News AMD RX 7600 Could Cost More Than the RX 6650 XT

[Admin]

Early RX 7600 listings suggest the price of AMD's upcoming midrange GPU could be $300, which is 15% more expensive than AMD's current RX 6650 XT cost.

AMD RX 7600 Could Cost More Than the RX 6650 XT : Read more

 

[oofdragon]

DOA

 

[MergleBergle]

Don't worry, if that ends up being the *actual* price here, Canada always pays a "not USA" tax before tax. You can probably knock $30-$50 off the USD price after conversion. TRUST ME, I KNOW.

 

[zecoeco]

A totally misleading title and a laughable bias against AMD.
It says more expensive than RX 6650, while in the article it mentions that it's rumored to cost $299, which less than the MSRP of RX 6650 XT when it launched, but more than the current discounted price.
WHO ON EARTH expects new GPUs to cost less? It's all going upwards, and everybody knows that.
So, to think that AMD will release a GPU priced less than the current price of its previous generation equivalent is laughable, nonsense and completely unrealistic in the wake of the economy inflation and expensive new nodes and wafer costs.

 

[Giroro]

AMD doesn't compete on price, they just follow whatever Nvidia dictates, with a slight discount for their inferior tech.

If the De Facto Monopoly decides GPUs are going to be a greedy cash-grab, then AMD will be a good little boy and slot their cards neatly into their proper place in-between Daddy Nvidia's lineup.
AMD likes laughably absurd profit margins too, you know.

 

[MergleBergle]

A totally misleading title and a laughable bias against AMD.
It says more expensive than RX 6650, while in the article it mentions that it's rumored to cost $299, which less than the MSRP of RX 6650 XT when it launched, but more than the current discounted price.
WHO ON EARTH expects new GPUs to cost less? It's all going upwards, and everybody knows that.
So, to think that AMD will release a GPU priced less than the current price of its previous generation equivalent is laughable, nonsense and completely unrealistic in the wake of the economy inflation and expensive new nodes and wafer costs.

Excellent point. And frankly most 6650 xt models I see here sell around those prices (or higher) on the same website. Only the Sapphire Pulse model is noticeably less expensive. And from what I've read, this looks to be a faster, more efficient card. It's not the equiv of a 6600 vanilla 2.0. I fully expect this to be faster than a 6650 XT by 10% or perhaps a little more.

 

[Amdlova]

DOA

 

[-Fran-]

I'm looking forward to see how AMD is going to put their foot in their mouth at Computex with this announcement xD

I am SO looking forward to it.

Regards.

 

[Cooe]

😑🤦 RDNA 3 has NUMEROUS significant internal architecture upgrades/differences... The architecture literally has two separate clock-speeds. When do you remember RDNA 2 doing that? If RDNA 3 had no performance gains, the new 780m iGPU would be no faster than the 680m it replaced as they both have 12CU's. No offense, but Aaron's work for this site has just been getting worse and WORSE, and more and more lazy recently.

 

[-Fran-]

😑🤦 RDNA 3 has NUMEROUS significant internal architecture upgrades/differences... The architecture literally has two separate clock-speeds. When do you remember RDNA 2 doing that? If RDNA 3 had no performance gains, the new 780m iGPU would be no faster than the 680m it replaced as they both have 12CU's. No offense, but Aaron's work for this site has just been getting worse and WORSE, and more and more lazy recently.

Uh... You can say a car can have 3 4 or 5 wheels and as a consumer you wouldn't care about it, unless you have a specific use for one less wheel, the extra wheel or just the standard 4.

What does RDNA3 have that RDNA2 does not for which you particularly care about? Better Ray Tracing? A slightly better performance per watt? Pure better "raster" performance? More VRAM (?) ?

Whether this card makes it will come down to the price and the outgoing competition. If this card gives less performance and less VRAM compared to the 6700 10GB for about the same price at a slightly higher power, then it's basically DOA to a lot of people until better performers in the range stop being sold. That's just the way it will go.

Funnily enough, if the 3050 is any indication, the 4060 price will be irrelevant and it'll just sell like hotcakes xD

Regards.

 

[btmedic04]

This article is awful on so many levels. im convinced that the only reason aaron still has a job here is because all of the clicks his articles get to point out his awful points

you cannot compare the shader count between two different architectures and draw conclusions from that. rdna 3 has double the ALU's per shader compared to rdna 2. secondly, rdna 3 doubles the L0 and L1 cache, while adding 50% more L2 cache. rdna 3 also reduces cache latency compared to rdna 2 due to clock speed improvements and doubles the bandwidth compared to rdna 2. infinity cache bandwidth is also doubled, and these are just some of the architectural improvements that you so conveniently glossed over, let alone any clock speed improvements.

Lastly, do you really think that amd is going to continue to produce rdna 2 gpus once they launch their full rdna 3 product stack? if so, ive got a bridge to sell you.

Do I think its a good buy at $300? Not really. 8gb equipped gpus need to be below $300, not at $300 in 2023. Wait for the reviews and inevitable price drops after launch

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

A totally misleading title and a laughable bias against AMD.
It says more expensive than RX 6650, while in the article it mentions that it's rumored to cost $299, which less than the MSRP of RX 6650 XT when it launched, but more than the current discounted price.
WHO ON EARTH expects new GPUs to cost less? It's all going upwards, and everybody knows that.
So, to think that AMD will release a GPU priced less than the current price of its previous generation equivalent is laughable, nonsense and completely unrealistic in the wake of the economy inflation and expensive new nodes and wafer costs.

We have a new GPU coming, which may perform on par with the existing RX 6650 XT, which currently costs $20–$40 less in the US. It's not that we expect a new GPU that's faster to cost less, but it needs to either be higher performance for the same price, or similar performance for a lower price.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

you cannot compare the shader count between two different architectures and draw conclusions from that. rdna 3 has double the ALU's per shader compared to rdna 2. secondly, rdna 3 doubles the L0 and L1 cache, while adding 50% more L2 cache. rdna 3 also reduces cache latency compared to rdna 2 due to clock speed improvements and doubles the bandwidth compared to rdna 2. infinity cache bandwidth is also doubled, and these are just some of the architectural improvements that you so conveniently glossed over, let alone any clock speed improvements.

Say what you will, but AMD's RDNA 3 architecture doesn't bring anything significantly new to the midrange sector. All the stuff you mention is fine, and ultimately should mean higher performance per clock... but what will the RX 7600 deliver in the end over an RX 6650 XT? That's the real question, and the one you're ignoring.

Because tweaked cache sizes, doubling the ALUs, etc. is what AMD says RDNA 3 provides. On paper, it all sounds fine. In practice, though? RX 6950 XT has 5,120 ALUs that provide ~23 teraflops of compute, while RX 7900 XT has 5376 streaming processors and 10,752 ALUs that provide a theoretical ~52 teraflops of compute. It also has a 320-bit memory interface and 20GB compared to 256-bit and 16GB. How much faster does it end up being?

According to all of my benchmarks: 19% at 4K, 18% at 1440p, and 15% at 1080p. That's 126% more theoretical compute for up to 20% more performance.

So when you crunch all the numbers and see a potential 32 CUs in the 7600 providing ~21 teraflops of theoretical compute, and RX 6650 XT with 32 CUs and ~11 teraflops, I think it's entirely valid to question whether it's actually going to be any faster in practice.

Let's assume RX 7600 ends up being ~30% faster than the RX 6600. RX 6650 XT is already 25% faster than the RX 6600. So we'd be looking at 5% more performance, for 15% more money, going by US prices. Or if you prefer, RX 6650 XT cards cost $360 CAD to $390 CAD for the Asus Dual, ASRock Challenger D OC, Sapphire Pulse, MSI Mech 2X OC, and XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Core. If the base model RX 7600 cards are $440 to $450 CAD for similar models (Sapphire Pulse and MSI Mech 2X), that's still about 15% more than the RX 6650 XT. The nicer models like a Sapphire Nitro+ or Asus Strix will probably cost over $500 CAD, keeping the same price difference as the base models.

 

[mitch074]

Or it might be seen as a refresh for the workhorse - does it have to be twice the speed of the 6600? No, it has to be a bit faster on a similar price point, as the 6600 is a fine GPU that will eventually go away.
Who remembers the RX480? Even AMD had forgotten about it when they introduced FSR for the 580 and up (oh, and the 480 too). Why? Process node.
Hère, AMD are doing the same: replace a high volume part with a very similar one using a more scalable manufacturing process. We can expect cheaper cards after a few months, and maybe a 16 GB version.

 

[neojack]

300$ for an entry level GPU... mmm no thanks i would prefer to take a chance buying a used, higher end card.

 

[Why_Me]

Don't worry, if that ends up being the *actual* price here, Canada always pays a "not USA" tax before tax. You can probably knock $30-$50 off the USD price after conversion. TRUST ME, I KNOW.

This ^^

 

[btmedic04]

Say what you will, but AMD's RDNA 3 architecture doesn't bring anything significantly new to the midrange sector. All the stuff you mention is fine, and ultimately should mean higher performance per clock... but what will the RX 7600 deliver in the end over an RX 6650 XT? That's the real question, and the one you're ignoring.

Because tweaked cache sizes, doubling the ALUs, etc. is what AMD says RDNA 3 provides. On paper, it all sounds fine. In practice, though? RX 6950 XT has 5,120 ALUs that provide ~23 teraflops of compute, while RX 7900 XT has 5376 streaming processors and 10,752 ALUs that provide a theoretical ~52 teraflops of compute. It also has a 320-bit memory interface and 20GB compared to 256-bit and 16GB. How much faster does it end up being?

According to all of my benchmarks: 19% at 4K, 18% at 1440p, and 15% at 1080p. That's 126% more theoretical compute for up to 20% more performance.

So when you crunch all the numbers and see a potential 32 CUs in the 7600 providing ~21 teraflops of theoretical compute, and RX 6650 XT with 32 CUs and ~11 teraflops, I think it's entirely valid to question whether it's actually going to be any faster in practice.

Let's assume RX 7600 ends up being ~30% faster than the RX 6600. RX 6650 XT is already 25% faster than the RX 6600. So we'd be looking at 5% more performance, for 15% more money, going by US prices. Or if you prefer, RX 6650 XT cards cost $360 CAD to $390 CAD for the Asus Dual, ASRock Challenger D OC, Sapphire Pulse, MSI Mech 2X OC, and XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Core. If the base model RX 7600 cards are $440 to $450 CAD for similar models (Sapphire Pulse and MSI Mech 2X), that's still about 15% more than the RX 6650 XT. The nicer models like a Sapphire Nitro+ or Asus Strix will probably cost over $500 CAD, keeping the same price difference as the base models.

thing is, the rx 7600 is a replacement for the rx 6600, not the 6650xt. we wont know until launch day where it falls on the performance chart. also bear in mind that the rx 6600 launched at $329 (which as we all know was almost never at during the shortages.) lastly, everyone knows that once the hype train wears out, or they dont sell, amd has no qualms about lowering the price.

Do i think supply will run out on the 6650xt? sooner rather than later. a quick perusal at my local microcenter shows 32 total cards of varying models priced from $241-$350 with an average price of $281.97, granted thats just one reference point. Newegg doesnt show how many are in stock, but there are 6 models with an average price of $290 before current promos (likely put in place to clear inventory.)

that $10-$20 difference between the 6650xt and 7600 gets you say 5% more performance and full AV1 support while the improved RT performance and DP 2.1 really dont matter at this price point. do i think it fair to make comparisons based off of shader count alone? no. both my gtx 760 and gtx 1060 3gb had 1152 shaders, but we as enthusiasts know that the 1060 was far superior. the beginner or the parent shopping for a pc for their kid this fall may not know that. to compare products based on shaders alone is misleading to non-enthusiasts and at one point was not tolerated here at Toms.

lastly, do i think its overpriced at $300? absolutely. hence why in my original post, i said as much and that people should wait until the hype train runs out of steam and prices drop.

 

[oofdragon]

2023-2025 entry level champ: $250 6700XT 12GB, no contest

 

[ilukey77]

2023-2025 entry level champ: $250 6700XT 12GB, no contest

100% if you can get a new 6700xt or a 6750xt 12gb is a really good buy

 

[thisisaname]

A totally misleading title and a laughable bias against AMD.
It says more expensive than RX 6650, while in the article it mentions that it's rumored to cost $299, which less than the MSRP of RX 6650 XT when it launched, but more than the current discounted price.
WHO ON EARTH expects new GPUs to cost less? It's all going upwards, and everybody knows that.
So, to think that AMD will release a GPU priced less than the current price of its previous generation equivalent is laughable, nonsense and completely unrealistic in the wake of the economy inflation and expensive new nodes and wafer costs.

Yes the best we could hope for it more powerful for the same price and it was never going to be a lower price.