Nvidia’s RTX Super and AMD’s Radeon RX 5700 series graphics cards reviewed

Grand Theft Auto V (DirectX 11)

Much as with Doom, we opted to test Grand Theft Auto V in 4K, owing to its relatively-advanced age. Even without enabling frame scaling or multi-sampling anti-aliasing, GTA V in high resolution is still a tough workout for modern graphics cards. We used the standard TR benchmark walking Franklin around the block and down the street near his aunt’s house on Forum Drive. Note that we don’t have any of the game’s “Advanced Graphics Settings” enabled, as those can have unpredictable effects on performance.

(click for full settings)

GTA V in 4K is more or less a solved problem for Nvidia’s high-end cards. Adjusting a few settings downward could easily take the GeForce RTX 2080 Super (and the last-generation GTX 1080 Ti) into 90-plus-FPS-land on these cards for those few folks with fast CPUs and high-refresh 4K monitors.

While on the face of it things look bad for the Radeon cards, keep in mind that all three of our top performers here are significantly outside of the RX 5700 XT’s intended price range. In fact, GTA V has always favored Nvidia hardware a fair bit, so these results are actually a bit ahead of what we’d expect from similarly-apportioned Vega GPUs. AMD has done well here.

In addition, I would like to direct readers’ attention to the ridiculously smooth frame time plots for the Navi-based Radeons. Perhaps Señor Damage’s influence has done some good for the red team. The Radeon RX 580 lags behind severely as usual, but we already knew that GTA V in 4K was an awfully big ask for Polaris. Its performance here, while weak, is actually smooth enough that it still feels reasonably playable. It probably runs GTA V better than the PlayStation 3 does, anyway.

As before, we’ll start our “time spent beyond” charts at the 16.7ms (60 FPS) mark, because the 33ms and 50ms charts are mostly blank. The two slower cards aside, only the base-model RX 5700 stumbles below 60 FPS much at all. Things change once you step up to the 11.1-ms (90 FPS) mark. Only the top two cards are really able to keep the game over 90 FPS much, and nobody manages 120 FPS. Let it be written: 2013’s GTA V can still be a system-smasher in 2019.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
55 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr Bill
Mr Bill
1 year ago

Zak, excellent review. You always have interesting observations for each game and how the cards deal with the game. That in-the-second commentary is what brings the nerds to the yard.

willmore
willmore
1 year ago

Did you crush that 5700? Or is that really how the shroud looks?

willmore
willmore
1 year ago
Reply to  willmore

Sorry, it was the XT model that looks crushed.

K-L-Waster
K-L-Waster
1 year ago
Reply to  willmore

That is in fact what the reference shroud looks like.

(As if peeps didn’t have enough reasons to hold out for 3rd party coolers…)

willmore
willmore
1 year ago
Reply to  K-L-Waster

I wouldn’t call it ugly, but I really don’t like the look.

Kretschmer
Kretschmer
1 year ago
Reply to  K-L-Waster

What this review tells me is that my 1080Ti held up really, really well. I got 2070 Super performance for two extra years at a $150 premium.

Sure no ray tracing, but I’d rather buy into that tech when it becomes better developed.

plonk420
plonk420
1 year ago

thank you SOOOO much for this review! Time Spent Beyond x ms / average frametime now is the first thing i look at with reviews

LoneWolf15
LoneWolf15
1 year ago

One note I don’t think I recall being brought up (the lack of index drop-down in the pages listed makes me loath to go back and check): Everything I’ve seen says that if Navi is your card, do not buy a reference design. Some reference blowers are quite good (nVidia Pascal was; I was very happy with the noise level on two 1070 Founders Edition cards at full load, and a single one was whisper quiet). AMD’s blower -is not. It is both loud, and a poor cooler; Sapphire’s own dual-fan Pulse 5700XT runs twenty degrees cooler. Twenty degrees [i]Celsius[/i]… Read more »

LoneWolf15
LoneWolf15
1 year ago
Reply to  LoneWolf15

I should add, this is not meant to denigrate the AMD’s Navi. Just AMD’s reference cooler design.

I think the Sapphire cards (specifically, the Pulse 5700XT or Pulse 5700) for ten bucks more than the reference design, is competitive, and worth looking into. But they may be hard to find at the moment.

https://www.newegg.com/sapphire-radeon-rx-5700-xt-100416p8gl/p/N82E16814202349?Description=sapphire%20pulse%205700xt&cm_re=sapphire_pulse_5700xt-_-14-202-349-_-Product

https://www.newegg.com/sapphire-radeon-rx-5700-100417p8gl/p/N82E16814202350?Description=sapphire%20pulse%205700&cm_re=sapphire_pulse_5700-_-14-202-350-_-Product

anotherengineer
anotherengineer
1 year ago

“For gamers like myself who use myriad monitors—I’m currently using five—”

got a matrox card? 😉

when are the $235 card coming out?!?!

Mr Bill
Mr Bill
1 year ago

I have a Matrox G650. Its a fabulous office card for multi-monitor but far too slow for gaming.

StuG
StuG
1 year ago

I feel like a lot more cards should have been included in the conclusions graph (given that was already charted on previous reviews) so we could see where a larger range of cards would fall (even if the dots were marked as previous reviews or something).

Captain Ned
Captain Ned
1 year ago
Reply to  StuG

If those cards were not benchmarked on the same rigs as used for this review, the comparison would not be univariate. Multivariate is what proper reviews try to avoid.

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago

Vega will continue on as general compute solutions while RDNA will focus more on graphical prowess.

Yomom
Yomom
1 year ago
Reply to  Krogoth

So sad that great content like this has to get fakked by this horrible horrible generic template.

DPete27
DPete27
1 year ago

Nvidia’s new Ultra Low Latency setting description may shed some light on AMD’s implementation:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/gamescom-2019-game-ready-driver/

By reducing maximum pre-rendered frames to 1, you go to a just-in-time frame scheduling….Sure, that would improve latency, but it would also leave you susceptible to frame-time spikes if a frame takes a little longer than expected. I suspect that using VRR can reduce this effect, but still would be interesting to test. How many pre-rendered frames is optimal?

DPete27
DPete27
1 year ago
Reply to  DPete27

Also of note:
“in DX12 and Vulkan titles, the game decides when to queue the frame”
would be nice to include in your review write-up.

Jesse
Jesse
1 year ago
Reply to  DPete27

I usually set mine to 2 globally in the Nvidia control panel – enough for double-buffered vsync if I want it, and much less latency in game engines that pre-render like 5 frames by default.

Jason Deford
Jason Deford
1 year ago

So… Are the Radeon Vega cards an evolutionary dead end?

I was disappointed to see the Nvidia 1080 ti card in testing, but not the Radeon RX Vega 64. If you’re making a generational comparison including the Nvidia 10-series and its follow-ons, I’d think you should include the Radeon Vega-series in comparison to the RX 5700-series. The RX 580 card shown in the comparison isn’t in the same price/performance range as the newer cards being benched.

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Deford

Vega will continue on as general compute solutions while RDNA will focus more on graphical prowess.

StuG
StuG
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Deford

This was exactly what I thought as well. No VII/64/56?

tfp
tfp
1 year ago
Reply to  StuG

I was wondering the same, that said a check on newegg shows that VII is very limited. Is AMD running into production issues with the VII?

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  tfp

Radeon VII was a stopgap solution until Navi was ready. It was a way to clear out excessive Vega 20 stock that ate too much power for ISV customers.

Navi already bests Vega 20 at gaming performance when memory bandwidth isn’t a factor.

LoneWolf15
LoneWolf15
1 year ago
Reply to  Krogoth

Yup. Radeon VII owners are sadly being left high and dry.

It was a lousy buy even for the most die-hard AMD fans, and its short market time is pretty disappointing for anyone who bought one.

jihadjoe
jihadjoe
1 year ago
Reply to  tfp

My guess is AMD doesn’t really want to make any more of the VII than is necessary. It’s relatively cheap for something that uses such expensive components, and built on an expensive process.

90% of those chips they rather go into the Mi50 accelerators.

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  jihadjoe

Yep, the Radeon VII is a much better general compute/content creation card then a gaming card. There’s nothing close to it in its price point. You have to spend a lot more if you want to get performance in either market.

It was a steal for general compute hobbyist like Kepler-based Titans back in the day.

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Deford

It is likely that Zak simply doesn’t have any Vega hardware on hand and his test system is different from previous Vega benches making an apples to apples comparison difficult at best.

If you want a ballpark figure just take 5700XT results and reduce them by like ~2-10% to get Vega 64 stock/tuned Vega 56 results.

Colton Westrate
Editor
1 year ago
Reply to  Krogoth

^ This. Zak was working with what he had, or in some cases, what he could borrow for a couple days.

Jason DeFord
Jason DeFord
1 year ago
Reply to  Krogoth

“If you want a ballpark figure just take 5700XT results and reduce them by like ~2-10% to get Vega 64 stock/tuned Vega 56 results.” I think you’re over-simplifying the comparison. I still think seeing the Vega GPUs on the ‘scatter charts’ would be valuable data points. In addition, there is the price dimension that needs to accounted for. Right now, an ASRock Phantom Gaming X Radeon RX Vega 56 can be found for US$270, while a ASRock Radeon RX 5700 goes for US$330 @ TheEgg. Saving ~20% of GPU cost for a difference of “~2-10%” in performance is worth considering.… Read more »

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason DeFord

Vega 56 is a bit of a wildcard because it is highly depend on how well you can undervolt the unit. Unlike the 5700 and 5700XT which can operate at their performance levels without too much hassle. Vega 64 only pulls ahead if you are brave enough to overclock/undervolt to its limits and are willing to tolerate the power consumption.

Vega units are decisively better if you care more about general compute performance.

