AMD admits Navi 24 GPU used on Radeon RX 6500 XT was meant for Ryzen 6000 laptops

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,317   +5,508
People don't understand that AMD is playing the market. $200 might normally be too high, but what is normal in the current market...? Exactly. Nothing.

Why 4GB?
Because anything more than that, and it becomes a mining card immediately being bought up. This was one meant for pure gamers. Not streamers, not editors, not anyone else that might need additional features. Someone that NEEDS a card, is going to buy this. We can talk about all the other old cards like the RX 580, 1050 Ti, 1650 etc, but none of them can actually be found for the same price, let alone new.

Why $200?
Because even if this thing is cheap to make, you still have to account for absurd shipping costs nowadays. At what other price would they break even or make profits in the current market?
Because inflation is through the roof.

Why PCIe 4x?
Who knows? The only reason I can think of is trying to shove off any cost possible. Or it's some weird reason to convince people to go with PCIe 4.0 systems. Whatever the case, if you're in need for a graphics card, you're gonna buy it.

Taking a look at online shops, the 6500XT is selling. None are available, except an ITX version for $270. So yeah. AMD made the right choice business-wise.

AMD is being slammed for this while nVidia has been artificially jacking up prices and constantly lying to their consumer base for over a decade with normal markets. It's also remarkable that MSRP is still used as a base in nVidia card reviews, but suddenly with AMD, made up prices are the ones that matter... nVidia didn't even provide an MSRP for their latest cards, but that's ok I guess...? Meh...
Whataboutism at its finest.

Nvidia jacking up prices or acting like pricks does not justify AMD gimping the hell otu of this card then setting it at the insulting $200 asking price, moving perf/$ BACKWARDS. This card should have never released, the laptop market didnt want it, it should have been scrapped.
The thing is that this GPU is perfectly acceptable as it stands with its specs.
But pricing it at $200 (145£), and then saying it is a followup to the 5500XT, is a joke.
Nope. This card is severely bandwidth starved, and pulls way too much power for how little it provides. It's terribly unbalanced, should be clocked lower, sold as a 6400xt, for under $70.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,352   +2,474
TechSpot Elite
Nope. This card is severely bandwidth starved, and pulls way too much power for how little it provides. It's terribly unbalanced, should be clocked lower, sold as a 6400xt, for under $70.
The 1650 Super is not exactly tearing the world up. And the cheapest I can find one is $450. The Sapphire 6500XT is going for its $199 MSRP at Newegg. So bad as it is, the 6500XT will find some homes, surprisingly.
 
Last edited:

BSim500

Posts: 894   +2,113
The Sapphire 6500XT is going for its $199 MSRP at Newegg. So bad as it is, the 6500XT will find some homes, surprisingly.
A far more honest appraisal is "It's priced anywhere from $199 to $359 on Newegg and up to €600 elsewhere (link) pre-scalped by official retailers. The very few models that were sold for $199 were snatched up within seconds by a lot of scalpers, hence the many $400 listings on Ebay, and now it's out of stock at MSRP everywhere including Newegg".

If this thing were in stock and mass produced to maintain that MSRP in the face of scalpers, then the crippling of its features / bus might be worth something, but even after 1 day it's ended up as scalped and out of stock as any other card, and there comes a point where a lot of budget gamers are going to laugh at $400-€600 "budget" GPUs and simply buy a €269 XBox S instead...

Edit: Personally I don't doubt that the RTX 3050 may face the same scalper fate next week, but people are laughably holding this card up as "saving" the budget gaming market when it's done nothing of the kind. Many of those very few $199 cards sold are sitting right now on Ebay for $399 rather than "in homes", and all the bus crippling / removed media features "to bring costs down" was for nothing.
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,352   +2,474
TechSpot Elite
A far more honest appraisal is "It's priced anywhere from $199 to $359
Then a far more honest opinion would have mentioned that the 1650 Super is priced anywhere from $450 to $750 on Newegg, but I assumed I was obviously stating the lowest price available on each. I thought that would be clear when I said "the cheapest I can find one". And the 6500XT was available when I posted.

EDIT: The 6500 XT IS available at Newegg though all 3 options are $60 more than the Sapphire.
 
Last edited:

NightAntilli

Posts: 891   +1,171
- First up, this "$200" card has ended up a $270-$360 GPU as is actually being observed in the real world. It's also widely out of stock mostly due to being scalped no differently to competing cards rather than "popular demand".
That's a testament to how bad the market currently is. It has nothing to do with AMD.

- Secondly, it's entirely possible to make a half-decent 4GB card (1650S springs to mind) without a severely crippled bus or missing all the media features.
The cost of making that same card is today much higher than it was back then. If you can't understand that, we don't have much more to discuss.

- Thirdly, copper is $4.5/lb not $4.5m/oz. The difference in price going with a x4 vs x16 bus barely translates to $0.05 per GPU. You could in fact slap a 1kg solid copper heatsink on and it would barely add $10 to the material cost. So God knows where all these "Thanks AMD for this crippled x4 bus, that saved me $80 at least on those copper tracks!" deluded fantasies are coming from.
Or maybe they simply had a limited amount of copper available since their copper shipment was delayed, and rather than waiting for the shipment, they decided to release the card anyway...? Who knows? Once again, the market is not the same as it was. There are shipping delays combined with higher shipping costs, chip shortages, sick personnel and a bunch of other things making everything more expensive. I doubt AMD made it x4 just for fun. You think they don't know it cripples the card...?

- Fourth, even AMD's excuses that "it's a laptop chip" make zero sense when the 1-2w power saving on a narrow bus is instantly wiped out by having most of the hardware decoder / encoder features ripped out (so it'll end up drawing +10-20w more having to decode AV1 video / streaming via software encoding, thus significantly reducing laptop battery life...)
Although this is true, that is not the reason they said it's a laptop chip.

- Fifth, it isn't just Intel limited to PCIe 3.0, many cheap B350/450 boards people kept recommending here instead of B550's to stay price competitive with B460's, etc, along with the newest APU's (5600G, 5700G) are limited to PCIe 3.0 too. And budget gamers this GPU is aimed at are disproportionately more likely to own cheaper boards / older CPU's. So in the process of trying to shoot Intel customers in the foot, AMD have shot half their own customers too...

There is no "genius master plan" here, just confused desperation, and a whole lot of wishful thinking from the usual hyper-biased 'characters' here...
Who said there's a genius master plan? I simply said they are playing the market. Anyone that requires a graphics card right now, is going to buy one, because despite its preposterous price, it is still the best option available at MSRP, believe it or not. And yes, many people bought it at or close to MSRP.

In fact, scalpers are getting burned with this card. Some are trying to sell it for over $500 and failing. Whether it was a plan or not, it is turning out for the better.

First 6500XT's have been sold at Amazon.de, the price is 350 EUR.

For the same amount of money, you can only buy a brand new 1050ti.

I don't understand why everybody is mad at AMD as you get better performance (double the 1050ti's performance in fact) at the same price point.
Because AMD always gets all market frustration dumped onto it.

It’s still a bad card though. It only exists because it’s better than having no GPU.
Exactly. You know how AMD would have saved itself from this mess? By lying like nVidia does. They should have called it the 6400XT, set the MSRP at max $120, release it for $200+ quietly, and blaming the price hike on the market.

People don't appreciate honesty. No wonder nVidia is always on top.
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 891   +1,171
Nvidia jacking up prices or acting like pricks does not justify AMD gimping the hell otu of this card then setting it at the insulting $200 asking price, moving perf/$ BACKWARDS. This card should have never released, the laptop market didnt want it, it should have been scrapped.
I didn't say it justifies it. I am saying that the sentiment around AMD is a lot worse for doing things not nearly as messed up as nVidia. It is a testament to the bias, shallowness and non-objective views on the graphics market.

As I said before, if AMD acted like nVidia and called this the 6400XT, said MSRP was $100, quietly sold it for $200+ deliberately, and blame the price hike on the market, the sentiment would have been a lot different.

It wasn't AMD that was moving the perf/$ backwards... That's like saying that the boat that washed ashore caused the Tsunami.
 
I wouldn't buy this card for myself but it also has its uses. Atm I have a rx 6600xt that I have been very happy with at 1440p even with RTX enabled. ( got what I could when my 2070 went out after warranty. but do not regret it at all)

Someone that only plays Minecraft that wants RTX for the pretty lights would be a good target for this card as they wouldn't benefit from buying any bigger card. integrated graphics at the moment do not provide RTX.

My daughter is always trying to use my gaming machine to play Minecraft with RTX. For her to get what she wants on her gaming machine I would rather pay 200 than 700+. Yes 200 is to much but welcome to the here and now.

if it has a use and can find a market than it will find its audience.
Not everyone wants or needs a powerhouse to do what they want to do.