Radeon RX 6950 XT, RX 6750 XT, RX 6650 XT MSRPs Leaked

Radeon RX 6000
Radeon RX 6000 (Image credit: AMD)

VideoCardz (opens in new tab) has reportedly obtained the MSRP for AMD's upcoming RDNA 2 refresh that will once again compete for a spot on the list of best graphics cards. We recommend approaching the leaked information with caution as with any unreleased hardware and leaks.

The leaked pricing presumably corresponds to AMD's reference designs through the chipmaker's official website. Therefore, custom models will probably cost more than the leaked MSRP. Furthermore, the Radeon RX 6650 XT will not be available via AMD, suggesting there will only be third-party designs.

The Radeon RX 6950 XT will allegedly cost $1,099, only $100 or 10% more expensive than the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Custom models of the Radeon RX 6900 XT retail between $999 and $2,400, so the Radeon RX 6950 XT could be a viable choice for gamers if the Navi 21-powered graphics card can maintain the rumored MSRP.

On the other hand, the Radeon RX 6750 XT could cost $549. The Radeon RX 6700 XT debuted at $479, so the Radeon RX 6750 XT seemingly represents a 15% premium. Aftermarket Radeon RX 6700 XT models are selling between $485 and $1,250. Therefore, the Radeon RX 6750 XT looks convincing beside AMD's partners' more premium Radeon RX 6700 XT.

As per the rumors, the Radeon RX 6950 XT and RX 6750 XT potentially sport higher clock speeds, faster memory (18 Gbps as opposed to the 16 Gbps on the regular models), and a much more demanding TDP.

Radeon RX 6950 XT, RX 6750 XT, RX 6650 XT Pricing

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Graphics CardMSRPCurrent Pricing
Radeon RX 6950 XT*$1,099N/A
Radeon RX 6900 XT$999$999 - $2,400
Radeon RX 6750 XT*$549N/A
Radeon RX 6700 XT$479$485 - $1,250
Radeon RX 6650 XT*$399N/A
Radeon RX 6600 XT$379$400 - $685

*Pricing is unconfirmed.

Assuming that VideoCardz's source is accurate, the Radeon RX 6650 XT may carry a $399 price tag. It makes sense that AMD would want to keep the RX 6600-series under the $400 mark. The Radeon RX 6600 XT has a $379 MSRP, so the Radeon RX 6650 XT appears to be only $20 more expensive, approximately a 5% increase in pricing. Again, if we look at the current market, custom Radeon RX 6600 XT graphics cards are going for anywhere between $400 and $685, making the Radeon RX 6650 XT look rather attractive.

Like its siblings, the Radeon RX 6650 XT should have faster clock speeds. However, the Navi 23-based graphics card may be the only model that won't receive the 18 Gbps memory upgrade. According to the rumors, the Radeon RX 6650 XT memory maxes out at 17.5 Gbps, but the graphics card should still see a small bump in the TDP.

The Radeon RX 6950 XT, RX 6750 XT, and RX 6650 XT supposedly hit the market on May 10. Therefore, we could expect an official announcement from AMD very soon. However, the timing seems weird since Computex 2022 doesn't commence until May 23, with AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su delivering the keynote.

Zhiye Liu
RAM Reviewer and News Editor

Zhiye Liu is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • escksu
    Considering these are merely refresh of the older thing, the price should not be that far off the original prices. I would say the small increase is mainly due to inflation and rising production cost etc...
    Reply
  • VforV
    Compared to nvidia scalping and how they jacked up the prices with 3080 12GB, original 3090 (yes that too) and 3090 Ti this slight increase in price by AMD is nothing...

    Still AMD lost another chance to be even more consumer friendly and get more mindshare by just releasing these at the old prices and let the old GPUs prices fall down $50-100.

    Anyway, this is going to be temporary and at the end of the year after RDNA3 comes these will drop significantly in price.

    I would not buy a new GPU now even if you gave me the money. Both 6950XT and 3090Ti will look pathetic vs RDNA3. Lovelace will have good performance too, but will get destroyed by power consumption so for me because of that Lovelace is a non-factor.
    Reply
  • LastStanding
    It is hard to imagine any wise gamer/creator... CONSUMER would purchase any of these cards, at these prices (all current GPUs should at least be ~200 off their MSRP tag, MINIMUM) this late in a new architecture year just a few months away.

    "A fool and its money," right?
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    escksu said:
    Considering these are merely refresh of the older thing, the price should not be that far off the original prices. I would say the small increase is mainly due to inflation and rising production cost etc...
    In the good old days, refreshes usually launched at the same MSRPs as the old models while the old models got price cuts to clear them out of the market. Most of the old MSRPs were already sufficiently ahead of costs to absorb inflation and still make decent margins. Add the fact that yields should have increased over the last two years and load on N7-N6P processes should be winding down as more designs transition to N5, net cost increase per chip should be below inflation. The increases are purely because AMD thinks it can price-gouge people some more.

    I'm hoping that the EU and other places will issue bans on PoW crypto soon if skyrocketing energy costs doesn't run crypto-miners out of business first. Selling millions fewer GPUs per quarter to miners should ease up demand on GPU components quite a bit.
    Reply
  • renz496
    VforV said:
    Still AMD lost another chance to be even more consumer friendly and get more mindshare by just releasing these at the old prices and let the old GPUs prices fall down $50-100.
    if anything AMD only learned that being more consumer friendly will only hurt them in the end. make no mistake. company want the most profit for themselves. more profit means they can expand and fund better R&D for their product. consumer want the best deal for themselves. they did not care if the company survive or not in the future as long as they get the best deal.
    Reply
  • LastStanding
    renz496 said:
    if anything AMD only learned that being more consumer friendly will only hurt them in the end.


    e.g. MS 1 buck Game Pass, etc. says, "not really!"

    make no mistake. company want the most profit for themselves. more profit means they can expand and fund better R&D for their product. .


    In 2020, naysayers/fearmongers had regurgitated that Apple will be forced to raise prices on its iPhone, etc., well, from 2020 until today, that did not happen and Apple still earned and reported record earnings.



    consumer want the best deal for themselves. they did not care if the company survive or not in the future as long as they get the best deal.

    Not enough interested consumers into your product = no interest from investors = that company is DOA!
    Reply
  • escksu
    InvalidError said:
    I'm hoping that the EU and other places will issue bans on PoW crypto soon if skyrocketing energy costs doesn't run crypto-miners out of business first. Selling millions fewer GPUs per quarter to miners should ease up demand on GPU components quite a bit.

    I would prefer the world to ban these power hungry graphic cards.. its a colossal waste of energy to use these cards for gaming purpose as well. An energy limit should be imposed to limit how much energy these gaming cards can use.

    Gaming is just a form of entertainment and its non-productive. If people could game on their phones/nintendo switch which uses way less energy, why is there a need to game on such power hungry pcs??
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    escksu said:
    I would prefer the world to ban these power hungry graphic cards.. its a colossal waste of energy to use these cards for gaming purpose as well. An energy limit should be imposed to limit how much energy these gaming cards can use.
    That would only screw over people who have legitimate uses for over-powered PCs. When you get into "consumer" GPUs that cost $2000+, you are well within what used to be the realm of professional graphics and if a law banned consumer graphics over 300W, AMD and Nvidia would simply launch a mid-range "professional" GPU for deep-pocketed enthusiasts who want those 900W GPUs. Most gamers only play games a few hours a day, GPU power draw isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things as GPUs in mainly-gaming rigs are idle or powered down the remainder of the time where they consume about the same power as any other GPU.

    If you want to cut wasteful use of resources and energy, start with cutting off billionaires' joyrides to space, personal yacht fleets, people daily-driving 5MPG vehicles for no reason, IRL war games, etc.

    Personally, I cannot bear gaming on anything smaller than a 14" monitor and if I could justify the cost of a GPU sufficiently powerful for 4k60, I'd much prefer running the few PC games I play on my 50" 4k TV. If you are happy running games on a 6" smartphone screen, good for you. I have zero interest in that.
    Reply