Sapphire RX 5500 XT Pulse 4GB vs 8GB Review

[WYP]

The latest addition to the burgeoning Navi line of AMD Radeon GPUs is the RX 5500 XT, and we have both 4GB and 8GB Sapphire Pulse cards on hand to test.



Read our Sapphire RX 5500 XT 4GB and 8GB Pulse GPU Review.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

Looking at the reviews across the board, I'm disappointed in AMD's performance per dollar, especially with the 8GB variant—that seems to be an especially poor recommendation. The 1650, 1660, and 1660Ti, and even the RX 590 all offer superior performance per dollar. I know OC3D has given it a solid recommendation, but comparing a variety of reviews, I wouldn't agree personally.

 

[grec]

This seems pretty reasonable to me, it's like a 590 at 580 pricing a few months ago but with much lower power draw and all that. Still I think I'll wait to see how the 5600 stacks up/if ones coming since it's definitely not blowing anything away with the prices today.

 

[jcchg]

What is the reason to buy this 200 € GPU while having RX 580 for 160 €? Are they mocking us?

 

[AngryGoldfish]

What is the reason to buy this 200 € GPU while having RX 580 for 160 €? Are they mocking us?

Personally I don't think it's totally fair to compare a three year-old product that's been rehashed a bunch of times to a brand-new product on a process node that's short in supply. Don't get me wrong, I definitely think AMD are letting themselves down by doing this, but for me it's the poor showing against Nvidia that's disappointing, as well as their other Navi cards. Any of the green team equivalents offer more performance per watt & per dollar (it's not huge, but it's there), and they've been out for a long time. AMD's own higher end 5700 XT has superior performance per watt. I don't understand what AMD are doing. I feel like they're high on Zen2.

 

[WYP]

Personally I don't think it's totally fair to compare a three year-old product that's been rehashed a bunch of times to a brand-new product on a process node that's short in supply. Don't get me wrong, I definitely think AMD are letting themselves down by doing this, but for me it's the poor showing against Nvidia that's disappointing, as well as their other Navi cards. Any of the green team equivalents offer more performance per watt & per dollar (it's not huge, but it's there), and they've been out for a long time. AMD's own higher end 5700 XT has superior performance per watt. I don't understand what AMD are doing. I feel like they're high on Zen2.

The main reason why the RX 5500 series exists is mobile. Apple needs a new GPU for MacBooks and the RX 560 and Vega Mobile don't cut it anymore.

Remember Vega Mobile? It's basically a Mac-only product. The RX 5500 is a mobile play. That's why there is such a big gap between the RX 5500 XT and the 5700.

This card is basically a repeat of the RX 560/460 and RX 570 situation. HUGE performance gap. The rumoured RX 5600 could fix that, but it is likely a cut-down RX 5700.

Performance per watt wise, it is also worth noting that AMD's Game Frequency is 1717MHz, which is almost as high as the RX 5700's full boost. That should help explain the lower performance/watt. The best power chips go to mobile and AMD uses high clocks to make the desktop model competative.

 

[Avet]

Wendell (level1tech) said beautifully why this cards exist. They are here to replace old architecture so AMD and developers could focus driver and software optimizations only for Navi and not waste time on very, very old, 1000 times rebranded tech. This way everything they do will work across the range of products.

 

[RobM]

pointless card

 

[AngryGoldfish]

The main reason why the RX 5500 series exists is mobile. Apple needs a new GPU for MacBooks and the RX 560 and Vega Mobile don't cut it anymore.

Remember Vega Mobile? It's basically a Mac-only product. The RX 5500 is a mobile play. That's why there is such a big gap between the RX 5500 XT and the 5700.

This card is basically a repeat of the RX 560/460 and RX 570 situation. HUGE performance gap. The rumoured RX 5600 could fix that, but it is likely a cut-down RX 5700.

Performance per watt wise, it is also worth noting that AMD's Game Frequency is 1717MHz, which is almost as high as the RX 5700's full boost. That should help explain the lower performance/watt. The best power chips go to mobile and AMD uses high clocks to make the desktop model competative.

But what else would AMD have for the low-midrange? The 5600 range? I don't see how that's going to cater to people on a budget. Obviously the 5500XT caters to those on a budget, but if what you say is true and the reason why it sucks for PC gamers is because it was never built for PC gamers, it's Vega all over again but for the low-midrange market.

 

[Giggyolly]

Seems to be a smidge slower than the 1660 while being fair bit cheaper. I can't see a decent 1660 anywhere near lower than £210, most more.

I'd like to see the 5500xt 8gb push closer to £160 as it moves further into its life. Making room for 5600xt at £250ish.

 

[p1987]

Lol, 'There isn't room to get a Christmas card between them' - very appropriate!