It's much better than the 6600, and AMD already discounted the 6650XT and 6600 and these are best value 1080p cards rn.
i watched the reviews, I saw it is being compared to 4060 TI wrongly. If AMD & Nvidia had been nice and released cards that are comparable, as opposed to different parts of the stack, we wouldn't have people comparing two different tier cards as if they the same.
Which is fine IMO when you don't have an extra $130 to spend on a still only 8GB GPU with 128bits bus guaranteed to struggle with some current games at higher details and more of those in the near future.
Ahh it's refreshing to see a sense of humour on here
It can feel a bit dry of that on here.
What most people care the most about is performance per dollar regardless of what the products are branded like and on that metric, the RX7600's most direct competitor is the RX6650superflous-XT which costs almost exactly the same and performs almost exactly the same in most cases.
Remember this is the 7600 NOT the 7600XT. Compared to the 6600, by name its direct predecessor, the 7600 is 26% faster.
Yes, let's all trust HUB because it's not at all an AMD shilling channel. The RX 7600 review wasn't super positive, but HUB does say some idiotic stuff. Like this gem:
Considering the 4060 only has 70% the CUDA cores as 4060Ti, I'm guess around the performance of the 7600.
So a channel that bends over backwards (interpreting your comments on it) to justify a bad review on a GPU still makes them a shill for that company because they don't agree with your super correct take on the product?Yes, let's all trust HUB because it's not at all an AMD shilling channel. The RX 7600 review wasn't super positive, but HUB does say some idiotic stuff. Like this gem:
View: https://youtu.be/Yhoj2kfk-x0?t=1334
"It's also worth noting that texture quality has a massive impact on visuals and is far more significant than stuff like ray tracing for example."
Then goes on to talk about graphics cards that cost $200 more than the RX 7600 and how their 16GB of memory will make things so much better. Has he ever even tried turning down texture quality one level? Because high quality textures are mostly indistinguishable from ultra quality textures while using half the memory. How does anyone watch that and not get the AMD bias? That's a page practically ripped from AMD marketing.
Tom's did a really good job of explaining why higher resolution textures that bloat memory use aren't even that important. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/why-does-4k-gaming-require-so-much-vram Ray tracing done properly can make a far bigger difference than going from 1024x1024 to 2048x2048 textures.
But with AMD's <Mod Edit> ray tracing implementations that are in all the consoles, guess what? Console games have to be very careful with ray tracing so that performance doesn't completely suck. And we get half-assed solutions like the ray tracing shadows in every AMD promoted game that has the tech. From Dirt 5 to Far Cry 6 to the latest Star Wars, AMD promoted games that have ray tracing never look as good as Nvidia promoted games with ray tracing.
Look at Cyberpunk RT Overdrive for what ray tracing can actually do if devs fully embraced it. So much better than hybrid ray tracing, and it actually runs okay even on RTX 20-series cards with DLSS. On AMD GPUs, however, performance is horrible and the best you can hope for is maximum upscaling to get to 60 fps. Actually, not even then. This slide from Tom's article says it all:
Four years after the RTX 2080 Ti came out, it's still basically matching the ray tracing performance of AMD's fastest GPU, the RX 7900 XTX. Oh, and it had nearly the same price! So, if you spent $1200 in 2018 on a 2080 Ti, you could have used it for the past four and a half years. The old "Just Buy It" meme seems like maybe it wasn't even that far off. (Or even better: If you had bought an RTX 2080 Ti for $1200 in 2018, you could have sold it for $1500 in mid-2021 thanks to mining and GPU shortages!)
Also, love how HUB's like "This is way too expensive... it needs to be $250 at most!" Because if it were $20 cheaper, then it would be "laughably bad" judging by his RTX 4060 Ti review. RTX 4060 Ti is a bit faster than an RTX 3060 Ti, for the same price, and it has some new technology and uses 50W less power. "LAUGHABLY BAD!!!" It must have hurt HUB dearly to have to admit that AMD's RX 7600 was an even worse offering.
Until December I was running a Radeon R9 285. While the card didn't die, it was starting to have problems. My monitor was always pinkish (not the monitor either as it was fine connected to the laptop) which made me think the RAMDAC was failing on my old GPU.
Instead of writing all that you could have just said I prefer Nvidia gpu'sYes, let's all trust HUB because it's not at all an AMD shilling channel. The RX 7600 review wasn't super positive, but HUB does say some idiotic stuff. Like this gem:
View: https://youtu.be/Yhoj2kfk-x0?t=1334
"It's also worth noting that texture quality has a massive impact on visuals and is far more significant than stuff like ray tracing for example."
Then goes on to talk about graphics cards that cost $200 more than the RX 7600 and how their 16GB of memory will make things so much better. Has he ever even tried turning down texture quality one level? Because high quality textures are mostly indistinguishable from ultra quality textures while using half the memory. How does anyone watch that and not get the AMD bias? That's a page practically ripped from AMD marketing.
Tom's did a really good job of explaining why higher resolution textures that bloat memory use aren't even that important. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/why-does-4k-gaming-require-so-much-vram Ray tracing done properly can make a far bigger difference than going from 1024x1024 to 2048x2048 textures.
But with AMD's <Mod Edit> ray tracing implementations that are in all the consoles, guess what? Console games have to be very careful with ray tracing so that performance doesn't completely suck. And we get half-assed solutions like the ray tracing shadows in every AMD promoted game that has the tech. From Dirt 5 to Far Cry 6 to the latest Star Wars, AMD promoted games that have ray tracing never look as good as Nvidia promoted games with ray tracing.
Look at Cyberpunk RT Overdrive for what ray tracing can actually do if devs fully embraced it. So much better than hybrid ray tracing, and it actually runs okay even on RTX 20-series cards with DLSS. On AMD GPUs, however, performance is horrible and the best you can hope for is maximum upscaling to get to 60 fps. Actually, not even then. This slide from Tom's article says it all:
Four years after the RTX 2080 Ti came out, it's still basically matching the ray tracing performance of AMD's fastest GPU, the RX 7900 XTX. Oh, and it had nearly the same price! So, if you spent $1200 in 2018 on a 2080 Ti, you could have used it for the past four and a half years. The old "Just Buy It" meme seems like maybe it wasn't even that far off. (Or even better: If you had bought an RTX 2080 Ti for $1200 in 2018, you could have sold it for $1500 in mid-2021 thanks to mining and GPU shortages!)
Also, love how HUB's like "This is way too expensive... it needs to be $250 at most!" Because if it were $20 cheaper, then it would be "laughably bad" judging by his RTX 4060 Ti review. RTX 4060 Ti is a bit faster than an RTX 3060 Ti, for the same price, and it has some new technology and uses 50W less power. "LAUGHABLY BAD!!!" It must have hurt HUB dearly to have to admit that AMD's RX 7600 was an even worse offering.
FSR 2 works quite well and is comparable to DLSS. What other "features" do you mean? Hairworks??? I've not had any issues with the AMD software in a LONG time and I've had Radeon GPUs in my desktop for 10 years now. On the other hand on my work computer with an nVidia GPU I had problems with their software all the time. What finally fixed that problem was the pandemic and me being able to work from home. The AMD Software this or AMD Drives that is a falsity that people, like you, have tried to keep spreading for over a decade now to discredit AMD GPUs.
Yeah, that one was the last GPU I tested while writing this up. I had RX 6700 XT numbers, but the 6750 XT can be the better option depending on prices these days. So I finished the last benchmarks of the 6750 XT at like 3am, and the article went live at 7am. This is also why the 6750 XT wasn't in the 4060 Ti review...
Jeebus... you're running yourself through the wringer!
There is unimpressive and then there is delivering almost exactly the same performance for almost exactly the same price as two years old cards from the previous generation.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram