MSI Launches Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming M(X) Graphics Card

[Raevenlord]

MSI has found some ways to reduce pricing on their Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming X series, and has materialized these savings on a new product. The RX 5600 XT Gaming M(X) sees itself as a lower-priced variant of the card, featuring 14 Gbps GDDR6 memory and making use of a cooler that is more alike the Armor series we know from the RX 580 models.

The new graphics card still features a dual-fan cooling solution, dual 8-pin power connectors, and I/O is assured by 3x DisplayPort and 1x HDMI. The Gaming M features slightly lower clocks than the Gaming or Gaming X series: 1130 MHz Base, 1375 MHz Game, and 1560 MHz Boost clocks is the quoted transistor ticking speed. The packaging still features the red stylized X employed on MSI's Gaming X series though, which may cause some confusion when it comes to shop around.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[P4-630]

 

[Assimilator]

So M < Gaming < MX < X.

Can we all agree it's time to genocide the people who come up with these names?

 

[jayseearr]

^no doubt assimilator. Honestly, what planet were they on when they decided that was ok? It's like they are literally TRYING to confuse people.

Boost clock of 1560? I hope it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than what they are selling right now because from what I'm seeing the current version is selling for $290 when I can go and buy a msi 1660 super thats virtually better in every way and is $10 less. Not to mention the EVGA 1660 super which is also better and is only $240 right now.

If they can't beat $240 buying one of these cards seems like a lose/lose situation. At least it's another budget option I guess, and I must say that backplate is pretty sexy.

The first sentence made me giggle a little bit raven lord. "Msi has found some ways to reduce the pricing on their new 5600 cards"
Well yeah, they significantly lowered the clocks and put out a product that is objectively worse...I would hope that warrants a price decrease

 

[Lew Zealand]

^no doubt assimilator. Honestly, what planet were they on when they decided that was ok? It's like they are literally TRYING to confuse people.

Boost clock of 1560? I hope it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than what they are selling right now because from what I'm seeing the current version is selling for $290 when I can go and buy a msi 1660 super thats virtually better in every way and is $10 less. Not to mention the EVGA 1660 super which is also better and is only $240 right now.

The 5600 XT is 23-25% faster than the 1660 Super according to TPU's 5600 XT reviews:

Sapphire Radeon RX 5600 XT Pulse Review

Sapphire's RX 5600 XT Pulse comes at $289, which is only a small $10 premium over the AMD MSRP, yet it's faster than the GeForce RTX 2060. The card's cooler does a great job and delivers good temperatures paired with amazing noise levels, and it has fan-stop, too.

www.techpowerup.com

So the bump in price from the 1660 Super to the 5600 XT seems warranted. While the 1660 Super can be OC'd farther, that closes the gap by less than half and that's only in a benchmark, in-game will be even less than that.

Seeing as I own both, I should probably do a head to head...

 

[PowerPC]

They're obviously just milking their old Gaming X success with that name. But maybe because the main guy that made Gaming X just recently died and they are honoring him.

 

[jayseearr]

That is only 1 chart and it's comparing the sapphire 5600xt (again, faster on paper than this msi card in question) plus it's seemingly comparing it against a refrence gtx 1660 super?

A more fair comparison would be this new gaming mx vs a msi gaming x 1660 super. On paper here is what i see (and yes i understand there is more than meets the eye)

msi gaming x 1660 super: 260$
base 1530
boost 1850
6gb ddr6 14gbps

msi rx 5600x (the fastest version of all 4): 290$
base 1420
boost 1750
6gb gddr6 14gps

My goal is not to compare the two and there's plenty of people who have already done "head-to-heads", I'm simply pointing out that a price decrease is not impressive or note worthy if it is accompanied by a decrease in performance. If these cards performed the same as the Gaming X or better and were cheaper then it would be something exciting to talk about, but they don't. Sure you are paying less but you're also getting less. Makes it a tough sell in my mind unless the price drop is significant (like 50$ less or more)

 

[Caring1]

Nobody will confuse M for mobile
Nahhhhh!

 

[Lew Zealand]

That is only 1 chart and it's comparing the sapphire 5600xt (again, faster on paper than this msi card in question) plus it's seemingly comparing it against a refrence gtx 1660 super?

A more fair comparison would be this new gaming mx vs a msi gaming x 1660 super. On paper here is what i see (and yes i understand there is more than meets the eye)

msi gaming x 1660 super: 260$
base 1530
boost 1850
6gb ddr6 14gbps

msi rx 5600x (the fastest version of all 4): 290$
base 1420
boost 1750
6gb gddr6 14gps

My goal is not to compare the two and there's plenty of people who have already done "head-to-heads", I'm simply pointing out that a price decrease is not impressive or note worthy if it is accompanied by a decrease in performance. If these cards performed the same as the Gaming X or better and were cheaper then it would be something exciting to talk about, but they don't. Sure you are paying less but you're also getting less. Makes it a tough sell in my mind unless the price drop is significant (like 50$ less or more)

Look more closely at the chart. It is an average of 22 games, not just one game. And at 1080p and 1440p, the very resolutions you'd use these cards at.

The 5600 XT is 23-25% faster over the average of all those games. Have a look at the review of the MSI 1660 Super Gaming X, again from this very website. It can OC by 9.2%, and the 5600 XT can OC by a 2.1% as well, so the MSI 1660 Super Gaming X can make up less that 1/3 of it's deficit to the Pulse 5600XT with both OC'd.

The Pulse 5600 XT is simply faster than the Gaming X 1660 Super by about 15% for an extra $30, which is less than 15% more. Seems like a reasonable option.

Another way to compare video cards is to look at how they fare where you really need the FPS, in the most demanding games. In the Pulse 5600XT and Gaming X 1660 Super reviews, both cards couldn't manage 60fps at 1080p in 3 games. So lets see which card gives you the most FPS where it'll mean the most:

Anno 1800
Gaming X 1660 Super 48.3 fps
Pulse 5600XT 57.5 fps

Assassin's Creed: Odyssey
Gaming X 1660 Super 53.6 fps
Pulse 5600XT 60.3 fps

Control
Gaming X 1660 Super 48.0 fps
Pulse 5600XT 54.9 fps

The Pulse delivers more FPS where you need it but it also costs more. Makes sense.

 

[jayseearr]

More fps where who needs it? you? lol. I've never played any of those games(although i was thinking about trying Ac odyssey the other day because it's on sale)...And yet again I'm not quite sure why your sapphire got thrown into the mix, sounds like maybe it's a personal thing and you're trying to defend a purchase? There's no need, the sapphire is a really decent card and that's not what this thread was about...

I'm comparing the different MSI cards (more specifically the new 5600 msi cards that are slower than the already existing ones.) Usually (not always) when a newer version of an already existing product comes out it's better or at least the same but in this case they're not. If you look at the original post and stop trying to compare a card that nobody was talking about then perhaps you will finally get the point that I'm trying to make here. These new 5600 variants are a step backwards in the speed category and the existing ones were already slower than your pulse so the new versions are even farther behind it, you are making irrelevant comparisons and clearly missing the point...By the way you said the sapphire "is simply faster" than the msi gaming x super but that "simply isn't the case."Delivering more frames in certain games and being faster are not necessarily the same thing...The 1660 has faster clock speeds (see above post) Last thing, you said "look more closely at the chart it's an average of 22 games not 1 game" Yeah, so? I never said it was based off of one game, I said it was only 1 chart and sapphire is the only specific brand listed on it which is confusing to me and makes me think it's being compared against reference cards..I think perhaps it's you who should go back and look more closely.

This is not a 5600 vs 1660 thread. I'm simply evaluating these brand new MSI 5600 variants and the place that i feel they will have in the market based on potential price, features, and what else is already available.

 

[medi01]

Soo... releasing RDNA1 card end of July... what does it tell us about upcoming RDNA2 products?

 

[danbert2000]

Soo... releasing RDNA1 card end of July... what does it tell us about upcoming RDNA2 products?

Like most graphics card releases, AMD and Nvidia will likely release the expensive flagship GPUs first, and trickle out the lower end ones over the course of months. The 960, 1060, and 2060 all took half a year to come out after their bigger brothers, and the 5600 XT similarly took a long time to take out. This means that the lower end cards have plenty of life left in them, albeit with price cuts and cost reductions like this. Just because there's a 3080 or RDNA 2 flagship coming out doesn't mean that there are going to be better options for the $200-300 range this year. Likely the competition will be in all of the Turing cards being sold on the used market.

 

[rgrooms]

The 5600 XT is 23-25% faster than the 1660 Super according to TPU's 5600 XT reviews:

Sapphire Radeon RX 5600 XT Pulse Review

Sapphire's RX 5600 XT Pulse comes at $289, which is only a small $10 premium over the AMD MSRP, yet it's faster than the GeForce RTX 2060. The card's cooler does a great job and delivers good temperatures paired with amazing noise levels, and it has fan-stop, too.

www.techpowerup.com

So the bump in price from the 1660 Super to the 5600 XT seems warranted. While the 1660 Super can be OC'd farther, that closes the gap by less than half and that's only in a benchmark, in-game will be even less than that.

Seeing as I own both, I should probably do a head to head...

Looks like you don't need too...I'm not even too familiar with these cards and I can tell you the 5600xt will beat that 1660 super