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

84 Comments on AMD Announces Radeon RX 5600 XT Graphics Card

#51
medi01
cucker tarlson
DX12 was just there to bring up the average since in DX11 the game performs better
Yes, but no:



cucker tarlson
AIB cards are gonna sell at $300 for sure.
That's The Leather Man pricing, Lisa is not as greedy.
Posted on Reply
#52
tfdsaf
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.
Actually that is a small minority, most of the fact laying is coming from objective VALUE based gamers who know when they've been served a turd. I called the RTX series cards turds, I've called the 1660 and 1660ti turds, I've said over and over how expensive and low value they are, and now AMD is following Nvidia in the turd game. Apart from the RX 5700 and RX5700xt which are amazing value, these are the two best cards to buy right now, everything else from AMD is crap.

They are releasing a mid tier GPU over a year late after Nvidia, that is barely 10% faster in their OWN slides, that is higher power consumption(not that I or most people actually care that much about this) and costs over 20% more than a competing 1660super.

Its like AMD graphics is run by a whole different CEO, as opposed to their CPU team. Who ever is running the GPU department should be fired immediately by Lisa Su, and she should put the CPU guys in charge of the GPU division as well.
Posted on Reply
#53
R0H1T
HD64G
And why does theat matter since those GPUs are fully utilised by both of those CPUs and GPUs are the bottleneck?
Because people are talking past each other, they've obviously not noticed the difference in test beds & yes that 1660 super is faster than 1660Ti ~
Posted on Reply
#54
cucker tarlson
medi01
Yes, but no:




That's The Leather Man pricing, Lisa is not as greedy.
well,2070 is 15% faster in dx11 so there you go with their 30% in dx12

and aibs selling for above msrp is a fact,has nothing to do with LS or JHH.
Posted on Reply
#55
Assimilator
1. Stop comparing this card to the 1660 Ti. That card was DOA, so much so that NVIDIA released the 1660 SUPER to cannibalise it.
2. Stop with the "OMG AMD'S CARDS ARE SO CHEAP when they're on sale" idiocy. Here's an alarming fact, ANYTHING IS CHEAP WHEN IT GOES ON SALE. Compare against MSRP or GTFO.

cucker tarlson
imo what's sad is that they're wasting functional 5700 dies to take on 1660 super.
If they are, could be a massive win if you have the ability to flash a 5700 BIOS to a 5600 XT like in the good old days of 5000/6000 series.

If they're not, then it's just AMD harvesting 5700 dies with 1/4 of their memory controllers being defective. Instead of throwing it away, why not turn it into a product to at least get mind- and market-share in a segment where they previously had no presence? And that's what they've done.
Posted on Reply
#56
Casecutter
I'm potentially "not fond" of a $280 price, although as we aren't seeing a reference card, if AIB's generic dual fan offering list at $280 and works like the Vega 56 I might see rationale for it. I'd restrain any true concern until actual reviews.

There may be some justification to such pricing, particularly for those cards that provide OC'n (7-10%) and where those higher quality coolers or 3 fan AIB's would perhaps give reasons for and extra $20, but much over that you're smarter with RX 5700 and not chancing anything.
Posted on Reply
#57
catulitechup
[quote=member: 175457"]

Where did you get the 50W Watt.
GTX 1660 Super is 125W (consumes 128W according to TPU review]Easily amd normally lies about tdp for example when rx 5500 begin amd shows 110w tdp on amd pages but actually amd correct value to 130w, more according techpowerup reviews

For this reason 8 pin connector are required because have many chances use more than 150w, personally i see around 160 to 170w (custom models possible have more tdp)

:)
Posted on Reply
#58
paulzhang
Correction: Presenter is not Lisa Su, but Laura Smith, Graphics Chief Engineer.
Posted on Reply
#59
IceShroom
catulitechup
Easily amd normally lies about tdp for example when rx 5500 begin amd shows 110w tdp on amd pages but actually amd correct value to 130w, more according techpowerup reviews

For this reason 8 pin connector are required because have many chances use more than 150w, personally i see around 160 to 170w (custom models possible have more tdp)

:)
RX 5500 is 110W and uses nearly 110W in TPU benchmark,
130 is for RX 5500 XT cause it is 130W TBP card and has 8GB VRAM. Try to read some review, it is written in plain English.
Here is a average power draw graph from latest Graphics card review :

Link for the review if you missed in the other post : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-radeon-rx-5500-xt-gaming-oc-8-gb/
Posted on Reply
#60
Zach_01
R0H1T
Because people are talking past each other, they've obviously not noticed the difference in test beds & yes that 1660 super is faster than 1660Ti ~

Excuse me... what on earth is that blue line in there? Isnt it a 1660super? Isnt it below 1660Ti?
Isnt that green line a 1660 super OC and not the regular 1660super?
Posted on Reply
#61
R0H1T
The one they (AMD) tested is Gigabyte's variant, the 1660Ti was vanilla variety according to their footnotes also different processors.
Posted on Reply
#62
catulitechup
IceShroom
RX 5500 is 110W and uses nearly 110W in TPU benchmark,
130 is for RX 5500 XT cause it is 130W TBP card and has 8GB VRAM. Try to read some review, it is written in plain English.
Here is a average power draw graph from latest Graphics card review :

Link for the review if you missed in the other post : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-radeon-rx-5500-xt-gaming-oc-8-gb/
Apparently you omitted some graphs





and yeah amd back to liar again about tdp

almost forget as other users said rx 5500xt is garbage with actual price

:)
Posted on Reply
#63
IceShroom
catulitechup
Apparently you omitted some graphs





and yeah amd back to liar again about tdp
:)
I hope you dont game for 10ms, couse peak graph shows power draw for several ms.
Furmark is not a game ,it is a power virus and I hope you are enjoyng it.
almost forget as other users said rx 5500xt is garbage with actual price
Which RX 5500 XT user?? The imaginary ones??
Posted on Reply
#66
medi01
NV seems to be quite threatened by Navi, given paid shill activity.
Posted on Reply
#67
Fluffmeister
I wish I was paid to point out Nvidia haven't even gone 7nm yet.

Nvidia???? PAY ME! The German AMD fan said so!
Posted on Reply
#68
RandallFlagg
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.
And as others have pointed out, using spot sale price numbers isn't helpful. If you wait for them to be available and the initial rush to end, I bet you'll find a 5600XT for $230 on spot sales while the 5700 is on sale for $279 . There are plenty of people who build an entire system to a price point, and pulling $50 off the GPU can easily be used to go from a SATA SSD to an m.2 SSD, double the storage, purchase a significantly better monitor, or move up one or two tiers on the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#69
catulitechup
Fluffmeister
I wish I was paid to point out Nvidia haven't even gone 7nm yet.

Nvidia???? PAY ME! The German AMD fan said so!
lastest price cuts case rtx 2060 (some rtx 2070) maybe can show nvidia begin sell 12nm turing stock preparing hyphotetical 7nm gpus

nvidia 7nm dont only represent change node fabrication, most important thing refers new arquitecture

if ampere follow lastest nvidia gpus specially in tdp, amd could have serious troubles

however for amd sake huang dont know how to take advantage of actual situation, if huang will be smart must be use 7nm in GTX and RTX lines

actual 12nm gtx cards have very good tdp and much better than amd cards with 7nm, gtx cards with 7nm could have interesting products case for example gtx 1660 super card but without power connector and others more

:)
Posted on Reply
#70
medi01
Fluffmeister
Nvidia haven't even gone 7nm yet.
Nor did Intel, I was told. Why?

Oh, that explains why you have problems seeing nonsense spouted by posters with surprisingly low count o total posts.
Or wait, no, it doesn't.


5600XT announcement lead to curious way of dropping 2060 price, EVGA's "KO".
Posted on Reply
#71
EarthDog
Yikes. Where is the value proposition for this card? More power use, slower, and costs as much as 1660ti ($279+). Then if rtx 2060 is $299 across the board now.... oof.
Posted on Reply
#72
jabbadap
EarthDog
Yikes. Where is the value proposition for this card? More power use, slower, and costs as much as 1660ti ($279+). Then if rtx 2060 is $299 across the board now.... oof.
Erh, what? It won't be slower than gtx1660ti...

By the config it should actually beat rtx 2060(rx 5500 = 1.1*gtx1650s in shaders, RX5600xt = 1.2*rtx2060 in shaders), but AMD choose to use slower gddr6 and thus will most probably loose(12Gbps vs 14Gbps and Amd needs more memory bw than Nvidia). One unknown is how much AMD will strict cards OC capabilities, if it's loose enough then it might be very good card for overclockers.
Posted on Reply
#73
EarthDog
jabbadap
Erh, what? It won't be slower than gtx1660ti...

By the config it should actually beat rtx 2060(rx 5500 = 1.1*gtx1650s in shaders, RX5600xt = 1.2*rtx2060 in shaders), but AMD choose to use slower gddr6 and thus will most probably loose(12Gbps vs 14Gbps and Amd needs more memory bw than Nvidia). One unknown is how much AMD will strict cards OC capabilities, if it's loose enough then it might be very good card for overclockers.
If it was faster than a 1660ti (I'll concede it may trade blows here...) and rtx 2060 (which, it wont be close to), why would amd display a slide of it beating the 1650 super??

Also, you can overclock the nvidia card too. ;)[/quote]
Posted on Reply
#74
tfdsaf
EarthDog
If it was faster than a 1660ti (I'll concede it may trade blows here...) and rtx 2060 (which, it wont be close to), why would amd display a slide of it beating the 1650 super??

Also, you can overclock the nvidia card too. ;)
Yeah, you are not properly informed. It does beat the 1660 super, NOT the 1650super. We won't know for sure until its tested by reviewers, but by AMD's own numbers its about 10% faster than a 1660super, which means its about 10% faster than a 1660ti as well. So while it is slightly faster, its also much more expensive, while being 1 year late and consumes more power!
Posted on Reply
#75
64K
jabbadap
Erh, what? It won't be slower than gtx1660ti...

By the config it should actually beat rtx 2060(rx 5500 = 1.1*gtx1650s in shaders, RX5600xt = 1.2*rtx2060 in shaders), but AMD choose to use slower gddr6 and thus will most probably loose(12Gbps vs 14Gbps and Amd needs more memory bw than Nvidia). One unknown is how much AMD will strict cards OC capabilities, if it's loose enough then it might be very good card for overclockers.
According to the guys over on Techspot AMD is saying that that the RX 5600 XT will be an average of 16% faster than the GTX 1660 TI but a RTX 2060 is around 33% faster than a GTX 1660 Ti according to the benches on this site so I don't think it's going to be fast enough fast enough to directly compete with a 2060 Super. However the 2060 Super costs about $130 more than the 5600 XT will so there's that to consider.

You could overclock the 5600 XT to get close to a 2060 Super but as EarthDog pointed out you can overclock the 2060 Super as well. W1zzard got a 8.7% gain in performance by overclocking the 2060 Super in his review.

We will know the full story when W1zzard gets one and reviews/ benches it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment