AMD Radeon RX 7600 Early Sample Offers RX 6750 XT Performance at 175W: Rumor

[AnotherReader]

Also once you cap games with a framelimit RDNA3 loses a ton of efficiency. That might not matter to you if you never run a cap but a lot of people run games with frame caps.

That was improved by a subsequent driver update. Computerbase, the source of your graphs, tested that release, and found that (translated text below):

The Adrenalin 22.12.2 improves the energy efficiency of the Radeon RX 7900 XTX by 57 percent and that of the Radeon RX 7900 XT by 34 percent in the test scenario in WQHD. The GeForce RTX 4080 is only 14 instead of 78 percent more efficient than the Radeon RX 7900 XTX and the new Radeons have better instead of worse efficiency than the previous generation.

 

[PersonWhoLikeCards]

would this just be a non-tx version of the card specs?

 

[ToTTenTranz]

I agree, but the fact is also that it comes with a limited amount of VRAM at a time where VRAM is extremely sought after.
It's going to be a cheaper and more powerful, but ultimately pointless, addition to the pool of GPUs on offer.

The only thing I can hope from it is that it's priced equal to an rx 6600. If you put a really low price with insufficient VRAM amounts, you get a GPU that makes little sense, but isn't outright terrible. Not that I expect AMD to shit out something as egregious as a 3060Ti/3070s at any point.

IMO this is designed to go into the 200-300€ territory, maybe even less than 200€ within a year after release. Given what we're getting with Phoenix, this is probably the lowest-end discrete GPU AMD is going to make this generation. It's not designed for the high settings that result in >8GB VRAM usage.

Though I do agree that all these 128bit and 192bit GPUs could gain a lot from non-binary GDDR6 memory modules. For example, this card could get a model with 24Gbit memory modules, to reach 12GB total. The RTX4070 / Ti would reach 16GB with those modules.

Unfortunately, it looks like no one is making such modules.

 

[Lew Zealand]

And 'RX 7600 Early Sample Offers RX 6750 XT Performance' is a joke beyond belief as it wouldn't even compete with ngreedia's previous gen 3070 class GPU. Well, maybe if it's priced at 250 bucks, it would be acceptable buy, but we all know that's not gonna happen. It's likely gonna get 349 MSRP and rot no shelves like most new Radeon products lately

The 6750XT matches the 3070's performance in 1440p, these cards' target market. And does it at $370 vs. $490 for the 3070. So if the 7600 matches both as claimed, seeing it's price start at $350 is pretty likely. Paying 30% more for passable 1080p RT and DLSS in the 3070 may be worth it for some people. And if the market doesn't like it, then the price will fall.

 

[john_]

the 7600 might actually be a 6500 equivalent this generation

You are falling victim of the excuses thrown from Nvidia trolls and fanboys, trying to defend Nvidia's pricing of the RTX 4000 series here.
Also 6500 is a laptop GPU, so bad example.

they're not an underdog.

Yes they are. They are the underdog that holds prices down. I know it sounds stupid and if AMD had stronger hardware their pricing would have been much worst. But for now, they are the only reason there is still some realism in the CPU and GPU market.

Begin demanding better products of them. They can do better.

They will do better when people start buying their products. It's not AMD's fault that consumers are hypnotised by the RT marketing and rush to buy the RTX 3050 over the RX 6600. We can't demand for better hardware and at the same time keep finding excuses, even ridiculous ones, to NOT give them money to keep going.

If this series of blunders continue to occur routinely and every product they put out is massively overhyped, underdelivered and completely underwhelming, NVIDIA will charge you a thousand bucks for the RTX 5070 instead of just 600 for the 4070 as they do now, and Intel is gonna bring back $1800 Extreme Edition CPUs the second they gain an absolute performance lead back.

I really hope this happens. Both consumers and tech press should get a lesson of what happens when you keep buying/promoting the stronger brand for years and years.
Sorry if I sound bad or even deranged here, but consumers and tech press have an equal share here with AMD for us having an unbalanced GPU market. And if AM5 fails, guess what will happen in the CPU market.

For example, I am reading that AMD should get sued for advertising 5.7GHz on 7950X3D because only one CCD can hit those frequencies. And I read this ridiculous argument when Intel is advertising 24 core CPUs with 16 of those being E cores that not only clock almost 1.5-2GHz lower, but they are inferior cores.

Attacking AMD has become a habit. A habit that makes people avoid AMD's products. That can only lead to one result. Monopolies in CPUs and GPUs.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

You are falling victim of the excuses thrown from Nvidia trolls and fanboys, trying to defend Nvidia's pricing of the RTX 4000 series here.

That has NOTHING to do with nvida, WTF are you on about?

AMD are the ones that turned the x5x class GPU into an absolute joke.

Yes they are. They are the underdog that holds prices down. I know it sounds stupid and if AMD had stronger hardware their pricing would have been much worst. But for now, they are the only reason there is still some realism in the CPU and GPU market.

No multi billion dollar company is the underdog. AMD is one of the oldest names left in the business.

They will do better when people start buying their products. It's not AMD's fault that consumers are hypnotised by the RT marketing and rush to buy the RTX 3050 over the RX 6600. We can't demand for better hardware and at the same time keep finding excuses, even ridiculous ones, to NOT give them money to keep going.

The consumer does not owe AMD a dime. If they want to make money, they need to produce a competitive product. No a product that gets better with drivers 6 months later, not a product that launches a year late with last years feature set. If you cannot compete with performance and features, you compete on price.

Also, AMD themselves admitted to restricting RX 6000 supply to keep prices high. They did this to themselves and have no one to blame.

I really hope this happens. Both consumers and tech press should get a lesson of what happens when you keep buying/promoting the stronger brand for years and years.
Sorry if I sound bad or even deranged here, but consumers and tech press have an equal share here with AMD for us having an unbalanced GPU market. And if AM5 fails, guess what will happen in the CPU market.

There you go again with the "poor AMD underdog" thing. Where are you even getting the AM5 failing BS? Ryzen has sold extremely well. Because its competitive. Shocker, I know.

For example, I am reading that AMD should get sued for advertising 5.7GHz on 7950X3D because only one CCD can hit those frequencies. And I read this ridiculous argument when Intel is advertising 24 core CPUs with 16 of those being E cores that not only clock almost 1.5-2GHz lower, but they are inferior cores.

Attacking AMD has become a habit. A habit that makes people avoid AMD's products. That can only lead to one result. Monopolies in CPUs and GPUs.

Defending AMD against all threats, regardless of how much AMD self owns, is a tradition stretching back to the 90s when AMD somehow got blindsided by intel pulling back the socket compatibility the moment they were allowed to.

AMD has had some shat thrown at it. The most notable being intel blocking them from OEMs in the early 2000s. But things like their reputation for instability? Reputation for bad drivers? Bad economic decisions that led them to being near bankrupt? That's all on them, not intel, and certainly not the consumer. You even brought up the whole CPU market price thing, funny enough, prices for intel CPUs from first gen i5s and i7s to the 7th gen were relatively stable. Slight increases, nothing major. AMD arrives with ryzen, and sells 8 cores for $200 for two gens.

Then the 3000 series comes out, and guess what? $250 for six cores now. Now it's $300 for six cores, and 8 cores are pushing $450+!

Wait what?

Yeah, those massive increases on CPU prices? That was your ever wonderful can-do-no-wrong AMD, baby! The INSTANT they got ahead of intel they jacked their prices up, saying they were a "preeemium brand". Intel didnt do that when it had a de facto monopoly during the "bridge" years. Meanwhile, I can still get budget core i3s for under $100 brand new. I can get a core i5 that kicks the crap out of AMD's 7600 CPU, for $200. Yet I dont hear you complaining about AMD charging too much for meh hardware.

AMD is JUST as scummy as intel and nvidia, they just hide behind this veneer of "oh poor us we're not intel waaah" that their fans rush to defend EVERY time AMD isnt king of the hill.

 

[QuietBob]

Downpowering back to the best possible idle power draw (29W) is a test of patience because the card will literally dance around 40-55W for several minutes before entirely downpowering to its real minimum. Even when all you do is idle away or just type on these forums:

Judging by the VRAM usage you seem to be running a ton of stuff in the background. You can't expect the card to reach full idle in this state. And yes, with a dual display the power consumption will always be higher. This is taken on a single 4K60 panel with only TPU open in the browser, using the latest Adrenalin 23.4.2:

I'm just aiming for 2 things:

• proper idling at 30W without taking the piss (not 5 entire minutes from watching a video to properly downpower)
• video playback not being at a ridiculous 70W+ but rather around 40 to 50W

We're already here. This is at 4K, at 1080p the consumption is about 40 W:

 

[john_]

That has NOTHING to do with nvida, WTF are you on about?

AMD are the ones that turned the x5x class GPU into an absolute joke.

GTX 1630 says "Hello".

No multi billion dollar company is the underdog. AMD is one of the oldest names left in the business.

Yes they are when facing two stronger companies at the same time. Really don't need to explain this. It's just a case of acceptance here, not explanation. You can choose to reject it. It's a choice.

The consumer does not owe AMD a dime. If they want to make money, they need to produce a competitive product. No a product that gets better with drivers 6 months later, not a product that launches a year late with last years feature set. If you cannot compete with performance and features, you compete on price.

Never said that the consumer owes AMD anything. But the consumer should also realize that choosing only one brand, leads to a certain result. I am not saying "buy inferior products at the same or higher prices". Just "don't avoid a good product at a better price, just because of a sticker". See the SSD market. Imagine what that market would look today if EVERYONE was paying the Samsung tax and avoiding ALL other brands. There are plenty of excuses there, the same as yours here, even more serious. But people keep buying from everyone, that's why the SSD market is much more healthy with a gazillion of choices.

Also, AMD themselves admitted to restricting RX 6000 supply to keep prices high. They did this to themselves and have no one to blame.

I want to puke and just stop replying to any person who throws this excuse. I'll try to keep it simple. Nvidia controls the market. Meaning if AMD STOPS COMPLETELY to produce GPUs, there are plenty of Nvidia cards out there to fill the void. We will not see a lack of GPUs in the market. We will not see people paying 20%-40%-60% higher prices to buy an AMD one when there are so many Nvidia options widely available. Also AMD said that they where limiting the supply because there where plenty UNSOLD in the market. On the other hand, Nvidia months ago have said the same, but you don't seem to remember this. Strange? And with Nvidia controlling the market, them limiting the supply CAN push prices up. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH YOUR MENTALITY HERE, 24/7 EDUCATE OTHERS TO AVOID AMD CARDS AT ANY COST. There. Happy?

There you go again with the "poor AMD underdog" thing. Where are you even getting the AM5 failing BS? Ryzen has sold extremely well. Because its competitive. Shocker, I know.

AM5 failed in it's first months. It failed to have a clear victory over Intel and the high motherboard costs where a huge reason for people to choose to upgrade their AM4 systems instead, or turn to Intel, instead of going AM5. That was the reason AMD was kept dropping prices, that was the reason we where reading left and right about bundles with free DDR5 memory, that was the reason they rushed X3D chips. I doubt they where going to show the X3D chips so soon, but they needed something to make the AM5 platform to look as the platform of choice at least for gaming. To make people look at AM5 in a different way. As a superior platform.

Defending AMD against all threats, regardless of how much AMD self owns, is a tradition stretching back to the 90s when AMD somehow got blindsided by intel pulling back the socket compatibility the moment they were allowed to.

I don't know what parallel world you are describing here. Is it Doctor Strange or Quantumania?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Never said that the consumer owes AMD anything. But the consumer should also realize that choosing only one brand, leads to a certain result. I am not saying "buy inferior products at the same or higher prices". Just "don't avoid a good product at a better price, just because of a sticker". See the SSD market. Imagine what that market would look today if EVERYONE was paying the Samsung tax and avoiding ALL other brands. There are plenty of excuses there, the same as yours here, even more serious. But people keep buying from everyone, that's why the SSD market is much more healthy with a gazillion of choices.

Buying a crucial SSD instead of a samsung SSD didnt mean having to swap drivers depending on a game, or being limited to sata I speed instead of sata III because it wasnt a "priority". This may come as a shock to you, but consumers follow your advice all the time. Let us not forget, after all, that for the majority of its life the 1070, 1080, and 1080ti had ZERO competition from AMD. As in none. The 2070 super/2080/2080super/2080ti also had no competition, as AMD did not upscale to provide us a RX 5800xt or RX 5900 xt.

So after two generations of AMD just....not doing high end, or failing miserably (hi vega) they finally make a decent product then pikachu faced when everyone doesnt immediately sing their praises. They were even more shocked to find out that handing nvidia the entire mid range and high end market on a silver platter gave nvidia lots of juicy money to invest in new GPU designs, and nvidia actually did that instead of wasting cash on something like seamicro, resulting in AMD being even further behind.

I want to puke and just stop replying to any person who throws this excuse.

It's not an exuse, it's a statement from AMD. If you have that kind of visceral reaction to someone challenging your worldview, you MAY be a fanboi.

[TechSpot] AMD admits to restraining chip supply to keep higher CPU and GPU prices

https://www.techspot.com/news/97462-amd-admits-restraining-chip-supply-keep-higher-cpu.html The article states, "In a Tuesday evening investors call, AMD CEO Lisa Su tried to calm investor anxiety by pointing out that the company has been, and will continue to, undership GPUs to "balance...

www.techpowerup.com

I'll try to keep it simple. Nvidia controls the market. Meaning if AMD STOPS COMPLETELY to produce GPUs, there are plenty of Nvidia cards out there to fill the void. We will not see a lack of GPUs in the market. We will not see people paying 20%-40%-60% higher prices to buy an AMD one when there are so many Nvidia options widely available. Also AMD said that they where limiting the supply because there where plenty UNSOLD in the market. On the other hand, Nvidia months ago have said the same, but you don't seem to remember this. Strange? And with Nvidia controlling the market, them limiting the supply CAN push prices up.

This unhinged response is part whataboutism and part uninformed dribble. Many pointed out that AMD's claims about unsold inventory were total BS, during the timeframes they claimed to have unsold inventory online stores like newegg had none to sell. Many, such as myself, were unable to find 6800xts for over a year straight, and when they did exist they were scalped to high heaven. But somehow it's OK when AMD does this, but when nvidia does it they are the devil incarnate.

Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH YOUR MENTALITY HERE, 24/7 EDUCATE OTHERS TO AVOID AMD CARDS AT ANY COST. There. Happy?

You need to calm down. I have spoken in favor of the RX 6000 series many times, and own one myself. Check the sig.

AM5 failed in it's first months. It failed to have a clear victory over Intel and the high motherboard costs where a huge reason for people to choose to upgrade their AM4 systems instead, or turn to Intel, instead of going AM5. That was the reason AMD was kept dropping prices, that was the reason we where reading left and right about bundles with free DDR5 memory, that was the reason they rushed X3D chips. I doubt they where going to show the X3D chips so soon, but they needed something to make the AM5 platform to look as the platform of choice at least for gaming. To make people look at AM5 in a different way. As a superior platform.

Oh, so look at that, AMD CAN make mistakes, its not all a major conspiracy.

Only when it comes to CPUs apparently.

I don't know what parallel world you are describing here. Is it Doctor Strange or Quantumania?

I live in the real world, where for years we saw people blaming intel's actions in the 2000s for AMD's failures in the 2010s, while ignoring the $5 billion debt AMD took to buy ATi, or the billions wasted on the scourge that was Global Foundry. People forget GF was originally AMD's attempt to compete with intel fabs, and it went TERRIBLY for them, and the losses there were directly responsible for the late arrival of the K10 core. Remember, phenom II was supposed to be a core 2 comeptitor, not nehalem, and CERTIANLY not sandy bridge.

 

[john_]

Buying a crucial SSD instead of a samsung SSD didnt mean having to swap drivers depending on a game, or being limited to sata I speed instead of sata III because it wasnt a "priority". This may come as a shock to you,

Oh, come on. I stoped reading there and after that line I can find no reason to continue arguing with you. I better go and have a conversation with a Youtube video in loop. People can say that Samsung SSDs are faster, better supported, have better longevity, lower power consumption, whatever and those don't even need to be all true. Buying a Crucial SSD over a Samsung will probably translate to lower 4K speeds. And I bet people with the mentality various individuals have shown when talking about Radeons, will see that reduction, of let's say 5% in 4K reads or writes, as the one and only reason to go Samsung, even if the price is higher.

SATA I vs SATA III speeds.... MY GOD............I am stopping here. Done with you.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Attacking AMD has become a habit. A habit that makes people avoid AMD's products. That can only lead to one result. Monopolies in CPUs and GPUs.

While I may passively agree, I just have to point out that a company which does what I've outlined in my initial post deserves the heat. It's a blatant disregard for ethics and transparency, which have been something that the AMD fanbase insists that the company has championed all along. "nGreedia", they'll say. Right.

Sorry if I sound bad or even deranged here, but consumers and tech press have an equal share here with AMD for us having an unbalanced GPU market. And if AM5 fails, guess what will happen in the CPU market.

For example, I am reading that AMD should get sued for advertising 5.7GHz on 7950X3D because only one CCD can hit those frequencies. And I read this ridiculous argument when Intel is advertising 24 core CPUs with 16 of those being E cores that not only clock almost 1.5-2GHz lower, but they are inferior cores.

It's a matter of time. A reputation with consumers is earned, not given. Years of subpar feature set, consistent buts and ifs, such as the inability to use many graphics techniques in games, as well as inconsistent if not inadequate performance in many others, extremely problematic driver suite (which more often than not runs late and has little for show - this year, AMD missed the entire Q1 2023 AAA launch window(!) without providing a single driver for existing customers and keeping the 7900 XTX on a beta branch of its own for over three straight months) have definitely dented AMD's reputation with the DIY market.

People want GeForce because it has trendy features, effective marketing and a relatively high rate of reliability. NVIDIA is usually quick to patch the most glaring problems. WHQL drivers are released biweekly, and hotfixes in the interim for any issue that arises are not uncommon. Of course, they have their problems, as well... but hardly anything like RDNA 1's chronic black screen problem, or running certain games at low frame rates because their driver doesn't like them. Things like that stick to people's minds, they'll always see it as substandard whenever they remember that they've lost weeks of time that they could have spent playing games troubleshooting idiotic problems like the one I mentioned.

Credit where due: AMD has been slowly but surely improving the situation, but there is still much work to do. Right now, I only see one (technical, not ideological) reason to buy a Radeon over a GeForce: if you run Linux and want access to much healthier and higher quality open source drivers. Otherwise, under Windows, a GeForce will do practically anything a Radeon will, but better. It's the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in.

I also agree with your point of Zen 4's initial poor market performance, but that's very much something that AMD brought on themselves. They were riding the success train pretty hard and thought that people would splurge for premium, high end motherboards to get their latest and greatest. That... did not occur. But it's water under the bridge now.

snip

You understood each and every point I was trying to pose with my initial post, especially regarding AMD's status as an old giant and a multi-billion-dollar corporation. I would be far, far more forgiving if this was a small company with 100 people working on it, and worth only a couple dozen million dollars. But it's not the aforementioned "indie" that I've brought up.

 

[sLowEnd]

To be fair, between the huge upcoming APUs and the value of cards that have less than 12Go of VRAM, I'm really expecting low end enthusiast to be squeezed away in the next years. No need to put big efforts when you can just shove 10-40 RDNA3 CUs on your CPU...

APUs are great, but not nearly as transplantable as a discrete graphics card.

At 175W and 6750XT performance, this thing would consume a little less power than the RTX 4070, but perform a lot worse. Tack on a mere 8GB of VRAM, and it'll probably have a shorter useful life than even the 6750XT itself.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

This is the proof. It's a full tier of performance below its competition in the same weight class, the RTX 4070 will leave this thing in the dust in every regard. Shame that Nvidia charges for that privilege.

Please explain how and why a x60(0) product has to outperform the competition by over two full tiers of performance, not including refresh products?

If it did outperform a 4070, AMD f'ed up worse for not calling it a 7700.

It appears to be competitive (within 10% performance, close enough for early leaks) with the rumored 4060, at the best case for the team green card. It would very much surprise me if the price was higher than the 4060.

One other point: the 60(0) series has been aimed at the 1080p market for many years, and rightly so. The most VRAM usage I could find for 1080p was ~10GB, and that was with Max settings. It seems unreasonable to assume that the card has to do no compromise whatsoever, considering the market segment.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Please explain how and why a x60(0) product has to outperform the competition by over two full tiers of performance, not including refresh products?

If it did outperform a 4070, AMD f'ed up worse for not calling it a 7700.

It appears to be competitive (within 10% performance, close enough for early leaks) with the rumored 4060, at the best case for the team green card. It would very much surprise me if the price was higher than the 4060.

One other point: the 60(0) series has been aimed at the 1080p market for many years, and rightly so. The most VRAM usage I could find for 1080p was ~10GB, and that was with Max settings. It seems unreasonable to assume that the card has to do no compromise whatsoever, considering the market segment.

You somewhat misunderstand my point. It was NVIDIA who has increased their product's placement on the ladder, not AMD who has released a product below expectation for its intended tier. This RX 7600 should be based on Navi 33, just as the 6600 was based on Navi 23. However, I am looking at it from a performance per watt and technical placement (not product placement) standpoint.

This is a critic I've made towards NVIDIA from the very start, they are selling low-end products as a mid-tier, mid-tier as high end and have released the single worst configuration for a flagship ever in the form of the 4090. They have a massive, and I mean massive amount of leeway to release more SKUs or varying performance grades between all tiers, including significantly above what is offered with the 4090.

The RTX 4070 is an AD104 (NVIDIA's current third tier silicon) with two memory controllers (reducing it to 192-bit) and a relatively significant amount of shaders disabled. If I recall correctly, only 46 compute units are enabled out of the 64 present in this tier of silicon. It's barely 25% of Ada Lovelace's full potential as a graphics architecture when compared to a fully enabled processor with a high power allowance. Above it, you have AD103 (which should be equivalent to Navi 32) and AD102 (equivalent to Navi 31). But when actual performance is accounted for, the 4090 (even with its large amount of disabled shaders and cache slices) stands alone at the top, at a significant distance from the next fastest (the 4080 and 7900 XTX).

However, that matters less and less once you consider that this GPU is using 175W, and that is also the 4070's general power consumption. It does 200W under the most extreme workloads only, and both are in the coveted 1x8-pin power budget that we haven't seen anything great at since the GTX 1080... except AMD's GPU, from what we're currently being told, barely equals its predecessor while losing a significant amount of memory capacity - while the 4070 is fast enough that it performs right in the middle of the gap between RTX 3080 and 3080 Ti, aka, it's significantly faster for the same energy consumption.

Obviously, it also costs more, but keep in mind what I mentioned earlier about NVIDIA upselling their hardware tiers and maximizing yield/profit margins with each and every RTX 40 series design - at this point it's shameless and they do it because they can.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

AMD's GPU, from what we're currently being told, barely equals its predecessor while losing a significant amount of memory capacity

6650 XT has the same amount of VRAM.

It also has the same shader count as a full-fat Navi 33, and the 7600 is by no means guaranteed to be a full die.

 

[ModEl4]

In the TPU testbed regarding raster full Navi33 will definitely be slower than RX 6750XT in 1080p, slower than RX 6700XT in 1440p and slower than RX 6700 in 4K.
If FSR3 is shader based like FSR2 then 8GB Navi 33 will have a hard time to excite (depending the SRP) compared to 12GB RX 6700XT for example.
Still i doubt AMD will go lower than $329 for full Navi33 and $279 for cut-down version.

 

[Dr. Dro]

6650 XT has the same amount of VRAM.

It also has the same shader count as a full-fat Navi 33, and the 7600 is by no means guaranteed to be a full die.

I was referring to the 6700/6750 XT, which should be able to be found at the $329-$350 price tier nowadays. It just might have better longevity and flexibility than this card because of its larger 12 GB framebuffer. Let's be honest, that won't do much for AMD here. How many units have been realistically disabled? Let's suppose it's 20%, which is quite a lot at this segment. It'd still not come even close to catching up in PPW. The 4070 would easily be called the perfect GPU by a lot of people, it's got a ton of performance on tap, consumes very little power... supports every graphics technology under the sun, too... but the price has soured the entire deal.

The honest truth is that the RTX 4070 should have been a 4060 at the most... below it there's still the AD106 and 107, which in normal market conditions would comprise the 4050 and 4030 family, but the market is anything but normal. Nvidia has the goods to deliver, they chose to drip feed and maximize their profits instead... while I'm perplexed as to why Navi 32 (7700/7800 series) is nowhere to be seen. That's the highest impact market segment IMO, because it is where most people tend to buy.

 

[tussinman]

8GB at 6750XT perf?

I'd run to the store now to get RDNA2 then instead.
But... rumor be rumor. Let's see where it truly lands and where it truly prices itself

Yeah I could see the base model 7600 having 8GB but the "6750XT like performance" being the XT variant (7600XT).

I couldn't see the XT variant offering that level of performance but only having 8GB, especially since AMD recently openly mocked NVidia for having low Vram amounts + a 7600XT having more than 8GB will be a big sticking/marketing point against the base model RTX 4060

 

[Mahboi]

While I may passively agree, I just have to point out that a company which does what I've outlined in my initial post deserves the heat. It's a blatant disregard for ethics and transparency, which have been something that the AMD fanbase insists that the company has championed all along. "nGreedia", they'll say. Right.

"Ethics" my butt. It's resources, plain and simple. You behave as if they choose to make bad products, that's so dumb I just have no comment. Stop judging them from your high horse and realistically look at the resources they're investing and prices they demand for their products. This consoooooooooomer mentality of going all judgemental is just so tiring...

 

[Dr. Dro]

"Ethics" my butt. It's resources, plain and simple. You behave as if they choose to make bad products, that's so dumb I just have no comment. Stop judging them from your high horse and realistically look at the resources they're investing and prices they demand for their products. This consoooooooooomer mentality of going all judgemental is just so tiring...

I consoom so much, that I skipped the GPU generation for the first time in years. Please, I just don't hold allegiances. I don't care if AMD is in dire straits or if Jensen Huang has a multi-million-dollar leather jacket collection, I just want products that deliver, and this gen was the first that didn't in my living memory. I'll happily point out my grievances with both of them, though. This thread should have made that clear.

 

[Acesbong]

Cheapest 6650 I can see is a sapphire for €290. It needs to be 200 bucks for it to not be a waste of time.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Cheapest 6650 I can see is a sapphire for €290. It needs to be 200 bucks for it to not be a waste of time.

6650 or 6750 XT?

 

[Acesbong]

6650 or 6750 XT?

6650 xt, €290 on Mindfactory.de. This new card supposedly 11% faster (which means you won't even notice a difference). Same amount of VRAM. €200 or don't bother launching it IMO.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

This new card supposedly 11% faster (which means you won't even notice a difference)

FWIW, most tiers of GPU have less than 11% difference between them, except at the top of the stack.

 

[tvshacker]

6650 xt, €290 on Mindfactory.de. This new card supposedly 11% faster (which means you won't even notice a difference). Same amount of VRAM. €200 or don't bother launching it IMO.

Those 11% means it should match the 6700XT (at 1080p) and if it costs as much as the 6650XT it means it'll cost about 100€ less (25%) than the 6700XT while using less power as well. I can see a market for it, but it's a shame it doesn't bring 12GB of VRAM.
Around here there are still lots of inferior cards on sale at that price point (~300€): 1650, 1660, 2060, 3050 and 6600XT (right now several 6650XT models are cheaper than the cheapest 6600XT).