Welcome to the start of a series  of videos where I run the 6500 XT,  
Welcome to the start of a series  of videos where I run the 6500 XT,  

the world’s slowest graphics card with raytracing  support, through a series of gruelling challenges.  
the world’s slowest graphics card with raytracing  support, through a series of gruelling challenges.  

In this video, I’ll be playing Quake 2 RTX. On the surface, it doesn’t sound too  
In this video, I’ll be playing Quake 2 RTX. On the surface, it doesn’t sound too  

demanding. After all, Quake 2 could run on a  playstation 1! But the twist here is that it’s  
demanding. After all, Quake 2 could run on a  playstation 1! But the twist here is that it’s  

FULLY raytraced. There are some games with  raytraced reflections, or lighting. But this  
FULLY raytraced. There are some games with  raytraced reflections, or lighting. But this  

is the real deal: everything’s fully path traced. And despite it having RTX in the name, which is an  
is the real deal: everything’s fully path traced. And despite it having RTX in the name, which is an  

Nvidia brand name for their raytraced and AI-based  effects, AMD cards can also run this title.
Nvidia brand name for their raytraced and AI-based  effects, AMD cards can also run this title.

These are the settings I used, and this is how  the 6500 XT fared at full 1080p resolution.  
These are the settings I used, and this is how  the 6500 XT fared at full 1080p resolution.  

20 FPS at best, but often dropping a frame  or two lower than that. I think it performed…  
20 FPS at best, but often dropping a frame  or two lower than that. I think it performed…  

better than I had been expecting? But it  is of course, still nowhere near playable. 
better than I had been expecting? But it  is of course, still nowhere near playable. 

So I dropped the resolution to lower than 1080p,  relying on upscaling to keep the image looking  
So I dropped the resolution to lower than 1080p,  relying on upscaling to keep the image looking  

acceptable. There will be a point where this game  becomes smooth and playable- the question is:  
acceptable. There will be a point where this game  becomes smooth and playable- the question is:  

what will it look like in that state? Setting it to target 30 FPS, it dropped the  
what will it look like in that state? Setting it to target 30 FPS, it dropped the  

resolution to 75% scaling, which softens the image  a bit and blobs the textures, but I still think it  
resolution to 75% scaling, which softens the image  a bit and blobs the textures, but I still think it  

looks reasonable. I never know if 75% scaling  refers to one dimension or total pixel count,  
looks reasonable. I never know if 75% scaling  refers to one dimension or total pixel count,  

but from the look of it, I feel like it’s the  scaling along each dimension, which would put  
but from the look of it, I feel like it’s the  scaling along each dimension, which would put  

the resolution here to around 1440 x 810. Please,  correct me if I’m wrong about this. Not that it  
the resolution here to around 1440 x 810. Please,  correct me if I’m wrong about this. Not that it  

matters, since we only really need to care about  the resulting visual quality and framerate. 
matters, since we only really need to care about  the resulting visual quality and framerate. 

But I still wouldn’t want to play this  game at 30 FPS. And despite 30 and 60  
But I still wouldn’t want to play this  game at 30 FPS. And despite 30 and 60  

making logical sense on a 60 hz screen, I  still see value to increments between these,  
making logical sense on a 60 hz screen, I  still see value to increments between these,  

as they do still noticeably improve the  feel beyond 30 fps. From past experience,  
as they do still noticeably improve the  feel beyond 30 fps. From past experience,  

I would call 40 fps ‘minimum playable’ for me,  and 50 FPS actually becomes quite enjoyable  
I would call 40 fps ‘minimum playable’ for me,  and 50 FPS actually becomes quite enjoyable  

in all but the most twitch-shootery of titles!  Which unfortunately Quake 2 kind of is. 
in all but the most twitch-shootery of titles!  Which unfortunately Quake 2 kind of is. 

But targeting 40 FPS, it looked like this and  set the image scaling to around 63%. It certainly  
But targeting 40 FPS, it looked like this and  set the image scaling to around 63%. It certainly  

looked and felt a lot more fluid than at 30 fps,  but was still obvious that wasn’t hitting 60. 
looked and felt a lot more fluid than at 30 fps,  but was still obvious that wasn’t hitting 60. 

Next I tried targeting 50 FPS, which dropped  the image scaling only slightly more down to  
Next I tried targeting 50 FPS, which dropped  the image scaling only slightly more down to  

the low to mid 50’s, but the experience felt  distinctly smoother than it did at 40 FPS.  
the low to mid 50’s, but the experience felt  distinctly smoother than it did at 40 FPS.  

Personally, this is how I’d play Quake  2 RTX on this card. I consider it to be  
Personally, this is how I’d play Quake  2 RTX on this card. I consider it to be  

the sweet spot of performance and image quality. Hitting the magical 60 FPS-mark was a possibility,  
the sweet spot of performance and image quality. Hitting the magical 60 FPS-mark was a possibility,  

but was the point where I felt the image  quality was beginning to degrade substantially.  
but was the point where I felt the image  quality was beginning to degrade substantially.  

I’d still happily play this game like this,  but I would understand people who wouldn’t.  
I’d still happily play this game like this,  but I would understand people who wouldn’t.  

I mean, you’re getting the pretty raytraced  effects and lighting, but everything is beginning  
I mean, you’re getting the pretty raytraced  effects and lighting, but everything is beginning  

to be covered in a layer of blobby Vaseline.  Which at least makes it smooth and playable. 
to be covered in a layer of blobby Vaseline.  Which at least makes it smooth and playable. 

Screw it. Let’s see what it looks like at 100  FPS. Now this really is getting soft and unclear.  
Screw it. Let’s see what it looks like at 100  FPS. Now this really is getting soft and unclear.  

But it does still reach 100 FPS! And lastly, I tried 200 FPS, which  
But it does still reach 100 FPS! And lastly, I tried 200 FPS, which  

the 6500 XT failed to reach, dropping right down  to the minimum scaling of 25% and looking like  
the 6500 XT failed to reach, dropping right down  to the minimum scaling of 25% and looking like  

ass. This is the price you pay for wanting  triple digit raytracing on a budget card. 
ass. This is the price you pay for wanting  triple digit raytracing on a budget card. 

So let’s return to 60 FPS which, by  comparison looks very nice indeed,  
So let’s return to 60 FPS which, by  comparison looks very nice indeed,  

and I’ll discuss what I think about the 6500  XT’s performance in this title. How you feel  
and I’ll discuss what I think about the 6500  XT’s performance in this title. How you feel  

about it depends on which camp you fall into. The  first camp is console gamers who resent all the  
about it depends on which camp you fall into. The  first camp is console gamers who resent all the  

generations where they were teased by PC gamers  for only gaming at 30 fps. Also in this camp are  
generations where they were teased by PC gamers  for only gaming at 30 fps. Also in this camp are  

PC gamers who expect a graphics card -especially a  new one like this one- to hit a certain resolution  
PC gamers who expect a graphics card -especially a  new one like this one- to hit a certain resolution  

and framerate in all of today’s titles. If  you’re in that camp, then you will think the  
and framerate in all of today’s titles. If  you’re in that camp, then you will think the  

6500 XT is a failure for only reaching 60 FPS  at 540p in some titles- especially in Quake 2  
6500 XT is a failure for only reaching 60 FPS  at 540p in some titles- especially in Quake 2  

which was running faster than this in the 90’s! Now I know I don’t fall into that camp. Having  
which was running faster than this in the 90’s! Now I know I don’t fall into that camp. Having  

followed hardware for decades, I remember  that until a few years ago, raytracing was  
followed hardware for decades, I remember  that until a few years ago, raytracing was  

an unobtainable pipedream that still felt like it  was many years off before becoming a possibility.  
an unobtainable pipedream that still felt like it  was many years off before becoming a possibility.  

And yet here we are, just a few years after  the first raytracing-capable cards came out,  
And yet here we are, just a few years after  the first raytracing-capable cards came out,  

and despite graphics cards’ performance and price  stagnating (and even regressing) since then,  
and despite graphics cards’ performance and price  stagnating (and even regressing) since then,  

here we are, playing a fully raytraced game  smoothly on a £200 graphics card. Let’s be real  
here we are, playing a fully raytraced game  smoothly on a £200 graphics card. Let’s be real  

here- if you choose to play Quake 2 RTX, then  you’re doing so because you’re curious about  
here- if you choose to play Quake 2 RTX, then  you’re doing so because you’re curious about  

the raytracing, and the 6500 XT will satisfy that  curiosity, even if it isn’t at 1080p. Like I was  
the raytracing, and the 6500 XT will satisfy that  curiosity, even if it isn’t at 1080p. Like I was  

saying, I didn’t have high hopes for a first-gen,  low-end AMD raytraced card with no DLSS support,  
saying, I didn’t have high hopes for a first-gen,  low-end AMD raytraced card with no DLSS support,  

and in this title it exceeded those expectations.  Because despite its textures and polygons,  
and in this title it exceeded those expectations.  Because despite its textures and polygons,  

Quake 2 RTX is justifiably one of  the most demanding titles out today. 
Quake 2 RTX is justifiably one of  the most demanding titles out today. 

You can see the system specs used in this video’s  description. And you’ll immediately notice  
You can see the system specs used in this video’s  description. And you’ll immediately notice  

I’m using an old 4 core Ryzen that’s limited to  PCI-E 3. Is it fair to test the 6500 XT like this,  
I’m using an old 4 core Ryzen that’s limited to  PCI-E 3. Is it fair to test the 6500 XT like this,  

when it could run substantially better with a fast  processor and when on PCI-E 4? Well this is what  
when it could run substantially better with a fast  processor and when on PCI-E 4? Well this is what  

I’ve been debating with myself since before I even  got this card. I’d argue the 6500 XT is one of  
I’ve been debating with myself since before I even  got this card. I’d argue the 6500 XT is one of  

the most difficult graphics cards in the world  to test simply because it’s so dependant on so  
the most difficult graphics cards in the world  to test simply because it’s so dependant on so  

many external variables. And because it’s a card  that will be bought for so many different reasons,  
many external variables. And because it’s a card  that will be bought for so many different reasons,  

be it to breathe life into an old system,  or as a stopgap in a faster one, at least  
be it to breathe life into an old system,  or as a stopgap in a faster one, at least  

until graphics card prices normalise somewhat. Which is why I opted for a video series on it,  
until graphics card prices normalise somewhat. Which is why I opted for a video series on it,  

rather than just a standalone video. I intend  to test this card on slow processors, fast ones,  
rather than just a standalone video. I intend  to test this card on slow processors, fast ones,  

PCI-E 3, PCI-E 4, against a Radeon 480… you name  it. But I figured this one would at least answer  
PCI-E 3, PCI-E 4, against a Radeon 480… you name  it. But I figured this one would at least answer  

the burning questions you had about its raytracing  performance, and in a worst-case scenario. 
the burning questions you had about its raytracing  performance, and in a worst-case scenario. 

So please, leave your thoughts in the comments  below about how you think I should test this card,  
So please, leave your thoughts in the comments  below about how you think I should test this card,  

and which sort of things you’d like  benchmarked on this graphics card-lite.
and which sort of things you’d like  benchmarked on this graphics card-lite.