OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):107 W

PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

5.2

Technical score

25%

5.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

5.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 91% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 82%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

44%

4.3

Performance

24%

2.8

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 81%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

5.2

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
  • powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
powercolor-fighter-radeon-rx-6500-xt-4gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB

Based on 231 owners sharing their experience in online comments

66%positive16%mixed18%negative

Owners like its capable everyday gaming, but limited memory, PCIe bandwidth, and missing video encoding constrain it.

What owners dislike

  • On PCIe 3.0 and older boards performance drops noticeably, and on PCIe 2.0 owners report frame rates around half of expected.18
  • Has no hardware video encoder, so streaming with Parsec, TeamViewer or OBS hardware encoding and in-Windows game recording are poor or unavailable.14
  • Some owners see random frame drops and stutter in games like Fortnite, Doom Eternal and Warzone, with dips to around 10-30 fps.10
  • With only 4GB of VRAM, demanding modern games need texture and shadow settings lowered, and some owners see the 8GB version handles this much better.9
  • Installing or updating AMD drivers caused problems for some owners, including screen flickering, fan shutoffs, and crashes until a basic-mode install was used.8
  • Demanding modern games need lower settings, such as medium or low textures and shadows, to hold playable frame rates at 1080p.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components:

44%

4.3

Performance

24%

2.8

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,774 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,774 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 86.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
368 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 368 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 82.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
9,610 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 9,610 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 85.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,382 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,382 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 85% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.77 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.77 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 84.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
?
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
144 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 144 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 91.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x4
This graphics card uses x4 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
107 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 107 W, which is lower than that of 88.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
107 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 107 W under peak load, which is lower than 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
400 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 400 W PSU, which is lower than that of 90.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
107 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 107 W, which is lower than that of 90% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
107 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
191 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 191 mm long, which is shorter than 91.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
126 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 126 mm tall, which is taller than 51.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
650 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 650 g, which is lighter than 83.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more

PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 12.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,820 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,820 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 50.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (107 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    107 W vs 215 W
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 91.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (191 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    191 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 28.5% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,248 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,248 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 14.6% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,200 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,200 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 51.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (107 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    107 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2x cheaper
    PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£260 vs £520).
    £260 vs £520
  • 12.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,820 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,820 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 14.6% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,200 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,200 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 28.5% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,248 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,248 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 63.6% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (107 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    107 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 50.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (107 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    107 W vs 215 W
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 51.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (107 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    107 W vs 220 W
  • 51.4% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (107 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    107 W vs 220 W
  • 91.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (191 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    191 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 67.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (144 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    144 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 27.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.2

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.2 vs 7.2
  • 33.3% lower sentiment score
    5.2 vs 7.8
  • 9.1% worse value for money
    PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.8 vs 7.4).
    6.8 vs 7.41
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 52.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (180.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    180.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 44.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (90.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    90.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 74.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.77 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 57.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (9,610 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    9,610 points vs 22,638 points
  • 67.7% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,774 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,774 points vs 14,779 points
  • 96% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (368 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    368 points vs 9,148 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • 63.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,382 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,382 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 60.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (11.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    11.53 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 67.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (144 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    144 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x4 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x4 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 vs 3.0
  • 76.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,400 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,400 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 2 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (2 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    2 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
MOBHouse
✓ explicit
15/03/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and value
Verdict
PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB is a mediocre card, worth buying only if you find a good deal.
Overview video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB

  • A 2820 MHz boost clock gives it fast core speed.
  • A 107 W power draw means a 400 W power supply is enough.
  • At 191 mm long it fits most cases.
  • At 650 g it is light to handle.
  • Ray tracing and FSR upscaling are both supported.
  • Overclocking is supported for extra tuning.

What customers don't like about PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB

  • 4 GB of video memory is small for demanding games.
  • The 64-bit memory bus limits bandwidth to 144 GB/s.
  • There is no DLSS and no AV1 decoding.
  • One DisplayPort output limits multi-monitor setups.
  • The card is not VR ready, so headsets are out.

Verdict

Four gigabytes of video memory is the first thing to know about the PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB, a budget card for light gaming. Its boost clock of 2820 MHz is high, and the 107 W draw is modest, so a 400 W power supply is enough. At 191 mm long and 650 g, it fits most cases without fuss. Ray tracing and FSR both work, and the card can be overclocked. The trade-offs are real, though. The 64-bit memory bus and 144 GB/s of bandwidth limit it once games get demanding, and it has no DLSS or AV1 decoding. Only one DisplayPort output is fitted, and two displays are the maximum. It suits a buyer who wants a small, low-power card and does not need much headroom.

Compare PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found