Is that still really an issue for people? I mean yes the GPU will run a bit hotter when it has a higher wattage, but money wise ... I mean let's take 3 hours gameplay for 5 days a week: So 210 Watt versus 250 Watts - (40W : 1000=0.04 KWh) x (3hrs x5days x 52 weeks ) x .22 Cent/KWh = 6.86 bucks a year.

Undying:

Depends on the clocks. Im sure Strix 2070S uses similiar amount of power as this card.

It would be impressive it they didn't need a node shrink to do it

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Is that still really an issue for people? I mean yes the GPU will run a bit hotter when it has a higher wattage, but money wise ... I mean let's take 3 hours gameplay for 5 days a week: So 210 Watt versus 250 Watts - (40W : 1000=0.04 KWh) x (3hrs x5days x 52 weeks ) x .22 Cent/KWh = 6.86 bucks a year.

watts are about cooling and comparing architecture efficiency. Nobody is concerned about their power bill. It does however mean that with the Navi architecture, AMD is TDP limited to roughly 2080ti performance on 7nm.

ttnuagmada:

Nobody is concerned about their power bill.

Nobody is concerned about 7nm or 12nm / or architecture efficiency either. In the end, it is about price, performance (incl cooling), and feature set. The rest is trivial.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Nobody is concerned about 7nm or 12nm / or architecture efficiency either. In the end, it is about price, performance (incl cooling), and feature set. The rest is trivial.

people will be concerned when the fastest GPU AMD can make isn't any better than a 3070.

ttnuagmada:

people will be concerned when the fastest GPU AMD can make isn't any better than a 3070.

That's 2070 and the 5700 XT is not AMD's fastest GPU - it is intended as a high-end class product (which it is), but not an enthusiast.

Let's have a debate about what we are debating 🙂;)

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

That's 2070 and the 5700 XT is not AMD's fastest GPU - it is intended as a high-end class product (which it is), but not an enthusiast.

But with Navi TDP, that means that the biggest thing AMD could possibly make on 7nm would maybe match a 2080 Ti. Nvidia also generally tries to hit the previous Ti level performance with the xx70 GPU's (and should definitely be able to do it). Thus my previous comment.

Seems to me something got botched from Asus' side, though...Guru3D has near zero change, OC3D has the Strix slightly behind the reference XT often enough and only Techpowerup's review gives the Strix a clear 6% advantage at 1440p/4K over reference...weird. 19.7.5 Beta vs official?

Did anyone else smirk at the pattern of the thermal grease on the contact plate? ehehehe

cryohellinc:

Power-hungry and hot.

So 68 performance and 76 silent is hot and a ~20-25W more power draw than a 2070 Super is power-hungry. 😀 Not to mention the well-known UV of AMD cards. Nice try.

SniperX:

You mean the 5700XT has the same power-draw as the 2080S....right around the 250W mark.....2070S is 209W.

Nope. 22W difference compared to an MSI 2070S.

Price wise it's a great deal. In the same shop if you look at this card is at pre order for 499 pounds while de 2070S made by Asus and also strix OC version is 649 pounds!!! https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rog-strix-oc-8gb-gddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-43p-as.html https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-geforce-rtx-2070-super-rog-strix-oc-8192mb-gddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-43h-as.html Great card for this price!

Hm. Prices here are a bit messed up: Reference 5700XT: DKK 3.349 (449€) Asus Strix 5700XT is DKK 4.390 (588€) to preorder Asus 5700 XT TUF is DKK 4.090 (548€) Sapphire Pulse 5700 XT is DKK 3.799 (509€) Asus - why do we need so many SKUs? These cards are all almost identical in performance, so why 2 of the same model when they're almost identical. To make more money of course. But the value proposition is completely gone when you charge 588€ for a card that performs identically, in all aspects but noise, to a card that's 449€. I'm kind of sad that it seems almost impossible these days to buy 3rd party GPU cooling that is not a water block that only fits one specific card, because I'd rather buy the reference design and replace the cooler with a more silent one, that might be 50€, than pay for the AIB cards when there's so very little reason to do so - Asus is literally charging 149€ for the cooler - the rest of the card has no noticable performance difference, so why bother? Reference 5700 (non-XT) are sitting at DKK 2.939 (394€) which is a pretty good deal. Now if only there were some cooler companies that'd start building good aftermarket coolers again... unfortunately that seems to be a dead market now.

Pricing for new products is always higher than it will be weeks later. No surprises there.

alanm:

Pricing for new products is always higher than it will be weeks later. No surprises there.

Sure - however, this is kind of extreme. On all accounts. It hasn't been possible to buy an AMD card other than the RX 400 and 500 series for so long I can't even remember when.

ttnuagmada:

people will be concerned when the fastest GPU AMD can make isn't any better than a 3070.

Will they? Isn't that just random gimps on forums like this where it's kind of dumb comments like "Oh it's not the BEST in the world GPU that beats everything else and than .001% of consumers will buy" - when most everyone don't even buy cards as highend as the 2060 due to the price. A 5700 non-XT is already way out of most people's budget.

Undying:

Similiar power consumption as 2070S with a higher clocks and less than your 1080ti while delivering almost the same performance. You are overreacting.

You are overprotecting. Higher power consumption on a smaller node is a concern.

BReal85:

So 68 performance and 76 silent is hot and a ~20-25W more power draw than a 2070 Super is power-hungry. 😀 Not to mention the well-known UV of AMD cards. Nice try.

"Nice try" - nice try what? School-level argument? And indeed my bad on that as I only looked at 76c, so 68c in performance mode is solid.

Just gonna give my 2 cents and post a couple of benchmarks with my reference card. Note I did slap the top of the Artic IV on the core. I reused the original stock back plate but put thermal pads on the back at the Vram and vrms and a couple of other things so they would transfer heat to the back plate. And I have a small fan blowing across the the back plate. This is a reference Power Color 5700 XT. Just pointing out some things. Hilbert's reviews are always great and informative. Note in FS Ultra My 5700 XT is beating the theRTX 2080 and in Shadows of the Tomb Raider I am ahead of the ahead of the GTX 2080 Super. Note Tomb Raider bench was done a few back while FS Ultra was just this morning. First up Fire Strike Ultra. https://i.imgur.com/khZJ3o4.jpg Shadows of the Tomb Raider High Maxed out settings. Redoing Tomb Raider right now. Driver 19.7.4 https://i.imgur.com/tsf8twC.jpg

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Is that still really an issue for people? I mean yes the GPU will run a bit hotter when it has a higher wattage, but money wise ... I mean let's take 3 hours gameplay for 5 days a week: So 210 Watt versus 250 Watts - (40W : 1000=0.04 KWh) x (3hrs x5days x 52 weeks ) x .22 Cent/KWh = 6.86 bucks a year.

I don't think it's a professional reply.

Zzzzzz so boring... when can I upgrade my 1080Ti...?

cryohellinc:

Higher power consumption on a smaller node is a concern.

Why? Every time I see arguments along these lines I question whether the people making it actually understand that these cards are designed with their power target in mind. It's not a flaw in the design or the process, it's what AMD (in this case) specified for the card. As has been proven time and again if you really want lower power use then you can dial back clocks and voltages slightly for some huge power savings. The question is what percentage of potential users would be willing to take a 5-10% hit on performance for notably lower power usage. AMD reasoned that a more favorable positioning vs. the competition with regards to performance was more important than absolute power usage and I tend to agree with that. For the sake of the argument, say AMD released the 5700/5700 XT at 120/150W rather than 180/225W and at just 10% lower performance. Now the 5700 compares less favorably to the 2060(s), similarly with the 5700XT and the 2070(s). Reviews would note the low power consumption but they'd focus far more on the performance deficit compared to the competition. Forum warriors would complain about the lacking performance rather than the power usage and as forum warrior arguments go that's actually a more reasonable one. A not insignificant number of people complaining about high power usage would, instead of praising the now low power usage, complain about low performance. It's not a situation that would benefit either AMD or the vast majority of users. TL;DR: The power usage of the Radeon 5700 series is neither a design flaw or a problem with the 7nm node. It's an active choice AMD made to hit the performance targets of the cards. You may disagree that choice, in which case you should think long and hard about what you really prioritize in a graphics card.