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

Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 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 66% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

8.2

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 66% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

▼Worse than 54%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 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 73% of models
Score components

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

8.1

Features

5%

9.4

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 73%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
  • mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
mancer-radeon-rx-5700-xt-streaky
Where to buy
    N/A~ £380
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 Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky

Based on 324 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive9%mixed19%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and efficiency, while driver crashes and black screens remain a serious frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Many owners reported black screens, blue screens and game crashes, and some said driver updates often brought new problems.22
  • Owners say junction temperatures often reached 95 to 110 °C at stock, and fixes included undervolting, repasting or a more aggressive fan curve.8
  • Owners reported VRAM crashing above roughly 1820 to 1850 MHz, and some cards were unstable at higher clocks, so they had to back off.6
  • Owners reported stutter, mouse lag and screen tearing in games, and one said FreeSync caused stuttering.5

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 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 73% of models
Score components:

44%

4.4

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

8.1

Features

5%

9.4

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

6.0
Reviews score
7.6
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 76.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% 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
16,167 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 16,167 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 73% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,592 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,592 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
9.75 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 9.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 73.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% 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
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
12.1
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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
225 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 225 W under peak load, which is higher than 52.5% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
150 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 150 W, which is lower than that of 75.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
225 W
Show more
Size
235x 110x 48 mm
Length
235 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 235 mm long, which is shorter than 78.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% 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
?
Show more

Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky 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
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 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
  • 47.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (235 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    235 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 31.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (150 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    150 W vs 220 W
  • 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
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 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
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 31.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (150 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    150 W vs 220 W
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 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
  • 47.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (235 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    235 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 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).
  • 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
  • 24% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1905 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,905 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 24% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1905 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,905 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 56.9% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (9.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    9.75 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 24.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (121.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    121.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 19.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (304.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    304.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    July 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 11.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,700 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,700 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 42.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 28.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (16,167 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    16,167 points vs 22,638 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 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 AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 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
  • 10 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (77 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    77 °C vs 67 °C
  • 8.9 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (44.3 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    44.3 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 11 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (48 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    48 °C vs 37 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky

  • Strong price-to-performance ratio, often outperforming the RTX 2060 Super at a lower price point.
  • Excellent 1440p gaming performance for titles that do not require ray tracing.
  • Features like Radeon Image Sharpening (RIS) and Anti-Lag provide noticeable gameplay improvements.
  • Solid 1080p 'beast' in the used market, rivaling modern budget GPUs like the RTX 3060.
  • Higher stock and turbo clock speeds compared to some competing RX 5700 XT partner models.

What customers don't like about Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky

  • History of driver stability issues, including frequent black screens, flickering, and system crashes.
  • Lacks hardware support for Ray Tracing and DLSS, limiting its longevity in modern AAA titles.
  • High power consumption (225W+), which often requires undervolting to maintain efficiency.
  • Cooling system can run hot and loud, with junction temperatures frequently reaching 95°C-110°C under load.
  • 8GB of VRAM is becoming a bottleneck for newer, high-fidelity games at 1440p/4K settings.

Verdict

The Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky is a mid-to-high-end graphics card featuring the 7nm RDNA architecture with 2,560 stream processors, a base clock of 1605 MHz, and a boost clock reaching 1905 MHz. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 256-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s. Key characteristics include a dual-fan cooling system with eleven blades per fan, a stylish black and purple housing, and a compact 235mm length that fits most cabinet sizes. Its main pros are excellent 1440p gaming performance, a lower 150W TDP compared to reference models, and robust connectivity with three DisplayPort 1.4a and one HDMI 2.0b outputs. However, notable cons include a lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shader support, which can limit performance or compatibility in modern titles like Alan Wake 2.

Compare Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky 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 Mancer Radeon RX 5700 XT Streaky and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found