Review AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT review: double the memory and higher clocks, still Navi 33

[usertests]

But I don't know that anyone is seriously talking about 3GB GDDR6/GDDR7 chips right now.

Micron 24 Gb GDDR7:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...e-in-2028-256gb-ddr5-12800-ram-sticks-in-2026

Based on Micron's roadmap, the next version of GDDR — GDDR7 — is set to arrive by late 2024, boasting a data transfer rate of 32 GT/s (128 GB/s bandwidth per device) and capacities of 16 to 24Gb.

AMD's biggest mistake in Navi based GPU generation is AMD Navi 33 GPU. It does not get the same smaller process fab node like its pricey siblings.

There's nothing wrong with using an older, cheaper node... if it gets a cheaper price. RX 6600 got to below $200.

 

[-Fran-]

This is a very meh'stastic GPU, haha.

Thanks for the review as always Jarred!

I'll have to admit I thought the increased clocks and no increased memory BW/speed would be less of an improvement, but it seems to show this card will age way better than the 8GB model will and this is also true (only on memory size) for the 4060ti 16GB, except the price difference compared to their 8GB bretheren is different, in favour of AMD. From what I've read the $60 extra is very close to the added BOM cost of the card, so it sounds fair to me?

As for the "direct" competition of this card... Outside of the US, from what I've seen myself (so, anecdotal), the A770 is about £100 over the 8GB model everywhere I've seen it available (it's been unobtanium for me; I want one!) and hovering the £380 price point, which is a bit too much IMO. There is no argument from me when comparing against the RX6700XT, as that card has aged beautifully from it's "meh" to "ugh" debut reviews. It has now become a darling in the ~300 price range (with the RX6700), which I find what "aging gracefully" is all about. Although it's more about the price drops vs the performance. Anyone looking for pure gaming prowess, the RX6700XT is a no brainer at the same price point.

Personally, I think it's a good card only because it's capable enough for anyone looking for AV1 (AMD encoder craptastic support notwidstanding XD) and wanting to keep a working card for a good few years. The price point, keeping the new horrible pricing of GPUs in perspective, is not terrible for what it is. It'll be more relevant once the 6700XT stops being sold, for sure.

Regards.

 

[radosuaf]

I had such hopes for a serious contender in the value area for RDNA3 but it does not deliver at all. Quite strange AMD didn't give more market push to 6700 10GB that I own - PS5 alike GPU, so most of the games will be playable at decent settings until PS6 comes out, 16 PCIe lanes, 160-bit memory bus, >8 GB VRAM, runs off one 8-pin power cable. UV+OC and you catch up lower clocked 6700 XTs...
Sure 6700 XT is that bit faster, but also more expensive and power hungry. Depends on what you're after.

With FSR3 & AFMF (not that is useful for me, anyway, but probably some people are after it) available for RDNA2 this one does not make much sense at all.

 

[tvargek]

such a performance hole between 7600xt and 7700xt and AMD is incompetent to fill it with anything but old 6750xt, that's why there is 4060ti
on the other hand, same could be said for Nvidia's gap 4060ti-4070...

 

[-Fran-]

No article about fact AFMF went live today with 24.1.1.?

https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-24-1-1

I might need to find a game to play now.

More than just AFMF!

"Various encoding support within AMD Software including AVC, HEVC and AV1 codecs have undergone additional optimizations to improve video encode quality."

And: "AMD Video Upscaling".

Looks like I'm in for a video encoding roundup myself today

Regards.

 

[Amdlova]

RDNA 3 is Dead / RDNA 4 maybe DEAD last Hope RDNA 5 ...

at this rate nvidia will launch a 5060TI with 5% greater specs... "5060Ti, offers same performance than a 4070 with lower price and a 96-bit bus"

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

>...[RX 7600 XT] basically ties the RX 6700 XT.

>Current prices put the 7600 XT about $60 higher than the RX 7600. That's not a terrible price to pay, but neither does it make for an amazing deal.

