Review AMD Radeon RX 7600 Review: Incremental Upgrades

[InvalidError]

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.

The only "product stack" normal people care about is price-based. Most people aren't going to care that the RX6600 is 25% slower than the RX7600 for $70 less when the RX6650superfluousXT performs almost indistinguishably from the RX7600 for $20 less.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

RX6650superfluousXT,

Was that meant to be superfluous? Either way it suits! 😉

 

[jeremyj_83]

The only "product stack" normal people care about is price-based. Most people aren't going to care that the RX6600 is 25% slower than the RX7600 for $70 less when the RX6650superfluousXT performs almost indistinguishably from the RX7600 for $20 less.

When going to make a purchase, sure. But are you looking to make a GPU purchase right now? I know I'm not as I just got one in December. We are comparing a new product and seeing how it performs against its predecessors. Ideally you want to see performance at the same location of the stack go significantly upwards. For the 7600 it gives you 25% more performance in the same place in the product stack as the previous generation. That is enough performance that is is now slightly faster than the previous top of stack in the 6600 range and is only slightly slower than the next segment. Is 25% absolutely amazing, no, but still a enough to bring it to 6700 levels. Now when you throw price into the equation the 7600 doesn't look as good, especially with the price drops on the 6600 series over the last month.

 

[InvalidError]

When going to make a purchase, sure. But are you looking to make a GPU purchase right now?

Regardless of when I may buy, I will always be comparing GPUs on a performance-per-dollar basis in the price range I am willing to pay for and for someone willing to pay $270, the RX6650superfluousXT for $20 less is a practically direct substitute at least with current drivers.

I know I'm not as I just got one in December. We are comparing a new product and seeing how it performs against its predecessors. Ideally you want to see performance at the same location of the stack go significantly upwards.

No. Ideally, you want performance per dollar to go up by meaningful amounts. The RX7600 has worse performance per dollar than the RX6600 and RX6650superfluousXT. It is a regression regardless of which one you compare it to, hence AMD's last-second emergency price drop to make it at least somewhat palatable.

 

[King_V]

Well, one of the good things about the release of the RX 7600 is that it has caused at least one sale on the RX 6600 to happen, with an ASRock model going for $179.99.

It's never been that low before.

Oh, and another I just stumbled across - an RX 6650 XT for $219.99, admittedly at Micro Center.

Almost like the RX 7600 has turned to its 6600, 6600 XT, and 6650 XT family members and said "Go forth. I shall now collect dust upon the shelves so that you don't have to."

Though I'm pretty sure the RX 7600's MSRP prices will not last long, first because of the price drops that will occur on the 66xx series, and with the added pressure of the 4060 non-Ti coming out.

 

[King_V]

As to the where in the product stack.. both comparisons make sense, as long as people are applying whatever their test is to both "sides" so to speak.

Yes, it's valid to say "this is how much the product in the same position in the stack has improved, but for this much more money" (ie RX 6600 vs RX 7600). A "how much has it progressed, and is it worth it?" scenario.

But, it's also quite fair to compare prices for cards that are roughly equal in absolute performance, or compare performance of cards of roughly equal pricing, even if they're in different positions in the stack of their generations. The "Yeah, I can get that, but I can get the same performance for less with the older card / I can get better performance with the same money for an older card."

In the former, you'd compare the 6600 to the 7600, and you'd then also compare the 3060Ti to the 4060Ti. In the latter, you'd compare the 6650XT or 6700 to the 7600, and you'd also compare the 3070 to the 4060Ti.

They both make sense, but for differing reasons. The only real problem arises if you try to use one of those comparisons for one brand, and the other comparison for the other brand. At that point, it becomes picking-and-choosing in the pursuit of fanboyism.

 

[rluker5]

While it may not make sense for people who already own something from the last generation or two, plenty of people have 5+ years old GPUs or are building new with no half-decent GPU to spare.

I'm still using a GTX1050, waiting for something decent to hit ~$260 CAN. I bought an open-box A750 for $270 a few weeks ago, ended up returning it as seemingly defective since it caused my PC to crash repeatedly.

