"Remember, there were times when entry-level graphics card cost around $100"
yeah the same time 11 bucks a hour was consider decent in low cost non city's now be 14-15+ or wtf and over a year fyi that is a ton of money before any overtime if you want to do math... companys cant pay enginers and taxes and ect ect ect cant and do 100... keep in mind tech is CHEAP now.. the neo geo console was 649.99 dollars in the 90s when if you made 11 bucks you were doing decent for yourself...( and a low end computer could cost like 2k again a TON for the time) perspective boy perspective..
you have to pay the warehouses, driver if not the brick and mortor ppl.. before the tech and actual cost of copper ect ect of everything they use...(just to have a physicals item that works is a base cost then the ppl who ship or stores who stock it... this is the 1030 again... 100000% just dont go super cheap ppl dont do that when they buy plains or cars their is a mimmum cost you want
"its to high becuse its power is to low"... if you said it before then you are wrong before... unless you think ppl should make 30k or less to stock or ship stuff like food other items
... is this directed at me? Because it doesn't seem applicable to what I'm saying. I get that much of what I've said on this is in another thread, but, well, you're preaching to the choir. I'm perfectly in line with price increases being understandable. What isn't understandable is this entry-tier GPU being priced at $160 - that's simply too high. This is a lower tier than cards like the 1050 and 1050 Ti that launched at lower dollar prices just six years ago, and there hasn't been
that much inflation since then. Remember, the 1050 Ti launched at $139 and the 1050 at $109, for 50-tier products in late 2016. I'm arguing this should be around $120, for a 40-tier product ~5 years later. For reference, $139 in 2016 USD is ~166 today, while $106 in 2016 USD is ~$130. Accounting for materials price increases you might argue that $130 is as such a fair price for a lower tier card today, though I'd still say $120 would be fair. The 6500 XT ought to be around $160-180.
W1zz needs to add a GT1030 to the list to compare this card too
Absolutely! That would be a very relevant comparison.
Frankly, does RX 6400 beat RX 550 or RX 560? 6500 XT actually failed to beat 5500 XT.
... did you look at the review? Both RX 550 and 560 are in the test results, and deliver ~32% and ~42% of the RX 6400's performance respectively at 1080p.
I forgot to say above, but thank you for a great review once again
@W1zzard! Great to see these low end cards being tested, as that's somewhat rare. Still, I have to say I think your conclusion is a tad harsh - after all, you're running a test suite where everything is set at Ultra, which is notoriously inefficient. Most likely much better results can be had with near-imperceptible image quality drops in many games. Also, aren't locked-down OC controls the norm for slot-powered cards? I seem to remember that being pretty normal as a safeguard to avoid burning out the 12V traces in your motherboard.
That being said, there are two follow-up reviews that I would find
very interesting in light of this: PCIe scaling to compare against the 6500 XT (testing the assumption that lower performance equals less of a bottleneck), as well as testing at lowered settings with the aim of finding what settings hit 60fps (or if it fails to) across the test suite at 1080p. Ideally the PCIe scaling test would also be run at non-ultra settings to account for this not being a realistic use case for this product. I completely undertstand this being a ton of work for a low-prestige product, but I at least would read the heck out of both of those reviews.
