The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Review, Feat. Sapphire Pulse: Navi For 1080p
by Ryan Smith on December 12, 2019 9:00 AM ESTThe Test
As is usually the case for launches without reference hardware, we’ve had to dial down our Sapphire cards slightly to meet AMD’s reference specifications. In this case, Sapphire’s secondary BIOS offers reference settings, so for our reference-spec testing, we’re using that BIOS. Otherwise, for at-stock testing of the Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT 8GB, that is being done with the primary (performance) BIOS.
Meanwhile on the driver front, we’re using AMD’s new Radeon Software Adrenaline Edition 19.2.2 software set, which are the launch drivers for the RX 5500 XT. AMD has introduced a number of control panel features here (not to mention a UI overhaul) that we’ll cover in a separate article. Otherwise for performance testing, these drivers are not substantially different from earlier AMD drivers – though we’ve retested the RX 570 and RX 5700 to ensure those results are fully up to date.
Finally, as the RX 5500 series is focused on 1080p gaming, this is what our benchmark results will focus on. I have also tested the RX 5500 XT 8GB at our 1440p settings – as expected, it’s not very playable there – and while these results haven’t been graphed, they are available in our Bench system.
| CPU: | Intel Core i9-9900K @ 5.0GHz |
| Motherboard: | ASRock Z390 Taichi |
| Power Supply: | Corsair AX1200i |
| Hard Disk: | Phison E12 PCIe NVMe SSD (960GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill Trident Z RGB DDR4-3600 2 x 16GB (17-18-18-38) |
| Case: | NZXT Phantom 630 Windowed Edition |
| Monitor: | Asus PQ321 |
| Video Cards: | AMD Radeon RX 5700 Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT 8GB Sapphire Pulse RX 5500 XT 4GB AMD Radeon RX 580 AMD Radeon RX 570 AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB AMD Radeon R9 380 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Super NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Release 441.41 NVIDIA Release 441.07 AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2020 Edition 19.12.2 AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.10.2 |
| OS: | Windows 10 Pro (1903) |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
eva02langley - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Also, more wattage for a system that use less than 50% of the load will results in poor efficiency which you don't want to do.silverblue - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
As it is, the 590 is slightly more efficient than the 580 per clock, but a minor undervolt will yield further savings. I have a TX650M which is severe overkill for a Ryzen 5 1600, 16GB DDR4 3000 and Sapphire Nitro+ RX590, which is undervolted by 8% and doesn't go above 1.1V.PeachNCream - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
For a single CPU socket and single GPU, buying a 500W PSU is more than reasonable. You are falling into the more is better trap by probably spending more money an losing efficiency by getting something in the +750W range. That sounds like something a person that has not done any research would suggest.29a - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
I wish they would start testing the codec ASIC on GPUs.SethNW - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
RX5500XT has one issue, it is the ok card. Like it is not terrible, but older RX580/590 are just too close to irlt and with prices dropping, they make more sense. And 8GB end, add a little and you get better performing 1660 or what is in a lot of cases tiny bit more and you got 1660 Super. I don't think extra 2GB of VRAM will make that huge difference at 1080p, 4GB definitely is budget category, but 6GB is doable for next 3 years. But only time will tell whether bandwidth or size will matter more.Ravynmagi_ - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
I was very torn up about what to buy. I wanted to stay in the $160-$180 range. I just play a couple games that are not too demanding (Civ 6 and Albion Online).I tried an RX 580, but mine has really bad coil noise. So I went with a GTX 1650. It's working perfectly for my games on a 1440p monitor.
I was uncertain if I should have waited for the RX 5500 XT. I see now it seems to provide equal performance more or less and I do prefer Nvidia drivers over AMD. So this seems to work out for me.
A part of my still nags that I should have tried another RX 580 or 590 with 8GB of RAM. But this is an entry level gaming card. If I get into more demanding games I would most likely replace whatever I bought in this price range eventually anyway before I need the 8GB of RAM I suspect.
Ravynmagi_ - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Looks like I can't edit my comment. But meant to say GTX 1650 Super.eva02langley - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Yeah, makes mroe sense since the 1650 GTX is a total disaster.Hrel - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Looks like I'm stuck waiting for a significant price drop. I'd like to update my 280x, but it runs everything I play so the only real reason is power efficiency and system thermals. Things literally a space heater when gaming.I'm really just looking for 280x performance + 50% or so, which 1650 super does, 5500xt does, but to pay nearly $200 just to knock 75 watts off my system.... Does not appeal. Especially when the 4gb vram issue is real.
280x has 3GB ram, my system monitors have shown it tapping system ram. Not a lot, and the newest game I play is dark souls 3, 500MB. But I'm pretty sure DS3 is from 2013.
Assuming a new game that isn't esports like rocket league comes out that I want, I'd like this card to run it well.
Maybe that means I'm waiting another 2 to 4 years to replace my card. Maybe it just means waiting till next gen comes out and getting deals on these.
Either way, this generation isn't enough. From either camp.
cmdrmonkey - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
You already have so many other cards that are around this level of performance that I'm not sure why we needed another one. GTX 970, 1060, 1650 Super, RX 470, 480, 570, 580, 590 are all in the same ballpark as this thing depending on the game. Why did we need this? Seems like this performance segment is totally tapped out.