Review Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC 8G Review: 8GB Is Better

[Admin]

Gigabyte’s RX 5500 XT Gaming OC 8G delivers much-improved performance at maxed-out 1080p settings than the 4GB model, while keeping cool and quiet. But how does it compete with the similarly priced GTX 1660?

Gigabyte RX 5500 XT Gaming OC 8G Review: 8GB Is Better : Read more

 

[larkspur]

The Windforce 3 cooler has little issue keeping up with the stock power limit of this card.

Yes, obviously. That's why I'm wondering why you didn't crank up the power limit and try some overclocking. This card is begging for it.

 

[hannibal]

This card is allready near the upper limit it can get, so it is better to keep it cool and quiet than try to get some extra speed.

 

[larkspur]

This card is allready near the upper limit it can get, so it is better to keep it cool and quiet than try to get some extra speed.

No not really... This particular card has an excellent huge cooler and plenty of extra thermal headroom. Look at the temp chart and power usage. The thing isn't even close to maxed-out. Overclocking is exactly why someone would spend extra on this particular card to get this little chip with such a massive oversized cooler... No reason not to at least give it a shot using AMD's own OCing tool...

Furthermore, Igor believes that every Radeon RX 5500 XT should have no problem reaching the 2 GHz mark.

That's from: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/overclock-your-radeon-rx-5500-xt-to-21-ghz-on-air-with-this-tool

 

[alextheblue]

Overclocking is exactly why someone would spend extra on this particular card to get this little chip with such a massive oversized cooler...

Yeah if you're not planning on overclocking, get a cheaper one.

 

[hannibal]

As we can see from 5700xt. Those huge saphire nitro, asus strix and so on cards Are not faster than much cheaper variants. They just run cooler and quieter that those expensive monster cooled versions.
Same here...

 

[arnaud4221]

<u> super </u>

 

[arnaud4221]

http://siambestname.com/o.htm

 

[askeptic]

Am I the only one who read the entire article and walked away believing that Intel has the edge still?

I don't agree that the AMD would need a custom water loop, but if it did that would throw the price to an absurd amount for that chip.

Intel still wins in the areas where it matters. The only time I would consider the AMD chip would be if my job was to constantly encode videos or unzip files. IE, if I were a creator. Most people are not creators. They may think they are, but they are not.

Software still favors Intel's platform as well. Maybe in 3 more years AMD would be a viable option for most at the high end, but I am just not seeing it. The size of process nodes play no role in my decision as I would never have a reason to care, I just want what is fastest for most applications, and this article leads me to believe that is Intel hands down.

For those videos I use Sony Vegas for twice a year, I guess I will have to wait 120 more seconds than normal.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@askeptic did you comment on the wrong article?