![using radeon settings with sapphire trixx using radeon settings with sapphire trixx](https://www.esoftner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAPPHIRE-TriXX-Logo.jpeg)
Again, that only brings them nearly on-par with what the competition is already offering though, and not providing any real advantage over products already on the market. The only notable advantage over AMD's existing sub-$200 lineup would be the reduced power consumption, and in turn heat output, with the new cards being much closer to Nvidia's offerings. Around that price level, you can snag a faster 1660 for just a little more. And the 8GB version might cope a little better with games that have high VRAM requirements, but at a 25% higher MSRP than the 1650 SUPER. The 4GB 5500XT appears to offer similar performance to a 1650 SUPER at a slightly higher MSRP.
#USING RADEON SETTINGS WITH SAPPHIRE TRIXX FULL#
A full 3 1/2 years later, we're only getting somewhere around 10-15% more performance at a slightly lower price, at least for the 4GB version, and at this point you'll probably want the higher VRAM version to keep up with future games.Īnd compared to Nvidia's current offerings, this brings nothing new to the table. Even the RX 480 had nearly this level of performance, and the 4GB variant of that card launched for $199 back in June of 2016. The 5500XT seems decidedly underwhelming from a pricing standpoint, considering it generally doesn't perform much faster than an RX 580, and that level of performance has been available in the $170-$200 range for quite a while already.
![using radeon settings with sapphire trixx using radeon settings with sapphire trixx](https://i.imgur.com/YPkZGtv.png)
Maybe Mini-Me might use his Christmas money from Grandma and Grandpa to go for an RX 5600 XT, when they come out in January, to add to his ChromaTron build, currently in progress. I'm definitely looking forward to the test results when the 8GB variant is added to the graphs, and thus far, this seems to bode well for the upcoming RX 5600 XT.Īnd yes, power efficiency has improved significantly, though Nvidia hasn't stood still on this, so, AMD still has a bit of work to do. Still, odd in the places where it does fall short, as the 4GB doesn't seem to hurt the 1650 Super the same way. Overall, though, I'm glad it's at the least trading blows with the 1650 Super, and pleasantly surprised to see it occasionally flirting with 1660 territory. Eyeballing it, I want to say it's about 190-ish watts? The first one is a little hard to tell, given how the 590's plot on the graph swings so wildlyabout, but that number on the second one seems wrong, considering that only once does a plot point for it ever dip below 150W. The outgoing XFX RX 590 Fat Boy averaged 140W.and Interesting - and definitely confusing when trying to judge overall performance, given how it, does better at some games and worse at others compared to Nvidia's cards.Īlso, this gave me a bit of a reminder that I've kind of been underestimating the RX 590, though its power draw is just too much for what it does.