AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT Now as Low as $600, Poses a Juicy Alternative to RTX 4070

[ToxicTears]

PowerDraw? I have 6900XT watter cooled feat Ryzen 5700X .. the total consumption of the computer assembly via wattmeter is 300W because undervolt 6900XT RedDevil ...only 2300MHz and 0,975V = 180-200W for my GPU. 50°C temps. And undervolt have only 5% worst performance at all

 

[biggermesh]

Ah, so 4090's 'power draw' is 666,6W?

You need to get your head examined, fast. Stop grasping at straws, count to 10, and admit you're spouting BS and got corrected. All is well. I have a persistent allergy for nonsense and this is nonsense. Furmark hasn't been good for anything since many years, its called a power virus for a reason.

Well A you don't need to be so abrasive and B the gaming power draw is 200w for the 4070 and 350w for the 6950xt reference design. Inferring from cards present in both tests the 6950xt seems to be about 60% as efficient as the 4070 so I wonder what about the claim for almost double power draw triggered you so much.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

the enormous difference in power draw makes all the different, it's a pay now and keep it forever, no more payments, VS a pay now and then you have to pay monthly instalments for life

it would be a disastrous choice where i live

Hey, pro tip, newer cards use electricity too. And if power is a concern, you should not be buyig $600 GPUs.

Lucky for you, the RX 6300 exists.

The power can be controlled to an extent by limiting the TDP/temps etc. But the biggest issue IMO with the previous gen is the ridiculous sizes on some of them! No way I'm getting a 3-4 slot GPU ever.

Why though? It's not like you're using the rest of the case. ATX is extremely wasteful, nobody isw using that many expansion ports, and even most mini ITX cases can fit thebeasts.

And there are benefits. My 6800xt challenger D is nearly silent, even under 300w load and pushing near 80c. Couldnt do that with a two slot cooler (has vega 64 flashbacks).

 

[PapaTaipei]

Great actually.

Regarding the discussion about RX6x and RTX3xx power spikes. W1z stated it as one of the points that current gen of cards softens things in this regard and are less critical.

The thing about picking up a correct PSU and power consumption.

Do PSU reviews answer the question, will my PC work with this certain PSU? I have 6900XT + 5800X3D for example? As the PSU reviews are full of self proclaiming certification and other BS - no, they are weak in that regard, giving you the practical info. You usually will not get the answer unless you try itself. OCP triggering is a sketchy topic really.

What is OCP triggering?

 

[Ferrum Master]

What is OCP triggering?

It is even that bad...

OverCurrentProtection.

 

[Bomby569]

Hey, pro tip, newer cards use electricity too. And if power is a concern, you should not be buyig $600 GPUs.

Lucky for you, the RX 6300 exists.

i'm not going to stay all night in the dark, i just don't want to have lights that use more energy than similar ones that do the same thing.

Those metrics are a good 6 posts above this one. You take averages across a large benchmark suite, and you get those nice bar charts.
Or you can cherry pick games and pick out the biggest offenders in peak power draw.

NEITHER will show you anything close to Furmark numbers, and all GPUs much closer together than their peak power draw suggests.

But you know this already, you're just trying to make a case where there isn't one. Just stahp

"average game", do you know anyone that plays that game? is that a fps? what about the game i play?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

i'm not going to stay all night in the dark, i just don't want to have lights that use more energy than similar ones that do the same thing.

Right, but you're splitting hairs over a couple bucks in electricity per year for a $600 GPU whos entire existence will be to waste electricity playing video games.

 

[Bomby569]

Right, but you're splitting hairs over a couple bucks in electricity per year for a $600 GPU whos entire existence will be to waste electricity playing video games.

idk where you are but it isn't a "couple of bucks". Linus did a video recently when he talked about this, in a place like Germany it can be a lot more than a couple bucks, it can be as much hundreds of dollars depending on how much you play and how long you keep it.

 

[Vayra86]

"average game", do you know anyone that plays that game? is that a fps? what about the game i play?

Are you going full troll on TPU now? Man you're sinking deep right now... I don't know what game you're playing here honestly But the ignore list is getting close

All you keep proving is that you can't interpret numbers or even reviews on TPU. Its a sad, sad affair and you keep making it worse for yourself.

 

[Bomby569]

Are you going full troll on TPU now? Man you're sinking deep right now... I don't know what game you're playing here honestly But the ignore list is getting close

All you keep proving is that you can't interpret numbers or even reviews on TPU. Its a sad, sad affair and you keep making it worse for yourself.

MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review (Page 5)

There's a new flagship in town, the MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO is just blazingly fast. As AMD refreshes its rDNA 2 graphics card portfolio with a new family of cards in 2022, this card serie...

www.guru3d.com

RX 7900 XTX Vs RX 6950 XT: We Tested Both - Tech4Gamers

My RX 7900 XTX Vs RX 6950 XT guide compares both graphics cards in detail and sees which one is better in terms of gaming.

tech4gamers.com

 

[Vayra86]

Well A you don't need to be so abrasive and B the gaming power draw is 200w for the 4070 and 350w for the 6950xt reference design. Inferring from cards present in both tests the 6950xt seems to be about 60% as efficient as the 4070 so I wonder what about the claim for almost double power draw triggered you so much.

Its simply not true. The topic at hand is whether or not the 6950XT is worth going for, and double power draw simply isn't a thing. Its 50%~60% more, at best - 300-320W pretty much.. That's not 2x200 = 400W. And then you're not even undervolting. And then we get Furmark... to make the point. I've already shown the real numbers a few times.

However, the thing that makes or breaks this GPU for anyone isn't a 100W gap, its whether or not your PSU can handle the spiking.
Even in Germany. I live in NL and prices for energy are similar. A 100W gap equals about 0,05 € per hour, worst case scenario only.

View attachment 292884

MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review (Page 5)

There's a new flagship in town, the MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO is just blazingly fast. As AMD refreshes its rDNA 2 graphics card portfolio with a new family of cards in 2022, this card serie...

www.guru3d.com

View attachment 292885

RX 7900 XTX Vs RX 6950 XT: We Tested Both - Tech4Gamers

My RX 7900 XTX Vs RX 6950 XT guide compares both graphics cards in detail and sees which one is better in terms of gaming.

tech4gamers.com

View attachment 292886View attachment 292887View attachment 292888View attachment 292889

Thanks, so the consensus is 300-340W, but more realistically, you'd UV to hit 300W at the very least, and every single 6950XT can do that.
You can also go lower still and sacrifice some 5% perf to hit 250~275W. Still going to be faster than 4070, but now you're only 50~75W apart. If that's a deal breaker compared to a 4070... I guess we all have our opinions.

Still wondering why you presented Furmark though
Either way, I think we should leave it here.

PowerDraw? I have 6900XT watter cooled feat Ryzen 5700X .. the total consumption of the computer assembly via wattmeter is 300W because undervolt 6900XT RedDevil ...only 2300MHz and 0,975V = 180-200W for my GPU. 50°C temps. And undervolt have only 5% worst performance at all

Case in point.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

idk where you are but it isn't a "couple of bucks". Linus did a video recently when he talked about this, in a place like Germany it can be a lot more than a couple bucks, it can be as much hundreds of dollars depending on how much you play and how long you keep it.

I've done the math, on this very forum, multiple times. The result was always the same, if you were playing the equivalent of a full time job, 365 days a year, the difference in germany was $50-55.

This is concerning the use of a $600+ GPU to play bing bing wahoo. A purely wasteful purpose. If said GPU is for something that makes money then the $50 is utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

The result is always the same. If $50 a YEAR in electricity is a major concern, you should not be buying $600 GPUs to play video games. Period. But, much like people going into $30k of debt in 2008 to buy a prius to save on $5 a gallon gas instead of keeping their truck or SUV, numbers are hard for the financially challenged and people will continue to vastly overpay to save peanuts.

 

[Bomby569]

I've done the math, on this very forum, multiple times. The result was always the same, if you were playing the equivalent of a full time job, 365 days a year, the difference in germany was $50-55.

This is concerning the use of a $600+ GPU to play bing bing wahoo. A purely wasteful purpose. If said GPU is for something that makes money then the $50 is utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

The result is always the same. If $50 a YEAR in electricity is a major concern, you should not be buying $600 GPUs to play video games. Period. But, much like people going into $30k of debt in 2008 to buy a prius to save on $5 a gallon gas instead of keeping their truck or SUV, numbers are hard for the financially challenged and people will continue to vastly overpay to save peanuts.

i have no idea what math is that, if it's accurate or not, no idea, i know that's was not his math. I will try to look for the video, but i can't remember the one, and i don't have a easy way to search. Maybe someone can say more about this.

Even if it's 50$/year, that's money considering you keep a gpu 3 years, and that you can't save that going with a less power hungry alternative. And that's what we are talking about, not if you can afford 600$ gpu but if you can afford to burn extra money on electricity on top of that. Or just millionaires buy 600$ gpus?

 

[AusWolf]

Still £700 at Scan UK.

i have no idea what math is that, if it's accurate or not, no idea, i know that's was not his math. I will try to look for the video, but i can't remember the one, and i don't have a easy way to search. Maybe someone can say more about this.

Even if it's 50$/year, that's money considering you keep a gpu 3 years, and that you can't save that going with a less power hungry alternative. And that's what we are talking about, not if you can afford 600$ gpu but if you can afford to burn extra money on electricity on top of that. Or just millionaires buy 600$ gpus?

You don't have to run your GPU on full power in every game, you know. My 6750 XT consumes less power in Kingdom Come: Deliverance than a 6500 XT when I enable a 60 FPS limit on both.

 

[dir_d]

Some of you are blowing the wattage thing out of proportion. I use a Ref 3080TI with a EVGA SuperNova G2 650 with no problems. You wont have any problems with a quality PSU. 3080TI is the same as a 6950 basically in the Wattage department.

 

[Why_Me]

People trash Nvidia, but AMD is selling a end of life card with similar performance and almost double the power draw for similar price, it's insanity.
I guess the only reason anyone would buy this was if they went by that brainless HU video about vram, and you almost think it was exactly tailor made for that purpose. We don't need to lower the price because vram

Poor people with cheap electricity will buy this card.

 

[Vayra86]

You don't have to run your GPU on full power in every game, you know. My 6750 XT consumes less power in Kingdom Come: Deliverance than a 6500 XT when I enable a 60 FPS limit on both.

Yep, wider GPUs will sip less power as they can reduce clocks more readily to hit your FPS target. This is part of the reason why the 4080 is a bit more efficient than the 4070 I reckon. And why the 4090 with its high power target remains close regardless. The top GPUs definitely hit some small bottleneck.

i have no idea what math is that, if it's accurate or not, no idea, i know that's was not his math. I will try to look for the video, but i can't remember the one, and i don't have a easy way to search. Maybe someone can say more about this.

Even if it's 50$/year, that's money considering you keep a gpu 3 years, and that you can't save that going with a less power hungry alternative. And that's what we are talking about, not if you can afford 600$ gpu but if you can afford to burn extra money on electricity on top of that. Or just millionaires buy 600$ gpus?

Its a fair point if you really push the GPU on edge all the time for all of your gaming, but the reality is often far more nuanced. Still, the gap is there, I can't disagree and it will bring the TCO of the 6950XT close to the 4070 in most cases even over it. But you do get 16GB - and you probably won't upgrade 3 years from now as you would a 4070. Given the 'deals' we keep seeing lately, I don't think its a bad thing to be able to ride a GPU for that much longer. It helped me survive the crypto waves on a 1080...

 

[Bomby569]

Still £700 at Scan UK.


You don't have to run your GPU on full power in every game, you know. My 6750 XT consumes less power in Kingdom Come: Deliverance than a 6500 XT when I enable a 60 FPS limit on both.

you can't do math on every single game or use of a card, or every single use case, that's simply impossible. I think the only way is use a simplification like calculate on the power draw and some assumptions like y hours use and solve for x to whatever is your use.
Example: so it costs x if i use for y hours, so if i use for z than... Doesn't mean everyone uses y or pays x

 

[mama]

I dont agree, the 4070 is way more energy efficient and has stuff like DLSS 3.0
If the RX6950 will end up being able to run FSR 3.0 and it ends up being worth a damn, then maybe.

Right now AMD just needs to DROP The F out of their cards, everything down 150 - 200 dollars/euro AND release the replacements already ><

Nvidia's features (or gimmcks, if you like) are not worth it. For straight up gaming rasterization is everything. Dropping prices like you suggest just gives stupid value to Nvidia's features.

 

[AusWolf]

you can't do math on every single game or use of a card, or every single use case, that's simply impossible. I think the only way is use a simplification like calculate on the power draw and some assumptions like y hours use and solve for x to whatever is your use.
Example: so it costs x if i use for y hours, so if i use for z than... Doesn't mean everyone uses y or pays x

I don't even want to do that math as I think it doesn't matter. My point is that you don't have to burn your GPU at 100% in every game. Your own mileage varies.

But even if you do, let's say I upgrade my 6750 XT (250 W TDP) to something with 100 W higher TDP. My unit rate is £0.32 per kWh, which is quite high compared to prices around the world. With my new graphics card, I'm gonna pay £0.32 more after 10 hours of gaming. If I game 4 hours a day on average (which I can't because I have a job, I'm tired, etc.), then it comes to £0.32 * 0.1 kW * 4 h * 31 days = £3.97 per month more over my 6750 XT.

Is this really worth arguing over?

 

[Vayra86]

I don't even want to do that math as I think it doesn't matter. My point is that you don't have to burn your GPU at 100% in every game. Your own mileage varies.

But even if you do, let's say I upgrade my 6750 XT (250 W TDP) to something with 100 W higher TDP. My unit rate is £0.32 per kWh, which is quite high compared to prices around the world. With my new graphics card, I'm gonna pay £0.32 more after 10 hours of gaming. If I game 4 hours a day on average (which I can't because I have a job, I'm tired, etc.), then it comes to £0.32 * 0.1 kW * 4 h * 31 days = £3.97 per month more over my 6750 XT.

Is this really worth arguing over?

If you extrapolate that over a year it does become a substantial figure, I can see where bomby is coming from. 4 x 12 = 48 pound per year, x3-5 years is suddenly a whole tier of GPU you're talking about.

But... there are far more effective ways to recoup that expense in and around the house. If you have solar panels for example any gaming during daytime will be easily net zero cost. That is free performance right there. If you have solar panels in a country with a favorable way to credit that to your energy bill (like we do in NL, 'saldering' its called and it means the entire delivery of power from solar, regardless of the moment it was generated, gets recouped either in reduction on your actual usage, or in a credit bill) you can probably game for free wrt energy usage.

So its mostly a very personal thing. I think we can definitely conclude the 100W gap isn't a deal breaker for a 6950XT given the other advantages, that do NOT depend on a personal situation as much, such as sufficient VRAM. Only in a worst case scenario is that gap going to make itself known.

 

[AusWolf]

If you extrapolate that over a year it does become a substantial figure, I can see where bomby is coming from. 4 x 12 = 48 pound per year, x3-5 years is suddenly a whole tier of GPU you're talking about.

Yeah, but that's if your run your GPU at 100% usage in every game, which you don't have to when you've got a 6950 XT.

Solar panels have a high initial cost, and they're not good solutions everywhere, but I still think the added electricity cost of a higher tier GPU is not an issue.