News Radeon RX 7600 Rumored to Be AMD’s Next Desktop GPU Release

[Admin]

AMD is rumored to skip straight to its Radeon RX 7600 desktop GPU release at Computex, leaving RX 7800 XT and RX 7700 XT cards on the back burner for now.

Radeon RX 7600 Rumored to Be AMD’s Next Desktop GPU Release : Read more

 

[ohio_buckeye]

I guess I can sort of see this given the fact that they still have the 6700/6750xt out there that will likely compete with the 4060ti, and that the 6800xt seems to be about on par with a 4070, plus the 6950xt is still out there as an alternative to the 4070/4070ti. Sure these consume more power but they may not feel like they have to rush the others out given that these are filling the product stack at the moment.

 

[oofdragon]

For real.. if AMD just took the opportunity and made the 7600XT a 3070Ti with 10~12GB for around $400 they could actually start climbing the hole they r in. Anyone can buy the 3070Ti right now around that amount at ebay but with "only" 8GB the Nvidia card is not as interesting as it looks. RT at present is seriously IMO only a gimmick and I'm not interested to pay the premium (fp$ compromise) for it, but a 3080 level card for around $400.. damn sign me in.

I just took a look at ebay and I found the RX 6800 selling around exactly $400, even lower.. this is exactly the card the 7600XT should be at $400 but with 10gb~12gb it would be enough. Less than this.. I fear for AMD GPU division

 

[RedBear87]

It looks like both Nvidia and AMD, in different ways, might prefer to not sell GPUs, rather than selling them at the lower prices that people would like to see.

 

[oofdragon]

Two years ago Nvidia launched the 3060 with 12GB for $329..... right now you can have one for $290. It plays any game maxed out at 60fps on a 1080p monitor, it plays RT games. What card AMD has this gen to compete? At $300 MSRP it won't be the 7600.. this one is supposed to trade blows with the 4060/3070 while the 7600XT should be up there with the 4060Ti/3070Ti. Can it launch a 7500XT with 12GB for more than $290 with subpar RT performance compared with the "old" 3060? Who would buy it? As I see it the only exit for AMD is to position the 7600 nonXT with 10GB as a 3070 for around $350 and the 7600XT with 12GB as a 3070Ti for $400. Anything less and really.. bye bye AMD, and we r screwed. Like, really, if you don't care the GPU has "only" 8GB there's the 2060S which is virtually a 3060 for $220 right now. It's 4 years old, yes, but the RX580 is even older and barely anyone cares as those GPUs can certainly last 8 to 10 years. So here we are.. AMD has a 2060S at $220, a 3060 at $290, and a 3070 at $360 to face. It cannot afford to launch 7600 with 8GB, it cannot afford to launch it at $400 if it has half the RT performance of a 3070, only die hard brand supporters would buy it.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Excitement about an entry level card costing $300+ in all likelihood...There's nothing to get excited about there.

 

[Giroro]

The "wait and see" attitude makes me think AMD's 7600 will be shockingly expensive. (The GPU 7600, not the CPU 7600. Terrible idea for them to give the same numbers to different products, btw. )

Well partly the attitude, but mostly because AMD launch prices always just copy Nvidia's pricing, with "not enough" bucks knocked off for their vastly inferior supporting tech.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

6950XT for $580 right now on Newegg, the 7600 needs to be prices lower than $400 to be a viable buy.

 

[tennis2]

They're leaving the 7700XT out so they can upcharge the 7600.
Then when they feel they've made enough money, they'll "discount" the 7600 and slot in the 7700XT.

Similarly, they don't want the 7800XT to cannibalize sales of the 7900XT

We're not dumb AMD....jeez

 

[oofdragon]

6950XT for $580 right now on Newegg, the 7600 needs to be prices lower than $400 to be a viable buy.

I noticed a $ pattern based on TimeSpy score.. for roughly $580 there's the 6950XT with 19500 points, for $480 there's the 6800XT with 16500, for $380 there's the 6750XT with 13500, and finally for $280 there's the 6650XT with 10500. Basically yeah.. for $400 it should be at least better than the 6750XT 16GB, what will AMD do? 7600 series better come either as the 3080 killer for $400, or the "6750XT 12GB" for $350, if not so I'm afraid it's DOA. Let's not forget that for $380 we have a second hand 3070Ti which is really basically a 3080 but with 8GB... AMD is at a tough spot right now

 

[Metal Messiah.]

The Radeon RX 7600 will be a small (Navi 33?) According to the latest information, GPU has 28 Compute Units (1,792 SPs) and a modest 8GB of VRAM.

Not exactly true, or is it ?. There were several reports and leaks on the block diagram of Navi 33's structure before.

IMO, the Navi 33 GCD is expected to feature 2 Shader Engines and each Shader Engine is expected to have 2 Shader Arrays (2 per SE / 4 in total). This rounds up to 16 WGPs or 32 Compute Units for a total of 2048 cores which is the same core count as the Navi 23 GPU.

• AMD Navi 33: 2048 Cores, 128-bit Bus, 32 MB Infinity Cache, 204mm2 GPU Die @6nm
• AMD Navi 23: 2048 Cores, 128-bit Bus, 32 MB Infinity Cache, 237mm2 GPU Die @7nm

The GPU will also come packaged with 32 MB of Infinity Cache, the same amount as the Navi 23 GPU, and across a 128-bit wide bus.

 

[Avro Arrow]

"If the rumors are correct, the new RX 7600 desktop graphics card aims to compete with the GeForce RTX 4060, not the RTX 4060 Ti or the known quantity of the RTX 4070."
This card will have its work cut out for it trying to compete with what's already there. Sure, it'll have an AV1 hardware encoder, use less juice and be better at RT than the RX 66xx and RX 67xx families but, seriously, at this tier, who cares about that? If AMD tries to charge more for it than the RX 6650 XT, it only guarantees that nobody will buy it. I'd much sooner pay $340 for an RX 6700 XT with 12GB of VRAM than I would $250-$300 for what is essentially an RX 6700 or RX 6700 XT with only 8GB of VRAM.

At $200, it will sell LIKE MAD but that's the only price point that would guarantee it to be a resounding success. If AMD has managed to do that, they're geniuses. If they haven't, they shouldn't have bothered wasting their time because it won't even be able to compete with their own last-gen cards. I guarantee you though, AMD will stupidly try to sell it at $250 or $300 at first. They've set the trend of idiotic pricing already with the RX 7800 XT that was re-named as the RX 7900 XT.

We'll see what happens but I don't have much hope or faith in them anymore. What remains true is that no card with only 8GB of VRAM should cost more than an RX 6650 XT in this day and age because it's going to be just another 1080p card very soon.

 

[Eximo]

Has to be more then the RX6600, practically. That typically sits at $220, $200 right now.

I don't think $250 is too unreasonable as long as it *bleeps* all over the RTX3050.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I guess I can sort of see this given the fact that they still have the 6700/6750xt out there that will likely compete with the 4060ti,

I don't think that's true. Logic would dictate that, based on usual performance tiers, the RTX 4060 Ti will likely compete with the RX 6800 when it comes to performance. I expect that it will be faster than the RX 6700 XT.

and that the 6800xt seems to be about on par with a 4070, plus the 6950xt is still out there as an alternative to the 4070/4070ti. Sure these consume more power but they may not feel like they have to rush the others out given that these are filling the product stack at the moment.

Absolutely. There's also the fact that if people were just fine with the power draw of the RX 6000-series when it came out, then they'll still be fine with it now. I'm sure not whining about how much my RX 6800 XT draws. I knew what it was when I bought it and my love for high-end video cards is one of the reasons that I have a 1kW PSU. It just removes any guesswork and it's not much more expensive than an 850W anyway.

 

[-Fran-]

The 6600XT debuted at... $350?

If the 7600XT can hang around at 3070/4060 level of performance and keep the $350 price, then it's going to sell a bit. The dream is for it to be under $300. Like $280 would be fantastic! One can dream. The 6650XT is going for around that price range, no?

Regards.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Has to be more then the RX6600, practically. That typically sits at $220, $200 right now.

Why? Until 5 years ago, it as customary that a level-6 card stayed about the same price from generation to generation. There's nothing practical about raising the price over the last-gen cards.

I don't think $250 is too unreasonable as long as it *bleeps* all over the RTX3050.

What does that have to do with anything? The RTX 3050 is roughly on par with the GTX 1070 (non-Ti). Even the RX 5600 XT *bleeps* all over the RTX 3050 (the RX 5600 XT is 13% faster than the RTX 3050), and that card is 2 generations older than the RX 7600 XT.

Saying that the card is worth $250 because it beats a card that probably loses to the R9 Fury-X doesn't make much sense to me. The RX 7600 should be no more than $200 and the RX 7500 should be no more than $150. That's the long and short of it.

 

[Eximo]

Why? Until 5 years ago, it as customary that a level-6 card stayed about the same price from generation to generation. There's nothing practical about raising the price over the last-gen cards.

What does that have to do with anything? The RTX 3050 is roughly on par with the GTX 1070 (non-Ti). Even the RX 5600 XT *bleeps* all over the RTX 3050 (the RX 5600 XT is 13% faster than the RTX 3050), and that card is 2 generations older than the RX 7600 XT.

Saying that the card is worth $250 because it beats a card that probably loses to the R9 Fury-X doesn't make much sense to me. The RX 7600 should be no more than $200 and the RX 7500 should be no more than $150. That's the long and short of it.

In all these posts lately about pricing I have been trying to be realistic. Everyone seems to want things to stay the same forever, or get amazingly better for the consumer. I agree, that would be amazing, but I don't see them doing it. They will pass whatever additional costs they get to the consumer, that is what business people do, particularly on low margin products. When I talk about Intel potentially being a disruptor, people tell me that is crazy, using the exact same arguments that show up here in favor of AMD.

The reason the 3050 is important is because it is priced at $240 right now. If you want a low end Nvidia card, is it the only (last gen) choice. RX6600 at $200 is a pretty good deal, as long as that stock exists I don't see AMD making a huge effort to undercut those sales. It doesn't matter much to the informed, but they aren't the people that actually buy large amounts of GPUs, it is the OEMs and the average consumer. 5600XT is a little iffy with the 6GB VRAM, not to mention that you can get the RX6600 for the same price, both new.

Not sure why anyone would want to buy an R9-Fury X at this point, would seem a very unwise choice at 8 years old. Cool that it is still somewhat relevant, but it wasn't best purchase choice then.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The 6600XT debuted at... $350?

Yes, and everyone said it was a rip-off at that price, because it was.

If the 7600XT can hang around at 3070/4060 level of performance and keep the $350 price, then it's going to sell a bit. The dream is for it to be under $300. Like $280 would be fantastic! One can dream. The 6650XT is going for around that price range, no?

Regards.

That's a pretty good dream but the truth is that if it's more than $200, people will just buy the RX 6600/6650 XT. If it's anywhere near $300, people will just buy the RX 6700 XT because it has 12GB of VRAM. AMD has to be able to compete with the previous-gen cards which are still plentiful to this day.

 

[Order 66]

Wouldn't it be great if hypothetically this GPU comes with 12+ GB of VRAM at less than $200 and ideally (for me anyway) only requires a 6-pin power connector? (I know this probably isn't possible from a BOM standpoint)

 

[tennis2]

Wouldn't it be great if hypothetically this GPU comes with 12+ GB of VRAM at less than $200 and ideally (for me anyway) only requires a 6-pin power connector? (I know this probably isn't possible from a BOM standpoint)

Keep dreaming

 

[Colif]

The GPU 7600, not the CPU 7600. Terrible idea for them to give the same numbers to different products, btw. )

They have done that in the past, there was a 5700 on both sides then too. They have also used XT on both sides, my CPU & GPU both have those initial after the number.
You would think they could find more numbers

 

[Order 66]

Keep dreaming

I knew there would be no chance but maybe if AMD wants to rub in Nvidia's face maybe they would accept a potential small loss on the sales of the GPU they could make up for it since people that want a decent new GPU would probably flock to AMD. there is a less than .01% chance, but still a chance.

 

[Avro Arrow]

In all these posts lately about pricing I have been trying to be realistic. Everyone seems to want things to stay the same forever, or get amazingly better for the consumer. I agree, that would be amazing, but I don't see them doing it. They will pass whatever additional costs they get to the consumer, that is what business people do, particularly on low margin products. When I talk about Intel potentially being a disruptor, people tell me that is crazy, using the exact same arguments that show up here in favor of AMD.

Intel could definitely be a disruptor and I truly hope that they succeed in taking market share from nVidia because that will help all of us. You won't see me saying otherwise. I may hate Intel as a company but I do want the market to be balanced between as many players as possible.

The reason the 3050 is important is because it is priced at $240 right now. If you want a low end Nvidia card, is it the only (last gen) choice. RX6600 at $200 is a pretty good deal, as long as that stock exists I don't see AMD making a huge effort to undercut those sales. It doesn't matter much to the informed, but they aren't the people that actually buy large amounts of GPUs, it is the OEMs and the average consumer. 5600XT is a little iffy with the 6GB VRAM, not to mention that you can get the RX6600 for the same price, both new.

The RTX 3050 is so weak as to be irrelevant. It gets beat by many cards that nobody would pay $250 for. Here's a list of video cards that are faster than the RTX 3050 (up to the RX 6600) according to TechPowerUp's GPU Database:
RX Vega 56
GTX 1070 Ti
RX 5600 XT
RX Vega 64
GTX 1080
RTX 2060
RX 5700
RX 6600
The RX 6600 is the most expensive in this list and it costs only $200 right now. Their MSRPs are irrelevant because all that matters is what they cost NOW. Clearly, being faster than the RTX 3050 doesn't make a card worth more than $200 in the current market. If nVidia wants to charge $240 for that piece of garbage, that's their problem and the problem of the dumba$$es who buy them. It's not the problem of people with brains like us.

Not sure why anyone would want to buy an R9-Fury X at this point, would seem a very unwise choice at 8 years old. Cool that it is still somewhat relevant, but it wasn't best purchase choice then.

Yeah, I was reading the TPU list too quickly and I should've written "GTX 1070 Ti", not "Fury-X". I apologise for that mistake but it really doesn't change the fact that being faster than an RTX 3050 doesn't make a card worth over $200.

 

[Order 66]

Intel could definitely be a disruptor and I truly hope that they succeed in taking market share from nVidia because that will help all of us. You won't see me saying otherwise. I may hate Intel as a company but I do want the market to be balanced between as many players as possible.

The RTX 3050 is so weak as to be irrelevant. It gets beat by many cards that nobody would pay $250 for. Here's a list of video cards that are faster than the RTX 3050 (up to the RX 6600) according to TechPowerUp's GPU Database:
RX Vega 56
GTX 1070 Ti
RX 5600 XT
RX Vega 64
GTX 1080
RTX 2060
RX 5700
RX 6600
The RX 6600 is the most expensive in this list and it costs only $200 right now. Their MSRPs are irrelevant because all that matters is what they cost NOW. Clearly, being faster than the RTX 3050 doesn't make a card worth more than $200 in the current market. If nVidia wants to charge $240 for that piece of garbage, that's their problem and the problem of the dumba$$es who buy them. It's not the problem of people with brains like us.

Yeah, I was reading the TPU list too quickly and I should've written "GTX 1070 Ti", not "Fury-X". I apologise for that mistake but it really doesn't change the fact that being faster than an RTX 3050 doesn't make a card worth over $200.

The only argument I could think as to buy a 3050 rather than those other GPUs is from an efficiency standpoint. For example, my PSU is only 400W and only has a 6-pin power connector however it could still theoretically power a 3050 with an adapter, but definitely not a 1080 since it requires 2 8-pin connectors. I would just buy a new PC but I don't have a lot of cash to spare (only enough for a $250-$300 GPU)

 

[Avro Arrow]

The only argument I could think as to buy a 3050 rather than those other GPUs is from an efficiency standpoint. For example, my PSU is only 400W and only has a 6-pin power connector however it could still theoretically power a 3050 with an adapter, but definitely not a 1080 since it requires 2 8-pin connectors.

That's not really a valid reason because the power draw difference between the RTX 3050 and RX 6600 is an insignificant 9W (credit to TechSpot):

Techspot RTX 3050 Review - Power Consumption
The power consumption is similar but the performance is not (again, credit to Techspot):

1080p:

1440p:

Techspot RTX 3050 Review - 12 Game Average

For only 9W more power draw, the RX 6600 is 17% faster than the RTX 3050 at 1080p and 26% faster at 1440p. Therefore, the RX 6600 has significantly more performance-per-watt making it far more efficient than the RTX 3050.

Based on this, I'm afraid that neither your power consumption or efficiency arguments hold water. Like, it's not even close.

I would just buy a new PC but I don't have a lot of cash to spare (only enough for a $250-$300 GPU)

Now I'm really confused because this argument is even more full of holes than your previous two. Here's why:

The least-expensive RTX 3050:
PNY RTX 3050 VERTO 8GB - $260
The least-expensive RX 6600:
ASRock RX 6600 Challenger D 8GB - $200

If you don't have a lot of cash to spare, do you really think that paying $260 for a card that gets it's butt kicked by a card that only costs $200? If you do, that might be why you don't have much cash to spare.

I don't know how you got the impressions that you did but it definitely wasn't through research because this all took me maybe ten minutes to put together.