Radeon RX 6600 XT 12GB and RX 6700 6GB and XT 12GB Graphics cards Are Listed

#5885054 Posted on: 02/07/2021 12:51 AM

---

Everyone who keeps mentioning DLSS and RT performance, here's something to remember. This is AMD's first generation of gpus with dedicated RT hardware. Nvidia's first generation and launch of RTX and DLSS was definitely far from spectacular. Give it time. One more thing to consider, cards that lack dedicated RT hardware like the 1650, 1650 Super 1660, 1660 TI, and 1660 Super, are the cards selling more than any of the RTX cards. Dedicated ray tracing is definitely not the first priority in the market obviously.

#5885056 Posted on: 02/07/2021 01:07 AM

---

I don't even *want* DLSS (be sure you say 2.0--as nobody wants/wanted DLSS 1.0), let alone will I "demand it". No thanks, I'll pass. So far there isn't a single game either available or being developed that requires D3d12 "RT" before it will run. I've seen several examples of scenes that look *worse* with so-called D3d RT applied than their 100% rasterized versions--the assumption that this very lightweight application of traced rays just automatically improves the whole scene is just poppycock, in my view. If raw frame rates meant more to me than image quality I'd have been on nVidia long ago...but what I prefer is *adequate* frame-rates (game plays smooth with no stutter) and the best image-quality available. So that's why I stick with AMD. I also don't like gimmicky junk software like GeForce Now and so on--reminds me of all the junk software you get with motherboards these days--the software "works"--but it really doesn't impress me and I certainly don't "need" 95% of it for anything.

--Something I don't really understand about these cheaper versions of the top-performing GPUs--it's fine to cut the CUs and SPs way back, along with the amount of GDDR6 Vram, but then they go and really start hobbling these cards by cutting back the bus interface--in the case of the 6700XT to 192-bits vs. the 256-bit wide bus for the top GPUs. Isn't the reduction of CUs and SPs and the Vram enough? But, it's likely cheaper to manufacture the GPUs with less of a bus interface, I guess. I'm sure they'll probably put out something with *shudder* a 128-bit bus that really hobbles the heck out of itself.

One thing that might be fun for AMD--is to put out an 8GB version of the RX-6k, with the same bus width, CU's and SP's as the 6800XT, but with slightly faster GDDRX6. They could likely sell the crap out of those things for ~$399 all day long...!

#5885058 Posted on: 02/07/2021 01:10 AM

---

As far as I understand it, the companies fight to have the fastest cards at the high end not because they will make tons of cash at that price point but because whomever has the fastest card sells the most at the mid-range where they make most of their cash.

#5885094 Posted on: 02/07/2021 07:14 AM

---

Controversial: but I don't understand people wanting RTX when not using HDR and 10bit, colour correct capable monitors. I mean, do you want eye candy or not?
RT still has to mature a lot and the difference in most games is, from what I take it, minimal to rasterization on high details? ( I must emphasize 'most' ).

I don't thing people buying AMD are missing out on much, for now.
I wager DLSS @4K could bring a higher difference in fidelity.

If I'm missing something, feel free to point out: I'm eager to learn.

Yes. You are missing the denial.

#5885095 Posted on: 02/07/2021 07:16 AM

---

I don't even *want* DLSS (be sure you say 2.0--as nobody wants/wanted DLSS 1.0), let alone will I "demand it". No thanks, I'll pass. So far there isn't a single game either available or being developed that requires D3d12 "RT" before it will run. I've seen several examples of scenes that look *worse* with so-called D3d RT applied than their 100% rasterized versions--the assumption that this very lightweight application of traced rays just automatically improves the whole scene is just poppycock, in my view. If raw frame rates meant more to me than image quality I'd have been on nVidia long ago...but what I prefer is *adequate* frame-rates (game plays smooth with no stutter) and the best image-quality available. So that's why I stick with AMD. I also don't like gimmicky junk software like GeForce Now and so on--reminds me of all the junk software you get with motherboards these days--the software "works"--but it really doesn't impress me and I certainly don't "need" 95% of it for anything.

--Something I don't really understand about these cheaper versions of the top-performing GPUs--it's fine to cut the CUs and SPs way back, along with the amount of GDDR6 Vram, but then they go and really start hobbling these cards by cutting back the bus interface--in the case of the 6700XT to 192-bits vs. the 256-bit wide bus for the top GPUs. Isn't the reduction of CUs and SPs and the Vram enough? But, it's likely cheaper to manufacture the GPUs with less of a bus interface, I guess. I'm sure they'll probably put out something with *shudder* a 128-bit bus that really hobbles the heck out of itself.

One thing that might be fun for AMD--is to put out an 8GB version of the RX-6k, with the same bus width, CU's and SP's as the 6800XT, but with slightly faster GDDRX6. They could likely sell the crap out of those things for ~$399 all day long...!
g6x is micron+nvidia