Review: Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB
Click here to post a comment for Review: Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB on our message forum
Loophole35
The 4GB version should not exist.
sverek
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
I though this card competes with 1650S but its fast as 1660 and rx590. Im surprised.
Loophole35
Look at this review. The 4GB version is 5-22 FPS slower in 1080p games.
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=56847 https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=56853
And the vulcan results in RDR2 are horrible. Looks like AMD has some work to do.
sverek
Guess I have to catch up with times. but damn, Gears of Wars just punishes low memory!
Loophole35
That or AMD needs to work on color compression. It does not seem to hurt the 4-6GB Nvidia GPUs.
jbscotchman
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
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
For only $200 and at those power figures I must say this little card is performing very nice.
Digilator
Have you seen the performance figures a bit above your comment?
A very odd thing to say...
FrostNixon
Boy, this is a more underwhelming release than the 10th series of Intel CPUs.
schmidtbag
The performance loss going to 4GB is so great that it might as well have been reserved for the 5500 non-XT. Granted, if you're playing a game at 1080p, you don't need to use high/ultra texture settings, which would spare you enough VRAM where the performance hit won't be so brutal.
Undying
If you can have 8gb vram on 200$ card why would you go for less and play lower quality textures?
Its only matter of time 6gb cards gets similiar treatment.
jbscotchman
Yes, I looked over the review. And here a couple more examples.
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=57034
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=57031
Kaarme
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
Those rates are "barely playable" or "nearly unplayable"? o_O
Doesn't look like a DOA release to me...
schmidtbag
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
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
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
Fun times my 1070 is still relevant 😀
