For such an undesirable and terrible product, it sure has drawn a lot of attention from the team green crowdCurious.
I don't think this means what you think it means.
AMD Radeon RDNA2 Navi (RX 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900 XT)
I don't think this means what you think it means.
Sorry, nobody buying a $200+ card has any expectations about RT, or even cares one bit about ray tracing performance. Everyone knows it takes $1k card, to get any playable use with RT.
I can tell none of you guys are gamers or interact with Gamers daily... FPS is all that matter. I know people who play without AA... bcz they want more frames, & you guys are talking about 49FPS ray tracing. NOBODY buying a new card, wants less frames.
Consoles will lead the way in ray tracing within the gaming industry, because that is what 90% off all games will be based on.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Only in your mind perhaps, this is one of the best examples of RT in recent memory. The difference is night and day. Only a blind man says otherwise.
Typical AMD response, RT doesn't exist, and if it does it's a turd. Old gen graphics is better! Yay! Who needs foliage shadows or scene wide AO or dynamic GI or dynamic reflections? Nobody buys GPUs for RT, they buy them to play at 500fps @1080p medium graphics! Wohoo!
Once again, you are attempting to insult, when you can just go to newegg and see how your narrative falls apart.
I was not the one comparing the 6500xt to the RTX3050 in performance, it was you guys. I simply said that the 6500xt has a vastly superior price/performance ratio and perfect for mini-PC and a better buy. Seeing that it is currently $300 cheaper to the nearly equal RTX3050, that you keep comparing it to. Just not me, but many review sites compared their performance too...
I was just comparing their prices and denouncing illogical bias based in MSRP.
BTW... the cheapest RTX3060 is $745.... and the 6600xt is still $589.
Im not on AMD, but I understand that you only have a 60Hz monitor and all you need is 49FPS at 1080p to make you get off.
But for those who buy high-end equipment and 165Hz+ monitors, they are not going to use RT no matter what. It is backwards tech and hinders game performance.
I have had a 1440p monitor for 15 years now... what is 1080p?
Thats certainly not whats happening. And for the better, we dont want to be hampered to 6600/XT class RTperf for the coming seven or so years.
DL2 is just one example of many where the consoles arent leading in RT, or anything else graphics related.
Both Xbox Series X and PS5 will get a mid-refresh in 3 years. Already discussed.
Secondly, if you understand the gaming industry then you would understand if you are going to make a game, you will make it for the new Consoles, because it the largest section of gamers and best return on your investment. So that means making/designing your game for RDNA2.
Perhaps you missed all the big game studio acquisitions over the past months or so, but Game devs are NOT worried about making Games for a Card company, the new Consoles are king. The PC will always offer the premium experience and features, but 3d sound is way more important in games than puddle reflections & reflections on glass.
digitalwanderer
Legend
The resolution I currently happily game at, at 165Hz even.
neckthrough
Regular
I struggle to comprehend why you care to post these sentiments on this forum. The very name of this website is "Beyond3D", and its primary objective is to foster discussion on the advancement of real-time 3D graphics. All your posts (in this thread and others) are along the lines of "FPS is everything, and anything that improves quality at the cost of FPS is worthless." Improving fidelity necessarily comes with a computational cost, and so any given piece of hardware will always be less performant on a higher-fidelity technique.
Yes, there's definitely a segment of gamers that buys halo GPUs but minimizes all settings in order to maximize FPS, but surely you understand that that's not everybody? A number of gamers are likely on 60Hz monitors, and believe it or not, they buy high-end GPUs too. Not to improve FPS from 60 to 120, but to improve quality. And to be clear, nobody is talking about "less frames", people are talking about what quality is achievable at their personally acceptable framerate -- which could be anywhere between 30 and 360. You don't get to decide what that bar is for others.
What's more, the hardware engineers at your favorite vendors and the graphics programmers at your favorite studios are passionate about advancing real-time 3D graphics. They do not wake up each morning to work on the next big thing that improves framerates on an already playable title by x%. They wake up to build the thing that will push realism to the next level while still providing a playable experience.
Once again, perhaps you should reconsider whether a forum called "Beyond3D" is the right venue to seek sympathetic responses to your fairly extremist viewpoint.
Do you have any data to back that up?
I don't see how a certain game release makes more expensive hardware affordable.
49fps without DLSS. With RT+DLSS you are above 70fps and the visual experience is miles away from what puny 6500XT can offer
Most popular games aren't all that demanding and at current prices 6500xt is basically the only card worth buying if you want to do some gaming but don't want to spend large sums of money. Eye candy like RT is nice but just being to play any of the games people actually play is even better.
6500xt will run all the pc games in this list pretty well:
6500xt will run all the pc games in this list pretty well:
Attachments
You wot?! I’d love for shadows and reflections to be as important as footsteps in giving away your position.
The benchmark on the previous page is clearly labelled 49fps avg at 1080p DLSS Quality….
General thread request: calm down. Nobody’s going to win an argument about GPU value in this market, and even resale value becomes complicated when you have to consider a possible market crash. The 6500 XT isn’t the Platonic ideal of a GPU—it’s as much of a car crash as the rest of the GPU market—and debating theoretical MSRPs isn’t worth this much vitriol or mod effort.
DegustatoR
Legend
Which is incorrect for a whole number of reasons *if you're a gamer*. But it's pointless arguing with you, as usual. You'll just continue inventing numbers and buyer attitudes which don't exist.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Feb 5, 2022
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, but within a discussion you have to stay within the context of THAT discussion. If you had not noticed, we are NOT in the nVidia section, but a discussion about the Radeon RDNA2 6000 series. A series of graphics cards that were designed, engineered specifically for GAMING & gamers.
If you go back, you will see that I ONLY chimed in, when BIASED and ignorant remarks entered the convo about ANOTHER card, being a "better buy" than the 6500xt. So I applied logic and SHOWED their bias. They got angry at my logic experiment and how it poked at their bias... so they turned the thread on me... which is a typical tactic someone uses, when they no longer want to talk about the SUBJECT.
People will always want performance gains with a new graphics card, no matter what feature a card supports, or it's not worth the buy, period!
Don't be angry or attack me, or try to marginalize me, because I am discussing reality and not theory or concepts. That is for another section of Beyond 3D.
Secondly,
Yes, I do understand the needs of Gamers, because (AGAIN) I was a clan leader for 15 years and built hundreds of rigs over the last 20 years. I get calls ALL THE TIME with people's needs, because I am also known Gamer who competes at the highest FPS levels, where people are SPONSORED. I also play ultra-casual games like EverQuest and NewAge, etc.. where FPS doesn't matter as much and where environment rules, so Gaming needs are different.
Everyone has their own budgets and needs and nobody is spending frivolously for RT. I can't name a single person, on any forum anywhere. Do you know anyone who spent $3k to play Minecraft RTX
Ergo, trust me when I say theory is different than logic and when people spend their hard earned money, they tend to use logic. Nobody buying a $269 graphic card today is caring about ray tracing, or even features. They are looking at smooth gameplay. Nothing else.
Thirdly,
Plz spare me your bias attacks, because I am a EVGA owner and can read the writing on the wall. The people pushing Graphics are the ones who want to game at 4k at 165Hz+ not people who are stuck at 1080p buying $269 graphic cards. Sorry if reality hurts.
Last edited:
You tried to rebuttal me, but you were shot down with facts on pricing & logic. Nobody argues that the RTX3050 is better than the RX6500xt, but it is not $300 better... in which you can not accept.
You can calculate price/performance... but facts are pointless to argue with someone who is anti-AMD.
6500xt $269 today
6600xt $589 today
3050 $599 today
DegustatoR
Legend
You haven't provided anything but your personal conjecture thus far. All facts are in direct contradiction to what you're saying. Make no mistake about that.
These don't exist anywhere but in your head. It's not hard to use the internet, and you still don't get that there are more than whatever you're using to conjure up these numbers.
