AMD Radeon RX 7600

[GhostRyder]

I mean, for what it is seems like an alright card. Its nice to see new cards that perform alight in the sub $300 category as I feel (Especially with this generation) that cards are hitting ridiculous prices. However, as already pointed out, the older (Last Gen) cards seem to be better buys especially right now. Not sure if I would pick this over one of those.

 

[JohH]

At $250 it'd be OK.
Based on some napkin math it should be faster than the $300 4060 with the same amount of video memory.
But at the low end DLSS might be worth the $30 premium.

 

[tajoh111]

It's a great card for three reasons:
a) It offers a 25% performance improvement over the prior gen RX 6600. It's improved over the RX 6600 in several major areas, and although the changes may be small, they cumulatively add up to a big performance difference. Better ray tracing, better AI computing (50%+), more compute units (32 vs 28), a higher clock frequency (2655 vs 2491), more stream processors (2048 vs 1792), faster memory (18Gbps vs 14) etc.
b) Despite inflation, it starts at a relatively low MSRP of $269. Despite inflation, AMD has managed to offer the card for a low MSRP of $269, $60 cheaper than the RX 6600 MSRP of $329. Consumer items such as homes and cars are now substantially more expensive than they used to be. The same for graphics cards, they are also more expensive to produce than they used to be. Despite a huge CPI inflation rate of 7% from 2022 to 2023, AMD has kept costs low. In addition, AMD will quickly offer it with free games, rebates, and price drops to further improve the deal.
c) It offers a lot of small improvements which collectively add up in a big way. Substantially better ray tracing? Check. Much better AI Imaging? Check. Much better 1080P performance? Check (25%+). Much better overall performance? Check. Faster memory? Check. New features such as DisplayPort 2.1? Check. More energy-efficient 6nm? Check. All the improvements cumulatively add up in a large way.

P.S. I am not affiliated with AMD in any way. Overall, it's just a very solid card for the price. Could it possibly be better? Sure. Perfection is very difficult to achieve.

*Source of RX 7600 vs RX 6600 performance: Techspot (since the RX 6600 was not included in TPU review)

The foundation of this argument is based on the starting price of the rx6600 which is flawed.

The RX6600 launched in full rip off mode with rip off pricing because it launched during the mining peak.

From techspot's review.

AMD Radeon RX 6600 Review

How good or bad the RX 6600 will be can only be determined over the coming weeks, based on street pricing and availability. But for now, the...

www.techspot.com

"Going back to the Radeon RX 6600's performance. Sure, in a normal market there's no denying that this product would suck. $330 would be a bad joke – a ~20% price hike over the 20 month old 5600 XT – for a ~6% performance increase at 1440p."

It was such a low bar to cross that it had to get better in this economic climate. The price to performance reversed compared the previous generation. WIthout mining the 6600xt would be called the rx6600 and would have been a 270 product. This still would have resulted in a lackluster improvement of 26% improvement in performance per dollar compared to the previous generation.

Compare this to the RTX 3060 ti which was literally the best priced product in terms of performance per dollar and launched prior to mining spiking had an MSRP pre mining.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Review

The new GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is Nvidia's latest $400 GPU designed to replace the RTX 2060 Super. The RTX 3060 Ti should be a substantial upgrade...

www.techspot.com

"Of course, the super impressive leap is seen when looking at the RTX 2060 Super. Here the new RTX 3060 Ti is on average 50% faster at 1440p and that's a serious generational improvement."

The rtx 3060 ti had the same price as the RTX 2060 super but was 50% faster which meant it was actually an impressive product with less improvement in terms of performance per dollar for next gen.

This makes the value proposition of the RX7600 distorted while the RTX 4060 ti is on full display when compared to last generation.

 

[vlad.coolish]

WTF have you been under a rock they announced RDNA 4 a while back. Almost a year ago.

View attachment 297402

After tests of 7600 I was convinced that RDNA3 does not exist.
This is a renamed RDNA2.

 

[tvshacker]

After tests of 7600 I was convinced that RDNA3 does not exist.
This is a renamed RDNA2.

I'm still waiting for a "reliable" head 2 head between the 7600 and the 6700 (non XT).

 

[Ruru]

While the card isn't a powerhouse, they managed to price it right.

 

[dlgh7]

I feel like I am still sitting fine with my RX 5700 that I flashed to a 5700xt. It still gets the job done. For what I paid for it on release day it seems almost like another time and place for what the cards that AMD and Nvidia are trying to shill on us now. That only thing the Rx 5000 series is missing is DX 12 Ultimate support and AV1 encoding. Which haven't been an issue to this point.

 

[AnotherReader]

The only interesting thing about the 7600 is that it allows us to compare RDNA3 to RDNA2 with the same resources, i.e. CU count, L3 cache size, and memory bandwidth. I think that @W1zzard is using the MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X that he used in the 6650 XT review. If that's the case, then that model has similar clocks to AsRock's Phantom Gaming 7600.

Video Card	Average Clock Speed (CyberPunk 2077)	Average Clock Speed (all games)
MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X	2699	2701
ASRock Radeon RX 7600 Phantom Gaming	2649	2745

If this is correct, then on average, RDNA3 is 7% faster than RDNA2 at the same clocks. In some games, it's more: 17% in Callisto Protocol, assuming that both cards clock at their average game speed for this game. This shows that besides its well known clock speed issues, RDNA3 is suffering from mediocre compilers. That 17% improvement is likely due to hand optimized shaders rather than the compiler which is known to miss optimization opportunities.

Surprisingly, there are also games where the 7600 is slower than the 6650 XT, e.g. F1 2022.

The relatively low clock speeds and artificially limited overclocking suggests that a 7600 XT or a RX 7650 might arrive in the future. After all, this card is using 20 Gbps GDDR6 which is clocked below its rated speeds.

 

[Kitsone]

I'd like AV1 video playback power consumption tests not just H.264.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I'd like AV1 video playback power consumption tests not just H.264.

The fixed function video decoding engine is the same so it should be really similar. But AMD has faced problems with idle power consumption and multi monitor, negating those gains.

 

[N/A]

Surprisingly, there are also games where the 7600 is slower than the 6650 XT, e.g. F1 2022.

Especially in Control 1440p 45 vs 33 FPS sending it to the bottom of the charts. But it's unplayable anyway.
But overall good news, dual issue shaders sometimes works, the Relative performance lead me to believe otherwise that there is only 2%.

 

[Macro Device]

Compare this to the RTX 3060 ti which was literally the best priced product

...and coined the worst possible reputation thanks to malfunctionary Hynix VRAM chips.

I highly doubt that was an accident. nVidia proved to be willing to earn as much as possible on class-shifting (i.e. you were willing to buy a "great" 3060 Ti but heard of them going bananas because of bad VRAM and you later bought a 3070 which costs more (for you, not for nVidia)).

And I agree, RX 7600 is a joke. It's too power hungry to be attractive for people with limited wattage budget. Too slow for others.

The phrase about Democratic party does perfectly apply to the current situation on the GPU market. "Dems (AMD) are worse than resps (nVidia) only because they are not better."

 

[mechtech]

Mid-tier cards were traditionally half the resources of the flagship - so when the flagships are 384-bit, 24GB cards with ~6000shaders, the mid-tier cards should be 192-bit, 12GB cards with ~3000 shaders. That's not a million miles away from the 6700XT and probably what Navi32 will be - but the outlier is the cost; $200 in 2008 is $340 in today's market adjusting for inflation and tariffs only.

It's telling that AMD almost tried to sell the entry-level 7600(XT) at $330 before hastily renaming it and reducing the price twice to $269. We should have been getting the 7700XT for that sort of money if 'rampant greedflation' wasn't gripping the GPU market.

Isn’t the RX 6400 entry level?? . Lol

 

[Squared]

Only small performance gains over previous generation

The RX 6600 delivers 79% of the relative rasterization performance, so this is 27% faster. The RTX 4060 Ti delivers only 12% better rasterization performance than the 3060 Ti, so the generational performance could be worse.

 

[Macro Device]

Isn’t the RX 6400 entry level?

Basically it's not. Neither is 7600.

6500 XT is. RX 7600 is a budget gaming card. RX 6400 is just a placeholder.

 

[BoboOOZ]

At $250 it'd be OK.
Based on some napkin math it should be faster than the $300 4060 with the same amount of video memory.
But at the low end DLSS might be worth the $30 premium.

It'll be 250 soon. AMD has much more leeway left for AIBs and resellers in their price structure, hence their prices can move much more freely below MSRP. The problem is that it doesn't allow them to announce vey low MSRPs for marketing, but the users still benefit from it.

This is a decent launch price performance wise. For the logistics, and the errors and the last minute price drop, man the AMD marketing still sucks big time.

 

[W1zzard]

I'd like AV1 video playback power consumption tests not just H.264.

Good idea

The RX 6600 delivers 79% of the relative rasterization performance, so this is 27% faster. The RTX 4060 Ti delivers only 12% better rasterization performance than the 3060 Ti, so the generational performance could be worse.

That's a bit because NVIDIA decided to name their card one tier up, while AMD named their card one tier down

 

[BoboOOZ]

That's a bit because NVIDIA decided to name their card one tier up, while AMD named their card one tier down

Well, if it were just a naming problem it could be forgiven, but the pricing is there to confirm the positioning. Nvidia went full greed, while AMD kept it somewhat honest.

