Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AORUS Radeon RX 5700 XT 8G review
Endgame XM1 gaming mouse review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - December 2019
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Posted by: on: 12/12/2019 03:00 PM [
66 comment(s) ]
It is time to look at the 4GB version of the Radeon RX 5500 XT. We review the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB model, AMD's new mainstream GPU posed to be AMD's king of 1920x1080 resolution gaming.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5506
Senior Member
Posts: 5506
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:27 PM
Cmon, not all gaming on 4K with heavy mods (and this card is best for HD reso). There youtube reviews comparing 2GB with 4GB and there no difference in most benches.
The 4GB version should not exist.
Cmon, not all gaming on 4K with heavy mods (and this card is best for HD reso). There youtube reviews comparing 2GB with 4GB and there no difference in most benches.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:32 PM
I though this card competes with 1650S but its fast as 1660 and rx590. Im surprised.
I though this card competes with 1650S but its fast as 1660 and rx590. Im surprised.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:33 PM
Look at this review. The 4GB version is 5-22 FPS slower in 1080p games.
And the vulcan results in RDR2 are horrible. Looks like AMD has some work to do.
Cmon, not all gaming on 4K with heavy mods (and this card is best for HD reso). There youtube reviews comparing 2GB with 4GB and there no difference in most benches.
Look at this review. The 4GB version is 5-22 FPS slower in 1080p games.
And the vulcan results in RDR2 are horrible. Looks like AMD has some work to do.
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5506
Senior Member
Posts: 5506
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:34 PM
Look at this review. The 4GB version is 5-22 FPS slower in 1080p games.
And the vulcan results in RDR2 are horrible. Looks like AMD has some work to do.
Guess I have to catch up with times. but damn, Gears of Wars just punishes low memory!
Look at this review. The 4GB version is 5-22 FPS slower in 1080p games.
And the vulcan results in RDR2 are horrible. Looks like AMD has some work to do.
Guess I have to catch up with times. but damn, Gears of Wars just punishes low memory!
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:38 PM
That or AMD needs to work on color compression. It does not seem to hurt the 4-6GB Nvidia GPUs.
Guess I have to catch up with times. but damn, Gears of Wars just punishes low memory!
That or AMD needs to work on color compression. It does not seem to hurt the 4-6GB Nvidia GPUs.
jbscotchman
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:46 PM
I agree with your conclusion Hilbert. While it's a nice card that does what it sets out to do, who exactly is the target audience? The $150-$250 dollar market is so crowded right now I personally think AMD should have just went straight to the 5600's and skipped these.
I agree with your conclusion Hilbert. While it's a nice card that does what it sets out to do, who exactly is the target audience? The $150-$250 dollar market is so crowded right now I personally think AMD should have just went straight to the 5600's and skipped these.
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:55 PM
I was expecting it to trade blows with the 570 instead it goes against 590 and 1660 ! Nice going .... although the 4gb model is a bit ...bleh
I was expecting it to trade blows with the 570 instead it goes against 590 and 1660 ! Nice going .... although the 4gb model is a bit ...bleh
RooiKreef
Senior Member
Posts: 384
Senior Member
Posts: 384
Posted on: 12/12/2019 03:59 PM
For only $200 and at those power figures I must say this little card is performing very nice.
For only $200 and at those power figures I must say this little card is performing very nice.
Digilator
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:05 PM
Have you seen the performance figures a bit above your comment?
A very odd thing to say...
I agree with your conclusion Hilbert. While it's a nice card that does what it sets out to do, who exactly is the target audience? The $150-$250 dollar market is so crowded right now I personally think AMD should have just went straight to the 5600's and skipped these.
Have you seen the performance figures a bit above your comment?
A very odd thing to say...
FrostNixon
Senior Member
Posts: 196
Senior Member
Posts: 196
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:06 PM
Boy, this is a more underwhelming release than the 10th series of Intel CPUs.
Boy, this is a more underwhelming release than the 10th series of Intel CPUs.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:16 PM
The performance loss going to 4GB is so great that it might as well have been reserved for the 5500 non-XT. Granted, if you're playing a game at 1080p, you don't need to use high/ultra texture settings, which would spare you enough VRAM where the performance hit won't be so brutal.
The 4GB version should not exist.
The performance loss going to 4GB is so great that it might as well have been reserved for the 5500 non-XT. Granted, if you're playing a game at 1080p, you don't need to use high/ultra texture settings, which would spare you enough VRAM where the performance hit won't be so brutal.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:19 PM
If you can have 8gb vram on 200$ card why would you go for less and play lower quality textures?
Its only matter of time 6gb cards gets similiar treatment.
The performance loss going to 4GB is so great that it might as well have been reserved for the 5500 non-XT. Granted, if you're playing a game at 1080p, you don't need to use high/ultra texture settings, which would spare you enough VRAM where the performance hit won't be so brutal.
If you can have 8gb vram on 200$ card why would you go for less and play lower quality textures?
Its only matter of time 6gb cards gets similiar treatment.
jbscotchman
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:33 PM
Have you seen the performance figures a bit above your comment?
A very odd thing to say...
Yes, I looked over the review. And here a couple more examples.
Have you seen the performance figures a bit above your comment?
A very odd thing to say...
Yes, I looked over the review. And here a couple more examples.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1744
Senior Member
Posts: 1744
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:35 PM
My dusty old card is starting to get beaten by entry level cards like this (especially the real 8GB model) quite badly, but I'm in no hurry to upgrade. I'll need to see the next generation from both camps. I reckon I will want HW raytracing to keep running the card for a few years at least. Of course nobody knows if AMD's first gen RT will amount to much, but probably they needed to convince Sony and MS, at least. For Nvidia it will be the second gen already, which is good, but one can only hope they won't go so crazy with the prices.
My dusty old card is starting to get beaten by entry level cards like this (especially the real 8GB model) quite badly, but I'm in no hurry to upgrade. I'll need to see the next generation from both camps. I reckon I will want HW raytracing to keep running the card for a few years at least. Of course nobody knows if AMD's first gen RT will amount to much, but probably they needed to convince Sony and MS, at least. For Nvidia it will be the second gen already, which is good, but one can only hope they won't go so crazy with the prices.
Digilator
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:36 PM
Those rates are "barely playable" or "nearly unplayable"? o_O
Doesn't look like a DOA release to me...
Yes, I looked over the review.
Those rates are "barely playable" or "nearly unplayable"? o_O
Doesn't look like a DOA release to me...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:37 PM
Well, the 4GB version is a lot cheaper. Ultra textures are meant to look good in 4K and 1440p. If you're playing at 1080p, the only time you'll ever notice a difference with high/ultra textures on modern games is if you put your face RIGHT up to every single object, at which point, you're not really playing the game.
If you can have 8gb vram on 200$ card why would you go for less and play lower quality textures?
Well, the 4GB version is a lot cheaper. Ultra textures are meant to look good in 4K and 1440p. If you're playing at 1080p, the only time you'll ever notice a difference with high/ultra textures on modern games is if you put your face RIGHT up to every single object, at which point, you're not really playing the game.
jbscotchman
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:41 PM
That's absolutely false. You're crazy if you think 1080p is not capable of properly displaying high/ultra textures. I have never heard anyone ever say that.
Well, the 4GB version is a lot cheaper. Ultra textures are meant to look good in 4K and 1440p. If you're playing at 1080p, the only time you'll ever notice a difference with high/ultra textures on modern games is if you put your face RIGHT up to every single object, at which point, you're not really playing the game.
That's absolutely false. You're crazy if you think 1080p is not capable of properly displaying high/ultra textures. I have never heard anyone ever say that.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 12/12/2019 04:50 PM
I didn't say they can't properly display them, I said you're not going to notice a difference unless you actively start looking for differences. Also, you know I'm only referring to modern games here, right? Play a game made 5+ years ago and lower the textures from their max and you will see a difference. Play a AAA game made this year and do the same thing and I call BS if you think the difference is significant.
Or y'know, just look at screenshot comparisons. They speak for themselves.
That's absolutely false. You're crazy if you think 1080p is not capable of properly displaying high/ultra textures. I have never heard anyone ever say that.
I didn't say they can't properly display them, I said you're not going to notice a difference unless you actively start looking for differences. Also, you know I'm only referring to modern games here, right? Play a game made 5+ years ago and lower the textures from their max and you will see a difference. Play a AAA game made this year and do the same thing and I call BS if you think the difference is significant.
Or y'know, just look at screenshot comparisons. They speak for themselves.
Spider4423
Member
Posts: 66
Member
Posts: 66
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:02 PM
Fun times my 1070 is still relevant
Fun times my 1070 is still relevant
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:02 PM
You can definetelly see a difference between high and ultra textures on tomb raider games. Even the 1080p displays it well. Its also using 6.3gb vram on my card.
You can definetelly see a difference between high and ultra textures on tomb raider games. Even the 1080p displays it well. Its also using 6.3gb vram on my card.
Zogran
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:15 PM
Also thinking about replacing my dying gtx 970 but i think ill hold out for the rx 5600 depending on the actual price of the rx 5500.
Hoping rx 5600 will be a nice upgrade, but mabey its overkill for my freesync 1080p 75hz monitoro_O.
Also thinking about replacing my dying gtx 970 but i think ill hold out for the rx 5600 depending on the actual price of the rx 5500.
Hoping rx 5600 will be a nice upgrade, but mabey its overkill for my freesync 1080p 75hz monitoro_O.
Digilator
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:28 PM
Also thinking about replacing my dying gtx 970 but i think ill hold out for the rx 5600 depending on the actual price of the rx 5500.
Hoping rx 5600 will be a nice upgrade, but mabey its overkill for my freesync 1080p 75hz monitoro_O.
If you have not done so, you may want to change the thermal paste on that 970.
Might then make sense to see if a new GPU fits your system well. If you plan to use it in a new build down the road, then might be wise to prepare yourself for the next console generation...)
Also thinking about replacing my dying gtx 970 but i think ill hold out for the rx 5600 depending on the actual price of the rx 5500.
Hoping rx 5600 will be a nice upgrade, but mabey its overkill for my freesync 1080p 75hz monitoro_O.
If you have not done so, you may want to change the thermal paste on that 970.
Might then make sense to see if a new GPU fits your system well. If you plan to use it in a new build down the road, then might be wise to prepare yourself for the next console generation...)
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:47 PM
Really now? You can sincerely see a noticeable difference in texture detail between these screenshots:
https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rotr-graphics-comparison-02-very-high.jpg
https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rotr-graphics-comparison-02-high.jpg
Note: those screenshots are differences in presets, not just textures. So the "high" setting can still be overall worse than "very high", but the discussion at hand here is only about texture detail. Even then, some of the other lowered detail settings barely make a difference.
That's not even the newest TR game, so, I'm giving you an advantage here.
You can definetelly see a difference between high and ultra textures on tomb raider games. Even the 1080p displays it well. Its also using 6.3gb vram on my card.
Really now? You can sincerely see a noticeable difference in texture detail between these screenshots:
https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rotr-graphics-comparison-02-very-high.jpg
https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rotr-graphics-comparison-02-high.jpg
Note: those screenshots are differences in presets, not just textures. So the "high" setting can still be overall worse than "very high", but the discussion at hand here is only about texture detail. Even then, some of the other lowered detail settings barely make a difference.
That's not even the newest TR game, so, I'm giving you an advantage here.
Eastcoasthandle
Senior Member
Posts: 2253
Senior Member
Posts: 2253
Posted on: 12/12/2019 05:50 PM
Wow these are excellent cards for the price at 1080p. Sure there were a few outliers indicating that the drivers need more refinement but overall good cards.
Furthermore, I would suspect in some cases that IQ for some would be tweaked a bit to get optimal gaming experience. I can only assume drivers will mature as time goes on to boot.
Wow these are excellent cards for the price at 1080p. Sure there were a few outliers indicating that the drivers need more refinement but overall good cards.
Furthermore, I would suspect in some cases that IQ for some would be tweaked a bit to get optimal gaming experience. I can only assume drivers will mature as time goes on to boot.
pages 1 2 3
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9467
The 4GB version should not exist.