Monday, January 6th 2020

AMD Announces Radeon RX 5600 XT Graphics Card

AMD CEO Dr Lisa Su at the company's 2020 International CES address announced the company's e-sports flagship graphics card, the Radeon RX 5600 XT. This card is designed to dominate the sub-$300 market-segment that's been led by NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1660-series. Based on 7 nm "Navi" silicon, the RX 5600 XT has surprisingly powerful specs: 2,304 stream processors across 36 RDNA compute units, which is the same as the RX 5700, but with some cost-cutting in the way of memory: 6 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit wide memory interface, and 12 Gbps memory speed. The GPU has a gaming engine clock of roughly 1500 MHz. Other key specs include 144 TMUs and 48 ROPs.

Designed with a 150 W typical board power target, the card draws power from a single 8-pin PCIe power connector. The RX 5600 XT is designed to provide 1080p e-sports gaming at high refresh-rates, or 1440p gaming at reasonable graphics settings. In its presentation, AMD showed the RX 5600 XT beating the GTX 1660 Ti that leads NVIDIA's GTX 16-series. With a price of USD $279 SEP, which is on-par with that of the GTX 1660 Ti, AMD looks to bring some serious competition to the $200-300 market-segment. Available January 21, 2020.
Add your own comment

86 Comments on AMD Announces Radeon RX 5600 XT Graphics Card

#26
Durvelle27
notb
You've already running your third 5700XT? Why, if I may ask?

But there's a group of clients who were buying because of the raw performance value. That's gone, so they'll leave.
Does this card offer any selling point (feature etc) that will bring new clients? I don't see any.
Different rigs

1700X
3600
3900X
Posted on Reply
#27
tfdsaf
Vya Domus
Pretty weird product but I am guessing that by now these chip are becoming pretty cheap to make.



You can but why ? 300$ for a 1660Ti isn't uncommon and this thing is going to be faster that it. Why does AMD always have to price their equivalent products dismally low ?

Are they not allowed to make money, is this some strange conspiracy to keep AMD out of the elite high margins club of Nvidia ? The stuff I sometimes read on here man, it's like some of you are begging to be ripped off by one company in particular while the other is expected to die out.
This is a very weak "argument" considering the 1660 super costs $230 and is on par with the 1660ti. Basically the RX 5600xt costs $50 more than the 1660super, yet according to AMD's OWN numbers is only 10% faster on average across all games they've tested.

The 1660ti is now an old product, that is basically obsolete and the real competition is the 1660super, which again costs $50 less and according to AMD's OWN numbers is ONLY 10% slower. To me the 1660s is a much, much better value!
Posted on Reply
#28
B-Real
dj-electric
Can i be the first one to say that 279-299$ for AIB designs for such card is a death sentence?
For a card 5-25% faster than a $279 1660 Ti? Not really.

Agent_D
You can find the 5700 regularly at $279, I saw some just last week and purchased one a few months ago at the same price on Newegg. Now, that isn't AIB, so if something like the Asus Strix 5600XT drops at $279, it *might* be ok, but it still feels like these cards should have dropped with a slightly lower MSRP. At 10-20% increased performance of the 1660Ti, that still puts it ~20% slower than the 5700, but also at ~20% lower MSRP ($349 vs $279).

Overall, at $279 for a good AIB iteration like the Strix, Gaming X, Aorus, Taichi, etc, it's likely ok pricing, but picking up a 5700 when they are at $279 is still the best deal currently, and with a small undervolt, they are almost inaudible, I run my 5700 at 935mv and it's not noticeable over ambient sound unless it is absolutely silent in the room.
Where can you find RX 5700 regularly for $279?

notb
Well, because they used to do that.

Here's another question: since everyone always expects AMD to be the cheaper option, who will buy their cards when they aren't?
There is a $279 RX 5600 XT agains a $279 1660Ti beating it by 5-25% (depending on titles). So it is better for the same price.
Posted on Reply
#29
ShurikN
Darmok N Jalad
This is the starting price. Nvidia will counter. AMD will counter back.
That only happens if you release a product of equal performance for less money or more performance for same money. Someone always tries to adjust to get the best bang for your buck.
In this case Amd released a product with more performance (than 1660ti) for more money. Nothing will change in the grand scheme of things. Status quo if you will.
Posted on Reply
#30
tfdsaf
B-Real
For a card 5-25% faster than a $279 1660 Ti? Not really.
LOL. According to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is only 20% faster than the 1660ti, only 10% in esports titles, competing against a now obsolete product.

The real competition is the 1660super, which replaces the 1660ti and costs $230, according to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is ONLY 10% faster, yet costs $50 more.

I can't see anyone recommending this card at $280 for just 10% more performance over the $230 1660super. I'd rather recommend people save up for few months and buy the RX 5700, which goes on sale often for $300, sometimes even less. Certain blower cards have been on sale for as low as $280, which is how much this turd costs!
Posted on Reply
#31
Vya Domus
tfdsaf
LOL. According to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is only 20% faster than the 1660ti, only 10% in esports titles, competing against a now obsolete product.

The real competition is the 1660super, which replaces the 1660ti and costs $230, according to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is ONLY 10% faster, yet costs $50 more.
tfdsaf
This is a very weak "argument" considering the 1660 super costs $230 and is on par with the 1660ti. Basically the RX 5600xt costs $50 more than the 1660super, yet according to AMD's OWN numbers is only 10% faster on average across all games they've tested.

The 1660ti is now an old product, that is basically obsolete and the real competition is the 1660super, which again costs $50 less and according to AMD's OWN numbers is ONLY 10% slower. To me the 1660s is a much, much better value!
Ease up buddy you don't need to repeat yourself a million times, we get it, you think the Nvidia option is better because it costs 50$ less ... and it's also slower. Solid argument.
Posted on Reply
#32
B-Real
tfdsaf
LOL. According to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is only 20% faster than the 1660ti, only 10% in esports titles, competing against a now obsolete product.

The real competition is the 1660super, which replaces the 1660ti and costs $230, according to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is ONLY 10% faster, yet costs $50 more.

I can't see anyone recommending this card at $280 for just 10% more performance over the $230 1660super. I'd rather recommend people save up for few months and buy the RX 5700, which goes on sale often for $300, sometimes even less. Certain blower cards have been on sale for as low as $280, which is how much this turd costs!
5700 will be a half year old card when the 5600 XT enters the market. Of course its price lowered since then. However, I can't really see blower cards for $280 or even $300. Cheapest 5700 is $330 on Newegg. Plus some weeks or months after the release, 5600 XT price will lower. Compare MSRP to MSRP. When prices need to fall, they will fall.

notb
You've already running your third 5700XT? Why, if I may ask?

But there's a group of clients who were buying because of the raw performance value. That's gone, so they'll leave.
Does this card offer any selling point (feature etc) that will bring new clients? I don't see any.
No, it is not gone. The $279 5600 XT offers 5-25% performance over the $279 1660Ti. So it's a better product for the same price. And I'm curious about the OC ability of the card. I think it will be higher than we are used to about AMD cards. Back to 2013, the 290X offered same perfomance as the GTX 780, but it was cheaper. Now it is priced equally (speaking of the 5600 XT only) but offers more performance.
Posted on Reply
#33
catulitechup
dead product mainly for introduction price without forget tdp but at simple seek could use around 50w more than gtx 1660 ti / super

resuming this 5600 xt (2020 card) show similar performance around gtx 1070 (2016 card) but using possible aroud 20 to 30w more with around 50% reduced node (gtx 1070: 16nm / rx 5600: 7nm)

at simple seek seems very bad product, maybe amd need consider throw gcn for make new gpu arquitecture, especially in tdp related (more notorious with gtx cards because them lack of rt cores and in consequence show less tdp)

:)
Posted on Reply
#34
tfdsaf
Vya Domus
Ease up buddy you don't need to repeat yourself a million times, we get it, you think the Nvidia option is better because it costs 50$ less ... and it's also slower. Solid argument.
Yeah, slower by only 10% according to AMD's OWN numbers. Once the real tests come forward and reviewers get their hands on these, those numbers are going to go down, so realistically its probably only 5% faster, yet costs 20% more.

This card is like 1 year late to the market, barely performs 10% more based on AMD's OWN numbers, yet costs over 20% more. Garbage value, crap card, DOA!
Posted on Reply
#35
Durvelle27
tfdsaf
Yeah, slower by only 10% according to AMD's OWN numbers. Once the real tests come forward and reviewers get their hands on these, those numbers are going to go down, so realistically its probably only 5% faster, yet costs 20% more.

This card is like 1 year late to the market, barely performs 10% more based on AMD's OWN numbers, yet costs over 20% more. Garbage value, crap card, DOA!
Except its quoted to be 20% faster in AAA titles.

Esports titles was stated to be 10% which in those titles who cares as you are already above 150FPS anyways

I guess you glanced over that part

Typical
Posted on Reply
#36
catulitechup
tfdsaf
Yeah, slower by only 10% according to AMD's OWN numbers. Once the real tests come forward and reviewers get their hands on these, those numbers are going to go down, so realistically its probably only 5% faster, yet costs 20% more.

This card is like 1 year late to the market, barely performs 10% more based on AMD's OWN numbers, yet costs over 20% more. Garbage value, crap card, DOA!
yeah once appear huge quantity of titles tested (case tpu review) performance is more lower as your said

waiting for tpu review but i think this card show bad tdp compared gtx 1660ti / super

almost forget hopefully amd can show products in proper time (no more 1 or more years later)

:)
Posted on Reply
#37
Nihilus
$250 would have been much better. The 1660 super is just too close and that card will probably overclock better. Nvidia generally has a better memory controller as well which will make their 6 gb last longer.
Posted on Reply
#38
cucker tarlson
B-Real
For a card 5-25% faster than a $279 1660 Ti? Not really.




There is a $279 RX 5600 XT agains a $279 1660Ti beating it by 5-25% (depending on titles). So it is better for the same price.
lol,which is it ?

is it like 5700xt matching 2070 super*
(in one game out of five)


280 is msrp reference,but since amd can't sell a card with a decent reference cooler aibs are sold for +$20-40 premium,which is either $70 over aib 1660S or $30 cheaper than 2060.
it's fine if the performance ends up close to 2060,but not if it's too close to 1660S.
if 2060 drops by $30,this is doa.



tfdsaf
LOL. According to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is only 20% faster than the 1660ti, only 10% in esports titles, competing against a now obsolete product.

The real competition is the 1660super, which replaces the 1660ti and costs $230, according to AMD's OWN numbers the 5600xt is ONLY 10% faster, yet costs $50 more.

I can't see anyone recommending this card at $280 for just 10% more performance over the $230 1660super. I'd rather recommend people save up for few months and buy the RX 5700, which goes on sale often for $300, sometimes even less. Certain blower cards have been on sale for as low as $280, which is how much this turd costs!
imo what's sad is that they're wasting functional 5700 dies to take on 1660 super.
Posted on Reply
#40
Agent_D
Mark Little
I can't find the 5700 for the prices you quote. Did you pick up your's during black friday or cyber november sales?
The one I bought for $279 on Newegg was not any special Holiday sale, just a sale they were doing on an XFX reference blower style. Last week the ones I saw were selling from Dell, same deal, Visiontek branded at $279 with the reference board/blower. Don't see the sale going currently, but if you keep an eye out, you will find them.
Posted on Reply
#42
HD64G
Since RX5700 AIBs' common price is very close to 350 euros in EU, if RX5600XT AIBs are close to 300 euros, it is a very good product and the best in vfm in its class. Performance diff isn't dramatic after all. And as for the performance, it fits exactly between Vega56 and 64, consuming less than 150W.
Posted on Reply
#43
IceShroom
Agent_D
You can find the 5700 regularly at $279, I saw some just last week and purchased one a few months ago at the same price on Newegg. Now, that isn't AIB, so if something like the Asus Strix 5600XT drops at $279, it *might* be ok, but it still feels like these cards should have dropped with a slightly lower MSRP. At 10-20% increased performance of the 1660Ti, that still puts it ~20% slower than the 5700, but also at ~20% lower MSRP ($349 vs $279).

Overall, at $279 for a good AIB iteration like the Strix, Gaming X, Aorus, Taichi, etc, it's likely ok pricing, but picking up a 5700 when they are at $279 is still the best deal currently, and with a small undervolt, they are almost inaudible, I run my 5700 at 935mv and it's not noticeable over ambient sound unless it is absolutely silent in the room.
Where??
The lowest I am seeing crunnetly on both Newegg and Amazon is $330 XFX RX 5700 THICC II.

catulitechup
dead product mainly for introduction price without forget tdp but at simple seek could use around 50w more than gtx 1660 ti / super

resuming this 5600 xt (2020 card) show similar performance around gtx 1070 (2016 card) but using possible aroud 20 to 30w more with around 50% reduced node (gtx 1070: 16nm / rx 5600: 7nm)

at simple seek seems very bad product, maybe amd need consider throw gcn for make new gpu arquitecture, especially in tdp related (more notorious with gtx cards because them lack of rt cores and in consequence show less tdp)

:)
Where did you get the 50W Watt.
GTX 1660 Super is 125W (consumes 128W according to TPU review,Link : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-radeon-rx-5500-xt-gaming-oc-8-gb/31.html)
RX 5600 XT is 150W ( and faster).
Substracting, 150-125=25W, where the extra 25W came from??
Posted on Reply
#44
tfdsaf
Durvelle27
Except its quoted to be 20% faster in AAA titles.

Esports titles was stated to be 10% which in those titles who cares as you are already above 150FPS anyways

I guess you glanced over that part

Typical
You seem blind, so here is AMD's OWN image!


AMD's OWN numbers: On average between all games its only 10% faster! You add 5% due to AMD picking certain titles over others, and realistically its likely only 5% faster overall, yet it costs 20% more!

Again the real competition for the RX5600xt is the 1660super, which costs $230, not the outgoing, 1 year old 1660ti.
Posted on Reply
#45
IceShroom
tfdsaf
You seem blind, so here is AMD's OWN image!


AMD's OWN numbers: On average between all games its only 10% faster! You add 5% due to AMD picking certain titles over others, and realistically its likely only 5% faster overall, yet it costs 20% more!

Again the real competition for the RX5600xt is the 1660super, which costs $230, not the outgoing, 1 year old 1660ti.
You know that 1660 Super is slower than 1660 Ti and RX 5600 XT is faster than 1660 Ti?? Or you dont?
Posted on Reply
#46
tfdsaf
IceShroom
You know that 1660 Super is slower than 1660 Ti and RX 5600 XT is faster than 1660 Ti?? Or you dont?
That is AMD's OWN picture you fool! WTF is wrong with you? I didn't make the picture, I didn't do the testing, AMD did. In their own best case scenario, the RX 5600xt is ONLY 10% faster than the 1660super, yet it costs $50 more or over 20% more!
Posted on Reply
#47
medi01
Most moaning normally comes from users who wouldn't buy AMD card anyhow, but just wanted it to release something so that The Leather Man's greed is somehow constrained.

It is bloody ridiculous to argue that a card faster than existing $279 card, is not worth $279.
Posted on Reply
#48
R0H1T
The numbers in the slides are from separate test beds, 1660 super is Gigabyte's version with 9900k & the one with 1660Ti (ref?) is w/3800x :rolleyes:

I bet you don't read the footnotes do you?
Posted on Reply
#49
cucker tarlson
tfdsaf
You seem blind, so here is AMD's OWN image!


AMD's OWN numbers: On average between all games its only 10% faster! You add 5% due to AMD picking certain titles over others, and realistically its likely only 5% faster overall, yet it costs 20% more!

Again the real competition for the RX5600xt is the 1660super, which costs $230, not the outgoing, 1 year old 1660ti.
This is so sad I don't believe this.
10% faster on average using the rx5700 die.In their own chart it's 8% or less in 8 out of 15,and the 30% number from Borderlands 3 DX12 was just there to bring up the average since in DX11 the game performs better and 1660ti matches Vega 56.In an honest 30 game review this is gonna get no more than 7-8% faster on avg.
Tell me it's fake or RTG are crazy,AIB cards are gonna sell at $300 for sure.
Posted on Reply
#50
HD64G
R0H1T
The numbers in the slides are from separate test beds, 1660 super is Gigabyte's version with 9900k & the one with 1660Ti (ref?) is w/3800x :rolleyes:

I bet you don't read the footnotes do you?
And why does theat matter since those GPUs are fully utilised by both of those CPUs and GPUs are the bottleneck?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment