Skip to main content

AMD Reportedly Prepping Radeon RX 6300 With Navi 24 GPU

XFX Speedster SWFT105 Radeon RX 6400
(Image credit: XFX)

According to a report by Phoronix earlier this morning, AMD is developing another Navi 24 graphics card. A new set of AMDGPU pulls requests were submitted yesterday for inclusion in the upcoming Linux 5.19 kernel, featuring a new Beige Goby SKU (Device ID 0x7424). The ID is brand new and has never been seen before, suggesting it's a new SKU from AMD.

The only data confirmed from this device ID is that it will be a Beige Goby GPU since the device ID number follows the same numbering scheme as previous GPUs under the same codename. For reference, the Beige Goby codename represents AMD's entry-level Navi 24 GPUs, such as the RX 6500 XT and RX 6400.

As a result, we can expect this new GPU to be a refresh of the RX 6500 XT or RX 6400, or it could be a new GPU model altogether, which will most likely be the case. If this is true, it should fill out the role of an RX 6300 with performance a tier under the RX 6400.

Specs can only be speculated at this point, but AMD has already made a mobile variant called the RX 6300M, so we can make some educated guess from that perspective. The RX 6300M is currently AMD's bare bottom RX 6000 series GPU, with specs that are comparable to integrated graphics solutions such as the Radeon 680M.

Compared to the RX 6400, the 6300M shares similarities in core count, with 768 in all. However, memory bandwidth, infinity cache size, and clock speeds are heavily neutered in comparison. The RX 6300M only comes with a peak game clock of 1512MHz and no boost clocks. Infinity cache comes in at a measly 8MB and memory bandwidth peaks at just 64GB/s with a capacity of 2GB.

If AMD turns the 6300M into a desktop variant, it will probably share many of the same similarities as its mobile counterpart and probably be AMD's slowest desktop RDNA 2 GPU.

However, suppose AMD can keep the power consumption under 30W as it has with the 6300M. In that case, a potential RX 6300 desktop card could be a great option as a hardware acceleration GPU or a multi-monitor capable GPU for very old or tiny pre-builts with small power supplies. However, we wouldn't expect any serious gaming to happen on a GPU that will probably rival integrated graphics solutions.

Aaron Klotz
Aaron Klotz

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • SSGBryan
    I have a SFF computer that needs a new gpu.

    I am not spending a penny on this PoS. (Not point of sale).
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    Something to counter NVidia's lowest end card?
    Reply
  • SSGBryan
    Nvidia's lowest card is a GTX 1650 w/4gb of vram.

    An RX 6300 isn't outperforming that.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    AMD....please for the lvoe of god get ur GPU division to be like your CPU division...

    you are wasting material and money making this low end stuff. it has no actual use (u can get cheaper old gpu if u only need display).
    Reply
  • King_V
    SSGBryan said:
    Nvidia's lowest card is a GTX 1650 w/4gb of vram.

    An RX 6300 isn't outperforming that.

    Nvidia's lowest card is a GT 1030 DDR4. A godawful abomination that should've never been hatched.

    Its second lowest card is a GT 1030 GDDR5. I assume that the 6300 is supposed to perform equal to or greater than that.

    Maybe it won't. Maybe it'll be super-cheap, and out there for people who need multiple displays, beyond the outputs that the motherboard provides for the iGPU.

    Hell, the GT 730 still sells, so, why not this?
    Reply
  • eichwana
    Back in the day (7 years ago) you’d pick up a GT210 or something for like £20-30. That’s how much this needs to be
    Reply
  • SSGBryan
    The GT 1030 was originally designed for HTPCs, not gaming PCs. It can drive a 4k 60hz panel. It had the misfortune to come out during the last crypto mining boom, so it got shoehorned into budget gaming.

    A DDR 4 GT 1030 was perfect for it's design (HTPC)

    Gamingwise, the lowest Nvidia product was a GTX 1650. The LP versions are slower versions of their full size counterparts. Only 3 AIBs made LP versions, and all of them had issues.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    eichwana said:
    Back in the day (7 years ago) you’d pick up a GT210 or something for like £20-30. That’s how much this needs to be
    If you wanted to make a $40 GPU today, you'd need to go with UMA graphics (0GB) that is so low-power that the heatsink can be omitted.

    BTW, even the GT210 originally launched at $70. For you to buy one at $40 or less, it must have been a clearance sale or used since this was likely below cost.
    Reply
  • King_V
    SSGBryan said:
    The GT 1030 was originally designed for HTPCs, not gaming PCs. It can drive a 4k 60hz panel. It had the misfortune to come out during the last crypto mining boom, so it got shoehorned into budget gaming.

    A DDR 4 GT 1030 was perfect for it's design (HTPC)

    Gamingwise, the lowest Nvidia product was a GTX 1650. The LP versions are slower versions of their full size counterparts. Only 3 AIBs made LP versions, and all of them had issues.

    And the RX 6400 competes with the GTX 1650.

    Why do you believe the RX 6300 is designed with gaming PCs in mind?
    Reply
  • helfrichi
    SSGBryan said:
    Nvidia's lowest card is a GTX 1650 w/4gb of vram.

    An RX 6300 isn't outperforming that.

    Nvidia's lowest card for this to compete against is the gtx 1630, to be released in a few days. They are both 30 series cards being released at the same time... come on guys...
    Reply