Rx 6650xt good with i3 10100f h410m?

[1800948134]

Im tryna upgrade from a gtx 1650, but too stubborn to look for other parts aside from the graphics card. Does this combo sound good? Im not sure but i think it can have 4% bottleneck but its minimal so its fine. Im planning to play apex, csgo, and other competitive games. Some single player sometimes.

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

Eh, to me the only graphic card that stands out is the Rx 6700 10g. None of the other ones make much sense. They are either too expensive or too cheap.

The 6650 is almost as fast as the 6700, but you only get 8g VRAM vs 10g on the Rx 6700. The Rx 6700 also comes with 16 pcie express lanes vs 8 on the 6650.

To me the 6600 series isn't even worth it.

[r.linder]

I agree with Wokeism, the 6600 series isn't really worth it because the 6700 has 10GB VRAM and 16 PCI-e lanes rather than 8GB and 8 PCI-e lanes. It also doesn't cost that much more.

Why the lanes matter is because your board and CPU only support PCI-e 3.0, while RX 6000 series is PCI-e 4.0, when you run less than 16 lanes, PCI-e revision matters a bit when it comes to performance. With only 8 PCI-e 3.0 lanes active, you're not getting all of the performance out of a 6600 series card as you could with a 6700 series.

[1800948134]

Oh i see, what cards can you recommend for my build stated?

[Zef]

Like they told you a 6700XT.

Your CPU will be a small bottleneck regardless.

[r.linder]

Still nothing to scoff at

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/compare-multi/amd-radeon-rx-6700-xt-vs-amd-radeon-rx-6700-xt-vs-amd-radeon-rx-6700-xt-vs-amd-radeon-rx-6700-xt/intel-core-i3-10100-vs-intel-core-i3-12100-vs-intel-core-i9-10900k-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k/ultra-vs-ultra-vs-ultra-vs-ultra

[A&A]

The RX6600XT is a good GPU, but the RX6700XT is $40 more, making it the best value. Both GPUs are fine with your CPU and with a few extra tweaks it will be perfect.

[_I_]

it was dumb of amd to cut down on the pci-e lanes on the lower model gpus, requiring them to go in newer cpu/mobo combos for decent performance
on older builds they are useless, spend a little more for the x16 card that outperforms it by a long shot

[A&A]

I still don't understand where the problem is with the 8x PCIe on the Rx6600? It's not the end of the world and it's not like the RTX3050 and RX7600 and even the RTX4060 (Ti) only have 8 lanes. And with these older CPUs I don't think you'll see a difference unless it's something like a Ryzen 7 5800X3D measuring difference on B450/B550. Intel's 12th gen, AMD's X3D and 7000 series are a huge improvement over the others.

[r.linder]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von A&A ✠:

I still don't understand where the problem is with the 8x PCIe on the Rx6600? It's not the end of the world and it's not like the RTX3050 and RX7600 and even the RTX4060 (Ti) only have 8 lanes. And with these older CPUs I don't think you'll see a difference unless it's something like a Ryzen 7 5800X3D measuring difference on B450/B550. Intel's 12th gen, AMD's X3D and 7000 series are a huge improvement over the others.

Running PCI-e 3.0 on a 4.0 x4 or x8 card is why you lose performance

[A&A]

RX6500XT and RX6400 yes they are failures up to some point. RX6500XT (with PCIe 4.0) performs slightly worse than RX5500 and if we talk about PCIe 3.0, there is no need to comment, but this is not the case. If you have an older generation and/or lower end CPU, you lose performance due to PCIe 3.0 duh, but can the CPU keep up with the GPU and is the difference that big 0-10%?

I5 12400F and RTX4060 PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0
https://youtu.be/BRAnh7_U6u4

I5 11400F and RX6600XT
https://youtu.be/OXWK1WlqoBU

It is stupid to watch the same story. "Look at me, l have the fastest GPU (or CPU) which surpasses all with 2 fps" or slaps a product "for gamers" which is most likely to be bought by a company for machine learning or idk what else.

[r.linder]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von A&A ✠:

RX6500XT and RX6400 yes they are failures up to some point. RX6500XT (with PCIe 4.0) performs slightly worse than RX5500 and if we talk about PCIe 3.0, there is no need to comment, but this is not the case. If you have an older generation and/or lower end CPU, you lose performance due to PCIe 3.0 duh, but can the CPU keep up with the GPU and is the difference that big 0-10%?

I5 12400F and RTX4060 PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0
https://youtu.be/BRAnh7_U6u4

I5 11400F and RX6600XT
https://youtu.be/OXWK1WlqoBU

It is stupid to watch the same story. "Look at me, l have the fastest GPU (or CPU) which surpasses all with 2 fps" or slaps a product "for gamers" which is most likely to be bought by a company for machine learning or idk what else.

You hardly lose anything when it comes to x16 GPUs on x16 slots because there's enough bandwidth, with fewer lanes you have less bandwidth to work with which is why bandwidth revision ends up mattering at all.

When 2.0 and 3.0 dropped in their respective eras, there wasn't any difference because x16 was normal, now they're cutting lanes down on cheaper cards to save manufacturing costs at the cost of the end user.

[_I_]

x8 3.0 is about 1/4 the bandwidth of x16 4.0
thats where the card starves for info while before it can draw the next frame

if the board only supports 3.0, and the card only supports x8, thats where the problem shows itself

[A&A]

Yes, technicly you are removing one possible bottleneck and l don't see nothing wrong in it but doesn't prove the point why they suck with older CPUs.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2104-pcie4-vs-pcie3-gpu-performance/

Here it is this my favorite review again with RTX3080, obviously a better GPU than RTX4060 in raw performance and they are testing the GPU with i9 10900K and PCIe 3.0 x 8. Is there a critical difference?

[r.linder]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von A&A ✠:

Yes, technicly you are removing one possible bottleneck and l don't see nothing wrong in it but doesn't prove the point why they suck with older CPUs.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2104-pcie4-vs-pcie3-gpu-performance/

Here it is this my favorite review again with RTX3080, obviously a better GPU than RTX4060 in raw performance and they are testing the GPU with i9 10900K and PCIe 3.0 x 8. Is there a critical difference?

Sort of, you're losing at least around 5% average framerate with only 8 lanes in their testing for the 10900K but that's 3.0 x16 vs x8, doesn't support 4.0 at all. It's an unnecessary thing that slightly impacts how much people can get from their upgrade even if their CPU is perfectly capable on its own.

They even noted that it may not be a big issue right now, but it could be an issue later on with some games releasing in the future.

But yeah the CPU makes a bigger difference even with the 6400 and 6500-XT, which can lose up to 30% performance on PCI-e 3.0 with a CPU that you'd reasonably expect to be bought alongside them, like the R5 4500. But there's another CPU in the same price range, the i3-12100, which doesn't have such a heavy loss as it has roughly 25% more single core performance and supports PCI-e 5.0, and it absolutely demolishes the same setup with a 4500 instead.

[76561198343548661]

i have i3 10100F + RTX 4060 , mobo ASRock H410M HVS (got it cos there was nothing else). The GPU is x8 lanes , it scored the right rank in 3DMark . I know there would be games where the CPU might be a bottleneck but in 3D Mark no bottleneck . RTX 4060 = RX 6650 XT . i ve got 3x the performance of GTX 1650 .

The only issue i have , didnt notice it prior to purchase, Palit RTX 4060 Dual is x8 physically and cannot fully populate the PCI-E slot and the bracket of the slot cannot do its job to hold the GPU . So , check yours - x16 physically would be better .