waffleironhead
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2005
- 6,793
- 299
- 136
IMO, these cards(rx6400 and rx6500x) are a cheap to make replacement for the rx550 and 5500xt in HP prebuilts. Which is where the vast majority of them are going to be found.
That's asinine. Maybe because I'd be a gamer on a budget who didn't buy a newly released cpu in the last year or two? Hell last year i5-10400F was still considered a great budget buy and no one ever figured we'd see crap like 4 lane gaming gpus that make PCIE-3.0 a legit handicap in the budget segment. You seriously think a gpu that's supposed to target the budget segment and then gets kneecapped hard running on anything but the newest platforms makes any sense whatsoever? How many people bought Zen 2 with a B450 board?Why would you buy a new GPU for a PCIE 3.0 system? The folks buying these cards are building budget systems. Rocket Lake and Zen 2 both supported PCIE 4. Sure, AMD should have went with x8, but I feel like all of this is overblown.
Also what about people who bought Ryzen APUs so they'd still have something to game on while putting away money for a gpu later? They'd be hosed by this garbage release since Ryzen APUs are PCIE-3.0. Don't tell me these kind of buyers don't exist. AMD is giving them the middle finger here.Why would you buy a new GPU for a PCIE 3.0 system? The folks buying these cards are building budget systems. Rocket Lake and Zen 2 both supported PCIE 4. Sure, AMD should have went with x8, but I feel like all of this is overblown.
Even at PCIe gen 3.0 its on par with GTX1650 according to HWU.Out of stock MSRP cards mean nothing.
It could very well settle below the 1650 given how crippled it is on PCIe 3, and how the crippled the media section.
It's a garbage card. No need to defend everything AMD does.
It's below the 1050 Ti in three games in their testsuite. One game maybe you could say ok it's just an outlier, but three out of twelve?Even at PCIe gen 3.0 its on par with GTX1650 according to HWU.
As I have said before, if you building a new system its the best choice currently at the price point.
If you are on a PCIe gen 3.0 you may very well consider the faster 3050 at a higher price though.
I missed that in the review, which review did that come from? ( hardware unboxed, gamers nexus, etc )It's below the 1050 Ti in three games in their testsuite. One game maybe you could say ok it's just an outlier, but three out of twelve?
PCI-E 4.0 leaves out EVERYONE whiout a B550/X570 (and forget APUs) or 11th Gen+ and 500 series chipset what is likely the vast mayority of users out there. So this is a very low end gpu that can only work in high end systems and is no better than a 5 year old RX 580 and in some games can be considerably slower.Why would you buy a new GPU for a PCIE 3.0 system? The folks buying these cards are building budget systems. Rocket Lake and Zen 2 both supported PCIE 4. Sure, AMD should have went with x8, but I feel like all of this is overblown.
I agree that a big chunk of people buying these are putting them into older machines.That's asinine. Maybe because I'd be a gamer on a budget who didn't buy a newly released cpu in the last year or two? Hell last year i5-10400F was still considered a great budget buy and no one ever figured we'd see crap like 4 lane gaming gpus that make PCIE-3.0 a legit handicap in the budget segment. You seriously think a gpu that's supposed to target the budget segment and then gets kneecapped hard running on anything but the newest platforms makes any sense whatsoever? How many people bought Zen 2 with a B450 board?
Hardware Unboxed. Games were Doom Eternal, Rainbow Six Siege, and F1 2021. F1 2021 the average is better but the low is worse, R6S avg is pretty much the same but low is worse, Doom Eternal is just a disaster all the way around.I missed that in the review, which review did that come from? ( hardware unboxed, gamers nexus, etc )
I believe you, I just want to look myself. I just made a ranting post proclaiming this as better then the 1050 Ti so I want to prepare myself for the incoming.
I didn't think any of Hardware Unboxed's settings were unrealistically high and they showed super disappointing results against the 1050 Ti at PCIE-3.0 in 3/12 games.I agree that a big chunk of people buying these are putting them into older machines.
But its important to note that not all games have a big hit on performance. Some games show a less than 5fps difference at ultra settings. And with both PCIE 3 and 4, the total FPS is low enough that people are going to adjust down some settings anyway, making it less of an issue. The FPS hit only rears its head when a game is having to swap the memory buffer. Some of the reviews used settings that are unrealistically high. TechSpot especially did this. Its as if they purposely set everything to Ultra settings on games that specifically want more than 4GB of VRAM to make this issue seem worse than it is.
If you already have a motherboard capable of PCIe gen 4, you (hopefully) already have a better GPU than the 6500XT in most cases. I mean, this thing is barely better than the integrated graphics on newer high-end APU's.Guys, for those that have a PCIe gen 3.0 they will have a better option at the end of the month with the new NVIDIA 3050 with 8GB but at higher price.
6500XT its only meant for those that have PCIe gen 4.0 or above, so its not for everyone but if you have PCIe gen 4.0 its the better choice currently vs the alternative of GTX1650.
Im talking mostly for new builds.If you already have a motherboard capable of PCIe gen 4, you (hopefully) already have a better GPU than the 6500XT in most cases. I mean, this thing is barely better than the integrated graphics on newer high-end APU's.
Even for new builds with PCIE 4.0, there is no excuse for this.Im talking mostly for new builds.
Energy Efficiency is a nonsense metric. The card uses the least amount of power of any desktop card on the TPU chart (101W).Even at Full HD It's slower than RX 5500XT. Energy efficiency is also hilariously bad. At least the average clockspeed is almost 2.9GHz.![]()
The RX 6500XT is here to compete against the GTX1650, It is not replacing the RX 5500XTEven for new builds with PCIE 4.0, there is no excuse for this.
![]()
The 2 year old RX5500XT 4GB (with full media block, more video outputs and $169 launch MSRP) cant be outperforming the RX6500XT.
Yeah.I didn't think any of Hardware Unboxed's settings were unrealistically high and they showed super disappointing results against the 1050 Ti at PCIE-3.0 in 3/12 games.
It's not a nonsense metric. The performance is pretty bad for a 101W power consumption.Energy Efficiency is a nonsense metric. The card uses the least amount of power of any desktop card on the TPU chart (101W).