I also had some stability issues.
I tracked it down to a too aggressive undervolt for my 13900kf. I increased the volts and it fixed it.
Some reason my A750 just needed more than my 3080 and 6800. It wasn't working the whole cpu that hard, maybe just hammering a single core for short periods. Or maybe pounding the part that talks over PCIe because of some rebar thing. Either way more volts fixed it with me. And I'm still well under stock volts.
Edit: this is just in case someone else has that problem with an arc.

 

[InvalidError]

They both make sense, but for differing reasons. The only real problem arises if you try to use one of those comparisons for one brand, and the other comparison for the other brand. At that point, it becomes picking-and-choosing in the pursuit of fanboyism.

Performance around a given price point (or conversely: price for a given amount of performance) works regardless of branding and manufacturer wherever competing products exist.

Comparing based on model number name only works when the manufacturer is consistent with its market positioning and pricing for a given brand. When namesake successors cost ~50% more than their predecessor currently retails at, they are basically priced one whole tier up without matching branding.

 

[InvalidError]

I also had some stability issues.
Edit: this is just in case someone else has that problem with an arc.

I tried a couple of things before coming to the conclusion that my A750 must have been defective:

News - AMD Radeon RX 7600 Specifications Reaffirmed in Leak: 2048 Stream Processors

Specifications of AMD's Navi 33 XL GPU revealed once again by a leak. AMD Radeon RX 7600 Specifications Reaffirmed in Leak: 2048 Stream Processors : Read more

forums.tomshardware.com

News - AMD Radeon RX 7600 Specifications Reaffirmed in Leak: 2048 Stream Processors

Specifications of AMD's Navi 33 XL GPU revealed once again by a leak. AMD Radeon RX 7600 Specifications Reaffirmed in Leak: 2048 Stream Processors : Read more

forums.tomshardware.com

I believe I gave the thing a more than fair shot, didn't work out. Now I'm hoping that BB's A750 $200 price wasn't a one-off to hopefully give the A750 a second shot at ~$250 CAN.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Comparing based on model number name only works when the manufacturer is consistent with its market positioning and pricing for a given brand. When namesake successors cost ~50% more than their predecessor currently retails at, they are basically priced one whole tier up without matching branding.

Pricing is also extremely volatile. A month ago the 6600 was retailing for $230 at the cheapest and the 6650XT was $300. Companies will also drop prices of their old model once the new ones come out which is probably why the 6600 series as a whole has gotten 35% cheaper. These factors will change the needle and perspective quite a bit at the time of purchase or when recommending a GPU to someone on the forums.

How about we use lauch MSRP instead. That is something that isn't going to be volatile as it is a fixed number. The RX6600's launch MSRP was $329 which is $50 higher than the RX7600's launch MSRP. Based on that the price/performance at launch for the 7600 is 48% higher than the 6600's launch. Sure the 6600 isn't selling for MSRP but you can see where this is adding unnecessary noise to an equation. One is able to look at both aspects price/performance or performance gain gen over gen as they are mutually exclusive ideas. The price/performance though only becomes relevant when purchasing or recommending though.

 

[InvalidError]

How about we use lauch MSRP instead. That is something that isn't going to be volatile as it is a fixed number. The RX6600's launch MSRP was $329 which is $50 higher than the RX7600's launch MSRP.

No sane person will use prices that are two years out of date and completely out of touch with the launch-day price structure to make buying decisions. Most reviewers pit new GPUs against what else is priced or performs similarly at launch. because that is what matters most to people looking to buy at a given price point.

 

[jeremyj_83]

No sane person will use prices that are two years out of date and completely out of touch with the launch-day price structure to make buying decisions.

Exactly. Price ONLY matters when buying or recommending. Pricing is something that is extremely volatile and in another week we could see the 6600 back up to the $230 it was in late April. Until you are buying or recommending price is a non issue.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Pricing is also extremely volatile. A month ago the 6600 was retailing for $230 at the cheapest and the 6650XT was $300. Companies will also drop prices of their old model once the new ones come out which is probably why the 6600 series as a whole has gotten 35% cheaper. These factors will change the needle and perspective quite a bit at the time of purchase or when recommending a GPU to someone on the forums.

This is not true, sorry. Newegg has for sure had the RX 6600 going for $209.99 in the past month or two, and I think it briefly touched $199.99 before. RX 6650 XT has been waffling between $249.99~$279.99 over the past several months.

How about we use lauch MSRP instead. That is something that isn't going to be volatile as it is a fixed number.

The AMD MSRPs were bogus for everything beyond the RX 6800 at launch, maybe the RX 6700 XT as well. Nvidia gave theoretical MSRPs for the RTX 30-series that were almost never viable during 2021 and early 2022, but those were the prices the GPUs would have been had cryptomining not gone crazy.

AMD in contrast jacked up their MSRPs on the RX 6600-class by roughly $100, so that it could take a bigger slice of the pie than the AIBs and retailers. (If anyone thinks AMD is "nicer" on prices than Nvidia, just remember 2021–2022. It's a corporation that is every bit as greedy as Nvidia.)

To be fair, AMD wasn't alone, and Nvidia's RTX 3080 Ti was crap pricing as well, which we're now apparently stuck with. 3080 Ti really should have been $799 MSRP, maybe $899 at most. I'd also say that the RTX 3070 Ti should have taken over the $499 MSRP of the 3070, pushed the vanilla 3070 down to $449 or even $399, etc. RTX 3090 Ti at $1999 was a joke as well.

Bottom line is that, were the past two years "normal," we could potentially use MSRPs. But they absolutely were not normal and thus pointing at them for anything is futile. The street prices now make far more sense than the original MSRPs on many GPUs.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

This is not true, sorry. Newegg has for sure had the RX 6600 going for $209.99 in the past month or two, and I think it briefly touched $199.99 before. RX 6650 XT has been waffling between $249.99~$279.99 over the past several months.


The AMD MSRPs were bogus for everything beyond the RX 6800 at launch, maybe the RX 6700 XT as well. Nvidia gave theoretical MSRPs for the RTX 30-series that were almost never viable during 2021 and early 2022, but those were the prices the GPUs would have been had cryptomining not gone crazy.

AMD in contrast jacked up their MSRPs on the RX 6600-class by roughly $100, so that it could take a bigger slice of the pie than the AIBs and retailers. (If anyone thinks AMD is "nicer" on prices than Nvidia, just remember 2021–2022. It's a corporation that is every bit as greedy as Nvidia.)

To be fair, AMD wasn't alone, and Nvidia's RTX 3080 Ti was crap pricing as well, which we're now apparently stuck with. 3080 Ti really should have been $799 MSRP, maybe $899 at most. I'd also say that the RTX 3070 Ti should have taken over the $499 MSRP of the 3070, pushed the vanilla 3070 down to $449 or even $399, etc. RTX 3090 Ti at $1999 was a joke as well.

Bottom line is that, were the past two years "normal," we could potentially use MSRPs. But they absolutely were not normal and thus pointing at them for anything is futile. The street prices now make far more sense than the original MSRPs on many GPUs.

Damn I never seen you call Nvidia or AMD outright greedy, you must be at your wit's end with these new GPUs!

 

[jeremyj_83]

This is not true, sorry. Newegg has for sure had the RX 6600 going for $209.99 in the past month or two, and I think it briefly touched $199.99 before. RX 6650 XT has been waffling between $249.99~$279.99 over the past several months.

Here is the average pricing history for the RX6600 over its life. As of April 14th the average price was $230 for the 6600. There were a few days in late Oct - early Nov in 2022 where it was $189 but quickly went above $200, all the way to $260 in March.

Average AMD Radeon RX 6600 8GB price history

The history of price changes for Average AMD Radeon RX 6600 8GB

howmuch.one

 

[InvalidError]

Exactly. Price ONLY matters when buying or recommending. Pricing is something that is extremely volatile and in another week we could see the 6600 back up to the $230 it was in late April. Until you are buying or recommending price is a non issue.

You cannot make a relevant comparison between parts without a cost-benefit analysis, which inevitably brings current pricing to the equation no matter when and for what reason that comparison is being made. Saying that the RX7600 is 20-25% faster than the RX6600 is pointless without also mentioning that it costs 35% more, which puts it in a different price bracket altogether.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Here is the average pricing history for the RX6600 over its life. As of April 14th the average price was $230 for the 6600. There were a few days in late Oct - early Nov in 2022 where it was $189 but quickly went above $200, all the way to $260 in March.

Average AMD Radeon RX 6600 8GB price history

The history of price changes for Average AMD Radeon RX 6600 8GB

howmuch.one

Congratulations! You just agreed with us while attempting to not agree for some reason.

Hint: AVERAGE price is not LOWEST price.

So if the AVERAGE price was $230 in April, that logically means some were selling for less than that and others were selling for more.

 

[jeremyj_83]

You cannot make a relevant comparison between parts without a cost-benefit analysis, which inevitably brings current pricing to the equation no matter when and for what reason that comparison is being made. Saying that the RX7600 is 20-25% faster than the RX6600 is pointless without also mentioning that it costs 35% more, which puts it in a different price bracket altogether.

Yes you can. If I were to ask you what is the fastest gaming GPU right now. The answer would be the RTX 4090. I am not bringing cost into the equation at all. Same as if I ask is the RX7600 faster than the RX6600. Neither of these things needs a cost benefit analysis or comparison of performance/dollar as the ONLY thing being asked is what is faster. A review can both show gen over gen performance growth and at the same time say that the current price doesn't make this card worth the money as other cards from the previous generation are just as fast and cheaper. They two statements are mutually exclusive of each other as one deals with absolute performance and the other brings in extra variables. You seemed to have understood this just a couple remarks ago when you walked into the MSRP red herring.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Congratulations! You just agreed with us while attempting to not agree for some reason.

Hint: AVERAGE price is not LOWEST price.

So if the AVERAGE price was $230 in April, that logically means some were selling for less than that and others were selling for more.

True some will sell for less and others will sell for more. However, that link was also showing things in the best light for an average. If we use the pcpartpicker pricing trends we can see that there was one right around $200 (give or take a few dollars) in April and none in March. It has their best fit line for prices on the 6600 appear to be closer to $300 and only in the last couple weeks dropping into the $250 range. https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/video-card/#gpu.chipset.radeon-rx-6600 I'd also point out that on the link I gave previously if you look it says the average price right now is $199. Based on pcparpicker prices at this exact moment the average price for the 6600 is $239. Sure that $410 card skews the average a lot. Now if we throw out the higest price we get a $215 average. Sounds like that pricing model earlier was using pretty close prices to the lowest for their average.

 

[InvalidError]

Yes you can. If I were to ask you what is the fastest gaming GPU right now. The answer would be the RTX 4090. I am not bringing cost into the equation at all. Same as if I ask is the RX7600 faster than the RX6600. Neither of these things needs a cost benefit analysis or comparison of performance/dollar as the ONLY thing being asked is what is faster.

While price may not be an object for people asking for the fastest GPU regardless of price, anything else will ultimately be a value call - knowing that the RX7600 is faster than the RX6600 does nobody any good without knowing how much more they would have to pay to get one.

If you ignore value completely, you are basically asking "Is a McLaren F1 faster than a Ford Pinto?"

There is little to no point in attempting to compare two products that are in different price brackets, the higher price bracket stuff will practically always be faster since being faster is the main reason they are in a different price bracket in the first place.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Yes you can. If I were to ask you what is the fastest gaming GPU right now. The answer would be the RTX 4090. I am not bringing cost into the equation at all. Same as if I ask is the RX7600 faster than the RX6600. Neither of these things needs a cost benefit analysis or comparison of performance/dollar as the ONLY thing being asked is what is faster. A review can both show gen over gen performance growth and at the same time say that the current price doesn't make this card worth the money as other cards from the previous generation are just as fast and cheaper. They two statements are mutually exclusive of each other as one deals with absolute performance and the other brings in extra variables. You seemed to have understood this just a couple remarks ago when you walked into the MSRP red herring.

While this is technically true — you can focus on whatever you want if you try hard enough — your whole premise of calling this “gen over Gen” falls apart when you realize that RX 6650 XT and RX 6600 XT were the whole Navi 23 die… and RX 7600 is also the whole Navi 33 die. There will not be an “RX 7600 XT” that uses Navi 33 and offers more CUs and shader cores than 2048.

Gen over gen, it makes far more sense to compare the full Navi 31 to Navi 21, Navi 32 with Navi 22, and Navi 33 with Navi 23. You’re attempting to paint AMD’s gains in a better light, and there’s no reason to do that.

Well, AMD marketing would of course do that. But it’s marketing’s job to try to make the new products look as good as possible. Nvidia did that with the RTX 4060 Ti and AMD did it with RX 7600.

As far as I can tell, there will not be an RX 7600 XT at all. Which I’m fine with. It would be telling if AMD decided to only use an XT suffix on 7700 and above. But maybe we’ll still get 7700 XT and a vanilla 7700. We’ll have to wait and see.

Actually, I'll take this a step further: I bet the RX 7600 was named the way it is (i.e. without an "XT" suffix) purely to allow AMD to compare it with the RX 6600. Because that is absolutely something that would happen. I do hope this means we might get an "RX 7500 XT" that uses a trimmed down Navi 33 and costs $199, because RX 6500 XT sucks rocks and needs to be replaced with something that has video encoding support and more than 4GB VRAM.

 

[jeremyj_83]

knowing that the RX7600 is faster than the RX6600 does nobody any good without knowing how much more they would have to pay to get one.

Except it does matter. For example knowing that the 6700XT is faster than the RTX3060 means when people ask for a specific budget you can work around those things. I've seen many times where people on the forums have asked for help with building a computer and don't know what GPUs are faster than others, especially across companies. Knowing right away that XYZ is faster than ABC can then allow you to work within pricing in this example to offer best price/performance. However, when all is said and done the price didn't matter until it was added at the end and the knowledge of what was faster was the first thing.

There is little to no point in attempting to compare two products that are in different price brackets, the higher price bracket stuff will practically always be faster since being faster is the main reason they are in a different price bracket in the first place.

Your argument is invalidated by the existence of the RTX 3060 being more expensive than the 6650XT and 7600 and same price as the 6700XT. In regards to the 6650XT and 7600 they are in different brackets and the 6700XT is in the same bracket.

 

[jeremyj_83]

While this is technically true — you can focus on whatever you want if you try hard enough — your whole premise of calling this “gen over Gen” falls apart when you realize that RX 6650 XT and RX 6600 XT were the whole Navi 23 die… and RX 7600 is also the whole Navi 33 die. There will not be an “RX 7600 XT” that uses Navi 33 and offers more CUs and shader cores than 2048.

Gen over gen, it makes far more sense to compare the full Navi 31 to Navi 21, Navi 32 with Navi 22, and Navi 33 with Navi 23. You’re attempting to paint AMD’s gains in a better light, and there’s no reason to do that.

The fact that this is full Navi 33 and there won't be a 7600XT was not put anywhere where in the article. At least not that I saw after reading it once and skimming it again. With this knowledge that puts the GPU into a different light in comparison to its predecessors.

 

[InvalidError]

Your argument is invalidated by the existence of the RTX 3060 being more expensive than the 6650XT and 7600 and same price as the 6700XT.

How so? The only thing I'm saying is that pricing is an integral part of any value call regarding any GPU comparison and the RTX3060 offering a similar performance for a higher price doesn't change that in any way. Unless someone is offering you a choice of free GPUs, nobody is going to bother asking which is faster without an intent to buy, recommend or at least be somewhat informed about the current market's state. How much performance you get for your dollars is the fairest way of comparing GPUs.

You are the one attempting the crazy gymnastics of disassociating pricing from GPU comparisons.

 

[RedBear87]

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.

Compared to the RX 6650 XT even RT doesn't get any meaningful boost

and the RTX 4060Ti actually is near 60fps at native 1080p Ultra, so I wouldn't call it exactly worthless.