# MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming X 8 GB



## W1zzard (Dec 12, 2019)

The MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming X features twice the VRAM of the 4 GB OEM model, which we found to make a surprising difference in games, even at 1080p. As expected, the card includes an extremely quiet cooler, idle-fan-stop, and a backplate.

*Show full review*


----------



## Chrispy_ (Dec 12, 2019)

Wow, thanks for my first 5500XT review of the day.
That pricing is FUBAR. It's a $150 card, add maybe $25 onto that for this fancy version with improved cooler.

The 5500 series are 1080p cards, not even 1080p60 in some cases, so the added cost of 8GB GDDR6 is really dumb at this market segment. Not only does it struggle to beat the cheaper 4GB variant of itself, it struggles to beat the 1650S at a whopping $40 more appealing price point.

That would be bad enough if performance was the only metric that mattered, but power consumption is stupid compared to the modern competition. It's barely better than an RX570 in that regard, which you can pick up for less than half the price.


----------



## Rahnak (Dec 12, 2019)

Sad to see that AMD priced themselves out of this one. Or maybe Nvidia was just too aggressive in their pricing for them to match.


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 12, 2019)

$40 over msrp lol
Msi taking one out of Asus' play book.


----------



## Rowsol (Dec 12, 2019)

$240 for this, lmao.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 12, 2019)

Well yeah gtx1660 can be found 20€ less than this. Sure there's game bundle included, but this is already a slower card and 1660 has even more OC potential by it's stock memory bottleneck. Performance itself is fine for 1080p, pricing is just something that must go down a bit. Anyways nice to see that drivers have brought that RX 5500 OEM performance up.


----------



## Dracius (Dec 12, 2019)

Erm, how much? 

Riiiiight...


----------



## dj-electric (Dec 12, 2019)

dj-electric said:


> You have to be a special kind of lunatic to purchase an RX 5500 XT for the price of a GTX 1660 SUPER


----------



## Chrispy_ (Dec 12, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> Sad to see that AMD priced themselves out of this one. Or maybe Nvidia was just too aggressive in their pricing for them to match.


Nope, it's not Nvidia this time. The 1650S is priced correctly to compete against the competition from the RX 570/580 and its own 1650/1660.
AMD have just lost the plot with this one.


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 12, 2019)

Terrible pricing AMD & board partners extra bump in price don't help either.


----------



## AngryGoldfish (Dec 12, 2019)

Wow, this is a very poor showing. The 4GB Pulse variant isn't a bad card, but it's by no means an easy recommendation considering the 5700 and 5700XT models generally are. But the 8GB higher end models are a disaster. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 12, 2019)

Absolute failure at that price. 5500xt is just overprices in general. 3 years, a mjor die shrink, and a new arch, and its another RX580. Amazing. Should be a $150 card, even for the 8GB. Just pathetic pricing.


----------



## sutyi (Dec 12, 2019)

Oh well... AMD can keep these. At this price is a case of why even bother.

You can get decent RX 580 & 590 8GB models cheaper with the same game bundle. Granted they consume more power.

At this rate I'll have to repaste my GTX 1060 6GB...


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 12, 2019)

the only problem is the price, which for me is fundamental.
MSI custom too expensive, sapphire pulse seems to me to cost as much as dictated by amd, $ 200 is a good price.








						AMD Radeon RX 5500XT: la nuova scheda di fascia media anti GeForce GTX
					

Il mercato offre un gran numero di schede video nel segmento tra 150 e 300, al punto che diventa difficile per gli utenti capire cosa scegliere. Il debutto odierno delle soluzioni Radoen RX 5500XT, basate su GPU Navi 14, lo complica ulteriormente riducendo buona parte della scelta a una mera...




					www.hwupgrade.it


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 12, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> the only problem is the price, which for me is fundamental.
> custom too expensive.


The stock model is too expensive! For the price of a 5500xt 4GB, $179, you can find many RX 580s for $5-10 less on newegg right now, or a 590 for $179. Identical performance (superior for the 590). AMD has pulled a Turing, they havent offered anything compared to last gen cards.

