# AMD Radeon RX 5500



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2019)

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

*Show full review*


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 22, 2019)

and the video of it being ran over?


----------



## jagjitnatt (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 22, 2019)

Actually better than I excepted.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## fancucker (Nov 22, 2019)

Great Review as always

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

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


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2019)

jagjitnatt said:


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


Fixed



fancucker said:


> anticipated price (180USD) is correct


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


----------



## trom89 (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Searing (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Deathy (Nov 22, 2019)

HD64G said:


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


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


----------



## HD64G (Nov 22, 2019)

Deathy said:


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


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


----------



## Deathy (Nov 22, 2019)

@HD64G: Interesting, thanks for the info!


HD64G said:


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


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


----------



## Turmania (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Deathy (Nov 22, 2019)

Turmania said:


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


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

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


----------



## Turmania (Nov 22, 2019)

Deathy said:


> You mean the card that launched a little over 3 years ago? On 16nm lithography? With performance 96% and 97% as good in resolutions with playable framerates and 111% in non-playable 4k? And uses about the same (-3W, +3W) in power? Which is also louder according to this review? Just checking.
> 
> Those also still sell starting at 130€ used and up to 200€ is not unseen on German Ebay.


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


----------



## gridracedriver (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Anymal (Nov 22, 2019)

Summer 2016 is not 4 years ago by my calculations.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## bug (Nov 22, 2019)

Turmania said:


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


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


----------



## birdie (Nov 22, 2019)

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

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

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


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## Taraquin (Nov 22, 2019)

bug said:


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


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


----------



## bug (Nov 22, 2019)

Taraquin said:


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


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


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 22, 2019)

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

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


----------



## Searing (Nov 22, 2019)

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


----------



## altermere (Nov 22, 2019)

Wow, even a $200 GPU has a proper fan instead of a blower. Please AMD, just ditch the reference vacuum cleaners already.


----------



## fancucker (Nov 23, 2019)

Searing said:


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


That's mainly because of the shifting of pricing brackets. The true 1060 successor is ridiculously overpriced and AMD followed suit financially. Imagine if for some reason nvidia was forced to price the 2060 at 280$ forcing AMD to substantially lose on the 5700/XT.


----------



## bug (Nov 23, 2019)

fancucker said:


> That's mainly because of the shifting of pricing brackets. The true 1060 successor is ridiculously overpriced and AMD followed suit financially. Imagine if for some reason nvidia was forced to price the 2060 at 280$ forcing AMD to substantially lose on the 5700/XT.


The 1060 successor is 1660(Ti)


----------



## msroadkill612 (Nov 23, 2019)

If it is an 8  lane pcie 4 card, many users will now have a spare 8 lanes on their am4 rigs. There could be some interesting possibilities.


----------



## Darksword (Nov 23, 2019)

Used 580 8GB cards are pretty cheap these days, around $115.00 USD.  I don't see why anyone would pay $160.00 for this card.


----------



## Palladium (Nov 23, 2019)

Darksword said:


> Used 580 8GB cards are pretty cheap these days, around $115.00 USD.  I don't see why anyone would pay $160.00 for this card.



At $160, it's a tough sell against a 1660S or even a 570.
If priced any higher, I can only say AMD is smoking some really nice stuff.


----------



## Agent_D (Nov 23, 2019)

Palladium said:


> At $160, it's a tough sell against a 1660S or even a 570.
> If priced any higher, I can only say AMD is smoking some really nice stuff.



Maybe a tough sell against the 1660S, but not against the 570/580/590 that literally take double or more power (and the 580/590 were selling for near $300 for quite a while). There are multiple areas of savings to be had if you're wanting to stick with AMD over nVidia with the 5500 and looking in this performance bracket.

Not to mention that with a bit of undervolting, these should sit comfortably at 100w or less (have a computer with a 5700 @ 930mv that sits in the 125-140w range on average), that's pretty nice for the performance and noise levels. Hopefully we'll see them starting at a $130-140 price point.



Darksword said:


> Used 580 8GB cards are pretty cheap these days, around $115.00 USD.  I don't see why anyone would pay $160.00 for this card.



If you're a heavy gamer, the 5500 would make up that price difference in electricity bills alone in 6-8 months.


