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

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260VRAM:6 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 18 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT
6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

40%

5.3

Technical score

25%

8.5

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 78% 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%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 54%
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 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 80% of models
Score components

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 80%
8.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.5/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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.
★Better than 92%
?

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
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-5600-xt
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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT

Based on 9 · 9

Reviewers praise strong performance against rivals and quiet running, but criticise its size, power draw and weak ray tracing.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT

Based on 96 owners sharing their experience in online comments

64%positive8%mixed28%negative

Owners value its strong gaming performance, though driver instability, crashes, and black screens remain the main frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report random crashes to desktop and reboots during games or everyday use, and several returned the card after nothing fixed them.39
  • Owners report sudden black screens, lost signal at boot, and screens that stay blank until a restart, sometimes fixed by changing the driver or BIOS.32
  • Owners say newer AMD driver versions broke games or caused black screens, and rolling back to an older driver version fixed the problem for some.19
  • Owners report stuttering and frame-rate drops in some games, especially with certain settings, and say performance can trail competing cards.11
  • Owners say the Radeon Software interface freezes, fails to open, and resets overclock settings, making tuning frustrating.10
  • Owners say the PC stalls or fails to boot, or shows no display after sleep or restart, sometimes until the drivers are reinstalled.8
  • Owners report the card reaching 85 to 100 degrees Celsius under load, which caused shutdowns until the fan curve was raised manually.3
  • Owners say frame-rate limiting features conflict with each other and that some games or VR sessions do not play well with them.3
  • Owners say the card plays loud beeps every time a game starts, a signal tied to anti-lag or enhanced sync, and disabling those features did not stop it.3
  • Owners say some BIOS updates forced higher memory clocks or caused boot failures, and flashing back to the old BIOS fixed it for some.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

44%

3.7

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

5.3
Reviews score
8.5
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%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
7,769 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 7,769 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 78.4% 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
13,440 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 13,440 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 77.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,260 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,260 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
7.19 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 7.19 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 78.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
6 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 6 GB of VRAM, which is less than 82.5% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% 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
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
336 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 336 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 63.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2% 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
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
5120x2880
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 5120x2880, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% 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
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% 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)
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
180 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 180 W under peak load, which is lower than 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
160 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 160 W, which is lower than that of 71.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
150 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
254x 135x 47 mm
Length
254 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 254 mm long, which is shorter than 66.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
135 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 135 mm tall, which is taller than 70.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.5% 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
953 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 953 g, which is lighter than 58.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 18.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.5/ 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
    ★ Better than 92% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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.
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 28.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (254 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    254 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 W
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 18.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.5/ 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
    ★ Better than 92% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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.
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • 2x cheaper
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT 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
  • 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
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 W
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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
  • 28.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (254 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    254 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 30.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,750 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,750 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 32.1% lower sentiment score
    5.3 vs 7.8
  • 30.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,750 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,750 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.
  • 27.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,920 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
  • 68.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (7.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    7.19 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 33.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (252 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    252 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 30.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (112 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    112 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
  • 40.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (13,440 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    13,440 points vs 22,638 points
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    January 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 47.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (7,769 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    7,769 points vs 14,779 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
  • 48.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,260 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,260 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 6 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (6 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    6 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
  • 25% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (336 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    336 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 87.5% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (3 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    3 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • 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
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (5120x2880 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    5120x2880 vs 7680x4320
  • 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
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (135 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    135 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

9.0
TrendGrnd
≈ estimated
07/07/2020
Hands-on review · game fps, temperatures and BIOS notes
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is recommended for 1080p 60 fps gaming, but it needs regular driver and BIOS updates.
9.0
Social Hardware
≈ estimated
05/06/2020
Hands-on review · game tests, temperatures and noise
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT offers good value, with only minor micro-stutter in some competitive games.
10
Nicolas11x12 English
✓ explicit
11/02/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, BIOS flash and value comparison
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is a good card but a little pointless, and the BIOS unlock leaves a bitter taste.
9.0
goldfries
≈ estimated
11/02/2020
Hands-on review · silence, temperature and BIOS tests
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is an excellent card that stays silent even at around 70 degrees Celsius and earns a gold badge.
7.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
21/01/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermal tests and value
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is decent value for the money after the BIOS update, though the reviewer gives no firm recommendation.
9.0
Vortez
≈ estimated
21/01/2020
Hands-on review · 1080p game benchmarks vs GTX 1660 Ti
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is a strong 1080p card at a competitive price, though it takes up a lot of case space.
6.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
21/01/2020
Hands-on review · test bench benchmarks and driver issues
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is not a bad buy, but driver problems make it hard to recommend firmly.
Brand video
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
22/01/2020
Review · Mid-range 1080p card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is a quiet 1080p card that matches the GTX 1660 Ti at stock, but needs a BIOS swap to challenge the RTX 2060.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
21/01/2020
Lab test · 1080p gaming card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is a strong 1080p gaming card that beats the GTX 1660 Ti, though its 10.53-inch length rules out compact PCs.
8.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
21/01/2020
Review · Late BIOS update
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is a 1080p card whose faster speeds came from a last-minute BIOS update that older stock lacks.
9.0
thetechrevolutionist.com
≈ estimated
22/01/2020
Benchmark review · Dual BIOS modes
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is a strong 1080p card that beats the GTX 1660 SUPER in most tests, but its 6GB may struggle at higher resolutions.
8.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
21/01/2020
Benchmark review · Before and after BIOS
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is a midrange card that gained about 10% from its BIOS update and now runs close to the RX 5700.
8.9
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
21/01/2020
Lab test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT 6GB is cool and quiet, and after its BIOS update it competes closely with the RTX 2060 at 1080p.
9.4
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
21/01/2020
Review · 1080p gaming card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT suits 1080p gamers chasing 120 FPS in eSports, and handles 1440p only in lighter games.
8.0
geektopia.es
≈ estimated
10/02/2020
Lab test · Quiet mid-range card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT is quiet and matches the RTX 2060 in many games, but its default Performance BIOS crashes some titles.
9.0
pcgaming.tech
✓ explicit
27/02/2020
Hands-on review · Dual BIOS
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 5600 XT offers a Performance and Quiet BIOS switch and a metal backplate, but ships with a minimal bundle.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT

  • Excellent 1080p performance, capable of maxing out most AAA titles at 60+ FPS
  • Effective Dual-X cooling system that keeps the card quiet even under heavy load
  • Significant performance boost available via the 14Gbps VBIOS update
  • Dual-BIOS switch allows users to choose between 'Performance' and 'Silent' modes
  • Includes a premium-feeling metal backplate for structural rigidity and aesthetics
  • Strong power efficiency compared to previous generation Polaris and Vega architectures
  • Features 'Quick Connect' fans that are easy to replace or clean if needed

What customers don't like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT

  • Initial launch was messy due to last-minute VBIOS updates that early buyers had to install manually
  • 6GB of VRAM can be a limitation for high-texture gaming at 1440p or 4K resolutions
  • Noticeable multi-monitor power draw, a known quirk of the RDNA 1 architecture
  • The card is relatively tall and bulky, which might cause clearance issues in some compact cases
  • Limited overclocking headroom beyond the official 'Performance' BIOS settings
  • Lacks dedicated hardware for real-time ray tracing and AV1 encoding
  • Historically reported driver stability issues (though many users report these are resolved with newer software)

Verdict

The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT is an RDNA-based graphics card featuring 2,304 stream processors, a 192-bit memory interface, and 6GB of GDDR6 VRAM. With the Performance VBIOS update, it achieves a game clock of 1,615 MHz and a boost clock of 1,750 MHz, while memory speeds reach 14 Gbps for a total bandwidth of 336 GB/s. Main characteristics include the Dual-X cooling system with an all-aluminum backplate, a dual-BIOS switch for silent or performance modes, and a 160W TBP powered by a single 8-pin connector. Its primary pros are exceptional 1080p 'Ultra' and entry-level 1440p gaming performance that often beats the RTX 2060, efficient and near-silent operation, and a solid build quality at a competitive price point. However, notable cons include limited 6GB VRAM for higher resolutions, the absence of hardware-accelerated ray tracing or AI-upscaling like DLSS, and its bulky physical size which may not suit compact PC builds.

Compare Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT 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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found