News AMD Reveals Radeon RX 6600 XT Specs, Pricing, and Performance

[hannibal]

Well, as with nvdia, it all depends on retail prising…
Amd is right in that 3060 can not be bound at msrp… not even near. I would expect that real retail price will be very similar to 3060 aka about $500 to $600, but you newer know. Retailers now seems to put some AMD extra to amd products, because AMD has been the ”hot” name in last few years… you never know if the aib msrp is 30%, 50%! 100% or 200% more that manufacturer msrp… but it seems that the better gpus original msrp, the higher extra AIB are asking for the gpu…

 

[hotaru.hino]

Well, as with nvdia, it all depends on retail prising…
Amd is right in that 3060 can not be bound at msrp… not even near. I would expect that real retail price will be very similar to 3060 aka about $500 to $600, but you newer know. Retailers now seems to put some AMD extra to amd products, because AMD has been the ”hot” name in last few years… you never know if the aib msrp is 30%, 50%! 100% or 200% more that manufacturer msrp… but it seems that the better gpus original msrp, the higher extra AIB are asking for the gpu…

That's irking me too. They say "our price is based on what we think it'll actually sell for" Yeah, sure.

 

[hotaru251]

big thing to me is.....amd's "perks" are still less than perks of Nvidia and those factor into value/cost

 

[InvalidError]

That's irking me too. They say "our price is based on what we think it'll actually sell for" Yeah, sure.

Setting prices to "whatever the market can bear" is what normally happens in a supply-vs-demand market. The only difference now is that supply is down at the same time demand is up, which translates to prices getting jacked up twice as hard. Normally, both are relatively constant through most of the market life cycle and we get steady price declines at equilibrium.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

I'll wait for Intel XeHP to see if GPU prices become competitive again, or if the price colluding duopoly will become a price colluding tripoly...

 

[-Fran-]

I don't think most of the cards this generation, specially AMD cards, are bad in any way or sense from the technical perspective. They bring real and tangible new things and performance. Specially AMD.

The problem is the price. How can you justify 1080p gaming performance at almost $400 with less VRAM than the cheaper competition you're comparing against? AMD fumbled this one really hard IMO. This card cannot be over the 3060's MSRP. Ideally, it would be a ~$250 card at most, but here we are, in this crazy situation.

On paper, I like what I read about the card, but geez... It's not $400 nice.

Regards.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Setting prices to "whatever the market can bear" is what normally happens in a supply-vs-demand market. The only difference now is that supply is down at the same time demand is up, which translates to prices getting jacked up twice as hard. Normally, both are relatively constant through most of the market life cycle and we get steady price declines at equilibrium.

I would be more willing to understand the price bump if they said that TSMC is jacking up the prices. But the way it was presented in the article sounds more like "AMD is seeing retailers jacking up the price, so AMD bumping up the MSRP," which to me presents the possibility that AMD wants a larger cut of what the retailers get.

 

[InvalidError]

I would be more willing to understand the price bump if they said that TSMC is jacking up the prices. But the way it was presented in the article sounds more like "AMD is seeing retailers jacking up the price, so AMD bumping up the MSRP," which to me presents the possibility that AMD wants a larger cut of what the retailers get.

Supply chain is strained by high demand, EVERYONE across the supply chain from the people dredging up[ sand to make silicon ingots and people mining for metals through retailers will want a premium for shifting goods. Most metals are up 50-100%.

 

[-Fran-]

I would be more willing to understand the price bump if they said that TSMC is jacking up the prices. But the way it was presented in the article sounds more like "AMD is seeing retailers jacking up the price, so AMD bumping up the MSRP," which to me presents the possibility that AMD wants a larger cut of what the retailers get.

Linus (LTT) put a video a couple days ago (or yesterday?) about the topic with some decent information in it. TL;DR: everything is going up in price too darn fast, specially things that are used for manufacturing tech stuff. I do not know how intertwined that really is with GPUs specifically, but it makes sort of sense that everything is going up.

I think it's a matter of waiting... A long time even... Sad.

Regards.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Supply chain is strained by high demand, EVERYONE across the supply chain from the people dredging up[ sand to make silicon ingots and people mining for metals through retailers will want a premium for shifting goods. Most metals are up 50-100%.

Linus (LTT) put a video a couple days ago (or yesterday?) about the topic with some decent information in it. TL;DR: everything is going up in price too darn fast, specially things that are used for manufacturing tech stuff. I do not know how intertwined that really is with GPUs specifically, but it makes sort of sense that everything is going up.

I think it's a matter of waiting... A long time even... Sad.

Regards.

Okay let's get one thing out of the way: I understand there's a supply chain problem.

Anyway, the article, as it was written, says:

AMD says it has adjusted prices based on what people might see at retail

Which I interpret this as "what is the market price for GPUs regardless of what we said is the MSRP?" Not "we have a supply chain problem, so we have to raise the MSRP." And I interpret MSRP to mean if everything was hunky dory, it's the price the retailer can sell the product at and everyone up and down the supply chain earns some semblance of a profit. But stores can sell above MSRP to rake in extra money if they want, which isn't going to help anyone down the chain.

If the article said "AMD says it adjusted prices based on manufacturing costs", then I wouldn't pointing anything out. But if the meaning of what was quoted is AMD saying there's a rise in manufacturing costs so the MSRP has to go up, then they should clearly state such.

 

[thisisaname]

In a market where you can sell everything you can manufacture and then some, trying to compete on price is pointless. Until the shortages cease, GPUs will be more expensive.

Very cynical but sadly I think your right. Is this going result in a loss of a name for offering good value for short term gains?

 

[InvalidError]

Very cynical but sadly I think your right. Is this going result in a loss of a name for offering good value for short term gains?

Corporations exist to maximize profits to shareholders, not increase value for money to consumers unless that is absolutely necessary to achieve the first goal, as you would in a healthy market where new products have to deliver significant added benefit per dollar over the products they replace to actually shift units..

 

[escksu]

It was in the first set of slides, it was the 4th/last slide comparing against the 1060 which made me chuckle.

Oh, the GTX1060 was sort of a yard stick in 1080p performance. Back then, if you are playing games at 1080p, this card is all you need. It was the most value for money card. So, now AMD is trying to say that 6600XT will become the new standard for 1080p performance. This will be what you need.

 

[cryoburner]

$400 for a card aimed at 1080p?

Having only a third the infiinity cache of the 6700 XT is undoubtedly going to hurt 1440p performance, which is likely why they focused on 1080p for their comparisons. Outside the infinity cache, the card has around 43% less memory bandwidth compared to the 3060 Ti, 2060 SUPER or 5700/5700 XT. And while PCIe 4.0 might be becoming more common now, on a 3.0 setup the x8 connection will undoubtedly hurt performance further when the VRAM buffer gets exceeded.

It wouldn't be at all surprising if the 3060 (non-Ti) outperforms it at higher resolutions in demanding games. Throw in raytracing, and this card is bound to fall even further behind. It's probably not going to age as well once features like that become the norm. I didn't consider the 3060 (non-Ti) to be all that attractively priced even at its $330 MSRP, but this is even less attractive.

These kinds of specifications might have been decent for $100 less. Certainly, the graphics card market has been messed up for a number of months, but jacking up the MSRP of lower-end cards isn't going to help with that once the prices subside. I would have rather seen them delay the launch by a few months and release the card at a more competitive price, at least no more than the 3060's MSRP. Of course, with much of AMD's 7nm manufacturing capacity being directed toward the millions of console APUs they are contractually obligated to make, along with their Ryzen CPUs that undoubtedly provide higher profit margins, they probably don't consider the graphics card market worth competing in right now.

Given no graphics cards are restricted by the PCI-E 3 x16 bandwidth, PCI-E 4 support offers no advantage.

Except for the majority of people still on PCIe 3.0 systems. For anyone with a 3.0 motherboard or CPU, these cards will be limited to only 3.0 x8. And we already saw how badly that can affect performance with the 5500 XT 4GB. Sure, there's double the VRAM here compared to that, but that was a budget $170 card, while people buying a card in this price range will be expecting to run games at their highest settings and at resolutions above 1080p.

And even AMD's new 5600G and 5700G APUs lack PCIe 4.0 in order to incorporate their integrated graphics. So if someone gets a new system with one of those, then decides to upgrade to a dedicated card once prices subside, they would have a 3.0 x8 connection limiting their performance with these cards, and would likely be better off with one of Nvidia's options around this price range. And if AMD is trying to popularize x8 connections on $400 graphics cards, that can be seen as a good reason not to consider one of their new APUs that can't run these cards at 4.0 speeds.

A contrast I see between AMD's performance slides and NVIDIA's is AMD always compares themselves against NVIDIA. NVIDIA compares against themselves. There's likely some outliers, but a casual 5 minute search on the interwebs for at least Ampere is telling me this.

If you have to keep using someone else to prop up your own product, I feel like you don't have much confidence that your product can stand on is own.

This is because Nvidia still holds over 80% of the dedicated graphics card market. It makes sense to compare against the line of cards people are most likely to own. If 4 out of 5 people are currently running an Nvidia graphics card, those are the ones AMD needs to convince to change brands if they want to expand their market share. Focusing their marketing at their existing userbase won't be as effective. Likewise, while Nvidia may find benefit to comparing their cards against AMD's in some cases, for the most part they are trying to convince people to upgrade from their own cards. So it just makes sense from a marketing perspective.

 

[ottonis]

A wise man once said: "There are no bad products, just bad prices"

As long as AMD are selling literally every single card they make within minutes or seconds, they have no incentive to undercut the prices of team green.

So, this is that. In case their 6600Xt starts laying around, AMD will lower the prices accordingly.

These are the rules of the market.

 

[r7litepro]

GeForce GTX 1060 is an AWESOME still relevant gpu with 6 gigs of ram and a 192-bit bus. and a low 120w TDP- this TRASH has a 128 bit bus, consumes 160 to 180W* ???? does not even have a full x16! (x8) ??? and comes with 8 gigs in 2021, performs a bit better than a 5700 for almost 400$ ( x2 retail) i think this is the worst GPU in HISTORY! and the worst AMD

 

[InvalidError]

this TRASH has a 128 bit bus, consumes 160 to 180W* ???? does not even have a full x16! (x8) ??? and comes with 8 gigs in 2021

8GB is more than fine for 2021, especially on a mid-range GPU where you are most likely to get GPU-limited long before running out of VRAM and with VRAM costing $12/GB, 8GB is pretty much the most memory you can put on a remotely affordable GPU. The 128bits bus at nearly $400 definitely is a kick in the balls though.

With the 3050 getting destroyed by VRAM starvation at 4GB on laptops with at least one game outright failing to launch, I'm hoping for a 6GB 3050 Super using GA-106 when Nvidia launches the 4060-4090 SKUs on 5nm and needs to burn the remainder of its Samsung 8nm WSAs.

 

[Friesiansam]

If you are going to bring the"what about the cost" argument, keep in mind that we used to have full x16 all the way down to $50 GPUs.

I made no comment with regard to cost.

 

[Bazzy 505]

It is very hard to get excited about RX 6600 XT, and about pretty much everything else AMD put out there in discreet GPU space in recent years.
I really miss those days when ATI really could give NVIDIA run for its money, and occasionally beat it up pulp for a whole generation like it did with R300 series ( Radeon 9500 and 9700 ). It's a pitty AMD could never really repeat such feat ( having +20% more performance across board within whole generation) with discreet cards post 2006 acquisition. It would have made the GPU market much more interesting.

 

[Sleepy_Hollowed]

That's not a bad card for playing older games, at all, or newer ones at 1080p at 60 fps with some stuff reduced.

If you have a wide FOV monitor though (2560x1080) this card might not be it for newer games though, unless you're OK with 30 fps.

 

[thisisaname]

Corporations exist to maximize profits to shareholders, not increase value for money to consumers unless that is absolutely necessary to achieve the first goal, as you would in a healthy market where new products have to deliver significant added benefit per dollar over the products they replace to actually shift units..

No "Corporations exist to maximize profits to shareholders" is wrong and needs stop and the belief that in it is toxic.

Here is an article that sums up the problems with it https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...aximizing-shareholder-value-is-finally-dying/

 

[artk2219]

No "Corporations exist to maximize profits to shareholders" is wrong and needs stop and the belief that in it is toxic.

Here is an article that sums up the problems with it https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...aximizing-shareholder-value-is-finally-dying/

Whether we believe its wrong or not does not matter, the defacto situation is that corporations currently exist mainly to maximize shareholder profits, as crappy as this is to hear, until work is done to change that situation, it is what it is.

 

[King_V]

GeForce GTX 1060 is an AWESOME still relevant gpu with 6 gigs of ram and a 192-bit bus. and a low 120w TDP- this TRASH has a 128 bit bus, consumes 160 to 180W* ???? does not even have a full x16! (x8) ??? and comes with 8 gigs in 2021, performs a bit better than a 5700 for almost 400$ ( x2 retail) i think this is the worst GPU in HISTORY! and the worst AMD

The article says 160W, not 160 to 180W.

Further... and the fact that it's estimated to perform about the same as the 3060Ti, even though the Nvidia card pulls 200W? Yet the AMD card is the worst GPU in history? How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[cryoburner]

The article says 160W, not 160 to 180W.

Further... and the fact that it's estimated to perform about the same as the 3060Ti, even though the Nvidia card pulls 200W? Yet the AMD card is the worst GPU in history? How did you come to this conclusion?

They also seemed to overlook the small detail that this card should be faster than a 1080 Ti in most games, or more than twice as fast as a GTX 1060. : P

The limited PCIe lanes could potentially impact performance in some demanding games when used in a PCIe 3.0 system, though in a 4.0 system it should have similar PCIe bandwidth to work with as a 1080 Ti, or any other 3.0 x16 card.

The 6600 XT's memory bandwidth is notably lower than the 1080 Ti's due to the narrower bus width, but is still 33% higher than the 1060's, due to the VRAM itself being twice as fast. And the relatively large memory cache built into the graphics chip itself should allow effective memory bandwidth to perform more like that of the 1080 Ti when accessing data within the cache, like the framebuffer. That cache is cut down substantially from the higher-end RX 6000-series cards though, so the 1080 Ti may manage to pull ahead at higher resolutions like 4K, but overall I would expect the 6600 XT to perform a lot like a 1080 Ti, and likely better than that card at lower resolutions. You can't just pick out a few specifications to claim that one card is better than another when comparing completely different architectures.

That's not to say the suggested pricing is particularly good considering this card is coming out over 4 years after the $700 1080 Ti, but it hardly makes for the "worst GPU in history". And right now, all cards are priced quite poorly in terms of their actual street prices due to the current shortage. Even the RTX 3060 (non-Ti) will tend to set you back over $800, with the likelihood of finding one anywhere remotely close to its $330 MSRP being rather slim. Realistically, this card will also be out of stock at major retailers and marked up to over $800 by resellers as well, at least until the crypto market collapses.

 

[artk2219]

They also seemed to overlook the small detail that this card should be faster than a 1080 Ti in most games, or more than twice as fast as a GTX 1060. : P

The limited PCIe lanes could potentially impact performance in some demanding games when used in a PCIe 3.0 system, though in a 4.0 system it should have similar PCIe bandwidth to work with as a 1080 Ti, or any other 3.0 x16 card.

The 6600 XT's memory bandwidth is notably lower than the 1080 Ti's due to the narrower bus width, but is still 33% higher than the 1060's, due to the VRAM itself being twice as fast. And the relatively large memory cache built into the graphics chip itself should allow effective memory bandwidth to perform more like that of the 1080 Ti when accessing data within the cache, like the framebuffer. That cache is cut down substantially from the higher-end RX 6000-series cards though, so the 1080 Ti may manage to pull ahead at higher resolutions like 4K, but overall I would expect the 6600 XT to perform a lot like a 1080 Ti, and likely better than that card at lower resolutions. You can't just pick out a few specifications to claim that one card is better than another when comparing completely different architectures.

That's not to say the suggested pricing is particularly good considering this card is coming out over 4 years after the $700 1080 Ti, but it hardly makes for the "worst GPU in history". And right now, all cards are priced quite poorly in terms of their actual street prices due to the current shortage. Even the RTX 3060 (non-Ti) will tend to set you back over $800, with the likelihood of finding one anywhere remotely close to its $330 MSRP being rather slim. Realistically, this card will also be out of stock at major retailers and marked up to over $800 by resellers as well, at least until the crypto market collapses.

Ive seen several Powercolor Fighter RX 6600's at microcenter for the $379 msrp, apparently they were readily available at launch. I was able to pick one up open box for a friend for $323, its a nice upgrade from his RX 580, and with the market the way it is he can sell his RX 580 and get the RX 6600 for relative peanuts. This makes tons of sense if you have something between a GTxX970 \R9 290 and a RX 5700 (xt), 2070 (super), 1080 ti. You can basically buy one of those, sell your current card, and either have a nice discount, pay nothing, or make a profit while increasing your performance or staying roughly the same and getting a more efficient card with a new warranty . This makes particular sense if you have a GTX 1070 or 1080 as those are valued roughly the same as a new RX 6600, but a solid 40 - 50% slower.