It‘s a paper launch and if MLID is right there won‘t be any meaningful stock going forward. Nvidia will gladly offer you a 1050Ti or 1650 in the 6500‘s price range though.
Now, I‘m not saying that and I am sorry if this came across as fanboyish. AMD wants to make money just like the others.
Street pricing does not justify changing a product's position in the stack. Did high launch prices suddenly mean the 5600x was a 12900k competitor? Nope.
Says someone that has this kind of standards for review scores:
"6500XT is widely available, 3050 is not. Basically you are saying AMD card should be compared to card that basically does not exist.
Those CPU you mention - yes, models are rightfully being compared based on their actual price across generations.
I don't think either of you have factored in the fact the 6500XT is utter garbage?
If you haven't noticed, some people are still waiting for RTX 3080 cards they ordered on September 17, 2020. That makes, um, one year and 4 months waiting. It's probably good situation when you are Supposed to have good card but...
Sold as a Desktop card being sold at $200+...
Which would be fine if it was sold at a price point that made sense to how bad its feature set is and performance but it's not, it's being sold at a ridiculous price.
In an ideal situation, it will be great to have a card that is performant, good in value and readily available. But in these times, the latter 2 are lacking. RX 6500 XT is decent in performance, ONLY IF you are running a system that supports PCI-E 4.0. I think the conclusion of the RX 6500 XT review says the same. But the key issue to me is that the card is way off for budget gamers. How many budget gamers that you know rocks a spanking new B550, X570 (and not using an AMD APU), or Intel Rocket/ Alder Lake CPU? If not, yes you can buy the RX 6500 XT at a higher price than MSRP or even MSRP, but for -30 to 40% of the potential performance. I’ve also heard many people considering this card for HTPC use because it is quite ok in performance (again if the PCIE 4.0 condition is met), and also the small form factor. But surprise surprise, even modern decoder is removed. It is not an effective streamer due to lack of video encoder too. So should we buy a “bone” that AMD threw at us for the sake of their keeping cost in check? May be? But not recommended. The expectation of a new gen GPU is progression. But this card is mostly if not entirely a regression from the RX 5500 XT that it’s meant to replace. It’s innovation alright, but not for the benefit of people buying it.
You obviously didn't read my previous post. I won't repeat same things again.
Here I list every new graphic card that is not currently selling at ridiculous price:
And that is problem why? If you don't have PCIe 4.0, then buy something else. Problem solved.
Again, how is that problem? PCIe 3.0 owners that don't want to sacrifice performance have tons of other options. If product not for you, then don't buy it. Simple.
Not just cost but availability too. Considering current situation, having at least Something available is huge thing. Since next gen video cards are coming later this year, there is no point designing another chip just for desktops. That's why AMD decided to offer mobile chip on desktop. And once again, at least AMD does SOMETHING to improve supply. What Nvidia does at same time? Very simple answer: absolutely nothing. 6500XT is not new gen card, those are probably coming later this year.
I don't do review scores, you'll have to give @Julio Franco a hard time over that. Though I don't necessarily disagree with the score. At $200 it deserves a better score, but at $270, there are better hold over options.Says someone that has this kind of standards for review scores:
- Current situation, where cards are simply not available or miners grab them all, AMD releases card that's very bad for mining and has very good availability: 20/100
- Nvidia releases card that is 98% die shrink of previous architecture 100/100.
"
I see. Then I can finally forget commenting you about those review scores.
You have to overlook a lot of shortcomings to justify the 6500 XT, even at $200 US. I personally wouldn't buy it as I use the hardware encoder daily. The PCIe 3.0 performance is generally terrible as well. I'll be honest I don't have the time nor the energy to talk about the 6500 XT anymore, I've said all I want to in my review, as well as this follow up video with Tim.
Basically you missed whole point for lack of features:
OK.
However you are completely ignoring fact that GTX1070 uses (at that time) 4 years newer manufacturing technology (2012 vs 2016) than previous flagship did. Basically you are rewarding Nvidia for making obsolete products before and of course modern product looks much better then. For comparison, Zen3 uses only about 2 year newer manufacturing tech than Zen (around 2016 vs around 2018).
That point was addressed in the video and no we're not missing the point at all. The x4 PCIe interface doesn't just equal a smaller die area, it in many instances equals absolutely **** performance for those using PCIe 3.0.
Can't make? Of course AMD could make much better product, but since new generation is coming later this year, it would be waste of resources. Did Nvidia design new low end chip for current generation? No, they just cut RTX3060 and renamed it RTX3050.
In other words, you are putting yourself in a corner. I don't see the point of defending a product that is ill suited for the target market. While it may sound harsh, but consumers and reviewers should be feeding back to the product maker. AMD's pitch is that they made a card "for gamers", and not suited for miners. In my mind, cutting the VRAM could alleviate the mining issue, but what is the point of cutting on the PCI-E bus, removing the video encoder/ decoder? Are miners utilising the full x16 or x8 bus in the first place or are they using the mining rig to also stream movie at the same time they are mining? This is just an excuse for AMD to cut cost in my opinion, and not" for gamers". Please remember, each card targets a specific market. This card again, is meant for budget gamers. If you are telling to me look for other options, what other options are there that is budget and don't sux this much when all I have is a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot? Isn't it penalising budget gamers? When 1 reviewer says its bad, there could be something wrong with the reviewer. When almost all the reviews have fairly similar concerns with the product, there is certainly an issue with the product. Some reviews may be milder and trying to find some positives with the product, but the limitations certainly cannot be overlooked. I am no reviewer, but objectively speaking, the card does NOT suit most budget gamers, and certainly not some olive branch that AMD has stuck out to help budget gamers. And when you are telling me to look for other options, basically you acknowledged that it is not suitable for most people.
May be you should try and be the reviewer? When you review something, it has to be compared with another product and some assumptions, I.e. pricing, etc. No reviewers will look price and availability in every single country before coming out with a conclusion of the product. If that is the case, the review will never be released because prices differs from country to country, so is the availability, or other moving factors. Again, I find people try to defend AMD's RX 6500 XT by putting themselves in a "no choice" situation. Hey AMD, I have no choice, so I think the card is ok, and I will buy it since there are no options. But is that the right feedback? So you mean to say if AMD is going to continue to pull a fast one on you next time, you will welcome their cost cutting measures? No wonder progress is stagnated because people don't expect a new generation product to work better than its predecessor, and happy with the lack of progress or even regression in this case. The product can certainly game if you have a PCI-E 4.0 or 5.0 slot in your system, but warnings from reviewers should also consider who is the target market of this product. People should not be using PCI-E 2.0, but 3.0 is common. So you pay xx amount of a card expecting 100% performance, only to be crippled to about 60 to 70% when using in an old system which the graphic card died and the only cheap card is the RX 6500 XT. Are you using one with PCI-E 3.0? How would you feel if you are? And don't forget, almost everybody uses a PC, but only a tiny fraction is up to date with new technology. This is almost like AMD pulling a fast one on unknowing users and hopefully people buying a new PC don't buy one with PCI-E 3.0 support only.
