Question Is rx6600 overkill for 720p

[lernauta]

i dont plan on upgrading to 1080p, i dont need more than 60fps nor max settings. Would there be much of a difference compared to something like 1660s or even 1060? How long would i be able to keep up with newer titles?

 

[punkncat]

I am not certain I would consider something 10xx series unless it was a 1080 or it's ti model. The issue there would be finding one that hasn't been mined to death.

720/60 should be achievable by pretty much any modern GPU, IMO. I know something like a 580 or 590 would do it as I have recent experience with said on a system I built and tested.

 

[DS426]

Yes, a 6600 is overkill for 720p, 60 fps max, no ultra/max quality settings. Even AMD iGPU's like a 760M or 660M would do fine here.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-660M-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.589879.0.html

A 6500 is fine for 720p gaming, even though it is quite hobbled compared to the 6600/6650. If you have the budget, the 6600 will last you longer but requires a little better PSU and CPU, i.e. total system cost will be higher.

1080 is more than doubling the pixel count from 720, definitely a big step down. Something closer to middle-ground would be like 1600x900, but obviously that's not a common monitor resolution anymore nor is it available in every game.

 

[35below0]

i dont plan on upgrading to 1080p, i dont need more than 60fps nor max settings. Would there be much of a difference compared to something like 1660s or even 1060? How long would i be able to keep up with newer titles?

What other GPUs are you considering?
What are your system specs?
What country/online store are you buying from?

To answer your question, yes it is overkill but buying something weaker may not be cheaper or more sensible. It all depends on how much you're looking to spend and what your PC is capable of.
There is no penalty if a GPU has less work to do.

I would disagree a little bit with what others are saying about an iGPU. Yes it is enough, but it uses RAM and burdens the CPU. at 720p and with presumably a weaker CPU, that might hurt performance.
*might* We don't know. An i5 3750K can run Fallout New Vegas at 720p to say nothing of less demanding games, but it will be strained. A 1660 would be a benefit in many similar scenarios even if it would not be taxed to it's limits.

 

[logainofhades]

Yes it is overkill, but it should last quite awhile, should you decide to stay on 720p.

 

[DS426]

Everyone can agree that if the budget is there, not downgrading is the way to go. That said, discrete GPU's really start to have a value problem below that level. 1650's and 1660's aren't going to be supported or sold anymore, so while that used to be the go-to low-end-but-good-value GPU, I can't advise it anymore. Probably grabbing an RTX 3050 would be better at this point if going with nVidia. Unfortunately, there's no decent (IMO) low-end product by nVidia in several years, but then again, Intel has filled some of that void. AMD Polaris is only on extended support at this time, i.e. only security fixes and bugfixes for major problems in mainstream games, so grabbing a tired old RX 580 isn't recommended either.

One example: AMD Ryzen 5 8600G. That's a decent CPU-GPU combined product at $200. Yes, definitely important to ensure there's enough RAM (minimum 16 GB) and to get rather fast DDR5. I'm also one that believes that "DDR5 cost is a downside" is rather moot at this point as prices continue to close in. Tom's article:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-5-8600g-cpu-review

Guess we need more clarity from OP and whether this is a dGPU to drop into an existing system or an entirely new build.

 

[lernauta]

I have ryzen 5 4500, 16gb ram and some old gpu. I've never really played any games until recently. I would like to try RE4, last of us, games like that. I play only over the weekends for a few hours so i dont want to spend too much money. I can get
6600 for 200 new or 140 used,
a750 for 180 new,
5600 xt for 100 used,
5500 xt for 140 new,
5700 xt for 120 used,
6400 for 50 new,
1650 for 120 new,
1060 and 580 are all way bellow 100 used, most likely mined.

 

[35below0]

Is a 6500XT an option?

Of the ones you listed, the 6400 is weak, but isn't overkill and at $50 doesn't really cost anything. It's not an amazing GPU but try it, and if you feel you need more or you play more often, then consider a better GPU.

Christmas this year to Easter 2025 is the period when intel, nvidia and AMD are all going to launch new GPUs. Some of them expected to deliver remarkable price/performance.
At that point you might consider an upgrade. Either a new GPU with performance/efficiency or one of the current GPUs but at a much reduced price.

I'd rank your choices as (in order of performance):
6500XT
5500XT
6400

Avoid 5600 or 1060, and be wary of used GPUs.

New for $50 though, the 6400 is hard to argue with.

 

[rcald2000]

Hi lernauta. To err on the side of caution, I'd recommend that you not going any lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6600 ($200 or less). And I would discourage you from buying the RX 6400 or 6500 XT for a few reasons...

They are both PCIe 4.0 x4 (4 lanes) 64 bit (memory bus) cards. Also both the 6400 and 6500 XT only have 4GB of VRAM, which may be limiting for holding textures, even at only 720p. Since your CPU is only a Ryzen 5 4500, I assume that you motherboard has a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot. Also, even though your RX 6600 may be "overkill", I'm aware that your R5 4500 only has 8MB of L3 cache, as opposed to the 32MB of L3 on a Ryzen 5 5600, which may be limiting to your framerate. In addition, you mentioned that you have 16GB of system RAM, but we don't know if it's in single or dual channel configuration, or what speed it's binned for, or set to in the BIOS.

TLOU Part 1: If you were attempting to play at 720p @ max settings, then I suspect the RX 6600 would simply be adequate for this goal with your rig.
RE4: Perhaps this would achieve 720 @ 120 FPS or 1080 @ 60 FPS (max settings) with a RX 6600.
Both estimates above are wild assumptions based on the two YouTube videos below, and figuring that 720p is approximately half the amount of pixels (921,600) of 1080p (2,073,600). You should watch the videos yourself and come to your own conclusions about achievable framerates.

Addendum: Despite my opinion, I would have to agree with 35below0: A RX 6400 new for $50 is practically free. I know of nowhere in the US that you can purchase a new RX 6400 for less than $120 USD. If you can truly find it for $50 then perhaps that's worth trying that first. But otherwise, I think that an 8GB 128 bit GPU, such as the RX 6600, would be a longer term investment. Just make sure to buy from a retailer that has a no-hassle return policy, in case I'm wrong and it turns out to be massive overkill. Best of luck and happy gaming.

2nd Addendum: I also like punkncat's suggestion: If you can find a RX 580 8GB (not 4GB) GPU used for $50-$60, then I'd like that for you too; even more than the RX 6400 for $50. But I think the RX 580 8GB might only be able to maintain 720p 60 FPS at low settings in TLOU Part 1. Long term, I still think you'll be happier with the RX 6600, if you can swing it's $200 USD price tag.

** notes **

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_oAqLJ9bA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw6xXUkXi6M


https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6600.c3696

AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Specs

AMD Navi 24, 2815 MHz, 1024 Cores, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 2248 MHz, 64 bit

www.techpowerup.com

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6400.c3813

 

[35below0]

Good analysis.

I was mainly going with OP's desire not to spend too much money for very modest and infrequent gaming. I do agree that most of the outdated sub-$300 GPUs are bad value. I also agree that a 6400 is for most people and situations a bad choice, but in this one case and for only $50 it's top choice and nothing to regret.

The most sensible long term choice would easily be the RTX 4060. It uses by far the least amount of power and delivers the most performance including up to 1440p medium settings. It's only rival is the RX 6750XT which costs about the same these day.

When picking through sub-optimal choices, it's probably best to match the card to the job. The 6400 is a weaker choice but cheap. 6600 or 6500XT would be reasonable. Good value for money.

The others cost too much for what they deliver.

 

[lernauta]

6400 for 50 is indeed a rare and nice find, the same reason i bought my cpu, for it was only 40e, otherwise i would've bought something like 5600g or 5700g and not worry about gpu. As i see online 6400 cannot play the last of us at all, even on lowest settings. I think ill keep looking for now and probably go for 6600.

 

[--SID--]

RX 6400 and 6500 XT have a terrible performance on the PCIe3.0 lanes of the R5 4500!

 

[35below0]

6400 for 50 is indeed a rare and nice find, the same reason i bought my cpu, for it was only 40e, otherwise i would've bought something like 5600g or 5700g and not worry about gpu. As i see online 6400 cannot play the last of us at all, even on lowest settings. I think ill keep looking for now and probably go for 6600.

I didn't see you mention euros before. That changes prices and availability a little bit.

If you need higher performance then you will have to spend a little more, even if you don't play very often.
Look into a RTX 4060 or RX 6750XT. Those two offer most performance for the money.

RX 6400 and 6500 XT have a terrible performance on the PCIe3.0 lanes of the R5 4500!

They're affected that much?

 

[logainofhades]

I didn't see you mention euros before. That changes prices and availability a little bit.

If you need higher performance then you will have to spend a little more, even if you don't play very often.
Look into a RTX 4060 or RX 6750XT. Those two offer most performance for the money.

They're affected that much?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/rx-6500-xt-pcie-gen3-gen4-tested

That impact was felt a lot more at 1080p ultra settings, which exceeded the 4GB VRAM. That's to be expected because going beyond your card's VRAM means pulling data over the PCIe bus, and a slower link there becomes much more painful. This time, the 9900K was on average 23% slower, with individual game results ranging from 4% slower (Horizon Zero Dawn) to as much as 35–40% slower (Borderlands 3 and Forza Horizon 5).

 

[DS426]

Also didn't see how/why 6500 XT wasn't an option, but if that's the case, of everything listed, I'd go with 6600. 6400 is indeed a great value at even 50 EUR, but I start to get weary about sending a PC gamer too far downstream when really, the awesomeness of PC gaming is graphics, latency, and fps that consoles only match at the low to low-mid end, depending on where their refresh or all-new product cycle is relative to the PC world.

If RT and DLSS was very important, than I'd say 4060. Otherwise, it's basically a slap in the face. 6700/6750 (non and XT) are awesome mid-range GPU's, but I'm assuming that's out of your range and really does 1080P max and even some 1440, again not recommending used though as that might be tempting. To be clear, also not bashing used as I know many have done well that way, but at the same time, it's def higher risk and the guarantees like warranties and 30-day returns go out the window. If you know someone personally, I feel like that's a safer bet.

@lernauta : my finally say here: if you can afford a 6600, go for it. I think there's more risk in going too low and then regretting not going a little higher. I know that's where I've landed more often than not over the years in PC gaming.

 

[35below0]

If RT and DLSS was very important, than I'd say 4060. Otherwise, it's basically a slap in the face.

Curious why you would say that?

Some say great, some say worthless with very little in between.
I'm of the opinion that for the money (prices being what they are!) and for it's tier, it delivers a lot.

In principle it may be a hacked down nvidia but in practise, it's better than just about anything near it.
I'd call a 4060 Ti a slap in the face though. Just a money grab for those who want something more than an entry level nvidia.

my finally say here: if you can afford a 6600, go for it. I think there's more risk in going too low and then regretting not going a little higher. I know that's where I've landed more often than not over the years in PC gaming.

That's sensible. And even at $50, if the 6400 cannot run The Last of us then it's no good.

6600 is a solid choice, and the 6750XT would be going a little higher.