Article [TechPowerUp] Radeon RX 5500 Review

[TheRookie]

TechPowerUp has posted review of the Radeon RX 5500

AMD Radeon RX 5500 Review

The RX 5500 Navi is AMD's ambitious attempt to disrupt the sub-$200 graphics card market just as the RX 5700 series did to the sub-$400 market, bringing in much needed competition. It won't be easy as NVIDIA tried to preempt it with the GTX 1650 Super and GTX 1660 Super.

www.techpowerup.com

summary:

 

[mohit9206]

How can you review a product without pricing ?
That aside, its 5% slower on avg than 1650 Super so it better be no more than $150.

 

[UsandThem]

How can you review a product without pricing ?
That aside, its 5% slower on avg than 1650 Super so it better be no more than $150.

They state the price on the conclusion page (along with them recommending AMD lower the MSRP to $140 to $160).

$180 MSRP (which they state is too high for its performance against the competition).

 

[mohit9206]

They state the price on the conclusion page (along with them recommending AMD lower the MSRP to $140 to $160).

$180 MSRP (which they state is too high for its performance against the competition).

View attachment 13746

In any case this is a weak showing for AMD even at a hypothetical $150 price point. AMD just can't catch a break in the GPU division.

 

[mopardude87]

Cheap used 1060 cards are looking better and better compared to this. I prob paid a bit more then i should have but snagged a $120 like new 3GB Zotac mini 1060 locally. The 3gb does fine for older titles and some newer with reduced textures and more demanding settings of course. I thought AMD was on top of their game usually at least offering more vram then comparable Nvidia products. Offering 4gb and 1060 like performance is a bit interesting in late 2019.

My above response is of course using those average fps numbers for all games. Looking over charts for titles like BF5 this 5500 is looking very interesting performance wise. BF5 for me barely uses over 4gb vram at 2k so for 1080p this card may be alright. Gonna have to be selective on what titles you pick the 5500 for obviously.

 

[VirtualLarry]

$180 MSRP (which they state is too high for its performance against the competition).

Forget the competition, in the 1920x1080 graphs, it's below the RX 580 card! And those are like $150. WTF is AMD thinking, charging $180 for the RX 5500? (I haven't checked, is that for the 4GB model? Nuts!)

 

[Glo.]

Forget the competition, in the 1920x1080 graphs, it's below the RX 580 card! And those are like $150. WTF is AMD thinking, charging $180 for the RX 5500? (I haven't checked, is that for the 4GB model? Nuts!)

Because you are constantly talking about OEM GPU, not AIB version of those GPUs, that do not have final drivers, only basic ones, and those will come in December with next gen milestone driver from AMD.

Why do people look at OEM version of those GPUs and surprised it performs like it performs?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Because you are constantly talking about OEM GPU, not AIB version of those GPUs, that do not have final drivers, only basic ones, and those will come in December with next gen milestone driver from AMD.

Why do people look at OEM version of those GPUs and surprised it performs like it performs?

Are OEM GPUs, these days, really all that different than retail (with reference clocks?). I'm not talking retail "OC" models, sure, those might be a few percentage-points better.

But are OEM cards intentionally degraded somehow? Why should we EXPECT results for "retail" cards to differ. Honest question.

Edit: No-one posted performance-per-watt graphs for the RX 5500? Those had better be out of this world, for the premium on this card to make any sense whatsoever.

(See release of GTX 750 ti, at the time.)

 

[DeathReborn]

Because you are constantly talking about OEM GPU, not AIB version of those GPUs, that do not have final drivers, only basic ones, and those will come in December with next gen milestone driver from AMD.

Why do people look at OEM version of those GPUs and surprised it performs like it performs?

AIB 5500's coming December 12th. While you do mention the AMD drivers being less than ideal, the 1650S was first benched on hacked (INI hacked to support card) drivers too and those benches tally with those on proper drivers.

Also 1650S is $160 MSRP so the 5500 AIB's don't have a lot of room to operate and at $160 or up are pretty much a terrible purchase.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Also 1650S is $160 MSRP so the 5500 AIB's don't have a lot of room to operate and at $160 or up are pretty much a terrible purchase.

Any word yet on if AMD has fixed OpenCL, either for their RX 5700 (XT) cards, OR for their RX 5500 (XT) cards, if there is in fact a recall-worthy defect in the shaders of the RX 5700-series GPUs that causes incorrect results with OpenCL apps.

Anyways, until that gets straightened out, my standard go-to card for custom builds, will probably be GTX 1650 Super for budget gamers, and GTX 1660 Super for mid-range gamers.

Some of you might say, "Aren't you an AMD fan"? Well, maybe, but ... for me to buy their products, they need to actually WORK RIGHT. AMD's not a charity, and neither am I towards corporations. I bought an RX 5700, with the expectation that the OpenCL issue would have been fixed by now, and it hasn't, several months after release, so no more "RDNA" cards for me. Not to mention, my several-week old reference XFX RX 5700 has been artifacting at the Windows desktop in my browser. Especially with YT vids.

Not really happy with AMD GPUs anymore. I was and am a big fan of Polaris, but that's a bit long in the tooth these days, for both gaming (See RDR2 charts) and mining (See NH profitability calc, they lose money now.)

 

[Glo.]

Are OEM GPUs, these days, really all that different than retail (with reference clocks?). I'm not talking retail "OC" models, sure, those might be a few percentage-points better.

But are OEM cards intentionally degraded somehow? Why should we EXPECT results for "retail" cards to differ. Honest question.

Edit: No-one posted performance-per-watt graphs for the RX 5500? Those had better be out of this world, for the premium on this card to make any sense whatsoever.

(See release of GTX 750 ti, at the time.)

Its not that they will differ, but new drivers might fix those games which are broken currently on RX 5500 like Odyssey, which will also make those GPUs look better in suites like Techpowerup's .

AIB 5500's coming December 12th. While you do mention the AMD drivers being less than ideal, the 1650S was first benched on hacked (INI hacked to support card) drivers too and those benches tally with those on proper drivers.

Also 1650S is $160 MSRP so the 5500 AIB's don't have a lot of room to operate and at $160 or up are pretty much a terrible purchase.

I haven't seen any AIB RX 5500 GPUs reviews myself. What have you seen to say they will be terrible purchase at 160$?

 

[TheRookie]

In any case this is a weak showing for AMD even at a hypothetical $150 price point. AMD just can't catch a break in the GPU division.

Compared to Radeon RX 580, power consumption has been cut by 43%.

Maybe that's not very important to desktops, but it makes all the difference in mobile.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Compared to Radeon RX 580, power consumption has been cut by 43%.

Maybe that's not very important to desktops, but it makes all the difference in mobile.

If that's true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), and I were AMD, I would be screaming that fact from the rooftops.

That is reason alone for someone to choose RX 5500 over RX 580, in most cases. (*At roughly the same prices.)

 

[Dribble]

If that's true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), and I were AMD, I would be screaming that fact from the rooftops.

That is reason alone for someone to choose RX 5500 over RX 580, in most cases. (*At roughly the same prices.)

Would be easier if the 1650 super didn't have even lower power consumption, even better performance, better o/c'ability and be already available. That's basically what the 5500 achieved - it forced Nvidia to produce the 1650 Super. Unfortunately for AMD even if they price it at $140 I suspect nearly everyone will still buy Nvidia, unless you want a bargain in which case you'll go second hand 580/1060.

 

[TheRookie]

If that's true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), and I were AMD, I would be screaming that fact from the rooftops.

That is reason alone for someone to choose RX 5500 over RX 580, in most cases. (*At roughly the same prices.)

It's on page 31.

You also need to do some math.

 

[DeathReborn]

Its not that they will differ, but new drivers might fix those games which are broken currently on RX 5500 like Odyssey, which will also make those GPUs look better in suites like Techpowerup's .

I haven't seen any AIB RX 5500 GPUs reviews myself. What have you seen to say they will be terrible purchase at 160$?

At around $160 you can buy a 580, 1650S & potentially soon a 5500, however if you were to find a 5500 at $150 or lower it would be a good purchase, even to those on ageing 290's. I do however think they should have done a 5500 & 5500XT (20CU & 24CU) rather than just the 5500 22CU that non-Apples will get. Considering the gulf between the 5500 & 5700 they should probably release a 5600 @ ~28CU.

I am going to buy 2 5500's to do a quick update to my the PC's my nephews have, they both run PowerColor PCS+ 290's @ ~290W so shaving off 150W+ (plus the ~20-30% more performance) is an easy decision for me to make.

I do wonder how AMD allowed systems to ship without proper drivers, just seems like a bad move all around. If anyone is to blame for the driver issue it has to be AMD.

 

[Glo.]

At around $160 you can buy a 580, 1650S & potentially soon a 5500, however if you were to find a 5500 at $150 or lower it would be a good purchase, even to those on ageing 290's. I do however think they should have done a 5500 & 5500XT (20CU & 24CU) rather than just the 5500 22CU that non-Apples will get. Considering the gulf between the 5500 & 5700 they should probably release a 5600 @ ~28CU.