It's not proper to compare 7600XT's MSRP to 6700XT's clearance price and 7600's street price and make a value judgment on that. Whatever tech merits your benchmarks show, their credibility is diminished by the slanted price valuations.

In effect, your value assessment is valid today--on day one or week one of release, but not when the card's pricing inevitably drops to probably ~$300, or when the 6700XT is no longer available, as I doubt you will go back and revise your summation to take the altered pricing/value into account some days or weeks from now. That makes your review pertinent to the regular readers here, but not to the wider audience at large.

The effect is more pronounced given that the 7600XT is a value product. Value buyers don't rush out to buy products on day 1 of release, and they don't buy at MSRP if at all possible. The 7600 quickly dropped from $300 to $250 after release, and that's what value buyers would expect from 7600XT, to drop to at least $300 if not lower.

I understand that as a reviewer, you can only make value assessment based on present pricing, and not on guesses of future prices even if reasonable. But the above factors need to be taken into account as well. My suggestion is that, rather than predicating value on price so much, that you leave the "value" portion more open-ended, and simply present the tech merits as the main valuation. Readers don't need to be led by the nose toward which card to buy; they can figure the pricing part out by themselves.

Flip that around: Why wouldn't a reviewer — or anyone looking to buy a new graphics card — look at all of the competing options? Sure, 6700 XT might disappear in the coming weeks/months, and when it's gone, the 7600 XT has a bit less competition from previous gen to worry about. But the fact that it loses in performance to a card that has been selling at roughly the same price point for close to a year now is pretty telling.

The RX 7600 had a $299 MSRP before launch, AMD dropped that to $269 based on early feedback ahead of the launch. I was never a $300 in practice, other than for silly "overclocked" models that don't really perform any better, and it dropped to $250 on occasion since launch.

This has been a recurring theme with RDNA 3, though: same performance and same price (basically) as existing 6000-series parts, with slightly lower power draw and new features like DP2.1 and AV1 encoding. It's a weak generation of GPUs overall, continuing the trend of RDNA 2 where it has to compete on price more than anything.

 

[baboma]

>Why wouldn't a reviewer — or anyone looking to buy a new graphics card — look at all of the competing options?

The issue of that rationale is, as said, that it's a pricing snapshot in time. Because pricing is dynamic, as well as availability of clearanced parts, basing your valuation on a snapshot means it's only valid for a short time window (after launch).

As mentioned, your review pieces are beneficial to regular readers of THW who directly visit the site on a daily/weekly basis, but not to the wider audience who read them via Google search some months from now (probably during fall) when they contemplate their next buy.

>The RX 7600 had a $299 MSRP before launch, AMD dropped that to $269 based on early feedback ahead of the launch. I was never a $300 in practice

Yes, I misspoke on the 7600. MSRP was $270 ($269), and street was $250. It's back now to MSRP, which is normal since pricing typically snaps back after the holiday season is over (start of a new year is a dead time). Pricing for all items will drop again as we near the next buying season. 7600XT will be around ~$300 or lower, depending on demand. Value buyers know the cycle and when best to buy, which is never right after launch. But yes, comparing MSRP to MSRP was proper.

>Sure, 6700 XT might disappear in the coming weeks/months, and when it's gone, the 7600 XT has a bit less competition from previous gen to worry about. But the fact that it loses in performance to a card that has been selling at roughly the same price point for close to a year now is pretty telling.

I wasn't wrong about your comparison with the 6700XT. Again, you're comparing MSRP to clearance price. That is slanted, especially as you made it the main crux of your 7600XT valuation (the 6700XT compare is in your piece's subhead, and is referenced throughout the piece.)

As always, it's not a binary yes-or-no situation, but how much. Comparing prices of available parts is fair game, but your piece should be able to stand alone even after the price compare is no longer valid. Yours can't. The 6700XT compare is front and center of your piece. I'm not saying you shouldn't price compare. I'm saying it should be an adjunct, not the end-all of the valuation. The card's tech merits should stand apart from the price valuation.

Anyway, I say this knowing full well that things aren't likely to change. You've been doing this for a long time. Price-compare (MSRP vs clearance price) is your MO. It's hard to have to alter one's MO.

>This has been a recurring theme with RDNA 3, though: same performance and same price (basically) as existing 6000-series parts, with slightly lower power draw and new features like DP2.1 and AV1 encoding. It's a weak generation of GPUs overall, continuing the trend of RDNA 2 where it has to compete on price more than anything.

I agree with your tech assessment. I don't think the competitive picture will change in the near future, as AMD is scrambling to catch up with Nvidia on the AI front, and (consumer) discrete GPUs remain in the periphery of attention.

Speaking of AI, I'm hoping that we'll see reviews incorporating more AI benchmarks as GPUs begin to take on the dual-role of AI accelerators. Your inclusion of Stable Diffusion is appreciated, but I'd like to see more generalized benchmarks as well, eg something to cover MS' TOPS requirement for AI PCs. That of course depends on use cases that have yet to materialize, so I'm hoping you will keep abreast.

 

[Eximo]

The information is going to get out of date one way or the other, I still look at old reviews to answer questions. New drivers and new platforms will significantly change those numbers, but at a certain point the hardware itself fades into obsolescence. Like arguing with a printed newspaper weather forecast.

If people are interested enough in getting the best bang for the buck at any given price bracket at any given time, they will hopefully post a question to their hardware forum of choice.

 

[baboma]

>If people are interested enough in getting the best bang for the buck at any given price bracket at any given time, they will hopefully post a question to their hardware forum of choice.

First, that defeats the purpose of having a review in the first place, if people have to ask the price/perf question when they want to buy. Better is to have a review that separates the tech compare (ie FPS & features) from the price compare. Then readers can make their own price-compare decision based on the tech compare, which may not be against a clearanced part (6700XT) that's no longer available.

Second, expecting people to make an account to ask question may be reasonable, but isn't realistic. A prospective buyer would more likely skim reviews and base their impressions on whatever the writer is conveying, which for this review is predicated on a slanted MSRP-vs-clearance price compare, for a part that may no longer exist at the time of reading.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Well, AMD's version of the 4060ti 16GB, I would say... although, to be fair, it does give SOME performance benefit over the 7600 non-XT. The 4060 Ti 16GB gave just about nothing over the 4060 Ti 8GB (for gaming purposes, an edge case or two notwithstanding)

The performance benefit is mainly at 1440p with ultra high textures. And this is not it's primary target resolution due to low raster. While there is a small clock bump, most 7600 can achieve this clock. Not even the memory got a clock boost. Higher res textures require higher bandwidth because there is more data to transfer to the GPU.

However the new crop of games, especially those using ue5/lumin&nanites are making low end cards woefully underpowered, and will make this card obsolete in a few years.

Alan wake 2 is a prime example of this. And while it can run around 60fps, that is with fsr. That means there is ZERO headroom for future games. And fsr at 1080p stinks

It's like putting an air cooled vw beetle engine in a Ferrari body then selling it for $100k

 

[King_V]

This is a very meh'stastic GPU, haha.

Not at all! Because, uh, I said so?

I have (un)officially declared the Battle For Meh™ at some point in the past, and that was strictly due to the whole idea of the RX 6400, GTX 1630, etc. I informally roped the RX 5300 (OEM only) in there because I happened to succumb to the temptation of buying one of them. The GTX 1650 GDDR5 I guess qualifies as well, as the RX 5300 tends to nip at its heels.

I might even call the GTX 1630 Sub-Meh™, a category I came up with approximately 30 seconds ago.

In my own head, I sort of roped the RX 5600 OEM into Meh™, not because it was such a weak-sauce card, but because it was just this oddball. Honestly, though, it probably belongs in a separate category, but I haven't put any clear thought into it yet. Maybe both the 5300 and 5600 OEMs are the "oddballs," but the 5300 also qualifies for Meh™

I had a point when I started this post, but, frankly, I can't remember what it was now.