Explaining GPU power scaling in GT 1030 terms

 So, just a dumb idea, but given all the GPU talk, it might be good to contextualize how powerful GPUs I'm talking about are. I'll use the GT 1030 as a baseline given its roughly on par with modern integrated and given it's the cheapest card I recommended. Should give you an idea of how powerful the cards are relative to each other. 

Steam deck- 2x GT 1030

Arc A380- 3x GT 1030 ($140)

RX 6400- 3x GT 1030

RX 6500 XT- 4x GT 1030

RTX 3050 6 GB- 4x GT 1030 ($210)

RTX 3050 8 GB- 5x GT 1030 ($260)

RX 6600- 7x GT 1030

RX 7600- 8x GT 1030 ($260)

RTX 5050- 9x GT 1030 ($310)

RTX 5060- 11x GT 1030 ($360)

RX 9060 XT- 12x GT 1030 ($370/470)

RX 7700 XT- 13x GT 1030 ($410)

RTX 5060 ti- 13x GT 1030

RTX 5070- 16x GT 1030

RX 9070- 18x GT 1030

RX 9070 XT- 20x GT 1030

RTX 5070 ti- 21x GT 1030

RTX 5080- 24x GT 1030

RTX 4090- 28x GT 1030

RTX 5090- 37x GT 1030

It's kinda like measuring in raditzes in DBZ abridged. And while I'd say, your typical gamer is around a 3060 or 7600 tier card, so around 7-8, yeah, it scales up as you pay more. This is why I said that yeah, even an A380 can be a huge boost. All things considered 5x GT 1030 is around the minimum acceptable performance for modern games, although I'd still recommend getting 7-8x for the same price. 

Anyway just a dumb thought experiment i thought of before bed. 

Discussing HWunboxed's RX 6500 XT video in light of my GPU recommendations and praising of the RX 6000 series

 So, Hardware Unboxed did a video on the RX 6500 XT 4 GB in light of AMD bringing back 4 GB cards with a RX 9050 OEM model, and uh...I wanna discuss it. This has been kind of controversial.

Some think that it's unfair to criticize the new card given the 6500 XT is...well...as weak as it is. No, not really. Here's the reality here. I know I low key gave it SOME praise recently, but that requires A LOT of context.

Right now, the sub $200 GPU market is more or less nonexistent. You buy anything less than that RX 7600 I recommended basically and youre getting a paperweight for NEW games. You can play older ones, or even lower spec newer ones on SOME cards I suggested, but really, there's a reason I emphasize the RX 7600. It's because if you want a decent gaming experience, you need a RX 6000 or RTX 2000 card with at least 8 GB RAM and decent horsepower. Period. While the RX 7600 isn't as low as you can theoretically go and meet that, given the RX 6600, RTX 3050 8 GB, and RTX 2060 super exist, it's the cheapest card on the market worth the money. RX 6600 and 2060S arent sold new at decent prices any more, and the 3050 costs as much as the 7600 while being around 33% weaker. 

When you go below those cards, you get a compromised experience. The RX 6500 XT is anemic. It's only like half as powerful as a RX 6600 XT, and maybe around 60% of a RX 6600. It comes with 4 PCIE lanes, which with older PCIE 3.0 systems (ie, the kinds of old systems you'd put this card in to begin with), it loses a lot of performance. And it has 4 GB VRAM. 

The reason most games dont run well AT ALL in HW Unboxed video IS the VRAM. If you have enough VRAM, your card should scale down to SOME playable experience. However, if youre stuck at 30 FPS with horrible lows even at like 720p with FSR enabled, yeah, that's VRAM. You're not gonna run games on that. And even a newer card like a theoretical 9050 4 GB will get crap frame rates due to the VRAM bottleneck. RAM in general is all or nothing with gaming. If you have enough, the experience is smooth. If you don't, it's miserable. While I cant say theres NO in between, the amount of in between that exists is minimal. 

8 GB is a hard requirement for new games. I am die hard on saying "you need 8 GB" for new games for a reason. You do. If you have less, they're gonna run like crap. Even 6 GB is too borderline in some situations. And honestly, the GTX 1060 6 GB will probably outperform the 6500 XT  4 GB in most games for a reason, despite having similar amounts of power. 4 GB is just crap for new games. it reached its limit in 2022, and starting in 2023, we got past the PS4-PS5 "cross gen" phase and started seeing the first true "next gen" games not compatible with the older hardware. At that point, 8 GB started being a hard requirement, and playing on a 4 GB card in 2026 is gonna be a bad time in most games.

Some games, they showed that if you scaled the game down enough you can get 60-80 FPS. Those are the games where you DONT get VRAM bottlenecks. And yeah, some still work...and the RX 6500 XT is just an anemic card for those.

Like really, the only reason I gave the RX 6400 and 6500 XT any praise was because they're better than nothing. My praise was conditioned by "in a sea of GT 1030 tier ewaste, these are actually compelling options by comparison." I mean, compared to THAT card, which has 1/4 the horsepower and 2 GB VRAM, the 6500 XT actually is a relatively decent offering. It's on par with an old RX 580 4 GB or like a GTX 1060 in theory. It's just that...those cards are a decade old now, they're not good for modern games, the 4 GB VRAM no longer cuts it since it's not the mid 2010s any more, and the 4x PCIE lanes are just....wtf, why? Like, seriously, you just lose 1/3 of your performance on old systems for no reason with it. 

Again, better than GT 1030s, GT 740s, and similar cards, but....yeah, basically crap too. There's a reason I'm like "yeah dont go below the RX 7600" these days if you wanna play new games. Even that 3050 6 GB is gonna have compromises due to VRAM and not a ton of power. Not to mention Arc and their drivers, bleh. The entire low end of the market below $200 is just literal ewaste at this point, the 3050 6 GB is like...just short of what I'd say the reasonable minimum is, and you need to pay $260 for a 7600 or 3050 8 GB to hit it, and given the 3050 8 GB is pointless next to the 7600, yeah...again, see why I keep saying it?

I mean, these cards were the worst the 6000 series had to offer. They were cut down borderline ewaste at the time, they're basically ewaste now, and the only reason i say maybe we judged them too harshly is because the only modern equivalent card that exists is an intel card that has its own host of issues. The market is just crap and if youre forced to choose between bad options, my goal here is to navigate to the absolute least of the evils. Generally speaking the 6000 series was only good with the 6600 and above, and while I will glaze the 6600, 6650 XT, and 6700 XT until the end of their lifespans and possibly beyond at this point, that doesn't mean everything is a winner. The 6500 XT is just better than what exists now on the market at that price point.  My attitude is that if you can't afford a GOOD GPU capable of playing modern games, you should still buy the best you can get your hands on. Something like a 6500 XT, or 1650 super or something would at least get you up to 2022 era games or so. And isnt that better than literally nothing? Beats integrated...or a 1030 at least. Even if it is crap. In theory, it's 2x steam deck performance. 

And that's something to think about too. The RX 6500 XT is...2x as powerful as the steam deck. ya know, that handheld that everyone glazes for being able to barely run AAA games at 30 FPS on minimum with FSR on? If it can even do it? Yeah. Well...the 6500 XT is 2x that performance wise. Just to put things in context. Is 2x the steam deck a good experience these days? Hell no. Again, you want at minimum like a 3050 8 GB if you wanna do modern gaming at all. Which is...40-50% better than a 6500 XT, even ignoring the VRAM. And ideally, you probably want more than that, like a RX 6600 or 7600 or something to COMFORTABLY run games. Yeah...

That's also why i dont find the steam deck compelling fyi. It's basically ewaste thrown into a game gear type form factor. Sure, it'll run the old stuff decent, but it's not really good for AAA games. But yeah. Again, this is why i dont do PC handhelds. Too much money for too little performance. Id rather have a PC and an android device dedicated to low end android games and retro gaming.  Ya know, but I digress. Just wanted to contextualize things a bit. 

Discussing "woke 2.0"

 So...AOC made a strange comment talking about Francesca Hong's old posts, and her response was basically "woke 1 was crazy." The comment seems to have invoked a firestorm from those who still adhere to "woke 1", but looking into it, "woke 1" was the kind of idpol politics that I despised, where everything is super sanitized and tone policey. A lot of Hong's brainrot comments were "woke 1" stuff, like her going on about indiginous people and Thanksgiving being of the devil. 

Woke 2, on the other hand, seems more up my alley. It's the "dark woke" politics of people like Kyle Kulinski (who often refers to himself as "dark woke"), and even myself. It's more the politics of provocation, "when they go low, we hit them in the nuts" and triggering the cons. basically, it means fighting back. Dont do the whole "ERMAHGERD HOW DARE YOU" type crap that quite frankly makes us look like a bunch of losers. It's more "shut the #### up you dumb ####" when dealing with morons on the right. And now THEY get all ERMAHGERD HOW DARE YOU! while we just continue triggering them. 

If you notice the energy shifting since 2024 on that, yeah, you're not the only one. Even people like Nick Fuentes pointed it out. Republicans were the cool ones and now they're the offended snowflakes and we're pushing THEM around. And quite frankly, that's how it always should have been. We won during the Obama era with that strategy, and quite frankly, woke 1 was a mistake and source of much of what has been wrong with the modern left. Note how we barely backed away from any policy positions on marginalized people either. Because we dont have to. We just need to change up our rhetorical strategy and meet people where they're at, and meet the right where THEY are at. Rather than getting offended, we seek to offend.

Honestly I'm 90% for this. The only thing I will say in opposition to it is we gotta be careful with the most extreme stuff though. We live in an era of NSPM7, trump declaring left wingers terrorists, and directing law enforcement to investigate prominent progressives and the like. Honestly? I'd be careful about getting TOO spicy and doing stuff like sharing those luigi memes, or gullotine memes, or quite frankly, anything that advocates for or celebrates violence. Ya know? Youre just gonna get yourself potentially in trouble with that stuff. And that aint gonna age any better than woke 1. 

Also, I wanna avoid the escalation trap that the alt right got into. They started out with dark and edgy humor, but then they kept taking it seriously until we ended up with an outright fascist, and its hard to tell if people actually support fascism or if they're just joking, or both. Ya know? Remember, I'm for a left wing TEA PARTY, not a left wing MAGA movement. One is about getting back to our roots, and the other is about escalating authoritarianism that threatens the fabric of our society.  

It's fine if we add a little spice to our politics, but too much is problematic, ya know? Just saying that because it seems like part of the thrust of these politics does seem to be going in the whole "let's joke about violent actions" direction and uh...yeah. That's too spicy even for me. Being offensive without threats of violence can be funny, but yeah, we shouldnt cross THAT line.

And, let's face it, I don't want a literal communist revolution either. I know some on the socialist left seem to be edging that way, but I wanna make it clear, I'm a reformist. The point of criticizing capitalism isnt to abolish it, it's to implement the correct reforms that solve the problem. Ya know? Just because I feel like we gotta clear THAT too, and some of the ones most likely to lean into the extremist stuff are...well...extremists. We shouldnt celebrate or give cover for those guys. Yeah, again, we need a little spice to our politics, but we gotta be careful who we enable here. It's about balance. 

So yeah...just wanted to discuss this. It seems like woke 1 died with 2024, and good riddance. The one silver lining of that mess. And while woke 2 is better, again, we should avoid the extreme impulses that some have with that stuff.  

Trying to decipher El Sayed's "medicare for all" plan

 So...unlike Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2020, El Sayed does NOT have a set in stone healthcare plan. However, after watching a Secular Talk video today, El Sayed said that he doesn't plan on banning all private insurance. This brings him closer to my own stance on paper. At this point I support a public option due to costs, specifically the medicare extra for all framework, although my moderation is driven by my support for UBI and its costs not being affordable along side full blown single payer. So I decided to delve into what his plan actually seems to be. 

So it seems like he doesn't support full on single payer, he emphasizes he doesnt wanna ban all private insurance. Mainly because unions get pissy about it. "I EARNED my private insurance benefits blah blah blah." Not gonna lie, love unions, but unions do stupid stuff like this all the time. Their ideology is ruined by jobism and fixation on work and jobs, when we should be trying to break that obsession. M4A is a step in that direction. 

Still...given my own compromises, I can get behind it. THere are downsides to not having ANY private options. Not just high costs but what if republicans wanna ban access to say, abortion? They could do it through the healthcare system. Having a multi payer system could mean we dont put all of our eggs in one basket. It also makes things cheaper, which is my angle.

Which brings me to other aspects of this. What exactly IS his plan? Well, it seems like he wants to eliminate all out of pocket costs. This goes further than I would. medicare extra for all does maintain a system of premiums, copays, and deductibles. However, it reduces them to managable levels. I'm willing to accept this because those things will scale with income, meaning those on the poor end of things still get free healthcare, while those who are higher income pay increasingly more as their incomes go up. Of course, given this exists along side UBI, most people would benefit in net under this plan vs just M4A. The extra income your typical family would get would offset higher out of pocket healthcare costs and then some. 

Honestly, people will pay for healthcare under either system. Premiums and taxes start looking kind of similar when discussing the ins and outs of universal healthcare plans. Just different ways of paying. The right screams about higher taxes, the left screams about out of pocket costs. The real key is, who pays what? The right wants a market based system tied to employment that doesnt guaranteed access. The left wants a socialized system that guarantees access and offloads some costs onto the wealthy while guaranteeing free/cheap access to others. All in all, universal healthcare systems are generally better in my view, but this is very much ideological. Which is why I took a jab at the union guys too. They want to preserve market based employment linked healthcare because of their jobist tendencies. I want a more universalist system in theory, but I'm willing to accept some compromises so I can fund other projects. 

Speaking of which, how much will El Sayed's plan cost? Without any solid plans, it's hard to tell. The general gist is probably "more than medicare extra for all, less than single payer." Single payer would cost an additional $3 trillion a year at this point, with a total healthcare bill to the government being $5 trillion. Its why I backed off of it. Im already supporting a $4.6 trillion UBI plan, so I went with a cheaper medicare extra for all idea, which would cost $300-600 billion give or take. Maybe a bit more with inflation. Honestly, and this is the rub. The more you cover, the more expensive it gets for the government. The reason medicare extra for all has so many variables is different structures of coverage for different income groups. Medicare extra for all covers 80-100% costs depending on the plan and the income bracket. THe more that's covered, the pricier it gets. The more people you cover, the pricier it gets. And the better the public plan is vs private plans, the more people go on the public plan, and the pricier it gets. Due to these variables, it's hard to get an idea on costs. I'm imagining it would expand healthcare costs by over a trillion, assuming it covers all healthcare for roughly 2/3 of the country though. 

Maybe this guy doesnt wanna put anything in stone because of political backlash, or the uncertainty of whatever plan would end up making it through congress. THere are a lot of possible plans out there, and the details of which would have to be hashed out in congress.

Either way, if theres anyone who knows more about this issue than me, its this guy, he literally wrote the book on the subject, and having read it, yeah, he's well familiar with all of the stuff im talking about and the options we have. Still, being a bit of a policy wonk myself, I would like to have some concrete ideas here. 

I just wanted to discuss this since he seems a bit more moderate than full blown medicare for all, but still more radical than I am on the subject, given my preferred plan accepts some level of out of pocket costs. 

Has the RX 6000 reached "GOAT" status for me?

 So...I did a tier left of GPU generations a while back, and perhaps the most controversial pick for me was the RX 6000 series. It was borderline S (GOAT) tier, but I knocked it down to A because it wasn't all roses. However, after looking at the current GPU market, the loss of cheap RX series cards is being felt, and I feel like we've regressed. The market was literally better 3-4 years ago when I bought my last GPU, and people today are getting a rawer deal than they were back then. I shouldnt have to recommend Arc cards for entire price ranges because nothing else was available, and that RX 6600 series sweet spot is just...gone. The closest thing is the 7600, which is still sitting above its MSRP, and for a while there was hovering around $300. I just can't help but feel like people really had a much better deal just a few years ago, and that maybe it's time to consider the RX 6000 series as "GOAT" status.

History

So, one of the reasons I didn't make RX 6000 GOAT status was because of its history. It didn't start out as a series of cheap cards that revolutionized the market, but a series of overly expensive ones that tried to compete directly with Nvidia but totally failed. The series launched in 2020-2021 to compete with the RTX 3000 series. Unlike the 5000 series that came before, it had modern features like ray tracing, newer API support, etc., which makes a big deal with compatibility. It didn't quite reach feature parity with nvidia as they had better ray tracing/upscaling, but it was still new enough to "just work" and not have the issues of the previous series. But yeah, price was, it literally wasnt any better than the RX 5000 series, which were an okay value for their time, but lacked the modern features the 6000 series had. It also started out where the 6600/6600 XT were the lowest end cards priced at $330 and $380 respectively, trying to compete directly with the RTX 3060/3060 Ti, despite being inferior. Not that prices mattered because YAY! COVID AND CRYPTO SCAMS! So for much of its early life, it was always sold out, always at an insanely high price, and not available. 

The real magic, and why I love the series so much, is because in late 2022, as the market finally returned to "normal" the price of this particular series of cards crashed faster and harder than the others, leading to a renaissance in PC gaming. The market had been stagnant and even regressed since the 1000/1600/400/500/5000 series of cards in the late 2010s, and us old 2016-2017 era buyers had ZERO upgrade options for the same price since then. While that is part of what makes the Nvidia 1000 series GOAT status for me, having a huge price/performance bump and not being challenged in price/performance significantly after that, it also has been terrible for the market as the value structure did not move either, trapping people on those older cards as they aged. But with these cards reaching as low as 55-60% of their original MSRPs, they ended up defining the market in the post COVID era, with the subsequent RX 7000 series and RTX 4000 series following the general price structure that the 6000 series set. 

The series was sold well into 2025 until the release of the RX 9000 series finally obsoleted it. Those $200-220 RX 6600s stopped looking as good when the RX 9060 XT 8 GB was $270 and offered significantly more performance, not to mention nvidia options like the RTX 5050 and 5060 being available at $250-300. Since then, the supply of 6000 series cards has dried up, and then RAMpocalypse has made things unaffordable again, with the current value of cards being similar or worse than what the RX 6000 series offered in its hey day. If anything, doing my "what card should people buy now", the loss of the 6000 series is acutely felt, with many of the deals being equivalent at best and often worse than the RX 6000 series offered. 

Given that, if I bought now to replace my nearly 4 year old card, I'd be replacing the RX 6650 XT which I paid $230 for, with a 7600 for $260 or a 5050 for $300, it's time to consider elevating the  RX 6000 series to GOAT status, since this is getting ridiculous. 4 years with barely any price/performance boosts in the market and the card still going strong? I expected to replace this thing by the end of 2027, but it looks like there's no point until the RAMpocalypse ends. With that said, this card is on track to last longer than my venerated GTX 1060, or other GOATed beasts like the 8800 GT in its day. 

Discussing the RX 6000 product stack and why it offered better value than today's offerings

Looking at the offerings today, it's pretty obvious why I feel nostalgic for this series now. It really has "you dont know you're in the good times until you've left them" energy. While not all cards were winners and some were flat out stinkers, given the  state of the current market, even the bad ones are getting rehabilitated to some degree.

RX 6400- $130

So...the RX 6400 sucked. Everyone knew it sucked. It was a cut down 6500 XT and that sucked too. It was severely cut down vs the RX 6600 series, only being around 1/3 as powerful, offering 4 GB VRAM, and having 4 PCIE lanes, which severely crippled performance in older systems. BUT....would I have recommended it over an Arc A380? Of course I would have. Honestly, while it was kind of a crap card and a crap value, well....in a sea of GTX 1030 tier ewaste, it still stood out. And it was a serviceable bare minimum graphics card at the time. 

RX 6500 XT- $160

Once again, this was always a bad product. It launched at the height of COVID price gouging for $200 and was the 5th coming of the RX 480...a card from 2016 that had 8 GB VRAM for $250. This one came with 4, said to be good because "crypto people wouldnt want it, only gamers", but yeah, basically, this was an RDNA2 version of a 480/580/590/RX 5500 XT. And it was worse actually because again, only 4 GB, and 4 PCI lanes, which crippled it. At the time, I probably would've said go for a 1650 or 1650 super, but....in the modern era, NONE of these cards are sold at the appropriate price point, so again, you cant even get a card new like this at a decent price any more. I've seen these being sold at $200+, which is ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous...

RX 6600- $190-210

So...for years after the Pascal/Polaris era of 2016-2017, I've long castigated the market for lacking a $200 "every man's card". Everyone wants to pursue the high end market, but we need a card for mainstream gamers, stuff that costs $200-300. I always respected the 480/580 cards, and even though I went 1060 instead, I always felt like cards like this were good for gamers. We need cheap, available cards. Well, post COVID, this became "it". The RX 6600 was a blistering 75% or so faster than the RX 6500 XT, and came with 8 GB VRAM. It became THE affordable budget card for years to come, with its value not really being beaten by anything. While gamers still flocked to nvidia and paid out the butt for it, I considered the 6600 to be the new 480 of our time at the time. Only reason I didn't buy one was because I bought the next one on the list.

Currently if you wanna pay this much, you get an Arc A580, which is roughly as powerful while having way more drawbacks, or the RTX 3050 6 GB which is...well....kinda pathetic for the money. 

RX 6600/6650 XT- $230-250

This is MY card. A bit faster than the RX 6600, but still mostly the same thing. About 20% better, costs about 20% more. Similar performance to the newer RX 7600, which is currently going for $260. But yeah, same level of power, lower price. Imagine telling myself that 4 years later you'd get worse price/performance. I cant say I wouldnt believe it, given I just lived through the COVID pandemic and crypto boom, but it would be an OH GOD I BETTER BUY NOW moment. I might've even upgraded up to a 6700 XT to make sure I got something more futureproof. 

RX 6700- $310

The RX 6700 was an awkward card and not widely loved by the community. The big thing is that it was barely faster than a 6650 XT.....but cost like $60-80 more. You get 10 GB VRAM with this one, but oh wow big deal. Really, it wasn't a huge huge deal. And it was always awkwardly priced and an awkward value.

RX 6700/6750 XT- $350

This was the one to get if you wanted a more premium but still budget friendly card. At $350, it competed favorably against the RTX 3060 at the time, and had 12 GB VRAM. It was kind of the big step up from the 6600 or 6650 XT style cards. But it was also a bit of an awkward value too IMO. It was only 25-33% better give or take than the 6650 XT, while costing upward of 50% more, and the big draw was the VRAM. As it has aged, it feels like it falls in a weird place. RDNA2 is showing its age a bit and outside of VRAM constrained situations it really doesnt come off as significantly better than the 8 GB cards below it, but when VRAM does become an issue, it can shoot up to 50% better. I feel like the architecture is aging faster than the actual VRAM or lack thereof, especially with 8 GB still being mainstream and probably remaining mainstream until we're finally done with RAMpocalypse. 

Vs the 5060 today....well the 5060 is a little more powerful in terms of raw power but the 8 GB VRAM is oof. So not really a significantly better card than this. 

RX 6800- $480

So....at this point we're out of the "low end" like full stop IMO, but the RX 6800 was a pretty decent value too for the money. It had 16 GB RAM and offers similar price/performance to a 16 GB RX 9060 XT today. Which is actually kinda sad, and another reason why I'm writing this. We really havent moved from late 2022 pricing here. 

For a while this was available down around the $400 mark, competing directly with the 7700 XT, with the 7700 XT having a newer architecture, but the 6800 having more VRAM. Again, I actually wonder if the way things are going if RDNA2 will actually fully need to utilize its VRAM in its effective life time. It seems like with RAMpocalypse that's gonna become a major constraint where other issues like driver support and an aging architecture AMD is not enthusiastic about supporting (they tried to cut support for it, only for the community to lose their crap because hey, it's still perfectly modern and these things were being sold well into 2025...) are going to become issues first. Still, the price/performance is there.

RX 6800 XT- $600

So this is where the RX 6000 series falls off vs modern cards. Modern $600 cards like the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 are a bit more powerful than this, but it did provide a decent value in the day. Most 6000 series cards kicked nvidia in the rear enough to force them to compete better.

RX 6900/6950 XT- $700

Same here. By the time 6000 series became affordable, Nvidia was already rolling out the 7000 series, with the 7900 XT/XTX variants being the top tier premium option, but the 6900/6950 XT were made cheaper in response. While the 9070 XT offers a full 35% more performance for the same money today, for 4 years ago...not fricking bad at all. And again, we're out of the more budgety price range.

RX 6000 vs GTX 1000 series

All thing considered, the pricing structure is very reminiscient of the venerated GTX 1000 series of GPUs. You had the "50" series (RX 6400/6500 XT) for like $150ish, and while not a good value and very anemic for their time, hey, beats a 1030, and probably a better product than an Arc A380. The RX 6600 and 6650 XT were the GTX 1060 equivalents at the $200-250 price range and they are the GOATs of the modern era for affordable GPUs. The RX 6600 is sorely missed from the market, although if it still existed it would probably be closer to what the 6650 XT used to be price wise. 

The RX 6700 was an awkward product, but the 6700 XT was priced a bit lower than a 1070, and offered a similar value arguably, being a bit more futureproof but probably going to hit architectural limits the way pascal did before it's fully required for modern gaming. Might last a bit longer than the "60" cards but it arguably shouldnt matter much. 

The 6800 cards are similar to a 1070 ti/1080 price wise and offer similar value arguably. Once again, probably will hit architectural or driver related limits rather than be flat out obsoleted. 

The 6900 XT/6950 XT were like the modern 1080 ti price wise and are aging similarly well.

However, there is one thing that holds me back from just flat out GOATing the 6000 series in the same way, and that is AMD's software support. Assuming AMD supports these cards, they can be considered GOAT status, equalling or even surpassing the likes of the GTX 8000 series or 1000 series respectively. Those cards were viable for a solid 6-8 years in part due to them aging well and in part due to drivers. The 6000 series is aging similarly well, BUT, the driver support remains a possible issue. AMD is not nvidia. While for a while, through the GCN (HD 7000 series - RX 500 series) era, AMD did have a level of "fine wine" driven by long driver support, AMD seems a lot less willing to offer similar longevity to RDNA2, despite them selling along side RDNA3 cards for most of their lifespans. Theyve already attempted to move RDNA2 (6000 series) to the legacy driver branch and are slow to release new features for the series like FSR 4, because they dont have the same fancy AI architecture that is driving up the price of modern cards. As a result, performance is starting to lag in some newer titles, although it will at least RUN them. Still, if AMD drops support for RDNA2 sooner than later, we could get a situation where these cards die not because the specs are actually obsolete, but because the software is just not supported. 

It's hard to say. Assuming AMD offers at least basic driver support, they should work. To my knowledge the only real benefit of the newer architectures is newer versions of upscaling that look better than older ones, but as long as games support FSR 2/3, things should be fine. 

In all fairness, Nvidia 1000 had a similar issue. While AMD's FSR greatly expanded these cards' lifespans by giving it some basic form of upscaling, Nvidia largely abandoned new features like ray tracing and DLSS on them. And ultimately, while the GTX 1000 series still had driver support until 2025, AMD support is already winding down with AMD focusing their primary improvements toward the 7000 and 9000 series, while putting the 6000 series in a legacy branch. While new games will still run on the 6000 series, as I see it, it's only a matter of time before AMD pulls the plug entirely. 

It's kind of sad because literally the only thing newer architectures offer to my knowledge is on board AI capabilities that allow better upscaling, but if I'm fine playing with older upscaling (I mean, I hate upscaling but as a card ages I'd rather have it than not have it), then I'd rather get at least basic support there. So the future of the 6000 series and how it continues to age is in question. In raw specs, the power is there, and the architecture is powerful enough to run newer games, again, the real question is whether AMD will offer extended software support to maintain compatibility over the long term. Right now it promised to do so, but it's AMD and they dont have the best track record at doing this. I've seen AMD users get burned over time as well. Heck, my last AMD card, the HD 5850, suffered a similar issue as AMD just dropped support for the 5000/6000 series in 2015 despite the higher end models still being capable. The GTX 400 series, on the other hand, was supported until 2018. 

So....GOAT or not?

Honestly? I think it's the only thing in the modern era that qualifies. Here's the options. 

RTX 2000 series- prohibitively expensive, cheaper models aged poorly, but expensive ones are still viable today.

RTX 3000 series- Also expensive. Became cheaper like the 6000 series did, but not to the same extent and didn't offer similar value IMO. 

RTX 4000 series- At least it had the 4060. That one was decent. But honestly, at this point, I might as well consider the RX 7000 series, which has aged similarly well.

RTX 5000 series- Between 8 GB VRAM on the low end, and RAMpocalypse, not counting on it, if we eventually get a $200 16 GB card if RAM prices crash, I'll consider it, otherwise I consider it mid at best. 

RX 5000 series- It had value, but lacked long term support due to poor drivers and a poor feature set, also topped out at the 5700 XT.

RX 6000 series- started out poorly as indicated but is borderline GOAT at this point due to affordable cards that, in theory, have the power to have long life spans. Being the prime AMD series between the crypto boom and RAMpocalypse and the fact that 8 GB cards are going to have their lifespans expanded makes me hopeful it will become GOAT status, but it could easily be sabotaged by AMD's competence.

RX 7000 series- Also theoretically in the running, similar price/performance as 6000 series and longer driver support, but it being newer automatically means less overall lifespan. I expect this to be a strong series, but an average one. 

RX 9000 series- Started out strong but RAMpocalypse has reduced its price/performance to not a whole lot better than the 6000 series, despite being several years newer. 

All in all, the 6000 series is probably the best series of the modern generation. Not only are the cards seemingly aging relatively well so far, still offering awesome value years later, but honestly, they also power a lot of interesting devices that also contribute to their longevity. They're the technology behind the PS5 and Xbox Series X. They power the steam deck with a IGP 2/3 as powerful as the entry level RX 6400. It's in everything. Idk, again, if anything is "GOAT" in the modern era, it's this. But yeah, it's still like borderline A/S tier for me. Ultimately it depends on software support and how long 8 GB VRAM is supported, if the 6600 can still run new titles in 2028, on low, with a decent level of performance, I think it's time to say, yeah, it's officially GOAT. But it's kinda early to tell, and it's kind of tenuous. 

The cheap GPU list version 2

 So....I went over the cheapest GPUs that are worth buying last week, but I do want to offer a newer, more consolidated list. Some of the deals offered were temporary deals. Sometimes I want to consolidate to offer a cleaner list of choices, and yeah. So, condensed version!

$100- GT 1030 (DDR5)

The bare minimum. Basically an integrated graphics tier card. It'll run games up to 2015ish reasonably well but be iffy beyond that. I mean, if you really REALLY wanna play newer stuff it can probably work due to 2 GB VRAM, but keep in mind it's not intended for anything MODERN and it is weak.

$140- Arc A380

Yeah the 1650 super was a temporary deal. So, the Arc a380 is 3x the power of the GT 1030, giving it A LOT more power. It also has 6 GB VRAM. But it's intel, and intel cards have had issues with drivers and other issues due to the immaturity of the architecture. It might ironically have compatibility issues with some games, or poor performance with some games, so something to keep in mind. But let's face it, it's about the best youre gonna get. There's a lot of ewaste and junk the lower you go, and if $140 is all you can afford, well, this is what's available. Basically it should run games up to around 2022ish based on power alone, but keep in mind compatibility issues

 EDIT: After reviewing this more, yeah, I really want to emphasize that the experience on Arc GPUs are VERY rough. Literally the only reason this is still being recommended is because nvidia and amd have just decided not to even compete at this price point any more, with older GPUs like 1050 tis, 1650s, and RX 6400s/6500 XTs no longer being available at this price range. While the experience will likely still be several times better than what can be had out of the 1030, this is going to be a very rough gaming experience and I'd highly recommend paying more for something better. 

$200- RTX 3050 6 GB

So, after reviewing the intel GPUs a bit more, I decided to remove the A580 recommendation and just recommend this. yes, the Arc A580 is more powerful, but just like with the A380, the experience is VERY rough, and I'd just recommend the 3050 instead. 

As for the 3050 6 GB, it's not great, but again, the market is what it is. It's not a ton faster than the A380, but it is going to be a whole lot more stable. It'll play most games on SOME level, although some VRAM intensive ones may not run well due to the 6 GB. But yeah, it's what the market offers right now, and it's probably the best card you're gonna get at this price. 

$260- RX 7600

The REAL bare minimum gaming card for modern games. You want something that "just works" and gets you in the door, you want this thing. It's on par with my 6650 XT, having used THAT extensively, I can say that this will run everything you throw at it. It might not be a GREAT experience but hey, low settings, possibly with FSR? 60+ FPS? It'll do it. Probably not very futureproof, but in this market, what can you do?

$360- RTX 5060

About 30% better than the 7600, still 8 GB VRAM. Probably not futureproof but it'll run games a bit better at least. I don't even consider $300+ "low end", but at this point, it seems to be extending up to $450-500, so....yeah.

$410- RX 7700 XT

Honestly, wouldnt even bother with the 9060 XT 16 GB at this point. Yeah you get 12 GB instead, but its just as powerful and $60 cheaper. And let's face it, vs the 5060, you're paying for VRAM. $50 more for 12 GB, $110 more for 16 GB. Maybe 16 GB will be more futureproof, but yeah, you're paying a bit more for it.

What would I get?

Of these options I'd probably opt for the RX 7600, putting me at the same level of performance as the 6650 XT I already own. But here's how I look at it. Anything less has compromises. if you feel adventurous, the A580 might be worth it for $200, but I would just want something that works without compromise. The 3050 6 GB is also too weak and lacks VRAM for modern games (you really want 8). And beyond that, if youre gonna an 8 GB card, uh....yeah. Just get the cheapest one that does the job. The 7600 is the best one in terms of value. The 3050 8 GB looks like its being phased out and its ALSO $260...and it's A LOT weaker than the 7600. The 5050 is on par but for $300, why pay $40 more just for nvidia? 5060 is $350, but uh....it's still 8 GB. Like if youre thinking long term, I'd imagine all current 8 GB cards will go obsolete at the same time, since the VRAM is expected to eventually be the bottleneck. And to avoid the 8 GB trap, youre paying prohibitively more. Theres a 12 GB B580 for $310, but its on par with the 7600 otherwise and keep in mind, intel cards.... So youre paying $410 for a 12 GB 7700 XT, and then $470 for a 9060 XT. As you can see, you're getting stuck in an escalation trap at this point. Sure, you can get 30-50% more power with such a GPU, but yeah youre also paying a lot more, especially to get that power WITH more VRAM. 

So yeah. Like always, do your own research, but yeah. I just wanted a more clearly written and definitive article on this. 

EDIT: I changed some recommendations based on the intel GPU experience being even rougher than I anticipated. Seriously, just save up and buy intel or AMD instead if you can. There's no reason to buy one unless you LITERALLY can't save up for something better.  

Ya know, the more I think about this, the more I think, we're gonna do fine

 So....the GOP...they have nothing. They literally have nothing to campaign on but racism, islamophobia, and red scare tactics. Trump's calling El Sayed a communist. Mike Rogers is talking about helping hunt down Bin Laden and how El Sayed said we deserved 9/11. Like...what the actual fudge? Let's face it, we've known for a while that the GOP is intellectually bankrupt, but it's like they can't go 12 hours without showing their butts here. Seriously, we're not even 24 hours after the race was called and they're already going THIS unhinged. This is gonna be a fun election season if this is the best the GOP has. I thought they mightve actually been a threat. After all, Mike Rogers was relatively silent through the primary. He was sitting there with a poker face hiding his hand and now he's coming at us with a 7 high. It's like...wtf even is this?

Really, I'm tired of acting like the two sides are somehow equal to each other in terms of validity. The GOP has NOTHING. Like, they're barely stringing sentences together over there. And I aint saying you have to like El Sayed's politics, but holy fudge, if this is the best they got, we got this in the bag. The only thing we gotta worry about is the American people themselves being stupid here. Which...is...admittedly....a concern.  But....again, I'm just here like....really? That's all you got? I thought the republicans were actually gonna be scary. I swear, high school me could've come up with a better offense against El Sayed. Or maybe not. Idk. College me maybe? This is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed FOR you guys on the right. Holy crap. It's like your whole strategy is to scream about crap and lie and hope it works. To be fair, that's all they really got...

This is why I spend so much more of my time discussing the party infighting amongst democrats. I might not like the third way, but at least they have an intellectual framework for their ideas and it's worth engaging with. These guys, it's like that "why cant you just be normal" meme I saw recently. 

Mom: "I just want you to have food and healthcare!"

Kid: "Screams racial slurs"

That's where American discourse is honestly at right now...seriously...