Discussion Radeon 6500XT and 6400

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,582
1,164
136
Are there going to be board powered 6500 XT? Anandtech article made it sound like there would be.
From what's going around, the standard clocked ones should be completely PCIe powered. It's the overclocked versions that need a power connector.

I'm fine with that.
 

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,236
1,250
136
The 6500XT is a low end, low cost card for people that either just need to put a picture on a screen (no iGPU) or that don't have the budget for frequent upgrades and are likely using older equipment. All of Intel's processors back to SB have a built in GPU, so, just putting a screen on it doesn't matter. So, we're looking at people with F chips, who likely have PCIe 3, or people with older AMD processors (construction core, 1-2 gen ryzen) or people with slower iGPUs like 2400g, 3200/3400g or newer apus. that are all PCIe 3. So, we're almost always looking at PCIe systems for these cards. If you could afford a 3000x or above on a 500 series board, you likely ALREADY HAVE a better gpu.

This card is an effective downgrade in capability from the 5500 in every way save uselessly slow raytracing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,427
1,740
136
www.teamjuchems.com
The 6500XT is a low end, low cost card for people that either just need to put a picture on a screen (no iGPU) or that don't have the budget for frequent upgrades and are likely using older equipment. All of Intel's processors back to SB have a built in GPU, so, just putting a screen on it doesn't matter. So, we're looking at people with F chips, who likely have PCIe 3, or people with older AMD processors (construction core, 1-2 gen ryzen) or people with slower iGPUs like 2400g, 3200/3400g or newer apus. that are all PCIe 3. So, we're almost always looking at PCIe systems for these cards. If you could afford a 3000x or above on a 500 series board, you likely ALREADY HAVE a better gpu.

This card is an effective downgrade in capability from the 5500 in every way save uselessly slow raytracing.
Except that maybe you can buy it? I mean, used GTX 1060 3GB are $250 plus. The 5500XT you are talking about are over $300. Used. Likely zero warranty.

See ANY GPU GTX 970 or better posted for sub $200 on Craigslist, FB, etc. it's gone. I posted up something on my personal FB wall, just a picture of a cool PC I built in a Lian Li case that I just thought was pretty, and I had something like 6 direct messages on buying it within about 2 hours. The thirst is real for PCs that can just play games.

This is 100% for gaming in our current market situations. It will handle the F2P games at decent settings at 1080p without issues. I will absolutely be using it for builds going forward if it is reasonably available between $200 and $300 going forward because it's way easier to sell PCs under $1k in my market.

People who aren't Ars forums members don't know they can't game without setting settings to max :p

I mean, I think this is really a replacement for the RX 560 which was a pooch. If the last couple years hadn't been nuts then this would have been what, a $130 card? Even in the 5500XT moment that existed there was still a big vacuum below $150.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,608
1,282
136
Ok i know mining sent everything to hell, but having the same perf (best case scenario) as a RX480/580, SIX YEARS LATER, limited to the half the avalible memory version of that card, at the same MSRP (that is not going to be respected anyway), plus removing the encoder block (wut?), still no AV1 decode, so the decoder block is still the same (maybe VP9 decode? i dont remember if Polaris supported that). Plus the limitation of the PCI-E interface that is just going to kill performance on most pcs, what means the performance they are showing may no were near what the end user will get whiout PCI-E 4.0 and AMD didnt added any warning about that...

This is just not acceptable, in any way. And ive warning about this way before the mining sent everything to hell, this going way back to the RX5700XT launch, that we knew it was to be called RX690 because it was right there in the photos, they didnt have time to photoshop it out, last minute they changed the nomenclature for the RX5700XT not to look like a RX580/RX590 replacement with a 80% price premium... EVERYTHING goes downhill from there. except the prices.

Im sorry, but the RX6500XT is a gpu that belongs in the RX550 tier. NO, WAIT even the RX550 has encoders! This is GT1030/GT710 level tier then. Eveyone let the RX690 RX5700XT slip trought the cracks, but this needs to stop or is going to get a lot worse. And mining is just an excuse, mining is not the reason this card is limited to x4 or the lack of a encoder block. Mining is the reason why you cant get anything at MSRP.
 
Last edited:

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,427
1,740
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Ok i know mining sent everything to hell, but having the same perf (best case scenario) as a RX480/580, SIX YEARS LATER, limited to the half the avalible memory version of that card, at the same MSRP (that is not going to be respected anyway), plus removing the encoder block (wut?), still no AV1 decode, so the decoder block is still the same (maybe VP9 decode? i dont remember if Polaris supported that). Plus the limitation of the PCI-E interface that is just going to kill performance on most pcs, what means the performance they are showing may no were near what the end user will get whiout PCI-E 4.0 and AMD didnt added any warning about that...

This is just not acceptable, in any way. And ive warning about this way before the mining sent everything to hell, this going way back to the RX5700XT launch, that we knew it was to be called RX690 because it was right there in the photos, they didnt have time to photoshop it out, last minute they changed the nomenclature for the RX5700XT not to look like a RX580/RX590 replacement with a 80% price premium... EVERYTHING goes downhill from there. except the prices.

Im sorry, but the RX6500XT is a gpu that belongs in the RX550 tier. NO, WAIT even the RX550 has encoders! This is GT1030/GT710 level tier then. Eveyone let the RX690 RX5700XT slip trought the cracks, but this needs to stop or is going to get a lot worse. And mining is just an excuse, mining is not the reason this card is limited to x4 or the lack of a encoder block. Mining is the reason why you cant get anything at MSRP.
What do you suggest we do about it?
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,677
3,719
136
And mining is just an excuse, mining is not the reason this card is limited to x4 or the lack of a encoder block. Mining is the reason why you cant get anything at MSRP.
ETH needs 6 GB of memory so this only having 4 GB should limit the amount of gouging that occurs. I doubt AMD will have enough supply to keep this priced at the $200 MSRP, but it's probably going to be much closer to that than $500.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,267
7,700
126
ETH needs 6 GB of memory so this only having 4 GB should limit the amount of gouging that occurs. I doubt AMD will have enough supply to keep this priced at the $200 MSRP, but it's probably going to be much closer to that than $500.
GTX 1650 only has 4GB of VRAM, but it sells for $350+ @ Newegg retail now. MSRP was like $169.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAPUNISHER

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,427
1,740
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Are Nvidia still making those or is the price just a few people who still have them trying to get as much as they can?
Pretty sure they are still making them along with the 1660's. They are available from NewEgg fairly regularly. Yesterday I was checking eBay and NewEgg was selling 1650S there for $350, I think. Stats said a lot sold.

6500XT should be right there, performance wise right?

Completely confirms the idea that this would have been a ~$129 card in sane world, so 2x that MSRP is going to be ~$250-$350 for the premium OC cards with ARGB bling?
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,267
7,700
126
I can't say that I've seen any 1660-family GPUs retail from Newegg in the last few months. Did see some 2060 6GB cards though.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,973
3,588
136
Its interesting to see that NOBODY considers the effect Infinity Cache going to have with lower PCIe bandwidth.

It may turn out to be completely fine.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,608
1,282
136
Its interesting to see that NOBODY considers the effect Infinity Cache going to have with lower PCIe bandwidth.

It may turn out to be completely fine.
ehm IF cache likely has 0 effect over PCI-e bandwidth, IF cache is to avoid vram access of something that is already loaded on vram, if you miss at IF and then you miss at vram as well, is not going to do a thing.

If RX5500XT 4GB results are any indication, it will be fine as long as the game fits inside the 4GB vram.
 

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,236
1,250
136
It's possible that the IF cache makes effective PCIe bandwidth worse. If a memory request missues the cache, it takes a latency penalty beffort going to VRAM. If it misses VRAM, it takes an additional latency penalty to go to tthe PCIe controller to then cross the bus to system memory. So, in essence, it adds a few clocks over what the 5500XT had to face while having half the effective PCIe bandwidth on all but the most recent and expensive systems, which it will be unlikely to be installed on most of the time.

If it doesn't fit the 4GB VRAM, you're in for some heavy stuttering. These choices were intentional by AMD. They could have chosen to make a card that was still crippled for mining, but didn't suffer as much from the low VRAM for gaming by giving the chip a full x16 PCIE 4 controller. It still wouldn't mine Eth, and would still take forever to pay off for alt coins, but wouldn't be quite as bad for games that overflow VRAM as 16 lane PCIe 3 and 4 can get the maximum benefit from main memory (32 and 64 GB a sec). The larger interface could always connect to mobile chips through fewer lanes and power gate the rest. Choices.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
23,761
6,101
146
Except that maybe you can buy it? I mean, used GTX 1060 3GB are $250 plus. The 5500XT you are talking about are over $300. Used. Likely zero warranty.

