Revisiting the Radeon RX 6500 XT: One of the Worst GPUs We've Ever Tested



Simply put, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is one of the worst Radeon merchandise released inside the ultimate decade, and its timing couldn't have been worse. Back in January 2022, game enthusiasts were nearing the give up of a dry spell for less costly gaming GPUs, due to the cryptocurrency mining boom.

If you had a running pix card, our advice turned into to attend. However, for those desperate to begin gaming, the most inexpensive usable alternatives, which include a Radeon 5500 XT or RX 580, were priced round $three hundred, a hefty price to pay for low-stop, getting old generation. The wish turned into that AMD or Nvidia would release a brand new current-gen GPU for around $200. But Nvidia being Nvidia, it regarded our handiest desire was AMD, and so with the declaration of a $200 Radeon 6500 XT things had been searching promising, or at least we thought.

However, as soon as we were given ahold of the specifications and learned that the GPU core configuration have been reduced by over forty% compared to the Radeon RX 6600, with 1/2 as a lot Infinity Cache and a 44% reduction in reminiscence bandwidth, we knew it become going to be awful, however just how terrible became a surprise.

This become compounded with the aid of the fact that, at the side of those core and memory downgrades, the PCI Express bandwidth become also halved, from x8 to x4. This is specifically intricate with just 4GB of reminiscence, again half of that of the RX 6600. The list of downgrades maintains: there may be no hardware encoding of any kind, no AV1 interpreting, and just show outputs.

Given a lot of these issues, the $200 MSRP appeared excessive, and the $300 retail price that the 6500 XT maintained for the primary few months of availability turned into even greater discouraging.

Our advice on the time become to disregard the Radeon 6500 XT. At $three hundred it changed into a horrifically negative choice. Even on the $two hundred MSRP, in the then-modern-day crypto mining marketplace, it changed into this kind of subpar product that you might be better off buying 2d-hand or, preferably, certainly waiting. Cryptomining was eventually slowing down round then, and the growth might end quickly, although we didn't recognise exactly whilst. It grew to become out to be just a few months after the discharge of the 6500 XT, so each person who paid $300 at launch ended up getting burn.

Paying a excessive fee for a product is one factor, however procuring a product that is a whole fail is another rely absolutely. The GeForce RTX 4090 is priced at $2,000, an extremely excessive quantity for a portraits card. We do not endorse spending that a whole lot, but in case you do, you're getting the pleasant gaming experience currently available, and a product with a view to remain incredibly capable for years.

The Radeon 6500 XT, however, become a susceptible product at launch, and we expected it might grow to be almost unusable inside the close to destiny, even with the lowest first-class settings. Now, some 18 months after its release, how is the 6500 XT appearing in trendy video games? Let's find out.

For checking out, we're using our Ryzen 7 7800X3D test machine with 32GB of DDR5-6000 CL30 memory. Yes, that is a high-end CPU, however please understand it would not depend if we tested with a Ryzen 5 5600 or a 7800X3D, the effects might be the identical, these lower-stop GPUs usually bring about closely GPU limited eventualities, a lot so that the CPU is nearly beside the point. That said, we have manually changed the PCIe mode to a few.Zero for all trying out, aside from the Radeon 6500 XT so one can be tested the use of both 3.0 and 4.0.

Products along with the GeForce GTX 1650 Super and Radeon RX 6600 deliver basically the identical results the usage of either PCIe mode, so trying out both was useless and might just muddle the graphs. Finally, the display drivers used had been Game Ready 546.33 and Adrenalin Edition 23.12.1.

Benchmarks

First up, we've got Remnant II, and paradoxically, this sport includes a 'Potato' preset, that's decrease than low and the bottom satisfactory alternative the game gives. Hilarious preset naming aside, the 6500 XT is a actual sadness in this one. With a PCIe four.0 enabled gadget, the game is playable, even though performance is decrease than older fashions together with the 1650 Super and 5500 XT, which had been examined using PCIe 3.0.

The massive hassle arises with PCIe three.0 for the 6500 XT, wherein it struggles notably, failing to even average 30 fps, that's broadly taken into consideration unplayable. Even when the 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0, the RX 6600 is eighty% faster, but at MSRP, it charges simply 65% extra and consists of a number of extra capabilities.

However, the primary trouble is that we've a $2 hundred previous technology GPU that cannot deliver 60 fps at 1080p in Remnant II, even the use of the lowest high-quality settings. That's regarding.

Next, we tested The Last of Us Part I, again at just 1080p the use of the lowest excellent preset. The 6500 XT fails to method 60 fps and is notably slower than components consisting of the 1650 Super and, embarrassingly, the 5500 XT.

In this case, the RX 6600 changed into 100% faster, or nearly 140% faster whilst the 6500 XT is limited to PCIe 3.Zero. It's also noteworthy that the 5500 XT, additionally using PCIe three.0, is nearly 60% faster than the 6500 XT at the equal PCIe spec. So, The Last of Us Part I is another recreation wherein the 6500 XT falls short of 60 fps at 1080p on the lowest settings.

In Starfield, the 6500 XT additionally promises disappointing effects. When limited to PCIe three.0, the GTX 1650 Super was 17% quicker, at the same time as the 5500 XT was a massive 38% faster. Again, the RX 6600 outperforms via eighty%. The RX 6600's preliminary $330 price became underwhelming, however even ignoring competition, the 6500 XT's performance is lacking, soaring round 30 fps at exceptional at 1080p on the lowest settings.

In Resident Evil four, the 6500 XT's performance aligns more with what is predicted from a previous era entry-level product. At 1080p the use of the bottom best preset, the 6500 XT managed over 70 fps, comparable to the GTX 1650 Super but slower than the 5500 XT.

Despite the playable performance, the RX 6600 was still 122% faster, offering the capacity for a good deal better visible best.

In Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, the 6500 XT achieved worse than expected. Using PCIe three.0, overall performance was hampered by using no longer just a low common body charge but additionally steady and really substantial frame stuttering, likely due to low VRAM and limited PCIe x4 bandwidth.

Switching to PCIe four.Zero stepped forward overall performance to 44 fps, but frame stuttering remained an problem. This appears to be associated with PCIe bandwidth, as the 1650 Super, some other 4GB card, did not experience the equal hassle. The 5500 XT become additionally better, profiting from more PCIe bandwidth and crucially, 8GB of VRAM.

In this situation, the RX 6600 turned into 134% faster and supplied easy gameplay, whereas the 6500 XT became not able to offer smooth gameplay and fell well brief of 60 fps at 1080p on the lowest settings.

The performance in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor was very terrible. Despite handing over over 40 fps on average, the gameplay changed into plagued with consistent stuttering. In contrast, the 5500 XT and 1650 Super performed flawlessly or even prevented traversal stuttering in this title, notwithstanding the sub-60 fps body fee.

We have not begun any other example in which the 6500 XT fails to gain 60 fps at 1080p using the lowest excellent settings.

Next, we've Forza Motorsport, in which the 6500 XT performs comparably to the GTX 1650 Super, attaining forty eight fps using PCIe four.Zero and 42 fps with PCIe three.0. This effects in playable performance, though it is from perfect and drastically underneath 60 fps, that's concerning on account that we are trying out at 1080p the usage of the lowest viable preset.

More worrisome is that, comparing the PCIe three.0 statistics, the 5500 XT changed into 48% faster, and the RX 6600 changed into 112% quicker.

In Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, the 6500 XT lags in the back of the 1650 Super and substantially at the back of the 5500 XT. Most importantly, it falls properly short of 60 fps at 1080p the usage of the bottom first-rate preset. This additionally manner that, while comparing PCIe three.0 statistics, the RX 6600 is 139% faster.

The overall performance in Hogwarts Legacy is fantastically true, accomplishing over 60 fps, again at 1080p the use of the lowest best preset. However, this nonetheless locations the 6500 XT on par with the 1650 Super and barely at the back of the 5500 XT, although frame time overall performance become noticeably higher with the 8GB 5500 XT.

Moving to Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, we can quite excuse the 6500 XT, as no low-quit GPUs from previous generations supply playable performance in this title. However, it falls brief of 30 fps, whilst the 1650 Super manages 34 fps and the 5500 XT 39 fps, making the 6500 XT's overall performance comparatively bad. Additionally, selecting the RX 6600 might have ended in around a hundred and seventy% better performance in this name.

Assassin's Creed Mirage plays pretty well on the 6500 XT, supplied you have a PCIe four.0 enabled machine, as this permits for an average of sixty six fps at 1080p the usage of the bottom best settings. This makes the 6500 XT corresponding to the 1650 Super and 5500 XT, even though each of these models have been using PCIe 3.0. When evaluating PCIe 3.Zero information, those fashions are approximately 40% quicker.

This also approach that, with PCIe 3.Zero, the RX 6600 is 134% faster than the 6500 XT. Furthermore, the 6500 XT falls brief of 60 fps whilst installed in a PCIe 3.Zero system.

Like Avatar, Alan Wake 2 is another game that overwhelms low-stop GPUs, as well as any Arc GPU. Nevertheless, the RX 6600 became nearly two times as rapid as the 6500 XT, delivering a playable forty five fps.

The 6500 XT could be considered good enough for esports titles, that are usually much less graphically annoying. However, it's no higher than older merchandise which includes the 5500 XT or 1650 Super, which regularly perform better in different titles. In our tests with Counter-Strike 2, we discovered just over 170 fps the usage of medium settings at 1080p, corresponding to the 5500 XT and 1650 Super. The RX 6600 become best 47% quicker in this case, as the confined PCIe bandwidth and 4GB reminiscence buffer did not extensively impact the 6500 XT in this title.

Average Performance

Here's the 13-sport average, and as you may see throughout all the games tested, together with Counter-Strike 2, the 6500 XT handiest averages forty nine fps using PCIe 4.0 and 42 fps with PCIe 3.Zero, so each are properly beneath 60 fps.

In contrast, the 5500 XT averaged fifty seven fps and the newer A580 sixty four fps. Then, the RX 6600 offers one hundred twenty% greater overall performance on average whilst evaluating the PCIe three.0 statistics.

Cost consistent with Frame

Now, comparing the cost in keeping with body facts using modern pricing, we see that the 6500 XT is still bad value, even at $140, due to the fact GPUs consisting of the RX 6600 are priced at $a hundred ninety. As a end result, the 6500 XT expenses as a minimum 38% greater in keeping with body, and that does not component in all of the missing functions.

Then, if we evaluate the PCIe 3.Zero facts, the 6500 XT finally ends up costing 62% extra in step with body, that's immoderate. Even the RTX 4060 and RX 7600 offer better price, and we were not specially inspired with either of these merchandise.

Not for Modern Games

So, how is the Radeon RX 6500 XT performing in current games? Not nicely. If restrained to PCI Express 3.Zero, it handiest achieved 60 fps at 1080p the use of the lowest viable fine preset in 2 out of 12 triple-A games tested – or simply three titles while the use of PCIe 4.Zero, that's truely inadequate.

It changed into often plenty slower than the 8GB 5500 XT, which admittedly became a greater high priced product when the 6500 XT become launched in early 2022, although the 4GB version became not, and continues to be a better preference. Additionally, the most inexpensive 6500 XT listing again in January 2022 changed into $270, losing to $250 the subsequent month, and via April they have been at $210. By that point, the Radeon RX 6600 had dropped from $350 to $210 later in the yr.

Today, the Radeon 6500 XT costs $140, while the Radeon RX 6600 is to be had for as low as $one hundred ninety, so a 35% top rate for what's often 2x the overall performance, with twice as plenty VRAM, hardware encoding aid, AV1 interpreting, and greater than 2 show outputs. Not handiest that, however while we look at cost per body, the RX 6600 is sort of 40% better price.

The 6500 XT become a negative launch from AMD, and it become poorly timed. It ought to were released for no greater than $150 and bought for no greater than that charge. Today, it can't be priced over $one hundred; something over that, and you're better off making an investment inside the RX 6600, or possibly even the Intel Arc A580, though the RX 6600 is the fee king on the $2 hundred price factor or decrease.

It's no surprise to us that the 6500 XT is already obsolete for many current titles. We just feel for people who were lured into paying as a great deal as $300 for this GPU as it really is a harsh deal.

Shopping Shortcuts:

• AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on Amazon
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT on Amazon
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Ti on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX on Amazon
• AMD Radeon RX 7600 on Amazon
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 on Amazon

.SubDriveRevBot margin: 30px 0 0px; border-radius: 3px; line-top: 1.Five; font-size: 0.9em; color: ssharppfff; heritage-coloration: ssharpp1d4d84; cursor: pointer; heritage-repeat: no-repeat; heritage-size: comprise; historical past-role: right; .SubDriveRevBot:hover heritage-coloration: ssharpp245996; transition: 0.4s linear; .SubDriveRevBot a shade: ssharppfff; display: block; width: 100%; peak: one hundred%; .SubDriveRevBot a:hover coloration: ssharppfff; .SubDriveRevBot .Titlerr background: rgba(30, forty one, fifty one, 0.63); padding: 10px 20px 7px; colour: ssharppfff; letter-spacing: -zero.1px; show: block; border-radius: 3px; font-size: 0.9em; .SubDriveRevBot .Observation font-weight: 500; color: ssharppf29f26; font-family: Roboto; .SubDriveRevBot .Remarknew font-weight: 500; colour: ssharppfea; font-family: Roboto; .SubDriveRevBot .Bulll margin-bottom: 5px !Vital; padding: 15px 5px If you enjoy our content, please do not forget subscribing.

• Ad-free TechSpot revel in even as helping our work
• Our promise: All reader contributions will move towards funding extra content material
• That way: More tech capabilities, more benchmarks and evaluation