----------



## fancucker (Nov 23, 2019)

Agent_D said:


> If you're a heavy gamer, the 5500 would make up that price difference in electricity bills alone in 6-8 months.


So essentially money you could've put down on a more efficient nvidia card? Plus undervolted nvidia competitors would bring even more savings.


----------



## illli (Nov 23, 2019)

Hmm these benchmarks for this card are all over the place. One of them showed less performance than a 570, others closer to 590.

Makes me wonder if this is due to some immature drivers? Maybe things will get better optimization down the road?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Nov 23, 2019)

Hats off to W1zzard for another great review.

Definitely more positive than I would have been though, seems like a minimal upgrade over Polaris, though I do guess there will be some performance uplift in time. Either way they seem to have pushed this little chip too hard so like the 5700XT it's quite uncompetitive power wise against NVidia's stack. I get the impression that they expected more performance for a given die size and ended up having to push the clocks and power up to meet their performance targets (1650S in this case).

Then again I guess NVidia pushed the 1650S out of the 75w power envelope too...


----------



## Searing (Nov 23, 2019)

person 1: "So essentially money you could've put down on a more efficient nvidia card?"
person 2: "uncompetitive against nVidia's stack" re: power consumption

Did you read the review? same as the 1060 and 1660, and the second lowest peak consumption and some of the lowest idle levels, jeeze, even when AMD wins people still just say "it has high power consumption" no matter the facts


----------



## fancucker (Nov 23, 2019)

Searing said:


> person 1: "So essentially money you could've put down on a more efficient nvidia card?"
> person 2: "uncompetitive against nVidia's stack" re: power consumption
> 
> Did you read the review? same as the 1060 and 1660, and the second lowest peak consumption and some of the lowest idle levels, jeeze, even when AMD wins people still just say "it has high power consumption" no matter the facts


That's precisely the problem, equaling an older architecture on a newer process. An AMD 'win' would've been a proper successor to Polaris that this price point, Nvidia literally gained 30% from the 1060 to 1660ti at the same power envelope, which the 5500 also occupies.

All AMD did was achieve 3-year old performance levels at a lower TDP despite a new uarch and a much better node


----------



## Mouth of Sauron (Nov 23, 2019)

Great review!

Sadly for me, it puts the new card exactly where I don't need it - namely bit below RX580 8gb, which I'm looking to replace...

Those numbers I'm pulling of... somewhere... but say that I've read somewhere that the lowest card on foodchain will be ~130g and the next (probably the same with 8Gb) ~150g. With a mountain of salt...


----------



## mahoney (Nov 23, 2019)

When was the last time AMD gpu's were less power hungry than Nvidia gpu's?


----------



## fancucker (Nov 23, 2019)

Mouth of Sauron said:


> Great review!
> 
> Sadly for me, it puts the new card exactly where I don't need it - namely bit below RX580 8gb, which I'm looking to replace...
> 
> Those numbers I'm pulling of... somewhere... but say that I've read somewhere that the lowest card on foodchain will be ~130g and the next (probably the same with 8Gb) ~150g. With a mountain of salt...


Don't worry, ampere will knock down the 5700/XT prices hard and they'll get the 570/580 treatment until RDNA2/5nm materializes. Pick one up with a 1440p monitor.

Edit: Actually nvidia might ride this till Q4 2020 at this level of competition and mercifully let AMD enjoy the new pricing scheme it set


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 23, 2019)

IMO 5500 4GB will go $159 and 5500XT 8GB $199.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 23, 2019)

mahoney said:


> When was the last time AMD gpu's were less power hungry than Nvidia gpu's?



9 years ago, when this happened:






After that, NVIDIA switched to a "efficiency first, performance later" GPU development policy. There's so much power-management engineering done on the GPU die, that AICs can make do with the cheapest VRM solutions.


----------



## sutyi (Nov 23, 2019)

fancucker said:


> That's precisely the problem, equaling an older architecture on a newer process. An AMD 'win' would've been a proper successor to Polaris that this price point, Nvidia literally gained 30% from the 1060 to 1660ti at the same power envelope, which the 5500 also occupies.
> 
> All AMD did was achieve 3-year old performance levels at a lower TDP despite a new uarch and a much better node



Well considering the silicon is yet again being run out of its comfort zone... no wonder. Just look at this table from my fellow countrymen, this is a ref. board RX 5700XT. With manual UV and a custom fancurve he reached -130mV on the GPU core and it was still able  to run trough SuperPosition, while consuming 46W less power, with literally zero performance loss...


