AMD first announced Radeon the RX 5500 in early October, back when the Pro 5500M Mobile (Apple) and OEM-only "RX 5500" launched, which we reviewed not too long ago. Now, the consumer DIY-focused Radeon RX 5500 XT is available. The biggest surprise about this new model is that AMD is using the exact same shader amount on the "XT" SKU as on the "non-XT"—something that hasn't happened in recent history. The Navi 14 silicon does have 24 CUs (1536 shaders) physically, but it looks like either Apple is gobbling up all the production for their new MacBook lineup or wanted exclusivity on the higher shader count. All that is different between the RX 5500 and RX 5500 XT is that the OEM model ticks at 1670 MHz game clock and the XT cards start at 1717 MHz, a meager +2.8% increase. We've only seen 4 GB variants of the RX 5500, the RX 5500 XT comes in both 4 GB and 8 GB flavors. For this launch, we also reviewed the Sapphire RX 5500 XT Pulse 4 GB and MSI RX 5500 XT Gaming X 8 GB.

Gigabyte's Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming OC is the company's most premium custom design variant of the RX 5500 XT that features three fans and 8 GB of VRAM for future-proofing. Out of the box, the Gaming OC runs at 1737 MHz rated Game Clock. In reality, we measured an average clock frequency for 1080p gaming of 1836 MHz. Compared to the RX 5500 non-XT, which averaged out at 1795 MHz, that's a 2.2% increase in actual clock. AMD's math promises 4% (1737 MHz Game clock vs. 1670 MHz Game clock). I have no idea how the Game Clock value is measured, calculated, or estimated, but it's safe to say that it's a fantasy that doesn't hold up in real-life. This review is our third Radeon RX 5500 XT review—all tested cards come with a 1737 MHz Game Clock rating, yet the real-life differences in actual clocks are bigger than expected. We measured 1836 MHz on Gigabyte, 1818 MHz on MSI, and 1833 MHz on Sapphire. This makes the Gigabyte Gaming OC the fastest RX 5500 we tested so far, but by a small margin only.

Overall, the Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC achieves a 7% performance increase over the RX 5500 non-XT, which is more than expected. When taking a closer look at the performance results, you'll see that most of that gain comes from the larger VRAM size, which can be quite impressive in some games. In games where 4 GB VRAM is enough, the card roughly matches RX 5500 non-XT 4 GB. Gigabyte's card does win against the NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super, delivering 5% higher performance. Part of that success is due to the performance improvements AMD introduced with their 19.12.2 Adrenalin 2020 drivers, which is why I included two RX 5500 non-XT data points in this review, to give you a feel for how big the performance gain from drivers is. AMD certainly did a great job here. This performance increase also has the RX 5500 XT beat the aging RX 580, the RX 570 4 GB is 21% behind. AMD's Radeon RX 590, which is Polaris-based, too, is only 2% faster than the RX 5500 XT. NVIDIA's GTX 1650 is 30% slower, which is the reason why the green team launched the GTX 1650 Super. The GTX 1660 is 8% faster and actually cheaper than Gigabyte's card. Overall, we can definitely recommend the Radeon RX 5500 Series for all games at 1080p Full HD.

Gigabyte is using the same design language as on their RX 5700 XT Gaming OC. The card is dominated by black with various shades of grey as highlights. The large triple-fan cooler is the largest we've seen on any RX 5500 XT so far and delivers outstanding noise levels that are nearly inaudible during gaming. With 28 dBA, the card shares the noise-level throne with the Sapphire RX 5500 XT Pulse, but the MSI Gaming X isn't far behind with just 1 dBA more. Idle fan noise of Gigabyte's card is perfect because it includes the almost mandatory idle-fan-stop capability, which completely turns off the graphics card fans in idle, Internet browsing, productivity, and light gaming. Temperatures are good, but slightly higher than what we've seen on the Sapphire board, similar to MSI's Gaming X—surprising since Gigabyte's cooler has so much more heatsink area due to the larger size. Gigabyte is including a plastic backplate with their card. I think any sort of backplate is mandatory for a product in this price range—most NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super cards lack that. While ideally a metal backplate would have been nice, a plastic backplate is fine, too, as the backplate mostly serves to protect the card and improve looks; most cooling is provided by the main heatsink.

During testing, I noticed that the BIOS fan settings for the card are configured sub-optimally. Once the card heats up and the fans start spinning, the RPM will quickly climb to over 1900 RPM (there's a BIOS setting for that value). As temperatures increase even further, fan speed will actually go down, as AMD's fuzzy fan control algorithm takes over at that point and slowly adjusts the fan speed to properly match heat output. In the end, after over 10 minutes, fan speed will have reached 1000 RPM—only half of the initial fan speed! I notified Gigabyte a few days ago, but haven't heard from them since. I'm sure they're working on a BIOS update.

The July 2019 launch of "Navi 10," which is used on the Radeon RX 5700 series, confirmed that AMD has made substantial improvements in power efficiency, and Navi 14 on the RX 5500 is no different. Looking at performance per watt, we see the RX 5500 match the RX 5700 XT almost exactly. Doubling VRAM to 8 GB had no negative effect on power consumption. Only the RX 5700 non-XT is more power efficient, but it is a special undervolted design. Compared to NVIDIA, this means the RX 5500 XT is roughly as power efficient as NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, which is a good improvement. NVIDIA's Turing architecture remains more efficient, and NVIDIA is still on 12 nanometer, while Navi uses the more advanced 7 nanometer tech. Nevertheless, looking at what the RX 5500 XT delivers in terms of power/heat/noise, it seems the differences aren't that major anymore.

Overclocking using Wattman worked much better than in my early Navi 10 reviews. It seems AMD is actively working on getting all the issues fixed; their new Adrenalin 2020 confirms their interest in software improvements. Just like on previous Radeon cards, overclocking is limited to a maximum range AMD decides, no idea why as these cards definitely can take more. Our maximum overclock was substantially better than on other RX 5500 XT cards. I couldn't figure out what secret sauce Gigabyte is using, or maybe it's just the silicon lottery. The Gaming OC is the only RX 5500 XT so far that managed to exceed 2 GHz after overclocking, which is pretty impressive. Our manual overclocking gained 8% in real-life performance. While nice, NVIDIA's GTX 1650 Super does overclock a bit better, regularly achieving +10% performance gains or higher.

As mentioned before, the Radeon RX 5500 XT comes with memory sizes of 4 GB and 8 GB. For this launch, we had the chance to test both capacities, and I have to admit I'm surprised by the results. I always thought there would be no significant difference between 4 GB and 8 GB at 1080p in most titles, and the differences would only show at 1440p or 4K—resolutions the card is simply too slow for. Looking through our benchmark results, there are indeed a few cases where 1080p performance is higher on the 8 GB model. For example, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 5, Gears 5, GreedFall, Tomb Raider, and Wolfenstein see improvements of varying degree from doubling the memory amount. While I'm sure that will be heavily used by marketing, paired with "new consoles will have more memory", I'm not convinced that these gains are worth spending $30 more. NVIDIA's GTX 1650 Super comes in 4 GB variants only, which, with the right cherry picking, could lure in less educated buyers too, with "twice the memory, it must be twice as fast" (like in Wolfenstein 1080p). Personally, if I was shopping in this segment with a limited budget, I'd still opt for the 4 GB variant for the enormous cost savings, and possibly dial down memory intensive settings one notch. Also important here is that NVIDIA does manage limited VRAM more efficiently than AMD, as indicated by some of our benchmarks.

AMD has set base pricing of RX 5500 XT at $170 (4 GB) and $200 (8 GB). The NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super starts at $160. While the $170 price isn't bad, it's not good enough to convince hordes of buyers to opt for AMD's card, especially since NVIDIA's offering is a tiny bit faster and more power efficient. The 8 GB RX 5500 XT is simply way too expensive, charging $30 (or 17%) for additional VRAM that yields 5% in performance makes little sense from a buyer's perspective, I would be willing to maybe pay $15 more. The Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC is currently listed online for $220, which is too high. I can see how the better cooler costs money, but at that price, there are plenty of better alternatives on the market, like the GTX 1660 Super ($230) and GTX 1660 ($210). If both AMD and Gigabyte reduce their pricing, well below $200 for the Gaming OC, I could recommend the card. Paying $15 for the extra memory and another $10 for the premium cooler with idle fan stop and good noise could be justifiable.

At the moment, the Sapphire 4 GB Pulse for $180 is definitely the better choice, and I'd also look at NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super cards; the $160 EVGA GTX 1650 Super SC Ultra, for example. I talked to various board partners regarding their Polaris (RX 570/580/590) stock levels, and they all say they still have significant inventory, so maybe higher RX 5500 pricing will let them sell off those cards quickly, and we'll see price drops for the RX 5500 XT in the new year. What does concern me a little bit here is that the RX 5500 XT board design is very complex, with expensive VRM circuitry, whereas the NVIDIA cards look to be engineered with much better cost optimization in mind.