Support NeoGAF

[SlimySnake]

Just saw it finally dip below $200 today. Comes with Starfield too.

https://www.microcenter.com/product/640334/asus-amd-radeon-rx-6600-xt-rog-strix-overclocked-dual-fan-8gb-gddr6-pcie-40-graphics-card

PC Gaming has recently seen a lot of really expensive releases, but I look at these 6000 series cards and they offer insane performance per dollar. A PS5 equivalent 10 tflops GPU is nothing to scoff at. Especially for just $189. Most people here rock a 4090, but if you're a price conscious PC gamer still stuck on a 1060 looking to upgrade for Starfield, this is a pretty decent 2x leap for an extremely cheap price.

I also wonder if we are going to see a massive pricecut for PS5 soon. yes, this is microcenter probably clearing stock, but surely this means that the GPU/CPU combo in the $500-$550 PS5 isnt exactly that expensive to produce nowadays. Especially if they go to a smaller node for the PS5 Slim.

I dont know. I see these very capable GPUs go on sale and it reminds of the good old days when mid range PC builds were still cheap and affordable. AMD and Nvidia might be overpricing their latest GPUs but their last gen hardware is very affordable.

 

[Gaiff]

There's no PS5 equivalent GPU though. Sure, the CU count and clocks give them a similar compute throughput but the PS5's has 50% more VRAM for games, a wider memory bus and much higher bandwidth. It will beat the 6600 XT pretty much every time and pull away even further at higher resolutions. Hell, even the 6700 non-XT doesn't stack all that well compared to the PS5.

I'd say generally, you want a bit of headroom for something equivalent to a console on PC. Something almost equal will tend to perform worse so you need a chunk more performance to match consoles.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Ughmm, I'm not sure why people keep comparing the PS5 APU with the 6600XT when from a CU count it's more in line with the vanilla 6700 (and even so it has lower bandwidth than PS5's GPU): https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716. The 6600XT is bottlenecked by the very poor memory bandwidth and that infinity cache is simply not big enough to overcome the narrow bus width. I definitely wouldn't recommend getting a 6600XT in 2023 even in a budget build.

 

[Onironauta]

It means very little. Consoles perform much better compared to their equivalent PC hardware due to higher optimization and lower level of abstraction.

 

[VolticArchangel]

The PS5 equivalent RDNA2 retail GPU, core for core, CU for CU, match, is the RX 6700, not the 6600XT.

It's a common mistake people make based off of just TFLoP/s numbers being closer.

 

[SlimySnake]

Ughmm, I'm not sure why people keep comparing the PS5 APU with the 6600XT when from a CU count it's more in line with the vanilla 6700 (and even so it has lower bandwidth): https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716. The 6600XT is bottlenecked by the very poor memory bandwidth and that infinity cache is simply not big enough to overcome the narrow bus width.

tflops are tflops. The higher clocks (upto 2.6 Ghz) overcome the 4 CU disadvantage.

There's no PS5 equivalent GPU though. Sure, the CU count and clocks give them a similar compute throughput but the PS5's GPU has twice the VRAM, a wider memory bus and much higher bandwidth. It will beat the 6600 XT pretty much every time and pull away even further at higher resolutions. Hell, even the 6700 non-XT doesn't stack all that well compared to the PS5.

I'd say generally, you want a bit of headroom for something equivalent to a console on PC. Something almost equal will tend to perform worse so you need a chunk more performance to match consoles.

It actually outperforms the PS5 in several games like Guardians of the Galaxy which are held back by the PS5 CPU.

Id say +-10% depending on the game. Bottomline is that something this close to a PS5 is exceptionally affordable at $189. especially since it comes with a $70 high profile title.

 

[delirium trigger]

AMD's trying to get rid of stock before they release the rest the rest of the 7000 lineup. Definitely some deals to be had. 6950 XT has been going for around 600 and I think its original msrp was like 1200.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

tflops are tflops. The higher clocks (upto 2.6 Ghz) overcome the 4 CU disadvantage.


It actually outperforms the PS5 in several games like Guardians of the Galaxy which are held back by the PS5 CPU.

Id say +-10% depending on the game. Bottomline is that something this close to a PS5 is exceptionally affordable at $189. especially since it comes with a $70 high profile title.

Why are you disregarding the piss poor memory bandwidth then? The 6600XT scales very poorly with resolution in comparison to the PS5 GPU, and ofc the 6700 which is a more comparable GPU in the first place (multiple people called you out on this).

It's a poor GPU anyway which lacks VRAM and Memory Bandwidth. No point in getting it in 2023 when current-gen games are starting to get very VRAM hungry.

 

[DeepEnigma]

tflops are tflops.

 

[Gaiff]

tflops are tflops. The higher clocks (upto 2.6 Ghz) overcome the 4 CU disadvantage.


It actually outperforms the PS5 in several games like Guardians of the Galaxy which are held back by the PS5 CPU.

Id say +-10% depending on the game. Bottomline is that something this close to a PS5 is exceptionally affordable at $189. especially since it comes with a $70 high profile title.

I wouldn't call a 4.5GB deficit and less than 60% of the bandwidth equivalent.

I'd want a 6700 non-XT at minimum and even then, I'd feel better with a 6700 XT. Now we're talking $250+ which is half of the price of the PS5 so you're still looking at a $700-ish system.

These consoles are almost 3 years old. By now, their performance should be budget-level but they're still alright midrangers.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

We are at tipping point in generation where consoles no longer provide best bang for buck.

An entry level pc ($700) will offer similar performance while do other stuff as well.

With next gen of entry level GPUs this gap will widen still, in favour of pc. Just like happened last gen with something like gtx1060 and ps4.

 

[Gaiff]

We are at tipping point in generation where consoles no longer provide best bang for buck.

An entry level pc ($700) will offer similar performance while do other stuff as well.

With next gen of entry level GPUs this gap will widen still, in favour of pc. Just like happened last gen with something like gtx1060 and ps4.

Eh, I'd argue that they still do if we're talking strictly gaming performance. The discussion around PC tends to be too focused on price/performance when what makes PC such a strong platform is its flexibility.

 

[SlimySnake]

Why are you disregarding the piss poor memory bandwidth then? The 660XT scales very poorly with resolution in comparison to the PS5 GPU,

Not in all cases. The memory bandwidth might become an issue at higher native 4k resolutions but its not like many people will be playing.

Here is death stranding at 4k. Pretty much exactly what we got on the PS5. Doom is also very comparable at native 4k. It really depends on the game. This GPU is VERY comparable to the PS5 and paired up with a decent Zen 2 CPU, it will outperform the PS5 at higher framerates which is what people do on PCs.

and ofc the 6700 which is a more comparable GPU in the first place (multiple people called you out on this).

6700 is a 11.29 tflops GPU while the 6600xt is a 10.7 tflops GPU. of course its better. Techpowerup has it roughly 6% faster which lines up with the tflops difference. If you want to derail the thread over a 6% difference, be my guest.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

For what it is worth these cards make a K I L L E R steam os mini pc.

No, its not PCMR, but elden ring at 120hrz 1080p ultra settings or 60fps 1440p on medium/high-ish, for sub $450 (all in) and access to almost everything in your Steam library is a steal for people that want to dabble in PC gaming without really committing to a "rig"

Built a few of these for some folks recently and they have loved them. Everything updates for them automatically, they are familiar with the steam layout, and no windows "stuff" to deal with.

 

[Gaiff]

Not in all cases. The memory bandwidth might become an issue at higher native 4k resolutions but its not like many people will be playing.

Here is death stranding at 4k. Pretty much exactly what we got on the PS5. Doom is also very comparable at native 4k. It really depends on the game. This GPU is VERY comparable to the PS5 and paired up with a decent Zen 2 CPU, it will outperform the PS5 at higher framerates which is what people do on PCs.

6700 is a 11.29 tflops GPU while the 6600xt is a 10.7 tflops GPU. of course its better. Techpowerup has it roughly 6% faster which lines up with the tflops difference. If you want to derail the thread over a 6% difference, be my guest.

Not true about Death Stranding. DF did the test and the PS5 in that game performed similar yo a 2080/S.

That would make it like 10-15% faster than the 6600 XT.

 

[SlimySnake]

Not true about Death Stranding. DF did the test and the PS5 in that game performed similar yo a 2080/S.

That would make it like 10-15% faster than the 6600 XT.