----------



## Fouquin (Nov 23, 2019)

Assimilator said:


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



That isn't how this works. AMD doesn't waste time and money on multiple reference boards that fit the same exact purpose. They send one reference out to their OEMs and AIBs, who then either adopt and adapt or redesign and validate.

They do sample different designs internally for testing, but only one of those becomes the official reference.


----------



## fancucker (Nov 23, 2019)

sutyi said:


> Well considering the silicon is yet again being run out of its comfort zone... no wonder. Just look at this table from my fellow countrymen, this is a ref. board RX 5700XT. With manual UV and a custom fancurve he reached -130mV on the GPU core and it was still able  to run trough SuperPosition, while consuming 46W less power, with literally zero performance loss...
> 
> View attachment 137377


Now show me the direct nvidia competitor and its undervolt. Sure AMD is a bit liberal to ensure viable silicon across the board, but there are massive benefits there.

And before you accuse me, I have a 570 4GB AIB running 1325Mhz/0.95V, 1800Mhz/0.9V mem and 74C max in a hot climate. 94W power draw too. Good card.


----------



## HwGeek (Nov 23, 2019)

When we gonna see new products  on N7P? or maybe it's already used by current AMD products?


----------



## Searing (Nov 23, 2019)

The RX 5700 is MORE efficient than the RTX 2060, and the RX 5500 ties the 1060, 1660, 1660 ti. So it's at parity. There's no problem with the 5000 series power consumption. The RX 5700 XT I bought is the coolest card I've ever seen, running at 61 degrees at 100 percent (Gigabyte model).


----------



## sutyi (Nov 23, 2019)

fancucker said:


> Now show me the direct nvidia competitor and its undervolt. Sure AMD is a bit liberal to ensure viable silicon across the board, but there are massive benefits there.
> 
> And before you accuse me, I have a 570 4GB AIB running 1325Mhz/0.95V, 1800Mhz/0.9V mem and 74C max in a hot climate. 94W power draw too. Good card.



Mostly works the same on the green side too, they just don't really max. out the silicon the same way as AMD does.

Putting architecture aside to make an analogy: Lets say the sweetspot for said silicon is 1700MHz @ 0.900V, then AMD does 2100MHz @ 1.2V (to get glose as possible to the NV part) and leaves the decision for you to run into a power limit or not. While nVIDIA goes 1900MHz @ 1.1V and powerlimits their card.



odio_i_fanboy said:


> another fail for amd



An OEM design that goes into DELL, HP, etc. office machine has a decent heatsink with a copper base and heatpipes, the horror...


----------



## Komshija (Nov 23, 2019)

WOW! This GPU is more powerful than I would have expected. If it's price tag in Europe will be under 180€, I bet this will be the best buy GPU for budget 1080p gaming. AMD only needs slightly better marketing to familiarize budget gamers with their products, especially if their GPU outperforms all similarly priced Nvidia GPUs.


----------



## Agent_D (Nov 23, 2019)

fancucker said:


> So essentially money you could've put down on a more efficient nvidia card? Plus undervolted nvidia competitors would bring even more savings.



Within a few percent of the 1650 Super at similar power levels, and likely lower prices, with no voltage changes; seems like a win if you're an AMD fan and looking in this performance/power/price bracket.


----------



## Deathy (Nov 23, 2019)

mahoney said:


> When was the last time AMD gpu's were less power hungry than Nvidia gpu's?


They were better than Nvidia in pure power consumption or performance/watt from the Radeon 5xxx series to the 7xxx series. But Hawaii really tanked performance/watt and sky rocketed power consumption (I had one because I water cooled at the time and it was the price/perf. sweet spot for my 1440p setup). And Maxwell and Pascal were real milestones for Nvidia. Going back further it was more varied from generation to generation.


----------



## Alamedrin (Nov 23, 2019)

Why is it so bad in this game?


