Radeon RX 7600XT Reviews

CAD4466HK

CAD4466HK

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
2,777
 
Short answer, no. When normalized for clocks, both the 8 GB and 16 GB versions give the same performance in the vast majority of titles. There are a few title like Halo, where 8 GB versions are missing textures and heavy RT scenarios, but those are mostly unplayable at this performance level.

The AMD 7600xt is made completley pointless by... the AMD 6700xt. The 3 year old 12 GB 6700xt still has enough vram while being a good margin faster and a similiar price as the new 7600xt.

Intels new ARC cards should not be ignored at this price level either.
 
From nVidia, the 4060 is behind on rasterization, but ahead on RT, cheaper, and lower on power draw. The 3060 (12 GB VERION!!), another 3 year old card, makes a compelling argument as well.
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
The AMD 7600xt is made completley pointless by... the AMD 6700xt. The 3 year old 12 GB 6700xt still has enough vram while being a good margin faster and a similiar price as the new 7600xt.
Click to expand...
but the 6700xt is getting harder and harder to get new. (edit: also a different tier)
intel beating it anywhere is whats surprising me...
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the 7600xt struggles against it's predecessor.

The 4060 line is trash anyways. It's the 3050 of the 4000 series, the FX 5800, the GTX 480..... Yeah I have one......
 
pendragon1 said:
6600xt?
'cause the 6700xt is a different class...
Click to expand...
Numbering wise, yes, but that has become arbitrary over the years. Price is what matters and the 6700xt is not that hard to find.

There is also the 6650xt and 6700 10g (which is admittedly hard to find)

Point is, as much as evecryone hates rebadges, a rebadge of a 6700xt at a similiar price with a few tweeks would have been prefered.

Even better, though, would have been a nerfed Navi 32 with a full 192 bus and 12 GB which would have undercur the 4060ti 8 GB in price while matching it in performance (with more vram).
 
a 6700xt replaced the 5700xt, and a 7700xt replaced the 6700xt. there was a 5600xt, 6600xt and now a 7600xt, they are performance tiers, prices are fucked.
i have a 6700 10gb...
maybe, if it were the same tier.
sure, but id prefer if we stopped neutering the bus speeds and go back to 256+
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
a rebadge of a 6700xt at a similiar price with a few tweeks would have been prefered.
Click to expand...

6700 is on 7nm. TSMC is moving all customers to 6nm (including consoles). Only RDNA 2 parts on 6nm are 6500xt & 6400xt

OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
better, though, would have been a nerfed Navi 32 with a full 192 bus and 12 GB which would have undercur the 4060ti 8 GB in price while matching it in performance (with more vram).
Click to expand...
A $350 navi 32 would be good for consumers but profit margin would suck for AMD as it is not a monolithic chip.

Ideally monolithic RDNA 4 equivalents should be out in 6 months time
 
This is another one of those bad at launch GPU cards by AMD but once RDNA 2 stocks run out, it should cost around $250 - $300, probably around the range of 6700 10gb.

But I wonder if RDNA 4 cards launch, will the 16gb 7600xt continue to remain on the market 🤔
 
pendragon1 said:
a 6700xt replaced the 5700xt, and a 7700xt replaced the 6700xt. there was a 5600xt, 6600xt and now a 7600xt, they are performance tiers, prices are fucked.
i have a 6700 10gb...
maybe, if it were the same tier.
sure, but id prefer if we stopped neutering the bus speeds and go back to 256+
Click to expand...

I miss AMD being the big bus bargain brand. 384 bit HD 7870 ... 512!! bit R9 290 / 390 ... 256 bit RX 580 ... as well as the HM2 cards.

Nvidia does more with less bamdwidth but the big bus just feels ... cooler. Like having a V-8 instead of an equal or more powerful V-6 turbo.

Small buses are just kind of gay.
 
Screenshot_20240124-235703_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
pendragon1 said:
prices are still all fucked.
Click to expand...
If AMD is unable or unwilling to launch a successor card that makes financial sense, that’s on them.

Which again directly points out why price to performance is the only relevant metric. And nVidia and AMD’s attempts to shuffle around the model numbers should be, at least for enthusiasts, a transparent attempt at intentional deception.
 
looking at the tpu review, that lists prices and gives a 2-400 range, the price seems about right, imo.
UnknownSouljer said:
If AMD is unable or unwilling to launch a successor card that makes financial sense, that’s on them.

Which again directly points out why price to performance is the only relevant metric. And nVidia and AMD’s attempts to shuffle around the model numbers should be, at least for enthusiasts, a transparent attempt at intentional deception.
Click to expand...
 
pendragon1 said:
looking at the tpu review, that lists prices and gives a 2-400 range, the price seems about right, imo.
Click to expand...
The MSRP price on the card is $329.99. If you can find it for $200 fantastic and at that price I would heartily recommend it, but it is not. I'd love a list of them available at $200, I think you're going to find it impossible to find any from a real seller, at that price.

At $329, why would anyone buy this over a 6700XT? If they're educated, the answer is: they wouldn't.

Why would they buy this over a 4060? It performs better and it costs less, it has the nVidia green stickers, it has the "nVidia goodies" (as the fanboys call it), etc. The answer is: they wouldn't.

There isn't a metric that makes this card look good or that I would ever recommend to someone trying to buy a low cost PC. They either need it to cost $275 or less or stop selling it. Unless I suppose that their target market is uneducated buyers who just buy $330 video cards blindly and somehow will pick the AMD one instead of the nVidia one. But I suppose if you put enough caveats on anything then you can "justify it".
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The MSRP price on the card is $329.99. If you can find it for $200 fantastic and at that price I would heartily recommend it, but it is not. I'd love a list of them available at $200, I think you're going to find it impossible to find any from a real seller, at that price.

At $329, why would anyone buy this over a 6700XT? If they're educated, the answer is: they wouldn't.

Why would they buy this over a 4060? It performs better and it costs less, it has the nVidia green stickers, it has the "nVidia goodies" (as the fanboys call it), etc. The answer is: they wouldn't.

There isn't a metric that makes this card look good or that I would ever recommend to someone trying to buy a low cost PC. They either need it to cost $275 or less or stop selling it. Unless I suppose that their target market is uneducated buyers who just buy $330 video cards blindly and somehow will pick the AMD one instead of the nVidia one. But I suppose if you put enough caveats on anything then you can "justify it".
Click to expand...
i never said it was 200, i said the range they used made sense.
unless the need more ram, which is where the money is going.
not according to tpu.
sure, in your opinion.
 
pendragon1 said:
i never said it was 200, i said the range they used made sense.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean?
pendragon1 said:
unless the need more ram, which is where the money is going.
Click to expand...
In a GPU of this class, the vRAM doesn't make a difference. The GPU will choke out long before vRAM is a problem.
You can look at the 4060 Ti 8GB vs 16GB as an example. In the few cases where vRAM makes a difference, the performance numbers are already still so low that they're unplayable.
pendragon1 said:
not according to tpu.
sure, in your opinion.
Click to expand...
I laid out the performance. TPU laid out the performance. HU laid it out. GN laid it out.
Performance is not an opinion. You're saying that there are consumers out there that would intentionally buy a card that performs worse for equal or more money?
I guess if "opinions" are financial sense, then sure, it's "my opinion". As it also is the opinion of every reviewer that has touched this card.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
What does that even mean?

In a GPU of this class, the vRAM doesn't make a difference. The GPU will choke out long before vRAM is a problem.
You can look at the 4060 Ti 8GB vs 16GB as an example. In the few cases where vRAM makes a difference, the performance numbers are already still so low that they're unplayable.

I laid out the performance. TPU laid out the performance. HU laid it out. GN laid it out.
Performance is not an opinion. You're saying that there are consumers out there that would intentionally buy a card that performs worse for equal or more money?
I guess if "opinions" are financial sense, then sure, it's "my opinion". As it also is the opinion of every reviewer that has touched this card.
Click to expand...
reread it?!
yeah yeah, we each have an opinion...
 
pendragon1 said:
reread it?!
Click to expand...
It literally doesn't make sense.
There is no 7600XT card priced from $200-$300.
What range makes sense?
pendragon1 said:
yeah yeah, we each have an opinion...
Click to expand...
Okay, feel free to recommend a worse card for more money I guess. I should hope you're going to buy one and put your money where your mouth is.
You can have an "opinion" but your opinion isn't based in any objective fact.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It literally doesn't make sense.
There is no 7600XT card priced from $200-$300.
What range makes sense?

Okay, feel free to recommend a worse card for more money I guess. I should hope you're going to buy one and put your money where your mouth is.
You can have an "opinion" but your opinion isn't based in any objective fact.
Click to expand...
i didnt say there was,
whatever.
 
pendragon1 said:
i didnt say there was,
whatever.
Click to expand...
I feel like you're just taking objective facts as personal attacks.

My point is simple: the 7600XT doesn't offer value for money that makes sense given the other cards that exist on the market today that perform better for the same or less money.
I assume your whole point is that you disagree.

However objectively there is no evidence, heck not even subjective evidence, that supports your position.
If that offends you, sorry. But the facts don't care about how you feel about this card.
 
7600 XT reviews consolidated by 3DCenter_org


At a glance​
6700XT​
7600​
7600XT​
7700XT​
A770-16G​
3060-12G​
4060​
4060Ti-8G​
​
RDNA2 12GB​
RDNA3 8GB​
RDNA3 16GB​
RDNA3 12GB​
Alchemist 16GB​
Ampere 12GB​
Ada 8 GB​
Ada 8 GB​
average 1080p Raster Perf.​
109.3%​
91.9%​
100%​
134.7%​
86.1%​
79.3%​
93.5%​
115.8%​
average 1440p Raster Perf.​
111.7%​
91.6%​
100%​
140.1%​
93.3%​
81.2%​
93.2%​
116.9%​
average 2160p Raster Perf.​
115.7%​
88.3%​
100%​
147.0%​
103.3%​
86.7%​
91.8%​
114.4%​
average 1080p RayTracing Perf.​
108.3%​
82.8%​
100%​
143.3%​
122.8%​
104.2%​
120.0%​
149.7%​
TDP​
230W​
165W​
190W​
245W​
225W​
170W​
115W​
160W​
real Power Draw​
219W​
160W​
190W​
229W​
223W​
172W​
124W​
151W​
Energy Efficiency (1080p Raster)​
95%​
109%​
100%​
112%​
73%​
88%​
143%​
146%​
MSRP​
$479​
$269​
$329​
$449​
$349​
$329​
$299​
$399​
Retail DE​
349€​
277€​
353€​
454€​
324€​
289€​
299€​
384€​
Perf/Price DE: 1080p Raster​
111%​
117%​
100%​
105%​
94%​
97%​
110%​
106%​
Perf/Price DE: 1080p RayTracing​
110%​
106%​
100%​
111%​
134%​
127%​
142%​
138%​
Retail US​
$340​
$260​
$330​
$440​
$300​
$280​
$295​
$385​
Perf/Price US: 1080p Raster​
106%​
117%​
100%​
101%​
95%​
93%​
105%​
99%​
Perf/Price US: 1080p RayTracing​
105%​
105%​
100%​
107%​
135%​
123%​
134%​
128%​


https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1aicvhe/amd_radeon_rx_7600_xt_meta_review/

https://m-3dcenter-org.translate.go...0-xt?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top