Simply put, comparing how good product is can be either absolute or relative. On absolute terms, 6500XT was not good. But on relative value, well. Your choices are 6500XT or some u tter crap like GT730. From those options 6500XT is simply miles netter. Best option under $300 category as Techspot stated.What is this consooomer mindset? It's available, thus it has value?
Bruh no. The 6500 and 6400 were objectively bad values, no matter how you twist it.
AMD got "hate" because they released a 1650, 4 years later, at a 33% HIGHER price, with a gimped PCIe bus on top of it, that has no real place in the stack. Sorry, but being the underdog is no excuse to release half baked products. Do better.
Your comment just proves how some people just cannot see big picture. 6500XT launch was easily most important GPU launch this decade so far. Why? It ended worst GPU shortage. First, scalpers have no chance to buy all cards any more. Second, since there were low end GPU available, there is no longer need to buy mid end or high end products because nothing else was available.
Whatever AMD does seems to be wrong.
Seems hard to understand that on many cases overpriced crappy GPU is much better than no GPU at all.No, crap is still crap, you are convincing yourself that it doesnt smell so you can justify consooming product instead of just....not doing that.
Always easy to say when you have choices. But in situation where you have to (no, waiting is not an option) buy new GPU and 6500XT is best option, you quickly change your mind. That's why 6500XT sold well.Incorrect. I refused to lower my standards. Vote with your dollars and don’t reward companies’ crap products. Plain and simple.
Also feel free to tell what AMD could have done better. Or Nvidia. So many complain about 6500XT while not offering any better "what AMD should have made" -solution.