ASUS Radeon RX 6500 XT TUF Gaming

[Tetras]

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.

No-one is saying that pricing isn't high right now, but we're talking about 5 years old levels of performance, even if there's more demand and inflationary factors that's just ridiculous.

As an example: 5 years ago the top CPUs were the Ryzen 7 1700/X and the Intel i7 8700/K, both priced at approximately $350. For around $350 now, you can get an i7-12700 non-K or Ryzen 7 5800X, which blow them away, their raw computing performance has doubled. Meanwhile, in the world of graphics cards, AMD don't even care if it's faster.

Is the 6500 XT an acceptable option for entry-level gaming? Yeah, I suppose. But, did it need to be so limited and lose features historically present at this price point? No. Everyone involved in making graphics cards is making record profits right now. A turd is a turd, even if it's the best turd we've got. They didn't even have to do much to make it a lot more usable, as suggested above, a 96-bit bus with 6GB memory would have helped a lot. A few more CUs would have also pushed it comfortably ahead of the RX 5500.

It's barely fit for purpose as-is, except for a budget gaming build that has to be new and can't get anything else. With the RX 6600, It wasn't easy for AMD to justify releasing a midrange card intended for 1080p heading into 2022, but at least it can hold 60 fps at high/max details and is usually playable at 1440p. I think it was GN that made the point that the RX 6500 XT is almost a 720p card nowadays (or it soon will be) and 720p monitors are obsolete! And since they deleted the HTPC features it'll have artificially limited usefulness even when it's retired. It would have been really freaking helpful for old systems if AV1 goes mandatory for video content in a few years, but nope, AMD says "%@"! you" for trying that one, here's a paperweight.

Most reviewers are using historical products as a reference, since they've been around awhile, so sure, like GN said, you CAN ignore this and only look at the market right now, but why should you? Should we continue to pay the same price for an arguably worse performing product, with less features, 5 years later? A lot of gamers have done exactly what you suggested and abandoned PC gaming for consoles.

 

[Ravenas]

No-one is saying that pricing isn't high right now, but we're talking about 5 years old levels of performance, even if there's more demand and inflationary factors that's just ridiculous.

As an example: 5 years ago the top CPUs were the Ryzen 7 1700/X and the Intel i7 8700/K, both priced at approximately $350. For around $350 now, you can get an i7-12700 non-K or Ryzen 7 5800X, which blow them away, their raw computing performance has doubled. Meanwhile, in the world of graphics cards, AMD don't even care if it's faster.

Is the 6500 XT an acceptable option for entry-level gaming? Yeah, I suppose. But, did it need to be so limited and lose features historically present at this price point? No. Everyone involved in making graphics cards is making record profits right now. A turd is a turd, even if it's the best turd we've got. They didn't even have to do much to make it a lot more usable, as suggested above, a 96-bit bus with 6GB memory would have helped a lot. A few more CUs would have also pushed it comfortably ahead of the RX 5500.

It's barely fit for purpose as-is, except for a budget gaming build that has to be new and can't get anything else. With the RX 6600, It wasn't easy for AMD to justify releasing a midrange card intended for 1080p heading into 2022, but at least it can hold 60 fps at high/max details and is usually playable at 1440p. I think it was GN that made the point that the RX 6500 XT is almost a 720p card nowadays (or it soon will be) and 720p monitors are obsolete! And since they deleted the HTPC features it'll have artificially limited usefulness even when it's retired. It would have been really freaking helpful for old systems if AV1 goes mandatory for video content in a few years, but nope, AMD says "%@"! you" for trying that one, here's a paperweight.

Most reviewers are using historical products as a reference, since they've been around awhile, so sure, like GN said, you CAN ignore this and only look at the market right now, but why should you? Should we continue to pay the same price for an arguably worse performing product, with less features, 5 years later? A lot of gamers have done exactly what you suggested and abandoned PC gaming for consoles.

In regard to future usability being the crux, well that is inevitable on any investment in GPU technology. My 6900 XT soon won't be able to achieve 60FPS in most all 4K games. However, growth in FSR will drive lower range GPU technology for AMD. When FSR can be implanted on any game without need of developer input, then the FSR technology provides an uplift to all aging GPU.

Regardless, you touched on exactly the point. A budget gaming build GPU.

 

[AusWolf]

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.

I don't mean to buy an APU and stay with it, but it's fine to play at reduced details until you can buy something better. If you're a new system builder, a 10th gen Core i3 with a 6600 or 3060 would cost you about the same as any pci-e gen 4 capable CPU with the 6500 XT, but gives you tons more gaming power. If you have an old system, pci-e 3.0 or 2.0 will hugely bottleneck you with the 6500 XT. If you want a HTPC card, the GT 1030 is a much better value. It's cheaper, eats a lot less power, it's available in LP form factor and has relatively OK video decode (though it doesn't have VP9 either). The 6500 XT is so limited by so many factors that, while not being terrible in its own use case, has basically no target audience. It's an OK entry-level gaming card if you have a pci-e 4.0 capable system, which I'm sure most people shopping in this range don't. Its ridiculous MSRP is just icing on the cake.

Edit: my question still stands: why does AMD's new 6 nm card with 2 RAM chips use as much power as nvidia's 3-4 year-old 12 nm cards of the same performance range with 4 RAM chips? My theory is that the 64 bit bus and pci-e x4 interface bottlenecks the card so much that AMD had to clock it through the roof for performance to be on par with said 3-4 year-old nvidia cards.

 

[Ravenas]

entry-level gaming card

The target audience. It's available. It ok. The vast majority are on entry level machines, with 1080P resolution.

 

[AusWolf]

The target audience. It's available. It ok. The vast majority are on entry level machines, with 1080P resolution.

No. The target audience is gamers with entry-level pci-e 4.0 capable systems. Systems that basically do not exist.

 

[Tetras]

Edit: my question still stands: why does AMD's new 6 nm card with 2 RAM chips use as much power as nvidia's 3-4 year-old 12 nm cards of the same performance range with 4 RAM chips? My theory is that the 64 bit bus and pci-e x4 interface bottlenecks the card so much that AMD had to clock it through the roof for performance to be on par with said 3-4 year-old nvidia cards.

It must be the clocks, since it uses less power on the lower clocked Sapphire Pulse in TPU's review. But the weird thing is, the voltage appears to be very similar (on the efficiency & clock speed charts) and I didn't think frequency alone could explain that scale of difference, unless the lower clocks allow it to operate for longer at lower voltages which isn't too easy for me to read on the chart. It could be that Sapphire just uses a less aggressive behaviour to maintain them, but I'm not sure if AIB's have that much leeway.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

No-one is saying that pricing isn't high right now, but we're talking about 5 years old levels of performance, even if there's more demand and inflationary factors that's just ridiculous.

As an example: 5 years ago the top CPUs were the Ryzen 7 1700/X and the Intel i7 8700/K, both priced at approximately $350. For around $350 now, you can get an i7-12700 non-K or Ryzen 7 5800X, which blow them away, their raw computing performance has doubled. Meanwhile, in the world of graphics cards, AMD don't even care if it's faster.

Is the 6500 XT an acceptable option for entry-level gaming? Yeah, I suppose. But, did it need to be so limited and lose features historically present at this price point? No. Everyone involved in making graphics cards is making record profits right now. A turd is a turd, even if it's the best turd we've got. They didn't even have to do much to make it a lot more usable, as suggested above, a 96-bit bus with 6GB memory would have helped a lot. A few more CUs would have also pushed it comfortably ahead of the RX 5500.

It's barely fit for purpose as-is, except for a budget gaming build that has to be new and can't get anything else. With the RX 6600, It wasn't easy for AMD to justify releasing a midrange card intended for 1080p heading into 2022, but at least it can hold 60 fps at high/max details and is usually playable at 1440p. I think it was GN that made the point that the RX 6500 XT is almost a 720p card nowadays (or it soon will be) and 720p monitors are obsolete! And since they deleted the HTPC features it'll have artificially limited usefulness even when it's retired. It would have been really freaking helpful for old systems if AV1 goes mandatory for video content in a few years, but nope, AMD says "%@"! you" for trying that one, here's a paperweight.

Most reviewers are using historical products as a reference, since they've been around awhile, so sure, like GN said, you CAN ignore this and only look at the market right now, but why should you? Should we continue to pay the same price for an arguably worse performing product, with less features, 5 years later? A lot of gamers have done exactly what you suggested and abandoned PC gaming for consoles.

Until this came out even making a entry level gaming pc was not possible at all in the UK, I did some, all APUs and this is 60% better than the GPU in a 5600G.

LTT and MLD had it right, it's not for you , it's just useful to new builds with no other choices.

And it couldn't be made at this price without the compromises that became necessary due to its triple use as a Dgpu laptop integrated and possibly a core component of future Apu (possibly)

Again I wouldn't buy it for me but no option at all isn't better.

 

[AusWolf]

Until this came out even making a entry level gaming pc was not possible at all in the UK, I did some, all APUs and this is 60% better than the GPU in a 5600G.

Huh? Overclockers UK is literally stocked full of graphics cards, including 1050 Tis and 1650s. They even have a few 1660s and 1660 Supers, although they cost a bit more than what I'd pay for them.

LTT and MLD had it right, it's not for you , it's just useful to new builds with no other choices.

You need to buy a Core i5-11400 or Ryzen 5 5600X to be able to properly use it. For that total system cost, you'd be better off buying a Core i3-10100 and a 6600 or 3060. If you've gone with the 10100 already, and have only around 2-300 cash left for a graphics card, a 1650 is a much better choice, as the 6500 XT wouldn't do you any good on PCI-e 3.0.

And it couldn't be made at this price without the compromises that became necessary due to its triple use as a Dgpu laptop integrated and possibly a core component of future Apu (possibly)

That's fine, but it compromises on far too many levels to be considered a viable alternative to anything else as a desktop dGPU.

 

[trsttte]

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.

The thing is, we're talkin about launch prices set by AMD. ebay/retailers are selling them for over 300$/€ (US tarifs aligned prices a bit).

Now who should profiteer from the current market for gpus, amd, retailers or scalpers? AMD is the one putting in the work so they decided fuck it they'll be the ones eating the pie. Fine, but again, we have no reasons to be happy about or celebrate it.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Huh? Overclockers UK is literally stocked full of graphics cards, including 1050 Tis and 1650s. They even have a few 1660s and 1660 Supers, although they cost a bit more than what I'd pay for them.


You need to buy a Core i5-11400 or Ryzen 5 5600X to be able to properly use it. For that total system cost, you'd be better off buying a Core i3-10100 and a 6600 or 3060. If you've gone with the 10100 already, and have only around 2-300 cash left for a graphics card, a 1650 is a much better choice, as the 6500 XT wouldn't do you any good on PCI-e 3.0.


That's fine, but it compromises on far too many levels to be considered a viable alternative to anything else as a desktop dGPU.

"Huh? Overclockers UK is literally stocked full of graphics cards, including 1050 Tis and 1650s. They even have a few 1660s and 1660 Supers, although they cost a bit more than what I'd pay for them."

They were not before christmass and a 1050 is 219 minimum now so nah not great but fair enough equal ish but fair point.

"You need to buy a Core i5-11400 or Ryzen 5 5600X to be able to properly use it. For that total system cost, you'd be better off buying a Core i3-10100 and a 6600 or 3060. If you've gone with the 10100 already, and have only around 2-300 cash left for a graphics card, a 1650 is a much better choice, as the 6500 XT wouldn't do you any good on PCI-e 3.0."

Fair enough I didn't suggest everyone should buy one though or that I would now always buy one in every scenario but i dont get your pricing either the board stays the same as cheapest available similar to ddr4 in any of these hypothetical systems, but where am i getting 2/300 quid from swapping a 12400 to a 10100 or even the 5600G to the 10100 the G was 269£

"That's fine, but it compromises on far too many levels to be considered a viable alternative to anything else as a desktop dGPU."

your allowed your opinion i am mine, it isnt that bad imho.

 

[Ravenas]

No. The target audience is gamers with entry-level pci-e 4.0 capable systems. Systems that basically do not exist.

Untrue. You are now just stating an opinion that entry level hardware doesn't exist. I can build a system, including monitor and keyboard, for ~ $1100. That's called entry level.

Fractal Design Core 1000 Black Micro ATX Mini Tower Computer Case - Newegg.com
ASUS PRIME B550M-A (WI-FI) AM4 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com
PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT Video Card AXRX 6500XT 4GBD6-DH/OC - Newegg.com
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7 GHz AM4 CPU Processor - Newegg.com
Crucial P2 500GB 3D NAND NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD - Newegg.com
LG 24BK400H-B 23.5" Full HD 1920 x 1080 75 Hz FreeSync (AMD Adaptive Sync) Monitor - Newegg.com
Logitech MK270 Wireless Keyboard and Mouse Combo 920-004536 - USB 2.0 RF Wireless Ergonomic Keyboard & Mouse - Newegg.com
CORSAIR Vengeance RGB Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) DRAM DDR4 3000 Desktop Memory - Newegg.com
EVGA 650 BQ 110-BQ-0650-V1 80+ BRONZE 650W Semi Modular Includes FREE Power On Self Tester Power Supply - Newegg.com

The thing is, we're talkin about launch prices set by AMD. ebay/retailers are selling them for over 300$/€ (US tarifs aligned prices a bit).

Now who should profiteer from the current market for gpus, amd, retailers or scalpers? AMD is the one putting in the work so they decided fuck it they'll be the ones eating the pie. Fine, but again, we have no reasons to be happy about or celebrate it.

You can't worry about scalpers; they have always been here. It's only a problem when supply is lower than demand.

 

[AusWolf]

They were not before christmass and a 1050 is 219 minimum now so nah not great but fair enough equal ish but fair point.

The 6500 XT wasn't available before Christmas, either, so...

Fair enough I didn't suggest everyone should buy one though or that I would now always buy one in every scenario but i dont get your pricing either the board stays the same as cheapest available similar to ddr4 in any of these hypothetical systems, but where am i getting 2/300 quid from swapping a 12400 to a 10100 or even the 5600G to the 10100 the G was 269£

What I mean is, as a new builder, you need to fork out for some kind of middle-class part to get PCI-e gen 4.

• B550 motherboards are cheap, but you need a 5600X at least. At £270, it's nearly 200 quid more expensive than a Core i3-10105F.
• You can get a Core i3-12100F for £120, but a good B660 board will set you back almost £200 which is nearly double than what a similar B560 would cost you.

Again, I'm not saying that the 6500 XT is a bad card purely because of its performance. I'm saying it's a bad card because the compromises AMD made with it limit it to a use case / buyer base that doesn't exist.

Untrue. You are now just stating an opinion that entry level hardware doesn't exist. I can build a system, including monitor and keyboard, for ~ $1100. That's called entry level.

I said entry-level PCI-e 4.0 capable systems don't exist.

As I mentioned above, instead of a B550 + 5600X combo, you'd be better off with a B560 + i3-10100 and a 6600 or 3060.

 

[Ravenas]

I said entry-level PCI-e 4.0 capable systems don't exist.

They exist, I just quoted you one. $1100

As I mentioned above, instead of a B550 + 5600X combo, you'd be better off with a B560 + i3-10100 and a 6600 or 3060.

Pick any combination of what you desire to be better at entry level components, it's still entry level. There is no arguing around that. There is a market for it, and it's catered.

 

[Selaya]

b550 5600x and entrylevel, that's like a fucking oxymoron

as auswolf's already said, you're far better off saving like $200 on board/cpu w/ the 10100; instead you should put the savings into a better gpu instead

 

[Ravenas]

b550 5600x and entrylevel, that's like a fucking oxymoron

as auswolf's already said, you're far better off saving like $200 on board/cpu w/ the 10100; instead you should put the savings into a better gpu instead

Most B550 are entry level mobos. X570 are for enthusiast. I don't really care what components you consider better for entry level, it's beside the point. Getting an entire computer setup for ~$1100 which can play most games at 1080P with average of 60 FPS is an entry level system.

 

[AusWolf]

They exist, I just quoted you one. $1100

That's not an entry-level system. Swap the motherboard and CPU for the Asus Prime B560-Plus and the Core i3-10100F and you have budget for a Radeon RX 6600 with $40 saved.

 

[Ravenas]

That's not an entry-level system. Swap the motherboard and CPU for the Asus Prime B560-Plus and the Core i3-10100F and you have budget for a Radeon RX 6600.

And the 6500 XT is still an entry level card priced at entry level pricing.

 

[AusWolf]

And the 6500 XT is still an entry level card priced at entry level pricing.

And the 5600X is a mid-level CPU with mid-level pricing. You'd be crazy to use it with a 6500 XT when you can have FAR BETTER gaming experience for the same money.

 

[Ravenas]

And the 5600X is a mid-level CPU with mid-level pricing. You'd be crazy to use it with a 6500 XT when you can have FAR BETTER gaming experience for the same money.

I gave you an example, I never required you to purchase the 5600X. Purchase a cheaper Intel with a cheaper Intel board. Go with the 6500 XT, and you still have entry level performance at 1080P. IF you wish to increase your performance, great go with the 6600 you mentioned, you still pay more money.

 

[AusWolf]

Purchase a cheaper Intel with a cheaper Intel board. Go with the 6500 XT, and you still have entry level performance at 1080P.

No. You will have crap performance, because the 6500 XT cries home to mama when it's limited to PCI-e gen 3.

 

[Selaya]

I gave you an example, I never required you to purchase the 5600X. Purchase a cheaper Intel with a cheaper Intel board. Go with the 6500 XT, and you still have entry level performance at 1080P. IF you wish to increase your performance, great go with the 6600 you mentioned, you still pay more money.

That's not an entry-level system. Swap the motherboard and CPU for the Asus Prime B560-Plus and the Core i3-10100F and you have budget for a Radeon RX 6600 with $40 saved.

That's not an entry-level system. Swap the motherboard and CPU for the Asus Prime B560-Plus and the Core i3-10100F and you have budget for a Radeon RX 6600 with $40 saved.

That's not an entry-level system. Swap the motherboard and CPU for the Asus Prime B560-Plus and the Core i3-10100F and you have budget for a Radeon RX 6600 with $40 saved.

monkaS

 

[Ravenas]

No. You will have crap performance, because the 6500 XT cries home to mama when it's limited to PCI-e gen 3.

View attachment 233517View attachment 233518View attachment 233519

Which is exactly why I recommend the 5600

I actually forgot about the 5600G, Amazon.com: AMD Ryzen 5 5600G 6-Core 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Radeon Graphics : Electronics . I like it a little more for the entry level build.

Would rather use this motherboard as well... GIGABYTE B450 AORUS PRO WIFI AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

 

[AusWolf]

Which is exactly why I recommend the 5600

You mean the Radeon 5600? Straw man argument. Nice try.

I actually forgot about the 5600G, Amazon.com: AMD Ryzen 5 5600G 6-Core 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Radeon Graphics : Electronics . I like it a little more for the entry level build.

It's only cents/pennies cheaper than the 5600X. Besides, it can only do PCI-e gen 3. It's a good thing to buy if you don't want a dGPU right away, but you're happy to wait and save for later. Totally irrelevant CPU to be paired with a 6500 XT.

Would rather use this motherboard as well... GIGABYTE B450 AORUS PRO WIFI AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

Again, it only has PCI-e gen 3.

 

[Ravenas]

You mean the Radeon 5600? Straw man argument. Nice try.


It's only cents/pennies cheaper than the 5600X. Besides, it can only do PCI-e gen 3. It's a good thing to buy if you don't want a dGPU right away, but you're happy to wait and save for later. Totally irrelevant product to be paired with a 6500 XT.


Again, it only has PCI-e gen 3.

Ah you're right I haven't looked at a lot of these APUs offered by AMD. The gigabyte board didn't save money on the PCI-e config... My bad I didn't research enough on both of those. I'm responding and playing a game at the same time. I still like my original build with the card.

I don't disagree there are downfalls with it, particularly with PCIe 3.0. However, it is placed well as an entry level card.

 

[Selaya]

b550-5600x-6500xt is asinine, since b560-10100f-6600 is both cheaper and better