Assuming it's ok enough with drivers, the 5700 indeed seems way smarter than either the 2060 or 5600XT.
Honestly the 2060 and 5600XT are both so thoroughly mediocre and IMHO overpriced for what you get that I can't understand the value in bickering between them. ~$300 is too much money for a 6GB card heading into 2020.
Also, comparing various 5600XTs to 'The 2060' is an exercise in misplaced total importance in number because so many things can vary these equations. 'The 2060' is bone stock OG, as the FE was a 1680Mhz SKU with 14gbps memory. Looking at the models which you can actually buy these days, most of them are AIBs that exceed the stock 2060FE performance to various degrees, so twiddling over 2% here or 4% there doesn't mean a lot in general. Given the random match of brand X 5600XT and brand Z 2060 AIB, it's probably a coin flip as to which is faster. Micro Center here just had the EVGA 2060 KO @ 1755Mhz and improved cooling for $299, though it along with the 5600XT show as 'sold out', so that's academic I suppose.
In every respect other than very specific circumstances or concerns (far be it from me to judge someone who had a bad experience that colors their perspective), I believe the better buys are either to go used Pascal/Vega, or go bigger and start at the 2060S or 5700, and the 5700 price is hard to ignore, should you find one under the $350 mark, it's hands down better than the 2060 and 5600 6GB, and better still if you're of a mind to flash to a custom VBios to gain access to greater power and clock potential.
I totally understand why many are underwhelmed by the 5600XT. Yes, it's marginally better value at $299 than most 2060s (which as noted, if AIB may well be faster still), but let's be brutally honest here. The RTX lineup was a complete stall in price/perf even months after release, and arguably an actual decline in price/perf over Pascal if you bought at the right times, and with LESS memory in some pricing tiers. Eg; 1070ti was under $370 in June of 2018, and seems to be roughly equal to a typical 2060, albeit with 8GB vs 6GB. The 2060s were $350 and up, so pretty close to zero movement there other than losing 2GB of Vram. Even if you bought a 1070ti in late 2017 at MSRP, you didn't spend very much at all, yet had a great card that entire time that couldn't decisively be upgraded by anything short of a 2070 at $499, and to any degree you'd much notice would demand a 2080 at an eye watering $799(FE), then $699 (AIB). It got worse up the chain. A decent GTX 1080 model would need to be replaced by at least a 2080 to be noticable, as a good model 1080 11Gbit like a Strix or Aorus is totally in the range of 2070 performance, and again : same 8GB total memory. Bummer, because even to get the roughly equal 2070 means the same price range you could have bought a dang 1080 for in freaking 2016. Oh, and then the worst part, 1080ti owners, most of which own premium (better than base clocks) variants. What could they buy? The 2070 was slower, so nope. The 2080 was so close as to be indistinguishable and was DOWN 3GB for the ride, so nope. Yep, you know it : the $1199 (if you were lucky that is) 2080ti. ~35% faster, for MORE than 35% more expensive than a 1080ti @ $699. No VRAM upgrade, about the only thing you could call a value add is that eventually RTX got along far enough to be both usable and interesting in a miniscule number of titles. Oh, and extremely scary risk of space Invaders ram failure, whee.
The 'Supers' vaguely improved things by sometimes moving OG 20XX down a few bucks and offering closer (but not 'great') to the price/perf RTX should have launched at to begin with.
So you see, GPU value has been stalled for years barring a handful of deals and specials. RTX didn't even have to be so disappointing. The 2060 could have launched with 8GB @ $299, the 2070 with 8GB at $399, the "2080" with perhaps 12GB at $549, and the "2080ti" with 16GB or so at $899. People would have been happy overall with that. RTX has been out for ages now, and we're not even approaching the prices and value they should have presented from the start.
And what has AMD GPU division done? Certainly not what their CPU division has been up to with the whole kicking butts and dominating. Nope, instead middling products that mostly skirt OLD Nvidia products (as well as their own legacy stuff!) in terms of value and performance. The sketchy Vega 7 on 7nm was a power hog that fell on its face in the weirdest ways, and at best was a 1080ti general equal, only YEARS late and at the same MSRP, hoo boy. 5700/5700XT came out, and were 'okay', mostly a plug in to existing value with no disruption. 5500 came out as every bit the craven greedy move that the 1650 represented : not necessarily a bad product, but BADLY priced. Coming from 2016, you'd expect to see something like that tier at $149 max for the 5500, and the 1650 makes sense around $99-$109ish.
Come full circle to the 5600XT, and yaaaay, another product that basically plugs in to the existing paradigm of stagnation. Single digits separate it at best in most categories vs a virtual antique from the competition, yet it is indeed missing hardware RT, and at 7nm it can only swap blows with the 12nm 2060 complete with a generous amount of questionably useful RT and Tensor transistors fattening it up like a twinkie and ho-ho addicted hillbilly. I've noted that although I am severely disappointed in practical value that RTX represented, that at least they ARE gigantic, complicated designs with a lot of new tech to bring into the ecosystem. Little Navi so far, well at least it's more efficient than final gen GCN TF for TF and die space, but it feels like there's still a long way to go and it's a very transitory lineup. The new consoles have hardware RT and other rumored innovations, and reasonable accounts expect a corresponding RDNA2 Navi lineup to emerge for GPUs later this year, though early on perhaps just a flagship to begin.
Anyway, 5600XT manages to be just about as dull and uncompelling as the 2060 was well over a year ago. Is any marginal improvement over 'ehh' great? Not in my book, and just what the hell was their original plans with the previous clock speeds? To make a slower card that was going to be even crappier? Clearly this significant boost is safe enough and within spec, and they only gave us these crumbs because Nvidia price rumblings? Peh.
I'm sorry, but that's my viewpoint. I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in AMD or Nvidia for the state of things in GPUs, but they both seem keen to soak up the fat margins in this new normal. They're both way too comfortable with this busted market.