# AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is based on AMD's all-new Navi 10 GPU featuring the RDNA architecture. We thoroughly test the card's gaming performance and look at power, heat, noise, overclocking, and clock frequency stability, too, sometimes with surprising results.

*Show full review*


----------



## roccale (Jul 7, 2019)

Munneeeeeeezzzzzzz.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 7, 2019)

92'c?  wow.so much for 7nm , when you go lower nm , You will get more hard cap.I don't expect 5 nm or 3 nm to give miracle.


----------



## rrrrex (Jul 7, 2019)

It's so bad for a new arcitecture, perf per watt is still lower than gtx 10x0 (7nm vs 16nm). Pretty close to vega vii. Let me hope that navi isn't full rdna.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

Xuper said:


> 92'c?  wow.so much for 7nm , when you go lower nm , You will get more hard cap.I don't expect 5 nm or 3 nm to give miracle.



That's more because of crappy blower cooler these thing have(what ever amd's marketing team is saying about them). Power consumption is not much different from nvidia, slap RTX like cooler on it and those temps will go down. So yeah I would say good cards, but really need AIB custom models to really be an real option against rtx cards.



rrrrex said:


> It's so bad for a new arcitecture, perf per watt is still lower than gtx 10x0 (7nm vs 16nm). Pretty close to vega vii. Let me hope that navi isn't full rdna.



Well RX 5700 equals Turings on Perf/W so it's more like XT is running with more free TDP settings.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 7, 2019)

rrrrex said:


> It's so bad for a new arcitecture,* perf per watt* is still lower than gtx 10x0 (7nm vs 16nm). Pretty close to vega vii. Let me hope that navi isn't full rdna.


Only RX 5700XT, RX 5700 is close to RTX 2070 super and surpassed all Pascal series cards


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 7, 2019)

We repeatedly see threads of people that want to upgrade, but don’t want RTX. Many of them say they can go and get a 1080Ti and have the upgrade performance they want.  Trouble is, unless you have one already, that mythical used beast is expensive.

For much less money I would advise them to get a 5700XT.  It trades blows back and forth with 1080Ti, even at 2560x1440.


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 7, 2019)

Xuper said:


> 92'c?  wow.so much for 7nm , when you go lower nm , You will get more hard cap.I don't expect 5 nm or 3 nm to give miracle.


Whats worse is it manage to run louder than Vega 56 while being hotter.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 7, 2019)

RX 5700 XT's temp :
Kitguru = 80'c
Computerbase = 85'c
overclock3d = 68'c
Techradar  = 81'c
TPU = 92'c

hmm , TPU got worst card.


----------



## z1n0x (Jul 7, 2019)

1. Unreal Engine should be renamed to GeForce Engine.
2. Overall better results than i expected.
3. Custom cards!

@ any AMDer reading, you need to step up your reference card design game. Temps, noise, clocks fluctuation. Get rid of that blower once and for all!


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 7, 2019)

Xuper said:


> RX 5700 XT's temp :
> Kitguru = 80'c
> Computerbase = 85'c
> overclock3d = 68'c
> ...


Something is seriously wrong with this first batch of cards if there is such huge difference in temps 68 vs 92.
Especially on blower cards that are less affected by case temps, and many of these test are done in open air test bench anyway.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

Xuper said:


> overclock3d = 68'c


I had to lol, maybe with fan at 100%


----------



## Naito (Jul 7, 2019)

Overall, things look pretty good. Perhaps some driver updates will get the temp and power usage back into line a little. Really looking forward to the custom board reviews, though


----------



## jesdals (Jul 7, 2019)

Nice test, well hope my 3800x and x570 motherboard give my R7 some more room


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

@W1zzard you forgot to add no VirtualLink on negatives. While it is starting to be DOA standard, leaving it off is not helping to get it adopted faster.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> @W1zzard you forgot to add no VirtualLink on negatives. While it is starting to be DOA standard, leaving it off is not helping to get it adopted faster.


Completely irrelevant at this time imo


----------



## B-Real (Jul 7, 2019)

I was expecting the RX5700 to be a better choice, but it's not faster by around 10% than the 2060, so giving $50 more for the RX5700 XT is a rational move.


rrrrex said:


> It's so bad for a new arcitecture, perf per watt is still lower than gtx 10x0 (7nm vs 16nm). Pretty close to vega vii. Let me hope that navi isn't full rdna.


Man, it consumes 25W more than the 2070...  25W.  Yes, less nm, and? You buy GPUs according to die size? And there is the undervolt. Yu I'm pretty sure it will consume less than the RTX2070. And don't forget, it's $100 less than the 2070-2070S.


----------



## droopyRO (Jul 7, 2019)

Custom cards are expected in August, or sooner ?


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Completely irrelevant at this time imo



Well  Valve Index will have option to use Virtuallink port, needs to buy single adapter.



Spoiler: Valve index Virtualink adapter


----------



## Restless_Hero (Jul 7, 2019)

A 5% lead over the competing green cards is somewhat underwhelming, even before taking thermals and noise into account. At this price point I'm inclined to remain in the Nvidia camp for now.


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 7, 2019)

Have a 5700 XT, it does get to 91c -ish
I'm with W1zzard


----------



## unikin (Jul 7, 2019)

I'll wait for price adjustment to $349 and buy AIB version then. God damn it AMD can't you deliver good drivers and decent cooling solution at release? 92 (110)C temp and 43 dBA on $400 GPU, c'mon AMD are you serious? So little added effort is needed for this GPU to get praising reviews instead of mediocre ones.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

I thought this was meant to be a disaster? Looks very competitive with Nvidia at those prices.


----------



## rvalencia (Jul 7, 2019)

I would like to see NAVI 10 scaled by 2X via 512 bit bus GDDR6, 80 CU, four shader engines and 128 ROPS. I would like to to replace my old R9-290X with 512 bit bus PCB with updated NAVI 512 bit bus PCB. Bring on RX 5900 XT...


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Restless_Hero said:


> A 5% lead over the competing green cards is somewhat underwhelming, even before taking thermals and noise into account. At this price point I'm inclined to remain in the Nvidia camp for now.



Yeah right, everyone was expecting a 5% deficit at least. That it has a 5% lead is a massive turn up for the books.

Custom cards will be the way to go.


----------



## Nima (Jul 7, 2019)

Navi is the first AMD GPU that did not disappoint in recent years but still I would pick 2060 Super over 5700XT any day. it might be slightly slower but it is more efficient, more overclockable, runs cooler and supports RT. I wonder what will happen to GPUs that lack RT support after next gen consoles appear next year. will they become completely useless? as Digital foundry mentioned about ray tracing in their review " You will have two consoles out there with ray tracing support and console utilization of that feature means what is now an interesting value added effect, transforms into part of the base design for multi format games, I kinda want this feature in a GPU I'm buying today".


----------



## Restless_Hero (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Yeah right, everyone was expecting a 5% deficit at least. That it has a 5% lead is a massive turn up for the books.
> 
> Custom cards will be the way to go.


No, it was fairly obvious from the start that the XT would perform more or less in line with the vanilla 2070 (and thus a tad faster than the 2060S). The way things stand now, I can't think of a single reason to go for the red card which is clearly inferior feature-wise and runs red-hot out of the box with literally no extra room for overclocking. Zen 2 CPUs, on the other hand, appear a really strong product, so it's quite likely my next build will be an AMD+Nvidia combo for the first time in my life.


----------



## Xaled (Jul 7, 2019)

Giving an overpriced card like 2060 Super gold award while again asking for a lower price for a card that kicks it's ass.

İmo AMD should once again stop sending review samples to TPU for while.


----------



## 0x4452 (Jul 7, 2019)

The charts need to highlight the Supers, not the 2070. Unfair to compare to last year's model, not the current one.


----------



## Restless_Hero (Jul 7, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Giving an overpriced card like 2060 Super gold award while again asking for a lower price for a card that kicks it's ass.
> 
> İmo AMD should once again stop sending review samples to TPU for while.


Being literally 10 TIMES twice (kudos to jabbadap for explaining how the loudness scale works) louder under load than RTX 2070S is simply unacceptable by itself, I think. This may well get fixed once AIB versions are available, but the card appears unsellable to me as is.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jul 7, 2019)

0x4452 said:


> The charts need to highlight the Supers, not the 2070. Unfair to compare to last year's model, not the current one.



Not unfair from a price perspective, and 2070s are still available to purchase, so they're a legitimate contender to this card.

Nvidia will have to lower the price of available 2070 stock, pointless to buy a 2070 at a higher price than 5700XT, unless all you care about is RTX, but still, from a price/performance point of view, that card was just annihilated by the 5700XT.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jul 7, 2019)

Hmm... Struggling on ordering 50th Anniversary Edition, or waiting for Sapphire custom card in a while...  decisions, decisions...


----------



## kings (Jul 7, 2019)

Overall slower than the new 2070 Super, but also cheaper!

It will depend on the sales we catch on both brands and the importance or not that each one will give to the Ray Tracing factor.

As happened with Vega 56 vs. Vega 64, the 5700 XT seems to have been stretched beyond its sweet spot, the 5700 in performance/watt is a lot better!

Overall, solid cards from AMD and more or less matching Turing efficiency, despite the 7nm vs 12nm situation.

Interestingly, now, unlike what some people did with the RTX Super, no one complains about AMD showing the middle finger to the Radeon VII owners. A $699 card with 5 months of market and now is virtually irrelevant to a $399 card.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jul 7, 2019)

kings said:


> Overall slower than the new 2070 Super, but also cheaper!
> 
> It will depend on the sales we catch on both brands and the importance or not that each one will give to the Ray Tracing factor.
> 
> ...



Gotta agree with that, the Radeon  VII was always a Halo product based on a now obsolete architecture, the performance is there, but at the wrong price.


----------



## dicktracy (Jul 7, 2019)

Needs another price drop for that crappy blower


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

0x4452 said:


> The charts need to highlight the Supers, not the 2070. Unfair to compare to last year's model, not the current one.



Getting desperate huh? No, it's not unfair when you look at the PRICE of each of these cards.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

It's a good thing these are cheaper.

Slower than the super by 10%... more power use, louder, no RT (whatever that is worth).

2060 super is 5% slower and a lot cheaper uses way less power has RT, etc..


Edit: How pricing is listed here is ridiculous though....gotta go msrp as listing the 'cheapest you can find it'means little to the rest of the world.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's a good thing these are cheaper.
> 
> Slower than the super by 10%... more power use, louder, no RT (whatever that is worth).



Honestly, I am excited, like really happy for them. Both Zen2 as well. Though TBH I am looking at the numbers in a diff light. AMD may be behind yet still. but IMO the gap closure since ZEN is significant. Mind you they have been more than 10% behind since like what 2007? earlier? This is a win IMO even if they arent stormtrooping Intel or nvidias offerings. We are witnessing them as a company get much stronger. I am not even saying they will ever beat Intel or AMD, but the competition this will offer will do the market as a whole a favor.

Specifically OEMs and Server space I am talking about. Gamers and Enthusiasts always want the "Best" and rarely settle for second. But Dell saving $40-$100 per unit when they produce tens of thousands of a specific model per quarter is significant. And your brother in law doesn't give a shit he only plays farmville.

Not you @EarthDog  specifically, but just a disclosure before anyone is dumb enough to quote me for _bias_ you should really check my system specs.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

Restless_Hero said:


> Being literally 10 TIMES louder under load than RTX 2070S is simply unacceptable by itself, I think. This may well get fixed once AIB versions are available, but the card appears unsellable to me as is.



Decibels does not work that way. But yeah too many weak points to win any awards. Custom AIB models will definitely win a couple: quieter, drivers will be more mature, OC will be actually possible etc. After Radeon VII three fan design, blower reference card is a annoying step backwards.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

10x the wattage for 2x the appeared loudness is I believe how it works.



Solaris17 said:


> Honestly, I am excited, like really happy for them. Both Zen2 as well. Though TBH I am looking at the numbers in a diff light. AMD may be behind yet still. but IMO the gap closure since ZEN is significant. Mind you they have been more than 10% behind since like what 2007? earlier? This is a win IMO even if they arent stormtrooping Intel or nvidias offerings. We are witnessing them as a company get much stronger. I am not even saying they will ever beat Intel or AMD, but the competition this will offer will do the market as a whole a favor.
> 
> Specifically OEMs and Server space I am talking about. Gamers and Enthusiasts always want the "Best" and rarely settle for second. But Dell saving $40-$100 per unit when they produce tens of thousands of a specific model per quarter is significant. And your brother in law doesn't give a shit he only plays farmville.
> 
> Not you @EarthDog  specifically, but just a disclosure before anyone is dumb enough to quote me for _bias_ you should really check my system specs.


the CPUs are huge.... they just cant overclock worth a hoot. Not a big deal...

The gpus are lack luster... and the way that the pricing is listed here, IMO, really isnt fair to anyone. MSRP vs. 'current lowest' pricing. Let the reader go look for pricing for their own country and use like values in MSRP. If he wants, he can list current lowest pricing with a link and get some skimbit love too...best of both worlds.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

Restless_Hero said:


> No, it was fairly obvious from the start that the XT would perform more or less in line with the vanilla 2070 (and thus a tad faster than the 2060S). The way things stand now, I can't think of a single reason to go for the red card which is clearly inferior feature-wise and runs red-hot out of the box with literally no extra room for overclocking. Zen 2 CPUs, on the other hand, appear a really strong product, so it's quite likely my next build will be an AMD+Nvidia combo for the first time in my life.



No, no no don't give me that bullcr*p, when AMD showed performance comparable to the 2070 initially literally everyone was expecting it to be a few percent slower in reality or clearly slower, not *faster. *That is a punch to the throat of all the Nvidia fanboys that were gloating already that Navi couldn't compete with Turing let alone the Turing refresh.

Well here's news for you guys - it doesn't just compete with Turing, it beats it decisively in performance!


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> No, no no don't give me that bullcr*p, when AMD showed performance comparable to the 2070 initially literally everyone was expecting it to be a few percent slower in reality or clearly slower, not *5% faster. *That is a punch to the throat of all the Nvidia fanboys that were gloating already that Navi couldn't compete with Turing let alone the Turing refresh.
> 
> Well here's news for you guys - it doesn't just compete with Turing, it beats it decisively in performance!


Read the review man.. the XT is 2% faster at 2560x1440 on average. 1% at 1080p... I'd call that margin of error... but it's not 5% (unless I missed some context) compared to the 2070... it is 5% faster than the 2060 super which costs the same (not msrp though).

Edit their slide showed it FASTER...


----------



## Restless_Hero (Jul 7, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> Decibels does not work that way. But yeah too many weak points to win any awards. Custom AIB models will definitely win a couple: quieter, drivers will be more mature, OC will be actually possible etc. After Radeon VII three fan design, blower reference card is a annoying step backwards.


From what I know, we're talking about the decimal logarithm scale here, where a 10-point increase corresponds to a change in sound pressure by a factor of 10. 
I do hope that non-reference Navi cards will end up more compelling. While I'm an Nvidia user, it's always nice for consumers to see some real competition.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 7, 2019)

Look at that ungimped (yeah, don't pretend there's not a ton of nvidia gimping in a lot games) performance O_O  If this doesn't impress you, then idk what to say.


----------



## skline00 (Jul 7, 2019)

Especially with the latest price drop, the AMD gpus are now competitive with Nvidia in the mid to upper range.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

skline00 said:


> Especially with the latest price drop, the AMD gpus are now competitive with Nvidia in the mid to upper range.


This isnt upper range. They dont have anything that competes with a 2080 or 2080ti...what most consider high end.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2019)

Restless_Hero said:


> From what I know, we're talking about the decimal logarithm scale here, where a 10-point increase corresponds to a change in sound pressure by a factor of 10.
> I do hope that non-reference Navi cards will end up more compelling. While I'm an Nvidia user, it's always nice for consumers to see some real competition.



Sound pressure is doubling every +6dBA. Human hearing psychoacoustic loudness is doubling every 10dBA. So 10dBA more is twice as loud.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Read the review man.. the XT is 2% faster at 2560x1440 on average. 1% at 1080p... I'd call that margin of error... but it's not 5% (unless I missed some context) compared to the 2070... it is 5% faster than the 2060 super which costs the same (not msrp though).
> 
> Edit their slide showed it FASTER...



It's still faster than the 2070. Point still stands, people were expecting 5-10% slower for sure.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> It's still faster than the 2070. Point still stands, people were expecting 5-10% slower for sure.


They were??? I know some said they were cherry picked... and judging by tpus results, their slides are a coupe percent faster... so there is some truth to it. 

1-2%... beats decidedly... thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## Restless_Hero (Jul 7, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> Sound pressure is doubling every +6dBA. Human hearing psychoacoustic loudness is doubling every 10dBA. So 10dBA more is twice as loud.


Thanks for the info, always nice to learn something new.


----------



## Xaled (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> you were.
> 
> Those who saw amds own slide weren't.


No, all Nvidia fans were expecting/hoping slower cards and saying that AMDs slides are fake or salty


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Xaled said:


> No, all Nvidia fans were expecting/hoping slower cards and saying that AMDs slides are fake or salty


Why does that matter? Straw man argument, yo!

 The slide showed it on average a couple/few percent faster... while many didnt believe it, that's fine, but not relevant. Your boy here thinks otherwise. 

Anyway, move on... who cares. 



Shatun_Bear said:


> Well here's news for you guys - it doesn't just compete with Turing, it beats it decisively in performance!


I mean, this statement is ridiculous (especially without context). It marginally beats a 2070 at 1080p and 2560x1440 (if you call 1 and 2% a win) and loses by 9 and 12% respectively to the 2070 super at the same res. 

Read the review.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jul 7, 2019)

Unfortunately not an upgrade for GTX 1080 owners, so ... I personally say "pass" on this one.

And the upcoming 2080 Super announced price is too much, unless a price war is coming.
I would definitely buy one at 600 or less, but at 700 it's a bit tough to swallow.

As for 1080 Ti owners... well, move along, nothing to see here !


----------



## gridracedriver (Jul 7, 2019)

why is every Radeon's review you, tpu, and Tom's losing almost 10% of performance compared to the rest of the network?
I still can't understand it ...

So, excellent to be a reference, we await custom at same price I hope.


----------



## mastershake575 (Jul 7, 2019)

Naito said:


> Overall, things look pretty good. Perhaps some driver updates will get the temp and power usage back into line a little. Really looking forward to the custom board reviews, though


 Agreed. Right now this card is good but not great (high temps, loud output,  basically same performance as the same priced nvidia counterpart, higher wattage, no 3rd party coolers). 

August could be interesting if they can get third party cards out by then. Would like the see a re-review with updated drivers and better thermal temps (maybe even a slighly bump in clockspeed too).


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Read other reviews numps, paints a very different picture











						The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT & RX 5700 Review: Navi Renews Competition in the Midrange Market
					






					www.anandtech.com
				












						AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 5700 Review: New Prices Keep Navi In The Game
					

AMD's Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 5700 deliver better performance than Nvidia's GeForce RTX 2060 and 2060 Super, but without real-time ray tracing support.




					www.tomshardware.com
				




It's not an across the board thing, but we can see a clear trend here of the super being faster in most cases at their target res (2560x1440). 


There isnt a need to be repeatedly insulting either. If you have some support, please feel free... I have an open mind... but dishing out barbs isnt going to cut it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 7, 2019)

kings said:


> Interestingly, now, unlike what some people did with the RTX Super, no one complains about AMD showing the middle finger to the Radeon VII owners. A $699 card with 5 months of market and now is virtually irrelevant to a $399 card.



2 year old GCN iteration is inferior to Navi. Crazy, right ? Stupid AMD, should have waited for a couple more years so that everything else becomes ancient.

How about taking off those green tinted shades and realize that Nvidia was sandbagging for a whole year using the same exact technology unlike AMD. That's a much bigger, well intentioned middle finger to a lot more people.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

The VII was released in February 2019. What is under the hood isn't relevant when talking within this context of performance (it happens with every release though so BFD anyway). Dude has a good point for those who felt that way... but again it is nothing new. 

VII was just a stop gap to put something out there... but it's out there and those owners could easily feel that way (right or wrong). Nvidia gpus have been out since October and january respectively. The 2070 is a bit more 'mature'.


----------



## unikin (Jul 7, 2019)

Why such a big difference between guru3d review of RX 5700 XT and TechPowerUp? Driver issues?
RX 5700 XT is trading blows with GTX 1080TI/2070Super in their test:








						AMD Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT review
					

In this review, we look at the two new graphics cards released by AMD, the Radeon 5700 and 5700 XT. Both cards are based on the new NAVI GPU, fabricated at a 7nm node and capable of battling with NVI... DX12: Metro: EXODUS




					www.guru3d.com


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 7, 2019)

Seems like for the sites where the 5700XT performs better the temps reported at which the GPU runs are also much lower, Anadtech got 82c out of their sample and in Metro Exodus for example the performance they get is pretty much identical to the 2070 Super.

I find it hard to believe that at 91c this doesn't throttle like hell, something is terribly amiss here.

Going by Anandtech, this is almost equal to a 2070 Super while being 100$ cheaper, that changes things massively.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

AMD gave reviewers like 3 drivers over the cours of a week. The second driver, iirc, had some improvements. The 3rd driver, they did not request a retest on but it helped overclocking(?).

TPU appears to be using the first driver (19.5.1) vs guru vs 19.7.x? Maybe that is it....? @W1zzard 

That said our reviewer (ocf, not tpu) didnt find a big difference between the first and second iirc... sadly we missed the boat on the super so only had the regular to compare to.


----------



## tfdsaf (Jul 7, 2019)

Great performance across the board, seems like TPU got some bad samples that were probably damaged during shipping and are running absurdly hot. ALL other review sites reported much lower temperatures, in line with what we are used to and in line with Nvidia's offerings.

All in all the RX 5700 beats the RTX 2060 by 5%, while being the same price and has lower power consumption. 

RX 5700XT beats the RTX 2060 super by about 5% at the same $400 price point, beats the RTX 2070 by 1% for $80 less.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> AMD gave reviewers like 3 drivers. The second driver, iirc, had some improvements, the 3rd driver, they did not request a retest on but it helped overclocking.
> 
> TPU appears to be using the first driver (19.5.1) vs guru vs 19.7.x? Maybe that is it....? @W1zzard
> 
> That said our reviewer didnt find a big difference between them..


We used 19.7.1 as indicated in the test setup table, changed from "19.30.01.09-Adrenalin-19.71-July4" to "19.30.01.09 Adrenalin 19.7.1 July 4" to make it easier to see


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> We used 19.7.1 as indicated in the test setup table, let me add "19.7.1" there and not just the version


The 5700 review said 19.5.1 beta and why I said that. I have a tab up for proof but cant attach, lol.

I cant add an imagine in mobile chrome??? None of the buttons in the reply box work...even in desktop mode...


----------



## unikin (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> We used 19.7.1 as indicated in the test setup table, changed from "19.30.01.09-Adrenalin-19.71-July4" to "19.30.01.09 Adrenalin 19.7.1 July 4" to make it easier to see



Please retest it. There is something wrong. Anandtech also has RX 5700XT exchanging blows with RTX 2070 SUPER/GTX 1080TI. Super is still faster but by much smaller margin. Thermal throttling on your sample maybe?


----------



## kings (Jul 7, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> 2 year old GCN iteration is inferior to Navi. Crazy, right ? Stupid AMD, should have waited for a couple more years so that everything else becomes ancient.



Do you buy architectures or performance?

Fact is that, AMD has released a high-end card for $699, and 5 months later is almost irrelevant to a card that costs $300 less.

Nvidia has released a high-end card for $699, which at the end of 9 months was irrelevant to one that costs $200 less.

What is the difference to the consumer? None! Both paid a lot of money for a high-end card that in a short time devalued a lot.

Nobody said that the newest cards should not be better, it's natural that they are, technology advances.


PS: Let me add this to the post to be clear... I'm not criticizing AMD, it's good that we get more performance for less money.

I just don´t like double standards that when it's with Nvidia it's bad, when it's with AMD, everything's fine! That's all I wanted to say, nothing more.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I cant add an imagine in mobile chrome??? None of the buttons in the reply box work...even in desktop mode...
> 
> Anyway, the 5700 review said 19.5.1 beta and why I said that. I have a tab up for proof but cant attach, lol.


Please look at the table for 5 seconds, you'll figure it out


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Please look at the table for 5 seconds, you'll figure it out


Nope. Clear it up, please.


....it took 10 seconds... I see now. Lololol. Apologies!

But yeah, dont list it in two different ways.. it confuses the slow (looking in mirror).


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Nope. Clear it up, please.
> 
> 
> ....it took 10 seconds... I see now. Lololol. Apologies!
> ...


I reworded it once again, just for you


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I reworded it once again, just for you


Thanks, dad. Now it says 19.7.1 and is clear.


----------



## mastershake575 (Jul 7, 2019)

unikin said:


> Please retest it. There is something wrong. Anandtech also has RX 5700XT exchanging blows with RTX 2070 SUPER/GTX 1080TI. Super is still faster but by much smaller margin. Thermal throttling on your sample maybe?


 Retest will be when third party coolers come out (should be some more mature drivers as well).

Reviews are all over the place (new drivers, new architecture, thermal issues, game selection) so where probably just gonna have to wait it out.

I don't think him re-reviewing it this exact moment will help up when literally all the reviews posted today are saying different things (the range is huge, i'm hearing literally losing to regular 2060 in a handful of games all the way to barely slower on average than a 2070S)


----------



## unikin (Jul 7, 2019)

mastershake575 said:


> Retest will be when third party coolers come out (should be some more mature drivers as well).
> 
> Reviews are all over the place (new drivers, new architecture, thermal issues, game selection) so where probably just gonna have to wait it out.
> 
> I don't think him re-reviewing it this exact moment will help up when literally all the reviews posted today are saying different things



Just retesting one game in open case with good ventilation would be needed to see if we're dealing with thermal throttling. Not a lot of work.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Jul 7, 2019)

rrrrex said:


> It's so bad for a new arcitecture, perf per watt is still lower than gtx 10x0 (7nm vs 16nm). Pretty close to vega vii. Let me hope that navi isn't full rdna.


No it is not. In the power for performance page, the RX5700 had similar power for perf as the GTX2060 and 2070s. The RX5700 XT had slightly worse but overall a bit better than the GTX10X0s. These new AMD cards have roughly comparable efficency to Pascal and Turing.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2019)

Hey @W1zzard, how’s the multi GPU performance with these

I’m planning to replace my 2070 with the 5700XT but I’m currently running triple 1920x1200 monitors


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

Durvelle27 said:


> how’s the multi GPU performance with these


It's excellent and works in all games. Have you read the review or the frontpage news?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> It's excellent and works in all games. Have you read the review or the frontpage news?


My bad @W1zzard 

I meant multi monitor


----------



## roccale (Jul 7, 2019)

Really a bad advertisement for 7nm. They use 28nm voltages on a 7nm to recover clock.
A scandal.


----------



## raptori (Jul 7, 2019)

Good performance and good price but those temps are confusing considering other sites have 76c at load and 82c at load also and 84c at Furmark !!

@ W1zzard I have a question for reference did you test the card (especially thermals) after you replaced the Hitachi thermal pad ?


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2019)

tfdsaf said:


> Great performance across the board, seems like TPU got some bad samples that were probably damaged during shipping and are running absurdly hot. ALL other review sites reported much lower temperatures, in line with what we are used to and in line with Nvidia's offerings.
> 
> All in all the RX 5700 beats the RTX 2060 by 5%, while being the same price and has lower power consumption.


It all depends on which temperature measurement they rely on. GamersNexsus achieved similar high temperatures.

RX 5700 XT is much hotter than Nvidia's offerings, and has higher power consumption.



tfdsaf said:


> RX 5700XT beats the RTX 2060 super by about 5% at the same $400 price point


At the $400 price point RX 5700 XT marginally outperforms RTX 2060 Super, but would you seriously buy a hot and noisy card?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2019)

raptori said:


> Good performance and good price but those temps are confusing considering other sites have 76c at load and 82c at load also and 84c at Furmark !!
> 
> @ W1zzard I have a question for reference did you test the card (especially thermals) after you replaced the Hitachi thermal pad ?


Of course not


----------



## A.Stables (Jul 7, 2019)

yep as usual smth off with a radeon card here  saw it with super review and numbers (radeon 7/ Vega numbers)  and as 5700 hits ... as before (vega polaris) Noisy hot AMD from TPU .. is mention again. Steve @ hware ubxoed killed his CPU does that mean all 3900x are the same easy to kill .. ffs TPU sort it out.

*Edit a bit of reference









						AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and RX 5700
					

The world's first Navi GPUs analysed, benchmarked and rated.




					www.hexus.net
				












						AMD Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT review
					

In this review, we look at the two new graphics cards released by AMD, the Radeon 5700 and 5700 XT. Both cards are based on the new NAVI GPU, fabricated at a 7nm node and capable of battling with NVI... Graphics Card Acoustic Levels




					www.guru3d.com


----------



## 64K (Jul 7, 2019)

That's what the speculation was. That the RX 5700 XT would come in somewhere around a RTX 2070. Looking at the price chart it seems it will cost $80 less than the 2070.


----------



## natr0n (Jul 7, 2019)

AMD cards always need mature driver support otherwise nightmares are bound to happen.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 7, 2019)

I do wish the reviews would expand on the following conclusion.

"....beats RTX 2070 ...."  yeah, it does outta the box, but not when both cards are overclocked.

From TPU graphs ....

*@ 1080p ....*

5700XT gets a 100% x 118.1 OCd / 111.8 Stock = 105.63
RTX 2700 gets a 99%  x 138.7 / 128.3 OCd / 111.8 Stock = 107.02 ... *1.5 % faster the 5700XT*

*@ 1440p ....*

5700XT gets a 100% x 118.1 / 111.8 = 105.63
RTX 2700 gets a 99%  x 138.7 / 128.3 = 105.94  ... *0.2 % faster the 5700XT*

@ 2160p ....

5700XT gets a 100% x 118.1 / 111.8 = 105.63
RTX 2700 gets a 100%  x 138.7 / 128.3 = 108.11  ...* 2.3 % faster the 5700XT*

I'm not saying get rid of the stock numbers and use the OC instead.   No review would be complete without the performance numbers out of the box.  But, since the audience here overwhelmingly OCs their cards, the relativew performance with OC is actually what card selection will be based upon

As far as the 5% lead I saw several times in this thread, the TPU charts show 0%, 1% and 2%.  ,  In addition , a) that's out of the box, b) cards OC'd where ?

1080p = 100 / 99  - h ttps://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/images/relative-performance_1920-1080.png
1440p = 100/ 98 - h ttps://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png
2160p = 100 / 100  h ttps://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/images/relative-performance_3840-2160.png

... and c) *the 5700 XT loses* at all resolutions with both cards OC'd

Still, just reading this for curiosity's sake ... have to wait for the AIB cards on both sides in August to have their reviews out.  It's not like non AIB cards have are something I'd ever recommend.   But the temps and sound are untenable options at this point.... If AIB versions of the 5700XT can significantly improve on this and keep the performance deficit when compared to nvidia small when all cards are over clocked, they could cut into nvidias dominance  in this segment if they  they will remain $50 - $75 cheaper.

A for the sound thing... folks are confusing things ... while +3dB is effectively a doubling of sound pressure level + 10 dbA is a twofold in creases in perceived sound

+ 3 dbA = doubling of power level
+6 dbA = doubling of amplitude
+10 dbA = doubling of loudness

As for pricing ... speculation at this point is just that.

a)  Is anyone actually planning to buy a "reference card ?
b)  The AIB cards will have better numbers so why talk proce of cards you won't buy ?
c)  The "I need to be the 1st one on my block to have the new shiny thing " crowd will keep prices high fpr at least 6 weeks and a lot of this "I only buy (red of green) team stuff".

Here, we won't be recommending any new cards till mid to late August at best.


----------



## Markosz (Jul 7, 2019)

Seems like most of the negatives comes from this horrible reference card design.
The chip itself seems pretty good, but we really need some third party card designs to see what is possible.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2019)

Partner cards can deal with the noise and temperature problems, but everything else is going to stay pretty much the same.


----------



## Xaled (Jul 7, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Partner cards can deal with the noise and temperature problems, but everything else is going to stay pretty much the same.


5700s performance may improve with new drivers because it's new gpu, while Nvidias cards are not.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 7, 2019)

Xaled said:


> 5700s performance may improve with new drivers because it's new gpu, while Nvidias cards are not.


Ahh, there it is, I was waiting for someone to mention the mythical missing AMD driver.
We hear this excuse with every new generation from AMD; don't judge it yet, it will improve over time.
The truth is that AMD's drivers improve no more than Nvidia's over time, and the expectations shouldn't be too great since Navi isn't a huge architectural change.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2019)

efikkan said:


> We hear this excuse with every new generation


FTFY. People on both sides of the fence say this... though one side of the fence screams louder because their marketing diety likes 'fine wine'. 

From an article covering it...



> Think of it this way, at 60 FPS a 5% advantage is only maybe 3 FPS? Free performance is great, we’ll take all we can get, but anything under 10% is impossible to notice in the real-world while gaming. This goes to show a couple of important facts. Drivers are not going to be the miracle answer to a video card’s performance over time.
> 
> This is good because on the one hand you are getting most of the potential out of the video card from the start. On the other hand, if you aren’t happy with that performance, then there isn’t much hope (at least as far as our testing has proven) that the performance profile of the video card will vastly improve over time.
> 
> Is this Fine Wine? That of course is very subjective and up to your interpretation.



Don't hold your breath for anything noticable outside of a title that needs to be 'fixed' which is not a result of maturation.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 8, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> FTFY. People on both sides of the fence say this... though one sode.of the fence screams louder because their marketing diety likes 'fine wine'.


I was actually serious. 
On the driver side, Navi uses the same old GCN driver with some minor tweaks, so the core driver should be very "mature". In fact, probably the most "mature" they've ever released. There isn't anything in the driver to optimize for Navi as it uses the same ISA. There might be improvements in the driver over time, but this will be general improvements unrelated to Navi.


----------



## Animalpak (Jul 8, 2019)

Thanks wizzard and TPU staff for the review... 

AMD nothing new mate... You still behind the green team.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 8, 2019)

efikkan said:


> I was actually serious.


And so was I.


----------



## tajoh111 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xaled said:


> Giving an overpriced card like 2060 Super gold award while again asking for a lower price for a card that kicks it's ass.
> 
> İmo AMD should once again stop sending review samples to TPU for while.



Ridiculous accusation there. It's a changed market place since the release of super which is why it is better to release earlier than the competitor(it's also why AMD dropped the price of these cards). 

Additionally being a pain in the ass to benchmark because of driver issues and dropping a new driver just 30 hours prior to review embargo isn't doing reviewers any favors. It is likely to effect your score. 










Gamers nexus also encountered issues when it came to drivers, noise and heat. 

If AMD stopped sending reviews samples to techpowerup because they don't have the royal carpet thrown out for them it is there loss. TPU is one of the most viewed review websites easily. 

Reviewers are already accommodating them enough by not being given permanent review samples they have to share, being given last minute drivers(Radeon VII launch and this launch) and putting up with BS like that the Vega 56 officially dropped to 250 when the GTX 1660 ti launch.

On top of this, I see unreasonable requests, like testing an AMD platform on top of a Intel platform for videocard launches, removing highly popular game titles that AMD cards don't do well in. Don't test too many cards using unreal engine. Undervolting AMD cards to find their optimum power efficiency, rereview cards cards 2 months after launch so AMD cards are given more time to mature. Literally the royal carpet treatment when they are treating reviewers like dirt. The last minute drivers before launch embargoes are a spit in the face of reviewers because it forces reviewers to do twice as much work.

So if AMD stops sending samples to techpowerup because the royal carpet is not thrown around them, it is their loss because reviewers are accommodating enough to them and a loss of review exposure on one of the biggest tech websites out there. And when a big website gets excluded because of AMD feels they are not get a fair shake(Fury nano), that says alot more about them if one of those websites is techpowerup.


----------



## Naito (Jul 8, 2019)

I'm wondering how much of this is caused be the driver? If the driver has much to do with the power states of the card and it is not working correctly, it may cause a 'snowball' effect. Inefficient management could mean higher voltages, high voltages means more power and heat, which in turn, generally causes further increases in voltage as the card tries to stabilize.  The overall power draw of the looks decent to me, aside from multi-monitor is tad high, but I again wonder if drivers could temper that more towards the Vega levels as opposed to Polaris levels? Worse case is that the quality of the first batch of 7nm dies are good, but not great. It's probably more likely that AMDs cooler, along with the early drivers, are just not up to scratch.

As I said earlier, I think these cards are very competitive and will only improve further when the AIB cards hit the market and the drivers mature (and that's coming from a long-term Nvidia fan - haven't had a red team card since my X1950 Pro AGP).


----------



## 64K (Jul 8, 2019)

tajoh111 said:


> Undervolting AMD cards to find their optimum power efficiency, rereview cards cards 2 months after launch so AMD cards are given more time to mature.



I've seen this before but the thing I wonder about is why AMD doesn't do this already if it has a good impact on performance. Maybe they don't  it's a good idea to undervolt their cards for reasons we don't know about also it's very time consuming to review cards. Maybe there are not enough hours to do this and keep up with new card reviews.




tajoh111 said:


> Don't test too many cards using unreal engine.



Unreal is the most popular game engine with Developers.






						List of Unreal Engine games - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Minus Infinity (Jul 8, 2019)

Given how poor the drivers currently are I'd say the 5700XT is a viable option as long as the third party cards with better cooling solutions don't end up at 2070 super prices. If the drivers can improve things and you can get the 5700XT custom board for $449 with only a few 5% deficit to 2070 Super it looks decent value. I'm in no rush to upgrade my 1070 so hopefully over the next month or so we'll have a better picture of the 5700 twins. If performance doesn't improve much I'll definitely pay the 2070 super premium.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Jul 8, 2019)

even with everything in the review, I want this over my 2060. I wish the super cards weren't released as it felt like a big slap in the face to me, will probably sell 2060 for this once I see a sapphire cooler come into play or xfx


----------



## A.Stables (Jul 8, 2019)

Navi is looking really good imo, New arch, lets see how software adapts and of course OS/driver/API optimisations.
also 







 really cool.

This release reminds me of Zen1 launch a bit rough around edges but you can see the perf is there, and I suppose the 3870 in some ways.


----------



## wolf (Jul 8, 2019)

AMD has come a seriously long way with this card. It's impressive on a few levels but unfortunately a disappointment on others. Here's hoping in a few months AIB partner cards with excellent coolers and slightly more mature drivers bring it up to it's full potential. 

Yet to find anything compelling enough to draw me into the market to replace my undervolted and overclocked GTX1080. I think the next 12-18 months the GPU market is going to be a ripper though.


----------



## Eric3988 (Jul 8, 2019)

Finally an impressive showing by AMD. If it weren't for the heat and sound issues I'd say they hit a home run. Hopefully the aib cards will take care of that for a reasonable price.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 8, 2019)

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT review
					

A compelling blend of 7nm tech, RDNA architecture updates, and a last minute price drop.




					www.pcgamer.com
				




@W1zzard we were talking about testing the cards at lower settings, well PCGamer did the work for you, Medium setting preset.  oddly enough at 1080p the results are interesting, showing the 2070 super destroying the 5700 xt, versus just leaving settings on ultra.  very interesting really.  some of those ultra settings are just unrealistic performance hindering, skewing the more realistic results common gamers might see. i do wish they did high settings though not medium or ultra.  bit of a shame.


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2019)

A.Stables said:


> Navi is looking really good imo, New arch, lets see how software adapts and of course OS/driver/API optimisations.
> also
> 
> 
> ...



There's no way 5700XT is faster than 2080Ti for gaming + streaming when that card is so much slower for gaming. Something else is going on and tests should be conducted in order to figure out what exactly that something is.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 8, 2019)

HTC said:


> There's no way 5700XT is faster than 2080Ti for gaming + streaming when that card is so much slower for gaming. Something else is going on and tests should be conducted in order to figure out what exactly that something is.



it's faster in Battlefield V and I think DOOM 2016.  those are the only two and only when Vulkan/DX12 enabled.  but yeah 2 games out of hundreds isn't saying much.

but yeah if more developers would go to Vulkan, the 5700 XT would beat the 2080 ti in those games.  sadly that probably will never happen. or at least it is very slow going.


----------



## A.Stables (Jul 8, 2019)

HTC said:


> There's no way 5700XT is faster than 2080Ti for gaming + streaming when that card is so much slower for gaming. Something else is going on and tests should be conducted in order to figure out what exactly that something is.



Did you actually watch the video?


----------



## rvalencia (Jul 8, 2019)

efikkan said:


> I was actually serious.
> On the driver side, Navi uses the same old GCN driver with some minor tweaks, so the core driver should be very "mature". In fact, probably the most "mature" they've ever released. There isn't anything in the driver to optimize for *Navi as it uses the same ISA.* There might be improvements in the driver over time, but this will be general improvements unrelated to Navi.


NAVI has single clock cycle wave32 and two clock cycle wave64 compute length support while GCN has four clock cycle wave64.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 8, 2019)




----------



## HwGeek (Jul 8, 2019)

*Radeon RX 5700 XT with an EKWB RX 5700 easily overclocked to 2.1 GHz [Max MSI AB limit]*








						igor´sLAB | PC & Components | Reviews & News
					

PC & Components | Reviews &




					www.tomshw.de
				











						EK-Vector Blocks Engineered for AMD Navi GPUs - ekwb.com
					

EK® Water Blocks, the leading premium computer liquid cooling gear manufacturer, is releasing two EK-Vector Radeon™ RX 5700 +XT water blocks that are compatible with reference design AMD® Radeon™ RX 5700 and 5700 XT graphics cards. This efficient and elegant-looking cooling will allow your...




					www.ekwb.com


----------



## ratirt (Jul 8, 2019)

I'd like to see the performance of the 5700XT when paired with a ryzen 3700 or 3800. Or any ryzen actually. Wonder if there's any difference in performance compared to previous ryzen generations CPUs.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

Did you test about feature : Anti-lag ?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 8, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I'd like to see the performance of the 5700XT when paired with a ryzen 3700 or 3800. Or any ryzen actually. Wonder if there's any difference in performance compared to previous ryzen generations CPUs.


check the pcie scaling article


----------



## Midland Dog (Jul 8, 2019)

i want a comparison between the 57000 and the 580/590 at the same frequency


----------



## efikkan (Jul 8, 2019)

Naito said:


> I'm wondering how much of this is caused be the driver? If the driver has much to do with the power states of the card and it is not working correctly, it may cause a 'snowball' effect. Inefficient management could mean higher voltages, high voltages means more power and heat, which in turn, generally causes further increases in voltage as the card tries to stabilize.<snip> Worse case is that the quality of the first batch of 7nm dies are good, but not great. It's probably more likely that AMDs cooler, along with the early drivers, are just not up to scratch.


Managing power states is more a firmware thing than a driver thing.
While uncalibrated power states certainly can cause unnecessary power consumption, this should be one of the first things they calibrate. And considering how delayed Navi has been, I don't see any reason why they left this uncalibrated.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> check the pcie scaling article


Some of the games are better on intel and some not. Depending on the game. The most significant difference is in F1. 1080p on Ryzen shows 50FPS more and 1440p 20fps more when you pair 5700XT with new Ryzen. Also Rage 2 shows some differences. Other games are basically same fps +- 0-3% difference. Civilization VI showed some noticeable differences as well.
I've compared some of the benchmarks from TPU RX 5700XT review and PCI-e 4.0 review. I need to go through all the games and see what the difference is.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 8, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Some of the games are better on intel and some not. Depending on the game. The most significant difference is in F1. 1080p on Ryzen shows 50FPS more and 1440p 20fps more when you pair 5700XT with new Ryzen. Also Rage 2 shows some differences. Other games are basically same fps +- 0-3% difference. Civilization VI showed some noticeable differences as well.
> I've compared some of the benchmarks from TPU RX 5700XT review and PCI-e 4.0 review. I will need to go through all the games and see what the difference is.


I'm not sure if F1 is comparable, because the game tends to reset settings on CPU change, which might explain why the FPS difference is so huge. You should be able to identify those cases by looking at 4K, which should really be within 1%, due to being completely GPU limited


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I'm not sure if F1 is comparable, because the game tends to reset settings on CPU change, which might explain why the FPS difference is so huge. You should be able to identify those cases by looking at 4K, which should really be within 1%, due to being completely GPU limited



I don't get why F1 is even tested, pretty sure less than 10% of this community plays that. Probably best to just pick best selling 15 games in last 2 years by volume/profit. I don't know honestly, /shrug I am sure you and other sites have your reasons


----------



## ratirt (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> I'm not sure if F1 is comparable, because the game tends to reset settings on CPU change, which might explain why the FPS difference is so huge. You should be able to identify those cases by looking at 4K, which should really be within 1%, due to being completely GPU limited


Well I didn't mention 4k since the percentage of difference was very small. Either way I will look over all of the benchmarks to see if there is any difference. Thanks 



lynx29 said:


> I don't get why F1 is even tested, pretty sure less than 10% of this community plays that. Probably best to just pick best selling 15 games in last 2 years by volume/profit. I don't know honestly, /shrug I am sure you and other sites have your reasons


Benchmarking was never about to test newest games but to test variety of different games kinds which may have (I assume) different impact on the GPU itself and processor. 
Newest games are mostly glitchy and are not mature enough for optimal or correct FPS number. They need some tweaking.


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

Review puts lack of CrossFire in the negatives category, then writes:

"Abolishing CrossFire support might seem sad at first, but I think it's actually a good thing."

Which is it? Is it a positive or is it a negative?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> Review puts lack of CrossFire in the negatives category, then writes:
> 
> "Abolishing CrossFire support might seem sad at first, but I think it's actually a good thing."
> 
> Which is it? Is it a positive or is it a negative?


Good question, what do you think? "think" is the whole goal of my reviews, I'm not trying to decide for you


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Good question, what do you think? "think" is the whole goal of my reviews, I'm not trying to decide for you



I think it is positive, its too few games anyway, and now developers can consistently put more effort into single gpu performance instead of trying to do to much at once and wasting precious resources during game development.


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Good question, what do you think? "think" is the whole goal of my reviews, I'm not trying to decide for you


Then the logical course of action is to place the CrossFire issue into a neutral visual category or to list it in both the positive and negative visual categories — while not stating that it's solely a positive in the summary text.

As the review appears currently, it is contradicting itself.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> Then the logical course of action is to place the CrossFire issue into a neutral visual category and/or to list it in both the positive and negative visual categories — while not stating that it's a positive in the summary text.
> 
> As the review appears currently, it is contradicting itself.


we don't have a neutral category, i usually leave out things that are in-between, but many people just scan through the pro/con list, that's why i included it. not sure if it even matters, as long as people are aware. this is similar to the "no dvi output" discussion in the past, or "no analog vga"


----------



## RichF (Jul 8, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> we don't have a neutral category, i usually leave out things that are in-between, but many people just scan through the pro/con list, that's why i included it. not sure if it even matters, as long as people are aware. this is similar to the "no dvi output" discussion in the past, or "no analog vga"


I realize that there is no neutral category which is why I gave two options that would resolve the contradiction. Only one of them involves creating a separate neutral visual category.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 8, 2019)

Just re-posting some of my previous ones before my final verdict on the Navi GPUs


HD64G said:


> I hope most here have already undrestood what the slides show. +25% IPC means that the comparison between 5700 vs Vega64 without core clocks mentioned gives a +25% advantage in performance to Navi, being 50% more efficient at the same time. To make things simple, if we put those numbers on the diagrams from the latest @W1zzard GPU test 5700 sits exactly between the 2070 and the Radeon7 and consumes about 200W. If price is good, that will be a great product. As for Real time tracing, not any GPU has the power yet to allow that feature maxed out to run constantly over 60FPS in big resolution. So, for 2020 the big Navi might be the one for that.





HD64G said:


> 1) If AMD's performance slides are real, we are talking about a GPU having the same performance as Radeon VII and being sold for much less, while beating 2070 and costing less also. When nVidia lowers the prices, AMD will have the ability to lower theirs too. Competition lowers the prices, not wishes. Be real people.
> 2) Reference cooler is the best for cases that don't have great airflow and it is to protect the product from damage due to the pc onwer ignorance on this aspect of pc building Custom models wil come soon.


So, the price after the last minute reduction is good (1080Ti/2070S/2080/Radeon VII performance for much less money) but not great for a Polaris successor. Efficiency could be better but it is top-notch taking advantage of the 7nm process and the new arch. Maybe some smaller dies will do even better when they come out later. All in all a great product to bring more competition in the GPU market so kudos to AMD. Custom 5700XTs will shine and allow for big oc. And imho, the big Navi can challenge for the top performance tier if it comes out soon enough.


----------



## Xuper (Jul 8, 2019)

here we go .AMD ruined the whole RX 5700 series.....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148113823137533952
67'c ,  That's damn good.


----------



## Turmania (Jul 9, 2019)

TPU used to test World of Warcraft before. Haven't seen them tested for a while.is there a specific reason for it? I know that game is hard to test as it is affected by many things but it is the one I play the most...


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 9, 2019)

Turmania said:


> TPU used to test World of Warcraft before. Haven't seen them tested for a while.is there a specific reason for it? I know that game is hard to test as it is affected by many things but it is the one I play the most...