----------



## Aretak (Nov 23, 2019)

Alamedrin said:


> Why is it so bad in this game?
> 
> View attachment 137399​


​It's clearly the 4GB VRAM. Look at how far the 4GB 570 is off the 8GB 580. Even the 1650 Super is struggling badly there relative to how it performs compared to the 580 or 1060 6GB in other titles. Seems like you want at least a 6GB card for it (or just turn the texture setting down a notch or two).


----------



## Alamedrin (Nov 23, 2019)

Aretak said:


> ​It's clearly the 4GB VRAM. Look at how far the 4GB 570 is off the 8GB 580. Even the 1650 Super is struggling badly there relative to how it performs compared to the 580 or 1060 6GB in other titles. Seems like you want at least a 6GB card for it (or just turn the texture setting down a notch or two).


I was expecting it would be better than RX 570 4GB in this game.


----------



## sutyi (Nov 23, 2019)

Alamedrin said:


> I was expecting it would be better than RX 570 4GB in this game.



As @Aretak said it is probably memory limitation plus a combination of less TMUs, looks like Turing seems to have better DCC.

Both the GTX 1650S & RX 5500 probably would fare much better a notch or two under meinleben settings. On the New Orleans maps I had to back off the graphical settings on my GTX 1060 6GB, cause in some places it would stutter like utter doodoo...

PS.: Even the GTX 1060 3GB is almost 40% slower compared to the 6GB model.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Nov 23, 2019)

libastral said:


> Wow, even a $200 GPU has a proper fan instead of a blower. Please AMD, just ditch the reference vacuum cleaners already.


If you want open coolers, buy the damn partner cards with open coolers. Reference coolers are about compatibility with _more_ than just the well-ventilated enthusiast gaming tower.

Dumping 100W of waste heat back into the case is probably acceptable for the vast majority of case scenarios, but dumping 225W of waste heat into the case is not. That's _probably_ why this is an open cooler. It's also not strictly a reference design - only an OEM one that happens to be the OEM that also builds many of AMD's other reference boards. You can bet that the RadeonPro variants of these will be either fully or partly exhausting because those _will_ be true reference designs.

I often need to spec a blower cooler and it's frustrating how few good ones there are. You may not like them and they me be louder than coolers that dump all their heat back into the case, but they are an industry necessity for OEMs, SFF builders, HTPC builders, GPU farms, Quiet PC enthusiasts, and probably more categories that I haven't even thought of.

My big old gaming tower with an excess of empty space and airflow has no problem with cooling, so yeah I'd definitely pick an open cooler. Please don't hate on the exhausting blower when it's not designed for only your use case. Some of us really really need them and builds simply wouldn't be possible without them.


----------



## Ergastolano (Nov 23, 2019)

where is the XT version or a 5600 model? Do you have some news?


----------



## Jism (Nov 23, 2019)

birdie said:


> Performance per watt and performance per dollar are both hugely disappointing. This thing is worse ... than even Pascal. And multi-monitor high power consumption is still not fixed. WTF AMD?
> 
> This is basically a _slightly_ better version of the the GTX 1060 which was released 3.5 years ago and strangely "It's recommended"/"High value".
> 
> For whom? Why? According to Steam HW Survey the GTX 1060 is already the most popular GPU on the market. You do not release a GPU which mimics it almost entirely - you need to release something substantially better. And no a price cut won't ... cut it. In my country used 1060 6GB can be bought for roughly $150. The RX 5500 must be priced substantially lower to attract any attention. I'm thinking $120 or even lower.



It's a cut down 5700. What do you expect? There's no secret sauce, just a smaller chip with less of everything compared to a 5700 and pretty much is into the price point it belongs.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 24, 2019)

fancucker said:


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



Oems sell more stock than retail


----------



## F-man4 (Nov 24, 2019)

This card is only for BFV.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 24, 2019)

This product needs to be 139$ tops.
AMD's strategy to announce first, price later might save them with this one.... too...
If you can't beat their silicons, beat their pricing.



btarunr said:


> "efficiency first, performance later"


Also, i believe its "both first", since their boost can near-max performance anyway before you kick the efficiency curve to outer space.
Pascal and Turing cards aren't known to be holding performance back when cooling allows.


----------



## Roy (Nov 24, 2019)

Turmania said:


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



I have a 1060, but lets be honest the 1060 was a 2 tier higher than this card and was cost $250, just to remind you this is the lowest tier card an rx 550 / gtx 1050 tier card which probably (hopefully) cost less than $140


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 24, 2019)

Roy said:


> I have a 1060, but lets be honest the 1060 was a 2 tier higher than this card and was cost $250, just to remind you this is the lowest tier card an rx 550 / gtx 1050 tier card which probably (hopefully) cost less than $140



*RX 560. RX 550 is more like a gt1030 tier. 

Just have a feeling that this card is on rough position for AMD. Polaris cards sells well for them, so what to do this one. Can't really sell it for higher price and lower price could stop Polaris sells altogether. So maybe they just sell it to OEMs for now, and when Polaris card stocks empties these will fill the void.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 24, 2019)

With the Game Bundle included (think it's the same Borderlands 3/GR: Breakpoint choice), this card is a must have, really.



Turmania said:


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


Not sure if trolling or not. GTX 1060 was the 5th card in NV's last gen's lineup after the 1030, 1050, 1050Ti and the 1060 3GB. The RX5500 is the entry level card in AMD's current gen's lineup with a price tag about the 1050Ti. And you get a $60 game when purchasing it. Shame on you.


Roy said:


> I have a 1060, but lets be honest the 1060 was a 2 tier higher than this card and was cost $250, just to remind you this is the lowest tier card an rx 550 / gtx 1050 tier card which probably (hopefully) cost less than $140


+You get a $60 game with this $140-150 card. I have never seen a game bundle offered to a category under the RX 570.



Searing said:


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


Can't really understand you. An AIB RX 5500 will be about 20% faster than an AIB RX470. The RX470 was $180, the RX5500 is expected around 140-160. You get a $60 game with the purchase. The efficiency of the card is much better, it nearly doubled and is close to NV.


----------



## potato580+ (Nov 24, 2019)

i tho this card would replace fullhd generation, well out of my list...


----------



## sutyi (Nov 24, 2019)

Ergastolano said:


> where is the XT version or a 5600 model? Do you have some news?



My tips:

5500XT - 24CU NAVI 14 - 128bit 8GB @ maybe 16Gbps ( probably between the GTX1650S and the GTX 1660)
5600 - 28 CU NAVI 10 - 256bit 8GB @ 12Gbps (~GTX1660S & 1660Ti )
5600XT - 32 CU NAVI 10 - 256bit 8GB @ 12Gbps (10% faster compared to GTX 1660Ti)


----------



## Roy (Nov 24, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> *RX 560. RX 550 is more like a gt1030 tier.
> 
> Just have a feeling that this card is on rough position for AMD. Polaris cards sells well for them, so what to do this one. Can't really sell it for higher price and lower price could stop Polaris sells altogether. So maybe they just sell it to OEMs for now, and when Polaris card stocks empties these will fill the void.



That is true, but considering that the 5500 is only 22CU i think AMD still have some more Navi card to fully replace Polaris, 5500 to replace 560, 5500XT to replace 570, and 5600 to replace 580, 5600XT to replace 590. I don't think AMD will keep selling Polaris especially since next gen console will be based on Navi.


----------



## Turmania (Nov 24, 2019)

The only Navi card that makes sense and is actually very good at its price is RX 5700 non over clocked versions of it though.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 24, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> *RX 560. RX 550 is more like a gt1030 tier.
> 
> Just have a feeling that this card is on rough position for AMD. Polaris cards sells well for them, so what to do this one. Can't really sell it for higher price and lower price could stop Polaris sells altogether. So maybe they just sell it to OEMs for now, and when Polaris card stocks empties these will fill the void.



The polaris line will drop in price


----------



## Ergastolano (Nov 24, 2019)

sutyi said:


> My tips:
> 
> 5500XT - 24CU NAVI 14 - 128bit 8GB @ maybe 16Gbps ( probably between the GTX1650S and the GTX 1660)
> 5600 - 28 CU NAVI 10 - 256bit 8GB @ 12Gbps (~GTX1660S & 1660Ti )
> 5600XT - 32 CU NAVI 10 - 256bit 8GB @ 12Gbps (10% faster compared to GTX 1660Ti)



Possible launch date?


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 24, 2019)

I find it hilarious that card got "Great Value" award while nobody knows how much it will cost


----------



## Ergastolano (Nov 24, 2019)

FYFI13 said:


> I find it hilarious that card got "Great Value" award while nobody knows how much it will cost


<<Assuming pricing will end up at $150 or below, I'm giving this card "Recommended" and "Great Value>>


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 24, 2019)

Ergastolano said:


> <<*Assuming* pricing will end up at $150 or below, I'm giving this card "Recommended" and "Great Value>>


Assuming. That's exactly my point.


----------



## xrror (Nov 24, 2019)

Navi keeps being the gift that keeps giving... to nVidia 

Are the drivers sorted out yet for Navi? If AMD had dead solid drivers they could still definitely be a strong contender if they price right.

The big problem for me though is past the initial release drivers for Navi - which where I would expect some driver weirdness as it's new GPU arch for AMD - are current drivers good yet as far as not crashing or other "my computer hard locks when I use Chrome" sidenotes?

See, nVidia can feed the FUD on and make the argument for $20 more their video card will *also "Just Work" which is incredibly damaging if a buyer is on the fence, or especially if I do a recommendation for a video card to someone asking me.

Back in the day, I could say "yea the Radeon actually gives you a lot more speed for your dollar but you might have a few driver hiccups - but they'll iron that out and you'll have a faster card in the end" as a worst case argument. But past the crypo-boom darkage I can't even really use that as an incentive now - it has become "just spend the extra $20 to avoid the driver headache, PLUS the nVidia card actually might be a bit faster out of the gate."

Which... personally sucks for me, because I'm not a real fan of nVidia's current pricing\perf of "spend $100 more this generation, to match last gen's 1080ti perf."


----------



## sutyi (Nov 24, 2019)

Ergastolano said:


> Possible launch date?



No clue mah dude, this is purely my speculation. If AMD want to cash in on these hypothetical SKUs they should drop them before Black Friday or before the Holidays.

Polaris stocks seem to be dwindling here in Hungary, so sooner or later they'll need to bring something to the market in place of those...


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 24, 2019)

sutyi said:


> No clue mah dude, this is purely my speculation. If AMD want to cash in on these hypothetical SKUs they should drop them before Black Friday or before the Holidays.
> 
> Polaris stocks seem to be dwindling here in Hungary, so sooner or later they'll need to bring something to the market in place of those...



Seriously doubt they will make it to Black Friday, which is next Friday. Even just released gtx1650S might have hard time to get in the stocks for that. But yeah Q4 2019 is the time frame that AMD gave on RX 5500 announcement for AIB cards, so that in mind it should be out very soon.


----------



## Freelancer (Nov 25, 2019)

I might be interested in a 5500XT, 5600, or 5600XT, given my current card is RX580 already.  Just wanna have pretty good performance on 1080p with less noise and heat.

My Sapphire Nitro+ often directly go 100% on fan speed by itself when under load, even if the temperature is still in 60s celsius (yes I'm already using afterburner).  Probably a bug or something.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 25, 2019)

Freelancer said:


> I might be interested in a 5500XT, 5600, or 5600XT, given my current card is RX580 already.  Just wanna have pretty good performance on 1080p with less noise and heat.
> 
> My Sapphire Nitro+ often directly go 100% on fan speed by itself when under load, even if the temperature is still in 60s celsius (yes I'm already using afterburner).  Probably a bug or something.



Depends on your ambient room temperature for blowing hot air on a already hot part it just makes it hotter


----------



## bug (Nov 25, 2019)

Freelancer said:


> I might be interested in a 5500XT, 5600, or 5600XT, given my current card is RX580 already.  Just wanna have pretty good performance on 1080p with less noise and heat.
> 
> My Sapphire Nitro+ often directly go 100% on fan speed by itself when under load, even if the temperature is still in 60s celsius (yes I'm already using afterburner).  Probably a bug or something.


Why not 1660 Super?


----------



## Freelancer (Nov 25, 2019)

bug said:


> Why not 1660 Super?


Let's say I'm biased towards the A camp


----------



## bug (Nov 25, 2019)

Freelancer said:


> Let's say I'm biased towards the A camp


Ah, that. Fair enough.


----------



## Freelancer (Nov 25, 2019)

Speaking of display card brands, I have started to lose faith in Sapphire.  Which brand(s) are considered more reliable?  Asus? Gigabyte?


----------



## bug (Nov 25, 2019)

Freelancer said:


> Speaking of display card brands, I have started to lose faith in Sapphire.  Which brand(s) are considered more reliable?  Asus? Gigabyte?


If you can't trust Sapphire, you probably can't trust anyone.


----------



## Mouth of Sauron (Nov 25, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Depends on your ambient room temperature for blowing hot air on a already hot part it just makes it hotter



Hey, be realistic - nobody has like 60-80C room temperature - it's more like sauna environment. Normally, cooling air (or water) needs to be at least 20C lower to make decently efficient cooling (other factors apply, too). 

On example, during the hot summer days of +35C, my office is cooled with chilled water @ 7-10C (yeah, I said 20C, but the surface of radiator and blower capacity are not nearly what the dimensions require). So, I get ~23-25C, minding the bracketed comment. If chilled water goes to 14C (and it does, my preciouss, it does) - then I have a nice working condition of ~30C - oh, given the company dress code and that The Master insist on this helmet, it's not nice at all...

Not meaning to drag this too long, but benefits of open-loop in water cooling systems (PC ones, no chilled water) are great, except nobody uses them  A bitch to implement, probably...

Closed water loop (read: everything on the market) uses great heat transfer capability of water to cool efficiently. At the beginning... As water reaches 40, and then 60C and onward, its efficiency goes down and good air-blower (say Noctua) performs the same. Blowers on the water-cooling radiators are not enough, and we again get a solution that depends fully on air-blowers - only this time they're on radiator and not the CPU/GPU/both, whatever the setup is. 

[And 65W cooling system is totally worth the energy, _some _will recognize this and their past mistakes, made in vanity and pride  ]

Since I personally like relatively cool hardware, and not mind the noise, my custom profile for both CPU and GPU actually insists on doing 100% on temperatures reaching 50-60C, and though GPU has no-fan option I turned it off forever - you're a f-ing blower and you're going to blow no matter what, no free ride 

That aside, I feel strange, unholy attraction to names such as 5600, 5600XT and they associate me strongly on 200-250g budget, emphasizing on 1440p. And I need them NOW. Not in undisclosed term in 2020, where they will be already announced to be replaced by RDNA2 parts...


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 25, 2019)

Hmm finally had time to do little thinkering... so Voltages(1.125V) of this card is on the middle of the RX 5700(0.987V) and RX 5700 XT(1.2V) -> core clocks are in the middle too. So AMD could ease the binning by bumbing the voltage to 1.2V and gain 100MHz more core clock. Thus could probably equal 1650S perf in cost of power consumption. So there is some lee way there, but not by much. @W1zzard I assume voltages are locked on Wattman. But could you give some estimation, if 100MHz more core clock for this is enough for equal 1650S at the 1080p? After all your OC for RX 5500 is quite there with stock 5700xt clocks at higher voltages.

Nvidia surely messed AMDs plan with 1650S launch, which makes me wonder is AMD going to compete with price or trying to eek more perf out of navi 14.


----------



## StaticVapour (Nov 27, 2019)

Honestly i'm surprised how well it performed in tests, almost feels like it's the real successor to the good old GTX 750 Ti if the price is right


----------



## yeeeeman (Nov 28, 2019)

For a brand new uArch, 7nm, GDDR6 card, this is quite bad from all points, price, performance, efficiency. Navi is still lagging behind Turing, even with the process advantage.


----------



## rruff (Nov 28, 2019)

yeeeeman said:


> For a brand new uArch, 7nm, GDDR6 card, this is quite bad from all points, price, performance, efficiency. Navi is still lagging behind Turing, even with the process advantage.



They won't lag on performance/price... because they can't. Nvidia has made this segment very competitive with the 1650S, which is great for anyone who wants to buy a card in this range. AMD will have a 5500XT 8GB variant that will probably beat it handily on performance, especially at higher resolution, and maybe beat the 1660 as well. Efficiency is still behind, but so much better than the last generation.


----------



## bug (Nov 28, 2019)

rruff said:


> They won't lag on performance/price... because they can't. Nvidia has made this segment very competitive with the 1650S, which is great for anyone who wants to buy a card in this range. AMD will have a 5500XT 8GB variant that will probably beat it handily on performance, especially at higher resolution, and maybe beat the 1660 as well. Efficiency is still behind, but so much better than the last generation.


5700 is slightly more efficient than 2060. The 5700XT tanks, but 5500(XT) might still surprise.


----------



## nguyen (Nov 29, 2019)

bug said:


> 5700 is slightly more efficient than 2060. The 5700XT tanks, but 5500(XT) might still surprise.



All the Non-RTX Turing GPUs have higher efficiency than 5700 though


----------



## bug (Nov 29, 2019)

nguyen said:


> All the Non-RTX Turing GPUs have higher efficiency than 5700 though


I said "might", not "will"


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 29, 2019)

bug said:


> I said "might", not "will"



Well if it is more efficient, then it would be slower than this OEM version...

But that would be actually okay, if the price is good. I.E. $120 for RX 5500 faster than gtx1650, $150 for RX 5500 xt with full navi14 chip and faster/equal to 1650S.


----------



## Powl (Dec 10, 2019)

yeeeeman said:


> For a brand new uArch, 7nm, GDDR6 card, this is quite bad from all points, price, performance, efficiency. Navi is still lagging behind Turing, even with the process advantage.


Stop focusing on raw specs, look at actual perf/efficiency. As the review shows, the card is competitive in these aspects. Who cares what node it was on or what memory it uses? If the actual results hold up, they hold up.


----------



## jgraham11 (Dec 14, 2019)

Turmania said:


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



Nvidia does have an advantage in the efficiency department, the main culprit seems to be the patents that were sold to Qualcomm back in 2008.  In those days AMD didn't think that division was important so they sold it off to keep the company afloat, now that Nvidia uses similar patents to reduce power on their cards, AMD can't keep up.  A process node advantage only seems to get them on par with Nvidia.  Now AMD is trying a different approach in their strategy to reduce power and increase efficiency, AMD Chill and that new anti-lag tech, with those two AMD seems to be  trying to reinvent the metric for how a graphics card works.  Its all about smoothness and not about high FPS anymore.  The fact that these benchmarks don't incorporate AMD chill doesn't do AMD any favours!


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2019)

jgraham11 said:


> Nvidia does have an advantage in the efficiency department, the main culprit seems to be the patents that were sold to Qualcomm back in 2008.  In those days AMD didn't think that division was important so they sold it off to keep the company afloat, now that Nvidia uses similar patents to reduce power on their cards, AMD can't keep up.  A process node advantage only seems to get them on par with Nvidia.  Now AMD is trying a different approach in their strategy to reduce power and increase efficiency, AMD Chill and that new anti-lag tech, with those two AMD seems to be  trying to reinvent the metric for how a graphics card works.  Its all about smoothness and not about high FPS anymore.  The fact that these benchmarks don't incorporate AMD chill doesn't do AMD any favours!


what Qualcomm parts/patents from 2008 are the culprit today?

I'm happy that general benchmarks arent run with chill. The point of testing these cards is to see how they perform out of the box against other cards out of the box. Default if you will. I'm curious to see the performance hit and power savings... but not mixed in with anything else.


----------



## bug (Dec 14, 2019)

jgraham11 said:


> Nvidia does have an advantage in the efficiency department, the main culprit seems to be the patents that were sold to Qualcomm back in 2008.  In those days AMD didn't think that division was important so they sold it off to keep the company afloat, now that Nvidia uses similar patents to reduce power on their cards, AMD can't keep up.  A process node advantage only seems to get them on par with Nvidia.  Now AMD is trying a different approach in their strategy to reduce power and increase efficiency, AMD Chill and that new anti-lag tech, with those two AMD seems to be  trying to reinvent the metric for how a graphics card works.  Its all about smoothness and not about high FPS anymore.  The fact that these benchmarks don't incorporate AMD chill doesn't do AMD any favours!


The missing piece is tiled based rendering. Something Nvidia did back when TSMC failed to transition to 20nm, while AMD adamantly kept their computing power up. I don't think tiled based rendering was covered by those patents. But I could be wrong.


----------

