Review AMD Radeon RX 7600 Review: Incremental Upgrades

[bigdragon]

Looks like another disappointing GPU product. However, AMD looks to have priced the 7600 fairly. I would have liked to see 12GB VRAM given where developers are going with the latest games.

In my personal use case, I do a lot of Blender work. AMD still hasn't caught up to Nvidia in Blender performance. I have a hard time seriously considering any AMD card even when gaming performance is good. It is news to me that Intel's GPUs are somewhat outperforming AMD GPUs in Blender.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I need that, but with me holding some GPUs while getting crushed. LOL

How many pots of coffee did you go through?

 

[jeremyj_83]

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.

Still has 4-5% better performance at 10% lower power usage. At the very least that is a meaningful performance/watt increase.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Now for the real controversial statement as both a 4K PC gamer and PS5 gamer: with 5th generation $500 consoles out there running games at 4k/60FPS, I just don't see how anyone would even remotely be interested anymore in building an entry level gaming PC for just 1080p or at best 1440p gaming these days.

More games available for the PC. You can upgrade your PC pretty easily. The games in 4k/60 on the console are also at lower quality settings to hit that speed. Mouse & Keyboard are still better than dual analog for First Person Shooters.

 

[InvalidError]

Now for the real controversial statement as both a 4K PC gamer and PS5 gamer: with 5th generation $500 consoles out there running games at 4k/60FPS, I just don't see how anyone would even remotely be interested anymore in building an entry level gaming PC for just 1080p or at best 1440p gaming these days.

I can see plenty of interest from people like me who already have a PC for non-gaming reasons and just want to toss a somewhat decent $200-300 GPU in to do some gaming on the side. I am not remotely interested in paying any more than I absolutely have to for a GPU even if that means having to play current games at lowest possible settings, which is how I'm still getting by with a GTX1050 today.

 

[InvalidError]

Still has 4-5% better performance at 10% lower power usage. At the very least that is a meaningful performance/watt increase.

That is barely above margin of error, not particularly meaningful and it costs ~$20 extra.

It needs to be another $20 cheaper to become a compelling product.

 

[Deleted member 2947362]

Are you concerned for a Friend a family member or even yourself ?

Are they/you

Spending a lot of time on their/your Computer ?

Seemingly random but frequently loud obscene out burtsts ?

Typing agressively on the keyboard ?

Up until early hours of the next morning ?

Willing to pay over the top inflated Prices ?

Spending more time bechmarking rather than gaming ?

Welcome, You are not alone and help is at hand.

Upgraders Anonymous, where you can help yourself and discuss your dismay with many mannny others who suffer from the same infliction.

Upgraders anonymous making life a little less stressful

 

[-Fran-]

This was an interesting short piece on VRAM investigation for some games. A note, as you'll probably notice it, I think? The framerate in the video does not look smooth, but commentary and graphs make me believe it could have been an issue with the editing. This definitely complements Jarred's article from before about the matter:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaLQ3I-xKzQ

EDIT: Apologies, but I'm kind of a Wendell fanboi, so please show him some love:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgX3Ckl4SE


Alongside Phoronix, he's the only one testing Linux. I don't know why, but AMD is now just a no-contest winner in Linux. That is good for the 1% of the world that wants to give it a try and 0.1% that actually uses it for non-pro work.

Regards.

 

[10tacle]

More games available for the PC. You can upgrade your PC pretty easily. The games in 4k/60 on the console are also at lower quality settings to hit that speed. Mouse & Keyboard are still better than dual analog for First Person Shooters.

Oh I fully agree on that with the mouse & keyboard as an old gamer. No question. However on graphics, that's largely debatable on side-by-side comparison while in action, at least with some games. For example, I have my gaming PC and PS5 connected to the same OLED 48" gaming monitor (Gigabyte Aorus which is an LG C1 TV panel). I have two racing games each on the same platform: Asseto Corsa and WRC 10 FIA World Rally.

