AMD Radeon RX 6400 Launched at $159

[catulitechup]

A terrible box - Samsung use this type of boxes for their phones. Very cheap and ugly - screams - we put no efforts, we just want to profit from everything..

yeah youre right actually this companies are big big scumbags for this reason must be dont buy anything

in my case think about buy intel arc because my needs are low (non heavy games most old games and recording) and gpu market need one player more for put some pressure for scumbag companies

There is no 40-tier product. It goes 30, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.

The 560 was a 50-tier product. https://www.techspot.com/review/1430-radeon-rx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-1050/page8.html

The 550 was the 30-tier.

I remember when for 100us you can buy 4gb vram card with 128bit memory bus, complete pci-e lanes and decent decode and encode capabilities like rx 560

fuck scumbag companies with assholes like frank azor with phrases like this to 4gb in rx 6500 xt:

 

[thelawnet]

... There has been a 40 tier for more than a decade. Sure, it's among the least populated GPU product tiers, but it exists. See the GeForce 640 and 740, for example. Just because a number is often skipped doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well there was every generation till 740. Since then nada.

Ok maybe we haven't had many '30s either, but the fact that the 1030 is a very popular product at least means it definitely still exists.

IDK, it seems like Nvidia aren't interested in selling 4 grades of cheap card anymore.

 

[Valantar]

Well there was every generation till 740. Since then nada.

Ok maybe we haven't had many '30s either, but the fact that the 1030 is a very popular product at least means it definitely still exists.

IDK, it seems like Nvidia aren't interested in selling 4 grades of cheap card anymore.

The number of GPU tiers has broadly been expanding for the past half decade or so - just look at the number of Supers and Ti's across the past couple of generations, as well as the resurrection of the 90 tier for Nvidia. 40 coming back is hardly a surprise at that. As for the 1030 being popular.... well, it's been the cheapest Nvidia gpu for half a decade and has been somewhat available during the gpu drought, so I guess that makes some sense, but that's more desperation than popularity in my book. Still, the 6400 should deliver a massive performance bump for anyone rocking one of those.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There is no 40-tier product.

Tell THAT to AMD and NVidia as they both have hundreds of examples that prove you incorrect.

 

[Ruru]

Well there was every generation till 740. Since then nada.

Ok maybe we haven't had many '30s either, but the fact that the 1030 is a very popular product at least means it definitely still exists.

IDK, it seems like Nvidia aren't interested in selling 4 grades of cheap card anymore.

Yeah, pretty much like that. Though 540 was skipped, there was a GT 545 both retail and OEM versions.

-8400 GS
-9400 GT
-GT 140 (OEM)
-GT 240
-GTS 240 (OEM)
-GT 340 (OEM)
-GT 440
-GT 640
-GT 740

And there they stopped like you said. Nvidia did a crappy move with 1030 though with that scam DDR4 version. The original GT 1030 was a good low-end card with some lightweight gaming.

 

[trsttte]

Well there was every generation till 740. Since then nada.

Ok maybe we haven't had many '30s either, but the fact that the 1030 is a very popular product at least means it definitely still exists.

IDK, it seems like Nvidia aren't interested in selling 4 grades of cheap card anymore.

The numbers don't mean shit, what tier do you call a 1660? It's definetely not the same as a 2060, nor a "2050" since there's also the 1650

The higher the number the more better marketing wise so it's hard to justify using a supposed "40" tier when they can just flood the market with TI or Super versions in between. Just look at what they did recently, where instead of going with a 3040 or 3030 they release the 2050, or the mobile versions that go to a different naming scheme.

AMD probably came to the same realization, who'd want to advertise an RX6300 or RX6100, so there we have a RX6400 doesn't even come close with the 2050 or 3050 (as neither did the RX6500)

 

[Selaya]

Same class as a GT 1030? Not even close. Its just a turned down 6500 XT. Its more like a 1050 which is a turned down 1050 ti

The 3D performance isn't the only thing relevant of a GPU tho, esp at this price class.
Everything else about the card's featureset (the PCIe x4, 2 display outs, lack of de-/encoding features) makes it an x30-tier one, not x50.

 

[Tom Yum]

AMD’s marketing slide is not wrong. But what they failed to inform is that performance will tank if you run this card on anything less than a PCI-E 4.0 slot. It also does not tell people that it is missing a lot of features that even the aged GTX 1050 Ti or GTX 1650 can do. The lower power consumption is to be expected since we are pitting 14/16nm with 7nm.

Given this is likely ~30% slower than the 6500XT I would be surprised if PCI-E 3 x4 slot would slow it down significantly. PCI-E bandwidth requirements scale with performance, so the slowdowns the 6500XT experience on PCI-E 3 likely will be much smaller for this lower end card.

Low profile single slot card options are few and far between. Outside of the 1030 you have the Quadro's/Firepro's but they are much more expensive. If this offers ~1650 performance at ~50W then it could do well in its niche.

 

[Frick]

Gotta love that Powercolor doesn't even have any unneccessary box art, I don't even remember when I've seen a simple graphics card box like this:

View attachment 244422

I wish all hardware came in boxes like that, with a clear list of features and specs.

 

[Bomby569]

that pricing is absurd, yet another reminder gpu prices has gone insane

 

[Ruru]

that pricing is absurd, yet another reminder gpu prices has gone insane

For a low-end card, I agree. At least GT 1030 was reasonable priced even for a low-end card back in the day.

 

[lexluthermiester]

that pricing is absurd, yet another reminder gpu prices has gone insane

To be fair, it's improving. But you're right, this GPU is overpriced.

 

[Baum]

So even close to EOL and discounted heavily you got £199(nice) however, it WASN'T £159 then was it or freshly minted technology.

sorry i bought it for 184€ on 12.7.2019 at 8:00 in the morning i still have the bill 158,36 to 157,38 Pound at that date in your money a that time of exchange rate..

and i am still happy with it as i feel it was a deal back then with mining going on

(1 EUR = 0,837 GBP at that time )

237,41€ is equal to 199Pound that's "50€+" so no i got it for far less

 

[Prince Valiant]

To be fair, it's improving. But you're right, this GPU is overpriced.

With a new generation expected soon but better than nothing. The pricing on bottom level cards is insane.

 

[Ruru]

The pricing on bottom level cards is insane.

This. I remember when the lowest of the low-end cards cost like 40EUR.

 

[thelawnet]

This. I remember when the lowest of the low-end cards cost like 40EUR.

There were unspeakably terrible though. Like you had the Geforce 210 with 16 shaders, being sold alongside the GTX 680 with 1536 shaders.

Even now the cheapest card is a 5450, which is 12 years old and has 80 shares, it's absolute trash.

Unless you just needed a signal for MS Word, you at least had to spend around $100 to make it worth bothering.

 

[Ruru]

There were unspeakably terrible though. Like you had the Geforce 210 with 16 shaders, being sold alongside the GTX 680 with 1536 shaders.

Even now the cheapest card is a 5450, which is 12 years old and has 80 shares, it's absolute trash.

Unless you just needed a signal for MS Word, you at least had to spend around $100 to make it worth bothering.

Yeah, but back in the day the potato cards were even somewhat modern and could be uset for lightweight gaming (or for older games at least). 5450 is a 12 year old card and I driver support has ended who knows when..

But on the other hand, APUs/Intel iGPUs do the basic job so I kinda understand why those bottom of the barrel cards aren't needed anymore.

 

[Valantar]

Yeah, but back in the day the potato cards were even somewhat modern and could be uset for lightweight gaming (or for older games at least).

I don't know about that - a 6500XT is a much more usable gaming card than any low-end card 10-15 years ago. The range of what can deliver an acceptable gaming experience is only widening.

 

[Ruru]

I don't know about that - a 6500XT is a much more usable gaming card than any low-end card 10-15 years ago. The range of what can deliver an acceptable gaming experience is only widening.

Practically because these days there just isn't that crappy low-end cards like back in the day. What I meant that back then you could get a very cheap card and it was a generation or two old, these days the 50EUR crap cards are practically ~10yr old bottom of the barrel -tier ones with driver support ended years ago.

 

[lexluthermiester]

ETA Prime just did a review.

His results seem to jive with everyone else.

This is turning out to be a passable low profile 1080p card for small form-factor systems. I hope they do a 6400XT with 128bit VRAM and 8x pcie in the same form-factor. THAT would be something!

 

[tussinman]

Maybe "a waste of sand" this time...

Yeah this legitimately might be a waste of his time.

This card is basically on par with a 7 year old gtx 960 that was 200 bucks back then. $160 7 years later is a joke.

 

[Valantar]

ETA Prime just did a review.

His results seem to jive with everyone else.

This is turning out to be a passable low profile 1080p card for small form-factor systems. I hope they do a 6400XT with 128bit VRAM and 8x pcie in the same form-factor. THAT would be something!

Neither of those are possible given that the die only has x4 and a 64-bit bus (they'd need to use cut-down Navi 23 (6600, 6600 XT), which clearly isn't happening). But there is another option for a 6400 XT that would be great: same specs as the 6500 XT, just limited to PCIe slot power. Given that this is rated at just 53W, there's some headroom to maintain clocks even with the CU increase too. Or they could call it the 6500 - same difference. Should be able to deliver a decent performance increase over this.


Seems like reviews are confirming what this looked like though: a great budget/SFF option, as long as it drops sufficiently below MSRP. The lack of encode/decode support is a drag, but if you've got Intel Quicksync or an AMD APU that doesn't really matter.

 

[Dr. Dro]

$100? Has any GPU ever had an MSRP of $60? I don't even think it's economically feasible to make a DGPU at that price level unless there are some insane economies of scale involved.

