MSI GeForce RTX 3050 Gaming X

[Selaya]

I decided to no longer include these points, because they will be true for every new release in the coming years

maybe add

good supply & pricing because underwhelming

to the 6500xt then?

 

[W1zzard]

maybe addto the 6500xt then?

I didn't know back then, but if 6500 XT continues selling that poorly, prices might come down enough for it to become an interesting choice for the people who look behind the drama the youtubers are selling them

 

[Selaya]

I mean, the 6500xt's not unusable-bad just godawful-price-performance-ratio and jump-through-the-hoops-asterisks bad, ergo a classic case of the there's no bad products, only bad pricing

and now w/ 12100f-b660/h610 shaping up to be really affordable (and good) too, there's one less problem wrt PCIe 4.0

 

[Frick]

I decided to no longer include these points, because they will be true for every new release in the coming years

Also you spent an entire paragraph on it.

 

[W1zzard]

Also you spent an entire paragraph on it.

I mean in the +- list. It's still important to talk about this situation, it's just not a specific product property that's bad/important to point out

 

[kruk]

I decided to no longer include these points, because they will be true for every new release in the coming years

Understandable and that is ok.

I didn't know back then, but if 6500 XT continues selling that poorly, prices might come down enough for it to become an interesting choice for the people who look behind the drama the youtubers are selling them

Judging by some DE data, it seems to be selling pretty nice - probably because the price is around/below 300€ for several models (which is a bargain compared to the 500€ 3050). Example for MindFactory:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1485218895527133185

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487774608359141381

Although, it might be different elsewhere in the world.

 

[Aretak]

How is it so loud at just 1200 RPM?

MSI use poor quality fans. I had the 3060 Ti Gaming X and that was very audible at its minimum fan speed, which was about the same. Nvidia seem to be enforcing a 30% minimum fan speed on Ampere cards. Every single one I've tried won't let you set the fans below 30%. That seems to equate to ~1200RPM on most cards, with the noise then being dictated by the quality of the fans. I had a Palit 3080 GameRock briefly as well and that was even louder at same sort of RPM (and unable to be set lower due to the 30% minimum). The one exception I've found is Gigabyte cards (haven't tried any Asus ones though). Looking at their 3060, funnily enough the minimum stable fan speed is much higher at 41% (you can set it lower down to that same 30% mark, but that causes the fans to pulse on and off), however they use better fans that can spin much slower. At 41% speed they spin at ~520RPM, which is inaudible. You can have complete silence whilst playing older and less demanding games, which is something that was completely impossible with the MSI and Palit cards. They would creep up to 60 degrees even under light loads, the fans would come on at 1200RPM+ and it'd cool way down again in 30 seconds. Then the fans go off and it creeps back up, so the fans come on again. Over and over and over. It's why I got rid of both cards. A custom fan curve was of no help, since there's no setting them below the 30% cut-off, at which speed they're very audible. So it's either constant noise or cycling silence and noise. Both options suck.

 

[thelawnet]

I decided to no longer include these points, because they will be true for every new release in the coming years

The existence of a $500 RRP Asus 3050 shows that not all 'fake RRPs' are as bad as each other.

The 6500 XT is readily available not too far from RRP.

For me, the complaints about the 6500XT:

* no encoding: good match with an Intel non-'F' cpu, which has encoding.
* works badly at PCIE 3.0 - not a problem with Alder Lake
* not enough VRAM - this is necessary to keep the price down and out of the hands of miners. This is absolutely a feature and not a bug.
* overpriced - the market sets the price
* slower than previous gens - again, this is feeds into price, if it's faster it will cost more; and the goal here was to deliver an affordable GPU that works for gaming. Checking stock online the competitors are the 730 (not even worthy of being called a GPU at this point), the 1030 (much slower, cheaper) 1050 TI (same price, same RAM, no advantages), the 1650 (same RAM, more expensive, slower), so it did what it needed to do.

Judging by some DE data, it seems to be selling pretty nice - probably because the price is around/below 300€ for several models (which is a bargain compared to the 500€ 3050). Example for MindFactory:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1485218895527133185

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487774608359141381

Although, it might be different elsewhere in the world.

I've checked several countries and continents and there seems to be good availability at (relatively) reasonable prices. This was a great product launch, and if people want to say it sucks, they need to give alternatives, which they can't, because they don't exist.

 

[silentbogo]

What's really sad is that in my area 3050 is in stock, but costs around $750, while 6500XT sits around $500. Both are slower than non-super 2060, which costs somewhere in-between (brand new).

 

[Chomiq]

Lowest - €524, highest €589

Only 3 sku's are not in stock. All come with this notice:

You can buy a maximum of one graphics card - regardless of series and model. We will edit all orders for more items automatically. You cannot buy this card if you already have an order for a different model. The availability of graphics cards depends on the manufacturer's supply. We fulfill orders chronologically.

 

[Ripcord]

I really believe that all the review sites have been paid to rubbish the 6500xt, its a Monster of a card; at the current price its competing against the 1050ti and it has double the performance of that card, 2x the performance for the same price seems like a bargain to me(in the UK).
the arguments that are being give make no sense, like my budget card cant run the latest games at max graphical settings.
the recommendations being given are even more absurd, like you should spend more money on a 5 year old second hand card that doesn't have a warrantee, may lose driver support at any second and has similar performance rather than a new card with a warrantee and driver support .
Hardware unboxed Literally said if you wanted a card to tide you over until the market settles down, it would be Smarter to spend £500 on a 3050 because it will probably only lose 33% of its value where as spending $270 on a 6500xt would be a bad idea as it might lose 50% of its value, I kid you not! 33% of $500 =$165, 50% of $270 = $135 I guess math isn't a thing at Hardware Unboxed.

 

[nguyen]

I really believe that all the review sites have been paid to rubbish the 6500xt, its a Monster of a card; at the current price its competing against the 1050ti and it has double the performance of that card, 2x the performance for the same price seems like a bargain to me(in the UK).
the arguments that are being give make no sense, like my budget card cant run the latest games at max graphical settings.
the recommendations being given are even more absurd, like you should spend more money on a 5 year old second hand card that doesn't have a warrantee, may lose driver support at any second and has similar performance rather than a new card with a warrantee and driver support .
Hardware unboxed Literally said if you wanted a card to tide you over until the market settles down, it would be Smarter to spend £500 on a 3050 because it will probably only lose 33% of its value where as spending $270 on a 6500xt would be a bad idea as it might lose 50% of its value, I kid you not! 33% of $500 =$165, 50% of $270 = $135 I guess math isn't a thing at Hardware Unboxed.

LoL, $30 extra ($165 vs $135) is a very cheap price to pay for the much better gaming experience on the 3050.

Sure people should buy the 6500XT if that's all they can afford, but if they can afford a little bit extra, 3050 is a much better choice. Though I would probably wait a few more weeks until prices settle down.

 

[thelawnet]

LoL, $30 extra ($165 vs $135) is a very cheap price to pay for the much better gaming experience on the 3050.

Sure people should buy the 6500XT if that's all they can afford, but if they can afford a little bit extra, 3050 is a much better choice. Though I would probably wait a few more weeks until prices settle down.

Yes but it's based on fake numbers and hypotheticals.

33% off a 3050 at $500 is $330. The barely slower 1660 Super launched at $230 2 years ago, and it matched a $380 card from 2016.

The fair price for this card today is $150, and a reasonable used price in 2 years would be like $90.

The world where a used '50 card still sells for $330 even after the next generation has launched is not one where the market has settled down.

 

[W1zzard]

I really believe that all the review sites have been paid to rubbish the 6500xt

I wish, AMD didn't even send us a sample, I had to organize mine through backchannels with online shops

 

[Ripcord]

I wish, AMD didn't even send us a sample, I had to organize mine through backchannels with online shops

If you fancy doing a test can you try it on a PCI-E 5 motherboard(if you have one) I know its marketed as a PCI-E 4 interface Card but that might just be marketing as I don't think AMD have a PCI-E 5 spec motherboard currently. I don't think anyone else has done it, it might be interesting might not be.

 

[Wasteland]

I really believe that all the review sites have been paid to rubbish the 6500xt, its a Monster of a card; at the current price its competing against the 1050ti and it has double the performance of that card, 2x the performance for the same price seems like a bargain to me(in the UK).
the arguments that are being give make no sense, like my budget card cant run the latest games at max graphical settings.
the recommendations being given are even more absurd, like you should spend more money on a 5 year old second hand card that doesn't have a warrantee, may lose driver support at any second and has similar performance rather than a new card with a warrantee and driver support .
Hardware unboxed Literally said if you wanted a card to tide you over until the market settles down, it would be Smarter to spend £500 on a 3050 because it will probably only lose 33% of its value where as spending $270 on a 6500xt would be a bad idea as it might lose 50% of its value, I kid you not! 33% of $500 =$165, 50% of $270 = $135 I guess math isn't a thing at Hardware Unboxed.

That isn't what he said. In fact, he said that the RTX 3050 has to cost no more than $370 for it to make sense. If the 3050 is more expensive, he says, you should look at the 6600XT. (Or consider buying nothing for awhile.)

I realize that a lot of people are desperate right now, and some of those people may not be able to afford anything more than the 6500XT. There are superior options in the same price range on the used market, though. If you're wary of the used market, which is understandable, then sure, go ahead; I certainly wouldn't judge you for buying the 6500XT. Just keep in mind that $270 is a lot of money to pay for a stop-gap option. That's Steve's point.

Calling the 6500XT a "Monster of a card," and then accusing someone else of shilling, is a funny schtick. This is a terrible market, terrible enough that you might be tempted by terrible products, but let's not get crazy here.

 

[Ripcord]

That isn't what he said. In fact, he said that the RTX 3050 has to cost no more than $370 for it to make sense. If the 3050 is more expensive, he says, you should look at the 6600XT. (Or consider buying nothing for awhile.)

I realize that a lot of people are desperate right now, and some of those people may not be able to afford anything more than the 6500XT. There are superior options in the same price range on the used market, though. If you're wary of the used market, which is understandable, then sure, go ahead; I certainly wouldn't judge you for buying the 6500XT. Just keep in mind that $270 is a lot of money to pay for a stop-gap option. That's Steve's point.

Calling the 6500XT a "Monster of a card," and then accusing someone else of shilling, is a funny schtick. This is a terrible market, terrible enough that you might be tempted by terrible products, but let's not get crazy here.

Watch from 13:40

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

For me, the complaints about the 6500XT:

* no encoding: good match with an Intel non-'F' cpu, which has encoding.

But, how can people make use of the "Quick Sync" encoder on Intel CPUs with a Radeon RX 6500 XT? Do you just install the Intel graphics drivers along with the AMD graphics drivers?
It won't be that much of a deal breaker, if that actually works!

 

[thelawnet]

But, how can people make use of the "Quick Sync" encoder on Intel CPUs with a Radeon RX 6500 XT? Do you just install the Intel graphics drivers along with the AMD graphics drivers?
It won't be that much of a deal breaker, if that actually works!

Yes, the main thing is to enable the IGP in the BIOS.

According to this: https://skatterbencher.com/2021/12/...tel-uhd-graphics-770-overclocked-to-2378-mhz/ https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/...tel-uhd-graphics-750-overclocked-to-1750-mhz/

there was a very large improvement between Rocket Lake and Alder Lake for encoding performance with Handbrake H.265. I'm not sure if this is true, but it's hard to say for sure because these encoders are not necessarily focused on quality - they may prioritise speed at the cost of quality.

At any rate, encoding on the GPU will be many times faster than using the CPU alone. I assume the 3050 beats Intel's encoder, but that's non-obvious.

 

[Wasteland]

Watch from 13:40

Good lord. That was a hypothetical question from a viewer, and this was his off-the-cuff answer, based on the hypothetical:

"If the 3050 ends up costing $500, and if the 6500 XT is at the $270, I still think there's more value spending $500 on the 3050." And then, in the very next breath he says, "But I strongly recommend not doing that. Like, I don't recommend either product." Then he says buy the 6600 XT instead, second hand market, etc.

By contrast, here's what you said:

"Hardware unboxed Literally said if you wanted a card to tide you over until the market settles down, it would be Smarter to spend £500 on a 3050"

You made it sound like HUB actually recommended buying the 3050 at $500, which is absolutely false. In fact, he recommended buying an AMD product instead (the 6600 XT), if the price of the 3050 rises above $370. So who's shilling what now? The statement in the video you quoted wasn't presented as a carefully considered editorial position. It was basically, "Yeah, I guess if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the 6500XT at $270 and a hypothetical 3050 at $500, the latter feels like a marginally better choice in the long run--but really both options suck."

"Math" wasn't on the table, in that moment, any more than it would be for you if someone stopped you on the street to ask your opinion on a random question. Personally, I don't even think the statement is unreasonable regardless; given the 6500 XT's manifest shortcomings--it being effectively a 3 GB card (hamstrung by its VRAM buffer far more than older 4 GB cards), with no video encoding and only 2 display outputs--paying $270 for it seems like a recipe for regret in the not-too-distant future. Better to overpay for a card that will work well for 3+ years than it is to pay $270 for what may begin to feel like an expensive paperweight shortly after I install it--but happily, there are better options even in this terrible market than a $500 RTX 3050.

 

[thelawnet]

Good lord. That was a hypothetical question from a viewer, and this was his off-the-cuff answer, based on the hypothetical:

"If the 3050 ends up costing $500, and if the 6500 XT is at the $270, I still think there's more value spending $500 on the 3050." And then, in the very next breath he says, "But I strongly recommend not doing that. Like, I don't recommend either product." Then he says buy the 6600 XT instead, second hand market, etc.

By contrast, here's what you said:

"Hardware unboxed Literally said if you wanted a card to tide you over until the market settles down, it would be Smarter to spend £500 on a 3050"

You made it sound like HUB actually recommended buying the 3050 at $500, which is absolutely false. In fact, he recommended buying an AMD product instead (the 6600 XT), if the price of the 3050 rises above $370. So who's shilling what now? The statement in the video you quoted wasn't presented as a carefully considered editorial position. It was basically, "Yeah, I guess if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the 6500XT at $270 and a hypothetical 3050 at $500, the latter feels like a marginally better choice in the long run--but really both options suck."

"Math" wasn't on the table, in that moment, any more than it would be for you if someone stopped you on the street to ask your opinion on a random question. Personally, I don't even think the statement is unreasonable regardless; given the 6500 XT's manifest shortcomings--it being effectively a 3 GB card (hamstrung by its VRAM buffer far more than older 4 GB cards), with no video encoding and only 2 display outputs--paying $270 for it seems like a recipe for regret in the not-too-distant future. Better to overpay for a card that will work well for 3+ years than it is to pay $270 for what may begin to feel like an expensive paperweight shortly after I install it--but happily, there are better options even in this terrible market than a $500 RTX 3050.

They didn't say that at all.

They said - choosing between a $270 6500 XT and a $400 3050, then 3050. And then they chose to posit the price of $500 for the 3050 - they chose that number, not the viewer. Yes they did say, rather the 6600 XT, but that doesn't mean the 3050 is a better buy at $500, it's clearly not.

They then said 'if you buy a 3050 for $500 and then prices become normal and they are sold for $300'. And they then said 'the 6500 xt could easily tank to $100'.

Which is obviously just nonsense on their part - a world in which a 6500 XT costs $100 is not one where a 3050 costs $300.

 

[Wasteland]

They didn't say that at all.

They said - choosing between a $270 6500 XT and a $400 3050, then 3050. And then they chose to posit the price of $500 for the 3050 - they chose that number, not the viewer. Yes they did say, rather the 6600 XT, but that doesn't mean the 3050 is a better buy at $500, it's clearly not.

They then said 'if you buy a 3050 for $500 and then prices become normal and they are sold for $300'. And they then said 'the 6500 xt could easily tank to $100'.

Which is obviously just nonsense on their part - a world in which a 6500 XT costs $100 is not one where a 3050 costs $300.

Nitpicking aside, it's still just spitballing in a Q&A session. "In a hypothetical world where only these two cards exist, how much would the 3050 have to cost before I'd buy the 6500 XT instead? Uhh, more than $500?" Characterizing that as some sort of considered editorial position is inappropriate. Acting like an off-the-cuff hypothetical statement is representative of some sort of widespread tech-reviewer conspiracy to shill against the 6500 XT is even sillier.

HUB's recommendations, with respect to the 6500/3050/6600, are in the video I posted. They actually recommend an AMD product (the 6600 XT) at the price point that Ripcord complained they recommended the 3050. This isn't about shilling; it's about the 6500 XT being a terrible product. We can quibble over how bad it is, but saying that it's terrible isn't exactly a bizarre or indefensible position. We're talking about a card that chokes on its low VRAM buffer even before other 4 GB cards, released years ago, do. And then there's the video encoding issue, the lack of display outs, etc. This card is basically designed to have no legs at all.

Just as a matter of principle, I'd have a hard time spending $270 on a product like that. Even given the current market conditions.

 

[Ripcord]

Nitpicking aside, it's still just spitballing in a Q&A session. "In a hypothetical world where only these two cards exist, how much would the 3050 have to cost before I'd buy the 6500 XT instead? Uhh, more than $500?" Characterizing that as some sort of considered editorial position is inappropriate. Acting like an off-the-cuff hypothetical statement is representative of some sort of widespread tech-reviewer conspiracy to shill against the 6500 XT is even sillier.

HUB's recommendations, with respect to the 6500/3050/6600, are in the video I posted. They actually recommend an AMD product (the 6600 XT) at the price point that Ripcord complained they recommended the 3050. This isn't about shilling; it's about the 6500 XT being a terrible product. We can quibble over how bad it is, but saying that it's terrible isn't exactly a bizarre or indefensible position. We're talking about a card that chokes on its low VRAM buffer even before other 4 GB cards, released years ago, do. And then there's the video encoding issue, the lack of display outs, etc. This card is basically designed to have no legs at all.

Just as a matter of principle, I'd have a hard time spending $270 on a product like that. Even given the current market conditions.

OMG I think you're suffering from a mental derangement. I guess what you BELIEVE is more important than reality.

 

[TokyoQuaSaR]

I wish you kept the GTX 1080 in the comparison instead of the Vega 64 that nobody uses tbh...

 

[lexluthermiester]

I wish you kept the GTX 1080 in the comparison instead of the Vega 64 that nobody uses tbh...

Lots of people still have the Vega64. Don't be so narrow minded.