AMD Radeon RX 5500

[W1zzard]

The RX 5500 Navi is AMD's ambitious attempt to disrupt the sub-$200 graphics card market just as the RX 5700 series did to the sub-$400 market, bringing in much needed competition. It won't be easy as NVIDIA tried to preempt it with the GTX 1650 Super and GTX 1660 Super.

Show full review

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

and the video of it being ran over?

 

[jagjitnatt]

On "Clock Speeds and Power Limit" page, it says "The card uses NVIDIA's dynamic overclocking mechanism GPU Boost 4.0" Pretty sure that's a typo.

 

[Keullo-e]

Actually better than I excepted.

 

[HD64G]

Finally our @W1zzard did it! Exactly where expected both in performance AND power consumption as a bit lower than RX580 in performance and 100-110W were the math-derived estimations from the chip specs. And the full chip will get very close to RX590 for 130W for stock and about 150W for custom oced models. Let's hope AMD and the AIBs do justice for its price when it goes on sale ($150 for reference clocks and $170-180 for custom oced models would make that the best GPU for budget gamers to replace the now old Polaris). Otoh, drivers look a bit all over the place. Big variations between resolutions and game engines. I guess some optimisations are on schedule before the retail model goes on sale in a few weeks? And any news on RX5600 that would take the place of Vegas on their performance tier?

 

[fancucker]

Great Review as always

I absolutely adore AMD but this seems completely misguided if the anticipated price (180USD) is correct. Seems more like a nod to OEMs than genuine competition for a segment that's flooded with Nvidia alternatives. It even fails to provide standard 1080p performance (580 8GB) at a *significantly* efficient wattage and a newer process.

Very disappointing because this was AMD's segment, its niche

 

[W1zzard]

On "Clock Speeds and Power Limit" page, it says "The card uses NVIDIA's dynamic overclocking mechanism GPU Boost 4.0" Pretty sure that's a typo.

Fixed

anticipated price (180USD) is correct

I'm not anticipating $180, I'm anticipating $140-$180 and reported price/performance for three points in that range. I have ZERO information on the final pricing.

 

[trom89]

Impressive list of games tested!
It all hangs on the price tho.

 

[Searing]

It's not faster and it's not cheaper than Polaris, so it's a fail in my book. Been stuck at RX 470 performance for 3.5 years. The RX 5700 at $299 is much more exciting. I would like to see a custom model also go on sale at $299.

 

[Deathy]

performance AND power consumption as a bit lower than RX580 in performance and 100-110W

How accurate is software based (Wattman) power consumption these days? Because I got an RX 580 8GB Nitro+ SE for my secondary rig and after some tuning (1400 MHz @ 1.075V) I had a maximum power consumption while gaming of about 120W iirc. I know, these can probably UV as well. But considering the new node, color me disappointed. Though I guess driver updates will etch out some more performance in the next months, which is good.
I'm currently happy with my RTX 2070 in the main rig for VR and 4k and the RX 580 I got used for a super good deal in the secondary rig. AMD CPUs in both cases!

 

[HD64G]

How accurate is software based (Wattman) power consumption these days? Because I got an RX 580 8GB Nitro+ SE for my secondary rig and after some tuning (1400 MHz @ 1.075V) I had a maximum power consumption while gaming of about 120W iirc. I know, these can probably UV as well. But considering the new node, color me disappointed. Though I guess driver updates will etch out some more performance in the next months, which is good.
I'm currently happy with my RTX 2070 in the main rig for VR and 4k and the RX 580 I got used for a super good deal in the secondary rig. AMD CPUs in both cases!

In order to get the full board power draw, you have to add 40 to 50W to what the chip consumes itself for a GDDR5 GPU like Polaris and another 5-10W for a GDDR6 GPU. For HBM GPUs might need to add 30W. And when UVed properly, a good sample of Polaris (not all UV muchly) gets much more efficient but RX5500 does even better in efficiency when stock. A better product for the average customer, don't you think? IF priced accordingly ofc.

 

[Deathy]

@HD64G: Interesting, thanks for the info!

A better product for the average customer, don't you think? IF priced accordingly ofc.

Yes, very much. The average consumer doesn't care about UV and doesn't care about the used market / wants a warranty. So it's nice they can get this with some better power consumption along the way. Polaris has just been discounted so much or sold off for relatively cheaply due to mining surplus, age and other things, that I get a little jaded. I guess a year down the line with some "launch day drivers vs a year more mature drivers" reviews, I'll eat my words, if AMDs track record with driver related performance improvements on new architectures continues.

 

[Turmania]

Gtx 1060 6gb card that I have for 4 years, which is now sitting in its box as an emergency card. performs a little better than this, consumes less power, generates lower noise, and it is built 4 years ago in 14nm tech! need I say more?

 

[Deathy]

Gtx 1060 6gb card that I have for 4 years, which is now sitting in its box as an emergency card. performs a little better than this, consumes less power, generates lower noise, and it is built 4 years ago in 14nm tech! need I say more?

You mean the card that launched a little over 3 years ago? On 16nm lithography? With performance 96% and 97% as good in resolutions with playable framerates and 111% in non-playable 4k? And uses about the same (-3W, +3W) in power? Which is also louder according to this review? Just checking.

Those also still sell starting at 130€ used and up to 200€ is not unseen on German Ebay.

 

[Turmania]

You mean the card that launched a little over 3 years ago? On 16nm lithography? With performance 96% and 97% as good in resolutions with playable framerates and 111% in non-playable 4k? And uses about the same (-3W, +3W) in power? Which is also louder according to this review? Just checking.

Those also still sell starting at 130€ used and up to 200€ is not unseen on German Ebay.

for reference, it was this card reviewed here ; https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-gtx-1060-gaming-x/
yeah my bad it was not built in 14nm tech, but 16nm! so ancient! 4 years ago!

 

[gridracedriver]

67°C and just 32dB with that small OEM heatsink are a good start, of normal custom should have clock stock around 2000mhz and at least 10% extra performance, or not?

 

[Anymal]

Summer 2016 is not 4 years ago by my calculations.

 

[Fluffmeister]

AMD should have more confidence in their own products, I guess based on the reviews it's going to be cheaper than the GTX 1650 Super. Mean old Nvidia dictating prices again.

 

[bug]

Gtx 1060 6gb card that I have for 4 years, which is now sitting in its box as an emergency card. performs a little better than this, consumes less power, generates lower noise, and it is built 4 years ago in 14nm tech! need I say more?

My thoughts exactly, except my 1060 is still in my rig.
It's still progress compared to AMD's previous offerings, I guess.

 

[birdie]

Performance per watt and performance per dollar are both hugely disappointing. This thing is worse ... than even Pascal. And multi-monitor high power consumption is still not fixed. WTF AMD?

This is basically a slightly better version of the the GTX 1060 which was released 3.5 years ago and strangely "It's recommended"/"High value".

For whom? Why? According to Steam HW Survey the GTX 1060 is already the most popular GPU on the market. You do not release a GPU which mimics it almost entirely - you need to release something substantially better. And no a price cut won't ... cut it. In my country used 1060 6GB can be bought for roughly $150. The RX 5500 must be priced substantially lower to attract any attention. I'm thinking $120 or even lower.

 

[Assimilator]

If only AMD's reference boards they build for ordinary consumers were as good as the reference boards they build for OEMs...

 

[Taraquin]

My thoughts exactly, except my 1060 is still in my rig.
It's still progress compared to AMD's previous offerings, I guess.

Remember the RX 470, slightly slower than 1060 3gb and used about the same power so very close to 5500 in performance pr watt.

 

[bug]

Remember the RX 470, slightly slower than 1060 3gb and used about the same power so very close to 5500 in performance pr watt.

True, but perf/W isn't the only one that counts. Overall performance is also important and the 5500 is a little faster overall

 

[Casecutter]

If you had just learned your 4-5 year old mainstream enthusiast card (aka GTX 770 / R9 280X) is now pushing artifacts, and you don't have a bunch of cash this is a great jump in 1080p. I think if AIB cards with a little added clocks, cooling for $160, make it toss-up between this or some lowly generic RX 580.

The biggest unknown is when is that coming to consumer markets and what would this mean for the higher X nomenclature? I just don't see AMD/RGT have anything in retail till in January 2020 so it a lot about nothing. For someone thinking a OEM box for Christmas this and the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X OEM would make a good 1080p Freesync system for under $500.

 

[Searing]

Basically it is still same old same old. GTX 960 to 1060 was 75 percent faster. RX 470 to 5500 is basically 20 percent faster, and maybe $20 cheaper. AMD and nVidia both suck, hope we can agree on that. Look at the performance per dollar chart, it is either 8 percent worse or 6 percent better than the RX 570. $160 or $140.