX 1660 Ti Gaming X?

    Given that the GTX 1660 Ti is $150 cheaper, for a small percentage performance improvement It's not really worth the buy?
    Can you please provide a link to that card for sale new at $150?

    (given that the 5600XT MSRP is $300)
    Reply
  • IceQueen0607
    You misunderstood. I didn't say the GTX 1660 Ti was $150 new, I said it was $150 less than the RX 5600 XT. I'm in Australia, so prices are AUD.
    Reply
  • Nick_C
    IceQueen0607 said:
    You misunderstood. I didn't say the GTX 1660 Ti was $150 new, I said it was $150 less than the RX 5600 XT. I'm in Australia, so prices are AUD.
    Without stating that the $ being referred to is AUD, not USD, context was lacking - as the default meaning of $ on an international site is almost always USD.
    Reply
  • IceQueen0607
    Wow! I actually didn't quote any prices, only saying that it was $150 LESS. The context was supposed to be that it was 25% less than the AMD card. Anyway, if the lack of an A in front of the $ is misleading, I'll stick with percentages.
    Reply
  • IceQueen0607
    Like I said "Wow!"

    The question regardless of what the currency is "If the GTX 1660 Ti is cheaper, is the RX 5600 XT worth the purchase if the performance increase is in the low single digits? I haven't seen any comparisons for those two cards, and I don't trust userbenchmark for performance.

    Disappointing that a question about whether or not a card is worth purchasing has come down to a chastening for a missing 'A' in the question :!
    Reply
  • Nick_C
    IceQueen0607 said:
    Wow! I actually didn't quote any prices, only saying that it was $150 LESS. The context was supposed to be that it was 25% less than the AMD card. Anyway, if the lack of an A in front of the $ is misleading, I'll stick with percentages.
    The "25% less" was completely absent from the post quoted - thanks for adding that important detail.

    I'd also expect that new hardware attracts a vendor premium due to initial supply / demand levels. The 1660Ti is probably well down that curve by now whereas the 5600XT is a relatively new release and prices will be on the high side for a while.
    Reply
  • King_V
    g-unit1111 said:
    I got the XFX Thicc II 5600XT and I've been pretty pleased with it so far. It's good to see AMD upping their GPU game after losing to NVIDIA for so long.

    Wasn't the cooler (or shroud) on the Thicc II problematic for thermals? Or at least it was for the 5700 or 5700XT? I was given to understand that there was some redesign of it, and possibly an exchange program XFX offered... and also why they went to the Thicc III. Kinda going from memory here, though.
    Reply