Always online, requires internet connection, no single player, patches can happen at any time, invaliding all data. and really not a lot of people complained. You're the third one so far


----------



## efikkan (Jul 9, 2019)

I do believe the goal is to have a reasonable sized representative selection of relevant games. I don't think you can get everyone agreeing on which games this should be, but that shouldn't really matter as long as you have a decent amount of relevant games, enough to even out any outliers. So even if my personal picks may be missing, it shouldn't matter, as it still gives me a clear idea of the relative performance between products, and that is the primary thing buyers need to know.


----------



## Turmania (Jul 9, 2019)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the reasons for not reviewing it anymore, but those reasons stood the same when you were reviewing before, but please do not take it as I'm complaining or etc...I just wanted to end my curiousity.thanks.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 9, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I understand the reasons for not reviewing it anymore, but those reasons stood the same when you were reviewing before, but please do not take it as I'm complaining or etc...I just wanted to end my curiousity.thanks.


No worries, always appreciate questions and feedback. Back then WOW was much more popular, and I thought I could manage the reasons, but at some point got tired, and kicked it out


----------



## Footman (Jul 10, 2019)

Nice upgrade for my Vega 64.
The high temps don't worry me as I'll be sticking this under water.
Now just have to find a good home for the Vega 64 and EK waterblock


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 10, 2019)

What's with the crappy performance on the 10x0 cards from nVidia??? Are they pulling again driver slowdowns???


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 10, 2019)

Prima.Vera said:


> Are they pulling again driver slowdowns???


This was proven otherwise previously.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 10, 2019)

Footman said:


> Nice upgrade for my Vega 64.
> The high temps don't worry me as I'll be sticking this under water.
> Now just have to find a good home for the Vega 64 and EK waterblock


Yeah while I’m not disappointed I’m my Vega 64s performance this is definitely tempting.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 10, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Yeah while I’m not disappointed I’m my Vega 64s performance this is definitely tempting.





Footman said:


> Nice upgrade for my Vega 64.
> The high temps don't worry me as I'll be sticking this under water.
> Now just have to find a good home for the Vega 64 and EK waterblock


I think I'm going to wait for the higher end cards. It is an improvement but I'm going to end up buying the fastest NAVI AMD card so I don't think buying this one makes sense.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 10, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I think I'm going to wait for the higher end cards. It is an improvement but I'm going to end up buying the fastest NAVI AMD card so I don't think buying this one makes sense.


Yeah I mean I game at 1440 and don’t really have any complaints so yeah hold on for “Big Navi” isn’t unreasonable


----------



## tfdsaf (Jul 10, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> I do wish the reviews would expand on the following conclusion.
> 
> "....beats RTX 2070 ...."  yeah, it does outta the box, but not when both cards are overclocked.
> 
> ...


Literally 99% of the population doesn't OC their graphic cards. Most don't even update drivers if windows doesn't do it for them. So to say that testing needs to be done on OC'ed cards, possibly with GPU samples that are hand picked and press drivers that allow for much better OC is absurd and stupid. If tech sites want to do OC reviews, they should buy 3rd party cards and test them on public drivers released for the masses. 

But we know that RX 5000 series have issues overclocking and that the drivers are not mature enough, its absurd to base any conclusion on overclock results right now.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 10, 2019)

tfdsaf said:


> Literally 99% of the population doesn't OC their graphic cards. Most don't even update drivers if windows doesn't do it for them. So to say that testing needs to be done on OC'ed cards, possibly with GPU samples that are hand picked and press drivers that allow for much better OC is absurd and stupid. If tech sites want to do OC reviews, they should buy 3rd party cards and test them on public drivers released for the masses.
> 
> But we know that RX 5000 series have issues overclocking and that the drivers are not mature enough, its absurd to base any conclusion on overclock results right now.


I agree. OC is an added value. 
With that mature drivers I wouldn't go that far. Even if it's not matured yet, I'm pretty certain if the maturity of the drivers hit the roof, the performance wouldn't get as much gain as you think it would.


----------



## HwGeek (Jul 11, 2019)

So yo can get 30% performance uplift without quality lose or double the FPS with slight Image softness thanks to Navis Image sharpening, all this with a clock of a button, unlike DLSS .
And you are right, sub 200$ GPU's will be able to get RTX 2060Super and 2070Super performance with this RIS upscaler.


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 11, 2019)

Given the wildly varying temperatures in reviews around, it would seem the QC on the cooler mating surface is as poor as it seems to be on the R VII, hence the pad to sort of compensate for poor craftsmanship. Stumbled across this trying to find some other info on my R VII and could explain some of the 5700 variances - 




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/arrxt2


----------



## Super XP (Jul 12, 2019)

AMD finally has a GPU that competes very well against Nvidia and gives people another option. That said, the Blower Style Cooler needs to GO. Not sure what AMD is thinking but I ain't buying this, I am going to wait for the Custom Coolers by Sapphire and PowerColour.



Restless_Hero said:


> No, it was fairly obvious from the start that the XT would perform more or less in line with the vanilla 2070 (and thus a tad faster than the 2060S). The way things stand now, I can't think of a single reason to go for the red card which is clearly inferior feature-wise and runs red-hot out of the box with literally no extra room for overclocking. Zen 2 CPUs, on the other hand, appear a really strong product, so it's quite likely my next build will be an AMD+Nvidia combo for the first time in my life.


I'm going for the 5700 XT with custom cooling by either Sapphire or PowerColour. 
No way would I buy an Nvidia GPU after that GPP nonsense they tried to push forth and backfired for obvious reasons.


----------



## Marecki_CLF (Jul 19, 2019)

Xuper said:


> 92'c?  wow.so much for 7nm , when you go lower nm , You will get more hard cap.I don't expect 5 nm or 3 nm to give miracle.


RX5700XT runs at 1.2V at default, which is insanely high. Dropping the core voltage to 1.0V results in 72C under load and fan speed at 2000-2400RPM. At this setting the card holds boost clock of around 1820-1830MHz and consumes roughly 155W.


----------



## Dave65 (Jul 19, 2019)

The card is great, the cooler BLOWS, literally

Id buy one or trade one of my 1080 tis for one just to play around with.


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 19, 2019)

Agent_D said:


> Given the wildly varying temperatures in reviews around, it would seem the QC on the cooler mating surface is as poor as it seems to be on the R VII, hence the pad to sort of compensate for poor craftsmanship. Stumbled across this trying to find some other info on my R VII and could explain some of the 5700 variances -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll still have to get my hands on a 5700xt for testing this out, but it is definitely a YMMV type thing. On my R VII I only saw drops of ~5-10c off junction temps with a lapping job on the stock cooler, however, I just did a fairly quick lapping on my girlfriends Vega 56 (flashed to 64) 2 days ago and saw the junction temps drop 25-35c depending on loads. If you're going to have the heatsink off anyways, worth the few bucks and 30 minutes of labor (probably a bit more if you got a really poor machining job).


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 25, 2019)

Mine should be here within a week


----------



## Wonderer (Jul 25, 2019)

Xuper said:


> RX 5700 XT's temp :
> Kitguru = 80'c
> Computerbase = 85'c
> overclock3d = 68'c
> ...





W1zzard said:


> I had to lol, maybe with fan at 100%


You mean that Your card did not go fan 100% and temps were 92 degrees? Or what are You implying?

Well now, if I may ask, did You experience or notice something like Techspot in their review?
*



			Temperature & Overclocking
		
Click to expand...

*


> Out of the box the Radeon RX 5700 XT runs at 84 degrees and maintains a core clock speed of 1740 MHz and a memory speed of 872 MHz which is basically 14 Gbps. The blower fan typically spun at 2100 RPM in our testing.
> Overclocking the 5700 XT saw the core peak at just over 1940 MHz but at times would still drop as low as 1720 MHz and on average we saw a clock speed of 1860 MHz, which is a ~10% overclock. The massive fluctuation was due to the almost 90 degree operating temperature, at 88 degrees the GPU tends to throttle and with the fan running at 43% or 2100 RPM, there was room to move. As for the memory, we were only able to get the GDDR6 up to a transfer speed of 14.3 Gbps, so that was a bit disappointing.
> 
> With the core clock jumping all over the place we decided to crank the fan up to 100% -- where it’s incredibly noisy as it spun at 4600 RPM -- in this scenario the GPU peaked at 70 degrees and the 5700 XT was able to maintain a core clock speed of over 2 GHz at all times. That’s about a 20% overclock from stock, I reckon liquid cooling is going to be a popular option for these 5700 XT graphics cards.
> As for the standard 5700, out of the box it ran at 75 degrees with a fan speed of 1900 RPM and maintained a typical operating frequency of 1670 MHz. Then when overclocked with the auto fan speed it hit 85 degrees, but the fan was only spinning at 1600 RPM. We can assume this is a bug with the early revision drivers.


I mean if You were also at their temps and fan did NOT crank up, then You had thermal throttling also and couldn't get everything out of the card?

As far as I can see in the fan speed did not go to 100% when You were testing it and it was throttling?





Why? Care to retest with proper fan speeds, if I ask kindly?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 25, 2019)

Wonderer said:


> You mean that Your card did not go fan 100% and temps were 92 degrees? Or what are You implying?


look at the text that i quoted


----------



## Super XP (Jul 25, 2019)

Durvelle27 said:


> Mine should be here within a week


I'll be waiting for custom cooling solutions, from Sapphire as my #1 choice then ASRock and PowerColour as secondary choices depending on the price of course. 
A blower Style cooler was a mistake by AMD unfortunately, not sure why they continue to come out with this type of cooling solution. Not to mention, the temps are high because the steel plate is not sitting properly and the chip is getting about 10C to 20C more hotter than it should. This was tested on another site. Don't remember the name ATM.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 25, 2019)

AMD seem to mess up launches time and time again, all this time waiting for Navi, and again the custom solutions aren't availble for weeks or even months later.

At least the team that creates the vast array of Powerpoint slides (with fake MSRP's) are kept busy.


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 27, 2019)

I have a 5700XT with reference design. (Blower).

I have a case properly vented (NZXT S340) and after many hours of playing, the temps didn't exceed 72 / 73°. With a little noise (less than a Xbox One X).

If I oc my card (2120 MHz reported, ~2080Mhz real) the temps increase at 85°. I have manually tweak the fan curve. The noise increase too but it's acceptable.

So, the blower is not very good cooling but if you have a good batch for your card, it's correct with no real complain.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 27, 2019)

Those are more than acceptable temps for hours of game play. 
Hopefully moving forward,  AMD never releases a blower style cooling GPU again.


----------



## Wonderer (Jul 29, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> look at the text that i quoted


Excuse me, I might be little slow here, but I do not understand?

I am just asking, that is there something that I am missing here. Because IF the fan spins 42% of max, shouldn't it spin faster when it gets hotter? I mean like all the other cards start revving towards 100% when it gets hotter? Could You answer so that even I could understand, please?

Like stated here:


Xuper said:


> RX 5700 XT's temp :
> Kitguru = 80'c
> Computerbase = 85'c
> overclock3d = 68'c
> ...


All other expert/professional review sites plus those in quote, which I consider good and tend to read as well as TechPowerUp, got results as follows:
Anandtech = 82 (gaming) / 84 (Furmark) degrees of Celsius
Guru3D = 76 degrees of Celsius
eTeknix = 76 degrees of Celsius
Techspot = 84 degrees of Celsius (out of the box) and 20% overclock + fan 100%, 70 degrees of Celsius

So that 'chart' is really saying that depending on: open bench, measurement tools, silicon lottery etc., one should expect temps like 75 to 85, averaging 80 degrees. Approximately. And this new guy Eykxas above mentions about same levels of temps as stated elsewhere by so called 'users'. Only one result is very different and I find it quite strange.

Don't get me wrong. I have been following Your good reviews quite a long time and I am still considering to read the articles in the future. This is one of the best sites for quality reviews.
I am not trying to be rude or anything like that, forgive me.

Could AMD give You another card if faulty? or maybe it is something with the drivers, that the result is so different?

Can You please enlighten me, I just cannot understand.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 30, 2019)

Wonderer said:


> Because IF the fan spins 42% of max, shouldn't it spin faster when it gets hotter? I mean like all the other cards start revving towards 100% when it gets hotter


The BIOS is configured so that fan speed is limited to 42% / 2133 RPM, no matter how hot the card gets


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 30, 2019)

I have done some test, my card is crashing when it reached 90° (oc with slow fan). It seems ok for the GPU but the memory get too hot and it's crashing.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 30, 2019)

Eykxas said:


> I have done some test, my card is crashing when it reached 90° (oc with slow fan). It seems ok for the GPU but the memory get too hot and it's crashing.


Check hotspot, I think when it crosses 115°C, the card will shutdown/reboot


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 30, 2019)

I think too. I have done this test because TPU report 92° and I can't get this temp. It's weird.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 30, 2019)

Eykxas said:


> I think too. I have done this test because TPU report 92° and I can't get this temp. It's weird.


You got 90, I got 92, that's the same .. these temperature sensors are not super accurate, or maybe your room was 2°C cooler than mine


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 30, 2019)

But why my card get hotspot which can crash it and not yours ?

With the same temp.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 30, 2019)

Eykxas said:


> But why my card get hotspot which can crash it and not yours ?
> 
> With the same temp.


what's your hotspot temp? maybe your chip is just more sensitive to heat


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 30, 2019)

I don't know. I don't have any measuring device.

Just classic software (gpu-z, hwmonitor) which shows nothing.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 30, 2019)

Eykxas said:


> I don't know. I don't have any measuring device.
> 
> Just classic software (gpu-z, hwmonitor) which shows nothing.


latest gpu-z will show the hotspot temp, you might have to enable it in gpuz settings


----------



## Eykxas (Jul 30, 2019)

Ok, thanks. I'll try this tonight.


----------



## mtrai (Sep 23, 2019)

@W1zzard  Hey I just wanted to thank you for especially for the pcb spec and pics in this review.  You saved me a lot of time in a little project I am working on with the Navi gpus in general.  Once I get all the data I need and feel confident in I will share it here as well.  A little tease on it a pretty easy way may be possible to shave a few degrees off almost all the parts that register temps.  You pics really helped me understand how some of the parts were seeing lowing temp when they should not be affected by this tweak.


----------



## Adam Krazispeed (Jan 20, 2020)

"Essentially, they are identical to what we've seen on RX Vega and Radeon VII: 43 dBA. Part of the problem is that AMD insists on sticking with blower-type coolers, which simply aren't up to the task "

What?? yeah they are, the problem isn't the Blower cooler, its the Thermal pad AMD used for one. number two, AMD has a pis-spoor Fan profile that runs the fan SO SLOW... i can set my blower fan to 50% and get way better cooling , the bios never really spins the fan up much at all!!

2.2 in my PC case (a DEEPCOOL MATREXX 55) i cant even hardly here my GPU fan while gaming, if you use a headset, UR NOT GOING TO HEAR IT... mics are on the left ear (most of the time, if you have ur PC on that (left side) ur headset (mic) will not pick it up either... iv even checked this with fan set manually to 100% yeah that is very loud! but I do not care,

i wish AMD would have made the 5700 XT similar to the Vega 64 LC (Liquid Cooled) Version for the $449 50th Anniversary Edition $price tag!, i would have bought that one instead. 

but all well... im fine with the blower cards, and i actually prefer the AMD built (Reference Design) blower cooler cards over the customs cards, i have bought custom boards before (7870 Double D by XFX) it was complete JUNK.. the cooler sucked, it got hot, went back to AMD's Reference 7870 and i never went back to a custom card and i never WILL ever again.. had a saphire and or an xfx rx 480 and an EVGA GTX 1080 8GB Air cooled, i ended up geting a hybrid AIO kit for it, never looked back, done with custom PCbs, almost every single "Custom PCB" every single one either has FAILED, or needed to be modifed to prevent card from failing (aka water cooling it)

my 5700XT. im planing on installing an AIO on mine anyway... i have an old "ARCTIC ACCELERO Extreme III Hybrid aio (had on my Reference R9 290 4GB gpu and never had any issues even Overclocked my R9 290 gpu by 10% and core never got above 60C  i even removed teh copper vapour chamber off the AMD reference cooler frame and basicaly turned my AMD Ref. R9 290 in to an AMD Radeon R9 290 Hybrid 4GB GDDR5 Card... with the AMD shrowd cut out for the hoses to come out but was still stock looking, im gonna do the same thing to my 5700 XT (at some point) so it doesnt matter anyway blower or not... only because amd's fan profile is useless!


----------



## Super XP (Jan 20, 2020)

AMD's blower style coolers look horrible on top of the fan profile you mention. The Radeon VII cooler not only looks great, it does a great job cooling too.


----------

