Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Linux Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Linux Performance

    Phoronix: AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Linux Performance

    AMD today is shipping the Radeon RX 5500 XT as the new sub-$200 Navi graphics card. This 7nm graphics card offers 22 compute units, 1408 stream processors, up to 5.6 TFLOPS of compute power, 4GB or 8GB GDDR6 video memory options, and built atop their modern RDNA architecture and supporting features in common with the RX 5700 series like PCIe 4.0 support. Here is a look at the initial Linux gaming performance of the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT with various gaming benchmarks and Steam Play tests as well.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28633

  • #2
    According to other benchmark reviews done on Windows, RX5500XT should perform better than the RX580 and on par with the RX590; this isn't the case here in Linux. This probably means that the AMD Linux drivers for Navi GPUs need more work. I hope to see more Navi performance improvements inside Linux AMDgpu drivers.

    Comment


    • #3
      Typo:

      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      Deus Ex: Mankind Divided remains one of the most demanding OpenGL Linux-natuve games.

      Comment


      • #4
        Just ordered a RX 5500 XT 8GB so should have those numbers next week....
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bezirg View Post
          According to other benchmark reviews done on Windows, RX5500XT should perform better than the RX580 and on par with the RX590; this isn't the case here in Linux. This probably means that the AMD Linux drivers for Navi GPUs need more work. I hope to see more Navi performance improvements inside Linux AMDgpu drivers.
          From what I've seen with Windows reviews, the 4GB model seems very starved for memory. Michael tested a 4GB model, and seems to be pretty comparable to the Windows performance.

          The performance loss on the 4GB model is pretty severe in some cases. I don't think AMD should've made a 5500XT with 4GB.

          Comment


          • #6
            Michael Great review, thanks!
            Seems like RX 5500 is a new efficiency king.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
              From what I've seen with Windows reviews, the 4GB model seems very starved for memory. Michael tested a 4GB model, and seems to be pretty comparable to the Windows performance.

              The performance loss on the 4GB model is pretty severe in some cases. I don't think AMD should've made a 5500XT with 4GB.
              You are right. Thanks for the clarification. Well, let's see how rx5500xt 8gb will do in the next benchmark of Michael!

              Comment


              • #8
                Michael, could you please give it a quick try with ACO? I'm very curious if ACO works well on the 5500 but don't have one myself for testing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Seems to need a bit more work, results are all over the place. Sometimes on par with the 2060, sometimes butchered by the 1060. You can't be low end and high end at the same time. At least you shouldn't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                    The performance loss on the 4GB model is pretty severe in some cases. I don't think AMD should've made a 5500XT with 4GB.
                    I'm not sure I agree with that. Cards in this price range are for titles like Overwatch / Rocket League / etc - they don't need huge amounts of VRAM at all. If websites are claiming nontrivial uplift on the 8G version, either something's Very Broken or they're talking about AAA titles running at Ultra settings. That's so far from what's appropriate for low-end cards like this as to be bordering on meaningless and artificial just for the sake of showing any difference at all. If the 8GB version gets 40fps but the 4GB version only gets 25fps because of all the texture thrash, it's still basically irrelevant anyway - neither one is actually suitable for that game at those settings in the first place.

                    IDK what the CU and clock deltas are between the XT and non- versions, but I'd say it's a lot more valuable *for e-sports-ish / casual games* to have an option of more / faster cores without the additional cost of double the VRAM than it is to have only two options of "slow and low-VRAM" or "faster and more-VRAM". There's definitely a market FOR the 4GB version of the faster card at this level, and with that being the case it's hard to support the idea of cutting it from the stack.

                    (nvidia, OTOH, could certainly do without the two redundant cards in its 1660 variants alone! :P)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X