5 ms·
The fact that the entry-level card can run its clock 30% faster than the same line's top-end offering supports the story pretty solidly, IMO. Not supporting 8 G
by saulrh 5y ago
The fact that the entry-level card can run its clock 30% faster than the same line's top-end offering supports the story pretty solidly, IMO. Not supporting 8 GB of vram can't have given them enough breathing room to casually run the clock that fast, so this has to have been decided way up front.
Like the article says, it remains to be seen whether this will also make the card bad at gaming, but I think that AMD at least had a coherent plan here.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoThe RX 6500 XT is a worse card than the RX480 released 5 years ago https://i.redd.it/oyxyoxmch2a81.jpg https://i.redd.it/oyxyoxmch2a81.jpg .
- narrator 5y agoThis is kind of like Google and Youtube becoming worse because they have too many of the wrong kinds of users.
- yob22 5y ago
- dragontamer 5y agoI'd expect otherwise actually. RDNA is far more efficient at gaming. GCN was compute-focused (higher TFLOPs, but weaker in practice). Case in point, micro-benchmarks show that VRAM latency is ~100 nanoseconds on RDNA, but ~300 nanoseconds on GCN. RX 6500 XT is aimed at roughly the same specs as the RX480, but should perform slightly faster in practice, along with Raytracing support, Infinity Cache and therefore faster VRAM latency (probably faster fill-rates and other microbenchmarks important to gaming), all at 107W instead of 150W. --------- As such, Rx 480 would be a better mining card, while 6500 XT would be a worse mining card, but better video game card. Its still stupid for AMD to market their cards like this, but they're not lying... (and whatever argument marketing wants to make... well... that's their job. It all looks stupid to me but I can't honestly call them out on it since it is true...) ------- Turns out that video-gamers who want more uniformity and less jitter between frames want higher-clock speeds (notice the 2000+ MHz clock speed on 6500 XT) rather than raw TFLOPs (Rx 480 ran a slow clock of ~1000MHz but had many more compute units / SIMD units computing in parallel). Width of GPU leads to more variance, because its harder to load-balance your parallelism. If you have a narrower GPU (fewer compute units) at higher speeds, its easier to reach more consistent frame times / less jitter.
- NikolaNovak 5y agoFurther, given the prices of RX480 and modern video cards, even if they were on par, if you can actually GET RX6500XT for $200 today, then: 1. It sucks from big picture perspective, as we are "back where we were 5 years ago" but 2. It's great from pragmatic perspective, as we are otherwise today in "Wish I could afford a card from 5 years ago" / "there's no such thing as a budget GPU" stage.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoIf we look at the benchmarks of the 5500XT vs the RX480 I expect it to maybe be 5-8% faster if at all. AMD basically released this card 3 times now but this time they scrubbed the whole encoding feature set.
- dragontamer 5y ago> AMD basically released this card 3 times now but this time they scrubbed the whole encoding feature set. Do you not see the difference between GCN, RDNA, and RDNA 2? At a minimum, this RDNA 2 6500 XT has raytracing cores that the two previous versions do not have. I'd assume that most video gamers care more about the raytracing feature (especially as more and more games are using it) than H265 encoding. Remember: Raytracing instructions were invented on RDNA2. The 5500 doesn't have it, and the 480 doesn't have it. ------- I mean, seriously. Would you rather have the existence of this card? Or the non-existence? If you want something faster, that's why the 6800 exists. This 6500 XT is for people who want a barely-gaming ready card at the cheapest possible price. If that's not your use case, then don't buy the card. But every now and then, I build a computer for a child who doesn't play many video games, or for some uncle/aunt who doesn't know much about computers. I never like the idea of going iGPU only, because these people inevitably find at least one weird game that they like to play. So I like to put in a $100 to $200-class card in there. Not expensive enough to break the budget, but high enough that it'd perform decently on 10-year-old games and maybe a few indie-games.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoAre you suggesting that you could use Raytracing at all in modern games on a low end card like the RX 6500 XT? If you would use it you would lose the marginal performance increase of the updated architecture. Also content creation is a big point for younger generation if it is livestreaming, recording clips or general gameplay. This will both not be doable with this card if you don't have a good cpu. There is no discussion that more cards are good in the market we have right now. The card is 50% over MSRP right now at most retailers.
- Osiris 5y agoThat picture is misleading. It doesn't show that the 6500 has >2x the clock speed and lower power requirements. 2x the clock speed is crazy.
- wmf 5y ago2x the clock speed is a combination of design tradeoffs and Moore's Law.
- torginus 5y agoI don't think that's true - the GTX 1060, which was its' competitor, and matched it's performance pretty closely only had 4.375 TFLOPS of compute. Architecture matters
- acdha 5y agoDo you have a more reliable source than a random Reddit image assemblage?
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoYou can check it yourself on AMDs website.
- postalrat 5y agoWell is it cheaper than a 5 year old rx480?
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoIt's the same MSRP.
- qayxc 5y ago"MSRP" First partners selling the part in Europe already have a hefty 50% surcharge [0]. [0] https://videocardz.com/newz/amds-199-radeon-rx-6500xt-officially-gets-e300-324-msrp-from-asus https://videocardz.com/newz/amds-199-radeon-rx-6500xt-offici...
- postalrat 5y agoI meant once it's released will it cost me less to get a rx6500 or a rx480.
- FinalBriefing 5y agoIt looks like it is just a different card designed for a different purpose. High clock speed, more power efficient, and a lot smaller...and $200 (supposedly).
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoI have both those cards and your very wrong. The RX480 with 8gb still can’t match the RX6500 with 4gb. The RX480 was a great mid tier card, but it’s showing it’s age and the RX6500 is a good upgrade. It’s not drastically better, but enough to play most games 1080p and medium to high graphics. I was stuck at 1080p and low to medium with the Rx480.
- jagger27 5y agoIsn't it a power budget and heat dissipation thing? For example the Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 GPUs have pretty similar architectures, but the PS5 has fewer compute units at a higher frequency. Surely Microsoft would have loved to clock theirs as high as Sony. PS5: 10.28 Teraflops, 36 Compute Units running at 2.23GHz (variable frequency) XSX: 12.11 Teraflops, 52 Compute Units running at 1.825GHz (fixed)
- zozbot234 5y ago> but the PS5 has fewer compute units at a higher frequency. Yes, this seems to be what's happening here. Less power used on memory bandwidth, means more is available for other things. This card is not so much "bad at mining" and more like trying to design for a different niche that might be underserved by all the "good at mining" GPU's.
- torginus 5y agoI love how Mark Cerny managed to spin Sony having to raise the clock frequency of the PS5 GPU to compete with a the XSX's TFlop specs as an advantage. GPUs tend to be memory-bandwidth bound - if you play around with raising the clock frequency by 10% from stock on most GPUs, you won't get 10% more fps, likewise if you drop the frequency by 10%, you won't lose 10% fps. But with the power consumption scaling with the square of the frequency, the difference in power draw can be absolutely significant. That's the reason many people (me among them) chose to underclock their 5700XTs
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]