AMD Radeon RX 7600 to launch with $269/€299 MSRP

K

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
3,318

Radeon RX 7600 to launch at $269​

The company has now provided a new MSRP for its upcoming Radeon RX 7600 graphics cards. This is information was shared with the press and influencers yesterday, and we have confirmed it with several of them. Instead of what was originally communicated as $299 price, AMD has now settled on $269 and from what we quickly learned, for European gamers this means €299.

“The Radeon RX 7600 will now be available starting at an SEP of $269 USD, beginning on May 25.”

— AMD in an email

AMD Radeon RX 7600 non-XT is an upcoming Navi 33XL powered desktop GPU which is now confirmed to feature 2048 Stream Processors and 8GB of GDDR6 memory. This card will succeed RX 6600 RDNA2 GPU which launched $379. The card is said to be faster and cheaper, but will consume slightly more power.
 
ChadD said:
Think we might see some reviews tomorrow and know for sure.
I am not expecting this one to be crazy good. The price seems like it might make it a compelling 1080 card... maybe.
Click to expand...
If it hits 6700 performance for $269 then it's acceptable. It shouldn't be dragged through the mud if it hits that performance level.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Fuck all that noise. That's exactly what people have been saying. The exact thing so many of you here have been saying is that 8GB of VRAM is unacceptable in 2023.

The mother of all goal post movements.
Click to expand...
Come-on there certainly a price and level for which 8gb would not be acceptable, it would be good.

No one would have issue with a new single slot, all power from the pci slot 4030 priced $140with 8gb, with great codec supports or to be less obtuse a well priced 4050 (say, $225) that completely remove the 4gb 1650/$250 6GB 2060/$230 5700xt/$250 6600xt-6650xt from the market with 8gb, any new product that actually kick out a list of current SKU without any if-or, full clear cut, without even having to have strict street price at MSRP would be actually nice now.

Bad price is almost always the mother of all issue on working product, $400+ being obviously a lot for 1080 quantity of vram in 2023, people use hyperbole if-when they say something as non sensical as 8GB of vram is unacceptable, but there was probably enough context to understand that does not include everything from intel IGPU to $1000 gpu.
 
LukeTbk said:
Come-on there certainly a price and level for which 8gb would not be acceptable, it would be good.

No one would have issue with a new single slot 4030 priced $140, with great codec supports or to be less obtuse a well priced 4050 (say, $225) that completely remove the 4gb 1650/$250 6GB 2060/$230 5700xt/$250 6600xt-6650xt from the market.

Bad price is almost always the mother of all issue on working product, $400+ being obviously a lot for 1080 quantity of vram in 2023, people use hyperbole if-when they say something as non sensical as 8GB of vram is unacceptable, but there was probably enough context to understand that does not include everything from intel IGPU to $1000 gpu.
Click to expand...

Oh, trust me. I'm not debating that. I firmly believe that the 4060 ti at $250 would have sold like gang busters. And the 7600 at $269 if the actual MSRP will surely sell like gang busters too. I firmly believe that this current price 8GB is fine especially for 1080p gaming.
 
NightReaver said:
Agreed. It's not like people are saying 8gb of vram is always bad. On a $250 or so card it would be perfectly good. It's when we're supposed to pay $400 for that....
Click to expand...

I'd argue its marginal at $250 but tolerable. Mainly because at $250 you can buy a 6650XT with 8GB of ram right now and for past few months. Let alone the 6700 cards. Newer games show all indications that you will want 12GB of ram for "high" settings at 1080p in the now and next 1-2 years let alone so called ultra settings.
 
Ranulfo said:
I'd argue its marginal at $250 but tolerable. Mainly because at $250 you can buy a 6650XT with 8GB of ram right now and for past few months. Let alone the 6700 cards. Newer games show all indications that you will want 12GB of ram for "high" settings at 1080p in the now and next 1-2 years let alone so called ultra settings.
Click to expand...
Shame Radeon cards can't do dlss to lower the vram requirements and do frame generation :(. Having a blast still at 4k with my rtx 3080 bought in December 2020! That should be impossible according to the latest fad news silliness brought on by you guys who were influenced by tech tubers.
 
GoldenTiger said:
ZeroBarrier already did. I have nothing to prove, a simple forum search brings them up easily. You know what you said.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not going to be lumped into that mess. If the 4060ti was an acceptable price then there'd be no complaining about it. Well, idk maybe something on the fringe. There always is. $400 for these specs is just dumb.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Shame Radeon cards can't do dlss to lower the vram requirements and do frame generation :(.
Click to expand...

Not really. They have FSR but I don't count software trickery, the "digital viagra" as one person called it last week from any of these companies. Then it just means you're paying more money for a card that renders at 720p and upscales it to 1080p etc..
 
Ranulfo said:
Not really. They have FSR but I don't count software trickery, the "digital viagra" as one person called it last week from any of these companies. Then it just means you're paying more money for a card that renders at 720p and upscales it to 1080p etc..
Click to expand...
Not the same thing at all with dlss.
 
NightReaver said:
Yeah, I'm not going to be lumped into that mess. If the 4060ti was an acceptable price then there'd be no complaining about it. Well, idk maybe something on the fringe. There always is. $400 for these specs is just dumb.
Click to expand...
You complained along with your co-conspirators about how the 3060ti and 3070 couldn't run anything well due to only having 8gb of vram.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Fuck all that noise. That's exactly what people have been saying. The exact thing so many of you here have been saying is that 8GB of VRAM is unacceptable in 2023.

The mother of all goal post movements.
Click to expand...
Well I think most people didn't think it needed to be mentioned that most gamers are targeting at least 1440p in 2023.
For cards on the low end still targeting 1080p... then sure 8gb whatever.

At $250... if you tell me hey any game released this year will be playable but we are talking 1080p and high textures may be a go and may not be depending. I think everyone can live with that.
At $400... telling people the exact same thing. Not nearly as acceptable to most people.

Its true though that these new 8gb cards may struggle even at 1080p in games coming out over the next year or two.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You complained along with your co-conspirators about how the 3060ti and 3070 couldn't run anything well due to only having 8gb of vram.
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing in my post history about the 3060 or 3070 in those regards. Only in relation to the price points they were selling at. Or lamenting that the 3070 didn't have at least as much as my 1080ti, or that yes, the 3070 lost steam fast. Never claimed either card wouldn't run anything well. The 3070 is still a relevant one because the prices are still up there.

Paying $400+ for 8gb of vram is dumb. If I was throwing together a pc for a kid to play 1080p games on, I'd have zero issues buying an 8gb card around $200 or so. Not for my pc, though. No way.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Lol, nice try... Dlss2/DLSS3 are supported by over 300 titles now while fsr struggles behind at about 125 with worse image quality.

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-dlss-upscaling-tech-now-in-over-300-games-and-applications

EDIT: fsr2 isn't even supported by unity yet after all this time, and Dlss is better supported than it in unreal engine.
Click to expand...
Every game in existence supports FSR via RSR. FSR 2 sure I'll agree with you.
I have card from both companies. DLSS is nothing special. But we can disagree on that.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Oh, trust me. I'm not debating that. I firmly believe that the 4060 ti at $250 would have sold like gang busters. And the 7600 at $269 if the actual MSRP will surely sell like gang busters too. I firmly believe that this current price 8GB is fine especially for 1080p gaming.
Click to expand...
should of been 4070ti -> 4070 @ 600, performance could of slightly justified the price, 4070 ->4060TI at 400-425 would of sold like hotcakes with that performance, 4060ti -> 4060 at 325-350 would of still sold insanely well. it also opens the door for doing 16GB variant options for each card and a 10 or 12GB variant for the 4060 since i feel 16GB is 100% pointless on that card(current 4060TI that is).

for 269 for the 7600 it'll be interesting to see how much "cost savings" they did to eek out every ounce of profit on the card.

GoldenTiger said:
People talk about fsr and Dlss without the version numbers typically, nice try fake misunderstanding and goalposts moving. Dlss is absolutely superior to fsr whether you agree or not: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-fsr2-vs-nvidia-dlss2-comparison-shows-only-one-winner
Click to expand...
it is.. but i'm also not spending 400+ dollars on a card just to run a game at a lower resolution.. the fact that people continue to allow either company to use FSR or DLSS as a selling point for buying over priced cards is ridiculous.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You complained along with your co-conspirators about how the 3060ti and 3070 couldn't run anything well due to only having 8gb of vram.
Click to expand...
Ya I have said such things and its true, even at 1080 yes in some titles your going to have to be ok with Medium texture settings. OR your going to have to lean on DLSS hard and let the card render at 720p. 8gb is not enough ram anymore for resolutions beyond 1080p.

If we are talking about cards aimed solidly at 1080p... then I don't see an issue selling 8gb cards. Nvidia is clearly aiming their new 4060 at 1080p. I think that is going to confuse a lot of people on 3060s that where gaming at 1440p when they bought their cards and perhaps since with newer titles have had to turn some settings down. I am sure some of them would assume jumping up to a 4060TI form their 3060TI might allow them to play games at comparable settings in todays games as they where able to play at when they bought their previous gen cards. Clearly that isn't going to be the case as the 4060 is single digit faster at best, and at 1440p that isn't even true in all cases.

Steam charts can show most people game at 1080p ya ya ya... and most of them are gaming on laptop GPUs or prebuilt 1050/1060 hardware. That number is meaningless when we are talking about the $400+ GPU segment. At least 20% of valves customers are at resolutions beyond 1080p when you look at 1440 ultra wide and 4k. I think its safe to assume many of the users in that 20% 1080+ camp are on mid range cards. When we are talking about "all gamers" using steam that is catching a lot of low end stuff. I mean I am offset completely by my wife playing on a laptop and my kids playing on an old PC. lol
 
ChadD said:
I have seen both I trust my eyes not some internet opinion. They are both sometimes ok and often times annoying as hell. I turn them off unless I have no choice.
Click to expand...
Given the choice of fsr vs dlss for nvidia users, you're never going to see someone thinking the fsr looks better on games that support both. My eyes agree with the comparison I linked, having tried both on my 3080 for giggles.
 
ChadD said:
Every game in existence supports FSR via RSR. FSR 2 sure I'll agree with you.
I have card from both companies. DLSS is nothing special. But we can disagree on that.
Click to expand...
You call RSR having support?

EqP3BPt.jpeg
 
GoldenTiger said:
Given the choice of fsr vs dlss for nvidia users, you're never going to see someone thinking the fsr looks better on games that support both. My eyes agree with the comparison I linked, having tried both on my 3080 for giggles.
Click to expand...
Well if you like it enjoy gaming at 720p.
I don't think the difference either way is impressive enough to say either is better. IMO they both sort of suck. Interesting idea. I have seen a few games where I thought both worked well. I have seen games where both have made the game look like ass. Like I said I turn it off unless I have no choice... as in I can't get a steady 60fps. If I can get 60FPS+ no way in hell I would use either.

We can disagree though. Hey some people like it. If your one great good for you. I was joking on the number of titles btw hence the :p I was just ribbing you. Although its true you can turn standard FSR on in any title. FSR2 vs DLSS 2 I don't know man I just don't see enough difference. For ever frozen screen shot from one showing a little less of a giggle or a little better rendering of some thin line... I have seen someone screen shot the exact opposite somewhere else. To my eyes running DLSS and FSR on AMD hardware I just don't see that big a difference in the games I have played to make me want to pay the Nvidia tax ever again. That and I much much prefer AMDs software, and AMD still have some features that just fit the way I game. For people playing MMOs chill is imo the best feature on any GPU. Fan Idle 90% of the time I'm playing spins up when I'm actually doing something that requires some GPU. Unless I have missed something on my Nvidia system (which I admit I don't use often right now) they haven't ever added anything quite like Chill. I'm not looking for a frame limiter.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Only people confused here are the people back peddling their previous point of views on 8GB of VRAM.
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone is back peddeling.
At 1080p 8gb is not enough to handle Ultra textures, and probably won't be enough to handle high textures in the not so distant future. (on newer titles, and sure maybe not all a few games might come out with smaller texture packs)
That is just a fact.
At $250 I can see that not being all that big a deal. Someone buying AMDs new low end... probably isn't going to be annoyed when a new ball busting title forces them to use medium textures at 1080p.
At $400 I can see a lot of people yelling about game optimization and terrible ports... when they experience texture popping trying to run high textures at 1080.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Only people confused here are the people back peddling their previous point of views on 8GB of VRAM.
Click to expand...
Completely not back peddling.

Is 8GB VRAM enough for current games? No.
Is there an acceptable level where price allows for 8GB? Yes.

The problem here is nVidia is charging top tier prices for mid range performance. If AMD follows through on price then it's more than acceptable since the price is adjusted for the headache of the lower frame buffer. AMD is giving you 8GB VRAM for Rx 580 w/ 8GB VRAM prices while the performance level is above that of the RDNA 2 generation. nVidia is charging you $130 dollars more for the same feat, which negates most gains unless you happen to play DLSS 3 games. Basically they are trying to upcharge based on DLSS 3 (even though its only in 40 games) and a 10 - 15% boost in RT if the game supports it. That's just... not a slam dunk in my book.
 
I have no insight on this, but it appears that AMD missed their performance targets with the entire RDNA 3 lineup. Now they are forced to drop price (to stay competitive with Ada Lovelace). This was not the case with RDNA 2 vs Ampere

The feeling I have is that early adopters might buy the 7600 at $270. But once the 4060 is released (for $300), it is atleast worth $50 more because of DLSS 2 considering that FSR/DLSS would be required to play at ultra settings with 8gb cards
 
Marees said:
I have no insight on this, but it appears that AMD missed their performance targets with the entire RDNA 3 lineup. Now they are forced to drop price (to stay competitive with Ada Lovelace). This was not the case with RDNA 2 vs Ampere

The feeling I have is that early adopters might buy the 7600 at $270. But once the 4060 is released (for $300), it is atleast worth $50 more because of DLSS 2 considering that FSR/DLSS would be required to play at ultra settings with 8gb cards
Click to expand...

if you ignore the kitchen sink at the wall 4090, they didn't really miss it performance wise.. the 7900XTX is comparable to the 4080 and the 7900XT is comparable to the what is now the 4070ti. where they did miss it was the naming scheme because they decided to play the bs nvidia game when they saw them announce the 4080 16GB and 4080 12GB cards. if they had released the 7900XT as the 7800XT things would of gone a whole lot differently, but they fell for the trap hook line and sinker.
 
What about an 8GB card with a wide bus?

Maybe go back to the days of when I could literally plug an extra 2MB of vram onto my Matrox Mystique...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top