• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

RX 6600XT 1080p gaming for $379 on Aug 11

Nelly

Nelly

Nelly

Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2003
Posts
7,211
Location
Grimsby, UK
TheLegendOfMart said:
I'm running Intel UHD630 and have been for the past year and a bit. I don't have a choice..............
KompuKare said:
Play 2D games!
I have plenty of games in my backlog which works fine without much GPU grunt some of them aren't even that old.
Or since you've already waited over year you could risk waiting longer as prices have recently slowly gone down
Nelly said:
Absolutely this, I'm using the Intel® HD Graphics 3000 from a 2500K that's over 10-years old and I'm currently playing Raid: Shadow Legends without any issues, over 56 million people play it world wide everyday on phone or PC.

Choplifter HD is also another good 2D game that plays well on basic onboard graphics >> https://store.steampowered.com/app/202070/Choplifter_HD/

pSdbEsI.png
Zarax said:
Jagged Alliance 2 (cheap on gog) and Warzone 2100 (free) are excellent titles that pretty much any iGPU can play. Some of 20th century's finest refined further by the community.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've got Jagged Alliance, good thought. Also Syndicate Plus™, Syndicate Wars, and Ultima Underworld I & II free of charge for the next 24-days, should easily play well on basic onboard graphics. Syndicate is a good game even though it's nearly 30-year old. >> https://www.gog.com/promo/rerelease_ultima_underworld_and_syndicate
 

loftie

loftie

loftie

Associate
Joined
17 Oct 2009
Posts
2,346
You know a GPU is good when the thread is derailed by people talking about games that can be played on an IGP.

And PCI-E 8x. SMH.
 

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,820
Location
Planet Earth
MCFC_ANDY said:
shame 1080p is so 2010:cry: think we moved on since then
Click to expand...

We can spend nearly £400 on GPUs to play games on a £100 Asda LCD monitor resolution! So PCMR! So 2021!

:cry:

KompuKare said:
But even if that is a good hashrate per watt density must matter too, surely?

Just looked it up, a 3070 only gets around 58 on 110W so that is similar. Maybe these overpriced cards will sell out after all.
Click to expand...

Maybe AMD can save more power by removing all the display outputs!!
 

Purgatory

Purgatory

Purgatory

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2010
Posts
8,235
Location
Leeds
Th0nt said:
Not kept up with this 8x m'larky. Are they gimped or is it limitations of something going on when this is mentioned?



:cry::cry: so true though!
Click to expand...


The 6600xt's may have a 16x slot with all the pins on the slot but only 8x is actually wired up, so they are really 8x pcie cards and really don't need the full 16x slot and only use 8x pcie lanes from the motherboard which could be an advantage for someone wanting to get 8x extra lanes for maybe an M.2 NVME expansion card with two NVME drives on it, or some other expansion card.



Shows the issue at 5 minutes 32 secs
 

KompuKare

KompuKare

KompuKare

Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,434
Location
Sussex
Th0nt said:
Not kept up with this 8x m'larky. Are they gimped or is it limitations of something going on when this is mentioned?
Click to expand...
I posted some results from ComputerBase over in CAT's review thread:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/35023567
Average PCIe 3.0 Vs 4.0 difference on their game suite was 2% but the biggest difference was 11% to 13%.
Of course, that's for PCIe 3.0 Vs 4.0 . The card is x8 either way so we can't know what a theoretical x16 would perform like.

Would be bound to use more power though.
 

loftie

loftie

loftie

Associate
Joined
17 Oct 2009
Posts
2,346
Th0nt said:
Not kept up with this 8x m'larky. Are they gimped or is it limitations of something going on when this is mentioned?



:cry::cry: so true though!
Click to expand...
As others have said, they've physically limited it to a max of 8x while using a 16x slot. Generally it's not a massive loss, you'll probably lose around 5% performance while running it on PCI-E 3. But most systems will be PCI-E gen 3. And then you have games like Doom Eternal where it gets beaten by the 5600XT

Link for start of the PCIe testing.
 

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,820
Location
Planet Earth
MCFC_ANDY said:
:cry::cry::cry:
Click to expand...
Th0nt said:
Not kept up with this 8x m'larky. Are they gimped or is it limitations of something going on when this is mentioned?



:cry::cry: so true though!
Click to expand...

:cry:

KompuKare said:
I posted some results from ComputerBase over in CAT's review thread:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/35023567
Average PCIe 3.0 Vs 4.0 difference on their game suite was 2% but the biggest difference was 11% to 13%.
Of course, that's for PCIe 3.0 Vs 4.0 . The card is x8 either way so we can't know what a theoretical x16 would perform like.

Would be bound to use more power though.
Click to expand...

The Hardware Unboxed/Techspot review showed Doom not really liking it:
https://www.techspot.com/review/2305-amd-radeon-rx-6600-xt/

PCI.png


Joxeon said:
They are keeping that back for the 5500XT which will have 4gb VRAM 8mb cache and the raster of an RX580 for only £299!
Click to expand...

Such value!! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom