Friday, January 7th 2022

AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Limited To PCIe 4.0 x4 Interface

The recently announced AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT only features a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface according to specifications and images of the card published on the ASRock site. This is equivalent to a PCIe 3.0 x8 link or a PCIe 2.0 x16 connection and is a step down from the Radeon 6600 XT which features a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and the Radeon 6700 XT with a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. This fact is only specified by ASRock with AMD, Gigabyte, ASUS, and MSI not mentioning the PCIe interface on their respective pages. The RX 6500 XT also lacks some of the video processing capabilities of other RX 6000 series cards including the exclusion of H264/HEVC encoding and AV1 decoding.
Sources: ASRock (via VideoCardz), 3DCenter
Add your own comment

114 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Limited To PCIe 4.0 x4 Interface

#101
Assimilator
RJARRRPCGPI feel like this might just be "a newfangled version of an HD 5450"!
... it is, what's your point?
Posted on Reply
#102
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
trsttteWhat you select in the bios doesn't matter, the card will only run at the specs it supports, gen 3.0 in your case
Been here since 2007, So you aint telling me nothing new, point being is AMD didnt need to make the cards 4X etc.
Posted on Reply
#103
Berfs1
AssimilatorIt would indeed be impressive if they could force the card to use lanes that it physically does not have.
lol, I just meant I wish AMD would instead of putting PCIe 4.0 x4, put PCIe 3.0 x8 or PCIe 2.0 x16 on this, but I do understand this graphics card is using a GPU that was meant for laptop applications where the CPU PCIe lanes are capped at x4 (for ultrabook CPUs, this is the case). To be honest though, y'all can clown on AMD for making this a PCIe 4.0 x4 GPU, I'm over here running my Quadro M4000 at PCIe 3.0 x2 lmao
Posted on Reply
#104
windwhirl
Berfs1I'm over here running my Quadro M4000 at PCIe 3.0 x2 lmao
That's the real shit, right there :laugh:

In all seriousness, though, I take it for your usage bandwidth doesn't matter much?
Posted on Reply
#107
ExcuseMeWtf
Gotta quote myself on that one:
if someone is looking at bottom of the barrel stuff, they should not even be thinking about this card for a while to begin with.
Because, let's face it, it WILL be price inflated, even if it won't make a good miner. Demand WILL be crazy, and sellers WILL take advantage of it regardless
Was not even a bold prediction.
Posted on Reply
#108
stimpy88
£300+ for this POS! lolololol

Mind you, it does have two fans that go weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Posted on Reply
#109
LabRat 891
Assimilator... it is, what's your point?
I don't know what his point was, but I gotta say: assuming that's true, I look forward towards finding these guys for cheap and free down the road. Huge upgrade over the 5450s, etc. that common eWaste bins.
Also, if that's true, then that implies very good 6nm yields.
Posted on Reply
#110
AsRock
TPU addict
By being only 4.0 x4 allow the PCI lanes to be used else were, instead of 8\16 being taken up and not even being needed ?.
Posted on Reply
#111
Adam Krazispeed
TomorrowThe point is that people who use it on PCIe 3.0 or perhaps even 2.0 board will also be limited to x4 link but wil much less bandwidth than 4.0 x4 would provide. Obviously 4.0 x4 is just fine for this card but it may not be for 3.0 or 2.0 users.

Based on TPU's GPU database and assuming 6500XT has roughly the performance of GTX 980 it could lose up to 14% with 2.0 and up to 6% with 3.0: www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-gtx-980-pci-express-scaling/21.html
"TPU's GPU database and assuming 6500XT has roughly the performance of GTX 980 it" WHAT>>>>???????????? GTX 980... ID BE BETTER JUST STICKINGWITH MY RADEON R9 Nano 4GB WTF IS THIS DOG $H!T AMD.... F**K YOU AMD........... MY 6 year OLD R9 Nano 4GB or R9 FuRy X WOULD DESTROY THIS PIECE OF $H!T!!!!! RX 6500XT WTF THIS IS F**CKING STUPID AMD AMD = MAD

GAMING = DEAD
Posted on Reply
#112
ExcuseMeWtf
Hardware unboxed did simulated test using 5500XT with similar scenarios:


And holy crap, it's awful.
In fact in many games even AMD's intended PCI-E 4.0 x4 configuration cripples performance significantly, nevermind 3.0 x4.

Between this, gimped decoding options, and undoubted overpricing, only one conclusion: it's garbo. AMD is taking a piss.
Posted on Reply
#113
InVasMani
The 5500XT has 2MB L2 while 6500XT has 1MB L2 and a 16MB L3 which along with 4gbps higher effective memory speed so at x4 it should get filled and buffered by the L cache on the GPU better with the 6500XT. There is also driver level FSR coming to the hardware and perhaps we'll see driver level FSR on par with Godfall's quality.

There is probably a reason AMD didn't cripple the 5500XT to PCIE 4.0 x4 and video certainly highlights that, but the underlying hardware is a fair bit different. There is also a reason AMD didn't make the 6500XT 8GB VRAM as well which is you look at the hardware between both there are other reasons behind that it would be quite anemic if they had done so at least w/o even faster GDDR memory and even then hardware itself would struggle more in other import area's in regard to scaling performance towards higher image quality settings and resolutions.

6500XT is just a card fill a part of the product stack that's never very exciting and at the same time short of the pandemic and crypto wouldn't have been launched as a discrete GPU offering in the first place or with a even cheaper MSRP if it had.
Posted on Reply
#114
Berfs1
windwhirlThat's the real shit, right there :laugh:

In all seriousness, though, I take it for your usage bandwidth doesn't matter much?
Sorry for the late reply, I mainly use it as a display card, but I also use it for video editing. PCIe 3.0 x2... IIRC that's 2GBps (half of an x4 NVMe for example), eh I haven't had any noticeable issues, but then again it could also be that I have never actually gotten to see the true performance of it when ran in x16 mode lol
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment