ASRock Website Lists Radeon RX 7600 XT 16 GB Steel Legend & Challenger OC Cards

[T0@st]

ASRock showcased customized Radeon RX 7600 XT 16 GB GPU offerings at CES 2024—only a couple days after AMD's official unveiling of its expanded lower mid-range RDNA 3 line. ASRock was among a select few Team Red board partners with finalized units (based on Navi 33 XT) on display—it seems that the Taiwanese manufacturer is preparing for a retail launch of its Radeon RX 7600 XT Steel Legend 16 GB OC and Challenger 16 GB OC graphics card models. ASRock's website has been updated with product pages for the latest Radeon RX 7000-series entries, but press material for an imminent product launch has not been published (at the time of writing).

ASRock's mid-tier triple-fan Steel Legend and entry-level dual-fan Challenger designs are a familiar sight across the company's Radeon RX 7000 and 6000 product lines—last September, customized Radeon RX 7800 XT and Radeon RX 7700 XT models were unveiled as sporting these shrouds, along with higher-end Phantom Gaming OC options. A slightly overclocked Radeon RX 7600 XT GPU is not expected to be a heat producing monster, so expensive cooling solutions are not a necessity for a cost-conscious audience—likely targeting a decent level of 1080p gaming performance. The ASRock Radeon RX 7600 XT Challenger 16 GB OC model is expected to launch at an MSRP of $329 (AMD's official guide SEP), while the fancier Steel Legend OC is believed to be only marginally more expensive.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Dirt Chip]

I might be late to the party, but why AMD follow NV with the 16GB option, PR orianted, mid to low tire, FHD@max@60, waste of a sand GPU??

Just to say we also have or is it actually sell at reasonable quantity?

Nonetheless, those are cool looking GPU's, to whom the look is of any value.

 

[bonehead123]

meh...16GB cards are soooo 2018-ish.....especially now that we have cpu's & mobo's that support 24, 48, 64, 96, 128 GB DRAM sticks...yea, yea, I know dram & vram are different things, but still....

Gimme a 64-128GB card, or gimme death, hehehe

 

[trsttte]

but why AMD follow NV with the 16GB option, PR orianted, mid to low tire, FHD@max@60, waste of a sand GPU??

To dunk on nvidia still selling 600$+ cards with less than 16gb of vram of course

 

[Daven]

meh...16GB cards are soooo 2018-ish.....especially now that we have cpu's & mobo's that support 24, 48, 64, 96, 128 GB DRAM sticks...yea, yea, I know dram & vram are different things, but still....

Gimme a 64-128GB card, or gimme death, hehehe

You can say ‘yea, yea’ all you like but it doesn’t actually sound like you know the difference.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

waste of a sand GPU??

Uh-huh.

At 250ish dollars, it would've been a perfectly sensible minor upgrade over a vanilla 7600.
At 330 dollars, it's just DoA.

 

[kapone32]

I have an opinion on why this was created. The console market. There is no doubt that after 2023 Console ports are hungry for VRAM. When the 7600 was launched it was touted as a 1080P card and performed well as such. With the move to more processing that buffer was not enough. The card should perform well with Console ports at 1080p or even 1440P in some cases. Of course we won't know for sure until tomorrow but I will be getting one for my own testing. It might even be one of these As Rock variants, their cards are very quiet.

Uh-huh.

At 250ish dollars, it would've been a perfectly sensible minor upgrade over a vanilla 7600.
At 330 dollars, it's just DoA.

I doubt it. I expect these to sell quite well, if they perform as I expect.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Uh-huh.

At 250ish dollars, it would've been a perfectly sensible minor upgrade over a vanilla 7600.
At 330 dollars, it's just DoA.

What.

The 7600 is $270 so how would a VRAM upgrade cost $20 less? I'm pretty sure the 16GB 4060 Ti also does not sell for $20 less than the 8GB 4060 Ti but maybe you meant something else?

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

if they perform as I expect.

What is there to expect? It's marginally faster in every game where 8 GB is plenty and up to 40 percent (and I am being extremely optimistic here) faster in four, maybe five games where it's not enough (15 vs 20 FPS area considering how far RX 7600 is from fully saturating 8 GB). Not many gamers are content with playing at 30 to 40 FPS. And these additional 8 GB, in the case of such a weak GPU, only make a difference in scenarios when your performance goes from non-existent or almost non-existent (below 30 FPS) to just bad (30 to 45 FPS). 4060 Ti is significantly faster and its 16 GB version is essentially the same "just put twice the VRAM here," and we are yet to behold any sense in that.

The 7600 is $270 so how would a VRAM upgrade cost $20 less? I'm pretty sure the 16GB 4060 Ti also does not sell for $20 less than the 8GB 4060 Ti but maybe you meant something else?

The 7600 is one year old. Make 7600 XT a 250 dollar product and stop selling 7600, or sell it for sub 220 USD. This is what I meant.

 

[kapone32]

What is there to expect? It's marginally faster in every game where 8 GB is plenty and up to 40 percent (and I am being extremely optimistic here) faster in four, maybe five games where it's not enough (15 vs 20 FPS area considering how far RX 7600 is from fully saturating 8 GB). Not many gamers are content with playing at 30 to 40 FPS. And these additional 8 GB, in the case of such a weak GPU, only make a difference in scenarios when your performance goes from non-existent or almost non-existent (below 30 FPS) to just bad (30 to 45 FPS). 4060 Ti is significantly faster and its 16 GB version is essentially the same "just put twice the VRAM here," and we are yet to behold any sense in that.


The 7600 is one year old. Make 7600 XT a 250 dollar product and stop selling 7600, or sell it for sub 220 USD. This is what I meant.

I am looking at console ports where you need more VRAM and thinking that as time goes on we will get more of the same thing. I would not call a GPU that runs at 2.7 GHz weak. Everything remains to be seen but we will see what happens when they review these cards with Games like Hogwarts or Starfield.

Using a 4060Ti may not apply. That card may not be as fast as we think hence the VRam buffer making a 3% difference. Just look at it;s performance in GPU difficult tasks.

As long as Nvidia demands a premium for their cards, distributors (who are not part of the narrative) will also apply a premium to AMD cards. Where I live even the 6500XT is regularly $250. The 7600 is indeed a year old I bought one for my Daughter's PC (To get COH3 free) was $369 the next step up was the 6700XT at $439. That is what you have to pay for compelling cards today.

I expect this card to be a $399 card.With that AMD even further expands their stack.

6500XT $250
7600XT $369
6600XT $439

That means that this card should be a cool $400 Canadian. Of course GPU pricing is out to lunch as their are examples on every etail sites of ridiculous pricing across the range of a single card.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

I would not call a GPU that runs at 2.7 GHz weak.

In absolute numbers, it's a capable device. It's just very weak compared to other GPUs of similar price, namely A770, RX 6700, and RTX 3060 Ti. Not to mention RX 6800. Just a reminder: 7600 XT is a mildly overclocked 7600 with double the VRAM. You can't fool the physics, performance will be a margin of error better.

That card may not be as fast as we think hence the VRam buffer making a 3% difference. Just look at it;s performance in GPU difficult tasks.

4060 Ti in both 8 GB and 16 GB variants outperforms 7600 at 1080p and 1440p by 31% and 34% respectively. At 4K, these additional 8 GB start making some sense with the 8 GB version being 27% faster and the 16 GB version being 40% faster than the 7600.

What games are we talking about that are running so much faster on 16 GB compared to 8 GB?

The Last of Us Part 1:

We went from completely unplayable to very uncomfortable.

Ratchet and Clank:

From barely playable to not so bad. Still not the way you wanna play this game, and with DLSS/lowered settings, 8 GB might stop being a dealbreaker and these GPUs are most likely to become identical performers like in many, many other games.

DOOM Eternal:

I don't think 77 VS 87 FPS is convincing enough. But that's probably the best case for 4060 Ti 16 GB.

In other games, additional 8 GB made no or almost no difference in performance. Occasionally, it's because 8 GB is not enough to load all the textures and the games look like devs forgot to implement said textures but this only happened in a couple games and I'm not entirely sold on that becoming a trend.

Realistically, 4K display owners usually buy something along the lines of 4070 Ti/7900 XT or beefier GPUs so 4K performance comparison in these lower tier GPUs is rather academical.

Practically, most buyers of such GPUs have a 1080p display and at 1080p, 8 GB is still plenty, or a 1440p display of high refresh rate specifically for playing with reasonable graphics settings at highest framerate possible. They don't mind disabling RT, they don't mind enabling Low presets. And this entirely nullifies the impact of VRAM capacity.

7600 XT will barely beat 4060 non-Ti raster-wise, standing about 2 percent taller than the competition. But 4060 has DLSS (better visuals compared to FSR and also a tiny tad faster), it doesn't die as hard from ray tracing, and it also consumes 80 W less power and this is huge because PC gamers don't have a habit of buying a rock solid PSU in this price range. This also lowers the heat level inside their PC which is massive in hot areas like Brazil, Texas, Arizona, Argentina, Africa, India and whatnot.

That's why I call 330 USD MSRP hot garbage. 250 USD with further discounts to 210ish dollar area on the 8 GB option is a much more reasonable price. NV are not the only ones selling overpriced stuff here.

 

[kapone32]

In absolute numbers, it's a capable device. It's just very weak compared to other GPUs of similar price, namely A770, RX 6700, and RTX 3060 Ti. Not to mention RX 6800. Just a reminder: 7600 XT is a mildly overclocked 7600 with double the VRAM. You can't fool the physics, performance will be a margin of error better.

View attachment 330823View attachment 330825View attachment 330826

4060 Ti in both 8 GB and 16 GB variants outperforms 7600 at 1080p and 1440p by 31% and 34% respectively. At 4K, these additional 8 GB start making some sense with the 8 GB version being 27% faster and the 16 GB version being 40% faster than the 7600.

What games are we talking about that are running so much faster on 16 GB compared to 8 GB?

The Last of Us Part 1:
View attachment 330827
We went from completely unplayable to very uncomfortable.

Ratchet and Clank:
View attachment 330828
From barely playable to not so bad. Still not the way you wanna play this game, and with DLSS/lowered settings, 8 GB might stop being a dealbreaker and these GPUs are most likely to become identical performers like in many, many other games.

DOOM Eternal:
View attachment 330829
I don't think 77 VS 87 FPS is convincing enough. But that's probably the best case for 4060 Ti 16 GB.

In other games, additional 8 GB made no or almost no difference in performance. Occasionally, it's because 8 GB is not enough to load all the textures and the games look like devs forgot to implement said textures but this only happened in a couple games and I'm not entirely sold on that becoming a trend.

Realistically, 4K display owners usually buy something along the lines of 4070 Ti/7900 XT or beefier GPUs so 4K performance comparison in these lower tier GPUs is rather academical.

Practically, most buyers of such GPUs have a 1080p display and at 1080p, 8 GB is still plenty, or a 1440p display of high refresh rate specifically for playing with reasonable graphics settings at highest framerate possible. They don't mind disabling RT, they don't mind enabling Low presets. And this entirely nullifies the impact of VRAM capacity.

7600 XT will barely beat 4060 non-Ti raster-wise, standing about 2 percent taller than the competition. But 4060 has DLSS (better visuals compared to FSR and also a tiny tad faster), it doesn't die as hard from ray tracing, and it also consumes 80 W less power and this is huge because PC gamers don't have a habit of buying a rock solid PSU in this price range. This also lowers the heat level inside their PC which is massive in hot areas like Brazil, Texas, Arizona, Argentina, Africa, India and whatnot.

That's why I call 330 USD MSRP hot garbage. 250 USD with further discounts to 210ish dollar area on the 8 GB option is a much more reasonable price. NV are not the only ones selling overpriced stuff here.

I have a 4K display and I use a 7900X3D/7900Xt combo. I am not disputing the speed of the 4060TI I mean that card is $679 Canadian that is $310 more than the 7600. So think about it this way. I also believe that you are using the 4K numbers. Every year more software gets added to GPUs. I was a proponent of the 6500XT when it launched but now that card is so weak it might as well be a 1030 or 1660. VRAM regardless of the narrative does matter.

Before we use the 4060TI as a benchmark let us see the reviews before we pass judgment on the card.

When you say that the 7600XT will barely beat the 4060 by 2% you are forgetting that if this card is $400 it will still beat the 4060 by $50 but have double the VRAM.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

or 1660

It has never been better than 1660 lmao. Inferior since the very launch. 6500 XT even lost to 5500 XT which has never been a 1660's competition, it was aimed against 1060/1650 series GPUs.

I am not disputing the speed of the 4060TI I mean that card is $679 Canadian that is $310 more than the 7600

And I'm not talking about 4060 Ti beating 7600. I'm talking about 4060 Ti, a significantly (30+ %) faster GPU, getting close to zero benefit from having more than 8 GB VRAM. The GPUs of such calibre need more VRAM speed, not more VRAM capacity. 128-bit bus + 18 GHz is just... why. Even the further cut-down N32 with 160-bit bus (resounding 10 GB VRAM) would've made much more sense even if this was identical TFLOPS-wise.

When you say that the 7600XT will barely beat the 4060 by 2% you are forgetting that if this card is $400 it will still beat the 4060 by $50

I don't get your maths here but I got clear understanding what MSRP is. 4060 is rated $300 USD (sold for $300 as well) and 7600 XT is rated $330 USD. 10% more expensive but virtually 0% faster and lacks features. Why is that not DoA, I don't see.

 

[Redwoodz]

It has never been better than 1660 lmao. Inferior since the very launch. 6500 XT even lost to 5500 XT which has never been a 1660's competition, it was aimed against 1060/1650 series GPUs.

And I'm not talking about 4060 Ti beating 7600. I'm talking about 4060 Ti, a significantly (30+ %) faster GPU, getting close to zero benefit from having more than 8 GB VRAM. The GPUs of such calibre need more VRAM speed, not more VRAM capacity. 128-bit bus + 18 GHz is just... why. Even the further cut-down N32 with 160-bit bus (resounding 10 GB VRAM) would've made much more sense even if this was identical TFLOPS-wise.

I don't get your maths here but I got clear understanding what MSRP is. 4060 is rated $300 USD (sold for $300 as well) and 7600 XT is rated $330 USD. 10% more expensive but virtually 0% faster and lacks features. Why is that not DoA, I don't see.

Love how you make up your facts. 7600XT is $269

 

[Lew Zealand]

I don't get your maths here but I got clear understanding what MSRP is. 4060 is rated $300 USD (sold for $300 as well) and 7600 XT is rated $330 USD. 10% more expensive but virtually 0% faster and lacks features. Why is that not DoA, I don't see.

Yes, exactly this. 8GB 4060 for $300 is better for gaming in every way than 16GB 7600 XT at $330.

If there happens to be a game or three at some point that require >8GB while maintaining decent 1080p framerates then I'll turn down textures or whatever. Meanwhile I'll enjoy hundreds of other games with a better experience.

Love how you make up your facts. 7600XT is $269

That's the 8GB 7600. The 16GB 7600 XT is $329.

 

[kapone32]

Yes, exactly this. 8GB 4060 for $300 is better for gaming in every way than 16GB 7600 XT at $330.

If there happens to be a game or three at some point that require >8GB while maintaining decent 1080p framerates then I'll turn down textures or whatever. Meanwhile I'll enjoy hundreds of other games with a better experience.



That's the 8GB 7600. The 16GB 7600 XT is $329.

So Someone says the 7600 is 2% faster at raster, yet the 4060 is better in every way in gaming? In the every way you mention I bet you more Games are released without Nvidia features than with it in the last 2 years but of course every Game has upscaling tech now which is not true. Let's use Humble Choice as an example. If you have that service you are a Gamer period. Most Games on Humble Choice have no fancy tech and use old fashioned raster to give the user the experience. What will be true is upscaling will be done at the driver level going forward from AMD so we will see what the future holds. The 50 Games that all reviewers use in their benchmarks is not even 1% of the Games that are released in a year. Nvidia was so conscious of that it released some it's DLAA to Open a few cycles ago. There is the fact though that AMD GPU Open is yielding results already and we have Open to thank for that too. I would rather have hardware created with the community in out than a Company that uses proganda to drive a narrative where a 3090 can be worth $2000 until the 4090 makes it undesireable. Then they give you exclusive "features" to make you want it.

By the way the 4060 is $60 more than the 7600 where I live. At that price the 6700XT is the obvious choice. I would not use a 4060 for anything more than 1080P though. At that price if the 16GB 7600XT is the same price, AMD software makes the difference. Do you know what Hyper RX is?

At any rate I am going back into Auto Mobillista 2 or TWWH3 as Gaming is my hobby. BTW I don't know about upscaling for either of those. WHat I know is they are fun to play and TWWH is great way to know how far extra VRAM goes.

 

[Lew Zealand]

So Someone says the 7600 is 2% faster at raster, yet the 4060 is better in every way in gaming? In the every way you mention I bet you more Games are released without Nvidia features than with it in the last 2 years but of course every Game has upscaling tech now which is not true. Let's use Humble Choice as an example. If you have that service you are a Gamer period. Most Games on Humble Choice have no fancy tech and use old fashioned raster to give the user the experience. What will be true is upscaling will be done at the driver level going forward from AMD so we will see what the future holds. The 50 Games that all reviewers use in their benchmarks is not even 1% of the Games that are released in a year. Nvidia was so conscious of that it released some it's DLAA to Open a few cycles ago. There is the fact though that AMD GPU Open is yielding results already and we have Open to thank for that too. I would rather have hardware created with the community in out than a Company that uses proganda to drive a narrative where a 3090 can be worth $2000 until the 4090 makes it undesireable. Then they give you exclusive "features" to make you want it.

By the way the 4060 is $60 more than the 7600 where I live. At that price the 6700XT is the obvious choice. I would not use a 4060 for anything more than 1080P though. At that price if the 16GB 7600XT is the same price, AMD software makes the difference. Do you know what Hyper RX is?

At any rate I am going back into Auto Mobillista 2 or TWWH3 as Gaming is my hobby. BTW I don't know about upscaling for either of those. WHat I know is they are fun to play and TWWH is great way to know how far extra VRAM goes.

The 8GB 4060 is already 3.7% faster than the 7600 but that's a negligible difference. The 4060 however has the Nvidia-only features while still being able to take advantage of most (all?) AMD-provided features as well. That seems worth an additional 10% and is an even better deal at 10% less than the 16GB 7600 XT. I recently got a cheap 2060 Super for the specific reason of trying out DLSS and it's a pretty good feature. FSR 2.x is very good but DLSS is just that bit better and yes it may be unfair, but the more widespread inclusion of DLSS really makes it a nice feature-add especially in an older, lower-end card like the 2060S.

I choose my GPUs by interest and my use-cases and use a 5600 XT regularly. Also I might be the only person on this site with a 7700 XT other than W1zz's review models, which is in my main gaming PC. I see and enjoy the value in both of those at the right price while playing the right games as you allude to, but the 7600 XT just doesn't do it right. It should be a cut down 7700 XT, not an OC'd 7600 with 2x VRAM.

But if it exists to hit a price point and AMD makes a real cut down 7700 XT in the 7700, then I guess it's down to buyer beware about the 7600 XT like the 16GB 4060 Ti.

 

[AusWolf]

AMD is late in the game again. They should have released this while Nvidia hadn't burst the "we've got more VRAM" bubble with the 4060 Ti 16 GB.

 

[kapone32]

The 8GB 4060 is already 3.7% faster than the 7600 but that's a negligible difference. The 4060 however has the Nvidia-only features while still being able to take advantage of most (all?) AMD-provided features as well. That seems worth an additional 10% and is an even better deal at 10% less than the 16GB 7600 XT. I recently got a cheap 2060 Super for the specific reason of trying out DLSS and it's a pretty good feature. FSR 2.x is very good but DLSS is just that bit better and yes it may be unfair, but the more widespread inclusion of DLSS really makes it a nice feature-add especially in an older, lower-end card like the 2060S.

I choose my GPUs by interest and my use-cases and use a 5600 XT regularly. Also I might be the only person on this site with a 7700 XT other than W1zz's review models, which is in my main gaming PC. I see and enjoy the value in both of those at the right price while playing the right games as you allude to, but the 7600 XT just doesn't do it right. It should be a cut down 7700 XT, not an OC'd 7600 with 2x VRAM.

But if it exists to hit a price point and AMD makes a real cut down 7700 XT in the 7700, then I guess it's down to buyer beware about the 7600 XT like the 16GB 4060 Ti.

What wide spread use of DLSS? How many Games released in the last 2 years support DLSS? I am not sure what the performance of the 7600XT 16GB will be I am just saying that because the 4060Ti made no real difference that the same will be true for AMD. I know that the narrative pushes those "features" hard but not everyone is into Gaming is into these things.

I

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

So Someone says the 7600 is 2% faster at raster

I said 7600 XT will be 2% faster at raster in the best case scenario for the said GPU. 7600 non-XT loses to 4060 in 99+ % scenarios, consumes more power, and also lacks DLSS and reasonable RT support. 7600 XT is more of the same so it's even worse value.

Do you know what Hyper RX is?

That's a gimmick. I tested it, image quality sacrifice is all around the place.

At that price the 6700XT is the obvious choice.

No, it's not. More than double the power consumption (110 W VS 230 W) is no joke. 4060 can make do in tiny PC cases with questionable quality PSUs, 6700 XT cannot. 6700 XT is also significantly slower at RT and doesn't have any access to DLSS whatsoever. XeSS also works like hot garbage on this GPU with XeSS Performance mode barely outperforming FSR Quality mode (not to mention how ugly XeSS P looks). RX 6800 non-XT is a better value and makes much more sense.

 

[kapone32]

No, it's not. More than double the power consumption (110 W VS 230 W) is no joke. 4060 can make do in tiny PC cases with questionable quality PSUs, 6700 XT cannot. 6700 XT is also significantly slower at RT and doesn't have any access to DLSS whatsoever. XeSS also works like hot garbage on this GPU with XeSS Performance mode barely outperforming FSR Quality mode (not to mention how ugly XeSS P looks). RX 6800 non-XT is a better value and makes much more sense.

That is entirely your opinion. All I can tell you is the 6700XT cost $439 where I live and the 6800 is $679. For the price the 6700XT is the price/performance card. As a result it was the top selling card for a while on Newegg. What is the difference between the 2 cards in use? I don't have a 14900K to worry about power draw. You can use a 500W PSU with a 6700XT and be happy. Of course even reviews said that the 4060 was basically a waste of sand for the features you mention like RT.

People keep telling me about DLSS like upscaling is so cool. Whether one is better than any other is of little import to me. I can tell you with a 6700XT you don't need Upscaling to enjoy 1440P Gaming.

We have no idea how the 7600XT will perform and it could supplant the 6700Xt as the card to get for AMD. If you want to turn on your PC and Game without for some blowing an entire pay cheque.

 

[AusWolf]

We have no idea how the 7600XT will perform and it could supplant the 6700Xt as the card to get for AMD. If you want to turn on your PC and Game without for some blowing an entire pay cheque.

I don't think the 7600 XT will replace the 6700 XT as the best-buy AMD card. The 6700 XT has 25% more shaders which you can't account for in clock speed alone, and the usefulness of the +4 GB VRAM on a card of this class is questionable at best.