You’re wrong. Most people would spend $20 more to get the RTX2060. For 1080p gaming, I would get the GTX1660 Super which suits 1080p gaming perfectly. It also has the best price/performance.
The 5600XT needs to be priced at $240 to really have a competitive edge.
sorry sonny73n you are being close minded... do you really think the prices are the same everywhere ?? AT's pricing is in US FUNDS, and there for, in countries OTHER then the US, the prices and price differences, will be higher and different... so my $40- $50 price difference, is NOT absurd
Why would you spend an extra $20 for the RTX 2060 when the OC 5600XT is faster, cheaper, and uses less power than the 2060? Do you actively like spending more money for inferior products?
I think what they wanted to say is that for $ 20 more you not only get the gross yield of the RTX 2060 (a little higher than the 5600 XT), but also the RT cores (Raytracing) and Tensor Cores (DLSS). However, few games take advantage of these technologies and, as the owner of a 2080 Super, I must say that I barely use these technologies, so you could perfectly think of buying a 5600 XT before a 2060. Greetings !!!
Because you can ALSO OC the 2060, did you forget that? OC to OC, the 2060 is about 10% faster, which many would say is worth the $20. Nobody cares about power usage, unless it prevents the chip from running at full speed, which isnt the case here, as the 5600xt is firmware limited, not power limited.
Lets have some actual tech reviewers that do OC's push the cards. I'm interested in seeing how the respective cards perform but a lot of people don't OC so at the current price point and the current performance AMD is the winner here.
There Are test where there Are OC 5600xt and OC 2060 And They were quite near each others! For example Hardware Unboxing did use OC msi cards from both gpu manufacturers.
Yes 2060 ray tracing is all but useless .. altho the 2060 w/o RT is faster than the 1660ti. The 2060KO uses a 2080 chip with some features cut out so is not a direct
OC in name only. AMD must have figured that nVidia would drop the price of the 2060 otherwise they wouldn't have had the vBIOS available right after the price drop announcement. My assumption is further confirmed by the chip coming with 14Gbps RAM that had been down clocked to 12Gbps with the original BIOS. Had they not planned on releasing the vBIOS getting 12Gbps RAM instead of 14Gbps would have reduced the cost of the card.
The 5600XT price/performance ratio was so competitive that Nvidia had to lower their own prices to counter, which AMD countered with more performance. It literally redefined its price bracket.
Funny how you're phrasing that as a failing of AMD.
Very good review--to the point, Ryan! Thanks so much for limiting the cards compared to the same basic economic cost strata! That's rare these days. So many think that throwing in $1400 GPUs with sub-$300 GPUs is the thing to do. Ugh. (Last para, "quitter" should be "quieter")
It is always worth seeing where a card performs in the stack. If I am shopping for a GPU, I typically go for performance per dollar vs. A fixed budget (except in my last build where I said screw I went ham.)
Of course, performance per dollar can also be deceptive, since time is also a factor.
Performance per dollar within a given price category makes sense, but in many situations, lower end cards will end up being better when it comes to performance per dollar. Beyond $400, your performance per dollar does drop, but you can't argue when people want a $600+ card because they want to game at 4k resolutions and the $400 cards just can't handle that resolution.
While I agree with you I wish more benchmarks included the 1070 Ti rather than the 1070. I imagine as an owner of such a card I must be in the extreme minority or perhaps reviewers never bothered to acquire one since it was released so late in the cycle before the move to the RTX 20xx architecture.
Seconded. The 1070Ti was a relatively popular mining card (at least in my country) and hence the local used market is flooded with used 1070Ti's for about $170-180, which is an absolute steal for the performance and basically renders the entire mid range market obsolete
All contextual. If you are running at 1080p on certain games with an APU, for example, it's still worthwhile with a minimal amount of boost (83%) because it keeps frametimes consistent when you're already constrained and most need it (i.e. panning in FPS games).
How 'horrible' it is also depends on whether you can perceive the dynamic resolution changes as well. This is going to vary quite a bit depending on user configuration and tolerance, but I think the feature is worthwhile to include.
Did you even watch that Hardware Unboxed video? They were very extremely impressed with the performance/visuals at 4K (and using a resolution downscaler of ANY KIND on lesser resolutions is an inherently horrible idea, not anything wrong with AMD's approach), though of course, the algorithm still has it's issues and was more like a proof of concept than anything you'd want to daily drive yet. But your original comment is absolutely NOT the point they ended at, so please don't spreading nonsense.
But why would I buy 5600XT when the price difference too small, and I get slightly faster card with more features like DLSS, ray tracing and VRS ?? RTX 2060 is clearly better card to buy out of the two
really depends on your usage... for ray tracing, meh.. at the entry level, the 2060 is almost useless for RT, unless something has changed in the last few months, to big of a hit to use it. but looking at the prices for the 5600xt, 2060 and 2060S, at least with Asus' cards, there is $40 cdn difference between the entry card for these 3, and at the top end for these 3 cards there is an almost $200 cdn price difference, and yes, the 2060S is the most expensive at $650. for me, i would go with the 5600xt, only because i dont play, and dont plan on playing any games that use RT, so that is a feature i could care less about right now. it really boils down to what a person would do with the video card they were to get....
That said, the 5600XT is still cheaper, if only by a few $, but you get only slightly lower fps (depends on the game engine really, some are quite a bit faster on the 2060, others quite a bit faster on the 5600 XT).
On the plus side, you get lower noise, lower power consumption and it's not that Navi does not have any other features.
Afaik, the one that really makes a difference in the 2060's favor is Ray Tracing, which only gives playable fps at lower resolutions on that particular card.
So really, it comes down to preference. If you can get a 2060 Founder's edition for $299 including shipping then hey, not a bad buy.
If you get a Sapphire or similar OC RX 5600XT for $289 - hey, also not a bad buy.
Honestly, DLSS and RTX are not even a matter. It is in what...? 5 games? Also, a 2060 RTX is definitely not enought for Ray Tracing unless playing at 720p 60Hz is your thing.
Lol, the 2060 is absolutely useless for ray-tracing, so if that's the reason anyone is buying one, you are absolutely doing it wrong. And DLSS is literally a game dehancer, not enhancer.
Maybe you want free and open drivers on Linux - in the kernel. I know it's not a huge market, but for flexibility's sake I have no intention of buying NVIDIA until they follow the same path.
DLSS is pretty poor visually, near-useless below 4K and only available in a few games. Ray tracing is effectively useless at the 2060's performance level, a situation that is only likely to get worse as the card ages and more games supporting RTX come out (assuming they do). VRS is a very helpful feature, but it's still barely used - if it were playing more of a role then the 2060 would win more benchmarks.
So, I'll flip your question: why would I spend significantly more money (UK resident here) for a sometimes-faster sometimes-slower card that draws more power and has a bunch of features that I can't use or don't want?
It does not beat RTX 2060 (after price drop) in performance per dollar while having less features. 5600XT does not sound like great value. 5500XT 8GB is even worse
but if one puts no value in those features, then what?? i dont consider RT value feature, as i wont use it, i dont play any games that use it, so why waste the money on it ( for now ) as was said in another reply, unless you get a higher end 2070 or better, the performance hit for it, makes it almost unusable
Especially since the 2060 is BARELY capable of RTX stuff with current-gen titles. By the time the 1st titles developed with accelerated ray tracing in mind - rather than an "add on" after a lot of the art was made and the engine was written - come out (next year?), there's a good chance the 2060 will be too slow to enable rays anyways.
RTX 2060 matches 5600XT in performance per dollar without any of these features. SO even if these "extra" features are useless, 5600XT does not have any advantage anyway.
I rather have RT for safety as some games in future might become RT only since next gen consoles are going RT.
DLSS runs very on wolfenstein youngblood (check digital foundary about it)
ALso, it support variable rate shading which is also supported by next gen console (at least xbox series x confirmed to use it)
"as some games in future might become RT only". And that's what where I realized that you have absolutely no freaking clue what in the hell you are talking about.
Do you understand how computationally demanding drawing an entire scene in Ray Tracing would be?
Every game today that has Ray Tracing uses it only for shadows or reflections, because anything else it would hurt performance too much. RT is amazing, and I love it... but when some of the best computer hardware takes a few days to render an image completely in RT, I don't think an RTX2060 would stand any chance at rendering an image in full RT in a second, let alone render 60 images in a second...
Remember, games needed to cut down on the amount of Rays and bounces just to get acceptable RT performance. Rendering everything in RT would require a ton of bounces to get a better image than traditional rasterization... and it's the bouncing that makes RT so computational taxing. I refer to it as bouncing, because the rays bounce off objects to create realistic shadows, lighting, and textures on objects. The more rays, and bounces you have before it goes to the "eye", the better the image is gonna look.
TL;DR: Don't hold your breath. By the time games can be fully rendered in RT, I'm guessing we'll be on the 4th or 5th generation of RT Cards from both Nvidia and AMD...
Metro Exodus uses ray tracing for global illumination and Q2RTX uses ray tracing for GI, shadows and reflections, both playable on a 2060. I've played through those games with ray tracing on a 2060 without issue, people say Control is also, but don't have first hand experience with that(and not sure exactly what rt is used for).
There are hardly any games is valid, but there are games and they are quite playable on a 2060 using ray tracing today.
Ray tracing on the 2060 is rather pointless, unless you want to play games at sub-30 fps on most modern titles at 1080p. If you really want to apply ray tracing, then it's advisable to get at least a 2070 or higher.
maroon1 you keep pusing RT as the reason to get the 2060 over the 5600xt.. but do you even realize the performance hit you would suffer for using it ?? face it.. RT on this card.. is not a feature or rt future proof.. according to this review.. seems the 5600xt.. is rhe better card
I think the factory overclocked Sapphire card is a very interesting option. DLSS and VRS have AMD equivalents that work very well (and Sapphire has its Trixx software), meaning the only thing that Nvidia has over it in the RTX 2060 is ray tracing and NVENC- NVENC being more consequential considering the performance loss from ray tracing. This is a very competitive offering.
have to be honest I bought a 2080 when they first came out and frankly I should have just gone with a 1080 or the equiv navi 64 etc the whole RTX thing is pointless hardly any games have it and the performance hit makes it something I can live without, maybe in a couple of gens it will work but right now nah I will save money and buy other stuff
Except for the fact that in 6 of 9 titles the card reviewed here is FASTER than the 2060 while costing less. At Tomshardware they have the 5600XT faster in 8 of 11 at 1080p and 9 of 11 at 1440p. That means that the 2060 has worse performance per dollar than the 5600XT.
"Radeon RX 5600 XT needs to be fast enough to justify its price premium over the GTX 1660 Ti, and close enough to the RTX 2060 to overcome [snip]" Shouldn't this read "price premium over the GTX 1660 super?"
if they would have set at $279 "concrete" would be great, sadly they seemed to have not chose to do so.Fine if you are USD not so much if anywhere else.
Great article, really looking forward to this card for a moderately powerful but very quiet Linux work & gaming box. Though apparently I need to wait a little bit, as the vBIOS flash has messed up something with HW acceleration on Linux.
On the Power, Temperature & Noise page, there's a "quitter" that s/b "quieter". There's also an "Unaspiringly" there that potentially makes sense and is what was intended, but perhaps was meant to be an "Unsurprisingly" or similar.
@ Ryan, Thanks, and good for Team Red! Any rumors about NVIDIA trying that trick, too, by pushing the 2060 a bit harder with a "BIOS update" over the next days and weeks? Thermally, there seems to be some room there, too.
Impressive showing for AMD here. I bought the 1660Ti a year ago and I'm very happy with it, but if I were shopping today I would probably go with the 5600XT.
It uses a bit more power to deliver the better performance, but not as much as I was expecting.
RE the compute problems, with the 20.1.1 driver SETI's most recent beta application is being reported to work. Einstien@Home's Fermi (telescope) application is working with that driver without needing any application updates; so AMD is finally making some progress with getting OpenCL working again.
Though given all the other OpenCL software that still falls flat on its face, I would still caution against trusting AMD's current OpenCL drivers for any kind of production use, even if it appeared to be working in that one application.
39 decibels. 39. Thirty. Nine. Nine, with a three in front of it.
Also, thanks a bunch for including 1440p results. I suppose that's a given at this performance tier, but it's very helpful to me, and many others, I'm sure.
With Freesync, I'd accept slightly lower frame rates acceptable for a quieter and less-power-hungry build. Of course if you're looking you want to be paying more and burning more power - or perhaps just turning detail down, which would probably also help with any memory issues.
My guess would be no, because the key issue appears to be bandwidth between the GPU and its memory, on the card itself - but I agree, it'd be interesting to know. Perhaps more for some compute?
A significant outlier will have an outsized influence on the average; GTA V being out-of-line from typical results makes the Nvidia card look a little better than it actually is (unless you're a GTA V player).
In the case of this specific review, their "relative performance" metrics are affected by that. Personally, I don't think it's significant enough to worry about.
maybe because there is no official ko edition ?? maybe its just something evga released for product naming only ?? 2060S maybe cause there was no point to enclude it in the charts ? you could always use ATs bench comparison...
I think its interesting how little performance is actually gained beyond the 1650 Super. This is only 10% faster... Roughly. Going from 150 bucks, to 300 gets you 10-20% better fps? What a ripoff!
This article makes an argument for the 1660 Super Better Than Anything Else, but even that's an extra $70 for what amounts to an extra 5-10fps? So, never gonna be the difference between playable and unplayable for 70 bucks!?
Idk what's going on with GPUs, going higher end has always been a bad value but now its just dumb.
It really is like everything has been reduced to xbone graphics so as long as your next card exceed ps5 performance you're good for 10+ years!
Any way we could get some rendering comparisons in the Compute sections of these GPU reviews? Considering that GPU renderers with the OptiX backend are taking full use of the RT cores in Nvidia GPUs, I'd be interested to see how these Navi cards hold up. A simple comparison in Blender using the Cycles renderer would be great.
The stagnation in the sub-$300 video card market is getting pretty tiresome. I was unimpressed when the GTX 1060 6GB came out in 2016 and was barely faster than the GTX 970 from 2014 (which I bought new in early 2015 for around $250 on sale). Now, 3 1/2 years later we're getting only marginally faster products in the low $200 price range (1660, 5500xt). If you already have a card that was in the $200-$250 price range any time within the past *5 years*, you have to spend $280-$300 to get any kind of noticeable upgrade
As a comparison, that'd be like if the GTX 970 I bought on sale for $250 in 2015 (an admittedly great price, but not unheard of) had performed no better than a GTX 460... or even a GTX 470. That sounds absurd now, and yet that's what the mid range market has turned into.
It's true that Nvidia haven't offered anything like the value proposition that the GTX 970 was on its launch since then, and things have definitely slowed down in the GPU arena. I'm not entirely on board with this criticism overall, though.
First off, it's a bit unfair to compare the price of a card you got on sale with launch pricing. The 970 launched at $330, which was an absolute steal but still more than $250. Second, the 1060 provided performance that was better than a GTX 980 (and about 20-40% better than a 970, depending on the game and resolution) for $250. AMD countered with the 580 and, well, to be fair that was pretty much that until now.
That's why it confuses me that you'd complain now, when the 5600XT (and the price drops it inspired) means we can *finally* get performance that's 50-100% better than the 970 at a lower price. It took about twice as long as it used to, for sure, and that just seems to be how things are now.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make an unfair comparison. I was just thinking more in terms of time... 5 years, which used to be an incredibly long time in this industry. If we're comparing launch dates and pricing, then it has taken six years to get a large upgrade for a GTX 970 at a lower price... though arguably the RX 5700 fit that bill last summer when it was often available on sale for $300 or a little less. To me, that makes the 5600XT with less memory a lot less interesting for only $20 less. These cards are fine if people have the money for them, but the slow progress is what is getting to me. Compared to the massive changes we've seen AMD bring about in the CPU market, the GPU market is very stale. There aren't any no-brainer purchases at any tier if you have a mid-range GPU from within the past 5 years. This is probably the closest we've come, as you said, but its by such a small margin. If we had performance like this for closer to $200 it would have shaken things up and made GPUs interesting again. Instead, we have the same back and forth about whether it's worth it to spend another $20 and get last year's 2060, or to buy a 4 year old used 1070 for $190 on eBay, or to simply lower the settings a couple notches and stick to the 6 year old GTX 970.
This isn't really relevant, but... I guess my 970 actually ended up being more like $220, because I got a $30 check from nvidia due to that memory settlement. And then, well, I did sell the DLC codes that came with the card so it was closer to $200. That ends up being like $40 per year... thanks nvidia! :P
Ryan, because you mention all the time that 6GB of VRAM might not be enough soon, can you write an article explaining the major uses of VRAM by various applications?
It seems like neither compressed textures nor 3d models of everything needed at the same time (or within a few seconds) could take as much, and everything else can be preloaded quickly on the fly, especially with PCIe4x16... as it allows to update half of that 6GB VRAM every 1/10th of a second.
" look at the Steam hardware survey. " and that is 100% reliable ? BS. not every one has and uses steam, so no.. NOT a reliable metric. those that i know.. dont all run nvidia cards, some have radeons, and they dont have steam...
Steam has over 1 billion accounts and 90 million monthly users. The hardware survey has a sample size in the millions. Medical and psychological studies don't even have sample sizes like that. I'd say it's a damn good indicator of what most people are using.
You'd have to be moronic to buy any AMD video card: bad drivers that rarely get updated, loud, hot, power guzzling. Their cards are junk. I wish they weren't but they are. It's why no one buys them.
yea ok.. and nvidia drivers are better ?? come on.. the BOTH have had driver issues, looks like just another anti amd comment, just this time from cmdmonkey..............
Yet those issues always were fixed quickly. AMD takes ages. if they fix it at all, especially on less known games. Nvidia drivers may lack some basic features (like a pivot function), but bad and long time issues with them only ever turned out to be actually a defective graphics card causing the driver to act up. So if you have such bad issues, try replacing it.
" nvidia drivers are near flawless " ha !!!!!!!!!!!! that's a good one. bias much cmdmonkey ??? as Korguz mentioned, you must have been very lucky, as for me, with both radeon and geforce, i have had issues with both over the years, but, that doesnt change my view on either, i buy what i can afford that gives the performance i am willing to pay for, and so far, that looks to be amd, and thats partly because i am sick of nvidia charging WAY to much for a video card, they must like pricing their cards so only the rich, or those with no families and mortgages, can buy them. i hope amd can do the same with the video cards, as they have with Zen. would be nice to see nvidia have to drop their prices by 800 or more like intel has had to do.
Nvidia drivers have - in admittedly rare cases - actually destroyed cards. In more regular cases, they have bugs with setting resolutions, bugs with installation, and just the general sort of issues you'd expect from a large driver for complex hardware. They're no more immune from that than anyone else.
This "AMD drives are baaaaad" trope will probably never die, but it'll never really be true either.
For the record I'd actually love to see AMD produce good video cards again. Everything they've made in recent years has been trash. They make loud, hot, power guzzling, underperforming cards with bad drivers that rarely get updated. That's why they are down to 11% market share. Their cards suck.
oh look, an opinion from some that that looks like they hare heavily bias against amd for what ever reason. while their video cards in recent years hasnt been that good, but to be fair, there HAS been years, where nvidias were just as bad, same with their drivers. i guess he LOVES paying WAY to much for nvidia's products and wants to keep overpaying... is it safe to assume you also like over paying for intels current products too ?? nvidia is getting lazy, just like intel, and who knows, maybe they will follow in intels footsteps too.....
I actually hate overpaying and I hate nVidia having a monopoly. I want AMD to pull their heads out of their butts and stop producing video cards that are trash.
amds cards aren't trash, they are still pretty good for the price, and with nvidia charging way to much for theirs, amds cards are still quite usable, and at least most of them are affordable.
AMD cards are poo. And they aren't cheap enough that anyone would pick them over nVidia equivalents that run cooler and quieter and have better drivers.
your opinions are poo, and is just your personal OPINION, thats all.. there is nothing wrong with amds cards, just like there is nothing wrong with nvidias, some have issues with one, and not the other, and vice versa, as i said, i have issues with both. still better then paying the ridiculous prices that nvidia charges, as i also mentioned.. nvidia is getting lazy, been at the top too long, and it will bite them in the ass, maybe with the next release of RDNA2, or heck.. maybe it will come out of left field with intel and the Xe cards who knows.. IMO, your bias against amd shows.... and i hope you keep buying nivida and paying for those over priced cards....
Did you read the review? This card uses less power than the 2060 to match its performance and runs significantly quieter. Drivers get updated monthly, with new features launched already this year. Their market share at its worst is 25%.
If you're just going to come here to post counterfactual crap in the comments, kindly piss off.
Their market share is 11.8% and continues to shrink. You would think with so many used mining cards being dumped on the used market for dirt cheap prices maybe it would go up. But people aren't buying the used AMD mining cards, they're buying used 1060s and 1070s. Even brokeasses buying used cards don't want AMD junk.
So shrinking from Q2 2019? Man I guess AMD lost 20% market share the second half of last year. Amazing.
"AMD saw its share of the graphics market surge in Q2 2019, with total shipments larger than Nvidia for the first time in five years. At the same time, Nvidia retains a hard lock on the add-in board market for desktops, with approximately two-thirds of total market share."
cmdrmonkey either post links to your BS " facts " like market share... or shut up and admit you hate amd, are bias to nvidia, and you love paying nvidias high prices..
yes you do.. it can be seen in most of your posts.. and you didnt post links to where you get your bs claims about amds vid card market share... so.. its your own personal bias. and bs...
at least sarafino posted some proof.. why cant you do the same ?? oh wait.. cause you have none.. its your own opionion.. and because you hate anything made by amd...
I hate AMD? I bought the original Athlon at launch kid. I've owned tons of ATI and AMD products over the years. I have tough love for AMD. I want them to stop sucking and produce good cards again. Patting them on the back for mediocrity isn't helping them. AMD is like that alcoholic friend who needs to hit rock bottom before they can get their shit together again.
Steam's survey numbers aren't useless. The survey doesn't measure sales and it isn't supposed to. It measures usage. There is also nothing wrong with counting cafes in China. Cafes in China represent both usage and sales. There is however an issue of counting them in a way congruent with how private machines are counted. But what can be said is that when AMD GPUs are barely registering on the survey while competing NVIDIA GPUs show a significant share, then sales of the NVIDIA GPUs are likely much higher among gamers than sales of the AMD GPUs. It's not scientific, but it is very reasonable, unless you have reason to believe there is a massive bias among people who play mostly EA games to very significantly prefer the AMD cards, or you believe that AMD card owners buy their cards but hardly use them compared to NVIDIA owners, as examples.
Trying to position your products in a competitive market is "pulling a 'me too'"? Half of Nvidia's current Kafkaesque GPU product line are the prototypical example of "me too". How many different Geforce GPU's does Nvidia currently have on the market now? 14?
Wow somebody is butthurt. Please explain why with the 1070, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, vanilla 2060, Vega 56, and RX 5700 we needed another card in this segment?
What point are you trying to make? I'm trying to make the point that this is another dumb product that has no reason for existing, just like RX 5500. AMD should be focusing on winning back the high-end. That's where competition is actually needed to drive down prices across the board.
and nvida doesnt have.. or has released their own.. what you consider dumb products ?? how about intels plethora of cpus ?? even you should realize it.. amd, nvidia, and intel release products that for some reason dont work as they intended when made.. but instead of throwing it out.. release it as a lower tier product.. aka phenom x3.. made as an x4.. but one core was faulty... i have seen nvida do the same.. maybe thats why we had the 3 gig and 6 gig 1060....
whilst being competitive in the high ground may be desirable for the sake of swinging your *@** around it doesnt make for large VOLUME sales which is what AMD are after with this card unlike the average 12 year old keyboard warrior shouting look at my card its 5 FPS faster from the rooftops AMD is looking to win back the real meat and potatoes( sry veggies no insult) market, the fact nvidia have already dropped prices in response to this card makes your whole chain of thought and beliefs about this product obsolete and pointless, AMD and indeed all public company's have to justify investors faith in them and make them a decent ROI.
"It's AMD pulling a 'me too'" ... *proceeds to name a market segment containing 4 Nvidia GPUs (3 current gen) and 2 AMD GPUs (1 current gen)*
Tell us again, who's the one with superfluous products here? :| It's a crowded segment because there's high demand. AMD can't profit selling the outdated, hot, under-performing and expensive-to-manufacture Vega 56 at a discount, but it can profit from Navi. They just lowered the cost of entry to 1440p by forcing Nvidia to respond and your response is "wah, I don't like cheap graphics card".
$210? The lowest price on Newegg is $230 for a 1660S. Based on the aggregated review data for the updated 5600XT, it's 20% faster than the 1660S thanks to the performance bios. 20% for $40 more isn't bad. The 5700 is approximately 6% more performant for an additional $30 give or take a few dollars.
AMD just overclocked the card themselves so reviewers would use this as a baseline to compare with other non-oc cards, making the card more appealing instead of DOA at $279. Once other cards are overclocked the price/perf will be the same as its competitors. AMD is just filling the gap for their lineup. $249 would be a more competitive price imo.
Yeah. There was too much trust by reviewers on this situation. Some warning lights should have gone off. I don't know if it happened due to worry about access or if reviewers have something personal at stake.
Will a buyer be able to flash? Will he get 14 Gbps memory if he does? Will the card have reduced reliability after the flash? And the problem doesn't go away after launch. 6 months from now someone can read this review thinking it is representative of the 5600 XT when there are cards out there that run over 10% slower. So what is the true price point of the cards that you can get that are validated to run at the benchmarked performance levels? Of course there will be a delta in the market, whether it becomes 160 to 180 or 180 to 200. That can give a completely different conclusion about the card, even ignoring the Busch league je-jiggering and the confusion it creates.
The 5700XT is cranking over 2000Mhz and it is about tie AMD does this simple trick to make the GPU put out a little more.
In this highly affluent world NO ONE will want a 5600XT unless they are little teenage paper route boys in high crime areas. $100 above the 5600XT lies a top end competitive card.
I understand these manufactures get a few lesser cores from the GPU chip foundary and pop them in the second tier cards that are $100 less than the GOLDEN SAMPLE GPU cards.
That is about all I need to know.
I do it on a GTX1080 and a R9 Fury clocked to 1100Mhz with more RAM bandwidth than the GTX [RTX?} ---- both plans to perform wotk. I hope for more HBM ram to get tied into the priemier performance video card. How could that tech turn into a side stepable meadow pie? Shame!
It's expensive. The fact that AMD needed to use it is one reason their high end cards were not very competitive. Maybe eventually its cost will come down. It is a very important technology in the HPC segments where bandwidth is a lot more important, though, so it's not a meadow pie.
"In this highly affluent world NO ONE will want a 5600XT unless they are little teenage paper route boys in high crime areas. $100 above the 5600XT lies a top end competitive card."
I'mma guess that you're the sort of person who laughs when someone says "check your privilege"...
Gimme BIG NAVI! 6,000 cores [ or EUs or CUDA Cores] at 3Mhz and 16GB HBM (equiv. 32GB reg Ram) @7NM ONLY CONSUMING 150w. - cracking the 100% mark, AND PRICED AT $375USD. I do not care if they call it the 5950XTX OC Super...LOL!
As far as I can see, as of today (21/12/2020), this is the most recent consumer GPU review in Anandtech. It is 11 months old right now. Are you planning on reviewing any of the seven major launches that happened in this year?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
Back to Article
jragonsoul - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I didn't think the 5600XT would be really competitive. I'm glad to see I was probably wrong. Great on AMD.sonny73n - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
You’re wrong. Most people would spend $20 more to get the RTX2060. For 1080p gaming, I would get the GTX1660 Super which suits 1080p gaming perfectly. It also has the best price/performance.The 5600XT needs to be priced at $240 to really have a competitive edge.
Korguz - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
too bad its NOT 20 bucks more, in the US, maybe, else where.. its at best, $40 or $50keep dreaming there sunny73n
sonny73n - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Don’t be absurd. This is based on 2020 GPU pricing comparison provided by Anandtech RIGHT HERE in the article.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
sorry sonny73n you are being close minded... do you really think the prices are the same everywhere ?? AT's pricing is in US FUNDS, and there for, in countries OTHER then the US, the prices and price differences, will be higher and different... so my $40- $50 price difference, is NOT absurdhaukionkannel - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Yeah... Different countries have different price differences!schujj07 - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Why would you spend an extra $20 for the RTX 2060 when the OC 5600XT is faster, cheaper, and uses less power than the 2060? Do you actively like spending more money for inferior products?jragonsoul - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Yeah, looks like Sonny didn't read the article at all.sonny73n - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Yeah, looks like jragonsoul read the article but his brain can’t process any of it.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
wow.. going to personal attacks, cant prove your point huh ? try looking in the mirrorEduardo Franco - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
I think what they wanted to say is that for $ 20 more you not only get the gross yield of the RTX 2060 (a little higher than the 5600 XT), but also the RT cores (Raytracing) and Tensor Cores (DLSS). However, few games take advantage of these technologies and, as the owner of a 2080 Super, I must say that I barely use these technologies, so you could perfectly think of buying a 5600 XT before a 2060. Greetings !!!dr.denton - Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - link
Thanks for being the responsible grown up here :)TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Because you can ALSO OC the 2060, did you forget that? OC to OC, the 2060 is about 10% faster, which many would say is worth the $20. Nobody cares about power usage, unless it prevents the chip from running at full speed, which isnt the case here, as the 5600xt is firmware limited, not power limited.jragonsoul - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Lets have some actual tech reviewers that do OC's push the cards. I'm interested in seeing how the respective cards perform but a lot of people don't OC so at the current price point and the current performance AMD is the winner here.schujj07 - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
@RyanSmith was the 2060 used in the review a Founders Edition or vanilla 2060?jragonsoul - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Very important to note the only 2060 at 300 dollars is the EVGA 2060 K.O. which is a cut down 2060. So make of that what you will.Retycint - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
The founder's edition is also cut down to $300, however stock availability is a bit of an issue right now it seemssonny73n - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
The reference RTX 2060 is $299 on nVidia.com right now. The EVGA 2060 KO has the same CUDA cores count which is 1920 but with better boost clock.Please go somewhere else with your bullshits.
Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
you 1st sonny73nRyan Smith - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Founders edition. Which offers pure reference (vanilla) performance.Korguz - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
TheinsanegamerN but the everage user.. wont overclock.. so thats not really valid....haukionkannel - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
There Are test where there Are OC 5600xt and OC 2060 And They were quite near each others!For example Hardware Unboxing did use OC msi cards from both gpu manufacturers.
Spunjji - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
I'm guessing the answer most would give is "because RTX", even though that doesn't become a remotely sensible answer until the 2070 Super.Marketing - it works.
V1tru - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
I would invest the 20 bucks for Raytracing.Same story with my choise, I spent 80 bucks more to get 2070S over 5700 XT for Raytracing and better cooling, so competition here look like balanced
supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Raytracing on a 2060 is pointless.It doesn't have enough grunt.
It should be ignored as a feature as it cannot be used without giving up a lot of other arguably more important things (FPS, resolution etc).
MASSAMKULABOX - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Yes 2060 ray tracing is all but useless .. altho the 2060 w/o RT is faster than the 1660ti. The 2060KO uses a 2080 chip with some features cut out so is not a directKorguz - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link
you have a link for this.. i cant seem to find anything on it.. so either its evga just naming the card that, or its as you say...sonny73n - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
So you’re comparing vanilla to overclocked. Irrelevant. Next!schujj07 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
OC in name only. AMD must have figured that nVidia would drop the price of the 2060 otherwise they wouldn't have had the vBIOS available right after the price drop announcement. My assumption is further confirmed by the chip coming with 14Gbps RAM that had been down clocked to 12Gbps with the original BIOS. Had they not planned on releasing the vBIOS getting 12Gbps RAM instead of 14Gbps would have reduced the cost of the card.flyingpants265 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Because $20 is not a large difference at all? And 2060 belongs to a much larger, more reliable brand?Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
in the US.. its $20.. but else where.. its more then that...larger and more reliable ?? barely...
Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
The 5600XT price/performance ratio was so competitive that Nvidia had to lower their own prices to counter, which AMD countered with more performance. It literally redefined its price bracket.Funny how you're phrasing that as a failing of AMD.
335 GT - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
That really broken 2080 die you mean? That die that cant be binned down to a 2070. Lol.headloser - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
You must lived in USA. In Canada, it cost around $400 dollars before tax. And it doesn't even come with free games. No deal sorry.SilthDraeth - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Three weeks into 2019 eh? First sentence.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Some of us are still stuck in the last decade, apparently! (or we're just really tired)Lord of the Bored - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I hear ya. Some didn't even make it that far. Every day I wake up and ask "is it 1989?"boozed - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Hi! I'm a pedant from the internet...WaltC - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Very good review--to the point, Ryan! Thanks so much for limiting the cards compared to the same basic economic cost strata! That's rare these days. So many think that throwing in $1400 GPUs with sub-$300 GPUs is the thing to do. Ugh. (Last para, "quitter" should be "quieter")eek2121 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
It is always worth seeing where a card performs in the stack. If I am shopping for a GPU, I typically go for performance per dollar vs. A fixed budget (except in my last build where I said screw I went ham.)Of course, performance per dollar can also be deceptive, since time is also a factor.
Targon - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Performance per dollar within a given price category makes sense, but in many situations, lower end cards will end up being better when it comes to performance per dollar. Beyond $400, your performance per dollar does drop, but you can't argue when people want a $600+ card because they want to game at 4k resolutions and the $400 cards just can't handle that resolution.thecoolnamesweretaken - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
While I agree with you I wish more benchmarks included the 1070 Ti rather than the 1070. I imagine as an owner of such a card I must be in the extreme minority or perhaps reviewers never bothered to acquire one since it was released so late in the cycle before the move to the RTX 20xx architecture.Retycint - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Seconded. The 1070Ti was a relatively popular mining card (at least in my country) and hence the local used market is flooded with used 1070Ti's for about $170-180, which is an absolute steal for the performance and basically renders the entire mid range market obsoleteKrayzieka - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Is this With the new driver boost?Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
This is with the lastest drivers. AMD's Radeon Boost (dynamic resolution) feature is not enabled.maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
AMD's Radeon Boost features is horrible specially if you running below 4KWatch some review like a hardware unboxed about it. They even recommend not using it for 1080p because you sacrifice a lot of image quality
Duckferd - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
All contextual. If you are running at 1080p on certain games with an APU, for example, it's still worthwhile with a minimal amount of boost (83%) because it keeps frametimes consistent when you're already constrained and most need it (i.e. panning in FPS games).How 'horrible' it is also depends on whether you can perceive the dynamic resolution changes as well. This is going to vary quite a bit depending on user configuration and tolerance, but I think the feature is worthwhile to include.
Cooe - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Did you even watch that Hardware Unboxed video? They were very extremely impressed with the performance/visuals at 4K (and using a resolution downscaler of ANY KIND on lesser resolutions is an inherently horrible idea, not anything wrong with AMD's approach), though of course, the algorithm still has it's issues and was more like a proof of concept than anything you'd want to daily drive yet. But your original comment is absolutely NOT the point they ended at, so please don't spreading nonsense.Spunjji - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
It's possible that spreading nonsense is maroon1's actual job :/Irata - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Well, Techspot really liked it and found it a lot better thsn DLSS in their review.SilthDraeth - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Er... 2nd sentence. Anyway.koekkoe - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
25 percent fan speed - How many RPM this is?Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
~750 RPM.kobblestown - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Thanks for including an R9 390X. I actually have one of those.maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
So equal price per dollar to RTX 2060But why would I buy 5600XT when the price difference too small, and I get slightly faster card with more features like DLSS, ray tracing and VRS ??
RTX 2060 is clearly better card to buy out of the two
maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
*Performance per dollar I meanKorguz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
really depends on your usage... for ray tracing, meh.. at the entry level, the 2060 is almost useless for RT, unless something has changed in the last few months, to big of a hit to use it. but looking at the prices for the 5600xt, 2060 and 2060S, at least with Asus' cards, there is $40 cdn difference between the entry card for these 3, and at the top end for these 3 cards there is an almost $200 cdn price difference, and yes, the 2060S is the most expensive at $650. for me, i would go with the 5600xt, only because i dont play, and dont plan on playing any games that use RT, so that is a feature i could care less about right now. it really boils down to what a person would do with the video card they were to get....Irata - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
If it's better for you, go get it.That said, the 5600XT is still cheaper, if only by a few $, but you get only slightly lower fps (depends on the game engine really, some are quite a bit faster on the 2060, others quite a bit faster on the 5600 XT).
On the plus side, you get lower noise, lower power consumption and it's not that Navi does not have any other features.
Afaik, the one that really makes a difference in the 2060's favor is Ray Tracing, which only gives playable fps at lower resolutions on that particular card.
So really, it comes down to preference. If you can get a 2060 Founder's edition for $299 including shipping then hey, not a bad buy.
If you get a Sapphire or similar OC RX 5600XT for $289 - hey, also not a bad buy.
eva02langley - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Honestly, DLSS and RTX are not even a matter. It is in what...? 5 games? Also, a 2060 RTX is definitely not enought for Ray Tracing unless playing at 720p 60Hz is your thing.Cooe - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Lol, the 2060 is absolutely useless for ray-tracing, so if that's the reason anyone is buying one, you are absolutely doing it wrong. And DLSS is literally a game dehancer, not enhancer.GreenReaper - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Maybe you want free and open drivers on Linux - in the kernel. I know it's not a huge market, but for flexibility's sake I have no intention of buying NVIDIA until they follow the same path.extide - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Looks to me like the Sapphire Pulse is $10 cheaper, and also faster than the 2060..Fulljack - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
scratch that DLSS as more feature. Radeon has RIS which is way more better in practice rather than Nvidia AI mumbo jumbo.Spunjji - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
DLSS is pretty poor visually, near-useless below 4K and only available in a few games.Ray tracing is effectively useless at the 2060's performance level, a situation that is only likely to get worse as the card ages and more games supporting RTX come out (assuming they do).
VRS is a very helpful feature, but it's still barely used - if it were playing more of a role then the 2060 would win more benchmarks.
So, I'll flip your question: why would I spend significantly more money (UK resident here) for a sometimes-faster sometimes-slower card that draws more power and has a bunch of features that I can't use or don't want?
Zizy - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
So, a pretty decent although unimpressive base card (same price/performance as other AMD cards), and a surprisingly good factory overclocked one.Koenig168 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
AMD should extend the MHW:I game bundle promo to the 5600XT.Rudde - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Doesn't it have 32 CUs, not 36?TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I like that AMD has three tiers of performance... But, when those tiers are Medium, Low, and Ultra-Low, I just can't get excited about any of it.Korguz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
" But, when those tiers are Medium, Low, and Ultra-Low " how do you figure? or is this just more of teamswitchers anti amd comments again ??Qasar - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
yea no kidding... its still better then nvidia's semi expensive, expensive and ultra expensive prices....maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
It does not beat RTX 2060 (after price drop) in performance per dollar while having less features. 5600XT does not sound like great value. 5500XT 8GB is even worseQasar - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
but if one puts no value in those features, then what?? i dont consider RT value feature, as i wont use it, i dont play any games that use it, so why waste the money on it ( for now ) as was said in another reply, unless you get a higher end 2070 or better, the performance hit for it, makes it almost unusablesing_electric - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Especially since the 2060 is BARELY capable of RTX stuff with current-gen titles. By the time the 1st titles developed with accelerated ray tracing in mind - rather than an "add on" after a lot of the art was made and the engine was written - come out (next year?), there's a good chance the 2060 will be too slow to enable rays anyways.neblogai - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
As per Hardware Unboxed review- 5600XT offers the same speed as 2060, but costs less and uses less power.maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
RTX 2060 matches 5600XT in performance per dollar without any of these features. SO even if these "extra" features are useless, 5600XT does not have any advantage anyway.I rather have RT for safety as some games in future might become RT only since next gen consoles are going RT.
DLSS runs very on wolfenstein youngblood (check digital foundary about it)
ALso, it support variable rate shading which is also supported by next gen console (at least xbox series x confirmed to use it)
Cooe - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
"as some games in future might become RT only". And that's what where I realized that you have absolutely no freaking clue what in the hell you are talking about.Xyler94 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Do you understand how computationally demanding drawing an entire scene in Ray Tracing would be?Every game today that has Ray Tracing uses it only for shadows or reflections, because anything else it would hurt performance too much. RT is amazing, and I love it... but when some of the best computer hardware takes a few days to render an image completely in RT, I don't think an RTX2060 would stand any chance at rendering an image in full RT in a second, let alone render 60 images in a second...
Remember, games needed to cut down on the amount of Rays and bounces just to get acceptable RT performance. Rendering everything in RT would require a ton of bounces to get a better image than traditional rasterization... and it's the bouncing that makes RT so computational taxing. I refer to it as bouncing, because the rays bounce off objects to create realistic shadows, lighting, and textures on objects. The more rays, and bounces you have before it goes to the "eye", the better the image is gonna look.
TL;DR: Don't hold your breath. By the time games can be fully rendered in RT, I'm guessing we'll be on the 4th or 5th generation of RT Cards from both Nvidia and AMD...
BenSkywalker - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Metro Exodus uses ray tracing for global illumination and Q2RTX uses ray tracing for GI, shadows and reflections, both playable on a 2060. I've played through those games with ray tracing on a 2060 without issue, people say Control is also, but don't have first hand experience with that(and not sure exactly what rt is used for).There are hardly any games is valid, but there are games and they are quite playable on a 2060 using ray tracing today.
Droekath - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Ray tracing on the 2060 is rather pointless, unless you want to play games at sub-30 fps on most modern titles at 1080p. If you really want to apply ray tracing, then it's advisable to get at least a 2070 or higher.maroon1 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
According to Hardware Unboxed 2060 is slightly faster. And it offer comparable performance per dollar (if 2060 is 299 dollar)Korguz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
maroon1 you keep pusing RT as the reason to get the 2060 over the 5600xt.. but do you even realize the performance hit you would suffer for using it ?? face it.. RT on this card.. is not a feature or rt future proof.. according to this review.. seems the 5600xt.. is rhe better cardsonny73n - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Forget ray tracing. RTX2060 is still a better card.Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
"Forget the biggest reason I gave for this card being better... it's better anyway because reasons"-slow claps as the goalposts disappear over the horizon-
Duckferd - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I think the factory overclocked Sapphire card is a very interesting option. DLSS and VRS have AMD equivalents that work very well (and Sapphire has its Trixx software), meaning the only thing that Nvidia has over it in the RTX 2060 is ray tracing and NVENC- NVENC being more consequential considering the performance loss from ray tracing. This is a very competitive offering.335 GT - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
DLSS is like smearing vaseline over your lens. Great feature for internet trolls though.Irata - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Care to elaborate on those features ? Ray tracing I get, although on the 2060 that's mostly a theoretical feature, but the rest...Or in short: What can those features do where the RX 5600 doesn't not have a similar feature under a different name that does the same thing ?
eva02langley - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
It does actually.https://youtu.be/qcAwR49zRCg?t=919
alufan - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
have to be honest I bought a 2080 when they first came out and frankly I should have just gone with a 1080 or the equiv navi 64 etc the whole RTX thing is pointless hardly any games have it and the performance hit makes it something I can live without, maybe in a couple of gens it will work but right now nah I will save money and buy other stuffschujj07 - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Except for the fact that in 6 of 9 titles the card reviewed here is FASTER than the 2060 while costing less. At Tomshardware they have the 5600XT faster in 8 of 11 at 1080p and 9 of 11 at 1440p. That means that the 2060 has worse performance per dollar than the 5600XT.Spunjji - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
"Hur hur, I like paying too much for graphics cards"Thanks troll
Rudde - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
"Radeon RX 5600 XT needs to be fast enough to justify its price premium over the GTX 1660 Ti, and close enough to the RTX 2060 to overcome [snip]"Shouldn't this read "price premium over the GTX 1660 super?"
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Yes. Thanks!Dragonstongue - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
if they would have set at $279 "concrete" would be great, sadly they seemed to have not chose to do so.Fine if you are USD not so much if anywhere else.Life is pricey enough T_T
GreenMeters - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Great article, really looking forward to this card for a moderately powerful but very quiet Linux work & gaming box. Though apparently I need to wait a little bit, as the vBIOS flash has messed up something with HW acceleration on Linux.On the Power, Temperature & Noise page, there's a "quitter" that s/b "quieter". There's also an "Unaspiringly" there that potentially makes sense and is what was intended, but perhaps was meant to be an "Unsurprisingly" or similar.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Thanks!eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
@ Ryan, Thanks, and good for Team Red! Any rumors about NVIDIA trying that trick, too, by pushing the 2060 a bit harder with a "BIOS update" over the next days and weeks? Thermally, there seems to be some room there, too.jabber - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
So go from 8GB to 6GB? Nope. I'll wait till September...sorten - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Impressive showing for AMD here. I bought the 1660Ti a year ago and I'm very happy with it, but if I were shopping today I would probably go with the 5600XT.It uses a bit more power to deliver the better performance, but not as much as I was expecting.
DanNeely - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
RE the compute problems, with the 20.1.1 driver SETI's most recent beta application is being reported to work. Einstien@Home's Fermi (telescope) application is working with that driver without needing any application updates; so AMD is finally making some progress with getting OpenCL working again.https://einsteinathome.org/content/all-things-navi...
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Very interesting.Though given all the other OpenCL software that still falls flat on its face, I would still caution against trusting AMD's current OpenCL drivers for any kind of production use, even if it appeared to be working in that one application.
eva02langley - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I must admit that I am a little bit surprised. End up being as good as the 5700 XT.eek2121 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
GTA V remains a persistent thorn in AMD's side (on Windows at least).That being said, if AMD had positioned this card at $250/year, it would have been quite a steal.
philosofool - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
39 decibels. 39. Thirty. Nine. Nine, with a three in front of it.Also, thanks a bunch for including 1440p results. I suppose that's a given at this performance tier, but it's very helpful to me, and many others, I'm sure.
TheWereCat - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
What are you trying to say with 39?philosofool - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I could have been cleared: it's 27% quieter than a 2060 and over 50% quieter than a 1660 Ti. That's awesome.Yojimbo - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Than which 2060 and 1660Ti, though? The one you would otherwise buy if you were interested in a quiet card?GreenReaper - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
With Freesync, I'd accept slightly lower frame rates acceptable for a quieter and less-power-hungry build. Of course if you're looking you want to be paying more and burning more power - or perhaps just turning detail down, which would probably also help with any memory issues.alufan - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
would testing on a pcie4 enabled board make any odds? just curious the card is pcie4 and it would be nice to see testing done with the latest specs.GreenReaper - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
My guess would be no, because the key issue appears to be bandwidth between the GPU and its memory, on the card itself - but I agree, it'd be interesting to know. Perhaps more for some compute?Dave321 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Overall test results are skewed by A massive 2060 win in GTA V. 5600XT was faster in most games.Korguz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
how does that make them skewed ??Spunjji - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
A significant outlier will have an outsized influence on the average; GTA V being out-of-line from typical results makes the Nvidia card look a little better than it actually is (unless you're a GTA V player).In the case of this specific review, their "relative performance" metrics are affected by that. Personally, I don't think it's significant enough to worry about.
Martin84a - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Still uses 4x the power in dual-monitor configuration compared to my current 1070 ti :/ This has been an issue for AMD cards for quite a long time.https://tpucdn.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-5600-...
ryrynz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Quiter not QuitterTheReason8286 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Lol Quieter*Lord of the Bored - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Quieter not Quitter, not Quiter not Quitter.dairyAT - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Test Setup page lists a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super, but the review charts are labeled NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060. Which is it?Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
It's the regular RTX 2060.just4U - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Wow.. didn't think it would be that good. Nice review Ryan.Hrel - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
This doesn't mention the ko edition.... Charts don't include the 2060 super either...Wth?
Korguz - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
maybe because there is no official ko edition ?? maybe its just something evga released for product naming only ?? 2060S maybe cause there was no point to enclude it in the charts ? you could always use ATs bench comparison...philosofool - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Probably because it’s a totally different price tier. They also didn’t include AMD offerings in that tier.BG19902 - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
There's an error in the conclusion:"memory overclock in particular giving RX 5660 XT a several percent boost in performance". I believe that should be "5600 XT"
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Right you are. Thanks!Hrel - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
I think its interesting how little performance is actually gained beyond the 1650 Super. This is only 10% faster... Roughly. Going from 150 bucks, to 300 gets you 10-20% better fps? What a ripoff!This article makes an argument for the 1660 Super Better Than Anything Else, but even that's an extra $70 for what amounts to an extra 5-10fps? So, never gonna be the difference between playable and unplayable for 70 bucks!?
Idk what's going on with GPUs, going higher end has always been a bad value but now its just dumb.
It really is like everything has been reduced to xbone graphics so as long as your next card exceed ps5 performance you're good for 10+ years!
Retycint - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
1650 super is roughly equivalent to the 580, so the 5600XT is a lot more than "5-10% faster"Samus - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
So the 2060 is basically irrelevant now. It was always too slow for ray tracing, and now it's outclassed for a cheaper, faster card.Kurosaki - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
The 5950xt could not come sooner. We don't need another 590-league cardTheWereCat - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Maybe I've read different review than you did but how is 5600XT a 590 performer?misterragequit - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Any way we could get some rendering comparisons in the Compute sections of these GPU reviews? Considering that GPU renderers with the OptiX backend are taking full use of the RT cores in Nvidia GPUs, I'd be interested to see how these Navi cards hold up. A simple comparison in Blender using the Cycles renderer would be great.Ryan Smith - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Unfortunately Blender doesn't play nicely with new hardware. Or with AMD's currently buggy OpenCL drivers.ozzuneoj86 - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
The stagnation in the sub-$300 video card market is getting pretty tiresome. I was unimpressed when the GTX 1060 6GB came out in 2016 and was barely faster than the GTX 970 from 2014 (which I bought new in early 2015 for around $250 on sale). Now, 3 1/2 years later we're getting only marginally faster products in the low $200 price range (1660, 5500xt). If you already have a card that was in the $200-$250 price range any time within the past *5 years*, you have to spend $280-$300 to get any kind of noticeable upgradeAs a comparison, that'd be like if the GTX 970 I bought on sale for $250 in 2015 (an admittedly great price, but not unheard of) had performed no better than a GTX 460... or even a GTX 470. That sounds absurd now, and yet that's what the mid range market has turned into.
philosofool - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
This seems like a strange analysis to me. This card is a legit entry level 1440p card, which has never existed in the sub-$300 range before.cmdrmonkey - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
nVidia is charging more and giving us less than they ever have in the past because they have no meaningful competition from AMD.Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
It's true that Nvidia haven't offered anything like the value proposition that the GTX 970 was on its launch since then, and things have definitely slowed down in the GPU arena. I'm not entirely on board with this criticism overall, though.First off, it's a bit unfair to compare the price of a card you got on sale with launch pricing. The 970 launched at $330, which was an absolute steal but still more than $250.
Second, the 1060 provided performance that was better than a GTX 980 (and about 20-40% better than a 970, depending on the game and resolution) for $250. AMD countered with the 580 and, well, to be fair that was pretty much that until now.
That's why it confuses me that you'd complain now, when the 5600XT (and the price drops it inspired) means we can *finally* get performance that's 50-100% better than the 970 at a lower price. It took about twice as long as it used to, for sure, and that just seems to be how things are now.
ozzuneoj86 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make an unfair comparison. I was just thinking more in terms of time... 5 years, which used to be an incredibly long time in this industry. If we're comparing launch dates and pricing, then it has taken six years to get a large upgrade for a GTX 970 at a lower price... though arguably the RX 5700 fit that bill last summer when it was often available on sale for $300 or a little less. To me, that makes the 5600XT with less memory a lot less interesting for only $20 less. These cards are fine if people have the money for them, but the slow progress is what is getting to me. Compared to the massive changes we've seen AMD bring about in the CPU market, the GPU market is very stale. There aren't any no-brainer purchases at any tier if you have a mid-range GPU from within the past 5 years. This is probably the closest we've come, as you said, but its by such a small margin. If we had performance like this for closer to $200 it would have shaken things up and made GPUs interesting again. Instead, we have the same back and forth about whether it's worth it to spend another $20 and get last year's 2060, or to buy a 4 year old used 1070 for $190 on eBay, or to simply lower the settings a couple notches and stick to the 6 year old GTX 970.This isn't really relevant, but... I guess my 970 actually ended up being more like $220, because I got a $30 check from nvidia due to that memory settlement. And then, well, I did sell the DLC codes that came with the card so it was closer to $200. That ends up being like $40 per year... thanks nvidia! :P
peevee - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Ryan, because you mention all the time that 6GB of VRAM might not be enough soon, can you write an article explaining the major uses of VRAM by various applications?It seems like neither compressed textures nor 3d models of everything needed at the same time (or within a few seconds) could take as much, and everything else can be preloaded quickly on the fly, especially with PCIe4x16... as it allows to update half of that 6GB VRAM every 1/10th of a second.
cmdrmonkey - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
Looks okay, but nobody is going to buy it because nobody actually buys AMD video cards. If you doubt this look at the Steam hardware survey.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
" look at the Steam hardware survey. " and that is 100% reliable ? BS. not every one has and uses steam, so no.. NOT a reliable metric. those that i know.. dont all run nvidia cards, some have radeons, and they dont have steam...cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Steam has over 1 billion accounts and 90 million monthly users. The hardware survey has a sample size in the millions. Medical and psychological studies don't even have sample sizes like that. I'd say it's a damn good indicator of what most people are using.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
if you say so.. but still should be taken with some salt :-)Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
You seem to be confusing "nobody" with "not as many as Nvidia". AMD's market share hovers around about 33% of the add-in board market.If you doubt this, try Google.
vladx - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Considering the driver issues with RX 5700 XT, one would have to be downright moronic to buy this card over RTX 2060.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
care to explain ??? or is this just anti amd comments from vladx ???Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
No explanation from vladx, but lots of loud retaliatory nonsense from cmdrmonkey. Sensors detect more sockpuppets.It's almost like the review would mention if AMD had significant driver issues...
cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
You'd have to be moronic to buy any AMD video card: bad drivers that rarely get updated, loud, hot, power guzzling. Their cards are junk. I wish they weren't but they are. It's why no one buys them.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
yea ok.. and nvidia drivers are better ?? come on.. the BOTH have had driver issues, looks like just another anti amd comment, just this time from cmdmonkey..............cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
nvidia drivers are near flawless. i haven't had driver issues with an nvidia card in many years.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
then you have been VERY lucky... cause i have had a few issues with them, and had to go back a version or 2...Beaver M. - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Yet those issues always were fixed quickly. AMD takes ages. if they fix it at all, especially on less known games.Nvidia drivers may lack some basic features (like a pivot function), but bad and long time issues with them only ever turned out to be actually a defective graphics card causing the driver to act up.
So if you have such bad issues, try replacing it.
Qasar - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
" nvidia drivers are near flawless " ha !!!!!!!!!!!! that's a good one. bias much cmdmonkey ??? as Korguz mentioned, you must have been very lucky, as for me, with both radeon and geforce, i have had issues with both over the years, but, that doesnt change my view on either, i buy what i can afford that gives the performance i am willing to pay for, and so far, that looks to be amd, and thats partly because i am sick of nvidia charging WAY to much for a video card, they must like pricing their cards so only the rich, or those with no families and mortgages, can buy them. i hope amd can do the same with the video cards, as they have with Zen. would be nice to see nvidia have to drop their prices by 800 or more like intel has had to do.Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Nvidia drivers have - in admittedly rare cases - actually destroyed cards. In more regular cases, they have bugs with setting resolutions, bugs with installation, and just the general sort of issues you'd expect from a large driver for complex hardware. They're no more immune from that than anyone else.This "AMD drives are baaaaad" trope will probably never die, but it'll never really be true either.
cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
For the record I'd actually love to see AMD produce good video cards again. Everything they've made in recent years has been trash. They make loud, hot, power guzzling, underperforming cards with bad drivers that rarely get updated. That's why they are down to 11% market share. Their cards suck.Qasar - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
oh look, an opinion from some that that looks like they hare heavily bias against amd for what ever reason. while their video cards in recent years hasnt been that good, but to be fair, there HAS been years, where nvidias were just as bad, same with their drivers. i guess he LOVES paying WAY to much for nvidia's products and wants to keep overpaying... is it safe to assume you also like over paying for intels current products too ?? nvidia is getting lazy, just like intel, and who knows, maybe they will follow in intels footsteps too.....cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
I actually hate overpaying and I hate nVidia having a monopoly. I want AMD to pull their heads out of their butts and stop producing video cards that are trash.Qasar - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
amds cards aren't trash, they are still pretty good for the price, and with nvidia charging way to much for theirs, amds cards are still quite usable, and at least most of them are affordable.cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
AMD cards are poo. And they aren't cheap enough that anyone would pick them over nVidia equivalents that run cooler and quieter and have better drivers.Qasar - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
your opinions are poo, and is just your personal OPINION, thats all.. there is nothing wrong with amds cards, just like there is nothing wrong with nvidias, some have issues with one, and not the other, and vice versa, as i said, i have issues with both. still better then paying the ridiculous prices that nvidia charges, as i also mentioned.. nvidia is getting lazy, been at the top too long, and it will bite them in the ass, maybe with the next release of RDNA2, or heck.. maybe it will come out of left field with intel and the Xe cards who knows.. IMO, your bias against amd shows.... and i hope you keep buying nivida and paying for those over priced cards....flyingpants265 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Hahaha, this post is embarrassing, you should stop posting on Anandtech.335 GT - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Why did the 5700xt win videocard of the year on the every site I saw? Shoo troll.Spunjji - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Did you read the review? This card uses less power than the 2060 to match its performance and runs significantly quieter. Drivers get updated monthly, with new features launched already this year. Their market share at its worst is 25%.If you're just going to come here to post counterfactual crap in the comments, kindly piss off.
cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
Their market share is 11.8% and continues to shrink. You would think with so many used mining cards being dumped on the used market for dirt cheap prices maybe it would go up. But people aren't buying the used AMD mining cards, they're buying used 1060s and 1070s. Even brokeasses buying used cards don't want AMD junk.Holliday75 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
So shrinking from Q2 2019? Man I guess AMD lost 20% market share the second half of last year. Amazing."AMD saw its share of the graphics market surge in Q2 2019, with total shipments larger than Nvidia for the first time in five years. At the same time, Nvidia retains a hard lock on the add-in board market for desktops, with approximately two-thirds of total market share."
Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
cmdrmonkeyeither post links to your BS " facts " like market share... or shut up and admit you hate amd, are bias to nvidia, and you love paying nvidias high prices..
cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
I don't hate AMD. I want AMD to stop making junk and start really competing again.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
yes you do.. it can be seen in most of your posts.. and you didnt post links to where you get your bs claims about amds vid card market share... so.. its your own personal bias. and bs...cmdrmonkey - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
shipped =/= sold. And just look at the Steam hardware survey if you want to see the actual market share.Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
steam hardware survey.. should be taken with salt.. its not a 100% reliable metric... not every one has steam..sarafino - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Steam's hardware survey is fatally flawed, as it surveys internet cafes in China. The numbers are totally skewed and useless.sarafino - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Reddit: r/Amd/comments/ej6c6i/looks_like_steam_hardware_survey_is_broken_again/cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Reality has an nVidia biasKorguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
at least sarafino posted some proof.. why cant you do the same ?? oh wait.. cause you have none.. its your own opionion.. and because you hate anything made by amd...cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
I hate AMD? I bought the original Athlon at launch kid. I've owned tons of ATI and AMD products over the years. I have tough love for AMD. I want them to stop sucking and produce good cards again. Patting them on the back for mediocrity isn't helping them. AMD is like that alcoholic friend who needs to hit rock bottom before they can get their shit together again.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
yea ok...Yojimbo - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Steam's survey numbers aren't useless. The survey doesn't measure sales and it isn't supposed to. It measures usage. There is also nothing wrong with counting cafes in China. Cafes in China represent both usage and sales. There is however an issue of counting them in a way congruent with how private machines are counted. But what can be said is that when AMD GPUs are barely registering on the survey while competing NVIDIA GPUs show a significant share, then sales of the NVIDIA GPUs are likely much higher among gamers than sales of the AMD GPUs. It's not scientific, but it is very reasonable, unless you have reason to believe there is a massive bias among people who play mostly EA games to very significantly prefer the AMD cards, or you believe that AMD card owners buy their cards but hardly use them compared to NVIDIA owners, as examples.StrangerGuy - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
1660S can be had for $210, $300 for 5700 non-XT.Sorry but what is the point of this card again?
cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
It has no point. It's AMD pulling a "me too" in the already very crowded budget 1440p video card segment.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
like intel and nvidia do with their products ???sarafino - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Trying to position your products in a competitive market is "pulling a 'me too'"? Half of Nvidia's current Kafkaesque GPU product line are the prototypical example of "me too". How many different Geforce GPU's does Nvidia currently have on the market now? 14?cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Wow somebody is butthurt. Please explain why with the 1070, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, vanilla 2060, Vega 56, and RX 5700 we needed another card in this segment?cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
And forgive me if I left any cards out. There are a lot of roughly $200-300 cards that are okay for 1440p gaming.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
can you explain it ???cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
I can't actually. I think affordable 1440p gaming has been well covered already by plenty of new and used video cards.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
not every one games at 1440pcmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
What point are you trying to make? I'm trying to make the point that this is another dumb product that has no reason for existing, just like RX 5500. AMD should be focusing on winning back the high-end. That's where competition is actually needed to drive down prices across the board.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
and nvida doesnt have.. or has released their own.. what you consider dumb products ?? how about intels plethora of cpus ?? even you should realize it.. amd, nvidia, and intel release products that for some reason dont work as they intended when made.. but instead of throwing it out.. release it as a lower tier product.. aka phenom x3.. made as an x4.. but one core was faulty... i have seen nvida do the same.. maybe thats why we had the 3 gig and 6 gig 1060....alufan - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
whilst being competitive in the high ground may be desirable for the sake of swinging your *@** around it doesnt make for large VOLUME sales which is what AMD are after with this card unlike the average 12 year old keyboard warrior shouting look at my card its 5 FPS faster from the rooftops AMD is looking to win back the real meat and potatoes( sry veggies no insult) market, the fact nvidia have already dropped prices in response to this card makes your whole chain of thought and beliefs about this product obsolete and pointless, AMD and indeed all public company's have to justify investors faith in them and make them a decent ROI.Spunjji - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
"It's AMD pulling a 'me too'"...
*proceeds to name a market segment containing 4 Nvidia GPUs (3 current gen) and 2 AMD GPUs (1 current gen)*
Tell us again, who's the one with superfluous products here? :| It's a crowded segment because there's high demand. AMD can't profit selling the outdated, hot, under-performing and expensive-to-manufacture Vega 56 at a discount, but it can profit from Navi. They just lowered the cost of entry to 1440p by forcing Nvidia to respond and your response is "wah, I don't like cheap graphics card".
sarafino - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
$210? The lowest price on Newegg is $230 for a 1660S. Based on the aggregated review data for the updated 5600XT, it's 20% faster than the 1660S thanks to the performance bios. 20% for $40 more isn't bad. The 5700 is approximately 6% more performant for an additional $30 give or take a few dollars.reddit: /r/hardware/comments/esgwf1/amd_radeon_rx_5600_xt_performance_meta_review/
cmdrmonkey - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Most people would pick the 1660S so that they aren't dealing with the dumpster fire situation that is AMD's drivers.Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
more hare from cmdrmonkey....sorry man.. but nvidias drivers.. arent as perfect as your anti amd bias thinks
Korguz - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
hare = hateSpunjji - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
If argument fails due to blatant dishonesty then redirect to boilerplate FUD.Farewell, goalposts; I hardly knew ye.
desmonds99 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link
AMD just overclocked the card themselves so reviewers would use this as a baseline to compare with other non-oc cards, making the card more appealing instead of DOA at $279. Once other cards are overclocked the price/perf will be the same as its competitors. AMD is just filling the gap for their lineup. $249 would be a more competitive price imo.Yojimbo - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Yeah. There was too much trust by reviewers on this situation. Some warning lights should have gone off. I don't know if it happened due to worry about access or if reviewers have something personal at stake.Will a buyer be able to flash? Will he get 14 Gbps memory if he does? Will the card have reduced reliability after the flash? And the problem doesn't go away after launch. 6 months from now someone can read this review thinking it is representative of the 5600 XT when there are cards out there that run over 10% slower. So what is the true price point of the cards that you can get that are validated to run at the benchmarked performance levels? Of course there will be a delta in the market, whether it becomes 160 to 180 or 180 to 200. That can give a completely different conclusion about the card, even ignoring the Busch league je-jiggering and the confusion it creates.
PProchnow - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
The 5700XT is cranking over 2000Mhz and it is about tie AMD does this simple trick to make the GPU put out a little more.In this highly affluent world NO ONE will want a 5600XT unless they are little teenage paper route boys in high crime areas. $100 above the 5600XT lies a top end competitive card.
I understand these manufactures get a few lesser cores from the GPU chip foundary and pop them in the second tier cards that are $100 less than the GOLDEN SAMPLE GPU cards.
That is about all I need to know.
I do it on a GTX1080 and a R9 Fury clocked to 1100Mhz with more RAM bandwidth than the GTX [RTX?} ---- both plans to perform wotk. I hope for more HBM ram to get tied into the priemier performance video card. How could that tech turn into a side stepable meadow pie? Shame!
Yojimbo - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link
It's expensive. The fact that AMD needed to use it is one reason their high end cards were not very competitive. Maybe eventually its cost will come down. It is a very important technology in the HPC segments where bandwidth is a lot more important, though, so it's not a meadow pie.Spunjji - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
"In this highly affluent world NO ONE will want a 5600XT unless they are little teenage paper route boys in high crime areas. $100 above the 5600XT lies a top end competitive card."I'mma guess that you're the sort of person who laughs when someone says "check your privilege"...
Yojimbo - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
Since when are people talking about financial situations when they say "check your privilege"?PProchnow - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
Gimme BIG NAVI!6,000 cores [ or EUs or CUDA Cores] at 3Mhz and 16GB HBM (equiv. 32GB reg Ram)
@7NM ONLY CONSUMING 150w. - cracking the 100% mark, AND PRICED AT $375USD.
I do not care if they call it the 5950XTX OC Super...LOL!
stevemax - Monday, December 21, 2020 - link
As far as I can see, as of today (21/12/2020), this is the most recent consumer GPU review in Anandtech. It is 11 months old right now. Are you planning on reviewing any of the seven major launches that happened in this year?