AMD 7600 reviews

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Joe NYC

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2021
1,864
2,147
106
Not upset just confused. Not sure why they bothered releasing this to DIY right now. Seems rather pointless unless it’s replacing the 6600’s current selling price of $200.

7600 cards are part of AMD notebook solution it is offering to the OEM. So AMD is already making them, why not sell them for desktop, which is, after all, AMD's other business.

I don't think AMD or AIBs would be making restarting N23 production, selling for $200 and under. Likewise, AMD or AIBs would not be making money selling Navi 33 (with only slightly lower cost to make) for $200 and under.

What really is pointless (for a company that is not a monopoly) is making a product with intent to sell it at a loss. Ask Intel, even Intel can't do it any more.

How are you ever going to have any competition if buyers (like you) insist that companies competing with NVidia can't make any profit?
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,262
1,700
96
Likewise, AMD or AIBs would not be making money selling Navi 33 (with only slightly lower cost to make) for $200 and under.
So are you arguing that the 6600's that are currently sold for $199 are being sold at a loss?
 
Mar 11, 2004
22,981
5,432
146
7600 cards are part of AMD notebook solution it is offering to the OEM. So AMD is already making them, why not sell them for desktop, which is, after all, AMD's other business.

I don't think AMD or AIBs would be making restarting N23 production, selling for $200 and under. Likewise, AMD or AIBs would not be making money selling Navi 33 (with only slightly lower cost to make) for $200 and under.

What really is pointless (for a company that is not a monopoly) is making a product with intent to sell it at a loss. Ask Intel, even Intel can't do it any more.

How are you ever going to have any competition if buyers (like you) insist that companies competing with NVidia can't make any profit?

Because they barely compete with their older stuff and is embarrassing and tarnishing their entire brand? I have to imagine they could do better by offering cheaper prices for OEMs to put them in laptops or All-in-Ones or something.

Yes, we get they aren't going to just abandon a market segment entirely and would put out a new product just for the features set spec sheet, but at this price its bad. There's also a huge disparity between $200 and the $270 MSRP. $225 or $230 would make a big difference in how this is viewed.

Honestly, AMD should have gone for a package deal, pair this with the 7600 CPU or something. With maybe a loyalty discount voucher/rebate for people that already bought the CPU.

They lucked out that NVidia also bungled things. I'm not sure if its intentional, but it sure seems like all 3 companies are intent on killing the affordable dGPU market. I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 bring out APUs (Nvidia with ARM CPU) that happen to be $400-500 whilst offering roughly this tier of performance and ditch dGPU in this market. Actually that wouldn't be the worst thing, just make a full PC that's about the size of the larger triple slot video cards, with an external power brick (there's already ones for laptops that should be capable), and an nVME slot. At least then maybe they can justify putting 16GB in it. They can sell it as Steamboxes, Android gaming devices, and maybe partner with Microsoft and have it basically run similar gaming OS as the consoles.
 

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,830
1,176
136
Sure. I can get on a buy a console instead.

dGPUs are a luxury I can live without, there are other alternatives. If I am going to get ripped off being in the market I will just exit it.
I'm quoting this post, but not necessarily the poster, since I see this mentality in a few posts.

I understand that we have not gotten what we expected from this gen, but maybe put some perspective to all that?

I mean go get a console buddy sure.

You will get:

- Reduced compatibility

- No mouse/kb standard support

- A stupid box that can only play games, while on the PC you can do a million things

- For games that are compatible, you will mostly get last gen settings. I mean can you play Assassin's Creed or RDR2 at Ultra gtfo settings if you want and have the hardware for it? No!

- Even for newer launches, you will get up to 1080p/60, Kakarot, One Piece, Evil West, Dead Space Remake, Forspoken, Yakuza, Like a Dragon Ishin, Returnal. Some of them justifiable, some of them not, rather because the dev willed it so or didn't care.

- Drops to even 720p at times, Forspoken, Jedi Survivor

- Delayed 60fps patches, like for Far Cry 5, which you could play on your PC however the F you wanted for years

- 60fps for A Plague Tale Requiem several months later, sure, BUT at 1080p and reduced settings.
*It was 1440p/30/medium with Ultra textures before
*It has gone to 1080/60 with even LOWER settings now, including textures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88a6kEl_iQ
*I could run the effin thing at 1080/60 ultra day one, on a mere 3060ti (non monetized)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUdAaaDiWk
*I could run the effin thing at initial console settings (not res) BUT at 60fps since day one, on a freagin rx6600 (which effectively cost 189euros-effectively means 289 minus Dead Island 2+The Callisto Protocol, keeping in mind the PS5 digital was costing 650 euros at the time.) Note these settings are HIGHER than the new 60fps patch, but at lower res
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waG1J3E6n-Y
*I can now run the effin thing at 1080p/ultra+rt, meaning settings not even available on the consoles, at 100-120fps (no frame gen) on a 4070ti paired with a cpu from 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIC-5AiUCRA
I am mentioning this 1080p run, for direct comparison. Surely you can do whatever the F you want with a 4070ti in this game.
Does the 4070ti cost almost as much as a PS5 and a XBOX combined? Yeap. Is it worth it? Sure. How much do you want it to cost, if it can run A plague tale at 1080p/ultra+RT at twice the frame rate, twice the settings and infinite more RT compared to 0?

- You will get Redfall and Gotham Knights at 30fps.
I can run Gotham Knights faster on a freagin Sandy Bridge fml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W3TQe4BDSU

I could go on. Will it matter?

Seriously, you guys especially in a PC forum, should get a clue, when posting things like I will go get a console. Good luck mate. And while you are at it, remember that you want all THREE consoles, if you want to play, Zelda, Mario, Forza, God of War, Gears of War, Spider Man, Kena, Hellblade, High on Life and the list goes on....


All I see is nvidia lovers hating on AMD and AMD lovers hating on nvidia and they both together hating on Intel. You guys are no PC lovers, you are PC haters.


You want a good 1080p PC, get a rx6600 and put it in five year old machine, maybe with some OC. You want higher res, get a 6800xt or a 4070 or higher or keep complaining because it will sure give you an extra 10fps+rt.
 
Last edited:

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,196
5,197
136
I mean go get a console buddy sure.

You will get:

Agreed, but the big PC benefit for me is Modding.

Modding is one of the things I would miss most if console gaming.

I'm playing Fallout 3, modded into the Fallout New Vegas Game engine, so I get FO:NV guns with their iron sights, etc... and I can travel back and forth between the two wastelands...

I also have a couple of other QoL mods, to give me dynamic crosshairs, remove the sickly color cast, and brighter pip-boy light, much faster VATS animations...

Try that on a console.

Ultimately. If what you want is the AAA Console experience, you have to buy a console. Regardless the VRAM hoopla, console ports are often buggy even on a 24GB RTX 4090, plus there is the issue of if/when the ports even happen.

Recent VRAM hoopla was focus on TLOU. But a bigger issue is that TLOU is a 2013 Console game. If you want play console games, you might be waiting 10 years for a port, or never get it.

So:

If you want the console experience, you must get a console.
If you want the PC experience, you must get a PC.

They really aren't interchangeable to me, so I don't really see many people jumping to console because of GPU prices.

For console level GPU, you only need a ~$300 RX 6700.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,994
3,356
136
I just realized that AMD released a new driver (23.5.1) yesterday for the RX7600, I dont know if it will make any difference but all the reviews I have seen are using older drivers like 23.4.1 & 23.4.2

edit: correction , reviews used the press driver
 

PJVol

Senior member
May 25, 2020
512
428
106
That has the 6700 10GB in the charts.
Find another one at PCGH, 1080p ohne/mit RT
So the rasterization speed @ 6700 level looks pretty decent for such a crippled GPU :)
 

Attachments

  • 7600 FHD.png
    7600 FHD.png
    106.3 KB · Views: 21
  • 7600 FHD RT.png
    7600 FHD RT.png
    106.5 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Timorous

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,343
2,390
146
My understanding was that modern consoles could use mouse and keyboard these days. Or is this not so?
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,262
1,700
96
- No mouse/kb standard support
Both PS5 and Xbox have k/m support if the games support it.

Ironically, there are plenty of games on PC that have really bad k/m support and clearly have an interface made for controllers.
- A stupid box that can only play games, while on the PC you can do a million things
Yes, but with these prices it may make sense to get a cheap PC that you keep for a long time for those million things, rather than to more frequently upgrade the CPU/motherboard and get more expensive versions of those. Especially if the entire console costs less than a comparable GPU.

Also keep in mind that a lot of gamers are already choosing a laptop to game on since they want a mobile PC, but then their gaming experience is compromised by that. For them, a cheap laptop plus a console can make a lot of sense.

Ultimately there always will be people for whom the PC is better suited, but the more people that jump ship to consoles, the less us PC gamers will get catered to. You can even get into a downward spiral where the PC gaming experience gets worse because companies care less about us, causing more people to abandon PC gaming, cause companies to care even less, etc.

@guidryp

Plenty of PC gamers never mod their games. PC gaming needs a broad user base and can't just depend on a small core that are into those kinds of things.
 

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,517
2,453
136
I'm quoting this post, but not necessarily the poster, since I see this mentality in a few posts.

I understand that we have not gotten what we expected from this gen, but maybe put some perspective to all that?

I mean go get a console buddy sure.

You will get:

- Reduced compatibility

- No mouse/kb standard support

- A stupid box that can only play games, while on the PC you can do a million things

- For games that are compatible, you will mostly get last gen settings. I mean can you play Assassin's Creed or RDR2 at Ultra gtfo settings if you want and have the hardware for it? No!

- Even for newer launches, you will get up to 1080p/60, Kakarot, One Piece, Evil West, Dead Space Remake, Forspoken, Yakuza, Like a Dragon Ishin, Returnal. Some of them justifiable, some of them not, rather because the dev willed it so or didn't care.

- Drops to even 720p at times, Forspoken, Jedi Survivor

- Delayed 60fps patches, like for Far Cry 5, which you could play on your PC however the F you wanted for years

- 60fps for A Plague Tale Requiem several months later, sure, BUT at 1080p and reduced settings.
*It was 1440p/30/medium with Ultra textures before
*It has gone to 1080/60 with even LOWER settings now, including textures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88a6kEl_iQ
*I could run the effin thing at 1080/60 ultra day one, on a mere 3060ti (non monetized)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUdAaaDiWk
*I could run the effin thing at initial console settings (not res) BUT at 60fps since day one, on a freagin rx6600 (which effectively cost 189euros-effectively means 289 minus Dead Island 2+The Callisto Protocol, keeping in mind the PS5 digital was costing 650 euros at the time.) Note these settings are HIGHER than the new 60fps patch, but at lower res
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waG1J3E6n-Y
*I can now run the effin thing at 1080p/ultra+rt, meaning settings not even available on the consoles, at 100-120fps (no frame gen) on a 4070ti paired with a cpu from 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIC-5AiUCRA
I am mentioning this 1080p run, for direct comparison. Surely you can do whatever the F you want with a 4070ti in this game.
Does the 4070ti cost almost as much as a PS5 and a XBOX combined? Yeap. Is it worth it? Sure. How much do you want it to cost, if it can run A plague tale at 1080p/ultra+RT at twice the frame rate, twice the settings and infinite more RT compared to 0?

- You will get Redfall and Gotham Knights at 30fps.
I can run Gotham Knights faster on a freagin Sandy Bridge fml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W3TQe4BDSU

I could go on. Will it matter?

Seriously, you guys especially in a PC forum, should get a clue, when posting things like I will go get a console. Good luck mate. And while you are at it, remember that you want all THREE consoles, if you want to play, Zelda, Mario, Forza, God of War, Gears of War, Spider Man, Kena, Hellblade, High on Life and the list goes on....


All I see is nvidia lovers hating on AMD and AMD lovers hating on nvidia and they both together hating on Intel. You guys are no PC lovers, you are PC haters.


You want a good 1080p PC, get a rx6600 and put it in five year old machine, maybe with some OC. You want higher res, get a 6800xt or a 4070 or higher and stfu.

Or I just stick with my GPU and play older games I didn't get around to 1st time. I just played the outer worlds, have only recently played Skyrim. I just started a Mass Effect playthrough because I didn't actually play ME3 so will get around to that finally. I also played fallen order so while I do want survivor I can wait a while.

I can also keep playing Civ and Stellaris and other such titles as well.

The good thing is that in these older titles my 6600XT can actually handle 4K pretty well and my 5800X3D is great for my grand strategy stuff.

AAA titles are pretty crap at launch anyway so hanging on for a couple of years won't do any harm.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,784
5,882
136
Even if the engineers explain to me I'll never understand this "stupid" decision. Why put so much time and resources engineering a feature that they will not be able to make use?

I'm assuming they had planned on having the software to support it done in time, but that it wasn't done in time or they had a flaw in the implementation that meant they couldn't enable it.

It is a performance gain for little added resources so AMD isn't dumb for wanting to add it. They just need to improve on their execution.

I don't know what AMD was planning with the 7600, but it's just sad. They should have priced this at $249.

$219 maximum.

It's an 8 GB card and isn't suitable for anything above 1080p and we'll probably see a few games released in the next few years where this won't even manage 60 FPS there either.
 

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,517
2,453
136
I'm assuming they had planned on having the software to support it done in time, but that it wasn't done in time or they had a flaw in the implementation that meant they couldn't enable it.

It is a performance gain for little added resources so AMD isn't dumb for wanting to add it. They just need to improve on their execution.



$219 maximum.

It's an 8 GB card and isn't suitable for anything above 1080p and we'll probably see a few games released in the next few years where this won't even manage 60 FPS there either.

Boy are we far from the days when a 1900XT managing 20fps in Oblivion was considered a good result.
 

Joe NYC

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2021
1,864
2,147
106
So are you arguing that the 6600's that are currently sold for $199 are being sold at a loss?

Yes, at best, breaking even, more likely, AMD is losing money on Navi 23 selling for $200.

This is what some people are naively believing will bring competition to the GPU market, as opposed to driving the competition away.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,611
5,671
136
Yes, at best, breaking even, more likely, AMD is losing money on Navi 23 selling for $200.

This is what some people are naively believing will bring competition to the GPU market, as opposed to driving the competition away.
Can you source that claim?
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,611
5,671
136
Boy are we far from the days when a 1900XT managing 20fps in Oblivion was considered a good result.
20 fps could actually look ok on a crt though. Generally my PS2 looks pretty good on my old 1080p panel I have it hooked up too over component, but I tried playing GTA Vice City on it and its drops into the 20s looked horrible on that panel. Grabbed a 25 year-old 19" CRT from the garage and hooked it up and the game looked awesome one it.
 

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,062
6,115
136
Ok something not working correct with NAVI33.

According to AMD the new RDNA3 Compute Unit is 17% faster vs RDNA2 clock to clock.
Also according to AMD the new RT Cores in RDNA3 are 50% faster vs RDNA2 RT Cores.

Since both NAVI 23 and 33 have the same Compute Units (32) and number of RT Cores (32) and it seems both 6650XT and 7600 have almost the same gaming clocks , then RX 7600 should have been 15%+ faster in Raster and up to 50% faster in RT.
According to the reviews nothing of the above was measured.

resize
\

rdna-3-ray-tracing.jpg
As a reminder, N33 doesn't use the same CUs as N31. N31 enjoys 50% more vector registers (Vector GPR) than RDNA2, but N33 retains the same number of vector registers as RDNA2.

Without those registers, N33 has the same number of rays in flight as N23, which means raytracing performance should be similar on a per-CU basis. Utilization of the doubling of FP32 units takes a hit too because more optimization is needed to ensure the data is in the register.
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,196
5,197
136
@guidryp

Plenty of PC gamers never mod their games.

Never claimed otherwise. I was responding to a post that mentioned a bunch of PC gaming reasons that missed one of my personal favorites. Note that I said "for me", not "for everyone".

"Agreed, but the big PC benefit for me is Modding."

I have no idea how many people mod their PC games.

There are a multitude of reasons people stick with PC gaming, when console gaming HW is cheaper, and it's always been the case that console gaming HW is cheaper, because it's subsidized.

If you have no reason to favor PC gaming, and want to switch for cheaper HW, by all means do so. I'm not trying to convince anyone to stay.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,784
5,882
136
Yes, at best, breaking even, more likely, AMD is losing money on Navi 23 selling for $200.

AMD isn't losing any money even at that price. It's just that no one else is going to be making (much) money either.

The Navi 23 die itself costs about $25 to manufacture, add another $25 for the memory and it's about $50 in total for the silicon.

Even if AMD passes that along for $75 that leaves an additional $125 for the PCB and cooling solution, neither of which are significant for Navi 23. Suppose the AIB manufacturers spend $75 on that and sell the product to a retailer for $175 (again taking $25 for themselves over cost) That means the retailer can offer it at $200 to make their own $25 profit on the sale.

It wasn't all that long ago that AMD was selling cards with similarly sized Polaris dies for $229 on down. That was when 8 GB of VRAM required twice as many modules since you couldn't get a 2 GB chip. The cards also had a higher TDP so would require a stronger cooling solution and components to drive more power.

These low end cards are not expensive to manufacture. The higher prices are everyone trying to cling to the insane prices they could charge during the mining boom. Yeah it sucks to go back to earning only $25 for something you could easily get $50 if not $100 for only a few years ago, but now that the miners have stopped buying, there's no one left who's willing to pay double MSRP so it's back to thin margins for everyone involved.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,413
5,120
136
I'm not sure what the typical retailer/distributor cut is, but I would say it's closer to 30% than 10%. At $200 MSRP that would mean they would be selling it to the distributor for about $150.

The Navi 23 die itself costs about $25 to manufacture, add another $25 for the memory and it's about $50 in total for the silicon.

At 11k N6/wafer, it'd be closer to $40-45, and if it's $20 a memory chip, that's $80. You're already over $120 at that point without even the PCB, power,warranty, etc... let alone any margin.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,100
171
106
The rx 7600 is awesome, helped my buy a rx 6600 at a discount.
But questionable product over the rx 6600 though. 20-30% more performance at 25% more power(132 watts vs 165 watts)...kind of to be expected since there's much node improvement going from 7 to 6.