As for this being a 1030-level card... Well, in a sane world where things had scaled normally since then, sure, it would have been a 1030-class card for 2022. But given the slowing update rate of GPUs and the ever-diminishing architectural improvements, the 40 tier is more accurate - and it shouldn't lose all that much performance from the 6500XT, which is an RX 580/GTX 1060-level GPU. If this delivers 75% of the performance of that, it's more like a 1650. If it's 60% of that it's similar to a 1050 Ti. The 1030 delivers 24% of the performance of a 6500 XT according to the TPU database, and there's no way this is that slow.

GT 520 at $59, GT 440 at $79, GT 640 at $99 are some of the low-cost GPUs that come to mind. GPUs weren't always this absurdly priced, I recall the GTX 275 (practically a fully enabled GT200b processor as used on the GTX 285, but hooked up to the same 448-bit/896 MB memory configuration of the GTX 260) was $279 MSRP and often sold for less. Even adjusted for inflation all these years later, it's a ton less than the equivalent GPU today (RTX 3070 Ti) would be selling for.

R7 370 had a $150 MSRP, would be higher than this in the product stack at the time, and was still cheaper... I honestly think it's overpriced, but given current market situations, if it sells for AMD estimated SEP, then it will do the trick. It's basically Rembrandt's relatively renowned 680M iGPU on a PCIe board, sans hardware encode capabilities and relatively limited by its 4 GB framebuffer (which practically makes this a slightly worse product).

There were unspeakably terrible though. Like you had the Geforce 210 with 16 shaders, being sold alongside the GTX 680 with 1536 shaders.

Even now the cheapest card is a 5450, which is 12 years old and has 80 shares, it's absolute trash.

Unless you just needed a signal for MS Word, you at least had to spend around $100 to make it worth bothering.

Right, though the Tesla microarchitecture's shaders aren't exactly comparable to Kepler's, much less TeraScale 2's. The 5450 and the 210 were equally terrible; even if the 5450 is "technically" around 2x faster, you're comparing a slug to a slug on steroids

 

[Valantar]

GT 520 at $59, GT 440 at $79, GT 640 at $99 are some of the low-cost GPUs that come to mind. GPUs weren't always this absurdly priced, I recall the GTX 275 (practically a fully enabled GT200b processor as used on the GTX 285, but hooked up to the same 448-bit/896 MB memory configuration of the GTX 260) was $279 MSRP and often sold for less. Even adjusted for inflation all these years later, it's a ton less than the equivalent GPU today (RTX 3070 Ti) would be selling for.

R7 370 had a $150 MSRP, would be higher than this in the product stack at the time, and was still cheaper... I honestly think it's overpriced, but given current market situations, if it sells for AMD estimated SEP, then it will do the trick. It's basically Rembrandt's relatively renowned 680M iGPU on a PCIe board, sans hardware encode capabilities and relatively limited by its 4 GB framebuffer (which practically makes this a slightly worse product).

I'm well aware that the upper bounds of GPU pricing have been rising dramatically for quite some time. AMD did indeed have fantastic value in the early 2010s (I have very fond memories of buying my old HD 6950 for an incredibly low price), but inflation + the increasing technological demands for newer cards does inevitably drive up base prices, and it's especially noticeable at the low end. It's pretty impressive that those lower end cards have MSRPs that low, though I guess that also reflects the increasing production complexity with more modern signalling (GDDR6, PCIe 4.0, DP 1.4, HDMI 2.1, etc.), driving up PCB quality demands and base production costs for low end cards, even looking past the massively increased transistor counts and slowing drop in per-transistor prices in recent years. Of course that 2011 $59 is $75 today, so pretty close to my $80 ask - and that's for a 20-tier card! Compared to that the 1030 was a steal! Still, as I said above, this ought to be a $120-ish GPU, not $160, IMO. $80-ish for this (or $60 as the post I responded to suggested) would be bonkers.

Right, though the Tesla microarchitecture's shaders aren't exactly comparable to Kepler's, much less TeraScale 2's. The 5450 and the 210 were equally terrible; even if the 5450 is "technically" around 2x faster, you're comparing a slug to a slug on steroids

Hey now, 2fps is way better than 1fps!

 

[lexluthermiester]

Neither of those are possible given that the die only has x4 and a 64-bit bus

There's no way for you(or anyone else outside of AMD) to know if they're 64bit/4x by design or whether they're just artificially crippled higher end parts.

(they'd need to use cut-down Navi 23 (6600, 6600 XT), which clearly isn't happening).

You can't and don't know that.

But there is another option for a 6400 XT that would be great: same specs as the 6500 XT, just limited to PCIe slot power.

Hey, whatever works.

The lack of encode/decode support is a drag, but if you've got Intel Quicksync or an AMD APU that doesn't really matter.

Anyone buying this card(or a card in this price bracket) is not going to care about that feature.

Oz did a comparison with different PCIe gen speeds..

While still promising, a $200 6400XT/6500 SFF low profile GPU is needed.