6600 is so much better if you can pony up $74 more
The 6600 still makes sense at 55% more, but at some point the 6500/6400 has to make sense for somebody doing a low wattage/compact build, or HTPC (minus the rudely ripped out AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode). I don't know if that price is $100, $80, or what.
The 6600 still makes sense at 55% more, but at some point the 6500/6400 has to make sense for somebody doing a low wattage/compact build, or HTPC (minus the rudely ripped out AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode). I don't know if that price is $100, $80, or what.
GTX 1070s are selling used at this price. Twice the RAM. 30% faster. No degraded performance on PCIe 3.0 bus. Similar efficiency (40ish Watts more power draw).
GTX 1070s are selling used at this price. Twice the RAM. 30% faster. No degraded performance on PCIe 3.0 bus. Similar efficiency (40ish Watts more power draw).
Only downside is getting a used card with no guarantee and a new card.
GTX 1070s are selling used at this price. Twice the RAM. 30% faster. No degraded performance on PCIe 3.0 bus. Similar efficiency (40ish Watts more power draw).
or rx6600M from Ali for $40 more
or 1660 Super used on ebay
5600g -> 24 PCIex 3.0 lanes
4 for M2 NVMe
4 for chipset communication
16 for discrete GPU
The 6500 XT and 6400 support only PCIe 4.0 x 4 lanes.
First, your 5600G doesn't support PCIe 4.0, so it's running with PCIe 3.0 instead.
Then it gets limited to just 4 lanes, 1/4 of what the graphics slot is capable of.
So you end up with a PCIe 3.0 x 4 connection to the graphics card.
Cards with 8 GB can mitigate performance problems encountered by the lower bandwidth somewhat, but the 6500 XT only has 4 GB (there is an 8 GB version of the 6500 XT but it's pretty much irrelevant and I haven't looked at the benchmarks for it).
Sometimes the performance hit is minimal, sometimes you lose 50% of your FPS. Doom Eternal[techspot.com] is one such example.
There are multiple reasons people hate this card: the low 4 GB VRAM, only 4x PCIe lanes, and worse decode/encode support than other RX 6000 GPUs. Going up to the RX 6600 doubles the VRAM, doubles the Infinity Cache (32 MB), doubles the PCIe lanes to 8x PCIe 4.0 (3.0 in your case), and restores AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode.
The 6500 XT and 6400 support only PCIe 4.0 x 4 lanes.
First, your 5600G doesn't support PCIe 4.0, so it's running with PCIe 3.0 instead.
Then it gets limited to just 4 lanes, 1/4 of what the graphics slot is capable of.
So you end up with a PCIe 3.0 x 4 connection to the graphics card.
Cards with 8 GB can mitigate performance problems encountered by the lower bandwidth somewhat, but the 6500 XT only has 4 GB (there is an 8 GB version of the 6500 XT but it's pretty much irrelevant and I haven't looked at the benchmarks for it).
Sometimes the performance hit is minimal, sometimes you lose 50% of your FPS. Doom Eternal[techspot.com] is one such example.
There are multiple reasons people hate this card: the low 4 GB VRAM, only 4x PCIe lanes, and worse decode/encode support than other RX 6000 GPUs. Going up to the RX 6600 doubles the VRAM, doubles the Infinity Cache (32 MB), doubles the PCIe lanes to 8x PCIe 4.0 (3.0 in your case), and restores AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode.
My mistake, Yes I am on board with that , I thought you were talking about the 5600g limited them.
21 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
It would if it were a low profile card.
5600g -> 24 PCIex 3.0 lanes
4 for M2 NVMe
4 for chipset communication
16 for discrete GPU
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
or 1660 Super used on ebay
$100 would be a good price for rx6500
5600g -> 24 PCIex 3.0 lanes
4 for M2 NVMe
4 for chipset communication
16 for discrete GPU
First, your 5600G doesn't support PCIe 4.0, so it's running with PCIe 3.0 instead.
Then it gets limited to just 4 lanes, 1/4 of what the graphics slot is capable of.
So you end up with a PCIe 3.0 x 4 connection to the graphics card.
Cards with 8 GB can mitigate performance problems encountered by the lower bandwidth somewhat, but the 6500 XT only has 4 GB (there is an 8 GB version of the 6500 XT but it's pretty much irrelevant and I haven't looked at the benchmarks for it).
https://www.techspot.co
https://static.techspot
https://www.tomshardwar
Sometimes the performance hit is minimal, sometimes you lose 50% of your FPS. Doom Eternal [techspot.com] is one such example.
There are multiple reasons people hate this card: the low 4 GB VRAM, only 4x PCIe lanes, and worse decode/encode support than other RX 6000 GPUs. Going up to the RX 6600 doubles the VRAM, doubles the Infinity Cache (32 MB), doubles the PCIe lanes to 8x PCIe 4.0 (3.0 in your case), and restores AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode.
First, your 5600G doesn't support PCIe 4.0, so it's running with PCIe 3.0 instead.
Then it gets limited to just 4 lanes, 1/4 of what the graphics slot is capable of.
So you end up with a PCIe 3.0 x 4 connection to the graphics card.
Cards with 8 GB can mitigate performance problems encountered by the lower bandwidth somewhat, but the 6500 XT only has 4 GB (there is an 8 GB version of the 6500 XT but it's pretty much irrelevant and I haven't looked at the benchmarks for it).
https://www.techspot.com/review/2...n-6500-xt/ [techspot.com]
https://static.techspot.com/artic...verage.png [techspot.com]
https://www.tomshardware.com/news...en4-tested [tomshardware.com]
Sometimes the performance hit is minimal, sometimes you lose 50% of your FPS. Doom Eternal [techspot.com] is one such example.
There are multiple reasons people hate this card: the low 4 GB VRAM, only 4x PCIe lanes, and worse decode/encode support than other RX 6000 GPUs. Going up to the RX 6600 doubles the VRAM, doubles the Infinity Cache (32 MB), doubles the PCIe lanes to 8x PCIe 4.0 (3.0 in your case), and restores AV1 decode and H.264/H.265 encode.