Closing Thoughts

Bringing a close to our first video card review of the year, and it’s easy to see how it’s already setting a high-water mark in terms of competitiveness. While AMD’s new Radeon RX 5600 XT doesn’t bring anything new to the table in terms of performance for AMD, the card is primed to crack open the sub-$300 market for mainstream video cards. And in the process, force both AMD and NVIDIA to realign their video card lineups to provide better values.

On the whole, AMD set out to deliver what they thought would be the ultimate 1080p gaming card, and the Radeon RX 5600 XT certainly lives up to that claim. While the categorization is somewhat arbitrary – AMD could have instead pitched it as a weaker-but-cheaper 1440p card – it puts the card in a very positive frame of reference. The RX 5600 XT is fast enough to average more than 60fps at 1080p in all but one of our games, Metro Exodus, and the factory overclocked cards can easily carry it over that threshold if necessary. By using Navi 10 the card is almost a bit too powerful for 1080p gaming by traditional metrics, but there’s certainly no arguing its effectiveness; it’s fast enough to deliver a no-compromises experience even with the craziest settings.

As a result, it’s no surprise to see AMD and NVIDIA engaging in some last-minute jockeying for position. Whatever edge the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti had is gone, and that card has now been entirely boxed in by other NVIDIA cards below, and the RX 5600 XT. So NVIDIA has done the only thing they can do in this situation and have brought down the GeForce RTX 2060 to $299, both to anchor a stronger position in the sub-$300 mainstream market and to fend off AMD’s latest advance. Further throwing chaos into all of this are AMD’s last-minute BIOS changes, which aren’t meaningfully impacting reference-clocked cards, but have significantly altered the trajectory of factory overclocked cards.

Performance Summary (1080p)
  Relative Performance Relative
Price
RX 5600 XT vs GTX 1660 Ti +11% 0%
RX 5600 XT vs GTX 1660 Super +15% +22%
RX 5600 XT vs RX 5500 XT 8GB +37% +40%
RTX 2060 vs. RX 5600 XT +6% +7%
RX 5700 vs. RX 5600 XT +17% +18%

By the numbers then, the RX 5600 XT comes out at 11% faster than the GTX 1660 Ti, and 15% faster than the GTX 1660 Super, making for a very convincing win for AMD there. However the card does trail the RTX 2060 by 6%, which although is a smaller gap, it’s also about as much as the price difference between the cards. So stock-to-stock, AMD and NVIDIA have managed to almost perfectly align their products on a price-performance basis. This means that there are no bargains here between the RX 5600 XT and the RTX 2060 (or even the RX 5700), but no one is clearly trailing the pack either.

The one exception to all of the above, however, is the GTX 1660 Super. As I mentioned towards the introduction, for the last few months it’s been a far better value than NVIDIA’s other GTX 1660 cards, so it is a potential spoiler here. It doesn’t deliver the RX 5600 XT’s chart-topping performance, but then it’s also $50 cheaper, giving it the best price-to-performance ratio of any of these cards. Given the overall price gap I don’t expect too many potential buyers to be choosing between these cards – generally gamers are going to buy what they can afford – but the GTX 1660 Super is still good enough that it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Otherwise, going into this launch I was a bit worried about what the RX 5600 XT would mean for AMD’s existing Radeon RX 5700, and to some degree I still am. But as far as reference cards are concerned, AMD’s pricing prevents their latest card from undermining the RX 5700 when it comes to performance. Power efficiency is definitely in the RX 5600 XT’s favor, however; it’s not a night and day difference, but it’s certainly the most efficient Navi card we’ve seen yet. And, for that matter, it’s the first time where AMD seems to have a real edge on NVIDIA in this area.

Meanwhile, the presence of factory overclocked RX 5600 XT cards and AMD’s decision to further overclock them presents a major wildcard. In keeping with AnandTech editorial policy, I’m not going to write any recommendations based on factory overclocked cards. But it is none the less interesting to note how they seemed to be destined to end up on a tier of their own; the memory overclock in particular giving RX 5600 XT a several percent boost in performance. Factory overclocked cards are of course nothing new, but with our Sapphire card going for $289 – just a $10 premium – the line between factory and reference cards is going to be blurry. And in the meantime, the fact that our Sapphire card was able to break even with the already price-reduced RTX 2060 right out of the box is going to turn a few heads.

Speaking of factory overclocked cards, Sapphire’s Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is certainly sets a high mark for all other RX 5600 XT cards to follow. While the card’s large size certainly warrants a bit of ribbing for Sapphire here, I can’t argue with the results. The acoustics on the card are absolutely fantastic, and even with the updated factory overclock in play, this is still among the quietest mainstream cards we have ever tested. Which, as always, is huge in our book for building a well-balanced video card.

Sapphire’s aggressive factory overclock certainly plays to their favor as well. The out of the box performance for the card is 8% ahead of a reference-clocked RX 5600 XT, thanks in large part to the higher 14Gbps memory clock. And while Sapphire does charge a $10 premium for the card, that’s more than outweighed by the performance gains. The only real knock here, in fact, is that the higher performance (and going farther up the voltage-frequency curve) slightly dulls the reference clocked card’s great power efficiency to merely good levels.

But the coup de grâce for Sapphire, at least, is that this overclock is enough to make the Pulse competitive with reference-clocked GeForce RTX 2060 cards. Which not only helps to keep the overall RX 5600 XT family relevant, but it allows the Pulse to punch a bit above its weight. All of which makes for a very impressive showing for one of the first Radeon RX 5600 XT cards.

 
Power, Temperatures, & Noise
Comments Locked

202 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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 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.
  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now