AMD’s RX 560 continues a trend of refreshing the Polaris line, but with a more notable change than the previous RX 580RX 570 refreshes: The RX 560 fully unlocks itself to 16 CUs, up from the previous 14 CUs of the RX 460. This change (in addition to voltage-frequency changes) instantly accounts for performance increases over the RX 460, theoretically making for a more exciting update than was had with the 580 & 570. That’s not to say that the predecessors of this 500 line were unworthy, but they certainly weren’t eye-catching for anyone who’d followed the 400-series launch.
Our review of the Sapphire RX 560 Pulse OC 4GB ($115) card is the first look at this new low-end line from AMD, updating the entry-level, sub-$120 market (in theory) with fresh competition. The incumbent would be the GTX 1050, which we previously thought a better buy than the RX 460. Today, we’re seeing how that’s changed in seven months.
To catch everyone up on the RX 500 refresh thus far, it’s mostly been a glorified BIOS update to the RX 580 and RX 570 cards, driving higher frequency, permitting higher voltage under OV, and trading more power for some performance. Nothing special, but enough to keep AMD in the game until its eventual Vega launch. We found the RX 580 to be a strong competitor to the GTX 1060, particularly at the price point, though noted that owners of RX 480 series cards shouldn’t bother considering an upgrade – because it’s not one. This 500 series is not meant for owners of the 400 series. Tune out until Vega, Volta, or high-end Pascal makes sense.
Sapphire’s RX 560 Pulse OC has one of the weakest cooling solutions we’ve seen of late, but – as we learn in our VRM+VRAM temperature testing – it’s sufficient for this type of card. A low-end GPU doesn’t draw much power, and so Sapphire skates by with its MagnaChip Semiconductor MDU1514 + MDU1517 3-phase power design.
As this content is relatively straight-forward, given the low price, let’s dive straight into testing.
Here's the overclock stepping chart for our RX 560, reflecting the "OC" version in our charts:
Peak Clock (MHz) | AVG Clock (MHz) | Core Offset (MHz) | MEM CLK (MHz) | MEM Offset (MHz) | MEM mV | Power Target % | mV | Fan | TMP | Pass/Fail |
1298 | 1277 | 1750 | Auto | 100 | 1100 | 1200 | 69 | P | ||
1300 | 1300 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1100 | 1600 | 79 | P | ||
1319 | 1319 | 20 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1329 | 1329 | 30 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1339 | 1339 | 40 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1349 | 1349 | 50 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1359 | 1359 | 60 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1369 | 1369 | 70 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1379 | 1379 | 80 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1389 | 1389 | 90 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1399 | 1399 | 100 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 77 | P | |
1419 | 1419 | 120 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 78 | P | |
1439 | 1439 | 140 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 2900 | 79 | P | |
1459 | 1459 | 160 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 79 | F - Heavy Flickering | |
1449 | 1449 | 150 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 78 | Flickering | |
1439 | 1439 | 140 | 1750 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 79 | P | |
1439 | 1439 | 140 | 1900 | 150 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 78 | P |
1439 | 1439 | 140 | 1950 | 200 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 78 | P |
1439 | 1439 | 140 | 2000 | 250 | Auto | 175 | 1150 | 3200 | 78 | P |
And for the GTX 1050:
Peak Clock (MHz) | AVG Clock (MHz) | Core Offset (MHz) | MEM CLK (MHz) | MEM Offset (MHz) | Power Target | Voltage | Fan | TMP | Pass/Fail |
1797 | 1734 | 1752 | 100 | 1.03 | 41 | 57 | P | ||
1823 | 1810 | 100 | 1752 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P | |
1873 | 1848 | 150 | 1752 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P | |
1987 | - | 175 | 1752 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | F | |
1886 | 1860 | 160 | 1752 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P | |
1886 | 1860 | 160 | 1902 | 300 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P |
1886 | 1860 | 160 | 1952 | 400 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P |
1886 | 1860 | 160 | 2027 | 550 | 100 | 1.03 | 70 | 58 | P |
GPU Testing Methodology
For our benchmarks today, we’re using a fully rebuilt GPU test bench for 2017. This is our first full set of GPUs for the year, giving us an opportunity to move to an i7-7700K platform that’s clocked higher than our old GPU test bed. For all the excitement that comes with a new GPU test bench and a clean slate to work with, we also lose some information: Our old GPU tests are completely incomparable to these results due to a new set of numbers, completely new testing methodology, new game settings, and new games being tested with. DOOM, for instance, now has a new test methodology behind it. We’ve moved to Ultra graphics settings with 0xAA and async enabled, also dropping OpenGL entirely in favor of Vulkan + more Dx12 tests.
We’ve also automated a significant portion of our testing at this point, reducing manual workload in favor of greater focus on analytics.
Driver version 378.78 (press-ready drivers for 1080 Ti, provided by nVidia) was used for all nVidia devices. Version 17.10.1030-B8 was used for AMD (press drivers).
A separate bench is used for game performance and for thermal performance.
Thermal Test Bench
Our test methodology for the is largely parallel to our EVGA VRM final torture test that we published late last year. We use logging software to monitor the NTCs on EVGA’s ICX card, with our own calibrated thermocouples mounted to power components for non-ICX monitoring. Our thermocouples use an adhesive pad that is 1/100th of an inch thick, and does not interfere in any meaningful way with thermal transfer. The pad is a combination of polyimide and polymethylphenylsiloxane, and the thermocouple is a K-type hooked up to a logging meter. Calibration offsets are applied as necessary, with the exact same thermocouples used in the same spots for each test.
Torture testing used Kombustor's 'Furry Donut' testing, 3DMark, and a few games (to determine auto fan speeds under 'real' usage conditions, used later for noise level testing).
Our tests apply self-adhesive, 1/100th-inch thick (read: laser thin, does not cause "air gaps") K-type thermocouples directly to the rear-side of the PCB and to hotspot MOSFETs numbers 2 and 7 when counting from the bottom of the PCB. The thermocouples used are flat and are self-adhesive (from Omega), as recommended by thermal engineers in the industry -- including Bobby Kinstle of Corsair, whom we previously interviewed.
K-type thermocouples have a known range of approximately 2.2C. We calibrated our thermocouples by providing them an "ice bath," then providing them a boiling water bath. This provided us the information required to understand and adjust results appropriately.
Because we have concerns pertaining to thermal conductivity and impact of the thermocouple pad in its placement area, we selected the pads discussed above for uninterrupted performance of the cooler by the test equipment. Electrical conductivity is also a concern, as you don't want bare wire to cause an electrical short on the PCB. Fortunately, these thermocouples are not electrically conductive along the wire or placement pad, with the wire using a PTFE coating with a 30 AWG (~0.0100"⌀). The thermocouples are 914mm long and connect into our dual logging thermocouple readers, which then take second by second measurements of temperature. We also log ambient, and apply an ambient modifier where necessary to adjust test passes so that they are fair.
The response time of our thermocouples is 0.15s, with an accompanying resolution of 0.1C. The laminates arae fiberglass-reinforced polymer layers, with junction insulation comprised of polyimide and fiberglass. The thermocouples are rated for just under 200C, which is enough for any VRM testing (and if we go over that, something will probably blow, anyway).
To avoid EMI, we mostly guess-and-check placement of the thermocouples. EMI is caused by power plane PCBs and inductors. We were able to avoid electromagnetic interference by routing the thermocouple wiring right, toward the less populated half of the board, and then down. The cables exit the board near the PCI-e slot and avoid crossing inductors. This resulted in no observable/measurable EMI with regard to temperature readings.
We decided to deploy AIDA64 and GPU-Z to measure direct temperatures of the GPU and the CPU (becomes relevant during torture testing, when we dump the CPU radiator's heat straight into the VRM fan). In addition to this, logging of fan speeds, VID, vCore, and other aspects of power management were logged. We then use EVGA's custom Precision build to log the thermistor readings second by second, matched against and validated between our own thermocouples.
The primary test platform is detailed below:
GN Test Bench 2015 | Name | Courtesy Of | Cost |
Video Card | This is what we're testing | - | - |
CPU | Intel i7-5930K CPU 3.8GHz | iBUYPOWER |
$580 |
Memory | Corsair Dominator 32GB 3200MHz | Corsair | $210 |
Motherboard | EVGA X99 Classified | GamersNexus | $365 |
Power Supply | NZXT 1200W HALE90 V2 | NZXT | $300 |
SSD | OCZ ARC100 Crucial 1TB |
Kingston Tech. | $130 |
Case | Top Deck Tech Station | GamersNexus | $250 |
CPU Cooler | Asetek 570LC | Asetek | - |
Note also that we swap test benches for the GPU thermal testing, using instead our "red" bench with three case fans -- only one is connected (directed at CPU area) -- and an elevated standoff for the 120mm fat radiator cooler from Asetek (for the CPU) with Gentle Typhoon fan at max RPM. This is elevated out of airflow pathways for the GPU, and is irrelevant to testing -- but we're detailing it for our own notes in the future.
Game Bench
GN Test Bench 2017 | Name | Courtesy Of | Cost |
Video Card | This is what we're testing | - | - |
CPU | Intel i7-7700K 4.5GHz locked | GamersNexus | $330 |
Memory | GSkill Trident Z 3200MHz C14 | Gskill | - |
Motherboard | Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 Z270X | Gigabyte | $240 |
Power Supply | NZXT 1200W HALE90 V2 | NZXT | $300 |
SSD | Plextor M7V Crucial 1TB |
GamersNexus | - |
Case | Top Deck Tech Station | GamersNexus | $250 |
CPU Cooler | Asetek 570LC | Asetek | - |
BIOS settings include C-states completely disabled with the CPU locked to 4.5GHz at 1.32 vCore. Memory is at XMP1.
We communicated with both AMD and nVidia about the new titles on the bench, and gave each company the opportunity to ‘vote’ for a title they’d like to see us add. We figure this will help even out some of the game biases that exist. AMD doesn’t make a big showing today, but will soon. We are testing:
- Ghost Recon: Wildlands (built-in bench, Very High; recommended by nVidia)
- Sniper Elite 4 (High, Async, Dx12; recommended by AMD)
- For Honor (Extreme, manual bench as built-in is unrealistically abusive)
- Ashes of the Singularity (GPU-focused, High, Dx12)
- DOOM (Vulkan, Ultra, 0xAA, Async)
Synthetics:
- 3DMark FireStrike
- 3DMark FireStrike Extreme
- 3DMark FireStrike Ultra
- 3DMark TimeSpy
For measurement tools, we’re using PresentMon for Dx12/Vulkan titles and FRAPS for Dx11 titles. OnPresent is the preferred output for us, which is then fed through our own script to calculate 1% low and 0.1% low metrics (defined here).
Power testing is taken at the wall. One case fan is connected, both SSDs, and the system is otherwise left in the "Game Bench" configuration.