 

[Macro Device]

I invested a nickle my time into a casual full-on investigation.

1060 3 GB, launched for $199 ($250 considering inflation) in 2016, was 10 percent cheaper than the RX 7600. I checked reviews, both TPU's and from other sources to make sure all data I got is acceptably valid. Out of 25 games, there were at least 10 needing a player to lower the settings in order to play 1080p60 (not to mention I don't know for the fact if it's possible in the worst cases which ran 29 FPS at 1080pUltra). And these are pre-2017 games which are not so GPU taxing compared to latest releases such as TLOU, Cyberpunk et cetera.

RX 7600 has only failed to get smooth and all-on comfortable framerates&frametimes in roughly 4 games RT Off and roughly 8 games RT Max. And this is about ALL existing games. Gaming at 1440p is more smooth than 1080p was on 1060s.

So the situation itself is not THAT bad. It's just the next-gen cards failed to be impressive compared to the last-gen ones. And failed by a lot.

Disregarding that, everyone buying an RX 7600 is getting a video card which is capable of no nonsense 1080p and 1440p gaming at high or medium-high settings. $270 ain't too much for that. The problem of 7600 is that other AMD cards, 'pecially RX 6700 XT, are just better in terms of bang per buck.

And probably the new drivers will unleash some of its performance potential. Even if it's funny 5 percent it's still better than if it keeps performing like it does today.

 

[Xuper]

Some 6+2pin power cables may not fully fit into Radeon RX 7600 reference card - VideoCardz.com

AMD Radeon RX 7600’s trouble with some power cables Reviewers report that some cables may not fit AMD’s reference card. Radeon RX 7600 6+2pin power cable issue, Source: TechPowerUP The issue affects only some power cables, and it is not hard to notice. As it is reported, some power cables may...

videocardz.com

AMD should investigate on QA department.

 

[N/A]

Disregarding that, everyone buying an RX 7600 is getting a video card which is capable of no nonsense 1080p and 1440p gaming at high or medium-high settings. $270 ain't too much for that. The problem of 7600 is that other AMD cards, 'pecially RX 6700 XT, are just better in terms of bang per buck.

And probably the new drivers will unleash some of its performance potential. Even if it's funny 5 percent it's still better than if it keeps performing like it does today.

AMD will always try to undercut the new cards to get rid of the old ones. And if they are trying to push it desperately so hard then it's probably not worth it. it goes without saying. Funny how people say AMD is its own enemy. Well Duh, over production of 6000 should have ended with the end of mining. Now Im just fed up with anything above 5nm. Just give me 5nm from now on.

 

[kastriot]

This is $149 entry 1080p gpu, arc 750 is $199 and is 2x better than this crap.

 

[Chrispy_]

Isn’t the RX 6400 entry level?? . Lol

There's room for lower SKUs out of Navi33 (presumably an RX 7500-series) but AMD have confirmed that Navi33 is the smallest dGPU die they are making this generation.

Navi24 was never supposed to be a desktop product, it was always supposed to be an auxiliary compute die to complement the IGP in Ryzen laptops, which is why it was missing a bunch of media, display, and encode hardware. Only the madness of ETH mining even made Navi24 viable in the market as a desktop GPU.

Current-gen Ryzen APUs have good enough RDNA3 IGPs that there's no point making a small additional compute die because the IGP already matches or exceeds it. The next meaningful step up from a 680M or 780M integrated graphics is a Navi33-based RX 7600S, or the old Navi24 is still viable for the slower RDNA2 APUs like the Rembrandt (6000-series, 7035-series) and Dragon Range (7045-series) APUs.

 

[Macro Device]

AMD is its own enemy

Yes and no.

AMD are the ones who are responsible of their problems but I didn't mean the price of RX 7600 somehow makes for a PITA for AMD. Why do they care what exact gaming card sells best if they have it?

I'm only speaking from the perspective of a buyer who will consider RX 7600 problematic, pay for a RX 6700 XT and feed AMD regardless. Win-win scenario. Loss is only possible if that buyer ends up grabbing some green whip.

 

[BoboOOZ]

Yes and no.

AMD are the ones who are responsible of their problems but I didn't mean the price of RX 7600 somehow makes for a PITA for AMD. Why do they care what exact gaming card sells best if they have it?

I'm only speaking from the perspective of a buyer who will consider RX 7600 problematic, pay for a RX 6700 XT and feed AMD regardless. Win-win scenario. Loss is only possible if that buyer ends up grabbing some green whip.

The manufacturing cost of one chip is in the hundreds millions dollars, so if AMD don't sell a lot of 7600, they will be losing money on this one, and they were better off not building it at all in the first place.

But knowing AMD, this might turn into a popular budget card for a long while (with continuous price drops).