PSA: DON'T Buy The RX 6500-XT (Unless There's LITERALLY Nothing Else)

[r.linder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFpuJqx9Qmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArW4-mkGHSw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmE8iZWaLWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5_oM3Ow_CI

Right out of the gate, the RX 6500-XT is being outperformed by the RX 580, a 5 year old refresh of a 6 year old GPU architecture. It can sometimes win against the 580, but it loses battles against it more than it wins, and there's just other issues with the card, like the fact that it only uses up to 4 PCI-e lanes out of a x16 PCI-e slot, and lacking some encoding support like HEVC.
AMD seems to have intentionally stripped down the 6500-XT, I guess to cut cost, but the MSRP is still basically around the same as what the RX 580 was, and that number doesn't mean anything anymore because of scalpers, that card is probably still going to be scalped even though it's terrible, which makes it even worse for people who might end up buying a scalped 6500-XT.

In my opinion, don't buy the 6500-XT, you're much better off paying more for a GTX 1660 SUPER or RTX 2060. If the 6500-XT sells out, it'll only show AMD that their shady design choices are a-okay with us, but it shouldn't be, this is absolutely disgusting that a 4 year old GPU is still consistently faster than their latest. And don't give me that "well the RX 580 was the top end of Polaris" crap, they've released the RX 590, which is even faster, than the 5500-XT, which was slower than that, and now the 6500-XT, which is basically the same GPU but actually worse in some aspects. The 580 was always a mid-range GPU in actual performance when it launched, now it's just barely above entry level, this isn't acceptable.
I don't really recommend buying Radeon GPUs at all at this point. AMD is starting to become more like Intel and NVIDIA and they're doing it wrong, they're making it too obvious that they're flipping their budget users off. At least their competitors are a lot more subtle about it.

[r.linder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez _I_:

5600xt probably isnt even pci-e 4.0, or even needs 4-8 lanes of pci-e 3.0

the xx50 cards are only for entry level gaming at lowest settings

All 5000 and 6000 series GPUs are PCIE4

but the 5500XT and 6500XD see more benefits than the 5700XT and 6700XT, it's bad. They're intentionally designed to be that way, possibly to give lower end users more drive to upgrade to something better that even on PCIE3 will run much faster.

The gap alone between the 6500XD and 6600XT is just insulting by itself, and even the 5500XT is faster.

[Fake]

I bought my RX 580 for $180 way back in the time of plenty.

It's sad to see the current state of GPUs.

[Introverted Gamer]

Don't worry, AMD's FineWine Technology will catch up. The 6500 XT will do fine.

[r.linder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Introverted Gamer:

Don't worry, AMD's FineWine Technology will catch up. The 6500 XT will do fine.

It won't even catch up to the 5500XT because it all ages at the same general rate lmao

[Overseer]

Początkowo opublikowane przez _I_:

*6500xt probably isnt even pci-e 4.0, or even needs 4-8 lanes of pci-e 3.0

the xx50 cards are only for entry level gaming at lowest settings
or a replacement for igpus

The PCIe talk is because of the card only having 4 lanes. You put it into a x16 slot but only 4 connect via the PCB. Thats why PCIe 4 is better with the new 6500 XT. You pick between PCIe Gen 3.0 x4 or PCIe x4 Gen 4.0.

[UserNotFound]

In times like what we're experiencing now, even bad cards can sell, the terrible GTX1650 is still being sold at $300+ to $400+ over at Amazon (unless I'd had my currency setting wrong), so like I'd alluded to, it's a seller's market now. I think AMD went overboard trying to make a budget card with cut-down memory interface, cut down PCIe lanes, and just 4GB of VRAM is most disconcerting. Their reasons were so that the RX 6500 XT would not interest miners, okay, but given its specs and relative performance, gamers might avoid it as well. (Asus' RX 6500 XT pricing has always been higher than others, sometimes even higher than the other big names, Gigabyte and MSI).

Again, I ain't defending it, like the older GTX 1650, I firmly believe the RX 6500 XT is a terrible card for modern gaming. But, targeting 1080P gamers who are willing to compromise on visuals or graphics settings, IF the 6500XT is easily available at near MSRP, no reason why some budget gamers with PCIe 4.0 compatible mobos might not go for it given the limited choices in the GPU market for 'budget' GPU's.

The comparisons I'd seen shows it to be better than the GTX1650 at 1080P (remember, the GTX 1650 is still being sold at crazy high prices given its poor level of gaming performance), and at mix of Medium-High settings, never at Ultra. One doesn't expect such an entry level card to run modern games at Ultra setting as it would sap the VRAM and saturate the memory interface, but for reason of testing/benchmarking, it's understandable as it shows the strengths and weaknesses of the tested card.

[r.linder]

They also had a blog post where they said that 4GB isn't enough for gaming anymore, which they've since deleted since it contradicts what they did with the 6500-XD

[Illusion of Progress]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Bad 💀 Motha:

Amd and Nvidia x50/xx50 gpus always were a complete joke

Only if your needs require so much more, maybe. To most other people they are fine for what they are (key words, because if your budget allows more and/or your needs demand more then they were never for you to begin with). Most other tech communities and outlets had no issue giving praise to these products where it was due at times (just like, apparently in the case of the subject card at hand, scorn when they deserve it).

Who can forget the GTX 750 Ti? I guess that was just such a terrible product, being one of the earliest budget range products that was able to play most games at 1080p and higher settings well. Less common, but the GTX 650 Ti Boost a generation before wasn't far off the GTX 660 either (which was also close-ish to the GTX 660 Ti). Even the "vanilla" GTX 650, though substantially weaker than these, was pretty good considering it was at a price point that would make us cry today, while still being overall okay for gaming at the time (of course there'd be compromises, it wasn't going to get you insane frame rates at max settings in all titles). The GTS 250/450 were popular in their time for much of the same reasons.

No, these aren't exciting or ground breaking ends of the market, and most of them are pretty "boring" with just a few standout exceptions (like the GTX 750 Ti I mentioned), but they usually aren't bad for the purpose they are intending to serve either.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

In my honest opinion, 4GB VRAM became obsolete around 2014-2015 or so.
I had issues with 970 and 980 due to only 4GB VRAM. While my 780 6GB provided just enough VRAM while performing the same as a 970 in most games. The real downside was that the 780 used almost twice as much power. I solved that by moving to a 980 Ti at that time.

I wouldn't even give an AMD or NVIDIA x50/xx50/x500 GPU to a young PC Gamer. They aren't going to enjoy games as much with terrible graphics. Something where even most games on PS3 and PS4 look better and run better. You are NOT going to enjoy games like GTAV or RDR2 on a GPU like a GTX 1050, 1050 Ti, AMD 5500/6500 series; just never going to happen. They are too low-end. In which case playing a game like RDR2 on even the older PS4 non-PRO would be more fun, run smoother and look heck of alot better; all for way cheaper.

If all you needed was a work PC; then something with an 8th Gen i5 or later and using the onboard Intel GPU would be plenty.

[A&A]

@ Bad Motha
But l'm still enjoying to play GTA 5 with Vega 7 2 GB VRAM

[Prof. Insanity]

Just wanted to say. I used a GTX 750 2GB for years to play games like GTA V also without any problems. You just have to deal with low settings, but you can't expect anything else at this point.

[A&A]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Don Sylvio:

Just wanted to say. I used a GTX 750 2GB for years to play games like GTA V also without any problems. You just have to deal with low settings, but you can't expect anything else at this point.

*high textures and MSAA*

[Prof. Insanity]

Początkowo opublikowane przez ☬A&A☬:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Don Sylvio:

Just wanted to say. I used a GTX 750 2GB for years to play games like GTA V also without any problems. You just have to deal with low settings, but you can't expect anything else at this point.

*high textures and MSAA*

Possible. To answer this to you specific - I used to have had a extremely weak PC back then. 4gb ram with low hz, and a very weak cpu. The complete package was simply too bad and low settings was the best I was able to do at least. That is why Bad Motha's post isn't realistic at all to me.

[UserNotFound]

Początkowo opublikowane przez ☬A&A☬:

*high textures and MSAA*

That's a flawed argument, I mean peeps who buy budget cards are more or less wanting to play games at 1080P, with Medium to High setting, they'll find that 'Ultra' is a tad too much for their 'budget' cards (GTX 1650 and RX 6500 XT). These peeps would prolly be realistic enough to know that games with 'High Texture' pack and MSAA are NOT for their cards.

They're looking for a card that can do 1080P gaming decently enough, and that's where the two cards fall into. With a decent CPU and enough RAM, these cards can do games decently enough at Low-high setting and still net playable framerate. Yes, some game engines are harder on them than others, hence these card owners need to find the right mix of ingame graphics settings to get the most out of their cards.

[A&A]

high textures and msaa (for GTA5), l mean, this is your problem if you have 2-4GB GPU