MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming X 8 GB

[killster1]

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

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

 

[Ruru]

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

 

[HwGeek]

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

 

[John Naylor]

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

Not apples and apples so kinda misleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not apples and apples so kinda misleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1650 Super is 5% slower:

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

 

[Casecutter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[illli]

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

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

What the heck is going on with these companies

 

[gridracedriver]

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

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

 

[HwGeek]

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

 

[gridracedriver]

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

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

 

[TKnockers]

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

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

 

[John Naylor]

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

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

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

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

Some Perspective: Zarathustra's Nvidia Price History

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

hardforum.com

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

 

[odio_i_fanboy]

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

or amd just wants to make money

 

[AngryGoldfish]

or amd just wants to make money

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

 

[Casecutter]

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

While I was discussing what killster1 said in his post.

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

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

 

[gridracedriver]

or amd just wants to make money

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

 

[Scougar]

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

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

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

 

[Parn]

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

 

[IceShroom]

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

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

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

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

 

[Scougar]

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

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

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