Synthetic Benchmarks

As always I like to start off my testing with a few synthetic benchmarks. 3DMark especially is one of my favorites because it is very optimized in both Nvidia and AMD drivers. It's nice to not have to worry about it being favored too much either way and the repeatability of the results makes it a nice chance to compare from card to card. Going in I’m curious how the two RX 5500 XT’s compare, but like in our launch review I am also keeping an eye on the MSI RX 5500 XT Gaming X compares with Nvidia’s offerings like the GTX 1650, GTX 1650S, GTX 1660, and GTX 1660S and the older cards from AMD as well like the RX580 and RX590. For the first test, I ran 3DMark’s Fire Strike benchmarks which all three are DX11 based and cover a few different detail levels. The MSI and the PowerColor are right with each other with just a hair edge to the MSI and in these, at the lower detail, the 5500 XT runs just above the GTX 1660 but behind the RX580 and RX590. Then in the higher detail, they edge past the older AMD cards.

graph1

graph2

graph3

Next, I ran both 3DMark Time Spy tests. The Nvidia cards have been doing really well in this DX12 based test and it does show, with the GTX 1660 pulling up ahead of the 5500 XT’s and the older AMD cards here.

graph4

graph5

My last test was in Superposition which is based on the Unigine engine. I tested both times at 1080p, one with medium detail and the second with the extreme detail setting that slows even the best cards down. Here the MSI was a hair behind the PowerColor 5500 XT. The GTX 1660 is out ahead of both on both tests with the RX580/RX590 both behind the 5500 XT’s.

graph6

 

Log in to comment

We have 1259 guests and one member online

supportus