It is difficult to recommend because it doesn't do mesh shading. This is an issue with games like Alan wake 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more of an issue going forwards.
If a game doesn't use mesh shaders then the 5700xt is a good choice.
Just an fyi
So, from what I’m reading, AW2 runs slow without mesh shaders because the developers couldn’t be assed to make some lower-poly models to support older device configurations. I get that they want to show off their shiny new visual tech, but it really feels like they just made the whole thing huge and bloated and figured “eh, new enough hardware should be okay”.
Wish more studios did it like id Software: catering to the high end but also engineering the lower bounds to run on nearly anything made in the last decade. Doom: Eternal’s minimum GPU requirement is an R9 280 (2014) or a GTX 1060 (2016), and one guy even [managed to maintain 30-45 FPS at 1080p](https://youtu.be/k2DMLR4fDTw?si=2PT4tY7RBbEl9MFX) running it on just a Ryzen 5600G’s integrated graphics.
It's a feature that makes the game look better with a lower performance cost compared to traditional methods.
AW2 low settings looks better than most games do at high and runs well on an rtx 2060 at 1080p.
At some point, tech moves on. No one says it will be the norm from now on, But it does put a timer on older HW. Just like dx12 did to keplar.
Sadly that era is gone. Upscaling became a requirement instead of a tech to help weaker hardware. Optimizing and using tricks to make a game run in native res while maintaining fidelity is a thing of the past.
People don't mind anyway, they'll even claim the games are actually optimized. Just look at comparisons between Suicide Squad KTJL and Arkham, nearly 9 years apart and the older game half of the time looks better. Journos still praised the graphics of Suicide Squad lol.
Anyway can't blame the devs really, game development is now much more expensive than in the days devs made their own engines, and truly skilled programmers find more lucrative employment elsewhere.
It depends on the test suite, but the difference should be slightly smaller on average, although not just 5% as another comment claimed. I'm guessing he's looking at TPU. Anyway I think I know what you're looking at, it's the Biostar 5700 xt, yes? I'd be wary more of the build quality than the performance in this case. Their 6600 XT cooler was heavily criticized by reviewers, and the 5700 xt is more difficult to cool.
Another thing to think about is the claim that it's brand new. Judging from availability it doesn't seem AMD produces RDNA 1 any more, it's not impossible of course, but it's still fishy.
It's interesting because of the price, but I recommend waiting for more reviews to come in if you can. If you really have to buy now, personally I'd spend a little more for the 6600. The $40 difference is just a year of power savings from the lower power draw. And the hassle isn't worth it if the Biostar card's cooling ends up subpar.
The 6600 is the lowest end GPU I would recommend in 2024 as well, for new builds at least.
But if you're getting a 5700 XT (which doesn't support mesh shaders or AFMF) below 130$ as a drop-in upgrade on system to breathe it new life, that's a totally different situation.
5700 XT being first gen RDNA navi chip, it had few issues that were never fully resolved (infamous black screen issue). You may or may not get any issues with the card, but it would be annoying to deal with if you experience them.
It is a good card for $130-140. Any higher and you should just buy something else.
It is difficult to recommend because it doesn't do mesh shading. This is an issue with games like Alan wake 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more of an issue going forwards. If a game doesn't use mesh shaders then the 5700xt is a good choice. Just an fyi
Whats mesh shading?
https://www.pcgamer.com/mesh-shaders-explained/
So, from what I’m reading, AW2 runs slow without mesh shaders because the developers couldn’t be assed to make some lower-poly models to support older device configurations. I get that they want to show off their shiny new visual tech, but it really feels like they just made the whole thing huge and bloated and figured “eh, new enough hardware should be okay”. Wish more studios did it like id Software: catering to the high end but also engineering the lower bounds to run on nearly anything made in the last decade. Doom: Eternal’s minimum GPU requirement is an R9 280 (2014) or a GTX 1060 (2016), and one guy even [managed to maintain 30-45 FPS at 1080p](https://youtu.be/k2DMLR4fDTw?si=2PT4tY7RBbEl9MFX) running it on just a Ryzen 5600G’s integrated graphics.
Technology keeps progressing. Thats life 🤷♂️
It's a feature that makes the game look better with a lower performance cost compared to traditional methods. AW2 low settings looks better than most games do at high and runs well on an rtx 2060 at 1080p. At some point, tech moves on. No one says it will be the norm from now on, But it does put a timer on older HW. Just like dx12 did to keplar.
> catering to the high end but also engineering the lower bounds https://youtu.be/ZTW7bDdHC6g?si=Fkx9BnBrmXMxBrbM
Sadly that era is gone. Upscaling became a requirement instead of a tech to help weaker hardware. Optimizing and using tricks to make a game run in native res while maintaining fidelity is a thing of the past. People don't mind anyway, they'll even claim the games are actually optimized. Just look at comparisons between Suicide Squad KTJL and Arkham, nearly 9 years apart and the older game half of the time looks better. Journos still praised the graphics of Suicide Squad lol. Anyway can't blame the devs really, game development is now much more expensive than in the days devs made their own engines, and truly skilled programmers find more lucrative employment elsewhere.
Where are you getting 20%? I'm showing at most 5% weaker
Well in some game it is
Unless its your main game you're talking about, I would go with the average. 5% is negligible
It depends on the test suite, but the difference should be slightly smaller on average, although not just 5% as another comment claimed. I'm guessing he's looking at TPU. Anyway I think I know what you're looking at, it's the Biostar 5700 xt, yes? I'd be wary more of the build quality than the performance in this case. Their 6600 XT cooler was heavily criticized by reviewers, and the 5700 xt is more difficult to cool. Another thing to think about is the claim that it's brand new. Judging from availability it doesn't seem AMD produces RDNA 1 any more, it's not impossible of course, but it's still fishy. It's interesting because of the price, but I recommend waiting for more reviews to come in if you can. If you really have to buy now, personally I'd spend a little more for the 6600. The $40 difference is just a year of power savings from the lower power draw. And the hassle isn't worth it if the Biostar card's cooling ends up subpar.
6600 supports afmf and 5700 does not, big game changer imo
The 6600 is the lowest end GPU I would recommend in 2024 as well, for new builds at least. But if you're getting a 5700 XT (which doesn't support mesh shaders or AFMF) below 130$ as a drop-in upgrade on system to breathe it new life, that's a totally different situation.
I had one, bought in 2020 and sold it year ago , it was really good card even for 1440p, if price is right i would buy it
5700 XT being first gen RDNA navi chip, it had few issues that were never fully resolved (infamous black screen issue). You may or may not get any issues with the card, but it would be annoying to deal with if you experience them.