Do you want AMD to make better low-end graphics cards?

[ARF]

The thing is that AMD's lowest card Radeon RX 6400 4 GB is very limited and according to TPU's general performance chart, it falls so much down that RTX 4090 is rated at 827% the performance!

Do you want to see a Radeon for $150 which compared to not 830% but to 400% with RTX 4090?

Do you want AMD to start using the latest fab technology (TSMC N3, "3 nm") for the entry value graphics cards?

AMD Radeon RX 6400 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

 

[Tomgang]

Hornestly. All of the low end gpu's available, specially if you are looking for a low power cards that can be powered by the pcie bus alone, Is a joke.

I mean what are there to choose?
RX 6400 is just a laptop gpu in desktop format, only running x4 on pcie lane.
GTX 1650, meh pretty old by now.
GTX 1630 was such a joke and just gave me bad taste.
Then there are the others like gt 710 still sold, gt 1030 and so on. More like a display adapter, calling them a grafich card is a joke.
And none of these cards have more than 4 gb vram at best and it as been like that since gtx 1050/ti launched.

So yes I apselutely want both amd and nvidia to make better low-end gpu's. What they offer now is either old tech or just plain boring.

I was in the same problem only a few months ago wanted to replace my GTX 1650 with gddr5 memory. But the truth is that there was no alternative to a good replacement for a gpu only powered by the bus itself. Gtx 1650 was simply even 2-3 years after launching still one if the fastest card available. This should tell how bad and how little bofh nvidia and amd care about the low end segment of gpu's

I searched Google empty for info on a replacement card. There where nothing worth to upgrade to. First when I search in nvidia professional lineup, I actually found what I was looking for. Simply a rtx 3050 look a like card with more than 4 gb vram that could be powered by the bus alone.

The solution was rtx a2000 and that's why I have a rtx a2000 today. There where simply no other card that offered everything I wanted from a little card.

 

[wolf]

I'd love to see them make compelling low end cards, the 6500XT was a frikken insult and an especially insulting time, and one of the only redeeming features of the 6400 is low profile single slot.

If AMD don't try and repurpose mobile dies to fleece buyers, yeah I think they can make a compelling 7500/7400 series this time, they have to actually try make a good product instead of trying to make a mediocre one be super profitable.

 

[Toothless]

Yes, if they're priced right. Not everyone needs raytracing 8k realistic nudes at 240fps. Most of my friends play at 1080p and are staying there for a long while still, and don't need anything special.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Seriously. We used to get capable, affordable x50 and even sometimes x40 cards from both camps, cards that could comfortably run 1080p less than 200 bucks. We haven't seen that since GTX 1050 and RX 560.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's pretty clear they abandoned the 75W desktop segment - which is what a really big chunk of OEM desktops are in.

I don't really understand it. You would expect a card like the 6400 to perform better than a 1650, but it doesn't. Meanwhile everything else like the 3050 and 6500XT have moved up +50W - a 66% increase - in power requirement and need a 6-pin.

Maybe these new process nodes aren't really all that efficient after all? I'd expect to see something like +30-50% at the same power draw available by now. That's a big market they seem to have just blown off.

 

[HTC]

I may consider a 7500X (or non X) depending on price and power consumption.

My current RX 480 4GB is showing it's age ...

 

[Courier 6]

Yeah, would be nice to have some affordable options, prices are really absurd

 

[freeagent]

It would be nice if they dropped the top tier pricing and go back to selling a lot of cards. Surely they have to see that people are not buying like they used to

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I think the process nodes have gotten expensive to a point where making a good sub 200 usd gpu isn't viable anymore from a business perspective. I think around 250-300 usd is probably the floor.

Maybe AMD's new chiplet gpus will help with that but I'm doubtful. The 7900XTX only has 16 more compute units vs the 6900XT and cost pretty much the same. Will a theoretical 7500XT be faster than its predecessor sure, it actually being good will probably be subjective but I personally think anything under the current gen 6600 is pretty dismal and expect anything under the 7600 to follow suit

 

[SL2]

To me it seems like the RX 6600 is the only one that comes close to what you're looking for.

220 USD, 120 W in games, which is 5 W more than the 1660 Ti.
Even my 10 year old 660 TI used more than that.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=511&sort=price

Maybe you'd prefer a tad cooler or cheaper, but then you get all the compromises you mentioned, as in cheap for the sake of just being cheap, and nothing else.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Well of course you'd answer yes to this. Anything to give end users more value for $ !

It's pretty clear they abandoned the 75W desktop segment - which is what a really big chunk of OEM desktops are in.

I don't really understand it. You would expect a card like the 6400 to perform better than a 1650, but it doesn't. Meanwhile everything else like the 3050 and 6500XT have moved up +50W - a 66% increase - in power requirement and need a 6-pin.

Maybe these new process nodes aren't really all that efficient after all? I'd expect to see something like +30-50% at the same power draw available by now. That's a big market they seem to have just blown off.

Without getting too technical, perhaps they are up against the laws of physics with regards to electricity consumption & the shrinking of transistors to fit as many as possible into a designated physical size?

 

[HTC]

To me it seems like the RX 6600 is the only one that comes close to what you're looking for.

220 USD, 120 W in games, which is 5 W more than the 1660 Ti.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=511&sort=price

Maybe you'd prefer a tad cooler or cheaper, but then you get all the compromises you mentioned, as in cheap for the sake of just being cheap, and nothing else.

It's "a tad" more expensive here in Portugal:

 

[SL2]

It's "a tad" more expensive here in Portugal:

Well, obviously I can't speak for the whole world.

Too bad tho, that's €200 more than in Germany. Even in ES it's cheaper.

 

[Lew Zealand]

A 6500 and 6400 equivalent with:

32 MB Infinity Cache
96-bit bus
6GB VRAM (with that 96-bit bus)
8x PCIe 4.0 (for those PCIe 3.0 people)

Even the hardware encoder can be left out for pure gamers but why not just include them, eh?

 

[SL2]

@HTC
If you can use amazon.es you might have better options.

https://www.amazon.es/Powercolor-6600-8GB-Fighter-minorista/dp/B09H3PY14M

 

[RandallFlagg]

Without getting too technical, perhaps they are up against the laws of physics with regards to electricity consumption & the shrinking of transistors to fit as many as possible into a designated physical size?

I think @oxrufiioxo nailed it.

The cost per chip started increasing when they went past 7nm, it had always shrunk before that. It really didn't go down much going from 10/12nm -> 7nm. There are sources to validate this statement that have been posted before, but it's fundamentally true - and this was before the pandemic, not a recent inflation caused thing.

It's probably just not cost effective to try to make a sub $200 GPU, at least not a decent one.

This trend of ignoring the lower end of everything will probably creep upwards to infect the midrange too. I suspect we are near the apex of affordable computing.

 

[SL2]

Even the hardware encoder can be left out for pure gamers but why not just include them, eh?

Because it's a cost cut mobile chip? As in intended to be OEM only for budget gaming laptops, no wonder that it's lacking.

Yes, there is a market for these GPUs but the profit margins are small. I wouldn't call them Low End though. They are really Entry Level. Obviously they need to be affordable.

I think one part of the problem is that the demand for these cards in retail isn't huge, most of them goes into prebuilt anyway. Then there's the competition from the second hand market.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I'd love to see them make compelling low end cards, the 6500XT was a frikken insult and an especially insulting time, and one of the only redeeming features of the 6400 is low profile single slot.

If AMD don't try and repurpose mobile dies to fleece buyers, yeah I think they can make a compelling 7500/7400 series this time, they have to actually try make a good product instead of trying to make a mediocre one be super profitable.

Yes, indeed! The RX 6500 XT was a major '00s-style insult, IMHO!

 

[wolf]

Yes, indeed! The RX 6500 XT was a major '00s-style insult, IMHO!

Clearly Nvidia isn't a saint here, the 3050 is meh, and they released nothing below it (in RTX series, the 1630 is pretty insulting too though), and gatekept the low profile card to only the RTX A2000 instead of a 3040 or something...

But wow was the 6500XT just a straight up insulting cash grab at the height of the market. No saints in this game, shit products and practices should be called out from any vendor at any time.

 

[dgianstefani]

Intel will probably win the low end, AMD will keep the mid range and NVIDIA will hold on to the high end.

I don't see how entry level cards are profitable for either AMD or NVIDIA, so why would they make them?

 

[Dr. Dro]

Do you want AMD to start using the latest fab technology (TSMC N3, "3 nm") for the entry value graphics cards?

Using N3 in a budget product? No. Expensive and unnecessary.

Low end GPUs? No. They can stay a thing of the past. Give me an advanced APU with great integrated graphics that surpass this 6400 any day.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Well it's nice to see people fapping with excitement that their upcoming $899+ cards can potentially give Nvidia trouble, but in the real world AMD need some proper wins, the cost of entry to AM5 is already stupid beyond belief.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Intel will probably win the low end, AMD will keep the mid range and NVIDIA will hold on to the high end.

I don't see how entry level cards are profitable for either AMD or NVIDIA, so why would they make them?

I was hoping AMD would make a dual GCD RDNA3 card.

Assuming they could get it working somthing with 192 compute units would be pretty crazy even if the price was stupid.

 

[SL2]

Well it's nice to see people fapping with excitement that their upcoming $899+ cards can potentially give Nvidia trouble, but in the real world AMD need some proper wins, the cost of entry to AM5 is already stupid beyond belief.

No hurry as long as AM4 is selling, which is also much cheaper to make.

5800X3D slashed > £329/$329

Last time i checked (a few days ago) you couldn't find X3D for less than £420/430 (GBP). Nows its £329 (almost £100 knocked off) ...about bloody time! I trust AMD will do the same with Zen 4 chips and make way for the AM5 X3D variant... they gotto get it right the first time without...

www.techpowerup.com

Prices will change soon because of competition, and they have to anyway to make room for Raphael 3D.