• 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.

PC Gamer: RX 6500 XT looks worse on paper than AMD's $199 GPU from six years ago

I just picked up a 6500xt now that they are under £150 delivered. I think if that had been the launch price the reviews would have been much kinder on it. It works great on the older and strategy games I tend to play and using Radeon chill to cap fps I can get the power usage to under 20w in LOTRO. The MSI mech fits nicely in my ITX case and is about the length of the motherboard
 
unless you have pcie x4 i dont see the point, the investment can be put on top of the cost of a 6500xt and get a 6600 series seems far better option i would have thought??
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
unless you have pcie x4 i dont see the point, the investment can be put on top of the cost of a 6500xt and get a 6600 series seems far better option i would have thought??
Click to expand...

At £200 odd (or more) for a 6500 XT, I'd have said the £100 (for a 6600) is well worth it, but at £150 I'm not so sure.
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
a 5600 v. cheap say 100. 160 for 6500xt =260 vs 280 or less 6600 that destroys that 5600.6500xt combo, am i missing something here???
Click to expand...

If someone was already planning on doing a new build with pcie 4 then the 6500xt is cheaper than splashing out on a 6600, especially if you are looking for an esport or light gaming rig, say for a child. Although for many people the 6600 will provide more acceptable performance in demanding games like Cyberpunk, be more future proof and be their option.

In my situation I still have an AMD 6800 to swap to if I want to play more demanding games. However, I rarely need more performance than the 6500xt gives me, indeed on the 6500xt I actually cap performance in most of my games like LOTRO and MWO. Using the 6500xt means I am wearing out a card which is cheaper to replace and cheaper to run. The 6500xt should more than pay for it self in reduced energy costs with the amount that my PC is on, because even with capping the 6800, the 6500xt uses less power. For a start the 6500xt has to power 12GB less memory.

When graphic cards were cheaper, eg I bought a 970 for £180, I would use that card all of the time and replace it if it developed a fault. Now I would rather use a cheap £150 card most of the time (as it mostly does more than I want) and replace that when needed rather than use a 6800 all of the time and find £700 to replace it when it develops a fault.
 
Last edited:
Alan McFall said:
Still PCIE4.0 x4, maybe they taking the negative reviews with a pinch of salt :cry:
Click to expand...
I understand that some people found the card performed better if it was a game that could store information in vram rather than having to use those 4 pcie lanes. If AMD price the 6500xt close to the 6600 because of those extra 4Gb of vram then the 6600 could well be the better value per frame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom