AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Review: A Bad, Really Bad Graphics Card

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,073   +1,651
So for me this is the most anti-consumer move I have ever seen any of these companies make. This is effectively $200 for the crap they swept up off the factory floor after they made their expensive graphics cards and laptops. The execs at AMD are laughing at us.

Its also so self defeating. The people who end up gaming on this card will be put off Radeon for life. I mean I was put off Radeon after using an RX580 for 2 years. And that card is supposed to be decent!
 

Toju Mikie

Posts: 278   +265
Yeah I didn't have high hopes for this one.
I would also argue that that 64-bit memory bus also has a lot to do with the slow performance. It doesn't seem to make much sense that AMD decided to cheap out that much on the memory bus and still keep the price at $200. I think this one will be stuck on shelves in stores.

With the 64-bit memory bus we can see that it has 144GB/s bandwidth, but if the 6500XT had 128-bit or better yet, the 192-bit bus, the bandwidth for the 192-bit bus would have been (18Gbps * 192-bit) / 8 = 432GB/s which I think would have been way better especially over the slow PCIe 4.0 x4.
 

maroon1

Posts: 124   +138
This review tested many games on medium setting on this GPU

Yet in laptop RTX 3050 ti 4GB review you guys used higher settings !!!

For example, Assassin's Creed game was tested on very high preset on mobile RTX 3050 review but you use medium on 6500XT 4GB. Double standard !!

Cyberpunk 2077 was test on ultra setting on RTX 3050 review !!!! But here you use medium and medium texures !! LOL
Also, it was dumb thing to test demanding game on ultra setting. Cyberpunk 2077 has poor fps on mobile RTX 2060 6GB anyway. . Even if RTX 3050 had more memory it would not run that game well anyway. The setting you should use should be reasonable (for example don't use ultra setting on budget mobile GPU)


My point is that 6500XT would performed a lot worse if you used higher settings.... RTX 3050 ti 4GB would not have performed that bad if you use same setting as 6500XT in this review

Hypocrisy and double standard. Please do review for RTX 3050 again and use same setting as you used on 6500XT review
 
Last edited:

takaozo

Posts: 39   +46
Is this a sick joke or something? April is far away from today, so it cant be that.
What a terrible waist of components and all that come with manufacture of this product.
Better with old card than this crap.
Cheers !
 

Aryassen

Posts: 207   +236
Thank you for the very thorough review Steve - it must have been a ton of work (and one you most certainly didn't enjoy).

I know I will be monikered public enemy nr1 after this, but I think this GPU is not that bad IN THE CURRENT MARKET. There is nothing at 200$ point, or even it the vicinity. Nothing. Is it fair? Hell no. But that's where we are. And one can game with this card (though preferably on PCIE 4.0).

My biggest grief is the x4 PCI-E limitation, I can't imagine it brings so much savings that it makes it worthwile. The 64-bit memory bus is a bummer too, but think the bandwidth is enough (just, by the skin of it teeth...) for the GPU anyway.

But, if someone needs something to game on, and has a PCI-E 4.0 motherboard, this card can be a lifesaver (there, I said it. Let the stones fly at me...). I'm sorry but the cost per frame analysis is completely off this world (talking about the ebay one here: the MSRP is a theoretical value, like my ideal waist size: once it was true, for a very short while, and will never return). But seriously: 1650 for 170$? Where? It is more than twice of that here, IN POUNDS. 330$ for a 3060? Really? Sign me right up, I will take that immediately (it is more like 6-700 quids).

The only thing remotely reflecting reality is the price of a used RX570. Still off, but not by multipliers, just percentage. Sorry Steve, but in the current market, if that card is selling for 200$, that would provide excellent price/performance ratio. I don't say this is how it should be (and I cherish my little 1070 Jetstream), but the market is what it is. For a 4.0 motherboard owner, this is a viable opttion.
 

MyIOnU

Posts: 71   +190
It is so bad that even miners reject it. Instead making more mid or high-end GPUs, both AMD and nVidia have tried to cash in from users with low end GPUs.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

This is so, so disheartening.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that AMD is, ultimately, anything other than a corporation that strives to make $. They are finally in a good position again after a long run of nearly being snuffed out...but this just doesn't make any sense/cents whatsoever!

The low end is where the masses of GPUs are sold, especially in 'cheap' pre-builts. They are foregoing 'low-hanging fruit' market share to make a quick buck given the current GPU pricing landscape.

They had a great opportunity to price this, bottom of the barrel feature wise, 'entry level' GPU at rock bottom pricing, which *might* have made up for this card's many shortcomings. Not only are they going to get lambasted by any reviewer with a decent head on their shoulders, but they have simply let down the masses of people who were trying to support them because AMD was thought to be 'the better' company.

The RTX 3050 is going to look like a super hero in comparison.
 
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but:

If you can _find_ one for $200 or less.

Then you own a card which can play all these and many other games at 1080p60.

That's the spec of both of my monitors.

It wasn't so long ago that 1080p60 was a target for a mainstream gaming PC, personally I'd be quite happy with that, especially if it's easy to get hold of at MSRP.

Then again, my Xbox Series S stomps all over this so why not just get an Xbox?
 

DrewTheBrave

Posts: 18   +18
I appreciate the genuine tone of honest disappointment throughout this article. Techspot seems to cut through the BS of the market better than most outlets -- even though there's not much that can be done about it at the moment. I miss the days when $300 got you a truly capable GPU that would last for years...
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +57
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but:

If you can _find_ one for $200 or less.

Then you own a card which can play all these and many other games at 1080p60.

That's the spec of both of my monitors.

It wasn't so long ago that 1080p60 was a target for a mainstream gaming PC, personally I'd be quite happy with that, especially if it's easy to get hold of at MSRP.

Then again, my Xbox Series S stomps all over this so why not just get an Xbox?
I live near two microcenter's and they have all these things marked up. The only one you can get at $199 is the PowerColor ITX. They go all the way up to $299 for a triple-fan vesion; which is just stupidity for a low end card like this. The cheapest one you can find on eBay right now is $375.

The card shouldn't be gimped by PCIe 3.0 in ANY circumstances though.

The card should have hardware encoding.

It should support more than 2 monitors.

The RX 570 4GB launched at $169 USD for bottom-end partner cards. Adjusted for inflation that is approx. $193 USD. But this new card is missing functionality essentially all cards that came before it were equipped with.

AMD missed the mark for a piece of silicon that could have likely been in the trash bin anyway. If they would have priced this aggressively it *might* have harbored some of the onslaught of negative attention they are getting on social media right now.
 

psycros

Posts: 4,080   +5,617
So for me this is the most anti-consumer move I have ever seen any of these companies make. This is effectively $200 for the crap they swept up off the factory floor after they made their expensive graphics cards and laptops. The execs at AMD are laughing at us.

Its also so self defeating. The people who end up gaming on this card will be put off Radeon for life. I mean I was put off Radeon after using an RX580 for 2 years. And that card is supposed to be decent!

When they were going for a hair over $100 right after the big crypto crash, they were WELL worth the money. Its a fantastic 1080p card..heck, it can usually do 2K adequately at medium detail.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,044   +3,475
What many seem to forget is the market we are in right now. Both Newegg and Microcenter had 6500XT starting at around $199 which - when a 1050Ti goes for over $300 is not a terrible deal *in the current market*.

That said, if someone is able to snag a 3050 even $100 over msrp that will be a much better deal. We‘ll see how much it ends up costing though (looking at 3060 prices does not instill much confidence).

AMD should have named it 6400XT instead but in the end it‘s a sad card for a sad market.
 

tellmewhy

Posts: 180   +86
If that chip just had AV1 encode (up to 8k) and decode capabilities they would sell crazy like hot cakes to gamers and it would be in general a game changer.

With 6nm node I think they had the space to implement AV1 encode and decode with almost zero cost.

Now the only sell point is for those (including me) who want a quite pc because it’s easy to cool it.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,073   +1,651
When they were going for a hair over $100 right after the big crypto crash, they were WELL worth the money. Its a fantastic 1080p card..heck, it can usually do 2K adequately at medium detail.
In all fairness the RX580 wasnt too bad. But I was suffering from a bug that gimped boost clocks on the card and the infamous black screen bug (which still isnt fixed btw), both issues were well documented on AMDs support forums with no fix. There was also this funny issue around No Mans Sky which meant the game was a stuttering mess due to openGL, it was NMS that caused me to go out and look for a new card. After 7 years of Radeon I switched to Nvidia and the difference was enormous, its been nearly 3 years since I got that RTX 2080 and I havent had a single issue with it at all, the driver and software experience is considerably better than what AMD provide.

But in hindsight its performance, temps, noise etc was pretty decent for how much that RX580 cost. I paid £260 for it in 2017 and then sold it about a year ago for £200. Good thing I didnt sell it back in 2019 when I got my RTX 2080 as I would have got about half as much for it!
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,204   +2,595
TechSpot Elite
Those guys at ATi who designed this are either dumb as rocks (doubtful) or were mandated by AMD to make no compromises when it came to cheapness. It would have been far better to make the card PCI-Express 3.0 x8 than what they've done and it probably wouldn't have cost much more (if it did in fact cost more).

This is an entry-level card which means that there's a much higher chance that someone who buys it doesn't have the latest and greatest hardware. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there are a good number of people still using FX processors and the video card slots on even the flagship northbridge for the FX series, the 990fX are only PCI-Express 2.0 x16. With this card, they'll be PCI-Express 2.0 x4. I wonder just how BAD that will be for them and I shudder.

This is something that I would expect from nVidia, not AMD.
 

HofyPC

Posts: 109   +103
Wow! A severally gimped card for only $200-300? I thought I was paying too much 2 years ago when I bought a 1650SC at $129!
 
Do you all have different prices for GPUs? A 5 year old RX570 is twice the price of this cards MSRP in the current market...

I just don't understand where your going to get RX570 performance for less if that's all you can afford.

Sure the PCIe4.0 requirement is a bit much but that's just one mark against it and you still can't buy a used card for less... Soooooo what is the alternative.

Also who is to say that AMD picked the MSRP? They don't actually sell or manufacture this card... Maybe board partners wouldn't produce it if it had a lower MSRP? Why would they...?

So as much as it is a truly a bad card... Imo every card is a bad card compared to 5 years ago, and I gets worse higher you go. You could have bought 4 Radeon VII's for the price of one 3090 today.

If I am wrong please tell me where I can buy RX580 for $200 US
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 242   +331
Pretty much what I predicted here, in some cases it's outperformed by its own predecessor, even the 4GB version in many cases. And that was a better card for a variety of reasons, it wasn't a great card, but it was a better card. The RTX 3050 that's coming in a few weeks should fall near the 1660 S and its release MSRP will only be $50.00 more. If you are going to be refreshing waiting for a card to pop up, you should definitely wait and try your chances with the 3050. I can't believe the PCI 3.0 performance here, wow! You just have to ask yourself, how much would it really have cost them to make it 8 PCI lanes instead of just 4? And then give you GDDR6 only on a 64-bus..? I guess 2 2GB modules of VRAM are cheaper than 4 1 GB, and obviously the card layout only supports 2 modules hence only 4GB option is available. Anyway, 6GB on a 96 bit bus and at least 8 PCI lanes would have made this a totally different card, still low end, but at least competitive with the 3050 if priced at $200.
 
Last edited: