If RX 6800 costs 900 euros or more, I guess 6700XT will be at least 700 euros? It's great to be a PC gamer in 2021.

Atleast we get an options. 6700XT 12gb sounds nice. Cant wait the review.

500€ 6600xt 12gb sounds really smooth for 720p gaming. 😀

Being listed and available are two totally different things.

itpro:

500€ 6600xt 12gb sounds really smooth for 720p gaming. 😀

it will probably be fast as 5700. Thats 1080/1440p gaming.

excuse me,wtf why is 5700's succesor a 6gb card ?

cucaulay malkin:

excuse me,wtf why is 5700's succesor a 6gb card ?

Yeah I find this a bit confusing too. I suppose this is going to be targeted more toward 1080p with raytracing, whereas the 6700XT might be more for 4K without RT. In either case, it really ought to be at least 8GB.

Before people continue to buy amd cards should demand an answer to dlss. I am afraid to buy red gpu if I must lower settings for viable performance.

fankly,there is no raytracing without dlss 3080 will do 1080p native but for 1440p even that card will struggle without dlss amd's rt is kinda half assed.they knew even a 2080ti needs dlss,and that was in 2018. with their rt cores taking a much higher hit and no dlss,you're not gonna want that on rdna2 https://i.imgur.com/7yR2Jjv.png realistically,you're gonna get a better experience on 2070 Super DLSS on than 6800xt when you enable it. https://i.imgur.com/9pjXNoR.jpeghttps://i.imgur.com/v0wBddZ.jpg

it went crazy at AMD, entry-level graphics cards with a lot of video memory, on the other hand, high-priced cards with little video memory, I can't understand this math, there is no alternative to NVIDIA DLSS and super high prices.

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. 🙂

I still don't understand what's with mid range cards and memory. 3060s with 12Gb and 6600 XT as well? I mean, 4K is not the sweet spot for these cards anyway.

gmavignier:

I still don't understand what's with mid range cards and memory. 3060s with 12Gb and 6600 XT as well? I mean, 4K is not the sweet spot for these cards anyway.

The bus setup. This most likely like the 3060 has a 192-bit bus, sitting on 6 2gb memory chips. They don't make 3gb memory chips, so it can't be 4 chips. It also is a means to kind of lock in only 1080p performance, sort of like they did with the 5600 only giving a 6gb sku. The 12gb XT model will give maybe some 1440p performance, but I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD also soft lock any overclocking.

itpro:

Before people continue to buy amd cards should demand an answer to dlss. I am afraid to buy red gpu if I must lower settings for viable performance.

DLSS is lowering settings. It's just the performance improvement is greater than the visual loss.

itpro:

Before people continue to buy amd cards should demand an answer to dlss. I am afraid to buy red gpu if I must lower settings for viable performance.

I don't understand this mentality. There should be no 'lowering settings' on the AMD cards - unless you're speaking strictly about RT ON vs RT OFF, and to be frank, game developers have been producing fantastic looking games without RT and DLSS for as long as I can remember. How will you feel about your purchase if we're on the cusp of a RT hardware explosion that in 12-24 months renders your 3080/3090 entry level at best?

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.

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...!

vbetts:

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.

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.

Chess:

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.

waltc3:

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