-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
AMD Radeon RX 5700 series review/benchmarks leaked ahead of the embargo lift
- Thread starter RevengeTaken
- Start date
I think for future-proof stuff it will be better to wait and see the specs of the next-gen consoles, but yeah, at the moment a 2060 Super looks like a better option, and it's about the same price.
5700XT at $450 would be DOA, at $400 (positioned directly against 2060S which is basically a new 2070) it will be okay - this is essentially in line with their launch comparisons, and 5700XT will probably be some 5% faster on average which is a good option if you don't want RT.
5700 at $350 isn't really much different from $380 but with 5700XT going to $400 they didn't really have a choice with 5700. It will slot directly against the old 2060 and will likely beat it by 10-15% on average - an even better option if you don't want Turing's features and prefer higher performance and more VRAM.
This adjustment was basically neccessary for 5700 cards to be relevant after 20 Super launch.
5700 at $350 isn't really much different from $380 but with 5700XT going to $400 they didn't really have a choice with 5700. It will slot directly against the old 2060 and will likely beat it by 10-15% on average - an even better option if you don't want Turing's features and prefer higher performance and more VRAM.
This adjustment was basically neccessary for 5700 cards to be relevant after 20 Super launch.
No, no, it was the plan, you see? They've planned it all along and it's NV's fault that they've tried to sell these cards at $500 initially but now they are good again even though it was in fact NV who forced AMD to lower their Navi prices - which is kinda nuts from several perspectives if you think about it.
They don't. They use an upgraded GCN ISA but so do, for example, modern Ryzen and Core CPUs which are using an upgraded x86 ISA back from i8086 days. Doesn't mean anything for the underlying h/w which actually execute these instructions.
Last edited:
The performance isn't the issue. The price is. RTX cards cost as much as they do because of Nvidia's investment into the two extra cores that are on the GPU, as well as the increased cost of production for implementing those two new cores. So Nvidia sort of has an excuse for their crappy bloated pricing. AMD's cards don't have that excuse. They're not introducing anything new.
I mean for a few more bucks it matches the 2070. Not baaaaad, just not mind blowing considering it lacks RT features.
At $300 and $350 these would be killer cards. Even without ray tracing.
they priced themselves out of the competition. these shouldve gone for $200 and $300 max. no ray tracing after a year and still charging almost $500. ridiculous.
This feels like a much better proposition than the Vega models, coming from a happy Vega 64 user - watching it slide down that chart was pretty awkward. At least the 5700 series is a more power efficient competitor and seems to stack up relatively better to Team Green than its predecessor did. So now this is the "if you don't care about ray-tracing, this is not substantially worse than Nvidia" generation.
Which still isn't the best sales pitch I ever heard to be honest.
But it'll be interesting to see more reviews and data before jumping to a deeper conclusion, especially with the alleged driver immaturity.
Which still isn't the best sales pitch I ever heard to be honest.
But it'll be interesting to see more reviews and data before jumping to a deeper conclusion, especially with the alleged driver immaturity.
I'm a semi satisfied Vega 64 owner. Although I'm currently frustrated by some poor performance at 3400 x 1440 in some games. I'd happily jump ship to Nvidia but my monitor, ASUS ROG Strix XG35VQ UWQHD apparently doesn't play well with Gsync. Adaptive sync is crucial to me, so I guess I'll wait until whatever AMD comes out with in 2020. I'd like the extra 25% of performance that I'd get from the VII, but don't fancy paying $1100 AUS for it. Are you planning on sticking with the Vega 64 for the meantime Lo-Volt?
I am, personally. I'm happy with its 1080p 144hz (or 1440p 60hz) performance and I tuned the card enough that it isn't a nuclear bomb going off. And I know YouTube reference videos aren't great justification, but its performance these days is actually fine. I also can't keep spending money on this to be honest! 🤪
Now that Nvidia is supporting more adaptive sync, you might have better luck using a GeForce with your current monitor, too.
Hah! Agree on the Vega tuning. I've finally settled on an undervolt that doesn't cause it to explode and throttle almost immediately. Still requires a lot of fan rpm to keep the temps down though. The only reports I've seen of people trying out Gsync on my monitor have involved black screens and restarts being required. I don't fancy that, so will stick with AMD until I win the lottery and can replace monitor and card. :)
as good as the price cuts are, I think the problem AMD is gonna have going forward is Nvidia controlling the narrative about ray tracing and more games being announced to use it. with Cyberpunk and Call of Duty announced to have it, Nvidia can champion two of the the biggest PC games this fiscal year. and more games will be announced and released before the calendar year is over, allowing Nvidia to bark louder. AMD having slightly better rasterizing performance will help, but with most people being in the tiers than necessitate lowering settings anyway, paying a little be more for some extra features to experiment with while getting similar rasterizing performance sounds like a good deal
Coupled with the fact that rtx GPU support ray tracing and Navi 10 looks real bad. They better get a zen 2 level of performance increase otherwise Nvidia will always be overcharging for their gpus.
But that was also with imcompetant people running their division and having to pull people off of engineering for Radeon and put them on their cpu's. It's been like that for a long time. Now that they are gaining a good portion of market share and now have the more desirable product cpu wise, they will shift focus and you will see how well RDNA can be in the coming years.
The fact that are selling these cards at almost half the price of their previous generation vega cards is telling on the R&D side, and that they seem to have been getting great results on older ARC coming out of TSMC.
We will have to see how their work on RDNA continues going forward for their highend which would replace the Radeon VII and won't be till next year or later.
Compete with what, exactly? These are mid-range replacements for Polaris. And given the XT seems to be about maybe 6-7fps slower than the 2070 Super on average (going by those three images alone in the OP, a bad measure I know) for a full $100 less, they don't seem too bad to me.
Given they're a year late, on a massive node advantage, with no RT or AI hardware, and like 10% marketshare, at minimum the expection should be for a 2080 par card around $500 and Ti around $600-700. Selling their OC'ed first edition XT for $499 is embarassing in this performance bracket considering all the above. These cards should be $299 and $349 tops, and that's maybe even a little high given their situation. They badly need mindshare and marketshare, and would face a difficult uphill battle even at my proposed price points.
Last edited:
These are replacments for vega not polaris. It's been leaked and known that there are multiple cards coming. ANd they are all going to be replacing 580,590,570,560 models.
So they outperform Vega while requiring less power. And new price puts the 5700 XT $100 cheaper than a 2070 Super, and 5700 $50 less than 2060 Super. Sounds good to me.
EDIT - I'm not in the market for a card yet, as I picked up an on-sale GTX 1080 last year. If I was, I'd be considering that 5700 XT vs. a non-Super 2070 (as prices get closer to $400).
EDIT - I'm not in the market for a card yet, as I picked up an on-sale GTX 1080 last year. If I was, I'd be considering that 5700 XT vs. a non-Super 2070 (as prices get closer to $400).
Last edited:
The pricing certainly suggests that, the leaked image of a card with "RX 680" on it suggests otherwise. Are we sure Navi 20 isn't the Vega replacement? The 5700/XT die size is tiny, and that's not all on 7nm.
I don't think there's any manufacturer selling the actual silicon yet. AMD/Nvidia need to buy this for the cards. LG entered into a tech agreement 2 years ago and was able to start a factory line producing their own 2.1 chipsets. That's why their 2019 TVs were able to launch with it.
Maybe I'm wrong and it is heavy in production now. But based on the TV situation at CES earlier this year, production of the chipsets seems to be lagging for everyone not named LG.
Yeah am I missing something with the whole RT thing?
I understand RT cores are cool and all but you aren't getting the advantage of them at the 2060 or in some games 2070 level. Honestly your not really enjoying the full benefit of Ray Tracing at acceptable framerates until you get up to the 2080 tbh.
Like I understand where people can look between the 2070 and the 5700XT and be like yeah okay but missing features but between the 2060 and 5700 yeah your missing RT cores but the 2060 was never running games with RTX that great to begin with so what's the point, if the 5700 is performing better than the 2060 and is on par or better than the 2060 Super than why would I not get the 5700?
I understand RT cores are cool and all but you aren't getting the advantage of them at the 2060 or in some games 2070 level. Honestly your not really enjoying the full benefit of Ray Tracing at acceptable framerates until you get up to the 2080 tbh.
Like I understand where people can look between the 2070 and the 5700XT and be like yeah okay but missing features but between the 2060 and 5700 yeah your missing RT cores but the 2060 was never running games with RTX that great to begin with so what's the point, if the 5700 is performing better than the 2060 and is on par or better than the 2060 Super than why would I not get the 5700?
If the rumors are true what is the best bang per buck if we ignore if it's from AMD or nVidia?
Just Nvidia's marketing working as intended. RT is missing from Navi and it's pointless and/or detrimental on Turing, but, hey, gotta have ray tracing because reasons.
It makes zero sense to buy a 2060 for raytracing, but it's an added bonus. Some games run okay'ish at 1080p. But yeah, for raytracing I wouldnt go any lower than a 2080.
I don't know if that's a fair thing to say in the medium term. Right now, most games won't support RT. But in the future, specially since the ninth generation of consoles will have ray tracing, that is going to change. It will be interesting to see if the Navi revision or Ampere will have much more maturity in hardware RT and make Turing look premature? But this does sound like the director of games on platforms like this.
IMO it's the 2070 super now. Nearly 1080 ti/2080 performance for the price of a 1080. Between the 1660ti and the rtx 2070 super it gets a little muddy.
The 5700 would have replaced the GTX 1060 as THE mainstream card if it was available for $300 instead of $350/$380.
The RT is just a bonus, I don't even consider it in my decision really. Just overall performance. Only a handful of games even support this right now.
Radeon RX 5700 and XT are mid range replacements for polaris but they are priced like Vega replacements.
Look at die size:
- Pitcairn 212 mm²
- Polaris 232 mm²
- Navi 251 mm²
High end card are bigger:
Tahiti 352 mm²
Hawaii 438 mm²
Fiji 596 mm²
Vega 10 495 mm²
AMD's RX 5700 XT was called RX 690 in its E3 presentation slides
Radeon RX 590 is 232 mm²
You can get the 5700, but when next gen games start using RT, don't act like people didn't tell you the 5700 was a paper weight.
That's why I find the pricing so disappointing. Maybe yields aren't great or something, but it feels like AMD is just aiming for as close to price parity with Nvidia as they can get, instead of pushing for marketshare like they did with Ryzen.Radeon RX 5700 and XT are mid range replacements for polaris but they are priced like Vega replacements.
Look at die size:
- Pitcairn 212 mm²
- Polaris 232 mm²
- Navi 251 mm²
High end card are bigger:
Tahiti 352 mm²
Hawaii 438 mm²
Fiji 596 mm²
Vega 10 495 mm²
AMD's RX 5700 XT was called RX 690 in its E3 presentation slides
Radeon RX 590 is 232 mm²
Maybe next year when the big die GPU launches things will look better. That or AMD is going up drop a $1000 GPU too.
Did you just say because it doesn't have fucking Ray Tracing it's a paper weight? Bro shut the fuck up.
First of all 2060 Ray Tracing performance will still be absymal next gen or not and by 2020 AMD will probably have RT-enabled cards out by then. None of that makes the 5700 a bad card at the end of the day.
This is the real problem tbh, until AMD gets their OpenGL drivers in a good spot it's hard to recommend their cards sometimes depending on your workload.
It does, spending $450 on something that will be outdated in late 2020. or spend $50 more on a Super 2070 & have it last into the early 2020's & compete with PS5 comfortably.
Last edited:
There's not a lot of RT titles out there, but more and more are getting announced every month. Three big ones in the next few months alone - Wolfenstein Youngblood, Control, and COD Modern Warfare.
Performance is lacking, but RT is still coming. I'd suggest a card with more future proofing over one with a slight advantage in some games.
edit: If there were some massive difference in price I'd absolutely recommend the 5700 series. But there isn't a massive difference in price.
Future proofing really should be a factor if you are going to spend that much on a GPU, Nvidia users made the mistake of rushing out to buy the 760/770 despite warning their limited vram would be a problem.
I just don't want anyone to turn around & go "wow i wasted 400 bucks on this GPU & it's worse than PS5, i hate PC gaming" which happened a little bit early this gen.