$400 GPU King: Radeon RX 5700 XT vs. GeForce RTX 2060 Super

Badvok

TS Evangelist
I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, please can you clarify when you are or are not using OC parts. I believe the 5700 XT used for this test is OC'd whereas the 2060 Super isn't. The performance differences are so slight I'm sure this makes a significant difference.
 

krizby

TS Booster
I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, please can you clarify when you are or are not using OC parts. I believe the 5700 XT used for this test is OC'd whereas the 2060 Super isn't. The performance differences are so slight I'm sure this makes a significant difference.
This MSI 2060 Super Gaming X has a stock power limit of 175W and max PL of 185W only. The Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC has a stock PL of 215W and max PL of 280W, even at stock the Gigabyte model outperform the MSI model by 3% and 5% when both are OC. With how the boosting algorithm of Navi and Turing work higher power limit --> higher performance.

2060 Super Gaming OC vs 2060 Super Gaming X

Of course HUB only ever test like 1 model of 2060 Super and 10 models of 5700XT so he doesn't know that different 2060 Super model has different power limits and performances. If he tested the MSI 5700XT EVOKE vs Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC the performance differences is like 3%, not enough to justify the purchase of 5700 XT.
 
Last edited:

fadingfool

TS Addict
This MSI 2060 Super Gaming X has a stock power limit of 175W and max PL of 185W only. The Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC has a stock PL of 215W and max PL of 280W, even at stock the Gigabyte model outperform the MSI model by 3% and 5% when both are OC. With how the boosting algorithm of Navi and Turing work higher power limit --> higher performance.

2060 Super Gaming OC vs 2060 Super Gaming X

Of course HUB only ever test like 1 model of 2060 Super and 10 models of 5700XT so he doesn't know that different 2060 Super model has different power limits and performances. If he tested the MSI 5700XT EVOKE vs Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC the performance differences is like 3%, not enough to justify the purchase of 5700 XT.
And yet other review sites don't show any big differences in the Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC versus the reference model (tweaktown actually show a the reference model ahead for 1440p Tomb Raider).
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
AMD cards clearly offer more performance per dollar.
However, AMD cards are hotter, louder, have driver support for less time and the drivers themselves are far worse than Nvidias. And I’m fed up with this myth that they have caught up. My friend recently had to reinstall Windows to fix an AMD driver issue on his RX580 system. (tip - don’t update Radeon drivers with more than one monitor running and thanks to the AMD forums for point this out to us as the cause of this particular AMD driver issue). And whilst I have had issues with both manufacturers when installing drivers, Nvidia cards generally offer a far superior experience in this area.

At the end of the day, The 5700/5700XT aren’t cheaper enough than the RTX cards available to make accepting the lesser quality user experience worth it. It was different when you could get a HD7970 for 2/3 the price of its Nvidia competitor. That was worth taking the lesser drivers and the higher noise levels. But this? No thanks. Not to mention, have you guys played minecraft with ray tracing? It’s genuinely phenomenal and it’s something that as far as I am aware requires a GeForce card, can’t imagine paying this sort of dollar for a card and not getting that! But then I am a bit of an excessive minecrafter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beerfloat

JimboJoneson

TS Rookie
@Shadowboxer ... Well most of what you are saying is simply not true at all ...

1) "Hotter" - the Powercolor Red Devil runs cooler than the 2060 super which consumes 10% less power ... no one wants the reference blower cards anyway (which did have some cooling issues on 5700xt). If you want to look at power consumption between the two the have the exact same efficiency here (5700xt is 10% faster and uses 10% more power as this article states)
2) "Louder" - the Red devil 5700xt is also quieter than the 2060 super
3) "Less driver support (for older cards)" - It's a known fact that AMD drivers and cards get better with age - just look at Rx480 vs GTX1060 - when the 480 came out it was slower, now its quite a bit faster. Look at Radeon 7 vs 2080 -- started off slighty slower, recent reviews put it a fair bit ahead ... How can this be? Because AMD drivers mature, and NVidia stops improving drivers on older cards to force you to buy a new one ... this is well known in enthusiast corners. The exact opposite of what you say here is true.
4) "AMD drivers suck" - was that comment from out of the time machine? I find the AMD drivers / catalyst control superior to NVidia's interface -- I have both.
5) "No RT for Minecraft" - Some modder created a raytracing mod for minecraft that runs very well on a 5700xt, and playable on a lowly RX580 ... google it. It looks amazing ... and no "RTX" card is required.

So there you go. Time to get with the times.

Here's another couple reviews for you to peruse -- the 5700 and 5700XT aren't getting extremely high accolades from all the reviewers just because ...

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Patriickz

Patriickz

TS Rookie
AMD cards clearly offer more performance per dollar.
However, AMD cards are hotter, louder, have driver support for less time and the drivers themselves are far worse than Nvidias. And I’m fed up with this myth that they have caught up. My friend recently had to reinstall Windows to fix an AMD driver issue on his RX580 system. (tip - don’t update Radeon drivers with more than one monitor running and thanks to the AMD forums for point this out to us as the cause of this particular AMD driver issue). And whilst I have had issues with both manufacturers when installing drivers, Nvidia cards generally offer a far superior experience in this area.

At the end of the day, The 5700/5700XT aren’t cheaper enough than the RTX cards available to make accepting the lesser quality user experience worth it. It was different when you could get a HD7970 for 2/3 the price of its Nvidia competitor. That was worth taking the lesser drivers and the higher noise levels. But this? No thanks. Not to mention, have you guys played minecraft with ray tracing? It’s genuinely phenomenal and it’s something that as far as I am aware requires a GeForce card, can’t imagine paying this sort of dollar for a card and not getting that! But then I am a bit of an excessive minecrafter.
In Holland AMD cards save your literally hundreds of dollars. Def worth. Like 2070 super is somewhat around 600 Euro here and rx 5700 xt is 450. There almost no difference in performance.
 

Patriickz

TS Rookie
@Shadowboxer ... Well most of what you are saying is simply not true at all ...

1) "Hotter" - the Powercolor Red Devil runs cooler than the 2060 super which consumes 10% less power ... no one wants the reference blower cards anyway (which did have some cooling issues on 5700xt). If you want to look at power consumption between the two the have the exact same efficiency here (5700xt is 10% faster and uses 10% more power as this article states)
2) "Louder" - the Red devil 5700xt is also quieter than the 2060 super
3) "Less driver support (for older cards)" - It's a known fact that AMD drivers and cards get better with age - just look at Rx480 vs GTX1060 - when the 480 came out it was slower, now its quite a bit faster. Look at Radeon 7 vs 2080 -- started off slighty slower, recent reviews put it a fair bit ahead ... How can this be? Because AMD drivers mature, and NVidia stops improving drivers on older cards to force you to buy a new one ... this is well known in enthusiast corners. The exact opposite of what you say here is true.
4) "AMD drivers suck" - was that comment from out of the time machine? I find the AMD drivers / catalyst control superior to NVidia's interface -- I have both.
5) "No RT for Minecraft" - Some modder created a raytracing mod for minecraft that runs very well on a 5700xt, and playable on a lowly RX580 ... google it. It looks amazing ... and no "RTX" card is required.

So there you go. Time to get with the times.

Here's another couple reviews for you to peruse -- the 5700 and 5700XT aren't getting extremely high accolades from all the reviewers just because ...

Yes for real don't get the hate. And ryzen just straight up shits on Intel. Amd Is great. Only value card nividia has is a 1660 ti.
 

Ravalo

TS Booster
Not to mention, have you guys played minecraft with ray tracing? It’s genuinely phenomenal and it’s something that as far as I am aware requires a GeForce card, can’t imagine paying this sort of dollar for a card and not getting that! But then I am a bit of an excessive minecrafter.
Are you talking about the “ray tracing” shader mod?

In that case:
 
I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, please can you clarify when you are or are not using OC parts. I believe the 5700 XT used for this test is OC'd whereas the 2060 Super isn't. The performance differences are so slight I'm sure this makes a significant difference.
Unfortunately, you would be wrong. The MSI RTX 2060 Super Gaming X is apparently running at a slight OC (only the cores, however, no OC on the VRAM & no increase to the power limiter), but the Founder's Edition model only averages about 3% slower (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-2060-super-gaming-x/27.html).

The Powercolor RX 5700 XT is also OC'd, but AMD's reference model only runs about 2% slower (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/powercolor-radeon-rx-5700-xt-red-devil/28.html). The inference would be that you'd have to OC the RTX 2060 by a very decent margin for it to match, let alone exceed, the 5700 XT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

krizby

TS Booster
Unfortunately, you would be wrong. The MSI RTX 2060 Super Gaming X is apparently running at a slight OC (only the cores, however, no OC on the VRAM & no increase to the power limiter), but the Founder's Edition model only averages about 3% slower (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-2060-super-gaming-x/27.html).

The Powercolor RX 5700 XT is also OC'd, but AMD's reference model only runs about 2% slower (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/powercolor-radeon-rx-5700-xt-red-devil/28.html). The inference would be that you'd have to OC the RTX 2060 by a very decent margin for it to match, let alone exceed, the 5700 XT.
Lookie here we have the Palit 2060 Super JetStream that is actually faster than a 5700XT at stock settings.
Palit 2060 Super Jetstream
What is the difference between the Palit and MSI ? just the power limit, MSI has a PL of 175W while the Palit is 215W (same as Gigabyte Gaming OC model). With the way Navi and Turing are boosting their clocks, simply having higher PL increases performances a few percent. The fact remains that the 5700XT Red Devil HUB is testing has a higher PL than reference 5700XT while the MSI 2060 Super Gaming X has the same PL as reference (and only 185W maximum PL while the Palit allows for 250W maximum).
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
This MSI 2060 Super Gaming X has a stock power limit of 175W and max PL of 185W only. The Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC has a stock PL of 215W and max PL of 280W, even at stock the Gigabyte model outperform the MSI model by 3% and 5% when both are OC. With how the boosting algorithm of Navi and Turing work higher power limit --> higher performance.

2060 Super Gaming OC vs 2060 Super Gaming X

Of course HUB only ever test like 1 model of 2060 Super and 10 models of 5700XT so he doesn't know that different 2060 Super model has different power limits and performances. If he tested the MSI 5700XT EVOKE vs Gigabyte 2060 Super Gaming OC the performance differences is like 3%, not enough to justify the purchase of 5700 XT.
Actually if you compare the Gigabyte model to even the founders edition card it was slower

https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/graphics/gigabyte-geforce-rtx-2060-super-gaming-oc-review/7/

vs

https://www.techspot.com/review/1865-geforce-rtx-super/

71 vs 69 in shadow of the tomb raider 1440p

AMD cards clearly offer more performance per dollar.
However, AMD cards are hotter, louder, have driver support for less time and the drivers themselves are far worse than Nvidias.
You copy paste the same response to every AMD related article, even though the article itself debunks your comment

"For one the 2060 Super consumes less power, and it’ll reduce total system consumption by at least 10%, but it’s also 10% slower. Not exactly an efficiency improvement there"

The 2060 super gives you about the same performance per watt as the RX 5700 XT. "hotter and louder"? Even the Sapphire pulse, which is $10 over MSRP, maintains a low Dba. This comment makes zero sense when you realize that Navi and Turing has similar power characteristics. By extension you are casting shade on Nvidia as well.

In addition, from the article

" At least based in our own experience, AMD's current driver support doesn’t give us enough reason to second guess recommending either the 5700 or 5700 XT."


And I’m fed up with this myth that they have caught up. My friend recently had to reinstall Windows to fix an AMD driver issue on his RX580 system. (tip - don’t update Radeon drivers with more than one monitor running and thanks to the AMD forums for point this out to us as the cause of this particular AMD driver issue). And whilst I have had issues with both manufacturers when installing drivers, Nvidia cards generally offer a far superior experience in this area.
Given that the reported driver issues are with Navi based cards, not Polaris, I don't know what your going on with this bit. I also searched the AMD forums for the issue you described above and found nothing. Funny, you seam to always invent a reason or "friend" and "issue" and yet never provide anything to back it up. Unless you provide a link, I have evidence of absence.

If I believed everything I read in the comments section, you and amstech (or your "friends") apparently own a boatload of AMD tech yet are the first to crap on them in every AMD related article. I can only believe in a coincidence so much.
 
Last edited:

mrvco

TS Rookie
Thanks for the price equivalent card comparison.

My $399 Powercolor 5700 XT AXRX is running cool and quiet with no issues (drivers or otherwise). My XFX RX480 BE is still going strong as well and is headed to a family member in my old gaming PC tomorrow.
 

ColdDeck

TS Rookie
I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, please can you clarify when you are or are not using OC parts. I believe the 5700 XT used for this test is OC'd whereas the 2060 Super isn't. The performance differences are so slight I'm sure this makes a significant difference.
There is no OC version of the Red Devil.
 

Nobina

TS Evangelist
AMD cards clearly offer more performance per dollar.
However, AMD cards are hotter, louder, have driver support for less time and the drivers themselves are far worse than Nvidias. And I’m fed up with this myth that they have caught up. My friend recently had to reinstall Windows to fix an AMD driver issue on his RX580 system. (tip - don’t update Radeon drivers with more than one monitor running and thanks to the AMD forums for point this out to us as the cause of this particular AMD driver issue). And whilst I have had issues with both manufacturers when installing drivers, Nvidia cards generally offer a far superior experience in this area.

At the end of the day, The 5700/5700XT aren’t cheaper enough than the RTX cards available to make accepting the lesser quality user experience worth it. It was different when you could get a HD7970 for 2/3 the price of its Nvidia competitor. That was worth taking the lesser drivers and the higher noise levels. But this? No thanks. Not to mention, have you guys played minecraft with ray tracing? It’s genuinely phenomenal and it’s something that as far as I am aware requires a GeForce card, can’t imagine paying this sort of dollar for a card and not getting that! But then I am a bit of an excessive minecrafter.
At least try to hide your bias. I even agree Nvidia has better drivers but to say AMDs are far worse like there's a giant difference or something is ridicilous. With AMD you get occasional bug here and there but that's it, your precious """"""""experience""""""""" isn't noticably worse.
 

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
At least try to hide your bias. I even agree Nvidia has better drivers but to say AMDs are far worse like there's a giant difference or something is ridicilous. With AMD you get occasional bug here and there but that's it, your precious """"""""experience""""""""" isn't noticably worse.
Agreed, Navi's launch could definitely had been more bug free but as the author suggested, it isn't enough of a difference to be a worthwhile point, especially after AMD have had time to smooth things over.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

treetops

TS Evangelist
A maxed out 2070 Super can barely keep up with a 5700 XT max OC. If you think a 2060 Super stands a chance your dreaming.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.igorslab.media/ungefesselt-radeon-rx-5700-xt-auf-ueber-22-ghz-uebertaktet-break-the-limits-mit-den-neuen-softpowerplaytables-fuer-die-rx-5700-und-rx-5700-xt/

https://www.igorslab.media/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Shadow-of-the-Tomb-Raider-FPS-1920x1080-DX12-Ultra-4.png
Skip to 6:50 if you want to see the results.

p.s. this is on water, wattman used to crash a lot so there are not a whole lot of reviews on the 5700 xt ocing
 
Last edited:

Fabbkk

TS Rookie
In S.E.A, the GTX1080TI is now between $330 and $360, these GPU RTX and R5700(XT) are no good value facing second hand market, got mine for $380 (Zotac AMP EXTREME Core Edition ) last year. Waiting for a more decent price to upgrade to more powerful GPU... let's see next year with AMD GPU with Ray Tracing enabled, it may be becoming interest despite the weak number of games available for RT. It may become interesting only in 2 years...