AMD's retail Radeon RX 5500 XT series graphics cards bring new options to the budget and mid-range graphics card market. I saw the Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB at launch, and there are also 8GB cards available; how much of a performance boost does doubling the VRAM provide? As expected, it depends on the games you run and the settings.

If you haven't already read our review of the 4GB model, we suggest you start there. Back. Good; AMD's Navi/RDNA architecture has not changed, but the number of potential compute units (CUs) has been reduced from a maximum of 40 to a maximum of 24 in Navi 14, with 22 CUs enabled in the 5500 XT. The two cards I reviewed appear identical, which is to be expected given that they are both Sapphire Pulse models. The only difference is the VRAM and the $30 price increase.

Other than VRAM, the specs may remain the same, but the price increase has some impact: the 5500 XT 4GB card matches up with the GTX 1650 Super, and the two are virtually identical in performance. The 8GB card, on the other hand, has to compete with the GTX 1660, but Nvidia's card has the same number of GPU cores, 1,408; the problem for AMD is that Nvidia's GPU cores tend to perform a bit better overall, so the GTX 1660 will outperform it in performance. At least the TDPs are essentially the same, so the 120W vs. 130W difference is not that significant.

There is little difference in terms of features. Technically, Nvidia's GTX 1660 can enable ray tracing in games that support it. In practice, the 1660 is not fast enough to make ray tracing worthwhile. There are other aspects of performance, with AMD GPUs often performing better in DirectX 12 games and Nvidia GPUs sometimes performing better in DX11 and other games, but overall, the two are evenly matched in the mid-range and below market.

There is also a jump in pricing between generations, especially when looking at current street prices: the RX 590 initially launched last year for $279, but now you can get the same card for $179. It will consume more power, but performance will be little different than the RX 5500 XT 8GB Even AMD's own numbers say so, with AMD comparing the 5500 XT to the older RX 480 card and claiming a 30% increase in performance AMD is not wrong, but the RX 470/480 is 3 years old, and a 30% improvement at a fraction of the price is not that impressive.

Which brings us to the real question: how does the RX 5500 XT 8GB perform? Let's take a look at the benchmarks.

My standard test bed has an overclocked Core i7-8700K running at 5.0GHz. For budget and mid-range cards, this CPU may be overkill, but it shows the highest potential performance of any graphics card; those considering the RX 5500 XT will likely use a slightly slower CPU, but one from the past few years should be sufficient. Eleven games were tested for this review, with a moderate split between games that favor AMD hardware and those that perform better on Nvidia hardware.

Testing was done at 1080p "Medium" and "Ultra" settings (names may vary by game) and at 1440p and "Ultra" settings. Each game was tested multiple times using median values to ensure performance consistency. For example, if you are looking to upgrade from a Vega 56, the 5500 XT will not be very compelling. However, it does look good against older GTX 970s and R9 390s.

At 1080p medium resolutions, there is no real advantage to the 8GB RX 5500 XT over the 4GB model. In some games, the 4GB card even runs slightly faster, which is a bit odd; the RX 5500 XT card is in line with the GTX 1650 Super in overall performance, but the GTX 1660 is about 5 percent faster. However, if you are going to pay extra for an 8GB card, the goal is not to run it at 1080p in medium quality.

When pulled up to 1080p ultra resolution, the 8GB model begins to gain an advantage over lesser models, but only a 7 percent improvement on average. Shadow of the Tomb Raider's performance improves by 9 percent, Forza Horizon 4 is 15 percent faster, Borderlands 3 is 18 percent faster, and Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 33 percent better. The remaining seven games all show relatively similar performance, although there are quite a few recent games not shown here that would benefit from more VRAM (Red Dead Redemption 2, for example).

The difficulty AMD faces is that at 1080p (the resolution you should really plan to use on a mid-range or low-budget GPU), not many games really need more VRAM, even at maximum quality. And even those games that do need more VRAM don't seem to require more than 6GB. In other words, the GTX 1660 costs about the same as the 5500 XT 8GB, but performs about 5% better.

At 1440p ultra, the 5500 XT 8GB shows the largest lead ever against a 4GB card. It is now 12% faster, but the average performance across the test suite is 45fps. Performance is still generally better than current consoles, as all games maintain 30 fps or better, but only two of the games tested (Strange Brigade and Forza Horizon 4) average 60 fps or better. However, lighter esports games like CS:GO and Overwatch should be able to run at 1440p.

The frame rate is about half of 1440p, so we won't show 4K charts, but if you care, the 8GB card has a 25% average performance lead over the 4GB model. It is also tied with the 1660 in 4K Ultra, but both are only at 25fps. In the long run, the 6GB and 8GB cards are safer choices than the 4GB card, and we would not touch the 2GB model at this time.

As a general rule, I advise against being stingy with VRAM. I have been saying this since the GTX 1060 3GB/6GB and RX 570/580 4GB/8GB were released a few years ago. Yes, it is true that models with more VRAM cost more, and more memory does not always result in a significant performance increase. Except when it does, and you may be very sad that you were stingy with your graphics card and had to lower some settings. the RX 5500 XT 8GB continues that recommendation. buying the 4GB model will save you $30, but in the long run is not likely to be your best bet.

This is the "more" part of the equation, but it's not a clear winner, and there are reasons I scored this card slightly lower than the 4GB model. First, even across 11 games, the performance gain at 1080p ultra is almost negligible (with a few exceptions.) In an AMD-only world, I would still recommend purchasing the 8GB model, but there are several other options available, not just from AMD: Nvidia's GTX 1660 is a 5500 XT For the same price as the 8GB, you can also spend another $30 to buy a GTX 1660 Super.

Alternatively, look not only at the price of the graphics card, but also its performance. Spending 15% more ($230) for a 20% increase in frame rate (i.e., GTX 1660 Super) is reasonable. However, if that card is installed in a gaming PC where the other components cost $500, it would effectively be $730 versus $700, a mere 4% increase in total cost for the same 20% performance increase. This is essentially what the GTX 1660 Super offers. Alternatively, you can upgrade to the RTX 2060, which costs $800 versus $700, a 45 percent increase in performance but a 14 percent increase in PC cost. Spending a little more money for each level of graphics performance is a slippery slope, but stopping at the $200 range doesn't make the RX 5500 XT 8GB a champion.

Ultimately, AMD's Radeon RX 5500 XT series is a reasonable product in the budget to mid-range graphics card market. It is not clearly superior to other options, but it is not obviously inferior either.

If you are considering purchasing a new graphics card, either as an upgrade to an existing PC or as part of a new gaming PC build, it is worth a look. 5500 XT 8GB performance is essentially equivalent to the current RX 590, but consumes about 100W less power. from 590 You may not want to "upgrade" to the 5500 XT, but if you're trying to choose between these two AMD options, I'd go with the newer model. However, if you don't care about AMD, I would look at the GTX 1660 or 1660 Super.