Not exciting, can't be pcie powered, and only 3GB VRAM.

I bet even GTX 1650 will have more use case, despite obvious lower performance.

Hopefully AMD doesn't cheap out to use pcie x 8 just like RX5500.

$125 max or it is a fail. The GDDR6 GTX 1650 should be close in performance, but can now be found in tu116 for for better video encoding.

That and the extra 1 GB of vran will go a long way.

A $150 6GB version wouldn't be too bad though.

Not bad, but I found a 5500 XT on eBay for $166 so I went that route.

competition is heating up!

In a normal world this would have been priced under $100. But with prices going up, I guess it will be selling at the same price levels as RX 570. And probably RX 570 will be better in some cases.

john_In a normal world this would have been priced under $100. But with prices going up, I guess it will be selling at the same price levels as RX 570. And probably RX 570 will be better in some cases.

Shouldn't rx 570 run much faster than this office card?

i can see it for 87€ on sale or 99€ not more.. evereything else would be way too high for such a tiny fart

ZoneDymocompetition is heating up!

Surely you're joking, this is like a 1060 3GB about 3 years too late. And a lot slower, probably.

Its also a very strange product, where do you use this even. It needs a 6 pin, but has no bandwidth so performance is abysmal either way, so you can use this in a case that is far too big for what it can do... and at that price point you can always get better specs, features and even performance... Its even a friggin dualslot.

168 GB/s over a 96-bit bus is absolutely bonkers.

Weird stuff by AMD.

Wouldn't be surprised if it is a 6GB card running a special 3GB bios.

I'd expect it performs somewhere in between RX 560 and 570.

Oh, and it better be priced accordingly.

& it's a dual slot card.

Its interesting how they chose to reduce memory instead of the GPU - does this mean they cannot bin the GPU lower, or they can achieve better cost savings through reducing memory?

Nihilus$125 max or it is a fail.

MSRP is $129, so I guess it's a fail? ;)

FourstaffIts interesting how they chose to reduce memory instead of the GPU - does this mean they cannot bin the GPU lower, or they can achieve better cost savings through reducing memory?

Likely the latter. Probably not enough dice with sufficient defects to warrant cutting that more - after all there is no savings on a lower bin if the chips can reach a higher one - so cutting memory (and allowing for utilizing dice with a defective memory controller) becomes a direct BOM savings for OEMs on top of AMD selling the chip a bit cheaper.


I do wish this was a 75W GPU though, as that segment has been rather boring lately. Fingers crossed that RDNA2 and Ampere bring something interesting to that segment, though if history repeats itself we'll know that around late 2021 or early 2022.

BaumShouldn't rx 570 run much faster than this office card?

i can see it for 87€ on sale or 99€ not more.. evereything else would be way too high for such a tiny fart

Both AMD and Nvidia are moving price points higher, away from APUs. They stopped producing new GPUs for under $50 a few years now and they seem to have stopped producing newer models for under $100. In 2-3 years the lowest model of a new series (for example GT 4040 or RX 750), will have a minimum price of $150 and anything under that will be previous generation models(GT 1030, RX 550, RX 5300, GTX 1650 etc.).

I don't get the point of the much lower clocks, if it still is over 75W.

medi01I don't get the point of the much lower clocks, if it still is over 75W.

The point is most likely so, that there will not be even less reason to buy the 5500XT.

medi01


I don't get the point of the much lower clocks, if it still is over 75W.

It might allow them to use even the worst-clocking chips out of each wafer, making the GPU cheaper overall. Still, I never understood how the 5500 XT ended up at 150W either, given that the 5600 XT is at the same power level yet is much more performant. Navi 14 doesn't seem like the best chip overall. Still, at this price point this seems to be an attractive performance proposition. I would like <75W for a HHHL option, but that clearly isn't happening this generation from AMD.

john_Both AMD and Nvidia are moving price points higher, away from APUs. They stopped producing new GPUs for under $50 a few years now and they seem to have stopped producing newer models for under $100. In 2-3 years the lowest model of a new series (for example GT 4040 or RX 750), will have a minimum price of $150 and anything under that will be previous generation models(GT 1030, RX 550, RX 5300, GTX 1650 etc.).

That's true to a certain extent, though with some caveats. $50 GPUs were discontinued as iGPUs (for the most part $0) were notably outperforming them, typically at lower power draws. Newer memory technology also makes keeping costs that low more difficult, both due to the need for better quality PCBs and due to the memory chips themselves being more expensive - that's why many low-end GPUs use DDR3/4 instead, and suffer a massive performance penalty for it. That isn't likely to happen at all for future GPUs (the more powerful, the more bottlenecked it will be by slow memory after all). It's a bit sad, but I think the era of the sub-$100 GPU has ended. There's still some shame to be handed out to both major GPU manufacturers though, as the low-end segment has still been driven upwards in price, with the GTX 1650 notably costing more than the 1050 Ti, yet barely outperforming it, and nothing at all replacing the cheaper 1050. The 1030 still exists, but ... yeah. It's the 1030. The 5500 XT was also a disappointment both in absolute price and price/performance. As such AMD deserves some minor kudos for seemingly rectifying things with what looks to be the cheapest gaming GPU out there currently, but I sincerely hope they step up to the plate with a <75W 6400 or 6300 that sticks to a sub-$150 price point while still performing notably better than its predecessors.

Nice, just have to wait until someone makes a 75W version..

comparison specs

5300 22CU 1448/1645 14Gbps 96bit 168GBps TBP 100W
5300imac 20CU upto1650 14Gbps 128bit 224GBps TDP 130W
5300M 22CU 1000/1445 14Gbps 96bit 168GBps TDP? 85W
Pro 5300M 20CU 1000/1250 12Gbps 128bit 192GBps TDP? 50W

Vayra86Surely you're joking, this is like a 1060 3GB about 3 years too late. And a lot slower, probably.

While no one here likes 128 bit buses or especially a 96 bit bus and we'd all laugh at 3GB it doesn't just beat the 1060, it beats the 1650.

This card is clearly for low-end 1080p gaming and from the numbers I've seen it brings much needed competition to that segment.

I agree with everyone in general, the prices are getting out of hand.

Personally with the 6000 series launching in maybe two months I am honestly getting tired of seeing multiple stacks and greatly staggered launches of stacks. Nvidia is a mess and AMD has been forced to take their time as they're like a patient who had massive blood loss who is almost recovered.

LightofhonorNot bad, but I found a 5500 XT on eBay for $166 so I went that route.

Why did you pay $166 for what is basically a 580

JAB CreationsWhile no one here likes 128 bit buses or especially a 96 bit bus and we'd all laugh at 3GB it doesn't just beat the 1060, it beats the 1650.

This card is clearly for low-end 1080p gaming and from the numbers I've seen it brings much needed competition to that segment.

I agree with everyone in general, the prices are getting out of hand.

Personally with the 6000 series launching in maybe two months I am honestly getting tired of seeing multiple stacks and greatly staggered launches of stacks. Nvidia is a mess and AMD has been forced to take their time as they're like a patient who had massive blood loss who is almost recovered.

Honestly, GDDR6 has been a disaster for the budget line. Not sure if it is the cost of the memory or the requirements for running the lanes.

So now a 4GB 128 bit card costs as much as a Polaris 8GB 256 bit card while this new 3GB 96 bit card costs as much as a Polaris 4GB 256 bit card.

On the top end, you could buy a 512 bit gddr5 card for $300 while a 512 bit gddr6 card is near impossible to make.

Things will improve a bit when we get 96 and 128 bit in GDDR6, but then again, we could have had a die shrunk Polaris running 256 bit gddr5x for just as cheap with more performance it seems.

Vayra86Surely you're joking, this is like a 1060 3GB about 3 years too late. And a lot slower, probably.

Its also a very strange product, where do you use this even. It needs a 6 pin, but has no bandwidth so performance is abysmal either way, so you can use this in a case that is far too big for what it can do... and at that price point you can always get better specs, features and even performance... Its even a friggin dualslot.

Dude nothing of working silicon is getting lost. If there is a (selling) market for this, these cards will be sold. Perfect for internet cafe's in my opinion.

5x0 series are not being made anymore, it's natural that the 5x00 series follows up.

I'm sure they could easily set a power limit to 70 watts or so to run it off the slot only for low profile variants.

I would certainly be interested in seeing this card run up against a 1650 in real world benchmarks from someone on YouTube.

chris189I'm sure they could easily set a power limit to 70 watts or so to run it off the slot only for low profile variants.

I would certainly be interested in seeing this card run up against a 1650 in real world benchmarks from someone on YouTube.

To get 75w, you would need to reduce boost clocks to around 1450 mhz instead of the 1850 mhz of the 5500xt. Best case scenario would be 80% of the performance of the 5500xt if there are no vram or bandwidth limitations.

The 4 GB GTX 1650 already gets close to 80% of the 5500xt performance and that is the GDDR5 version. If someone is on that tight of a budget, they will likely find a used 1050ti. There is just no way for this card to win, even at $130.
Again, a 6GB frame buffer would have made it attractive to niche markets.