OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):130 W

ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC
5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.9

Technical score

25%

4.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

▼Worse than 85%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

8.2

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 85%
4.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models

4.9

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 90%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
  • asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
asus-dual-radeon-rx-5500-xt-evo-oc
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC

Based on 203 owners sharing their experience in online comments

55%positive16%mixed29%negative

Owners value smooth gaming, efficiency, and ample memory, while driver bugs, high temperatures, and tuning limits frustrate many.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report overclocks often crash, with memory limited around 1800 to 1850 MHz and core clocks sometimes capped near 2000 MHz unless voltage is raised.12
  • Owners say AMD's software has frequent problems, including settings resetting after restart, fan-control issues, and black screens or driver crashes.11
  • Owners report the card runs hot in demanding games, often reaching 80 to 90 °C or more, and some say fan curves need adjusting to keep temperatures down.8
  • Owners say it struggles to hold high frame rates in demanding titles like Warzone and Far Cry 5, and that the 4 GB version drops badly at ultra settings.7
  • Some owners report crashes, freezes, and black screens during play, sometimes needing a PC restart, with some blaming drivers or unstable settings.6
  • Owners report the core or memory clock sticks at low values such as 100 MHz or 1750 MHz at idle, or fluctuates unstably under load.5
  • Owners say it runs 1080p well but is not suited to 1440p or 4K, where frame rates fall short in demanding games.3
  • Some owners see transparent blocky artifacts or a painted look in games, which they describe as appearing at certain viewing angles.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

3.4

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

8.2

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

4.9
Reviews score
4.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,891 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,891 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 85% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
9,079 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 9,079 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 86.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,400 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,400 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 84.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.2 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.2 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 85.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
130 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 130 W, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
130 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 130 W under peak load, which is lower than 81% of graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
130 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 130 W, which is lower than that of 81.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
130 W
Show more
Size
242x 130x 49 mm
Length
242 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 242 mm long, which is shorter than 72.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
130 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 130 mm tall, which is taller than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
760 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 760 g, which is lighter than 74.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 40.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (242 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    242 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 66.7% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (4 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    4 W vs 12 W
  • 2x cheaper
    ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC is cheaper than the average graphics card (£260 vs £520).
    £260 vs £520
  • 2x cheaper
    ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC is cheaper than the average graphics card (£260 vs £520).
    £260 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 66.7% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (4 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    4 W vs 12 W
  • 7 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    60 °C vs 67 °C
  • 40.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (242 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    242 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 31.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 7.2
  • 25.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,865 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,865 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 96 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (88 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    88 vs 184
  • 31.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 7.2
  • 37.2% lower sentiment score
    4.9 vs 7.8
  • 11.7% worse value for money
    ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.64 vs 7.4).
    6.64 vs 7.41
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 25.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,865 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,865 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 96 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (88 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    88 vs 184
  • 57% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (162.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    162.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 63.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (59 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    59.04 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 77% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 14.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,647 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,647 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 59.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (9,079 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    9,079 points vs 22,638 points
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    December 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 66.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,891 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,891 points vs 14,779 points
  • 63.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,400 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,400 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 64.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (10.4 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    10.4 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2,944 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,408 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,408 vs 4,352
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 50% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 72.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,400 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,400 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 3.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (39 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    39 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 5 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (130 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    130 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Sumocomputacion
≈ estimated
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and temperatures
Verdict
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC is well cooled and good for gaming, though its packaging is overdone.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC

  • Efficient cooling system that keeps temperatures around 60°C under load
  • Extremely quiet operation, featuring 0dB technology where fans stop under 60°C
  • Solid 1080p gaming performance for mainstream and esports titles
  • High build quality with a protective aluminum backplate for rigidity
  • Low power consumption compared to previous generation Polaris cards
  • Compact 2.5-slot design with attractive subtle RGB lighting

What customers don't like about ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC

  • High initial launch price compared to the performance offered
  • Performance is often only on par with or slightly slower than the older RX 590
  • Significant competition from Nvidia's GTX 1650 Super and 1660 series at similar price points
  • Occasional driver stability issues reported by some users during the early launch period
  • The 4GB VRAM variant can lead to stuttering in memory-intensive modern AAA games

Verdict

The Asus Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC is a compact, 1080p-oriented graphics card featuring the 7nm RDNA architecture with 1408 Stream Processors and a choice of 4GB or 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 128-bit bus. It operates with a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock reaching up to 1865 MHz in OC mode, supported by a 130W TDP and a single 8-pin power connector. Main characteristics include Axial-tech fans with IP5X dust resistance and 0dB technology for silent operation under low loads, alongside a protective aluminum backplate and Auto-Extreme manufacturing for improved reliability. Pros include its quiet cooling system, stable 1080p gaming performance, and PCIe 4.0 support; however, cons include limited 1440p capabilities and the fact that its 8-lane PCIe interface can bottleneck performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems.

Compare ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT Evo OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found