Wednesday, December 27th 2023
AMD Readies Radeon RX 7600 XT, RX 7700, and RX 7800
Even as NVIDIA inches close to the launch of its RTX 40-series SUPER graphics cards in January, AMD could be preparing a product stack update of its own. While NVIDIA's refresh focuses on the higher end of its lineup, AMD looks to spread out more into the mainstream-performance segments. A regulatory filing with the Eurasian Economic Commission mentions the terms "RX 7600 XT," "RX 7700," and "RX 7800," which fill gaps between the RX 7600, RX 7700 XT, and RX 7800 XT.
There exists a rather big gap between the $230 Radeon RX 7600 and the $450 RX 7700 XT, which AMD is looking to fill with the RX 7600 XT and RX 7700 (non-XT). How AMD goes about carving out these two will be interesting to see. The RX 7600 already maxes out the 6 nm "Navi 33" silicon that it's based on, which means to create the RX 7600 XT, AMD might have to tap into the larger (and much more expensive) "Navi 32" MCM. There is a vast gap between the 32 CU (compute units) available to the RX 7600, and the 54 CU that the RX 7700 XT has (while the silicon itself has 60). Besides CU count, AMD has other levers, such as the MCD (memory cache die) count, which could be down to just 2 for the RX 7600 XT, or 3 for the RX 7700. The Radeon RX 7800 is a different beast. AMD faced quite some flack for positioning the RX 7700 XT within $50 of the RX 7800 XT, and now the former can be had for a street price of roughly $430. To be able to squeeze the RX 7800 between the two, AMD might need to widen the gap by pushing the RX 7700 XT down.
Source:
VideoCardz
There exists a rather big gap between the $230 Radeon RX 7600 and the $450 RX 7700 XT, which AMD is looking to fill with the RX 7600 XT and RX 7700 (non-XT). How AMD goes about carving out these two will be interesting to see. The RX 7600 already maxes out the 6 nm "Navi 33" silicon that it's based on, which means to create the RX 7600 XT, AMD might have to tap into the larger (and much more expensive) "Navi 32" MCM. There is a vast gap between the 32 CU (compute units) available to the RX 7600, and the 54 CU that the RX 7700 XT has (while the silicon itself has 60). Besides CU count, AMD has other levers, such as the MCD (memory cache die) count, which could be down to just 2 for the RX 7600 XT, or 3 for the RX 7700. The Radeon RX 7800 is a different beast. AMD faced quite some flack for positioning the RX 7700 XT within $50 of the RX 7800 XT, and now the former can be had for a street price of roughly $430. To be able to squeeze the RX 7800 between the two, AMD might need to widen the gap by pushing the RX 7700 XT down.
47 Comments on AMD Readies Radeon RX 7600 XT, RX 7700, and RX 7800
The 7800XT is selling consistently above it's $500 MSRP, typically $520+ and the 7700XT is consistently lower than its MSRP, often down at $430-440. I'm guessing but I would expect them to shift the official MSRP of the 7700XT to $420 and introduce a 16GB 7800 at $450-475$99 GPUs have been mediocre or bad for a decade or more, simply because inflation moved the equivalent price point higher. Fixed costs like component sourcing logistics and management, assembly, machine time, physical packaging, transport, inventory management, customer support, retail logistics, retail storage and shelf space - none of them scale anywhere near as well as the price/performance curve of the GPU silicon. You have to assume that the fixed overheads of a $99 graphics card are probably close to half those of a $999 graphics card, yet the $999 graphics card can afford to eat a $120 fixed overheads and still be profitable. The $99 graphics card cannot afford the $60 fixed overheads and have any budget left for the actual product!
They exist, but they've been sales disasters and just about every single review, guide, forum, vlogger has told anyone listening to give them a wide berth and just spend the extra 20% on an RX6600 or save money and buy something on the used market. A $139 RX 6400 is on par with a GTX 970 from 8 years ago, and you can snag those (working, not faulty) on ebay for as little as $25 if you're lucky and patient, otherwise the median price is about $55. Why would you pay $139 for something you can get for $55, and it also works fine without needing ReBAR or a PCIe 4.0 slot because it actually has all 16 lanes wired up...
Its about the chip. And then there is also VRAM chips. Those things just cannot be any off the shelf OEM part.
I would personally be fine with a 200-225 dollar entry level GPU that isnt crippled beyond playability. This is where I believe x50 should be at. x60 is perfect at 300. x70 can populate 400-450. x80 shouldnt exceed 700. Top end.. sure, 1K.
We can dream :)
The $300 4060 manages near double the performance, yet pulls the same power, as the $220 (launch) 1660. I find it hard to believe that an Ada-based, 1660-equivalent card couldn't have been designed to viably hit a $150-180 ASP. However:This is true: they would probably have needed an AD108 with the proper number of shaders and a bus configuration that could support 6G/128. A crippled AD107 with 6G/
9296 would get crucified in the press/community, even if it performed reasonably well.Edit: bus width
6800 @MRSP had the best price/performance of AMD 6000 series - highest fps/watt for AMD, AND the lowest watts/fps champion! People seem to be ignorant of what a great performer this 6800 is! It was sold out for almost the entire pandemic as a result - I know, I was looking for one!More cache, and/or higher memory clocks are possible, less than 10% speedup like a 3070 Ti ...
At the launch (late 2020) and not a single Q later (= no 2021+), the 6800 was rated 580 dollars MSRP. Non-existent 3070 Ti is outta equasion, and 3070 was $500 (about 5 to 10 percent behind in raster, about 20 to 40 percent ahead in RT + had DLSS, whereas FSR had not been invented yet). 3080 was ahead in every game by mostly 10 to 30 percent. In pure raster. In RT, that easily could spike up to being more than twice as fast thanks to DLSS.
So no, 3 years ago, that was very horrible value at best. And being sold out whilst pandemic is not an achievement, everything was sold out back then.
RDNA2's list prices were the opposite, rather than being unrealistic, they were disappointingly realistic. If the 3080 was selling for 1500 $€£ in your region, then the 6800XT was selling close to that even if it didn't have the ETH-mining throughput - because there were enough gamers trying to get hold of a gaming GPU that its relative gaming performance against the market price of the 3080's gaming performance was enough to exceed the supply, even among gamers with no interest in ETH mining.
2020 Q2 onwards was a global dumpster-fire of GPU short supply and over-demand issues in very stark contrast to record-low prices and massive amount of surplus GPUs made to meet the 2017-2018 mining boom which then crashed just as they all finished production. As consumers we swung from 2019 being the best year for GPU pricing ever recorded, to the worst.
RDNA3? Not gonna happen.
It's kind of incredible that the 7800XT gets as close to the 4070 as it does, given that it's also powering a wider bus and more GDDR6 packages too in addition to the MCD design.
A cut-down Navi32 card would have 12GB (or 10GB) VRAM, not 16GB, and if it was cut in half to make make a 16GB card using just two MCDs it would be much more expensive than Navi33 to make and also slower, since Navi33 has the latency advantage of being monolithic AND it's more than half of Navi32 to begin with. IMO, that's not economically viable, and also relies on a large enough quantity of extremely defective Navi32 dies, which contradicts both AMD and TSMC boasting about absolutely fantastic yields this generation...
I can certainly see another triple-MCD card likely in the lineup - that's undoubtedly going to be the RX 7700, but it would be a 12GB variant, or possibly a 10GB variant if AMD want to use up some harvested MCDs to give a 2.5 MCD, 160-bit bus. My original speculation of the 7700 being a 48 CU (3072 shaders) Navi32 and the 7600XT being a 40 CU (2560 shaders) Navi32 have been proven incorrect - at least for the 7600XT - by the 16GB VRAM size.