See ANY GPU GTX 970 or better posted for sub $200 on Craigslist, FB, etc. it's gone. I posted up something on my personal FB wall, just a picture of a cool PC I built in a Lian Li case that I just thought was pretty, and I had something like 6 direct messages on buying it within about 2 hours. The thirst is real for PCs that can just play games.

This is 100% for gaming in our current market situations. It will handle the F2P games at decent settings at 1080p without issues. I will absolutely be using it for builds going forward if it is reasonably available between $200 and $300 going forward because it's way easier to sell PCs under $1k in my market.

People who aren't Ars forums members don't know they can't game without setting settings to max :p

I mean, I think this is really a replacement for the RX 560 which was a pooch. If the last couple years hadn't been nuts then this would have been what, a $130 card? Even in the 5500XT moment that existed there was still a big vacuum below $150.
The bolded is immaterial. Old Ferengi math is old.

You nailed the rest. Look what a new 1050ti sells for; that is how low the bar currently is. We need to start singing the James Cameron! Explorer of the sea song, the bar is so low. And let's be clear: the 1050ti isn't a card where we need to bash it by equating its performance to old cards, as is being done to the 6500XT, in this thread. It is an old card, a really old card, still being sold new for $300 plus. 1650 is also over $300 new. Not going to take much for the 6500XT to be the best bang for buck budget card you can buy new.

And yeah, I has a sad when I see what an old 970 and 1060 3GB sells for. In that context, nothing about the 6500XT is a bad thing for low budget gamers, in the market we have been in for almost 2yrs. Which has yet to show any signs of changing, despite clickbait articles and vids on the topic.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,582
1,164
136
It's possible that the IF cache makes effective PCIe bandwidth worse. If a memory request missues the cache, it takes a latency penalty beffort going to VRAM. If it misses VRAM, it takes an additional latency penalty to go to tthe PCIe controller to then cross the bus to system memory. So, in essence, it adds a few clocks over what the 5500XT had to face while having half the effective PCIe bandwidth on all but the most recent and expensive systems, which it will be unlikely to be installed on most of the time.

If it doesn't fit the 4GB VRAM, you're in for some heavy stuttering. These choices were intentional by AMD. They could have chosen to make a card that was still crippled for mining, but didn't suffer as much from the low VRAM for gaming by giving the chip a full x16 PCIE 4 controller. It still wouldn't mine Eth, and would still take forever to pay off for alt coins, but wouldn't be quite as bad for games that overflow VRAM as 16 lane PCIe 3 and 4 can get the maximum benefit from main memory (32 and 64 GB a sec). The larger interface could always connect to mobile chips through fewer lanes and power gate the rest. Choices.
AMD probably designed this chip for mobile applications rather then desktop. If you look at it from that angle, a lot of AMDs choices make sense. Desktop is pretty much an afterthought.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,427
1,740
136
www.teamjuchems.com
The bolded is immaterial. Old Ferengi math is old.
Absolutely. I only included for those that remember when 1660Ti was $200 and a 1650S was $160, brand new retail. Even then those prices seemed high to me for the performance, I wanted them both ~15% cheaper to be a "good deal". Had this card existed along those at that time, of course AMD would not have priced it at @ $200.

The way the MSRP multiplier is going the $100 value of 2020 is like $200-$250 (so like 2x to 2.5x depending on SKU) not in 2021.

That's just the way it is. When comparing to those times for those that need to make it work with their sense of value, that's just where we are at. Welcome to 2022. Woohoo.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
53,267
7,700
126
I only included for those that remember when 1660Ti was $200
Ehh, no, it was not ever THAT cheap. MSRP at introduction of the 1660 ti was $270 or $280. I remember, because I picked up a bunch refurb @ Newegg for $230 ea. I picked up a Gaming X 1660 ti for $290 new, MSRP of that AIB card was actually $310-320.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,608
1,282
136
AMD probably designed this chip for mobile applications rather then desktop. If you look at it from that angle, a lot of AMDs choices make sense. Desktop is pretty much an afterthought.
Thats fine, its just that, in desktop, this card belong in the $100 tier as a RX550/550 replacement, instead they are slaping a $200 MSRP (that is not going to be respected anyway) because mining and stuff, and placing it as a RX 5500 XT replacement.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,582
1,164
136
Thats fine, its just that, in desktop, this card belong in the $100 tier as a RX550/550 replacement, instead they are slaping a $200 MSRP (that is not going to be respected anyway) because mining and stuff, and placing it as a RX 5500 XT replacement.
Now that we can agree on. Way overpriced for a RX550/GT1030 replacement, but what isn't currently?

And I'm still bummed over the missing AV1 decoder. Way to go AMD, shoot yourself in the foot for one obvious use case. My next HTPC card will be a 3050, if I can get one...
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,608
1,282
136
Now that we can agree on. Way overpriced for a RX550/GT1030 replacement, but what isn't currently?

And I'm still bummed over the missing AV1 decoder. Way to go AMD, shoot yourself in the foot for one obvious use case. My next HTPC card will be a 3050, if I can get one...
Whats more, AMD choosed to agesa block A520 and B450 boards from supporting PCI-E 4.0 for the main slot. When we all know that A520 could have had that without issues, and B450 could have supported it in revised hardware versions.
Intel went ahead and supported PCI-E 4.0 on H510, and they dont sell dGPUs (yet).

What do you suggest we do about it?
Well, check what 300-series owners and people who support them are doing right now, there is quite a debacle going on. Thats a good start. People has been fighting the chipset segmentation BS and getting results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and KompuKare

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,427
1,740
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Ehh, no, it was not ever THAT cheap. MSRP at introduction of the 1660 ti was $270 or $280. I remember, because I picked up a bunch refurb @ Newegg for $230 ea. I picked up a Gaming X 1660 ti for $290 new, MSRP of that AIB card was actually $310-320.
I was just reading a review over at Tom’s and it was the base 1660 hitting that price, you’re right. Second hand they were hitting $200, even on Amazon (camelcamelcamel remembers!) Back in the days when Nvidia needlessly created a soup of SKUs including:

-1650
-1650 GDDR6
-1650 Super
-1660
-1660 Super
-1660 Ti

Based on the date and data of that article, there was a bout an $80 spread between the top and bottom of that list, with the biggest gap of performance being from 1650 to 1650 GDDR6. When the 2060 was shifted to the $299 price point that put pressure on the 1660. Anyway.

It was pretty easy to get a 1660 Super at about $200 because I helped people grab them as mining took hold.

Well, check what 300-series owners and people who support them are doing right now, there is quite a debacle going on. Thats a good start. People has been fighting the chipset segmentation BS and getting results.
Seems like changing firmware is a lot different than magically creating more physical PCIe lanes.

Encoders and decoders on AMD video cards seem to be barely supported by third party software anyway, I guess that doesn't really bother me one way or another.

Can it actually perform at the same level as a 1650 Super in games @ 1080p? That's pretty much all I care about. Looks to be TBD.

Well that and if I can buy one at anything approaching $200 MSRP. There is a price level where I will just continue to scour the land for older GTX cards. (looks at Radeon 6600s and scowls)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

KompuKare

Senior member
Jul 28, 2009
720
266
136
AMD probably designed this chip for mobile applications rather then desktop. If you look at it from that angle, a lot of AMDs choices make sense. Desktop is pretty much an afterthought.
The irony being that AMD have almost no laptop dGpU wins.

Think ComputerBase did a news story a few months ago and they could find almost no 6000 series laptops despite RDNA2 having the performance and more importantly the efficiency to really challenge Ampere.

RDNA2 availability is really dire.

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft ship millions and millions of 7nm consoles.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,582
1,164
136
The irony being that AMD have almost no laptop dGpU wins.
Which could mean AMD is sitting on a large pile of mobile intended GPUs, that are then shunted onto desktop.

I don't know if that's the case, but it would seem likely. Again, if you look at the Navi24 design from a laptop perspective a lot of the design make sense. Small chip, low power consumption/TDP. Very narrow memory bus compensated by basic Infinity Cache and narrow PCIe for simplicity in layout and small footprint on mainboard. Missing AV1 decoder because that's handled on the primary APU. It all fits.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS