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 Radeon RX 5700 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£330VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):180 W

ASUS Radeon RX 5700 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 16 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS Radeon RX 5700
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

40%

5.7

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 75% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 54%
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

8.2

Features

5%

9.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 76%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 51% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
â–²Better than 51%
?

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-radeon-rx-5700
asus-radeon-rx-5700
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 reviewers say about the ASUS Radeon RX 5700

Based on 11 · 5

Reviewers like its sharp upscaling and software, but split evenly on performance and fault the lack of ray tracing.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ASUS Radeon RX 5700

Based on 164 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive11%mixed20%negative

Owners praise its strong, affordable gaming performance, while driver crashes and heat remain the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report game crashes, freezes and driver problems, particularly with some Adrenalin 2020 releases; older or clean-installed drivers sometimes helped.39
  • Owners report random black screens or no signal, often with a second monitor or TV; changing AMD scaling to Fit display sometimes fixed it.21
  • Under heavy gaming, owners see 80–90 °C, with junction temperatures near 100 °C; dust buildup in the cooler made it worse, and cleaning helped.13
  • In some games at 1080p, the GPU downclocks and stays around 50% usage, leaving frame rates low; higher resolutions run better.11
  • Flashing the XT BIOS sometimes left cards not posting, unstable, or losing power under load, as the XT draws more power.6
  • Owners report micro-stutters and frame drops, especially with background apps or a second monitor; some say an older driver such as 20.4.1 helped.5
  • Owners report draws of 150–230 W, with an XT BIOS flash sometimes doubling consumption, and some needing a bigger power supply.5
  • Owners report random one-second black screens and micro-stutters when a second monitor or 4K TV is connected.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS Radeon RX 5700

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

8.2

Features

5%

9.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

5.7
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
9,900 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 9,900 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 72% 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
12,663 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 12,663 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 79.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,382 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,382 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 81.7% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
7.95 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 7.95 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 77.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% 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
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% 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
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
6
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 6 displays, which is more than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% 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
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
180 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 180 W, which is lower than that of 57.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
202 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 202 W under peak load, which is lower than 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
180 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 180 W, which is lower than that of 61.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
180 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
281x 126x 42 mm
Length
270 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 270 mm long, which is shorter than 56.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
454 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 454 g, which is lighter than 92.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

ASUS Radeon RX 5700 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 16.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (180 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    180 W vs 215 W
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 16.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (180 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    180 W vs 215 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 55.2% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (454 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    454 g vs 1,014 g
  • 31.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,725 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,725 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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.
  • 26.9% lower sentiment score
    5.7 vs 7.8
  • 31.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,725 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,725 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 23.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,465 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,465 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 34.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (248.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    248.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 64.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    7.95 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 31.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (110.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    110.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 40 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (144 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    144 vs 184
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    July 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 44.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (12,663 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    12,663 points vs 22,638 points
  • 4 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (36 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    36 vs 40
  • 33% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (9,900 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    9,900 points vs 14,779 points
  • 55.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,382 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,382 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 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
  • 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
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 55% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (10,300 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    10,300 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 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
  • 12 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (79 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    79 °C vs 67 °C
  • 7.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (43 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    43 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
Craft Computing
≈ estimated
17/11/2019
Hands-on review · performance, temperatures and size
Verdict
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 delivers strong performance for the money, but it is big, heavy and thick.
4.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
21/10/2019
Hands-on review · memory cooling, overclocking and price
Verdict
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 has no memory cooling and a high price, so better cards exist at this price.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.5
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
22/10/2019
Product review · Triple-fan card
Verdict
The ASUS RX 5700 TUF Gaming X3 OC is a triple-fan AMD card with a faster game clock, but its OC mode adds only 5MHz.
9.4
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
20/08/2020
Review · Revised cooler design
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Gaming X3 RX 5700 EVO runs quietly at idle with its larger cooler, but ASUS recommends a 600W power supply.
8.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
08/07/2019
Launch review · Reference card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 is quiet and efficient, nearly matching the RTX 2060 Super, but early drivers and a frequency cap limit overclocking.
10
digitalcitizen.life
✓ explicit
22/07/2019
Game tests · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 is a strong mid-range pick for 1440p at Ultra settings, but its basic cooler runs hot and it lacks ray tracing.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
07/07/2019
Hands-on test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 runs 1440p at Ultra settings with ease, but it has no ray tracing and a plain cooler.
5.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
24/09/2019
Lab test · Custom design
Verdict
The ASUS Radeon RX 5700 TUF is a bulky card with fast clocks, but its fans run too loud under gaming load for quiet builds.
7.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
23/08/2020
Lab test · Blower cooler
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 suits Full HD and 1440p gaming, sometimes matching the RTX 2070, but its blower fan is very loud and it lacks ray tracing for now.
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
07/07/2019
Launch review · Reference design
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 keeps pace with the RTX 2060 Super in games, though its synthetic benchmark scores look weaker.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/09/2019
Lab review · Overclocked card
Verdict
The ASUS ROG Strix RX 5700 OC is well built and quiet at idle, but its factory overclock brings no real gain in games.
8.6
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
07/07/2019
Detailed review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 brings PCIe 4.0 and 4K at 144Hz to mid-range builds, but it lacks the XT's backplate.
9.0
global.techradar.com
✓ explicit
10/07/2019
Benchmark review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 5700 suits gamers who want 1440p at high settings, but it lacks ray tracing and can't run 4K at 60 fps.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Radeon RX 5700

  • Excellent 1440p gaming performance, often rivaling more expensive competitors like the RTX 2070
  • Highly efficient and extremely quiet operation when using the ASUS ROG STRIX triple-fan cooler
  • Solid 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM provides better future-proofing than some same-tier alternatives
  • Features dual-BIOS modes (Quiet and Performance) for customizable acoustic and thermal balance
  • Includes premium additions such as RGB lighting and a reinforced backplate on high-end models like the STRIX

What customers don't like about ASUS Radeon RX 5700

  • Lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which may be a deal-breaker for modern lighting effects
  • Reference blower-style versions are notably loud and run significantly hotter than custom cooling solutions
  • Some ASUS TUF models (specifically the TUF Gaming X3) were criticized for poor memory cooling due to lack of heatsink contact
  • Overclocking potential is relatively limited and often leads to disproportionate heat increases
  • High price premiums on premium variants like the STRIX can sometimes push the cost too close to the more powerful 5700 XT

Verdict

The Asus Radeon RX 5700 is a mid-range graphics card featuring the 7nm RDNA architecture with 2,304 stream processors and 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 256-bit bus, delivering up to 7.95 TFLOPS of compute power. Custom models like the [ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5700 EVO](https://rog.asus.com/bn/articles/press-releases/navi-shines-bright-with-rog-strix-tuf-gaming-and-dual-evo-radeon-rx-5700-series-graphics-cards/) offer upgraded clock speeds—reaching up to 1,750 MHz boost—and efficient cooling through Axial-tech fans and a 2.7-slot heatsink. Main pros include its exceptional price-to-performance ratio for 1440p gaming, PCIe 4.0 support, and quiet operation under light loads thanks to 0dB fan technology. However, notable cons include the lack of hardware ray-tracing support and higher operating temperatures on some early [TUF Gaming models](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dl30f7/kitguru_asus_rx_5700_tuf_gaming_x3_review_no/) which lacked dedicated memory cooling.

Compare ASUS Radeon RX 5700 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 Radeon RX 5700 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found