To the eye when actually playing, I cannot tell the difference when the PC is max quality setting and running whatever the PS5 optimized settings are. However, in still photos, I can tell that distance draw details are slightly lower and jagged edge is more on the PS5 game (means less AA). But I don't see where that's worth 5x the cost of a gaming PC - and let's face it - still WAY better than playing 1080p with what entry level PC performance could offer.

I can see plenty of interest from people like me who already have a PC for non-gaming reasons and just want to toss a somewhat decent $200-300 GPU in to do some gaming on the side. I am not remotely interested in paying any more than I absolutely have to for a GPU even if that means having to play current games at lowest possible settings, which is how I'm still getting by with a GTX1050 today.

Oh for sure. But I had the young dedicated gamer in mind getting out on his own who is deciding on what to do for the first time who has neither a PC nor the latest console with a limited budget to work with. In fact, if I were looking to upgrade an old unused i5 2500K build with a 2GB GTX 680 and just wanted to get a new GPU and restore it, this would do the trick.

 

[hannibal]

AMD should have made a refresh of the RX 6650 XT and earn more money. If nothing really improved, then what's the point?

Refress 6650XT would cost $400... or more. That is why...

 

[sherhi]

Running a GTX 770 from 2013, still waiting on a good deal for a new GPU, maybe next generation...

I'm on 760 myself, card is still working, forum here recommended to go for 3060 for some 500€...I went for Series X instead and I have no regrets. I'm still looking for good new build but currently nothing excites me (I like several PC games that would run better on good PC but I'm not paying 1500€ or more for it).

You might not have a choice if the card decides its had enough. They don't last forever. I have had 4 GPU since 2013, two of them are spares now (GTX 960 & 2070 Super), one died (GTX 980) and last is only 6 months old... how time flies.

I am sure the newer GPU look better than your current one.

Yes they do for most people, this RX 7600 would give me some 350-400% performance increase but that's not really the issue. What bothers me is price I would have to pay for end result, more so with brand new PC and currently to remain at my 1080p I would have to pay almost the same price (inflation taken into account) as I did almost 10 years ago. That's a stagnation which no consumer likes. To get to 1440p the price just skyrockets to some 1600-1700€ (and I already have case, fans, some storage that may die soon but still usable, keyboard and mouse - all excluded from that price).

This kind of HW does not die that often, if my card died it would be hard for me to replace it due to PCIe 3 and old system in general, I want to postpone upgrade for as long as possible up until win10 dies. There is always a choice, thank god, even intel card start to look kind of normal...in this situation, when your GPU dies and you did not plan on buying one then you sit down, go through bang for buck stats and buy the best within your budget. If you plan on replacing GPU then you should wait for whole product line to be released, Atleast to see your options and go from there.

It looks like the RX 7600 didn't lose to the RX 6600 in even a single game.

My small consumer brain can't handle such a wild concept.

Coming from 4060Ti results yeah it's wild 😜

While reading this article, I'm not sure which card they are comparing it too. I see comparisons to RX 6600, 6600xt, and 6650xt? It should be compared to 6600 only as that is the card it replaces in the stack. Other cards are step(s) up in the hierarchy.

It's related to price, performance jump from 6600 predecessor is very solid. These last gen cards in comparison are valid maybe just now, few months later you won't find them on the shelves. The best thing about this card is it's relatively low MSRP and prices should be falling over time.

 

[Why_Me]

Running a GTX 770 from 2013, still waiting on a good deal for a new GPU, maybe next generation...

I take it you don't game.

 

[sherhi]

Oh I fully agree on that with the mouse & keyboard as an old gamer. No question. However on graphics, that's largely debatable on side-by-side comparison while in action, at least with some games. For example, I have my gaming PC and PS5 connected to the same OLED 48" gaming monitor (Gigabyte Aorus which is an LG C1 TV panel). I have two racing games each on the same platform: Asseto Corsa and WRC 10 FIA World Rally.

To the eye when actually playing, I cannot tell the difference when the PC is max quality setting and running whatever the PS5 optimized settings are. However, in still photos, I can tell that distance draw details are slightly lower and jagged edge is more on the PS5 game (means less AA). But I don't see where that's worth 5x the cost of a gaming PC - and let's face it - still WAY better than playing 1080p with what entry level PC performance could offer.



Oh for sure. But I had the young dedicated gamer in mind getting out on his own who is deciding on what to do for the first time who has neither a PC nor the latest console with a limited budget to work with. In fact, if I were looking to upgrade an old unused i5 2500K build with a 2GB GTX 680 and just wanted to get a new GPU and restore it, this would do the trick.

I have 4790k with gtx760, it can still play older grand strategies (paradox games etc), most mobas, online shooters...I used to play MMORPGs but they slowly force old GPUs out with each expansion and after one expansion I realized it's time for upgrade...not worth it to go for 3060 for 500€ at that time even though CPU could handle it without serious bottlenecking. 1000€ for entry level 1080p new build, 1600-1700€ for 1440p build....or 500€ Series X. Consoles do affect PC games a lot with their HW specs so you want to mimick those in PC build, sure sure 6 core CPU is fine...now, but you should really go for 8 cores minimum, sure sure 8gbs ram on GPU are fine, barely, for now...but you want those 12-16gbs...all these things add up in final price. Many people also already have 4k TVs for watching movies/TV shows.
300€ is series S or switch, 500€ is series X or PS5 territory, any new GPU in this price bracket better deliver some results. Excluding nieche arguments like "but I like to play this game/I like to eshop on PC/but I also do some work on PC and occasionally game/...." we are talking about substitute products whether people like it or not.

 

[sherhi]

I take it you don't game.

Why? You would be surprised how many games cards like that can play. You can enjoy thousands of hours in most online shooters, mobas, MMORPGs, games like Skyrim (if you avoid graphics mods), grand strategies like EU4...I put few hundreds of hours into ESO until I hit the wall in some of the newest zones with updated graphics and then I stopped playing.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

LTT pointed out in his review that console ports struggle with 8GB VRAM on PC, including on 1080p.

16GB VRAM is the standard on consoles. And consoles being twice the market of PC, dictate the standard.

Expect this 8GB VRAM problem to get worse over time as more console games are released.

LTT "Whether you like it or not, this is going to be a trend gamers. Consoles dictate the rate of growth. It's not a coincidence that the PS5 and Xbox both features a shared 16GB memory architecture and suddenly we see games that demand significantly more VRAM."

 

[InvalidError]

Expect this 8GB VRAM problem to get worse over time. 8GB VRAM is no longer sufficient.

8GB is only a problem if you want to play the newest games at high/ultra settings, which usually isn't the intention of people shopping under $300. Bump details down a notch or two and those are still perfectly fine. Most people shopping around $250 or lower are perfectly willing to make whatever sacrifices may be necessary to avoid paying over $300 for a GPU.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

8GB is only a problem if you want to play the newest games at high/ultra settings, which usually isn't the intention of people shopping under $300.

seriously, what?

First 1440p was the standard for midrange cards like the 60 series. Now it's apparently 1080p.

And now we're going to argue that people spending $300 on a brand new GPU, somehow should not expect to be playing games in 1080p on high settings?

What's the next excuse? That $300 GPU are meant to play indie games in 720p?

 

[InvalidError]

seriously, what?

First 1440p was the standard for midrange cards like the 60 series. Now it's apparently 1080p.

And now we're going to argue that people spending $300 on a brand new GPU, somehow should not expect to be playing games in 1080p on high settings?

For the few days I owned an A750, I could play most of my newer games in UHD at medium-ish settings and 60fps or push details one notch higher while nudging resolution down to 75% scaling. All perfectly fine compromises as far as I am concerned when the alternative is sticking with my GTX1050 for however much longer where lowest possible details for everything are required just to hit 35-45fps at 1200p in newer games.