8GB 5500xt should have been a $150 card.


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 12, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> The stock model is too expensive! For the price of a 5500xt 4GB, $179, you can find many RX 580s for $5-10 less on newegg right now, or a 590 for $179. Identical performance (superior for the 590). AMD has pulled a Turing, they havent offered anything compared to last gen cards.
> 
> 8GB 5500xt should have been a $150 card.


you can't compare a product that has just been released with one that has been around for years and has a street price for force of things low.
just don't buy msi, but sapphire.


----------



## IceShroom (Dec 12, 2019)

dj-electric said:


> You have to be a special kind of lunatic to purchase an RX 5500 XT for the price of a GTX 1660 SUPER


What is the MRSP of 1660 Super??
It is 170$ for 4GB 5500XT and $200 8GB. Is 1660 Super is less than $170??


----------



## dj-electric (Dec 12, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> What is the MRSP of 1660 Super??
> It is 170$ for 4GB 5500XT and $200 8GB. Is 1660 Super is less than $170??


The 4GB card stays out of it, and if you ask me shouldn't have been launched in the first place due to its choking hazard. AIBs asking 180-200$ for it, abysmal.
the 8GB model of several AIBs is 220-240$, its in GTX 1660 Super's territory.


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 12, 2019)

for me the 4GB does not exist, as there is no super 1650, buying a 4gb vga today is wrong even for 1080p.

then you either take the 5500 8gb or the 1660 from 6

reminds me of 1060 vs 570 8gb, eh ...

amd with these cards pushed especially on consumption, for the target they have good, 1080p consumption and adequate noise, performance are ok ... if they put it to 150$ make shortage in 1 month

Sapphire Pulse 5500xt 8gb, 200$ it's ok.








now only the 5600xt (Navi10 LE) is missing, amd is waiting too long to launch it


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 12, 2019)

Newegg price is $225, updated the review accordingly


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 12, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> you can't compare a product that has just been released with one that has been around for years and has a street price for force of things low.
> just don't buy msi, but sapphire.


You're right! We cant compare the price of this product to the price of products already on the market! Silly me, what was I thinking, comparing this to last gen AMD cards?!? We should be supporting AMD's new pricing blindly, unquestioning in our devotion!

GTFO with that argument. The previous gen AMD cards are still available at the same or a lower price then this new card, and offer identical performance. AMD has failed to offer anything over their previous cards. This is a total pricing failure. Even if the 580s mysteriously dissapeared, that wouldnt change the fact that AMD has made a new card that cost as much as the previous card was available for, for identical performance. This is what Nvidia did, and this site like many others ripped them a new one for not moving price/perf an inch. AMD doenst get a free pass, they are pulling a pascal here, and they deserve to get roasted for it.


----------



## N3M3515 (Dec 12, 2019)

$225 really?, 1660 Super all the way!, even the rx 590 is better


----------



## medi01 (Dec 12, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> That pricing is FUBAR. It's a $150 card, add maybe $25 onto that for this fancy version with improved cooler.


Uh, when 4Gb 1650s cost around $180? No freaking way.

$200-ish is where that card should be (and hopefully will be, once 5600 rolls out)


----------



## N3M3515 (Dec 12, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Uh, when 4Gb 1650s cost around $180? No freaking way.
> 
> $200-ish is where that card should be (and hopefully will be, once 5600 rolls out)



For 230 (5 bucks more) you get a much better 1660 super... https://www.amazon.com/Overclocked-...keywords=gtx+1660+super&qid=1576167356&sr=8-1

And for $15 less you can get a 1660 that is also better than this crap...  https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce...eywords=gtx+1660+super&qid=1576167356&sr=8-16


----------



## medi01 (Dec 12, 2019)

N3M3515 said:


> For 230 (5 bucks more) you get a much better 1660 super...


1) 230 is $30 more than $200 you are citing and 1660 super comes with 6Gb vs  8Gb
2) You can't compare market price to MSRP
3) 1660 is same perf, less RAM, it's "much better" or even "better" only in your weird imagination

Last, but not least, "newegg sells this for" is a ridiculous concept.
Announced pricing is spot on.






Actual street price isn't way off either:













						Radeon RX Serie
					

Radeon RX Serie ? Auswahl verschiedener Hersteller ? Bis zu 8GB Speicher ? Hardware ? IT-Handel seit 1996 ? Schnelle Lieferung ? Jetzt online kaufen!




					www.mindfactory.de


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 12, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Uh, when 4Gb 1650s cost around $180? No freaking way.
> 
> $200-ish is where that card should be (and hopefully will be, once 5600 rolls out)


EVGA's 1650 Super is $160.


----------



## medi01 (Dec 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> EVGA's 1650 Super is $160.


1650 Super is 5% slower:






MSRP of Sapphire 5500XT  with 4Gb is 179 Euros.



AMD didn't undercut NV much TAKING BOOSTED CARDS INTO ACCOUNT, that is it.


----------



## Ergastolano (Dec 12, 2019)

I'm disappointed, I expected better. Maybe with the 5600 will be better.


----------



## rrrrex (Dec 12, 2019)

Could you undervolt and downclock that card. Perf per watt looks terrible.  Maybe AMD overclocked it too much.


----------



## N3M3515 (Dec 12, 2019)

medi01 said:


> 1) 230 is $30 more than $200 you are citing and 1660 super comes with 6Gb vs  8Gb
> 2) You can't compare market price to MSRP
> 3) 1660 is same perf, less RAM, it's "much better" or even "better" only in your weird imagination
> 
> ...



230 is 5 more than 225 , in talking about the reviewed card.
Sorry bud, i compare apples to apples, we'll see how the prices will be on amazon when they have it.
Show me how those 2GB more matter, if not, it doesn't matter.


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 12, 2019)

N3M3515 said:


> $225 really?, 1660 Super all the way!, even the rx 590 is better


but how is it better?
now consumption does not matter anymore?
5500xt consumes half of the rx590


----------



## N3M3515 (Dec 12, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> but how is it better?
> now consumption does not matter anymore?
> 5500xt consumes half of the rx590



Not to me it doesn't at least. The total power draw of my pc is already high. And if i did care i'll just go for the 1660 super...


----------



## Chrispy_ (Dec 12, 2019)

rrrrex said:


> Could you undervolt and downclock that card?


Yes and yes. Also yes you should.


rrrrex said:


> Maybe AMD overclocked it too much.


Is water wet?


----------



## Casecutter (Dec 12, 2019)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> The stock model is too expensive! For the price of a 5500xt 4GB, $179, you can find many RX 580s for $5-10 less on newegg right now, or a 590 for $179. Identical performance (superior for the 590). AMD has pulled a Turing, they haven't offered anything compared to last gen cards.


Yeah, that's my problem they needed to better RX 590 performance out of the box... and this isn't showing that.
Had they hit that performance this pricing $200-220 for nicer model like this Gaming X might have had merit.



gridracedriver said:


> Sapphire Pulse 5500xt 8gb, 200$ it's ok.


I see this as:
RX 5500 - $150 MSRP
RX 5500 XT (or GV) 4Gb - $160
RX 5500 XT (GR) 8Gb - $180 for single fan (that peaked more to the RX 590) even if a 36 dba at load.
RX 5500 XT (GR) 8Gb - $200+ for a more upper crust dual fans, with LED options, etc.

Had these been able to clock more and hold on power, able to sit 6-8% better performance for something like this Gaming X the price giving today could be acceptable.
AMD/RGT needed to get closer to that 60 FPS average at 1440p for $200, and this falls short of that so these prices clearly aren't reflecting such an achievement.
That said pricing in the graphics card market over the last 18 months or ever since the last mining bust, both sides seem to think those inflated pricing structure are in play considering most gamers couldn't upgrade for a year and half.  So they made boat-loads of money on mining, and now need/believe that gamers are okay paying these prices from a pent-up demand.


----------



## Turmania (Dec 12, 2019)

Rx 5700 is consuming around same power and has more than double the performance of this. I dont understand how AMD made these rx 5500 series. they just show down themselves in the foot.
A friend of mine got Powercolor red dragon rx 5700. he is using quiet bios whic has 155w power target. after spending a weekend fine tuning and testing, he brough it down to 140w with more performance than stock quiet bios. I have always said rx 5700 series is AMD`s product of the year.


----------



## jabbadap (Dec 12, 2019)

rrrrex said:


> Could you undervolt and downclock that card. Perf per watt looks terrible.  Maybe AMD overclocked it too much.



It's in their binning procedure: targeted clocks needs some highish voltages to get as many chip as possible to qualify. Many of them will run fine at lower voltages but bad bins won't probably undervolt in any meaningful way without lowering clocks notch or two. Has it been targeted for RX 5700 clocks, it would have been very energy efficient. But then of course performance would have been lower too...

But it's XT, it should be full chip. Or will they release xtx version in future or is that damn Apple taking all the fully working chips on macs?


----------



## I No (Dec 12, 2019)

medi01 said:


> 1650 Super is 5% slower:
> 
> View attachment 139203
> 
> ...




You meant to say that *STOCK 1650 super* is 4% slower vs a custom variant ....
Also you do know that the cheapest is 1650S $160 on newegg while the cheapest 5500xt is 170 right?
Furthermore cheers to AMD for putting out a product that is supposed to replace the Polaris line-up and it's slower than the 590, granted it's $10 cheaper than a 590.


----------



## DeathReborn (Dec 12, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Yes and yes. Also yes you should.
> 
> Is water wet?



AMD should put on their boxes "Undervolt Required".

Also, no water is not wet, it makes other things wet.


----------



## Nater (Dec 12, 2019)

RX 580 8GB cards are easily had on eBay for $115 shipped or less.  I Just sold one for $120 on FB Marketplace.  This 5500XT at $200+ is a hard sell.  I imagine almost anyone throwing together a new entry level gaming rig is looking at the used market or going nVidia, because that's what I would do.


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 12, 2019)

medi01 said:


> 1650 Super is 5% slower:
> 
> View attachment 139203
> 
> ...


You are comparing a $200 5500XT 8GB to a $160 1650 Super. Why not compare a 1650 Super to a 4GB version, which is $10 more and performs the same. Or if you wanna compare aib cards, an EVGA $160 card to a $180 Pulse. 20 USD more for the same performance. 
Even if you wanna go the 8GB route, aib 1660 Vanila starts at $210 and is almost 10% faster. 

They should not be more than 150 for the 4GB and 180 for the 8GB.
Which are probably the prices we are gonna see come January.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 12, 2019)

seems is not much better that my 1 year old rx580 ....not that i expected a killer card from amd...as any product there will be buyers


----------



## Scougar (Dec 12, 2019)

Had the 5500 xt been one of two things:

1) Cheaper
or,
2) The full fat compliment of CU's (That they bizarrely gave to only Apple).

Then it would have been worth it.

As it stands, the prices are too high, and for some crazy reason they have priced the cards against their own, instead of against Nvidia's.

All Nvidia has to do is use the 14gbps memory on the 1650 super and it beats it simply by overclocking the memory.  These 'nice' cards are priced the same as 1660's which is just insane.  Really think they've lost the plot.


----------



## efikkan (Dec 12, 2019)

Once again Navi delivers just enough to maintain a minimal market presence, but not good enough to make a real impact.
This is simply not good enough.


----------



## Cheeseball (Dec 12, 2019)

$25 too expensive. MSI should've aimed for $200. If it had a 256-bit memory bus (and thus higher performance to beat the RX 580/590/GTX 1060), then $250 would be acceptable.


----------



## Casecutter (Dec 12, 2019)

Oh and one other thing... AMD/RGT should've never applied the "XT" moniker to both.  If they can't sell the "true full-chip" but to Apple they should not slap us with a gelding and think it doesn't add to the "sting" that the isn't presenting.  I think the 4Gb should been "GV", while the 8Gb used "GR" or something new.  They can't just later pull the 1536 / 96 / 32 part out later and say well here's the "XTX".


----------



## Assimilator (Dec 13, 2019)

Pretty obvious this exists only to satisfy investors that AMD isn't doing nothing. The channel is still full of unsold Polaris inventory, AMD doesn't want to screw over their partners, I'm betting we see massive price drops on 570/580/590 SKUs over Christmas and New Year, after which the price of 5500 will be allowed to decay to the levels that those cards were previously at.


----------



## Apocalypsee (Dec 13, 2019)

There is no bad hardware, just bad pricing.

Its really applies here, this one pricing is just absurd.


----------



## DeathReborn (Dec 13, 2019)

When the UK pricing drops to no higher than £180 for a AIB 5500XT 8GB with fan stop I will buy 2 to replace the ageing PowerColor PCS+ R9 290 4GB's in their machines.  Was hoping for it to be before Xmas but not holding out hope on that anymore.


----------



## gamefoo21 (Dec 13, 2019)

Well I called it...

So the 580/590 is cheaper and sorta faster...

This is priced to go against a faster nV card and no convincing pricing argument from what I see. AMD thinks that because Ryzen is hot they can bloat the Radeon prices...

Seeing that it pulls what 180-5W in power virus mode and is gaming in the 130-140W range. Well at least we know why there's no big Navi, because medium Navi can scratch 300W, little Navi can scratch 200W, so if we had a 384bit Navi, it would chug power like worse than a V2... LoL


----------



## Casecutter (Dec 13, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> Pretty obvious this exists only to satisfy investors that AMD isn't doing nothing. The channel is still full of unsold Polaris inventory, AMD doesn't want to screw over their partners, I'm betting we see massive price drops on 570/580/590 SKUs over Christmas and New Year, after which the price of 5500 will be allowed to decay to the levels that those cards were previously at.


I thought that to... but honestly there wasn't a bunch of movement on Polaris 20 based cards over Black-Cyber Monday.  And that was the time to move any old stuff out of the channel.  Going through the middle of January you'll either by a RX 590 for $170-180 or get less performance and half the memory for that same price.  Unless you play all day and you have high electrical cost to boot, I know what i'd would purchase.


----------



## killster1 (Dec 13, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> I thought that to... but honestly there wasn't a bunch of movement on Polaris 20 based cards over Black-Cyber Monday.  And that was the time to move any old stuff out of the channel.  Going through the middle of January you'll either by a RX 590 for $170-180 or get less performance and half the memory for that same price.  Unless you play all day and you have high electrical cost to boot, I know what i'd would purchase.


i purchased a 1070 a few years ago for less than 200. why wouldnt a 1070 be a better option? looks like the power usage is close to the 5500xt and it smokes it in all the benches. i will be so excited when something substantially better then the 500$ 1080ti i been using for 2.5 years comes out.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 13, 2019)

The pricing is the only negative point here. Here in Finland, they compete against AMD's own products, since RX 500 Polaris prices are lower and offer similar performance.


----------



## HwGeek (Dec 13, 2019)

As an RX 470 Nitro+ owner, I must say that for me - I prefer to add the few $$$ over RX 580 to get same performance at under 30db, the card was killing me while gaming, noise was too high for my taste.
So if you don't care about RX580 noise levels then indeed the 5500XT is too expensive for same performance, but if you do then the price delta is OK for such low Load noise levels IMO.


----------



## John Naylor (Dec 13, 2019)

"MSI's Gaming X does win against the NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super, delivering 4% higher performance "

Not apples and apples so kinda misleading.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X - 100%
nVidia 1650 Super - 96%
Performance gained from overclocking is 7.7%

MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X - 100%
nVidia 1650 Super - 98%
Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 11.4%.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X = 100 / 96 x 1.077 = 1.121875
MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X = 100 / 98 x 1.114 = 1.136735

Apples and apples ... the MSI 1650 Super Gaming X is 1% faster than the MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X .... in the manner forum readers use their cards .... a virtual tie.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X = 136 watts / 74C / 29 dbA / $225 Cost / $ 174.18NY Area Power Cost* over 3 years
MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X = 105 watts / 63C / 27 dbA / $180 Cost/  $ 134.48NY Area Power Cost* over 3 years

* Average US Power Cost is about 50% of NY Area

Ignoring the performance, power temps and sound levels, the 5500 XT needs to be at least $40 cheaper ()MSRP) in my area to make up for the power costs.  Take those out of the equation, the performance difference is too small to matter I do like cooler, I very much like quieter and ya can't argue w/ $40 cheaper.  Of course with the reviews out ... retail proces will adjust ...

Newegg has the MSI 5500 XT Gaming X for $200 and the MSI 1650 Super Gaming X for $180 ... would appear that MSI saw it coming and dropped the proce .... it wasn't enough

"MSI's Gaming X does win against the NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super, delivering 4% higher performance "

Not apples and apples so kinda misleading.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X - 100%
nVidia 1650 Super - 96%
Performance gained from overclocking is 7.7%

MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X - 100%
nVidia 1650 Super - 98%
Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 11.4%.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X = 100 / 96 x 1.077 = 1.121875
MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X = 100 / 98 x 1.114 = 1.136735

Apples and apples ... the MSI 1650 Super Gaming X is 1% faster than the MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X .... in the manner forum readers use their cards .... a virtual tie.

MSI Radeon 5500 XT Gaming X = 136 watts / 74C / 29 dbA / $225 Cost / $ 174.18NY Area Power Cost* over 3 years
MSI GTX  1650 Super Gaming X = 105 watts / 63C / 27 dbA / $180 Cost/  $ 134.48NY Area Power Cost* over 3 years

* Average US Power Cost is about 50% of NY Area

Ignoring the performance, power temps and sound levels, the 5500 XT needs to be at least $40 cheaper in my area to make up for the power costs.  Take those out of the equation, the performance difference is too small to matter

Newegg has the MSI 5500 XT Gaming X for $200 and the MSI 1650 Super Gaming X for $180 ... would appear that MSI saw it coming and chopped the price  just as they did with 5700 / 5700 XT leading up to the cards release. .... it wasn't enough



medi01 said:


> 1650 Super is 5% slower:



1.  Your graph says 4%
2.  Your are comparing an MSI AIB card versus a reference nVidia card
3.  Compare MSI 1650 Super and the MSI 5500XT and the MSI 1650 is 1% faster ... results above
4.  VRAM is a non-issue at 1080p ... if it was the MSI 1650 Super wouldn't be faster.


----------



## Casecutter (Dec 13, 2019)

What you replied to my post had little to nothing in furthering a discussion about cards in the $180-200 price range.



killster1 said:


> i purchased a 1070 a few years ago for less than 200. why wouldnt a 1070 be a better option? looks like the power usage is close to the 5500xt and it smokes it in all the benches.


Well I'm not saying the "used market" isn't a place some might see value, but that's a whole other discussion.  
If you found a 1070 for $200 a f_ew years ago_ (in the middle of the mining boon) then you got it on a *crazy* good deal even if used.  I always advocated for a GTX 1070 if you could get a decent "new" one for "closer to $300" back after the last mining bust (June 2018) to then into Black Friday, while  into the first months of 2019... I said grab it.  Such deals were always far and in-between here in the U.S. but I noticed a few.

Today, seeing a GTX 1660 Ti that perform almost similar to the GTX 1070, while basically using the same process (but like 10% smaller), then less in memory and half the bus-width is like $270 or just 10-15% less in price then those last "good deals" on GTX 1070's.  No movement of the needle there...



killster1 said:


> i will be so excited when something substantially better then the 500$ 1080ti i been using for 2.5 years comes out.


Yeah, that's probably a good year into the future, while today you can get "new" cards that are 5% behind such GTX 1080 Ti and 20% less in outlay than $500, not to mention it's original MSRP of $700+.


----------



## illli (Dec 13, 2019)

I gotta say when the first 1660/1660ti/1650 cards came out they seemed weak.  Now Nv 'corrected' this and the "super" versions are what the non super cards SHOULD have been at launch (for price/performance). 

Now the 5500xt is what the 5500 SHOULD have been at launch for price/performance... 

What the heck is going on with these companies


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 16, 2019)

There are not many chips around these cards, AMD sells the bulk (the full chip) to Apple, he does not need to cut the margins but rather sell some less and earn enough.
Having said that, have to wait after the holidays, from mid-January the prices should stabilize around the mrsp and not from theft of the first month or of those who buy under the holidays.

However these cards are attractive to those who have a rx470 (+30% in perf and 8GB vs 4GB) or less, for those who already have a 570/480 8GB (+20%) it doesn't make much sense to update


----------



## HwGeek (Dec 17, 2019)

RX 570 4GB @ $110 +free games is hard to beat, it will take some time for the prices to drop.
P.S: we need some RIS benchmarks on the 4GB model -lets say 83% of the resolutions so it can lower the Vram usage and give better 1% FPS.
*Maybe 5500XT 4GB with 83% RIS can give nice performance for the money while avoiding Vram limitation.*


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 17, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> RX 570 4GB @ $110 +free games is hard to beat, it will take some time for the prices to drop.
> P.S: we need some RIS benchmarks on the 4GB model -lets say 83% of the resolutions so it can lower the Vram usage and give better 1% FPS.
> *Maybe 5500XT 4GB with 83% RIS can give nice performance for the money while avoiding Vram limitation.*


rx 570 is a card out of 2 years that is now discounted to empty the stores, for obvious reasons it is more convenient at the time of launching the new cards as it happens all the time or as when you want to compare the new with the used one...
Having said that, it is clear that AMD has deliberately set a high price for not going shortage.


----------



## TKnockers (Dec 18, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> As an RX 470 Nitro+ owner, I must say that for me - I prefer to add the few $$$ over RX 580 to get same performance at under 30db, the card was killing me while gaming, noise was too high for my taste.
> So if you don't care about RX580 noise levels then indeed the 5500XT is too expensive for same performance, but if you do then the price delta is OK for such low Load noise levels IMO.


..I have rx580 Nitro + 4gb model in one of my computers and it's an excellent card, very silent..


----------



## John Naylor (Dec 18, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> What you replied to my post had little to nothing in furthering a discussion about cards in the $180-200 price range.
> 
> Yeah, that's probably a good year into the future, while today you can get "new" cards that are 5% behind such GTX 1080 Ti and 20% less in outlay than $500, not to mention it's original MSRP of $700+.



1.  Who is this directed to ?   I was responding to medi01's post ...the one with the graph in it.

2.  The price of nVidias top card has pretty much been $700 since the year 2000.  The graph is gone but you can see the discussion here:






						Some Perspective:  Zarathustra's Nvidia Price History
					

Every single time a brand new high end NVIDIA GPU is launched, we always have the same responses. Some people think it is too expensive while others think it is well worth the price considering the performance. What is, and isn't worth it to you, is obviously a very subjective matter, and as...




					hardforum.com
				




3.  Decent AIB 2070s can be had for $455... or about 91% of $500 and they stay pretty close to the 1080 Ti... I don't think you will see prices hit 80% till after the holidays. The 2060 Super AIbs gets within about 10% of the 1080 Ti for as low as $30 ... we're getting there.


----------



## odio_i_fanboy (Dec 19, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> rx 570 is a card out of 2 years that is now discounted to empty the stores, for obvious reasons it is more convenient at the time of launching the new cards as it happens all the time or as when you want to compare the new with the used one...
> *Having said that, it is clear that AMD has deliberately set a high price for not going shortage.*



or amd just wants to make money


----------



## AngryGoldfish (Dec 19, 2019)

odio_i_fanboy said:


> or amd just wants to make money


A lot of the reasoning behind the high price could boil down to AMD not wanting to use expensive 7nm silicon on low profit margin parts. I read a rumour that AMD were actually using Samsung's 7nm fab for the 5500 range. Also, this part could easily be seen as a product designed specifically for Apple, not general consumers, and was 'ported' to everyone else in the same way Vega was 'ported'. It's a low-end part using expensive memory modules. It could be a stop-gap. Maybe the 5600 range will offer significantly better value for money and is the product AMD actually wants you to buy on a budget, if you can. And if you can't, buy Polaris and rid them of their remaining stock. or wait for the 5500 range to drop in price once 7nm yields improve and demand for other more important parts dies down a little. That's me just speculating though.


----------



## Casecutter (Dec 19, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Who is this directed to ? I was responding to medi01's post


While I was discussing what killster1 said in his post.


John Naylor said:


> Decent AIB 2070s can be had for $455...


Not arguing here, that a 2070 is correct 9% less than killster1 indicated $500 outlay for a 1080 Ti,  and is like 9% behind in performance of the 1080 Ti.  It's all relative...


----------



## gridracedriver (Dec 20, 2019)

odio_i_fanboy said:


> or amd just wants to make money


in fact I wrote it, the bulk of the navi14 chip is sold to apple, these are a few scraps of that chip and amd has no need to lose margins.


----------



## Scougar (Dec 30, 2019)

The 5500's are a product without a market IMO.

5500 XT 4GB... scuppered by any game that might use over 4gb, thanks to the cost saving AMD did by using only PCI-E 3.0 X8 instead of X16.  X8 on a PCI-E 4.0 board is fine, but who is buying a budget GPU with an expensive X570 board?

The 5500 XT 8GB just plain priced itself out of the market.  200 for the base version? lol.  OK.. i'll just buy a 40 dollar cheaper 1650 Super that can overclock like crazy (upto about 15% oc gain), or a plain 1660 for $199 that is faster.  Or hell.. an RX 590 for $180.


----------



## Parn (Mar 18, 2020)

Terrible pricing. If a user wants to stick to AMD, 580/590 offers much better value than this.


----------



## IceShroom (Mar 18, 2020)

Scougar said:


> The 5500's are a product without a market IMO.
> 
> 5500 XT 4GB... scuppered by any game that might use over 4gb, thanks to the cost saving AMD did by using only PCI-E 3.0 X8 instead of X16.  X8 on a PCI-E 4.0 board is fine, but who is buying a budget GPU with an expensive X570 board?
> 
> The 5500 XT 8GB just plain priced itself out of the market.  200 for the base version? lol.  OK.. i'll just buy a 40 dollar cheaper 1650 Super that can overclock like crazy (upto about 15% oc gain), or a plain 1660 for $199 that is faster.  Or hell.. an RX 590 for $180.


AMD's small die for past few years have 8x lanes. Polaris11/21 is 8x, Topaz is 8x(GCN3), Oland is 8x(GCN1) and now Navi14 has 8x. It is not a new thing for AMD, as they sold more of those small die to Apple than to pc builders.
But you are forgetting 1650 Super is also 4GB. And AMD is selling quite amount of Navi14 to apple.


----------



## Scougar (Mar 18, 2020)

IceShroom said:


> AMD's small die for past few years have 8x lanes. Polaris11/21 is 8x, Topaz is 8x(GCN3), Oland is 8x(GCN1) and now Navi14 has 8x. It is not a new thing for AMD, as they sold more of those small die to Apple than to pc builders.
> But you are forgetting 1650 Super is also 4GB. And AMD is selling quite amount of Navi14 to apple.



I am not forgetting Apple, i just dont care. My concern is PC gaming.

8x at 4GB means streaming games especially like Wolfenstein get hammered.  The 4GB 1650 super does not because it is 16x, and swapping from memory is faster. The 8x cannot handle it well.


----------