Oliv
Oliv
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Deford

Completely agree, especially since the model used was the 4GB version. One if these things is not like the other.

juzz86
juzz86
1 year ago

Oh Zak, you’ve done it again mate. I know any of our staff who were tasked with carrying the site’s major drawcard articles would give it every bit of justice you had – as you all do with your own posts. But to see what we all crave seeing on the site hold the same format, same prose, same detail as it always has – means an awful lot to a sentimental fella like me. [Site] Formatting and [staff] introductory niggles around the ownership change aside, I’m heartened to see the stalwart content keep coming (Fish, Bruno, Ben, Josh, Nath)… Read more »

unknown-error
unknown-error
1 year ago

The “all-white” background is going to take a lot more getting used to. On my desktop, sorry say, but it looks really amateurish. Since there is no drop-down menu with the relevant page titles, it would help us a lot if you put the “Page listing:” at the bottom of each page. So we can skip to pages that interest us. What I do now is, I open the page with the “Page listing:” in one tab and open the pages I like in another tab.

The reviews itself is great as usual and thanks a lot for that.

John
John
1 year ago

On some pages you mention about “Jeff’s write-up” and you link to another article, but that article has a different author name, without “Jeff” anywhere. You should correct it to not confuse the readers (yes, I know Jeff wanted his name removed from TR). Also, it is disappointing you did not use some other DX12 games like Metro Exodus. It is a perfect game to test performance with RTX enabled and also useful for comparing GPUs without RTX effects. It is also disappointing that you did not select some popular MMORPGs for benchmark, something like Black Desert Online or FFXIV.… Read more »

John
John
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Killian

Just for the record, Metro Exodus is also available on Windows Store – some people had issues with this version but after few updates it does work fine. Windows Store is also a home for Forza Horizon 4, which is a good game to benchmark as an example of driving sim genre of games, and as DX12 title it is much more optimized than something like Deus Ex Mankind Divided with patched in support for DX12 which is largely useless. As for FFXIV – just FYI, it has unlimited trial mode where you can play any character up to level… Read more »

The lost cat
The lost cat
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Killian

Metro Exodus is also on xbox game pass for PC, heh 🙂

StuG
StuG
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Killian

This might be a strange request and its not a traditional game but Warthunder can really tax a graphics card well. Its a F2P game with a high user base and may be a good consideration to add to the testing suite which would cost $0 to add.

Fonbu
Fonbu
1 year ago

Thank You ! Tech Report Staff for making this possible.
Many of us I am sure have waited for this review. And it was smart of the Tech Report to wait for all the Geforce Super cards and the new Radeons to arrive, and showcase them against each other. Being the most productive choice.
I like how all the new driver features of the products were showcased.
Was this Zaks first major video card review? It was well done.

Ben Funk
Ben Funk
1 year ago
Sam
Sam
1 year ago

Adding a page title listing to the content of the first page would help a lot, since we lost the convenient dropdown box after the refresh. Some people just want to see benchmarks for a certain game and don’t want to click through 14 pages to find that.

Sam
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Killian

Awesome, thanks. We like it quick and dirty.

chuckula
chuckula
1 year ago

Thanks for the review!

As for the product well, let’s say that 7nm has allowed AMD to avoid some of the worst issues with previous cards essentially being overclocked out of the box. But given how much guff Nvidia has gotten for dedicating silicon to RTX, it’s also pretty telling that their 16nm parts (2060 super in particular) are still competitive even when you never turn RTX on and even when you look at power consumption.

I think this calls for some market disruption by a third party (and of course I mean S3!)

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago
Reply to  chuckula

No, a dark shadow from the distance past will emerge from its somber…..

[b]Bitboys[/b]

chuckula
chuckula
1 year ago
Reply to  Krogoth

Bitboys??!!

Oy!!

LoneWolf15
LoneWolf15
1 year ago
Reply to  chuckula

I upvoted a Chuckula post. Demons must be shivering in hell as we speak.

Waco
Waco
1 year ago
Reply to  chuckula

It makes me wonder just how much of Nvidia is currently propped up by datacenter sales – their die sizes compared to AMD are monstrous.

Also, Nvidia is at 12 nm, not 16.

chuckula
chuckula
1 year ago
Reply to  Waco

Die sizes are irrelevant since AMD is clearly paying a fortune for 7nm silicon or else they would have launched these chips for a small fraction of the price of the RTX parts to grab market share. Furthermore, TSMC’s “12nm” is the 16nm process with a couple of tweaks and a marketing name change.

As for the data center you should have paid attention to Nvidia’s most recent earnings beat where the data center was actually down a good bit but overall results beat the street and –unlike AMD — Nvidia just raised it’s outlooks for the rest of 2019.

Neutronbeam
1 year ago

That is one hell of a review Zak! Excellent work; well done!

Krogoth
Krogoth
1 year ago

It was worth the wait.

Waco
Waco
1 year ago

It’s good to see essentially price-parity on the XT / 2060 Super. That’s good news for anyone in the $400 and below market. The standard 5700 looks to stand on its own pretty handily between the 1660 Ti and 2060 Super, it’s slightly better value than either if you look at 99th% FPS / dollar.

Frenchy2k1
Frenchy2k1
1 year ago
Reply to  Waco

TR left out the RTX2060 which will continue at $350 and is in direct competition with AMD 5700.
The other “SUPER” cards supersede the previous models (RTX2070 SUPER completely replaces the original 2070), but the original 2060 will continue.
It seems TR was not sourced one and hence did not include it in the graph.

55
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This