I am going to buy 2 5500's to do a quick update to my the PC's my nephews have, they both run PowerColor PCS+ 290's @ ~290W so shaving off 150W+ (plus the ~20-30% more performance) is an easy decision for me to make.

I do wonder how AMD allowed systems to ship without proper drivers, just seems like a bad move all around. If anyone is to blame for the driver issue it has to be AMD.

Typical AMD's product launch for past... 5 years?

5500 4 GB will be in the range of 150-160$, 5500 XT8 GB will cost 199$, and will be slightly slower than GTX 1660 Super, or on par with it, depending on the games.

 

[insertcarehere]

Typical AMD's product launch for past... 5 years?

5500 4 GB will be in the range of 150-160$, 5500 XT8 GB will cost 199$, and will be slightly slower than GTX 1660 Super, or on par with it, depending on the games.

Given how much voltage the RDNA cards need to clock high, a 5500XT competitive in performance with a 1660 Super might get very close to 150w in power consumption.
(GTX 1650 Super consumes 100W under the same test by TPU, AMD is lucky it was curiously omitted from this particular table in their review.)

 

[TheRookie]

Given how much voltage the RDNA cards need to clock high, a 5500XT competitive in performance with a 1660 Super might get very close to 150w in power consumption. View attachment 13760
(GTX 1650 Super consumes 100W under the same test by TPU, AMD is lucky it was curiously omitted from this particular table in their review.)

Note that the Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 Super is not factory-overclocked.

 

[Shmee]

Seems like the price is too high currently, what with 290, 580, and Fury cards out for cheaper on the market.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

AMD has a gaping hole in their line-up now between the 5700/XT and the 5500. Wonder if and how they're going to plug it.

It's too bad AMD's GPU strategy appears to be basically non-existent. They seem to have a capable underlying arch, but as has become the norm for the last several rollouts their timing and execution allows for NV to utterly steamroll them.

I fear the days of the HD4800/5800 sneak attack, top to bottom launch, etc are history. The departure of Raja has also brought about some sloppy work on the software side as well.

 

[AtenRa]

With this performance the RX5500 is a failure

 

[Glo.]

Given how much voltage the RDNA cards need to clock high, a 5500XT competitive in performance with a 1660 Super might get very close to 150w in power consumption. View attachment 13760
(GTX 1650 Super consumes 100W under the same test by TPU, AMD is lucky it was curiously omitted from this particular table in their review.)

It would mean that 128 cores more graw equally the same power as 256 cores from Navi 10.

I think at best RX 5500 XT will draw 130-135W of power. The core count, and core clock difference is not that huge as it was between RX 5700 and 5700 XT.

It is only 128 more ALUs and 37 MHz more on core clock.

 

[maddie]

With this performance the RX5500 is a failure

If the price is close to $150, then yes. That 1650 Super really is, for the price.

 

[insertcarehere]

It would mean that 128 cores more graw equally the same power as 256 cores from Navi 10.

I think at best RX 5500 XT will draw 130-135W of power. The core count, and core clock difference is not that huge as it was between RX 5700 and 5700 XT.

It is only 128 more ALUs and 37 MHz more on core clock.

To be competitive with a 1660 Super, a 5500 XT needs to be at least 25% faster than the 5500 we see here.

Moving from the (stock) 5700 to the (stock) 5700 XT was a ~15% performance gain for 30% power consumption increase. The 5700 was on significantly lower clocks and voltages than the 5500 tested by TPU here, hence it's easier for the 5700 XT to be pushed with more reasonable power consumption increases than the 5500 XT would be.

Hence, any 5500 XT would either not be competitive with the GTX 1660 Super, or will draw something on the order of 40+% power more than the 5500. Unless the drivers here are utterly, completely broken to the point of 20+% fps penalties across the board. It's not possible to have GTX 1660 Super performance without big increases in power.

AMD has a gaping hole in their line-up now between the 5700/XT and the 5500. Wonder if and how they're going to plug it

A 32 CU cut down Navi 10 with RX5700 clocks (or slightly lower) would likely be a supremely power-efficient card with very good performance. ~RTX 2060 performance might be feasible with a single 6-pin pcie connector (<=150w) given that the lower clocks will allow AMD to take a hacksaw to the load voltages and be more in the sweetspot of the 7nm process.

Such a card will also likely piss on Navi 14 in perf/w, so maybe that's why there hasn't been any such thing from AMD.