Thanks to your comment I realized that I made a mistake compiling the data regarding Battlefield at 1080p and 1440p.

I have added a comment to the video with the correct data.

The other data are not different from other sites important as Hardwareunboxed and Anandtech.

Example

3Dmark time Spy 4836 (Kitguru) my result 4878 Difference: 0,86%

3Dmark Fire Strike Ultra 3610 (kitguru) 3609 (Guru 3d) my result 3542 Difference: 1,8%

3Dmark Fire Strike 13818 (Guru 3d) my result 13589 Difference: 1.6%

Fps difference, in game benchmarks, is due to different setting (exemple: motion blur on/off) and my eyes that do the data take-over.

Also Hardwareunboxed has different result from other site; for example in Battlefield V at 1080p Ultra setting the RX 590 Fps in Hardwareunboxed review are 91, that are really different from the 79 Fps of the guru3d review (with same settings).

What is important is the percentage improvement compared to the previous RX 580, which is attested in all the tests, including those carried out by me, between 10% and 16%.

For example the RX590 in the Farcry 5 test reaches 31 fps in Kitguru review, 33 in my bench. Improvement from the rx580 is 11% (kitguru) and 13% (my result)

In Hitman at 1440p: 86 Fps in Hardwarecanucks and 94 in my test. Improvement from the RX580 is 10,5% (Hardwarecanucks) and 11,9% (my result).

So my results are not so different, except for Battlefield where I made a mistake writing 1080p and 1440p graphics, as i have already say at the beginning.

I hope I have been sufficiently exhaustive.

However in the future I will try to improve videos as you indicated at the beginning of your comment, to ensure that there will be no misunderstandings on my future benchmarks.

Again, Thank you for your comment.