News Navi Goes Mainstream and Mobile: AMD’s Radeon RX 5500

Performance-wise, AMD puts this card up against a GTX 1650 in order to compare it to “similarly positioned products.” In AMD’s internal testing, the RX 5500 beats the GTX 1650 (both mobile and desktop cards) by a fair amount, but does so with notably higher power consumption.
The 1650 probably isn't a fair comparison in terms of load power efficiency, since this card seems to be targeting a notably higher level of performance, even if the price ends up being similar. It's difficult to say exactly how the 5500 will perform until reviews are out, but based on its specs, along with AMD's suggestion of it being over 12% faster than an RX 480, I would suspect average performance to not be too far behind that of an RX 590, a card that's around 40% faster than a 1650. I don't expect it to be as fast as a 1660, and efficiency might not be quite as good either, but efficiency isn't likely to be different enough from that card to be a major concern. The real deciding factor will be the price to performance ratio.
Reactions: bit_user


Aug 6, 2008
TDP at 150W?? This should be the TDPs of the RX 5700.
RX 460s and 560s before were like 75W and RX 550s at 50watts.
I've been waiting a low profile, low power from AMD after the RX 460, and there is still no competition of the GTX 1650 75W low profile arena, even the 1050Ti Low profile at 75W is still king!
this is sad...
Reactions: bit_user


I've been waiting a low profile, low power from AMD after the RX 460
AMD doesn't care enough about low-profile. After a while, a couple low-profile RX 560's did appear, but they might've been the 14-CU variant (RX 560's normally have 16 CUs).

even the 1050Ti Low profile at 75W is still king!
Yeah, it was a good, little card. We got some MSI dual-fan versions, at my job.

Teslas P4's (like a lower-clocked GTX 1070 with 16 GB) and T4's (like a lower-clocked RTX 2070 Super with 16 GB) are both low-profile, single slot. I wish they'd add a fan & display port and sell them as Quadros. They'd probably have to get a bit wider and longer, but that'd be fine.
Last edited:


The original 150W power consumption number definitely seems a little weird, relative to the 5700. I understand that trying to push performance higher results in an increase in power consumption greater than the increase in performance - I would've assumed that cutting things back would result in a better performance/power-consumption profile....

The one example I can think of is the Vega 56:
Using the secondary BIOS with a power limit reduced by 25% gets us 159.4W and 32.7 FPS. Compared to the stock settings, just 71.6% of the power consumption serves up 89% of the gaming performance.
So I find the estimates a little baffling. Still, we don't know exactly what the 5500's performance will be.

This is probably a VERY sloppy way of doing this, but, I'm going to make some guesstimates based on the scoring of various cards on the GPU hierarchy chart relative to the 5700 (score of 87.5), and then multiply the 5700's TDP (180W) by the resulting number. Obviously, this assumes that the score on the hierarchy chart is absolutely accurate, and that power consumption is directly proportional to performance as measured by that score number - take this with an enormous boulder of salt, in terms of how good this estimate might be.

If the RX 5500 performs the same as:Performance scoreScore percent (Perf score/Perf score-of-5700)TDP estimate (180 x Score percent)
RX 570087.5100%180W
GTX 1660Ti71.481.6%147W
GTX 166063.672.7%131W
RX 59060.769.4%125W
RX 580 8GB57.966.2%119W
GTX 1060 6GB53.260.8%109W
RX 570 4GB48.355.2%99W
GTX 165042.248.2%87W
Last edited: