ASUS Radeon RX 6500 XT TUF Gaming

[Tetras]

I agree, what I meant and what I was answering to is that given the similar number of compute units the ryzen 6000 APUs should perform quite well and give quite the uplift compared to previous generations.

I don't think there's any info on die size yet for Ryzen 6000, but going by 5000 series APUs which had a 180mm2 die and 4000 series which used 156mm2, and doing some napkin math with the Ryzen chiplet size of ~75mm2 and navi24 size of 100mm2 we'll be looking at pretty damn competent APUs. We can also see that any Ryzen 6000 laptop that ships with a navi24 dGPU will be a waste of silicon and power because it won't offer that much more than what the APU already had (unless we see the return of some crossfire scheme)

Getting near to RX 570 performance in an APU would be quite impressive, but judging by how far they have to push navi24's clocks to achieve this, it seems very unlikely. With fast memory, I think the 5700G is somewhere between the 550 and 560, so with much lower clocks to fit the power envelope, I'm not even sure the APU will be much faster.

 

[Chrispy_]

this irresponsible amounts of mediocrity in new gpu

Well, it's more "an incomplete GPU never designed for use as a standalone solution", turned into a standalone solution because of greed/market desperation.

Knowing now what it really is, it's explains the design choices that seemed odd and unnecessarily dumb for a desktop GPU.

What it doesn't excuse is the price. The MSRP of $199 is insulting and inappropriate, even in the current market. $350 street prices are so ridiculous that you're genuinely better off getting a $175 GTX 970 on ebay

I agree, what I meant and what I was answering to is that given the similar number of compute units the ryzen 6000 APUs should perform quite well and give quite the uplift compared to previous generations.

I don't think there's any info on die size yet for Ryzen 6000, but going by 5000 series APUs which had a 180mm2 die and 4000 series which used 156mm2, and doing some napkin math with the Ryzen chiplet size of ~75mm2 and navi24 size of 100mm2 we'll be looking at pretty damn competent APUs. We can also see that any Ryzen 6000 laptop that ships with a navi24 dGPU will be a waste of silicon and power because it won't offer that much more than what the APU already had (unless we see the return of some crossfire scheme)

The APU will be power-limited to a cTDP of 28-45W most likely, and sharing that budget with the CPU cores and memory controller. So even if it has the full 12x RDNA2 CUs, it will be clocking pretty conservatively given that the graphics portion of the chip will rarely have an opportunity to use more than 50W under boost and closer to 30W sustained.

I wouldn't call Navi24 a waste of silicon. In a laptop it's designed to just be extra RDNA2 CUs that the APU has access to - with additional VRAM and additional cooling hardware because it's isolated silicon. It's highly unlikely that the Navi24 silicon will be boosting to 2.8GHz and is more likely to run at somewhere between maybe 1600MHz and 2200MHz if I had to guess. If it's being paired with 28-45W APUs, the extra Navi24 die will also likely be tuned to consume a similar TDP, perhaps in the region of 35-65W.

There will be a kind of crossfire scheme coming back into play for these, I can't remember which AMD presentation I saw it in - either the RDNA2 slides or Ryzen 6000 slides. It was tied in with a revamp of the dynamic power juggling systems that are only possible with an APU and GPU from the same generation and where AMD controls the entire platform (so APU, dGPU, chipset, motherboard implementation).

Nobody outside AMD has seen it active yet, but that's what AMD's goal is with their active-bridge patent that uses infinity cache to string multiple pieces of RDNA2 silicon together using a narrower bus without huge penalties. I have low expectations of the technology but remain hopeful that it's not the same driver/compatibility/performance disappointment that SLI/crossfire were; This multi-die approach has worked really well for AMD with Ryzen and Epyc. Hopefully they can work the same magic with their GPUs.

Getting near to RX 570 performance in an APU would be quite impressive, but judging by how far they have to push navi24's clocks to achieve this, it seems very unlikely. With fast memory, I think the 5700G is somewhere between the 550 and 560, so with much lower clocks to fit the power envelope, I'm not even sure the APU will be much faster.

I don't think the 12CU in the APU will ever have the power budget to stretch their legs but if we can get even close to a regular GTX 1650 or even beat a 1050Ti that's a pretty significant step up from what we currently have with Vega8.

 

[seth1911]

AMD dont care about retail buyers since Ryzen 2.
No Renoir, no 5300G, B450 and Ryzen 5xxx, A320 and Ryzen 5xxx. blablabla.


AMD is in some ways worse than intel.
AMD can do that for sure but if they fail anytime in the future like Bulldozer they will have a huge problem, cause the Lowbudget Consumers are mostly now by Intel with CPUs like I3 10100F or I5 10400F.
(Alderlake I3 12100F is insane)

 

[Chrispy_]

AMD dont care about retail buyers since Ryzen 2.
No Renoir, no 5300G, B450 and Ryzen 5xxx, A320 and Ryzen 5xxx. blablabla.


AMD is in some ways worse than intel.
AMD can do that for sure but if they fail anytime in the future like Bulldozer they will have a huge problem, cause the Lowbudget Consumers are mostly now by Intel with CPUs like I3 10100F or I5 10400F.
(Alderlake I3 12100F is insane)

Ignoring the low-end segment to maximise profits from limited TSMC allocation is the smartest short-term strategy.

The problem AMD has is that it can no longer be considered "short-term" and the longer term implications of that strategy are a loss of customers. Every Intel B560 or B660 motherboard sold in the entry-level market is a socket that AMD don't make any compatible upgrades to sell later.

 

[catulitechup]

man it's unanimous across the web

glad I'm not the guy that approved making this card. then again, probably sell every single one they make

 

[InVasMani]

Bad as the Navi 24 chip is three of these together in crossfire with good scaling would be close in performance to the top end cards and that's only PCIE x12 link speed throw in a fourth and it should be able to match or beat them potentially in a MCM design. There is actually a possibility a chip like it could be AMD's longer term intentions.

If they can make each operate one x4 PCIE links in a x16 link slot and work great in tandem they'd really have something alright. There is definitely room to improve this type of chip design in the future as well to fix the more negative and less sufficient aspects of the design itself. I'm not saying that's what AMD is doing here or trying to do, but the theoretical possibilities of it aren't that bad at the same time.

A very tough estimation is that the TDP would be about 321w to 428w or less for a 3-way or 4-way MCM chip with these if not a bit lower and the thing of it is AMD could very much improve it a bit in time and in such a design updating the GDDR memory to faster memory periodically would provide a nice lift to the overall design. There is a good bit of room for them to make some hybrid designs as well a 2-way MCM hybrid with a pair of these and a pair of x4 NVME's would be good and a option to SLI them.

The Rembrandt thing is a bit interesting and what if they made a APU like Rembrandt on a discrete GPU!? A bit of 3D stacked cache a with APU that has a Navi 24 chip and a CCX CPU cluster and who knows maybe a NVME slot or two in a PCIE x16 slot and link!? A pair in CF would be neat. If they continued to be x4 they would still be quite interesting on a board with several x16 or x4 slots on it to CF together.

The discrete card itself as it stands certainly sucks, but the Navi 24 chip itself is eyebrow raising in how it might be applied elsewhere especially with some refinement done to it. It could be the start of some new approaches that aren't so bad perhaps. If they could apply the chip itself in other ways it might just turn out to be a better chip than we give credit just not immediately and unlikely with this perticular design short of it having been designed to CF with other Navi 24 chips from the start then possibly it has some redeeming factors that we weren't aware of to it.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

I wouldn't pay £50 for one of these.

 

[trsttte]

Bad as the Navi 24 chip is three of these together in crossfire with good scaling would be close in performance to the top end cards and that's only PCIE x12 link speed throw in a fourth and it should be able to match or beat them potentially in a MCM design. There is actually a possibility a chip like it could be AMD's longer term intentions.

If they can make each operate one x4 PCIE links in a x16 link slot and work great in tandem they'd really have something alright. There is definitely room to improve this type of chip design in the future as well to fix the more negative and less sufficient aspects of the design itself. I'm not saying that's what AMD is doing here or trying to do, but the theoretical possibilities of it aren't that bad at the same time.

Just no.

Crossfire was always at a disadvange to SLI because there was no direct communication between both GPUs, and both technologies failed anyway because any comunication that needs to go through the PCIe slot is orders of magnitude slower than the GPU accessing VRAM. This has not changed, especially when we're talking about only 4x pcie 4.0 lanes which would be the same as the 8x pcie 3.0 lanes you'd have in the old days (bifurcating the x16 slot to have 2 gpus), difference being VRAM now is even faster than it was before.

The laptop scenario has some enticing possibilities but will probably suffer from the same problem - the pcie communications will still be much slower than vram communication so for real time processing (gaming for example) you'll be plagued with stuttering and frame drops.

MCM will certainly work wonders but it is in no way comparable to Crossfire because the GPU has full access to the video memory. What kind of bottlenecks emerge from the architecture remain to be seen - for example each MCM part might not have direct access to the entire memory bus like on the first ryzen chips where the L3 cache was divided per CCX within each CCD and other whatever issues that may happear - but it's a different design case.

 

[tussinman]

I wouldn't pay £50 for one of these.

You know things are real bad when even Shatun_Bear of all people is dissing an AMD product

 

[AdmiralThrawn]

What the hell are they doing. Intel blows them out of the water and the only response they have in the market is a gpu that performs worse than a 570 and 580 in most games. Terrible marketing and absolutly no innovation. The 3050 is a much better card and only 50 dollars more give or take. They could do much better.

 

[catulitechup]

The 3050 is a much better card and only 50 dollars more give or take

 

[Fluffmeister]

You know things are real bad when even Shatun_Bear of all people is dissing an AMD product

I hear ya, I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

 

[AusWolf]

I find it comical that people are still talking about pricing that was 3-5 years ago, and using that as a baseline for what they should be paying for a GPU today. It’s absurd. You can spend the last two years complaining about pricing, or you can move on and just play consoles.

I think $200 for a card that can play most games at 1080P is not a bad proposition, especially for someone who is not looking for anything more than that. Why would I buy a 6800 XT if I don’t need it? You’re complaining about pricing, but on the opposite hand your recommending spending extra dollars just to justify what you think is the most well engineered for an environment you may not need.

I don't know about others, but I'm not complaining about paying $200 for an entry-level card. I'm complaining about paying $200 for an entry-level card that shits itself in a PCI-e 3.0 (and older) slot, misses modern video acceleration features and sips nearly 100 Watts when 3-4 year old cards offer similar performance with no power connector needed.

I read yesterday that the limited display outputs and lack of HW encode/decode features are because Navi24 was never planned as a desktop dGPU. This is the primary reason for the limitation of two display outputs.

It was originally intended as a mobile dGPU to boost Ryzen 6000-series APUs so the removed HW encode/decode blocks are not included because they already exist in the APU and would be a superfluous waste of silicon on the dGPU. The limited memory bus width is also because it was only ever going to be given access to slow main memory over a 64-bit bus. The PCIe x4 interconnect is because that's all it needed to talk directly to the APU, and wider buses drain power and the extra traces take up extremely valuable PCB real estate in a mobile part.

So, this is a laptop dGPU hastily cobbled together into a desktop card and clocked to the moon. It doesn't tell us anything useful about scaling like I originally thought, because it's completely incomparable to the desktop RX6000-series with its GDDR6 and fully-featured silicon.

That's fine, but it doesn't make the final product any less shit.

 

[Chrispy_]

That's fine, but it doesn't make the final product any less shit.

Correct.

In the pre-ETH GPU market, it would be a tough sell at $149. Chances are good the street price would be discounted by 10-20% until it was able to justify its existence over old 5500XT stock (MSRP $169 in 2019) and superior used options like a GTX 1060.

Sadly, the normal GPU market is the ETH GPU market. Gamers get table scraps if they're lucky, and the 6500XT is a pretty meagre table scrap of unwanted offal.

 

[Ravenas]

I don't know about others, but I'm not complaining about paying $200 for an entry-level card. I'm complaining about paying $200 for an entry-level card that shits itself in a PCI-e 3.0 (and older) slot, misses modern video acceleration features and sips nearly 100 Watts when 3-4 year old cards offer similar performance with no power connector needed.

3-4 year older cards have been bringing 350 to 400 dollars on eBay until this time, with relatively less performance with slightly higher power consumption. Those cards are unavailable, except on eBay or bstock. $200 is a market correction, let's see if these cards remain available within 2 to 3 weeks after launch dies down. I find it odd the community is beating up on the definition of an entry level card.

 

[Nihilus]

People expecting significantly more for $200 at this day are just in La La land. The 1650 has been on eBay priced at ~ $299, if it is SO much better go buy them.

Why? Seriously, why? "Expecting more this day and age" is such a weak cop out answer.

Continue to use mining and human malware as excuses for GPU manufactures all you want. However, there was NOTHING forcing AMD in making this such a nerfed card.

 

[Ravenas]

Why? Seriously, why? "Expecting more this day and age" is such a weak cop out answer.

Continue to use mining and human malware as excuses for GPU manufactures all you want. However, there was NOTHING forcing AMD in making this such a nerfed card.

A nerfed card? The 6500 has a target audience, and that audience has a price point of $200 MSRP. The cards launched on Best Buy at that price. Depending on the demand, they may or may not be on the shelves 2 weeks from now.

If I were looking for an entry level PC, with capability of 1080P gaming, this would be one of my choices. If you are complaining about the performance of this card, you probably aren't the target audience for it anyhow.

Pricing of items increases overtime. Supply and demand play in. However, as I recall nVidia has been the only enthusiast grade GPU on the market until AMD's 6900 XT. The Titan was priced accordingly, and so are current generation cards. IF you are looking to buy them second hand, you will certainly be paying elevated pricing.

 

[AusWolf]

3-4 year older cards have been bringing 350 to 400 dollars on eBay until this time, with relatively less performance with slightly higher power consumption. Those cards are unavailable, except on eBay or bstock. $200 is a market correction, let's see if these cards remain available within 2 to 3 weeks after launch dies down. I find it odd the community is beating up on the definition of an entry level card.

That would be a fair point if you could stick the 6500 XT into a pci-e 3.0 or 2.0 port the same way you can those old cards.

As for power consumption, being on par with 3-4 year old cards with similar performance is OK, but I wouldn't call it an achievement of the new 6 nm process. Nvidia delivers the same power to performance ratio on 12 nm. A GPU of this class should not need a power connector anno 2022.

A nerfed card? The 6500 has a target audience, and that audience has a price point of $200 MSRP. The cards launched on Best Buy at that price. Depending on the demand, they may or may not be on the shelves 2 weeks from now.

If I were looking for an entry level PC, with capability of 1080P gaming, this would be one of my choices. If you are complaining about the performance of this card, you probably aren't the target audience for it anyhow.

Pricing of items increases overtime. Supply and demand play in. However, as I recall nVidia has been the only enthusiast grade GPU on the market until AMD's 6900 XT. The Titan was priced accordingly, and so are current generation cards. IF you are looking to buy them second hand, you will certainly be paying elevated pricing.

AMD targeted scalped ebay prices, that's the problem. Graphics card have been set to reasonable MSRPs so far, but with the 6500 XT, AMD decided to "scalp" their own product. If $200 was the final ebay price (and not MSRP), nobody would complain.

 

[Ravenas]

That would be a fair point if you could stick the 6500 XT into a pci-e 3.0 or 2.0 port the same way you can those old cards.

As for power consumption, being on par with 3-4 year old cards with similar performance is OK, but I wouldn't call it an achievement of the new 6 nm process. Nvidia delivers the same power to performance ratio on 12 nm. A GPU of this class should not need a power connector anno 2022.


AMD targeted scalped ebay prices, that's the problem. Graphics card have been set to reasonable MSRPs so far, but with the 6500 XT, AMD decided to "scalp" their own product. If $200 was the final ebay price (and not MSRP), nobody would complain.

Scalped eBay prices are $350-400 for 1650 or 570/590 pre 6500 XT (they are probably on a downward trend now). AMD 6500 XT MSRP is $200. I don't see AMD targeting any scalpers as a reference for pricing. In my mind, the card is worth more than $100 and not worth more than $200. $200 graphics budget is a nice price point for an entry level PC with a dedicated GPU.

Again, the card is not (exceptionally) good, but it is not bad either. It meets a need for an entry level 1080P dedicated GPU. The community bashing this piece of technology is somewhat trendy or "bandwagon" to me.

As a younger man, in 2012 I purchased an FX 8350. I can vaguely recall the amount of criticism that CPU received. I used it for a medium range gaming rig from 2012 to 2018. The key point was that compared to the Intel juggernaut of the time, it met a price point of $189. That CPU received plenty of criticism here and elsewhere, but for me, it was the perfect performance for the price. To each their own budget/need for gaming happiness.

 

[AusWolf]

Scalped eBay prices are $350-400 for 1650 or 570/590 pre 6500 XT (they are probably on a downward trend now). AMD 6500 XT MSRP is $200. I don't see AMD targeting any scalpers as a reference for pricing. In my mind, the card is worth more than $100 and not worth more than $200. $200 graphics budget is a nice price point for an entry level PC with a dedicated GPU.

Here in the UK, the 6500 XT starts around £220-250. You can have a 1650 for £200 on ebay. Then you can stick it into a pci-e 3.0 or 2.0 slot and be happy with it. With the 6500 XT, you need 4.0 which means AMD B550, X570 or Intel B560, Z590, B660 or Z690. The Intel 600 platforms are expensive, and the cheapest CPU you can get for the others to do pci-e 4.0 is either the Core i5-11400 or the Ryzen 5 5600X. Either way, it isn't cheap. If you just want a graphics card, you can pretty much forget about the 6500 XT. For $200 MSRP, it won't even perform like a $100 card in your old system.

 

[Ravenas]

Here in the UK, the 6500 XT starts around £220-250. You can have a 1650 for £200 on ebay. Then you can stick it into a pci-e 3.0 or 2.0 slot and be happy with it. With the 6500 XT, you need 4.0 which means AMD B550, X570 or Intel B560, Z590, B660 or Z690. The Intel 600 platforms are expensive, and the cheapest CPU you can get for the others to do pci-e 4.0 is either the Core i5-11400 or the Ryzen 5 5600X. Either way, it isn't cheap. If you just want a graphics card, you can pretty much forget about the 6500 XT. For $200 MSRP, it won't even perform like a $100 card in your old system.

I disagree, B550 boards are cheap. Best Buy has the 6500 XT at $200 MSRP. The range on Newegg is $199 to $269.

1650 used $289 https://www.ebay.com/itm/224801724151?epid=4035949541&hash=item34573a16f7:g:kqsAAOSwiWJh6tqk

1650 new $350 https://www.ebay.com/itm/185225818437?epid=8035384595&_trkparms=ispr=1&hash=item2b2051b145:g:qzcAAOSwIblhw64p&amdata=enc:AQAGAAACkPYe5NmHp%2B2JMhMi7yxGiTJkPrKr5t53CooMSQt2orsS7UXID%2BRPOSNsnm8kYPghtCBIQ9r00zrT5VqpN2KQKysYAcfjWzSW%2B21AIx8PQgVzB2oHgQmiCgDPlt%2BnMxuk3iAY8xN95t%2Bqck%2FWbO2mB8Z0NZANc91wFl7iimeO6OZL6dyFY1HiDLQ3LZgWFLq%2Bm7HeHB91gvkV4KXJU6avKICXuyrMckYMOKSgpz8rYoR0pt4zMCs1olPVcV8ln%2BLayU4xDgnUPmzchCNBCG7wCYg7pB5w%2Bd%2Bzfs1B84FnN01ejaL497CXjZsT8eYW%2Ba8CokknzvKWejMxNnwHCLGpLR8ahA4u7EOowmKLM4Z5o2bG18exYcTiDV0t8g%2BaQ5Wn5jaEZoljh7dVwjs7sBDFFOELMZlxMkTj7FIjhFTXq%2Bk3%2BedPBwWoAYG8ByX81HIoMJcDFxy6gjwzhTJe9rAr97aZ1zIhA3Hngo7nWLPdXmJ7ralRKlhWP17%2Bz2zoiJYlr8sqptOk3DopteQid%2BD39ZarC%2BzU0KZ83JL%2B0hpx%2F5bhMFq6uHCvuiPtV%2BN2uBKNWsHB9uNX8fyyulSz2%2Fjt7jEGdNd7zraaJ%2B%2FexG%2Fu1KwOz9b2yOxCbK6fLSAEhPd7oy6kLfg%2BlIy%2FySjV2ngI3IJD5bmMOTLdKzFzl1fs2s2oCCMYH9Gdy7hdW%2BROUezopNJZdaXgyqFWxnpRJuniD4gu%2Fwp0eHy%2FdztilWsBxFAy21xH2frjHRpMONbwhOrGTm6PYANZZUk3s9Y3YHg7Tj68S%2Fi9MVFQuhGfgO5KLjez4LAbAKEj%2B%2FLsaVTZRwJ7OZHRsVOmfMgOYLscE1u5WSwQSmQlh4Esp9l2RxWtxQnG|clp:2334524|tkp:BFBMguKG8c9f

1650 used $229 https://www.ebay.com/itm/304306850669?epid=5040500813&hash=item46da1a0b6d:g:tS8AAOSwjGBh34Xe

570 used $240 https://www.ebay.com/itm/165294873370?epid=6031752144&hash=item267c579b1a:g:R0UAAOSw2eFh6yYj

 

[trsttte]

The 5500xt 4gb launched at 169$, the 8gb quickly followed at 200$, both perform better than the now 200$ 6500xt.

The 6500xt is an awesome product for whoever has no other choice. It might be the best thing you can actually get, but there's no reason why anyone should be happy about it.

 

[Ravenas]

The 5500xt 4gb launched at 169$, the 8gb quickly followed at 200$, both perform better than the now 200$ 6500xt.

The 6500xt is an awesome product for whoever has no other choice. It might be the best thing you can actually get, but there's no reason why anyone should be happy about it.

Supply and demand. Inflation. All factors which have increased computer part pricing. I have stated multiple times that I purchased a Sapphire 5700 XT Nitro for $470 new, and sold it a little more than a year ago for $900 on eBay.

Pricing is not 100% resistant to all the factors associated with scalping, supply and demand, and inflation. Those who want to game with good frames today at 4K ultra settings have to make a conscious decision to say I'm all in because pricing is obviously high right now.

What I have stated is that if my mission was to get an entry level PC for gaming at 1080P, I would have absolutely no problem with the 6500 XT being one of my options. The wave of criticism in that regard is unwarranted. One alternative could just be settling for console gaming, and those are also effected by all of the previously mentioned factors.

 

[AusWolf]

I disagree, B550 boards are cheap. Best Buy has the 6500 XT at $200 MSRP. The range on Newegg is $199 to $269.

1650 used $289 https://www.ebay.com/itm/224801724151?epid=4035949541&hash=item34573a16f7:g:kqsAAOSwiWJh6tqk

1650 new $350 https://www.ebay.com/itm/185225818437?epid=8035384595&_trkparms=ispr=1&hash=item2b2051b145:g:qzcAAOSwIblhw64p&amdata=enc:AQAGAAACkPYe5NmHp%2B2JMhMi7yxGiTJkPrKr5t53CooMSQt2orsS7UXID%2BRPOSNsnm8kYPghtCBIQ9r00zrT5VqpN2KQKysYAcfjWzSW%2B21AIx8PQgVzB2oHgQmiCgDPlt%2BnMxuk3iAY8xN95t%2Bqck%2FWbO2mB8Z0NZANc91wFl7iimeO6OZL6dyFY1HiDLQ3LZgWFLq%2Bm7HeHB91gvkV4KXJU6avKICXuyrMckYMOKSgpz8rYoR0pt4zMCs1olPVcV8ln%2BLayU4xDgnUPmzchCNBCG7wCYg7pB5w%2Bd%2Bzfs1B84FnN01ejaL497CXjZsT8eYW%2Ba8CokknzvKWejMxNnwHCLGpLR8ahA4u7EOowmKLM4Z5o2bG18exYcTiDV0t8g%2BaQ5Wn5jaEZoljh7dVwjs7sBDFFOELMZlxMkTj7FIjhFTXq%2Bk3%2BedPBwWoAYG8ByX81HIoMJcDFxy6gjwzhTJe9rAr97aZ1zIhA3Hngo7nWLPdXmJ7ralRKlhWP17%2Bz2zoiJYlr8sqptOk3DopteQid%2BD39ZarC%2BzU0KZ83JL%2B0hpx%2F5bhMFq6uHCvuiPtV%2BN2uBKNWsHB9uNX8fyyulSz2%2Fjt7jEGdNd7zraaJ%2B%2FexG%2Fu1KwOz9b2yOxCbK6fLSAEhPd7oy6kLfg%2BlIy%2FySjV2ngI3IJD5bmMOTLdKzFzl1fs2s2oCCMYH9Gdy7hdW%2BROUezopNJZdaXgyqFWxnpRJuniD4gu%2Fwp0eHy%2FdztilWsBxFAy21xH2frjHRpMONbwhOrGTm6PYANZZUk3s9Y3YHg7Tj68S%2Fi9MVFQuhGfgO5KLjez4LAbAKEj%2B%2FLsaVTZRwJ7OZHRsVOmfMgOYLscE1u5WSwQSmQlh4Esp9l2RxWtxQnG|clp:2334524|tkp:BFBMguKG8c9f

1650 used $229 https://www.ebay.com/itm/304306850669?epid=5040500813&hash=item46da1a0b6d:g:tS8AAOSwjGBh34Xe

570 used $240 https://www.ebay.com/itm/165294873370?epid=6031752144&hash=item267c579b1a:g:R0UAAOSw2eFh6yYj

B550 is cheap, but the cheapest CPU you can currently buy that allows you to use pci-e 4.0 is the 5600X, which brings the price up quite a bit. If you need a temporary solution, you're better off with a 5600G and it's integrated graphics until you can buy a proper x16 card. Or even better, buy Intel B560 and a 10th gen Core i3. With the money you save, you may be able to afford a 6600 or 3060. There are many better options than the 6500 XT, and that's what I mean: it's not a bad card, but being on pci-e x4 limits it so much that basically every other option you have is a better alternative.

 

[Ravenas]

B550 is cheap, but the cheapest CPU you can currently buy that allows you to use pci-e 4.0 is the 5600X, which brings the price up quite a bit. If you need a temporary solution, you're better off with a 5600G and it's integrated graphics until you can buy a proper x16 card. Or even better, buy Intel B560 and a 10th gen Core i3. With the money you save, you may be able to afford a 6600 or 3060. There are many better options than the 6500 XT, and that's what I mean: it's not a bad card, but being on pci-e x4 limits it so much that basically every other option you have is a better alternative.

I hear where you are coming from, however, APU technology is not quite there. The 5600G will garner you about ~26 average FPS across 1080P game suite. Conversely, you are looking at an average of ~64 FPS across 1080P game suite with the 5600 XT. It's not really a temporary solution, because you would be incapable of even achieving an average of 30 FPS with an APU.

If you are looking at getting into PC gaming, and are ok with absolute entry level 1080P performance with fluid FPS accordingly, you have to start at entry level pricing. This is just a consequence of taking the plunge.