Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 5700 8GB OC with Backplate Video Card Review

Benchmarks, Performance, Temperatures and Power consumption


We are influencers and brand affiliates.  This post contains affiliate links, most which go to Amazon and are Geo-Affiliate links to nearest Amazon store.

A video card does not work on its own, aside from drivers and all, we need the rest of the system here and it will also help you compare the results with your own system.

OK, aside from my system, here are the specs of the Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 5700 8GB OC with Backplate as per GPU-Z.

You can see here, I am using the latest available driver, Adrenaline 19.7.5.

I use GPU-Z to gather temperatures of the card, but I use a Kill A Watt for reporting the wattage consumed.  The Kill A Watt by P3 International is great, you can click on this link to check it out on Amazon and maybe get yourself too.

I have changed up some of the games and programs I have used with more demanding and newer titles.  Here is the list of games and programs used for benchmarking.

  • FutureMark’s 3DMark Fire Strike
  • FutureMark’s TimeSpy
  • Metro Last Exodus
  • Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
  • Shadows of the Tomb Raider
  • Far Cry 5
  • Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands

Alright, let’s get started.

The overall score on UL’s 3DMark FireStrike 1.1 was 20,214 and the hottest the card reached was 65°C.  During these tests, the maximum power consumed was 297Watts, while the average was 246Watts.  It’s actually incredible impressive that this scored better than 94% of all results.  Moving on to DX12, we have UL’s TimeSpy.

In TimeSpy, we can see the results are better than 76% of all results.  The overall score was 8,116 and the card heated up to 66°C while consuming 327Watts at max, and averaging at 234 Watts.  While these are in fact non playable benchmarks, they do give us a glimpse if anything on the performance we can expect, and it is looking good so far.  Let’s get away from Synthetic benchmarks, and jump into some actual game benchmarks.  We will start off with Metro Exodus by our friends over at Deep Silver.

I have always been a fan of the Metro series, not only have they been great games with a great story line, but they have the most brutal benchmarks.

Throughout these benchmarks, I keep the settings the same, changing only the resolutions.  So for example, I selected here “Ultra”, and thought the test I changed the resolution only from 1920 x 1080 to 2560 x 1440 to 3840 x 2160.

Here are the results from all 3 presets below.

At 3840×2160, Metro Exodus is completely unplayable at the Ultra preset.  On average, it was on par it came in at 29.99 FPS, while consuming an average of 274Watts heating up the card to 71°C.  At 2560×1440, the game became much more playable at 50.25FPS, eating up 278 Watts on average and keeping the PC toasty at 70°C.  At 1920×1080, the game was incredibly playable at 61.88 fps taking up 275Watts and keeping a cool 68°C.

This card is toughed as being a card capable of taking care of 2K easily, and while it did try, it fell shy of 60FPS.  If only there was a way to keep up the looks of the game, while still keeping that resolution.  You would either need to drop the eye candy or the resolution, as we saw on 1920×1080.  We may have a solution to that a little later in this review, a very handy idea Sapphire had on taking care of this for us.

So, let’s jump over and see what Laura has for us in Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

Again here, I keep the settings the same, changing only the resolutions.

Laura was a lot gentler with us than Metro was.  While we go over frames rendered, I will only go over average FPS.

At 3840 x 2160 we stuttered at 35 FPS, drawing only 256 Watts on average and toasting up the card to 75°C.  At 2560 x 1440, things were totally smooth at 69 frames per second at a warm 74°C and consuming 268 Watts on average, that 4.58% more consumed than at 4K.  At 1920 x 1080, the frame rate increased 39.53% at 103 FPS and the temperature dropped 2° at 72°C and took up 270 Watts on average.

Interesting on how the more the card became fully utilized, how it consumed less power on average.

So much technology here in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and so much destruction, much of it natural like in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.  Let’s see what really happens there.

Another new title to the reviews is Assassins Creed Odyssey.

Again at 3840 x 2160 we slide showed across at 65 FPS, drawing 273 Watts on average though staying relatively cool at 69°C.  At 2560 x 1440, performance rose 43.90% to 50 frames per second, not perfectly playable but better.  The card dropped 2° to 67°C consuming 287 Watts on average, 2.94% less than at 4K.  At 1920 x 1080, the frame rate increased 26.08% over the 2K benches coming in at 65 FPS at 66°C, consuming 288 Watts on average.

At 2K, we performed much better then at 4K, but 10 fps shy of that magic 60FPS.  We have the same issue we had on Metro, where we need that little extra umph without losing the eye candy.   How would you think Far Cry 5 performs?

Far Cry 5 played very well here, at 4K, we can see we reached 47 FPS on average with a cool 69°C at 285 Watts on average.  While this is not playable, this speaks loads for a card that is aiming to take over the 2K space.  At 2560 x 1440, the card reached 89 frames per second, 1° lower than 4K at 68°C consuming on average 295 Watts.  2K hit a 65% improvement over its 4K counterpart though take up 10Watts more on average but 1°C cooler.

At 1920 x 1080, this card hit a VERY respectable 120 frames per second, at 292 Watts on average and the coolest at 65°C.  1080P and 1440P were perfectly playable here.  Moving on to our last benchmark here at these settings, let’s see how Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands performs.

Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wild Lands as usual didn’t fare so well at 4K, reaching only 32.63 frames per second and hit 70°C consuming 268Watts on average.  2K did a bit better improving the frame rate by 45.79% coming in at 52.01 FPS, taking up 274 Watts on average but coming in 4°C cooler at 66°C.  At 1080P, the frame rate jumped 21.55% coming in at 64.57 and again cooling down to 64°C and only consuming 272 Watts on average.

Remember when I have been saying in some of the results, that I wonder if we could squeeze out a little more performance without loosing quality, well we can and I will show you how in this next chapter, More Performance with TriXX.

Continue on to: More Performance with TriXX

We are influencers and brand affiliates.  This post contains affiliate links, most which go to Amazon and are Geo-Affiliate links to nearest Amazon store.