Power, Temperatures, & Noise

Last, but not least of course, is our look at power, temperatures, and noise levels. While a high performing card is good in its own right, an excellent card can deliver great performance while also keeping power consumption and the resulting noise levels in check.

Radeon Video Card Voltages
5700 XT Max 5700 Max 5700 XT Idle 5700 Idle
1.2v 1.025v 0.725v 0.775v

Looking at boost voltages for AMD's new midrange 7nm cards, we don't have too many points of comparison right now. But still, with AMD's drivers reporting a maximum boost voltage of 1.2v for the 5700 XT, not even the incredibly juiced Polaris 30-based Radeon RX 590 took quite so much voltage. It may very well be that TSMC's high-performance 7nm process simply requires a lot of voltage here, but it may also be a sign that AMD is riding the voltage/frequency curve pretty hard to get those high clockspeeds.

By contrast, the 5700 (vanilla) is a much more mundane card. With its lower clockspeeds, the card never goes above 1.025v according to AMD's drivers. Which given the impact of voltage on power consumption, it's actually a bit surprising the spread is so large.

Radeon Video Card Average Clockspeeds
(Rounded to the Nearest 10MHz)
Game 5700 XT 5700
Max Boost Clock 2044MHz 1750MHz
Official Game Clock 1755MHz 1625MHz
Tomb Raider 1780MHz 1680MHz
F1 2019 1800MHz 1650MHz
Assassin's Creed 1900MHz 1700MHz
Metro Exodus 1780MHz 1640MHz
Strange Brigade 1780MHz 1660MHz
Total War: TK 1830MHz 1690MHz
The Division 2 1760MHz 1630MHz
Grand Theft Auto V 1910MHz 1690MHz
Forza Horizon 4 1870MHz 1700MHz

Meanwhile clockspeeds are also an interesting story. AMD said that they would no longer be holding back their chips' top boost clocks, and instead let the silicon lottery run its course, allowing the best chips to reach their highest clockspeeds. The end result is that our 5700 XT is allowed to clock up to 2044 MHz, 139MHz better than AMD's official Boost Clock metric guarantees. More to the point, this is a substaintial jump in frequency over both AMD's RX Vega and RX 500 series cards, which would top out around the mid-1500s.

That said, the 5700 XT doesn't have the TDP or thermal cap to susntain this; I couldn't actually hit 2044MHz even in LuxMark, which as a "light" compute workload tends to bring out the highest clockspeeds in processors. Instead, the best clockspeed I was able to hit was a bit lower, at 2008MHz. So while the silicon is willing, the physics of powering a Navi 10 at such high clockspeeds are another matter.

At any rate, even with TDP and cooling keeping the 5700 XT more down to earth, the card is still able to hit high clockspeeds. More than half of the games in our benchmark suite average clockspeeds of 1800MHz or better, and a few get to 1900MHz. Even The Division 2, which appears to be the single most punishing game in this year's suite in terms of clockspeeds, holds the line at 1760MHz, right above AMD's official game clock.

As for the 5700, with its more conservative TDP, clockspeed specifications, and likely some binning, the card doesn't reach quite as high. Its 1750MHz max boost clock is just 25MHz over AMD's guaranteed clock. Meanwhile its clockspeeds are overall a bit more densely packed than the 5700 XT's; all of our games see average clockspeeds between 1630MHz and 1700MHz.

Idle Power Consumption

Load Power Consumption - Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Load Power Consumption - FurMark

Idle GPU Temperature

Load GPU Temperature - Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Load GPU Temperature - FurMark

Idle Noise Levels

Load Noise Levels - Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Load Noise Levels - FurMark

Synthetics Closing Thoughts


View All Comments

  • GeoffreyA - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Many thanks, Ryan, to you and the team for all the hard work. We do appreciate it. Reply
  • catavalon21 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Hoping for really competitive results in the mid-range for compute, that AMD doesn't have drivers that support the new architecture is absurd. To not even run on some older computer work means this was clearly not ready for prime time. Shame on you, Lisa.

    I write this, very disappointed that the choice of a mid range GPU right now isn't much more difficult.
  • catavalon21 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    ...older COMPUTE work...<sigh> Reply
  • just4U - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Holy crap.. I wasn't actually expecting Amd to come close to Nvidia with these. (Regardless of the hype by Amd) The 5700XT is just a smidge slower than the 2070S.. and it's quite a impressive jump over the RX580/90s they replace. Reply
  • catavalon21 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    My whining about compute aside, you're right. The 5700XT competes very well against the 2070S - better than I hoped for. Reply
  • npz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    That's my exact thought too. It basically matches the RTX 2070 (non-super) in gaming. I hope performance improves even more once the drivers mature and Anandtech restests as I also want to see its full compute potential. Although I expect Vega 64 to still be better overall there. Reply
  • DanNeely - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Yeah. AMD's showing is strong enough I'm wondering if we'll see farther NVidia price cuts in the near future. Reply
  • Kevin G - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    They are indeed impressive agains nVidia's Super cards but by pricing they're more of a Vega 56/64 replacement. Reply
  • just4U - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    I was considering it from a new norm on video card pricing as to me their upper mid range and don't appear to compete with Vega multipurpose cards to replace them. Reply
  • tipoo - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Looks like that completely outsized Particle Physics subscore was real, from multiple results coming in. Interesting. Given AMD seems to be going for a hybrid RT approach for RDNA 2.0 in 2020, I wonder if this was a half step towards building out this portion of the chip for it.


    Under OpenCL, it beats a 2080TI under CUDA, in that one subtest.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now