AMD Radeon RX 5500 Destroys NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Benchmarks

    AMD Radeon RX 5500 Spider Chart_board.jpg

    AMD launched the Radeon RX 5500 a while back, exclusively for OEMs (pre-built PCs and laptops) and as such there was no promotional material from team red to give an idea of what to expect from the lower-end Navi part. However, the AMD website has inadvertently leaked info regarding the RX 5500 and this includes gaming benchmarks and of course performance relative to the GeForce competition.

    According to the official figures from AMD, the Radeon RX 5500 will be 35-40% faster than the GeForce GTX 1650, extending the lead in favored titles to as much as 85%. Sure, these are promotional slides so take them with a bit of uncertainty but you can sure of one thing. The 5500 is the 1650 replacement we’ve all been waiting for. The latter released a few months back to a disappointed audience, failing to beat even the older Polaris based RX 570. Of course, NVIDIA has the Super variant of the 1650 prepped and ready for launch, but we still think it’ll fail to keep up with the 5500 or the 5500 XT if these figures are indeed correct.

    Both the RX 5500 and the 5500M feature 22CUs based on the Navi architecture and 4GB of the latest GDDR6 memory with a TDP cap of just 110W and 85W, respectively. We can expect hefty competition for the GTX 1650 in both the desktop as well as laptop segments soon enough. Most Ryzen 3000 (Picasso) based laptops are paired with the GTX 1650 and 1660 Ti in gaming laptops. The coming of the 5500M will pave the way for all AMD powered gaming machines for no doubt lower prices.

    Like the higher-end Navi parts, the 5500 cards also support FidelityFX in addition to FreeSync, Anti-Lag, and Image Sharpening. Looking at some of the marketing material, I believe the advantage of the RX 5500 over the GTX 1650 will mostly stay around 30-35% in most of the titles. The GDDR6 memory should help junior Navi consolidate wins in memory-bound titles, hence the large deltas.


    Leave a Reply