PowerColor's Radeon RX 6700 Fighter leaks with 6GB of VRAM - Is that enough memory?
Is that enough VRAM for modern games?
Published: 22nd March 2021 | Source: Techpowerup |
PowerColor's Radeon RX 6700 Fighter leaks with 6GB of VRAM - Is that enough memory?
The packaging of PowerColor's planned Radeon RX 6700 (non-XT) graphics card had leaked onto the web, revealing a 6GB graphics card that appears to be identical to its RX 6700 XT counterpart in appearance.
The image below of Powercolor's RX 6700 comes from Techpowerup, who have reported that PowerColor accidentally released images of this graphics card to the press. Rumour has it that AMD's RX 6700 non-XT will feature 36 CUs, giving the graphics card the same CU count as the Radeon RX 5700.
With 6GB of VRAM, this graphics card has half as much VRAM capacity as AMD's Radeon RX 6700 XT. As a graphics card that will likely target 1440p resolutions, 6GB of VRAM should be seen as inadequate for a GPU of this power level. AMD's own marketing backs this up for their RX 6700 XT and high-end RDNA 2 graphics cards. AMD should know that 6GB of VRAM is not enough for a high-end gaming product.
With AMD's RX 6700 XT being a competitor to Nvidia's RTX 3060 graphics card, Radeon should know that consumers and reviewers will see a 6GB frame buffer as being too small for modern games. We hope that this 6GB GPU listing is an error, as 6GB graphics cards are destined to age poorly if VRAM usage continues to increase in games.
With 6GB of VRAM, AMD's RX 6700 should feature the same 192-bit memory interface as the RX 6700 XT. This should give both graphics cards the same VRAM capacity, assuming that both GPUs utilise the same GDDR6 memory speeds. While bandwidth will remain identical between both GPUs, the extra VRAM capacity of the RX 6700 XT makes it a much better graphics card for long-term usage.
At this time, AMD's RX 6700 graphics card has no firm release date.
The image below of Powercolor's RX 6700 comes from Techpowerup, who have reported that PowerColor accidentally released images of this graphics card to the press. Rumour has it that AMD's RX 6700 non-XT will feature 36 CUs, giving the graphics card the same CU count as the Radeon RX 5700.
With 6GB of VRAM, this graphics card has half as much VRAM capacity as AMD's Radeon RX 6700 XT. As a graphics card that will likely target 1440p resolutions, 6GB of VRAM should be seen as inadequate for a GPU of this power level. AMD's own marketing backs this up for their RX 6700 XT and high-end RDNA 2 graphics cards. AMD should know that 6GB of VRAM is not enough for a high-end gaming product.
With AMD's RX 6700 XT being a competitor to Nvidia's RTX 3060 graphics card, Radeon should know that consumers and reviewers will see a 6GB frame buffer as being too small for modern games. We hope that this 6GB GPU listing is an error, as 6GB graphics cards are destined to age poorly if VRAM usage continues to increase in games.
With 6GB of VRAM, AMD's RX 6700 should feature the same 192-bit memory interface as the RX 6700 XT. This should give both graphics cards the same VRAM capacity, assuming that both GPUs utilise the same GDDR6 memory speeds. While bandwidth will remain identical between both GPUs, the extra VRAM capacity of the RX 6700 XT makes it a much better graphics card for long-term usage.
At this time, AMD's RX 6700 graphics card has no firm release date.
You can join the discussion on PowerColor's 6GB Radeon RX 6700 Fighter graphics card on the OC3D Forums.
Most Recent Comments
I can understand that if partners have been given a choice between a high-end 1080p card at a lower price and with 6GB of VRAM or a midrange 1440p at a higher price with 12GB of VRAM, some of them might choose the former for segmentation reasons. But if AMD are only offering 6GB models for the 6700, that is stupid. It'll force a few to buy the 6700XT where they might have higher margins, but they will force many more to buy a 3060 or wait for the cheaper 6600XT which will likely have 8GB of VRAM and lower profit margins. 6GB is not enough for midrange 1440p gaming. 8GB is the minimum I would recommend. Low-end 1440p gaming, yeah, fine, but the 6700 should have enough grunt to handle midrange 1440p.Quote
It might be a short-mid term outlook, but given the GDDR shortage is one of the key factors limiting supply, and unlikely to subside mid term with the use in consoles, ASICs, ect, I think they've played a blinder tbh, this is probably the only way many people would be able to get hold of their GPUs at all.
If they get FidelityFX Super Resolution out the door sometime soon to avoid the VRAM being too much of an issue in games, then this 1080p card suddenly becomes potentially the cheapest (At least in BOM cost, ofc hard to say end price wise atm if that will pass through) and easiest to produce 1440p card on market.Quote
If they get FidelityFX Super Resolution out the door sometime soon to avoid the VRAM being too much of an issue in games, then this 1080p card suddenly becomes potentially the cheapest (At least in BOM cost, ofc hard to say end price wise atm if that will pass through) and easiest to produce 1440p card on market.Quote
I don't think it's a big deal if it's targeting low 1440p specs of say 60fps.
It would be a fantastic 1080p 120hz card and that's probably a larger market, according to steam it is at least. How long would it last like this? Probably only a couple year but that's the recommended upgrade cycle anyway for mid range cards.Quote
It would be a fantastic 1080p 120hz card and that's probably a larger market, according to steam it is at least. How long would it last like this? Probably only a couple year but that's the recommended upgrade cycle anyway for mid range cards.Quote
Whether its 6,8 or 16...does it even matter, when you can't actually buy them?Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Whether its 6,8 or 16...does it even matter, when you can't actually buy them?
|
CSS Valid