Monday, June 10th 2019

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Beats GeForce RTX 2070 in a Spectrum of Games

by
btarunr
 Discuss (106 Comments)
The 9.75 TFLOPs figure in the leaked specifications slide of the Radeon RX 5700 XT "Navi" graphics card from earlier today got many guessing if AMD is essentially putting RX Vega-level performance into a GPU that sips a fraction of its power. It turns out that AMD's claim of the RX 5700 XT being faster than the GeForce RTX 2070 wasn't just specific to the odd super-optimized game title, but a whole selection of games, many of which some with GameWorks varnish, some of which even support NVIDIA RTX.

AMD's [leaked] performance slide for the Radeon RX 5700 XT sees the card beat the RTX 2070 in "Assassin's Creed: Odyssey," "Battlefield V," "CoD: Black Ops 4," "Far Cry: New Dawn," "Metro Exodus," Tom Clancy's "The Division 2," "The Witcher 3," and Tom Clancy's "Ghost Recon: Wildlands." The card is also striking distance behind the RTX 2070 at "Shadow of the Tomb Raider," and Sid Meier's "Civilisation 6." All games in this slide are tested at 1440p resolution, with in-game settings maxed out (although we're waiting to read the Endnotes on whether "max out" in NVIDIA's context means turning on RTX on some of these games). The RX 5070 XT beats the RTX 2070 by as much as 22 percent in "Battlefield V," and 15 percent in "Metro Exodus," and is claimed to be within single-digit percentage ahead of the RTX 2070. There's another picture of the RX 5070 XT reference board in this slide, and unless we're mistaken, we spy two 8-pin PCIe power connectors. We'll learn more about this card in a few hours from now.
Source: Spartan Geek (Twitter)

Related News

Add your own comment

106 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Beats GeForce RTX 2070 in a Spectrum of Games

#76
Jism
*Preorders Navi.

My RX590 was in the need for a replacement.
Posted on Reply
#77
ratirt
Jism*Preorders Navi.

My RX590 was in the need for a replacement.
Really? I think I will still wait a bit longer. I'd rather get Custom AIB solution. On the other hand maybe it is better to get it as soon as possible and wait for water block. I just need to know if it will be worth it. If water gives not much then there's no point for spending cash on a water.
Posted on Reply
#78
Jism
ratirtReally? I think I will still wait a bit longer. I'd rather get Custom AIB solution. On the other hand maybe it is better to get it as soon as possible and wait for water block. I just need to know if it will be worth it. If water gives not much then there's no point for spending cash on a water.
I have a waterblock designed for a AM3+ socket planted on my RX590 with just a bunch of tiewraps and a bunch of napkins to hold the stuff together. Works outstanding, keeping the GPU at a stressed 60 degrees and running Furmark with a load of over 230W easily. Waiting for a AIB is'nt really needed here.
Posted on Reply
#79
EarthDog
kapone32For Vega 64 owners like me I see this card as being better than the Vega VII at lower resolutions but should not be able to beat it at 4K but time will tell.
These aren't really 4K (60 FPS+/Ultra) capable cards in the first place. That said, I doubt its scaling will be much different. GDDR6 vs HBM2, there isnt a huge difference. Its not like the first gen against ddr4 where AMD cards with hbm REALLY caught up at 4k. The difference wasn't much if you look at existing reviews.

Wait... these have gddr6... so why would it scale better at a higher res?
Posted on Reply
#80
kapone32
EarthDogThese aren't really 4K (60 FPS+/Ultra) capable cards in the first place. That said, I doubt its scaling will be much different. GDDR6 vs HBM2, there isnt a huge difference. Its not like the first gen against ddr4 where AMD cards with hbm REALLY caught up at 4k. The difference wasn't much if you look at existing reviews.

Wait... these have gddr6... so why would it scale better at a higher res?
The improvements to the architecture focused on gaming (Vega are at their heart compute cards) and (grain of salt) the benchmarks that they are showing. I give the Vega VII the nod at 4K because of the 16GB of HBM2 VRAM.
Posted on Reply
#81
EarthDog
kapone32Vega VII the nod at 4K because of the 16GB of HBM2 VRAM.
For any titles that can use more than 8GB, sure. Otherwise, HBM doesn't matter as much as it did the first time around going up against GDDR5.
Posted on Reply
#82
_larry
FluffmeisterNot bad, W1zz found the Radeon VII to be an average of just 6% faster than a RTX 2070, so good news for competition... bad news for Radeon VII owners.

Seems like the Radeon VII is becoming what Nvidia Titan was when it first came out :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#83
bug
_larrySeems like the Radeon VII is becoming what Nvidia Titan was when it first came out :nutkick:
It's not "becoming", it's been created as such ;)
Posted on Reply
#84
Manoa
a 750mm Navi will stomp the 2080 Ti
Posted on Reply
#85
Fluffmeister
Manoaa 750mm Navi will stomp the 2080 Ti
Cool, when is that out?
Posted on Reply
#86
Manoa
lel xD
but you know mybe it will out in the end of the year :)
but the true is, in the way that it's going, preaty soon you will run graphics on the CPU :) soon it will mutch more faster than the (AMD) video cards :)
Posted on Reply
#87
RichF
Half the die size for plenty of price. Su said she wants to increase margins.

Let's hope we don't get into $999 stand territory.

edit: As for stop-start fans. The concept seems to be useful for people who don't stress their GPUs all that often, as a dust-reduction measure. When fans aren't moving, they're not sucking in dust.
Posted on Reply
#88
User !
FluffmeisterNot bad, W1zz found the Radeon VII to be an average of just 6% faster than a RTX 2070, so good news for competition... bad news for Radeon VII owners.

VII is limited by the cooler.And you can find most sites show that VII is faster than 1080 ti. Maybe TPU's test isn't really based on real performance.Most importantly, you can push VII to 2000mhz+ ,which beats 2080 easily.
Posted on Reply
#89
efikkan
User !VII is limited by the cooler.And you can find most sites show that VII is faster than 1080 ti. Maybe TPU's test isn't really based on real performance.Most importantly, you can push VII to 2000mhz+ ,which beats 2080 easily.
So if you do an extreme overclock, use an expensive water cooler, make it even hotter than it already is, void the warranty and probably cut the lifespan down to a 1/3, risk stability issues, then it can match RTX 2080 at stock, which costs the same as Radeon VII. :rolleyes:

If you're going to compare an overclocked Radeon VII, then you need to compare it to overclocked competitors.

There is no question about it; no matter how you angle it, Radeon VII is an inferior gaming choice both to RTX 2070 and RTX 2080.
Posted on Reply
#90
User !
efikkanSo if you do an extreme overclock, use an expensive water cooler, make it even hotter than it already is, void the warranty and probably cut the lifespan down to a 1/3, risk stability issues, then it can match RTX 2080 at stock, which costs the same as Radeon VII. :rolleyes:

If you're going to compare an overclocked Radeon VII, then you need to compare it to overclocked competitors.

There is no question about it; no matter how you angle it, Radeon VII is an inferior gaming choice both to RTX 2070 and RTX 2080.
If you choice a cheap water block(gpu xpm) and aluminum 240mm radiator，all the cooler system will cost under $100 . Moreover,with lower temperature, you should have longer life span. 2080 reference runs at 1.9g and you can only get 2.1g. Though VII has the same MAX frequency as 2080,but its stock frequency is just 1.7g ( throttleed by cooler). So both with MAX oc, VII is slightly faster than 2080.
Posted on Reply
#91
EarthDog
User !VII is limited by the cooler.And you can find most sites show that VII is faster than 1080 ti.
You should provide a link. :)

I found one... though it agrees with TPU more or less...
www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/review/1791-amd-radeon-vii-mega-benchmark/
The Radeon VII was 2% slower than the GTX 1080 Ti with our 12-game sample, now it’s 5% slower. No major changes, but for the most part the much older GTX 1080 Ti was faster. Moreover, it was faster by a 10% margin or greater in 10 of the 33 games whereas the Radeon VII was faster by a 10% margin or greater in only 2 of the 33 games.
Posted on Reply
#92
efikkan
User !If you choice a cheap water block(gpu xpm) and aluminum 240mm radiator，all the cooler system will cost under $100 . Moreover,with lower temperature, you should have longer life span. 2080 reference runs at 1.9g and you can only get 2.1g. Though VII has the same MAX frequency as 2080,but its stock frequency is just 1.7g ( throttleed by cooler). So both with MAX oc, VII is slightly faster than 2080.
Just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Silicon quality varies a lot, and you can't expect to reliably overclock that much without giving it a lot of extra voltage, which in turns shortens lifespan significantly. Arguing about getting water cooling and doing extreme overclocking to keep up with the competition is just ridiculous. The competitor's alternative is cheaper, cooler, silent and reliable, there is no rational reason to prefer Radeon VII for gaming purposes.
Posted on Reply
#93
Ruru
S.T.A.R.S.
efikkanSo if you do an extreme overclock, use an expensive water cooler, make it even hotter than it already is, void the warranty and probably cut the lifespan down to a 1/3, risk stability issues, then it can match RTX 2080 at stock, which costs the same as Radeon VII. :rolleyes:
The bolded one is something what a seller says.

An enthusiast knows what he's doing and that doesn't mean anything.
Posted on Reply
#95
EarthDog
medi01
Thanks for further supporting my assertion!
Posted on Reply
#96
medi01
EarthDogThanks for further supporting my assertion!
7% diff is pretty much "on par" in my book.
Lol at two "world of tanks" games at the bottom of the chart.
Posted on Reply
#97
EarthDog
7% is on par? Wow. Side note.. techspot's 2080 review shows it 1% faster than a 1080ti on average. So let's say 8%....not that will suddenly change your mind about it being on par.

Did you miss the passage I cut out from my link.... where ~1/3 games they tested are 10%+ faster vs VII was 2 of 31? There is a clear difference here overall. Clearly it isnt a huge difference but can be the difference between ultra and high/medium. ;)

Thanks again for supporting my assesrtion!
Posted on Reply
#98
kings
medi017% diff is pretty much "on par" in my book.
AMD presented RX 5700XT performance in 10 games (no reviews), where on average it is ~6% ahead of RTX 2070 and you brag about AMD being faster!

Now the Radeon VII is 7% behind the RTX 2080 in more than 30 games (in reviews, not presentation) and suddenly that value is "on par".

Funny how the criteria change, depending on people preferences. Who cares about coherence, right? ;)
Posted on Reply
#99
bug
kingsAMD presented RX 5700XT performance in 10 games (no reviews), where on average it is ~6% ahead of RTX 2070 and you brag about AMD being faster!

Now the Radeon VII is 7% behind the RTX 2080 in more than 30 games (in reviews, not presentation) and suddenly that value is "on par".

Funny how the criteria change, depending on people preferences. Who cares about coherence, right? ;)
Obviously Nvidia's 7% lead is made up of "bad/greedy" %, whereas AMD's 6% lead is "good/pixie dust" % :P
Posted on Reply
#100
95Viper
Stay on Topic.
You may discuss; however, stop the insulting remarks & name calling.

Thank you.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Oct 3rd, 2024 02:11 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts