Radeon RX 6700, 6700 XT & 6750 XT users club

[siluro818]

Availability of both seem to be very poor now, presumably AMD are busy producing RX7800 and RX7700 silicon instead at the moment...?

The 6750XT is what's replaced the production of these cards. The 7xxx GPUs are made on different processes.

 

[AusWolf]

I bought the Sapphire 6700 10GB 6 months ago since we only seemed to have the Powercolor Fighter and Sapphire Pulse models of the 6700 in the UK. Every review of the Fighter says or shows that it has a noisy cooler which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.

I've squeezed it back into my obnoxiously-cramped HTPC undervolted to 2400@975mv and put the VRAM on fast timings. The goal for me is to have the most efficient GPU that fits into the case and underclock it until the fans never ramp up. This thing needs to be not just quiet, but completely inaudible from the sofa. I'm probably losing 10% of the performance at these settings but the case is both short and shallow so I'm pretty happy to hit 2.4GHz under full load at just 1000rpm. 30% fan/1000rpm is the bare minimum, it's in 0rpm mode until it hits 55C.

View attachment 286432

View attachment 286439View attachment 286443

It's replaced a 3060, 6600, 6700XT, and 3060Ti in my attempts to find the best performance/Watt. It's really hard not to like the little 6700. The Pulse seems to be a very high quality card but it's about 20% more expensive than the Powercolor so not really worth the premium for most use-cases. Availability of both seem to be very poor now, presumably AMD are busy producing RX7800 and RX7700 silicon instead at the moment...?

And here I thought my 6500 XT was overkill for a HTPC.

 

[Chrispy_]

And here I thought my 6500 XT was overkill for a HTPC.

It's always been a gaming console for me, so it needs to do AAA at 1080p60 at a bare minimum to stop me from buying an XB or PS5!

The 6750XT is what's replaced the production of these cards. The 7xxx GPUs are made on different processes.

Oh, yeah - I was talking specifically about the 6700 which has been a low-volume part all along. 6750XT is fully stocked over here, you can even find a reasonable number of 6700XT cards still in stock. Presumably they're dialling back production of ALL mid-tier RDNA2 cards in preparation for the upcoming RDNA3 cards. Nobody is going to want to buy a 7700XT if there are a boatloads of 6700XT and 6750XT sat on shelves still.

 

[Ruru]

The 6750XT is what's replaced the production of these cards. The 7xxx GPUs are made on different processes.

Sucks that 6700 XT is artificially limited what it comes to memory overclocking.

 

[AusWolf]

It's always been a gaming console for me, so it needs to do AAA at 1080p60 at a bare minimum to stop me from buying an XB or PS5!

That makes sense. I put the 6500 XT in that PC for the same reason, although I haven't played a single game on it since. Otherwise, the Intel Xe iGPU would be more than enough for watching films.

Oh, yeah - I was talking specifically about the 6700 which has been a low-volume part all along. 6750XT is fully stocked over here, you can even find a reasonable number of 6700XT cards still in stock. Presumably they're dialling back production of ALL mid-tier RDNA2 cards in preparation for the upcoming RDNA3 cards. Nobody is going to want to buy a 7700XT if there are a boatloads of 6700XT and 6750XT sat on shelves still.

If I had to guess, I'd say that AMD sells all GPUs in the highest possible tier for maximum profit. That is, they don't shave off shader cores unless they're really defective, unlike Nvidia who don't seem to have a single product based around a fully working GPU die these days. So if, let's say, 5% of Navi 22 dies come with defective cores, then only that 5% (or somewhere close) ends up in 6700 non-XTs.

 

[Ruru]

If I had to guess, I'd say that AMD sells all GPUs in the highest possible tier for maximum profit. That is, they don't shave off shader cores unless they're really defective, unlike Nvidia who don't seem to have a single product based around a fully working GPU die these days. So if, let's say, 5% of Navi 22 dies come with defective cores, then only that 5% (or somewhere close) ends up in 6700 non-XTs.

Yeah, Nvidia's done that for years. First they launch an enthusiast card with cut-down shaders, they milk customers with that for a while, then they'll release Super/Ti versions with the full die to do it again.

I can remember only GTX 480 being a reasonable card to have a cut-down GPU as GF100's yields were low.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah, Nvidia's done that for years. First they launch an enthusiast card with cut-down shaders, they milk customers with that for a while, then they'll release Super/Ti versions with the full die to do it again.

And that's the reason why I don't buy Nvidia cards these days. If I buy a GPU with deactivated cores, I want it to be my choice, not that of the company that's selling them.

 

[Ruru]

And that's the reason why I don't buy Nvidia cards these days. If I buy a GPU with deactivated cores, I want it to be my choice, not that of the company that's selling them.

Also AMD delivers better price/performance ratio. 6700 XT even trades blows with 3070 in some games + 4GB extra VRAM

 

[Chrispy_]

Sucks that 6700 XT is artificially limited what it comes to memory overclocking.

Yeah, though the memory bandwidth is only really relevant at high-refresh 4K, something the 6700XT isn't really suited to. It's definitely a 4K card in many games, but it doesn't really have the compute power to drive 4K at the framerates needed to overwhelm the VRAM bandwidth it has - and don't forget there's the big ole' infinity cache on the 6700XT, too. In fact, I just checked the wiki - the 6700 and 6700XT have the highest ratio of Infinity cache per compute unit of the entire RDNA lineup, so they ought to be the models with the lowest relative need for memory bandwidth.

I don't know if the 6700XT is even bandwidth-limited at all. Based on TPU's tests, the 6750XT clocks 8.8% higher than the reference 6700XT and has about 8.6% more performance. If there was a bandwidth bottleck, we'd see that scaling drop off, but we don't:

MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio Review

MSI's Radeon RX 6750 XT runs whisper-quiet thanks to a well-tuned profile that maximizes the efficiency of the triple-fan, triple-slot thermal solution. Performance is also good, making this an excellent choice for all gamers using the 1440p resolution.

www.techpowerup.com

If I had to guess, I'd say that AMD sells all GPUs in the highest possible tier for maximum profit. That is, they don't shave off shader cores unless they're really defective, unlike Nvidia who don't seem to have a single product based around a fully working GPU die these days. So if, let's say, 5% of Navi 22 dies come with defective cores, then only that 5% (or somewhere close) ends up in 6700 non-XTs.

Maybe, but that doesn't really explain the 6400, 6600, 6800, and 6800XT all of which are mainstream, high-volume parts with disabled cores in their silicon.

The 6700 was especially rare compared to those, and it didn't even get an official launch like all the other cards. Perhaps what you're saying is true for just the 6700 - it would cannibalise their 6650XT sales and Navi23 is a much smaller die for AMD to make, ergo more profitable to sell to board partners than the Navi22 of a 6700.

 

[Ruru]

Yeah, though the memory bandwidth is only really relevant at high-refresh 4K, something the 6700XT isn't really suited to. It's definitely a 4K card in many games, but it doesn't really have the compute power to drive 4K at the framerates needed to overwhelm the VRAM bandwidth it has - and don't forget there's the big ole' infinity cache on the 6700XT, too. In fact, I just checked the wiki - the 6700 and 6700XT have the highest ratio of Infinity cache per compute unit of the entire RDNA lineup, so they ought to be the models with the lowest relative need for memory bandwidth.

Yeah, I play at 4K60 and I lower the settings or use FSR if needed. Though I have a Freesync monitor, so little dips doesn't matter that much.

 

[P4-630]

Radeon driver bug can corrupt Windows installation

An ultra-rare Radeon driver bug is breaking PCs. This exotic fix revived mine

A rare bug in AMD's Adrenalin 23.2.2 driver for Radeon GPUs sent my PC spiraling into BSODs and total unresponsiveness after breaking Windows. But a funky troubleshooting fix revived it.

www.pcworld.com

 

[amd64skater]

I'm part of the club with this card.
XFX Speedster SWFT309 AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT CORE Gaming

Dude I love XFX. I'm now on my second one from them and they don't disappoint.

 

[Ruru]

Radeon driver bug can corrupt Windows installation

An ultra-rare Radeon driver bug is breaking PCs. This exotic fix revived mine

A rare bug in AMD's Adrenalin 23.2.2 driver for Radeon GPUs sent my PC spiraling into BSODs and total unresponsiveness after breaking Windows. But a funky troubleshooting fix revived it.

www.pcworld.com

Read about that elsewhere. Luckily I didn't update yet.

 

[3x0]

Read about that elsewhere. Luckily I didn't update yet.

Just don't use the built in "factory reset" when installing the driver.

 

[siluro818]

Also AMD delivers better price/performance ratio. 6700 XT even trades blows with 3070 in some games + 4GB extra VRAM

It flat out smokes it in some btw. I play a lot of DMZ in Warzone 2.0 and the 6700XT gets over 20% fps ahead of the 3070 in that one.

Just don't use the built in "factory reset" when installing the driver.

From what I understand it's not even from the driver itself, but more of a Windows problem that the factory reset also triggers.
I imagine it's been possible for a while now, but ever since they made the factory reset enabled by default it actually started happening to some people.
The chances of your installation getting corrupted are really low anyway, so you can just continue using the reset.

Yeah, though the memory bandwidth is only really relevant at high-refresh 4K, something the 6700XT isn't really suited to. It's definitely a 4K card in many games, but it doesn't really have the compute power to drive 4K at the framerates needed to overwhelm the VRAM bandwidth it has - and don't forget there's the big ole' infinity cache on the 6700XT, too. In fact, I just checked the wiki - the 6700 and 6700XT have the highest ratio of Infinity cache per compute unit of the entire RDNA lineup, so they ought to be the models with the lowest relative need for memory bandwidth.

I don't know if the 6700XT is even bandwidth-limited at all. Based on TPU's tests, the 6750XT clocks 8.8% higher than the reference 6700XT and has about 8.6% more performance. If there was a bandwidth bottleck, we'd see that scaling drop off, but we don't

You're right in principle, but the 6750XT also gets faster 17.5gbps memory, which increases the memory bandwidth by 12.5%.
Considering that all 6700XT OC their memory to 2150mhz with 0 trouble, letting that slider go to 2250mhz would have been appreciated ^^

 

[Chrispy_]

You're right in principle, but the 6750XT also gets faster 17.5gbps memory, which increases the memory bandwidth by 12.5%.
Considering that all 6700XT OC their memory to 2150mhz with 0 trouble, letting that slider go to 2250mhz would have been appreciated ^^

I suspect that's just a marketing point that AMD used to distinguish the 6750XT over the 6700XT. If you benchmark a 6700/6700XT with a 150MHz memory overclock, you get exactly the same scores as before.

Faster VRAM is like having more VRAM - it's only of any value whatsoever if you didn't have enough beforehand - and the 16Gbps memory clock on the 6700XT seems to be more than enough.

 

[siluro818]

I suspect that's just a marketing point that AMD used to distinguish the 6750XT over the 6700XT. If you benchmark a 6700/6700XT with a 150MHz memory overclock, you get exactly the same scores as before.

Faster VRAM is like having more VRAM - it's only of any value whatsoever if you didn't have enough beforehand - and the 16Gbps memory clock on the 6700XT seems to be more than enough.

Well, not necessarily. Having 8GB 20gbps VRAM does not mean the card is gonna function like one with 16GB 10gbps VRAM.
Whether the memory OC of 6700XT will play a role in a given benchmark or not depends entirely on the workload.

 

[Chrispy_]

Well, not necessarily. Having 8GB 20gbps VRAM does not mean the card is gonna function like one with 16GB 10gbps VRAM.
Whether the memory OC of 6700XT will play a role in a given benchmark or not depends entirely on the workload.

That's so not the point I was making. You seem to be confusing capacity with bus width there.
Bandwidth is bus width * clock, not capacity * clock.

If your VRAM is fast enough, there is no benefit to making it faster.
If you have enough RAM, there is no benefit to having more of it.

I'm saying that in hundreds of games across dozens of independent reviews, there's no evidence that the 6700-series needs faster VRAM because it doesn't seem to be held back by its 16Gbps VRAM at all, in any game tested. Yes, it's possible that in the future a game may come along that needs more than the 384GB/s that the 6700XT has, but that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Ruru]

That's so not the point I was making. You seem to be confusing capacity with bus width there.
Bandwidth is bus width * clock, not capacity * clock.

If your VRAM is fast enough, there is no benefit to making it faster.
If you have enough RAM, there is no benefit to having more of it.

I'm saying that in hundreds of games across dozens of independent reviews, there's no evidence that the 6700-series needs faster VRAM because it doesn't seem to be held back by its 16Gbps VRAM at all, in any game tested. Yes, it's possible that in the future a game may come along that needs more than the 384GB/s that the 6700XT has, but that hasn't happened yet.

And with the maximum memory OC to 2150MHz, it bumps to 412.8GB/s

 

[siluro818]

That's so not the point I was making. You seem to be confusing capacity with bus width there.
Bandwidth is bus width * clock, not capacity * clock.

If your VRAM is fast enough, there is no benefit to making it faster.
If you have enough RAM, there is no benefit to having more of it.

I'm saying that in hundreds of games across dozens of independent reviews, there's no evidence that the 6700-series needs faster VRAM because it doesn't seem to be held back by its 16Gbps VRAM at all, in any game tested. Yes, it's possible that in the future a game may come along that needs more than the 384GB/s that the 6700XT has, but that hasn't happened yet.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even sure why you are explaining this stuff exactly
As for a game that utilizes more that the default 6700XT bandwidth right now you can take a look at Hogwarts Legacy.
The scene of my latest save is pretty heavy outside one with volumetric fog and whatnot.
It runs with 47-48fps (1440p/ultra) when mem clock is 2.15ghz and with 45-46 when it's 2ghz.
It's a minor but consistent difference that should be easily reproducible.
I can imagine you'll get similar findings in certain recent titles like The Calisto Protocol, Dead Space Remake & A Plague Tale: Requiem.

 

[Ruru]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even sure why you are explaining this stuff exactly
As for a game that utilizes more that the default 6700XT bandwidth right now you can take a look at Hogwarts Legacy.
The scene of my latest save is pretty heavy outside one with volumetric fog and whatnot.
It runs with 47-48fps (1440p/ultra) when mem clock is 2.15ghz and with 45-46 when it's 2ghz.
It's a minor but consistent difference that should be easily reproducible.
I can imagine you'll get similar findings in certain recent titles like The Calisto Protocol, Dead Space Remake & A Plague Tale: Requiem.

What GPU voltage you are using for such high GPU clocks as in your system specs?

 

[siluro818]

What GPU voltage you are using for such high GPU clocks as in your system specs?

 

[Ruru]

Ah, I run mine at 1100mV so it won't clock that high. Crappy cooler so undervolting is a must.

 

[siluro818]

Ah, I run mine at 1100mV so it won't clock that high. Crappy cooler so undervolting is a must.

Yeah, you need to play with the cooling profile as well, cause on default settings it will overheat for sure.
Btw that Gigabyte cooler is kinda nuts - the fans will spin at 4000rpm at full speed - you can go deaf lol
Luckily 2400rpm (60%) is more than enough for the highest stable OC.
It's still loud ofc, but I play with headphones on, so... ^^

 

[Ruru]

Yeah, you need to play with the cooling profile as well, cause on default settings it will overheat for sure.
Btw that Gigabyte cooler is kinda nuts - the fans will spin at 4000rpm at full speed - you can go deaf lol
Luckily 2400rpm (60%) is more than enough for the highest stable OC.
It's still loud ofc, but I play with headphones on, so... ^^

Been thinking about getting a third party cooler, though the market of GPU coolers these days is kinda meh, yet Raijintek has some beefy heatsinks. Need to think about getting one.