Here, the RX 5600 XT came out in front with an average frame rate of 71fps on Highest versus Nvidia's 65fps, but overall both cards felt pretty much identical in speed. It was a similar scenario in Final Fantasy XV as well. Just like before, I think you'd be hard-pushed to notice much difference here without that all-important frame rate counter, as both cards stuttered down to 30fps in the game's tough internal benchmarking tool. Over in Metro Exodus, meanwhile, it was the other way around, with the RX 5600 XT managing an average of 57fps on Ultra versus the RTX 2060's 52fps average. The same goes for Monster Hunter: World, too, where the RTX 2060's average of 70fps out in the field felt more or less the same as the RX 5600 XT's average of 64fps. Assassin's Creed Odyssey was perhaps a touch more stable on the RTX 2060, which managed an average of bang-on 60fps on Ultra High versus the RX 5600 XT's 54fps average, but to my eyes they felt pretty much identical. Once again, though, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference in-game, especially when the RX 5600 XT only saw lows of 53fps versus the RTX 2060's 56fps. The RX 5600 XT managed an average of 60fps on Ultra and 85fps on High, while the RTX 2060 came in with respective scores of 66fps and 88fps.
It was a similar picture in Total War: Three Kingdoms as well. In each case, that's a handful of frames behind Nvidia's RTX 2060 - an average of just 4fps - but not anything you'll notice in practice without the aid of a frame rate counter. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, for example, I saw an average of 61fps on Highest with the game's demanding SMAAx4 anti-aliasing enabled, and an average of 89fps when I dropped the AA down to its SMAATx2 setting. Really, you'll want to have a screen with a refresh rate of at least 75Hz to make the most of the RX 5600 XT, as this card's frame rate regularly pushed into the 70s and 80s during testing. Just like its RTX 2060 rival, the RX 5600 XT is more than capable of hitting 60fps on the highest quality settings at 1920x1080, and is probably overkill for anyone with a regular 60Hz monitor at this resolution. Armed with 6GB of GDDR6 memory, this dual fan model is a bit of a beast size-wise, but it wasn't overly loud or noisy during my testing. At £255 (US pricing TBC), this is set to be one of the cheaper RX 5600 XTs available when they go on sale later today, so it should give us a good indication of what this card is capable of across the board. To test the RX 5600 XT, I've been taking a look at Sapphire's Radeon RX 5600 XT Pulse card.
The GTX 1660 Ti doesn't even come close to it.
Amd radeon rx 5600m 1080p#
I'll get into the nitty gritty of what that means later on, but effectively, the RX 5600 XT does indeed live up to its name as AMD's ultimate 1080p graphics card, offering significantly faster speeds than either of their entry-level RX 5500 XT cards at this resolution, and even runs the risk of stepping on the toes of their lower-end (but still very good) 1440p oriented graphics card, the RX 5700. The result is, well, a card that's pretty much neck and neck with Nvidia's RTX 2060, but doesn't have any ray tracing support. Amazing what having a bit of competition can do, eh? Cue another scramble over the weekend where reports were flying around that loads of RX 5600 XT manufacturers were now raising the clock speed of their new Big Navi cards to make them more competitive with Nvidia's RTX 2060. Nvidia, however, fought back, lowering the price of their next card up, the ray-tracing enabled RTX 2060, to £275 / $299 at the end of last week. Dubbed the "ultimate" bestest best graphics card for 1080p gaming, the RX 5600 XT was originally meant to be AMD's answer to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, coming in at an identical price of $279.
It's been a bit of a whirlwind week leading up today's launch of AMD's Radeon RX 5600 XT.