Thing is that today's games at medium details still look better than most games from 6+ years ago at ultra details, nothing to get upset about, game detail levels are just scaling faster than $250 GPUs are.

The cost of TSMC wafers has gone up 5X since then. Add everything else that has gone up 20-50% and shipping which has doubled, it is a small miracle that GPUs worth gaming on can still be had new starting from $200. I never thought Intel would let the A750 sink that low before cancelling it.

 

[Colif]

Expectations of pricing seems to not match real world. You want more for less... everyone wants that. There is more at play here than just company profiteering

I can't remember ever only paying $269 for a GPU, maybe 20 years ago... prices of cards in other countries have been above what US pays for years now. GTX 960 I bought in 2015 cost $335 so I guess that is close. .. notices it had 2gb of ram. that would be fun in games now... GTX 980 was close to 1k as I remember, I thought about a 980 TI but it was $500 more. 2070 Super cost same price as 980, and well.. current GPU cost 600 more again.

Price to performance was never reason I upgraded. I just bought a new card when I needed one. I probably just assumed that newer models were better than what I had. And it was probably true for most of that time... a 4060TI would be an upgrade still on my old 2070 Super. https://www.videogamer.com/tech/gpu/rtx-4060-ti-vs-2070-super/. Not sure what card I would buy from 40 series, its easier to judge them as someone who doesn't need a new card...

Intel drivers still need more consistency. Userbenchmark can't wait until they can always ignore AMD and only compare Nvidia to Intel... wonder which one they favour more. Regardless, every article will always say don't buy AMD

 

[salgado18]

Remember this is the 7600 NOT the 7600XT. Compared to the 6600, by name its direct predecessor, the 7600 is 26% faster.

Yes. Then take the 6700 and rebrand to 7600 XT, take the 6750 XT and rebrand to 7700, and so on, until the 7800 XT is the 6950. Then you launch only two new cards, the 7900's, which seem an improvement but are actually the same but bigger.

I really hoped for much better cards, but this gen really seem like just a slight refresh.

 

[jeremyj_83]

if my card died it would be hard for me to replace it due to PCIe 3 and old system in general

I just upgraded my 10 year old 4770k with PCIe3 with an RX6700XT in December and it works fine.

 

[InvalidError]

I can't remember ever only paying $269 for a GPU, maybe 20 years ago...

I paid ~$120 for a Rage128 card, then ~$150 for a Radeon something 8500 LE, then got an X700 as a birthday gift, a $140 HD3650 as a placeholder card in my Core2, an HD5770 for $160 and a GTX1050 for ~$170 just as GPU prices were taking off on the first crypto boom.

I don't play games enough to care for spending more than $200 on GPUs.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Yes. Then take the 6700 and rebrand to 7600 XT, take the 6750 XT and rebrand to 7700, and so on, until the 7800 XT is the 6950. Then you launch only two new cards, the 7900's, which seem an improvement but are actually the same but bigger.

I really hoped for much better cards, but this gen really seem like just a slight refresh.

Your rationale makes no sense. You want a repeat of the R9 29X series being pushed beyond their limits and renamed for minimal gain.

 

[jeremyj_83]

can't remember ever only paying $269

I paid like $150 for a new GeForce4 Ti 4200 128MB card in 2002. My Radeon 9800 Pro was only like $300 in 2003.

 

[Colif]

My GTX 260 cost $279 in 2008 but it was hardly an amazing card. First DX10, really didn't like DX 10 games though... sort of like the first RT cards really aren't much good at it. Nvidia were still selling promises they couldn't deliver back then... could also be my PC wasn't amazing.

I don't recall how much I paid for any of the other cards prior to that. It is only the last 3 cards I have bought that have approached 1000 and in case of last, gone past it. I don't buy best, I normally aim for 2nd best. That is what I did this time too. (best doesn't necessarily mean on charts, it can just be in a family)