Discussion Radeon 6500XT and 6400

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,425
1,739
136
www.teamjuchems.com
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.
Strategically and likely contractually that seems like a better move for AMD.

One could argue that many more of those consoles would have already sold had they existed.

They sell everything they ship regardless. It’s an insane situation.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,971
3,587
136
300€ with VAT is not the worst in the world. I expected much worse in terms of price inflation.
 

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
899
589
136
Those hoping for PCIe only power...

I get the feeling AMD had to push the clock speed as the reduced CU count just sucked performance wise, hence the 107W. AMD announces the card and then comes the "drip, drip" of bad news, like the PCIe 4x, >75W & a EU/UK "MSRP" of €299/£299.
This card is nearly without a niche then. It's beating the 1650 by 20-60% using 40% more power. But it has a 33% higher MSRP while also being completely useless as a video transcoding device.

What is its target market? Seriously. I know they'll sell because of the current market but AMD didn't know that would persist/exist when they planned Navi 24.
 
Last edited:

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,577
1,162
136
107 mm2 O_O.

That thing is hilariously small.
Compared to today's chips certainly. Historically, not really. F.x. GT218 (GT210 / 260 million transistors) was 57mm2. Cedar (HD5450 / 292 million) was 59mm2. Now, that's small.

Now, the amount of transistors (5.4 billion) packed into Navi24 is impressive. That's more then a GTX1060 (4.4 billion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Mopetar

SteinFG

Junior Member
Dec 29, 2021
21
39
51
around 540 GPUs in a single wafer, compared to 240 navi 23 dies, or 160 navi 22 dies. Crazy. I would really like to see a die shot!
 

TESKATLIPOKA

Senior member
May 1, 2020
566
603
106
If each wafer costs 12500 USD, each N24 die costs AMD just 23 dollars.

It has absurdly high profit margin, for such small die.
As you said, N24 is very expensive compared to It's size.

RX 5500XT's MSRP was only 169 dollars at launch, It has 4 memory chips instead of 2 in N24 and chip size is 158 mm2(48% bigger).
I am utterly disappointed in this product, the worst GPU from AMD in many years.
It's expensive, has low amount of Vram, high TDP, cut-down media and PCIe support, only passable performance at Full HD.

AMD should have really invested a bit more transistors, so N24 would look much better.
 
Last edited:

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,425
1,739
136
www.teamjuchems.com
As you said, N24 is very expensive compared to It's size.

RX 5500XT's MSRP was only 169 dollars at launch, It has 4 memory chips instead of 2 in N24 and chip size is 158 mm2(48% bigger).
I am utterly disappointed in this product, the worst GPU from AMD in many years.
It's expensive, has low amount of Vram, high TDP, cut-down media support, passable performance at Full HD.

AMD should have really invested a bit more transistors, so N24 would look much better.
It seems like the road map that probably existed back in the day, the 6600 would like have been easily sub $200 and this was meant to be sold to people playing Fortnite and the like and needed a GPU to stuff in their cheap PC. It wouldn’t have made sense to make this anything more than what it is.

@LightningZ71 wasn’t wrong, I don’t think this was in the AMD roadmap as a mainstream gaming GPU. It just happens to have worked out that way.

Any more vram and it’s just another mining card we can’t buy. 🤷‍♂️

The lack of a 4GB 3050 doesn’t help either.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,971
3,587
136
Whats the BoM though? I mean, there are a couple more parts involved.

As a percentage of BoM is it historically low?
Whole GPU, including packaging, shipment costs, etc should cost less than 50$ per GPU. Its stupidly cheap.
As you said, N24 is very expensive compared to It's size.

RX 5500XT's MSRP was only 169 dollars at launch, It has 4 memory chips instead of 2 in N24 and chip size is 158 mm2(48% bigger).
I am utterly disappointed in this product, the worst GPU from AMD in many years.
It's expensive, has low amount of Vram, high TDP, cut-down media and PCIe support, only passable performance at Full HD.

AMD should have really invested a bit more transistors, so N24 would look much better.
With everything I agree, except the last part.

If N24 would be that 141 mm2 - I would say so they should have invested more and simply bring 256-512 more ALUs, 32 bit bus more and 8 MB Infinity cache, and full encoding and decoding capabilities, clock it lower and we would have perfect 95W TDP, RTX 2060 performance competitor for 199-250$.

But with 107 mm2 die size its extremely apparent what AMD targeted. As high Rasterization performance, for as small die size, and as low manufacturing costs as possible.

Its rubbish as a product, its rubbish value, but its the best value that we have. I believe that with time, relatively soon the price will go towards that 199$ MSRP price tag.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,425
1,739
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Usually, the guidance I have been taught is that your MSRP needs to be at least 5X the base price of the ood in question.

That excludes all import costs, etc. are those the shipment costs you are referencing? I would expect in a retail box these would cost about $2-$5 per unit in a container right now. I imagine these will be in the tiniest boxes possible!

So a card that costs $50 at costs selling for $200 seems not that much of a mark up. There an insane number of costs and overhead incurred before someone gets that from Best Buy or dropped via a shipper from New Egg.

That the chip comprises about 50% of the BoM - is that typical?
 
  • Like
Reactions: maddie

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,225
1,238
136
Since the chip has absorbed a portion of what was once the total BOM by using Infinity Cache to replace two channels of VRAM, it does make sense that it would be higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blckgrffn

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,600
1,281
136
Final price has nothing to do with costs. Thats not how it works. If cost has to be a deciding factor, then you screwed up.

Since the chip has absorbed a portion of what was once the total BOM by using Infinity Cache to replace two channels of VRAM, it does make sense that it would be higher.
Considering they are releasing 12CUs on a APU whiout any IF cache and even less bandwidth, there is a chance that Navi 24 does not need any more bandwidth than what it already has. The IF cache may be there as a power saving/TDP reduction.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,002
1,335
136
300€ with VAT is not the worst in the world. I expected much worse in terms of price inflation.
This thing barley(if at all) beats a 290x in performance and let's remember 290x could be had in 2015 for less than 300. So basically performance/$ parity after a whooping 7 years. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY