AMD first announced Radeon RX 5500 in early October, back when the RX 5500 Mobile (Apple) and OEM-only "RX 5500" launched, which we reviewed not long ago. Today, the consumer DIY-focused Radeon RX 5500 XT released. 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 never 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 today's launch, we also reviewed the Sapphire RX 5500 XT Pulse 4 GB to provide a data point for 4 GB vs. 8 GB VRAM.

MSI's Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming X is a high-end custom design variant of the RX 5500 XT that features 8 GB of VRAM for future-proofing. Out of the box, the Gaming X runs at 1737 MHz rated Game Clock. In reality, we measured an average clock frequency for 1080p gaming of 1818 MHz. Compared to the RX 5500 non-XT, which averaged out at 1795 MHz, that's a 1.2% 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. What's even more surprising is that both the Sapphire and MSI card reviewed today are rated at the same Game Clock, yet the MSI card ends up reaching 15 MHz less on average.

Overall, the MSI RX 5500 XT Gaming X achieves a 7% performance increase over the RX 5500 non-XT, which is bigger 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 the RX 5500 non-XT 4 GB. MSI's Gaming X does win against the NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super, delivering 4% higher performance. Part of that success is due to the performance improvements AMD introduced with their 19.12.2 Adrenalin 2020 drivers. That's the reason 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 the drivers is. AMD certainly did a great job here. This performance increase also enables the RX 5500 XT to beat the aging RX 580, the RX 570 4 GB is 20% behind. AMD's Radeon RX 590, which is Polaris-based, too, is only 3% 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 MSI's card. Overall, we can definitely recommend the Radeon RX 5500 Series for all games at 1080p Full HD.

MSI has put a powerful cooler on their Gaming X, which has its design roots in the RX 5700 Series lineup. Its looks to be of very high quality, and I very much like the design language that combines various shades of gray with red highlights. Temperatures are very good, reaching only 73°C during gaming, and noise levels are also extremely low with 29 dBA. This makes the Gaming X quieter than most GTX 1650 Super cards, an important achievement to be able to compete with NVIDIA's offerings. Sapphire's card, today's second review, seems to have a slightly better cooler because it reaches lower temperatures and lower noise at the same time, but the differences are minimal. Idle fan noise of MSI'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. As expected in this price range, MSI included a metal backplate, which greatly improves the overall look and feel of the product.

Back in July, 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 is roughly as power efficient as NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, which is a good improvement. NVIDIA's Turing architecture is still more efficient, and NVIDIA is still on 12 nanometer, while Navi uses the more efficient 7 nanometer tech. Nevertheless, looking at what the RX 5500 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 decent, reaching around +8% on GPU and +6% on memory, which turned into a 7.7% real-life performance improvement. NVIDIA's GTX 1650 Super does overclock a bit better though, regularly achieving +10% performance gains or more.

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 that 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, "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. What's also important to mention 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. MSI's Gaming X currently retails at $225, which is simply too high. At that price point there's plenty of better alternatives, like the GTX 1660 Super ($230) and GTX 1660 ($210). If both AMD and MSI reduce their pricing well below $200 for the Gaming X, I could recommend the card. Paying $15 for the extra memory and another $10 for MSI's premium cooler with idle-fan stop and good noise could be justifiable.

At the moment, 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.