Review AMD Radeon RX 7600 Review: Incremental Upgrades

[RedBear87]

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

Bill of materials might have improved, TSMC N6 is denser than N7, assuming that production costs aren't significantly higher they'll end up with more GPU chips from the same wafer. The only other option, quite simply, is that RDNA3 didn't live up to AMD's expectations in full. A rebranding would have been a no brainer if neither is true.

 

[salgado18]

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

That's the point, I don't want it, but it feels like it. Same performance, same power, same price, different name. At least a rebrand would let them earn more money to develop a trully better card, not a brand new chip that acts just like the old one. I don't want AMD throwing money away, they need to earn plenty of it, because Intel is here and they have the funds to play the long game.

 

[InvalidError]

That's the point, I don't want it, but it feels like it. Same performance, same power, same price, different name. At least a rebrand would let them earn more money to develop a trully better card, not a brand new chip that acts just like the old one.

Except it isn't the same. It has updated architecture with roughly twice the raw processing power, updated display outputs, updated video encoder, AI engines the previous generation didn't have, a slightly better manufacturing process that saves 15% on die size and slightly better power efficiency.

The RX7600 performing mostly the same as the RX6650superfluousXT seems like a driver bottleneck.

 

[Amdlova]

@JarredWaltonGPU can you make a review of these new rx7600 and 4060ti on old system like 9600k 9700k. If the 8x connection will be some kinda of degradetion. I think people will be buying these new graphics will have old cpus with pci x 3 gen.

 

[Colif]

It would be better to wait and compare 7600 against 4060 base model when released.

Really only being compared now as they came out same week. Not really same performance levels. No one expected a 7600 to beat a TI model, and if they did, they were dreaming. They not even same price range.

If AMD & Nvidia released cards in same order, it would make it easier to compare.

 

[virgult]

People want a brilliant GPU and they wanna pay $250 for it, as if the whole pandemic, parts shortage and a historic inflation went over their head. This might sound like a radical idea, but mid-range starts at $500 now.

Well, our earning potential hasn't changed and we still have £250 in our pocket. So even if we didn't grumble, we still would have to skip the generation, buy used or buy entry-level anyway, so at least let us grumble. Maybe we can pressure manufacturers into making something other than utter junk in the lower end.

 

[Deer87]

Hmm, I'm not directly dissapointed about this lauch, but I guess I had hoped for something more significant. With a 3060 I don't feel temptet at all, but we will have to see what happens in the 7600xt/7700 space instead

 

[salgado18]

Except it isn't the same. It has updated architecture with roughly twice the raw processing power, updated display outputs, updated video encoder, AI engines the previous generation didn't have, a slightly better manufacturing process that saves 15% on die size and slightly better power efficiency.

The RX7600 performing mostly the same as the RX6650superfluousXT seems like a driver bottleneck.

Yes yes, but apart from the video and display updates, the rest didn't mean much. It doubled its performance in AI, but is still a franction of Geforce's performance. Same with RT, which many say doesn't matter, but actually does, and AMD is losing hard. It is an improvement outside of gaming, but not enough to be a strong contender. And in gaming, well, I'll start looking for an RX 6700 XT, as it will probably perform the same and will be cheaper than the 7700.

All that said, I think Jared should retest this card a month or two from now, when drivers are more mature. Maybe there is performance left on the table.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

I have a 5 year old GPU (2070) but I can't justify buying any card this generation. I'd like to buy a 4070ti but I can't do it with less that 16GB of RAM. I use a 4K TV so I like to use as high a resolution as possible.

Pretty much where I stand as well. I have an Alienware R10 that came with an RTX 2070 Super and later I purchased an HP Omen 30L with an RTX 3080. At the time, the 3080 was pretty good at 4K but with newer games it's slowly becoming a 1080P ultra GPU. I'm fine with that.

However, I plan on holding off on any future upgrades for the next several years until I can run the AAA games in 4K ultra with all the bells and whistles enabled with a minimum of 120FPS.

 

[jeremyj_83]

That's the point, I don't want it, but it feels like it. Same performance, same power, same price, different name. At least a rebrand would let them earn more money to develop a trully better card, not a brand new chip that acts just like the old one. I don't want AMD throwing money away, they need to earn plenty of it, because Intel is here and they have the funds to play the long game.

Tell me do you complain when the next generation of the nVidia cards only perform as well as the Ti versions from the previous generation? Heck the 4060Ti is only as fast as the 3070 did you complain about that and make the same argument? Of course you didn't because the the halo 4060 version moved up a stack. Even though that only equated to 15% more performance. That said I highly doubt the 4060 will have 3060Ti performance. I hope you are complaining about that and saying that nVidia should have just rebadged the 3060. In the AMD case the 7600 increase performance by 25% which put it slightly ahead of the 6650XT and slightly behind the 6700. Heck the 7600 in just rasterization based gaming is 17% faster than the 3060. I wouldn't be surprised if the 7600XT performs around that of the 6700XT when it is released.

 

[InvalidError]

Tell me do you complain when the next generation of the nVidia cards only perform as well as the Ti versions from the previous generation? Heck the 4060Ti is only as fast as the 3070 did you complain about that and make the same argument?

Most people wouldn't be complaining if it at least brought meaningfully better performance per dollar (25+%) instead of almost the same performance using cheaper hardware at the same MSRPs branded one marketing tier down.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Most people wouldn't be complaining if it at least brought meaningfully better performance per dollar (25+%) instead of almost the same performance using cheaper hardware at the same MSRPs branded one marketing tier down.

Priced the same as the previous model but offering 25% better performance doesn't move the performance/dollar upwards almost 25%?

 

[InvalidError]

Priced the same as the previous model but offering 25% better performance doesn't move the performance/dollar upwards almost 25%?

The difference is less than 10% in most benchmarks. When the memory bandwidth gets hit hard, as is likely to more commonly be the case with future games, the 3060Ti beats the 4060Ti.

A GPU that performs between -10% and +10% of its namesake predecessor in over half of benchmarks isn't a 25% performance-per-dollar improvement.

 

[jeremyj_83]

The difference is less than 10% in most benchmarks. When the memory bandwidth gets hit hard, as is likely to more commonly be the case with future games, the 3060Ti beats the 4060Ti.

A GPU that performs between -10% and +10% of its namesake predecessor in over half of benchmarks isn't a 25% performance-per-dollar improvement.

What are you talking about? In the 9 games used for rasterization testing at 1080p ultra settings only a single game had less than a 20% performance increase going to the 7600 from the 6600 and that was Forza Horizon 5 with a 3.5% increase. Every other game had AT LEAST a 22% increase in performance with some being in the 40% range. Even the geometric mean when including RT has the 7600 28% faster than the 6600 at 1080p.

Going to 1440p ultra the 9 game geometric mean again has the 7600 26% faster than the 6600. Going game by game the lowest performance increase again was in Forza but this time it was 14.5%.

No one expects the vanilla 7600 to be competing with the 4060Ti. My guess is that the 7600XT will give the 4060Ti a good run for its money in terms of performance. Being close in rasterization but losing in RT.

 

[sherhi]

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

I did not mean it would not work (intel GPUs make no sense but would probably work as well but hampered?), it's just not worth it imo, your CPU is most likely a bottleneck (not big but still), I prefer to make big upgrades for as little money as possible.

 

[digitalgriffin]

16GB at $325 would have been more viable an option.

It's no faster than the 6650. But that's no surprise given the specs. RT should get a decent boost, but at this tier RT is worthless. Even the 4060ti is worthless for RT.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I did not mean it would not work (intel GPUs make no sense but would probably work as well but hampered?), it's just not worth it imo, your CPU is most likely a bottleneck (not big but still), I prefer to make big upgrades for as little money as possible.

It was a MASSIVE upgrade for me. I went from a Radeon R9 285 > RX6700XT. The cost was all of $320 and my GPU performance increased 500%. For example I went from 30fps in Borderland 3 on very-low setting on the 285 > 80fps on ultra settings. Using very-low I was pushing over 150fps with the 6700XT. Is it possible that I could get a few extra fps with a new CPU, sure, but with a 3440x1440 monitor I am offloading a lot more to the GPU than the CPU.

 

[InvalidError]

What are you talking about? In the 9 games used for rasterization testing at 1080p ultra settings only a single game had less than a 20% performance increase going to the 7600 from the 6600 and that was Forza Horizon 5 with a 3.5% increase. Every other game had AT LEAST a 22% increase in performance with some being in the 40% range. Even the geometric mean when including RT has the 7600 28% faster than the 6600 at 1080p.

The most direct comparison to make with previous gen is the RX6650superfluousXT, not the RX6600. There is no performance per dollar to be gained from the RX7600 over what is already available on the market.

 

[jeremyj_83]

The most direct comparison to make with previous gen is the RX6650superfluousXT, not the RX6600. There is no performance per dollar to be gained from the RX7600 over what is already available on the market.

Why is the 6650XT the most direct competition for the 7600? They are not in the same point of the product stack. The 6650XT is the TOP of the 6600 line but the 7600 is the BOTTOM of the 7600 line. You are purposely trying to use a false equivalence to make an argument to support your opinion. Overall the 7600 is on average 3% slower than the 6700. It has essentially moved up an entire stack in average performance for the bottom tier of that line.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Why is the 6650XT the most direct competition for the 7600? They are not in the same point of the product stack. The 6650XT is the TOP of the 6600 line but the 7600 is the BOTTOM of the 7600 line. You are purposely trying to use a false equivalence to make an argument to support your opinion. Overall the 7600 is on average 3% slower than the 6700. It has essentially moved up an entire stack in average performance for the bottom tier of that line.

RX 6600 uses Navi 23. RX 6650 XT uses Navi 23. They're the same chip. The difference is that, back when they launched, Ethereum mining was still going crazy and all GPUs were sold out. So AMD gave the 6600 a $329 MSRP, and the 6650 XT got a $399 MSRP. As soon as Ethereum mining died, prices plummeted. Right now the 6600 is a $199 part, and the 6650 XT is a $250 part.

Given the 7600 is $270, that makes it a direct competitor to the 6650. Comparing it to a cheaper and slower GPU just to try and make it sound better doesn't actually make it better. At the same price, the 7600 is a better option than the 6650 XT. It might even be worth the extra $20 (AV1 support, DP2.1, boosted compute in a few workloads). But it's not a spectacular product, which is why we gave it 3.5 stars.

If it drops to <$250 soon, it becomes more attractive as an upgrade option for older PCs. But it's still not really an upgrade to the RX 6650 XT; it's a sideways step with pretty much imperceptibly higher performance in games.

 

[InvalidError]

Why is the 6650XT the most direct competition for the 7600? They are not in the same point of the product stack. The 6650XT is the TOP of the 6600 line but the 7600 is the BOTTOM of the 7600 line.

Because they are the closest in retail price and bottom-line performance-per-dollar is what sane people are usually most interested in no matter what the product is branded like.

Insisting on strict namesake comparison while ignoring everything else already available around the same price point is madness. A product's market viability is dictated by what competing alternatives are available on the market for a similar amount of money, not what the product is named.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I posted this comment in another thread but it's every bit as relevant here as it is there:

This card is DOA. Why would anyone pay $270 for an 8GB RX 7600 when they could have this:
XFX Radeon RX 6700 Speedster SWFT 10GB - $290

The RX 6700 is faster and has 2GB more VRAM. This is why I said that the RX 7600 will be an abject failure at any price over $225.

The RX 6650 XT isn't the bane of the RX 7600, the RX 6700 is. For some reason it gets largely ignored (like, it's not even in the benchmark list) but it's the best card to buy for under $300 right now and it makes the RX 7600 look absolutely ridiculous at anything over $225.

 

[jeremyj_83]

RX 6600 uses Navi 23. RX 6650 XT uses Navi 23. They're the same chip. The difference is that, back when they launched, Ethereum mining was still going crazy and all GPUs were sold out. So AMD gave the 6600 a $329 MSRP, and the 6650 XT got a $399 MSRP. As soon as Ethereum mining died, prices plummeted. Right now the 6600 is a $199 part, and the 6650 XT is a $250 part.

Given the 7600 is $270, that makes it a direct competitor to the 6650. Comparing it to a cheaper and slower GPU just to try and make it sound better doesn't actually make it better. At the same price, the 7600 is a better option than the 6650 XT. It might even be worth the extra $20 (AV1 support, DP2.1, boosted compute in a few workloads). But it's not a spectacular product, which is why we gave it 3.5 stars.

If it drops to <$250 soon, it becomes more attractive as an upgrade option for older PCs. But it's still not really an upgrade to the RX 6650 XT; it's a sideways step with pretty much imperceptibly higher performance in games.

I know that both the 6600 and 6650XT use the same Navi 23 die, just one has more CUs, higher clock speed, and faster RAM. I was getting at comparing the top of the old stack vs the new bottom of the stack doesn't make sense when looking at gen over gen performance at the same location in the stack. When you throw price into the equation, then that does make things different. However, now you are throwing in a secondary factor into the comparison and that does make the bottom of the stack Navi 33 not look as good overall.

I am also surprised to see how prices of the 6600 series has dropped so much. As of a few months ago the vanilla 6600 was still selling for $230-250 and the 6650XT was starting over $300. Now the 6650XT is starting at $240 which is really not bad performance for the price.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Because they are the closest in retail price and bottom-line performance-per-dollar is what sane people are usually most interested in no matter what the product is branded like.

Insisting on strict namesake comparison while ignoring everything else already available around the same price point is madness. A product's market viability is dictated by what competing alternatives are available on the market for a similar amount of money, not what the product is named.

Comparing products at the same point in a product stack is something that is done all the time. Especially when you are trying to see increases in performance at the same point in a stack for year over year increases. Now when you throw price into the equation you find that you get about 25% better performance with the 7600 vs 6600 for a 35% increase in price. Does that make much fiscal sense, probably not. Do note that as of April 14th the 6600 was selling for $230 at the cheapest and the 6650xt was selling for $300.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Good deal at $270, thanks for the review Jarred.

I can't agree with you because of what happens when the 7 and the 6 trade places:

RX 7600 8GB - $270
RX 6700 10GB - $290

Their speed is about the same... except in cases where 8GB isn't enough VRAM and the RX 6700 leaves the RX 7600 in the dust.

Because of the RX 6700's existence, the RX 7600 is DOA at any price over $225. That 10GB frame buffer is a major advantage over 8GB at this time and people will pay extra for it.

I would happily pay an extra $20 to ensure that I don't encounter VRAM overflow at 1080p ultra, wouldn't you?