Ds performs better on amd cards. Comparing it to nvidia gpu benchmarks is asanine when e we have amd benchmarks.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Not in all cases. The memory bandwidth might become an issue at higher native 4k resolutions but its not like many people will be playing.

Here is death stranding at 4k. Pretty much exactly what we got on the PS5. Doom is also very comparable at native 4k. It really depends on the game. This GPU is VERY comparable to the PS5 and paired up with a decent Zen 2 CPU, it will outperform the PS5 at higher framerates which is what people do on PCs.

6700 is a 11.29 tflops GPU while the 6600xt is a 10.7 tflops GPU. of course its better. Techpowerup has it roughly 6% faster which lines up with the tflops difference. If you want to derail the thread over a 6% difference, be my guest.

According to Digital Foundry in Death Stranding Director's Cut the PS5 GPU is performing above a 2070 Super which in your techpowerup graphs sits slighty above that RX 6600XT Gaming X...

In any case, the point is that the 6600XT is an end of life AMD gpu with low VRAM and memory bandwidth which will provide a poor gameplay experience for PC gamers in titles releasing this year and in the future. And heck we've already seen some very heavy VRAM titles already like Hogwarts and TLOU. Sorry, but I really can't recommend this GPU, and yes, the comparison with the PS5 GPU is again flawed.

 

[Sleepwalker]

My elitist view is that it's not worth it to build a PC just to have it spec'd similar to a console. You either go full high end masterrace or dont bother at all. I'd argue it's not worth buying a 6600xt even if it was $100, which it basically is after starfield, and while it may seem a good deal, you then have to use a 6600xt lol.

The ease of use of a console makes it an easy choice over a similar spec'd PC every day.

 

[Gaiff]

Ds performs better on amd cards. Comparing it to nvidia gpu benchmarks is asanine when e we have amd benchmarks.

Changes nothing. The PS5 still beats the 5700 XT by 10-17% and it's basically identical to the 6600 XT in this game,

 

[Trogdor1123]

I don’t know why a thread about a recent(ish) video card being cheap would be any different than this one is…

 

[Prekk]

This card goes for at least 320€ ($350) in europe (ger).

Just awful at that price point.

 

[rodrigolfp]

the PS5's GPU has twice the VRAM

No. PS5 can't use 16GB for games even less for VRAM only.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Mini-ITX Intel build

With that card you have an insane good mid-range build. I could have cheap out further down by not going mini-ITX nor Noctua fans, but if i were to build a mid-range today, it would be that.

I'm not hunting for bundles and the kind either which would probably bring this down further. Non mini-ITX + bundles i think you could easily approach ~700$ range, or do like i always do for my builds, wait on component by component, grab the GPU NOW and wait for the return to school deals in a week. Could probably lower total cost even further as there's no special deals in that basket outside of the GPU.

Ughmm, I'm not sure why people keep comparing the PS5 APU with the 6600XT when from a CU count it's more in line with the vanilla 6700 (and even so it has lower bandwidth than PS5's GPU): https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716. The 6600XT is bottlenecked by the very poor memory bandwidth and that infinity cache is simply not big enough to overcome the narrow bus width. I definitely wouldn't recommend getting a 6600XT in 2023 even in a budget build.

But consoles RDNA 2 don't have the desktop's RDNA 2 insane caches. So CU vs CU is moot. So much so in fact that a 6700 XT has less CUs than PS5, but never in history of console equivalent settings has the 6700XT been in question as for power comparisons, unless the port is the kind of trash that kneecaps even a 4090. If an Intel A770 is above console equivalent settings, then 6700 is too good. 6600XT seems the best fit, as even that is above an A770 in most benchmarks.

 

[scydrex]

No. PS5 can't use 16GB for games even less for VRAM only.

Exactly it'd shared with the CPU. Maybe he thinks the 16GB are for the GPU only and the ps5 have RAM for the CPU.

 

[Dream-Knife]

There's no PS5 equivalent GPU though. Sure, the CU count and clocks give them a similar compute throughput but the PS5's GPU has twice the VRAM, a wider memory bus and much higher bandwidth. It will beat the 6600 XT pretty much every time and pull away even further at higher resolutions. Hell, even the 6700 non-XT doesn't stack all that well compared to the PS5.

I'd say generally, you want a bit of headroom for something equivalent to a console on PC. Something almost equal will tend to perform worse so you need a chunk more performance to match consoles.

No it doesn't. It has 16gb of memory total. A basic PC with a 6600xt would have 24gb of memory.

 

[MikeM]

We are at tipping point in generation where consoles no longer provide best bang for buck.

An entry level pc ($700) will offer similar performance while do other stuff as well.

With next gen of entry level GPUs this gap will widen still, in favour of pc. Just like happened last gen with something like gtx1060 and ps4.

8GB VRAM tho… oof.

According to Digital Foundry in Death Stranding Director's Cut the PS5 GPU is performing above a 2070 Super which in your techpowerup graphs sits slighty above that RX 6600XT Gaming X...

In any case, the point is that the 6600XT is an end of life AMD gpu with low VRAM and memory bandwidth which will provide a poor gameplay experience for PC gamers in titles releasing this year and in the future. And heck we've already seen some very heavy VRAM titles already like Hogwarts and TLOU. Sorry, but I really can't recommend this GPU, and yes, the comparison with the PS5 GPU is again flawed.

The newer, current gen GPUs aren’t any better compared to their previous gen counterparts. 6600xt for that price would make a very good budget build.

 

[Melon Husk]

Excellent card for the first time budget builder.

 

[Mr Moose]

Ds performs better on amd cards. Comparing it to nvidia gpu benchmarks is asanine when e we have amd benchmarks.

But... 2080 is ahead? And PS5 is ahead of that.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Holy shit at this deal!

AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, MSI B650-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build Bundle - Micro Center

Get it now! Find over 30,000 products at your local Micro Center, including the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, MSI B650-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build Bundle

www.microcenter.com

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Jz7f7R

 

[Gaiff]

No. PS5 can't use 16GB for games even less for VRAM only.

No it doesn't. It has 16gb of memory total. A basic PC with a 6600xt would have 24gb of memory.

I mentioned later a 4.5GB advantage for the PS5 because it can use 12.5GB for video games. The point still stands that it still has more than 50% VRAM over the 6600 XT. That's a huge difference especially since 8GB is quickly heading into No Man's Land territory and should be reserved strictly for entry-level cards.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Just saw it finally dip below $200 today. Comes with Starfield too.

https://www.microcenter.com/product/640334/asus-amd-radeon-rx-6600-xt-rog-strix-overclocked-dual-fan-8gb-gddr6-pcie-40-graphics-card

PC Gaming has recently seen a lot of really expensive releases, but I look at these 6000 series cards and they offer insane performance per dollar. A PS5 equivalent 10 tflops GPU is nothing to scoff at. Especially for just $189. Most people here rock a 4090, but if you're a price conscious PC gamer still stuck on a 1060 looking to upgrade for Starfield, this is a pretty decent 2x leap for an extremely cheap price.

I also wonder if we are going to see a massive pricecut for PS5 soon. yes, this is microcenter probably clearing stock, but surely this means that the GPU/CPU combo in the $500-$550 PS5 isnt exactly that expensive to produce nowadays. Especially if they go to a smaller node for the PS5 Slim.

I dont know. I see these very capable GPUs go on sale and it reminds of the good old days when mid range PC builds were still cheap and affordable. AMD and Nvidia might be overpricing their latest GPUs but their last gen hardware is very affordable.

It is a good price for the GPU, but with some experience with my nephew owning one in a PC he asked me to build for him, the price of the GPU is just problem 1 for getting similar visuals and performance from CoD on a budget PC. Back in the day the latest motherboard interface standards like PCIe gen 4 and overclocking CPU and memory with nvme wasn't locked behind £200 motherboard chipsets, and back then a base level i5-10400F CPU wouldn't have a base clock below 3.6GHz.- like today's at 2.9GHz which it lives at.

By the time you've factored in a K level CPU(plus a cooler), Z-series mobo and dual channel DDR4 and a decent sized nvme ssd at samsung 980 Pro level, your budget is still hit £1,000 just to get that 1080p above 60fps with passable textures, at which point you consider that a GPU at £400-500 was a better use of budget IMO. Budget PC building is the worst situation it has been in ever, today the overly aggressive tiering of mobo features and cpus has killed it.

 

[Gaiff]

It is a good price for the GPU, but with some experience with my nephew owning one in a PC he asked me to build for him, the price of the GPU is just problem 1 for getting similar visuals and performance from CoD on a budget PC. Back in the day the latest motherboard interface standards like PCIe gen 4 and overclocking CPU and memory with nvme wasn't locked behind £200 motherboard chipsets, and back then a base level i5-10400F CPU wouldn't have a base clock below 3.6GHz.- like today's at 2.9GHz which it lives at.

By the time you've factored in a K level CPU(plus a cooler), Z-series mobo and dual channel DDR4 and a decent sized nvme ssd at samsung 980 Pro level, your budget is still hit £1,000 just to get that 1080p above 60fps with passable textures, at which point you consider that a GPU at £400-500 was a better use of budget IMO. Budget PC building is the worst situation it has been in ever, today the overly aggressive tiering of mobo features and cpus has killed it.

1. Why would you get a K CPU for a budget build, and 2, even K CPUs are poor overclockers these days because of the high power usage vs low performance returns. Furthermore, components these days are clocked very close to their optimal levels out of the box. OC'ing is practically a dead hobby except for those looking to eek every last bit of performance out of their system but if you wanna do that, why would you by a budget CPU and motherboard? You need a high-end motherboard with VRMs that won't blow up when stressed.

Also, 980 Pro when you can get a 2TB SN850X for $120 or 970 Evo Plus for $100?

Your proposition isn't good because your balance is out of whack, starting with the completely useless K CPU on a budget build. You can also simply go with Ryzen. Again, OC'ing budget components in this day and age is utterly pointless.

 

[SlimySnake]

My elitist view is that it's not worth it to build a PC just to have it spec'd similar to a console. You either go full high end masterrace or dont bother at all. I'd argue it's not worth buying a 6600xt even if it was $100, which it basically is after starfield, and while it may seem a good deal, you then have to use a 6600xt lol.

The ease of use of a console makes it an easy choice over a similar spec'd PC every day.

Thats pretty much how i think. I would never build this PC but then again im not one of the millions who bought the 1060 last gen. The average PC population is ok with 1080p cards that are around $250 and this is a fantastic deal for them.

Holy shit at this deal!

AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, MSI B650-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build Bundle - Micro Center

Get it now! Find over 30,000 products at your local Micro Center, including the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, MSI B650-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build Bundle

www.microcenter.com

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Jz7f7R

Wow. My friend just built a PC a few weeks ago. Over $1,200 before the GPU. Hes going to have a heart attack when he sees this lmao.

 

[Skifi28]

Gaming on a PC, I would want much better than the hardware equiavalent to a console to feel "safe". With so many average to bad ports, you'd have a bad time with the absolute minimum hardware in new games. I'd personally want at least a 6800 and even then you're leaving so much to the table when compared to nVidia cards.

 

[Rusty Shackelford]

Most people here rock a 4090,

No they don't

 

[Dream-Knife]

According to Digital Foundry in Death Stranding Director's Cut the PS5 GPU is performing above a 2070 Super which in your techpowerup graphs sits slighty above that RX 6600XT Gaming X...

In any case, the point is that the 6600XT is an end of life AMD gpu with low VRAM and memory bandwidth which will provide a poor gameplay experience for PC gamers in titles releasing this year and in the future. And heck we've already seen some very heavy VRAM titles already like Hogwarts and TLOU. Sorry, but I really can't recommend this GPU, and yes, the comparison with the PS5 GPU is again flawed.

Those games had massive memory leaks that are largely fixed.

6600xt isn't end of life, newer cards are out yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't a completely usable card.

 

[Dream-Knife]

I mentioned later a 4.5GB advantage for the PS5 because it can use 12.5GB for video games. The point still stands that it still has more than 50% VRAM over the 6600 XT. That's a huge difference especially since 8GB is quickly heading into No Man's Land territory and should be reserved strictly for entry-level cards.

Yes. And a PC with a 6600xt and 16gb of system memory running windows can use ~18gb for games, depending on what else you are running.

 

[Gaiff]

Yes. And a PC with a 6600xt and 16gb of system memory running windows can use ~18gb for games, depending on what else you are running.

The VRAM is still only 8GB and going over this will cripple your performance. Spilling into system RAM won't save your performance. The PS5 has 12.5GB of VRAM dedicated to games. Your 6600 XT has 8GB.

 

[Zathalus]

For a budget gamer I would recommend a 3060 or 6700XT. 3060 can be found for ~280$ while the 6700XT can be had for ~320$. Both have 12GB of VRAM. Using decent budget components gets you a PC that is equal or better then consoles for around 800$.

 

[LordOfChaos]

but the PS5's GPU has twice the VRAM

No it doesn't in practice. People act like consoles just use all their shared memory as VRAM, but that's also the OS and other non-VRAM game assets in one place, so effectively it would be probably closer to half, but dynamic depending on the game

 

[Gaiff]

No it doesn't in practice. People act like consoles just use all their shared memory as VRAM, but that's also the OS and other non-VRAM game assets in one place, so effectively it would be probably closer to half, but dynamic depending on the game

Been addressed twice already.

 

[Kataploom]

It means very little. Consoles perform much better compared to their equivalent PC hardware due to higher optimization and lower level of abstraction.

On GPU side? It depends, I've seen games performing the same on 3060 or 6600xt than on PS5/XSX, but yeah those cards have lower memory bandwidth so at higher resolutions their performance fall more than consoles, that doesn't happen with the 6700XT since that card is already better and infinite cache eliminates bw differences.

Sometimes the optimization is more lowering settings than anything else even below lowest PC settings.

For the rest of components? Well, even if you have an equivalent console GPU or a little better you can still get better results on PC given a port is not TLOU level of disaster, since we basically don't have CPU or memory bottlenecks as consoles. Even the lower end PC CPU (i3 and Ryzen 3) are way better in IPC and frequency than those on consoles and the memory is cheap so 16 GB is pretty standard and currently phasing out already + whatever amount of GPU VRAM has. Consoles are also less efficient than PC for CPU tasks due high latency GDDR6 memory they have AFAIK (might be wrong, if so, someone let me know lol).

It's not black and white, current consoles are mostly I/O + GPU focused and games have been demanding too much CPU not for I/O tasks so yeah, gotta be fun to see how 6600 XT or even lower than console's GPUs will perform for current gen only games.

 

[LordOfChaos]

I mentioned later a 4.5GB advantage for the PS5 because it can use 12.5GB for video games. The point still stands that it still has more than 50% VRAM over the 6600 XT. That's a huge difference especially since 8GB is quickly heading into No Man's Land territory and should be reserved strictly for entry-level cards.

The VRAM is still only 8GB and going over this will cripple your performance. Spilling into system RAM won't save your performance. The PS5 has 12.5GB of VRAM dedicated to games. Your 6600 XT has 8GB.

Been addressed twice already.

Incorrectly both times lmao

Free RAM for games != available VRAM for games, this is the mistake you keep making. Of that 12.5GB, a lot is going to the base game assets that would reside in the DRAM in a PC. The VRAM assets which would sit on a GPU's GDDR are a faction of this.

In practice it's not going to have much more than the 8GB dedicated card most of the time, sometimes more sometimes less, the benefit is being a dynamic allocation, but all of the PS5's free RAM for games is not the same as VRAM alone.

Ask yourself, does a laptop with integrated graphics alone and shared memory just have 16GB minus the OS cost as VRAM alone? The base game non-VRAM assets take a lot of RAM.

 

[Codeblew]

My elitist view is that it's not worth it to build a PC just to have it spec'd similar to a console. You either go full high end masterrace or dont bother at all. I'd argue it's not worth buying a 6600xt even if it was $100, which it basically is after starfield, and while it may seem a good deal, you then have to use a 6600xt lol.

The ease of use of a console makes it an easy choice over a similar spec'd PC every day.

Well, if you need a decent CPU for work like me (software dev), may as well throw in a semi-decent gfx card as well.

 

[Gaiff]

Incorrectly both times lmao

Free RAM for games != available VRAM for games, this is the mistake you keep making. Of that 12.5GB, a lot is going to the base game assets that would reside in the DRAM in a PC. The VRAM assets which would sit on a GPU's GDDR are a faction of this.

In practice it's not going to have much more than the 8GB dedicated card most of the time, sometimes more sometimes less, the benefit is being a dynamic allocation, but all of the PS5's free RAM for games is not the same as VRAM alone.

No, it isn't incorrect. The PS5 doesn't have regular DRAM. It has 3.5 GB of VRAM for its OS and various applications and 12.5GB of VRAM usable for games. How that 12.5GB is used is entirely up to the developer and it's entirely false that it doesn't have much more than 8GB considering we have games where even 10GB cards struggle with VRAM allocations even at PS5 settings (Marvel's Spider-Man, Hogwarts Legacy, Forspoken, or Rift Apart for example). 8GB completely fall apart in many scenarios where the PS5 works no problem. Whatever the case, it often uses a lot more than just 8GB.

I don't have the numbers because it varies per game so besides 12.5GB which is a hard number, I can't quote anything else.

 

[LordOfChaos]

No, it isn't incorrect. The PS5 doesn't have regular DRAM. It has 3.5 GB of VRAM for its OS and various applications and 12.5GB of VRAM usable for games. How that 12.5GB is used is entirely up to the developer and it's entirely false that it doesn't have much more than 8GB considering we have games where even 10GB cards struggle with VRAM allocations even at PS5 settings (Marvel's Spider-Man for instance and the latest R&C). 8GB completely fall apart in many scenarios where the PS5 works no problem. Whatever the case, it often uses a lot more than just 8GB.

I don't have the numbers because it varies per game so besides 12.5GB which is a hard number, I can't quote anything else.

That's exactly my point but you're continuing with the wrong one

12.5GB after the OS is available to the game. Say the core game files, which would sit on DRAM on a PC but sit on the shared GDDR on PS5, takes up 7GB. That would then leave 5.5GB of GDDR5 for GPU VRAM assets, correct? I've seen them push more than 8+ on some PC titles.

I didn't say it's 8GB fixed, it's a dynamic allocation which again I said is a benefit, but you were originally playing it off like all of this 12.5GB is going to VRAM assets which it can't possibly.

That it's a better optimized fixed platform than an equal PC is a given as a popular console.

 

[Gaiff]

That's exactly my point but you're continuing with the wrong one

12.5GB after the OS is available to the game. Say the core game files, which would sit on DRAM on a PC but sit on the shared GDDR on PS5, takes up 7GB. That would then leave 5.5GB of GDDR5 for GPU VRAM assets, correct?

I didn't say it's 8GB fixed, it's a dynamic allocation which again I said is a benefit, but you were originally playing it off like all of this 12.5GB is going to VRAM assets which it can't possibly.

Again, I can't quote anything else besides 12.5GB because it varies a per game hence why I ran with that number. Whatever the case, the PS5 uses a lot more VRAM than an 8GB PC can handle because there are multiple instances of it coasting through heavy VRAM scenes whereas 8GB GPUs fall apart. We've seen that in Marvel's Spider-Man, Forspoken, Hogwarts Legacy (where textures literally won't load), Rift Apart, and other games where the consoles use max textures and the cards with 8GB can't, even at console settings.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

tflops are tflops. The higher clocks (upto 2.6 Ghz) overcome the 4 CU disadvantage.


It actually outperforms the PS5 in several games like Guardians of the Galaxy which are held back by the PS5 CPU.

Id say +-10% depending on the game. Bottomline is that something this close to a PS5 is exceptionally affordable at $189. especially since it comes with a $70 high profile title.

no

 

[Crayon]

I bought one of these used about a year ago for that price. I'm going to agree with others here and say it's no PS5, but I have been super happy with it. It will still play anything the PS5 plays, maybe with a few settings turned down, but not enough for me to worry about it once I'm playing a good game.

 

[Kataploom]

For what it is worth these cards make a K I L L E R steam os mini pc.

No, its not PCMR, but elden ring at 120hrz 1080p ultra settings or 60fps 1440p on medium/high-ish, for sub $450 (all in) and access to almost everything in your Steam library is a steal for people that want to dabble in PC gaming without really committing to a "rig"

Built a few of these for some folks recently and they have loved them. Everything updates for them automatically, they are familiar with the steam layout, and no windows "stuff" to deal with.

With all the noise Steam Deck made I still think Valve should revive Steam Machines... At least one or two SKUs at most instead of "everyone makes their own" with the advantage of pre-optimized settings and pre-compiled shaders ala Steam Deck