Wednesday, June 12th 2024

ASRock Intros Radeon RX 6500 XT 8GB Phantom Gaming

by
btarunr
 Discuss (47 Comments)
ASRock this week introduced the Radeon RX 6500 XT 8 GB Phantom Gaming graphics card. The RX 6500 XT comes with a reference memory size of 4 GB over the tiny 64-bit GDDR6 memory bus of the "Navi 24" silicon it's based on, but ASRock decided to double this, probably using high-density 32 Gbit memory chips, or two sets of 16 Gbit chips piggybacking each other. The card is spruced up with Phantom Gaming styling, is 24 cm long, standard height, and 2 slots thick. The cooling solution features an aluminium fin-stack heatsink that's ventilated by a pair of fans. Power is drawn from a single 8-pin PCIe power connector. Display outputs include one each of DisplayPort 1.4, and HDMI 2.1 with VRR. This isn't the first RX 6500 XT with 8 GB, Sapphire has had an 8 GB Pulse graphics card in its lineup for a while now. ASRock didn't reveal the pricing of this card.
Source: VideoCardz

Related News

Add your own comment

47 Comments on ASRock Intros Radeon RX 6500 XT 8GB Phantom Gaming

#26
TheinsanegamerN
FiredropsI distinctively recall AMD swearing up and down that the physical laws of the universe made it IMPOSSIBLE for this die to have more than 4 GB.

Just like how they swore up and down that AM4 literally could not support 5000 series CPUs no matter what while forcing their partners to un-release perfectly working compatible bios updates.

Damn, thought AMD was my friend and would never lie to me.
Yeah, AMD swears about a lot of things. Remember how they swore that 8GB was outdated (which it is) then proceeded to release a 4GB card? Good times.

Ah well, somehow out of this idiocy we got a 4060LP card which was actually a decent upgrade over the 1650LP and the joke RX 6400.
Posted on Reply
#27
Beginner Macro Device
FiredropsDamn, thought AMD was my friend and would never lie to me.
Literally any big corporation is not your friend. They're just sharking around, always hungry for your pesos, Franklins and whatnot. You owe them nothing.
Posted on Reply
#28
ARF
Beginner Macro Device0. AMD should, not AsRock.
If you have read my comment till the end, you would have noticed that I say it :D
ARFASRock should release RX 7600 SE or RX 7500 on the base of 28-CU Navi 33, and if possible make the cards without the awful coil whine.
While AMD could at least try to assist and act more proactively in the process.
Not to mention the much needed N3 pipe cleaner.

This is simply a desperate attempt to activate the sales, without having a proper solution what exactly to release.
Posted on Reply
#29
JWNoctis
Beginner Macro DeviceHow? You can't compete with GPUs of same performance but of 1/3rd the price. Like, literally 70 USD VS 200 USD.

6500 XT was, is and will be one of the most terrible graphics solutions ever. GTX 1630, though, is still worse.
As flawed as 6500 XT is, they do still work as new, unlike the other option, which are often remarked, almost certainly flashed with the wrong bios, coupled with a counterfeit and more or less pointless cooling solution, or plain don't work with no warranty or return policy, given the number of threads going around about those lately. With luck, maybe the going rate of this card would even be less than $200.

People used to be able to grab a solid video card for $200, inflation included, or at least something that works for $70. It's a bloody shame.
Posted on Reply
#30
Beginner Macro Device
JWNoctisunlike the other option, which are often remarked, almost certainly flashed with the wrong bios, coupled with a counterfeit and more or less pointless cooling solution, or plain don't work with no warranty or return policy, given the number of threads going around about those lately
That's why the rule #1 of buying old/used stuff is to check before paying. Unfortunately, we got a cesspool of people desperate for a GPU so much they just order them online, ultimately gambling with odds not even nearly hot.

All RX 470/80/570/80 I've ever bought are still in good condition, every single one of them has the correct BIOS (except my personal one that's undergoing fine tuning, I'm still in search of the best freq/voltage curve) and appropriate cooling if we don't count one poor thing that died of KCAS. Never use KCAS PSUs, especially in mining operations!

However, for 200 bucks, it's an easy RX 6600 or even RTX 3060 on the aftermarket. Which is... tenfold better than RX 6500 XT. Even if we don't get any warranty whatsoever.
Posted on Reply
#31
AusWolf
FiredropsI distinctively recall AMD swearing up and down that the physical laws of the universe made it IMPOSSIBLE for this die to have more than 4 GB.
Then Sapphire said "hold my beer".
FiredropsJust like how they swore up and down that AM4 literally could not support 5000 series CPUs no matter what while forcing their partners to un-release perfectly working compatible bios updates.
As I recall, they promised that the update for 5000 series support would come, but waited with it an awful long time.
FiredropsDamn, thought AMD was my friend and would never lie to me.
No company is your friend. Welcome to capitalism.
Posted on Reply
#32
AnotherReader
FiredropsI distinctively recall AMD swearing up and down that the physical laws of the universe made it IMPOSSIBLE for this die to have more than 4 GB.

Just like how they swore up and down that AM4 literally could not support 5000 series CPUs no matter what while forcing their partners to un-release perfectly working compatible bios updates.

Damn, thought AMD was my friend and would never lie to me.
Do you have any link to back up that accusation? Any one familiar with how discrete GPUs access memory knows that you can use two devices per 32-bit memory bus to double capacity.

Posted on Reply
#34
Beginner Macro Device
Shtb1630 is not a 11-year-old GPU.
However, it still performs about as weakly as GTX 760 which is, believe me or not, an average 11 year old GPU.
Posted on Reply
#35
Random_User
What? Really? April the first was three month ago. The card was DOA four years ago.
Seriously. I understand, that the card might find some use, in e.g. terminals, etc. But it's a digrace to the PCB, cooling and resources wasted on this garbage. There are better GPUs to be used. The low profile single/dual slot card, is maximum what it should have had. And 64 bid bus is a colmplete joke.

Although the cooler is cheaply made, it still uses copper for for heatpipes and traces, as much as aluminium, and PCB components, which again, could have find a much better use. This feels like intentionally securing the bottom line prices, by releasing the trash cards with trash chips, just to have a reason to not lower the prices for the rest of the stack. Because I'm sure, this card won't be sold for less than $170-$180 real prices in the stores.
Posted on Reply
#37
RaceT3ch
Shtb1630 is not a 11-year-old GPU.
Yes, it's not 6500 here, it's 6400, and it's not as bad as it gets sloped all the time.





I was comparing GTX 700 series. I didn't mention that.
Posted on Reply
#38
_JP_
To all of you yelling "8GB from the start", remember the mining craze had requirements. Entire containers of your beloveds mid-ranges and above were being diverted to farms. The rest was a scalper's fest.
This is nothing short of the same type of announcement of the GTX1650 with GDDR6, over GDDR5. It gives, at best, a 9~11% "oomph" in 3 or 4 scenarios. No price change over the current stuff.
Notwithstanding, corporations are not classified as charity for a reason. Your wallet has power, use it.
Posted on Reply
#39
RaceT3ch
_JP_To all of you yelling "8GB from the start", remember the mining craze had requirements. Entire containers of your beloveds mid-ranges and above were being diverted to farms. The rest was a scalper's fest.
This is nothing short of the same type of announcement of the GTX1650 with GDDR6, over GDDR5. It gives, at best, a 9~11% "oomph" in 3 or 4 scenarios. No price change over the current stuff.
Notwithstanding, corporations are not classified as charity for a reason. Your wallet has power, use it.
If 6500 XT had 8GB VRAM it would still be terrible. If it had about 1300-1400 stream processors and a 96-128 bit memory bus it might be okay.
Posted on Reply
#40
_JP_
RaceT3chIf 6500 XT had 8GB VRAM it would still be terrible. If it had about 1300-1400 stream processors and a 96-128 bit memory bus it might be okay.
Agreed (and it does have right now in the shape of a Sapphire Pulse), but your argument is for it to match it's current price-point. If this chip was sold at sub-$90, as the entry-level was for over a decade, nobody would complain...nobody would care enough to begin with. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#41
kapone32
_JP_Agreed (and it does have right now in the shape of a Sapphire Pulse), but your argument is for it to match it's current price-point. If this chip was sold at sub-$90, as the entry-level was for over a decade, nobody would complain...nobody would care enough to begin with. :laugh:
When the 6500XT launched it was $229 CAD retail. The next card up was the 6600 for over $600> Even a 6800XT was as high as $1400 at the time. They were cheap enough to buy one. As much as the card is maligned it does have it's features. 8GB of VRAM will help as the chip is fast and OCs well but just look at the 7600XT 16GB. You need to have the right amount of GPU performance to have VRAM start to make a real difference.
Posted on Reply
#42
A Computer Guy
Keullo-eThe 6500 XT should've been a 8GB card from the beginning.


My Powercolor 6700 XT Fighter has a thing to say. :D
It would be funny if they made a 12GB version.
Posted on Reply
#43
AusWolf
_JP_To all of you yelling "8GB from the start", remember the mining craze had requirements. Entire containers of your beloveds mid-ranges and above were being diverted to farms. The rest was a scalper's fest.
This is nothing short of the same type of announcement of the GTX1650 with GDDR6, over GDDR5. It gives, at best, a 9~11% "oomph" in 3 or 4 scenarios. No price change over the current stuff.
Notwithstanding, corporations are not classified as charity for a reason. Your wallet has power, use it.
RaceT3chIf 6500 XT had 8GB VRAM it would still be terrible. If it had about 1300-1400 stream processors and a 96-128 bit memory bus it might be okay.
Did you guys watch the Hardware Unboxed video posted above? The 6500 XT with 8 GB VRAM is a fine card. The only thing not fine about it is its price.
Posted on Reply
#44
RaceT3ch
AusWolfDid you guys watch the Hardware Unboxed video posted above? The 6500 XT with 8 GB VRAM is a fine card. The only thing not fine about it is its price.
What about the 4 lanes of PCIE 4.0? People who want this card often have a PCIE 3.0 system
Posted on Reply
#45
TheinsanegamerN
RaceT3chWhat about the 4 lanes of PCIE 4.0? People who want this card often have a PCIE 3.0 system
This was mainly an issue because of VRAM limitations, which this card fixes. With sufficient VRAM PCIe bus speed does not matter. If you want to be technical, the 4090 was the first GPU to show any real performance difference between 3.0 and 4.0, and even then it was like 3% or something.

Now, you run out of VRAM, THEN it becomes a major problem, as the launch 6400 showed.
Posted on Reply
#46
RaceT3ch
TheinsanegamerNThis was mainly an issue because of VRAM limitations, which this card fixes. With sufficient VRAM PCIe bus speed does not matter. If you want to be technical, the 4090 was the first GPU to show any real performance difference between 3.0 and 4.0, and even then it was like 3% or something.

Now, you run out of VRAM, THEN it becomes a major problem, as the launch 6400 showed.
What about this then?
Posted on Reply
#47
AusWolf
RaceT3chWhat about this then?
That's with the 4 GB card. With the 8 GB one, the differences are less pronounced in most cases. Hardware Unboxed made a video on that, too.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 15th, 2024 23:48 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts