AMD Announces The Radeon RX 7600 XT For 1080p~1440p Gaming At $329

[RealNC]

Look at the Starfield drama over Bethesda only having FSR at release and not DLSS. I saw people with Nvidia 3080's and 3090's MAD they can't enable DLSS at 1080 / 1440p... both of those cards are able to run Starfield at max settings at those resolutions, natively, with no need for upscaling. BUT PEOPLE WANTED IT, and it HAD TO BE DLSS!

To be fair, this is mostly because that game's anti-aliasing looks like dog shit. DLAA (the anti-aliasing part of DLSS) is superior. In games where it's not possible to control DLSS and DLAA separately, you can apply third-party mods that untangle these two settings so you can use DLAA without any upscaling.

[qarium]

Still too much money for that graphics card. The Intel Arch A770 is 16GB and can be found for less than $300. Problem is the ARC GPU's require ReBar for decent performance.

the ARC GPUs have bigger problem than ReBAR:

The benchmarks of Meteor Lake (Arc) graphics performance are relevant and interesting. However, this only matters if the program runs correctly. I think MSI is about to faceplant in public when they release a Steam Deck competitor and half the games the customer tries to play either run like garbage or outright crash. Intel's driver efforts towards gaming still seem to be getting individual popular games to run. Customers don't only play popular or new games. Unless the driver is in a better state than has been reported, selling a Meteor Lake handheld is likely to generate bad press for MSI and Intel both.
MSI is at least clear of the 'why didn't you cats install Steam OS on that thing?' question. Heh.

in the end you pay this 30€ price difference between ARC770 16gb vs the 7600XT 16gb for the better driver support.

because the intel gpu driver is shit as hell. just see the quote commend from teggs...

[Anux]

But why? You could spend the extra money that this hypothetical RX 7300 would cost and get a better APU that would offer similar GPU performance. Now a single slot 75W bus powered card would be interesting. With 75W all to itself and more than an order of magnitude more space to work with, you should be able to make something significantly faster than what the APU would offer.

I agree to some degree. Last gen we had the 6400 which was heavily crippled (no hardware encoding and only x4 PCIe lanes) so it's no option to enhance an old system and questionable if you want that in a new system. I also remember AMD said at some point they won't release slower GPUs to not cut in their APU segment.
The 6400 had 54 W TDP (which probably peaks to 75 W, so you won't get one with 75 W labeled on the box), we might get a 7400 at some point with at least 50% more performance than the fastest APU.

But I don't really see a use for this performance class, if I don't need much 3D perf, I'm probably fine with an iGPU and if I need the power of a dGPU, 50% more than integrated is probably not enough perf and if it is as crippled as the 6400 it's hardly of any use.

[pong]

The only way we'll stop getting abused by GPU limitations / makers is for the platform CPU / RAM design to actually
evolve (just like the GPUs have over the past 30 years) to have wider RAM channels / throughput comparable to GPUs,
and CPU / motherboard capability for 4k-16k+ "SIMD" processors similar to what GPUs have.
Take the non graphical but performance relevant parts of a GPU and put it into the
core architecture where any other such "general compute / memory performance" features belong.
Then save the GPU for display interfaces, ray tracing HW, what not.

And yeah given that an important role for GPUs today is general purpose computing as well
as ML inferencing on your own HW the GPUs should be based on raw performance not upscaling hackery.
But as of now they don't share nicely (multiple users / different application contexts, VMs, ...) they're
unreliable, they don't even physically fit well into PCs cases / motherboards, the power supply
connections are nonsense, how is this remotely going to scale come 4-8 years in the future?

upscaling
I don't blame AMD, nor Nvidia for this. I blame the user base who demand upscaling and frame rate interpolation to such a degree, they are willing to pay an extra $100-$600 for press "reduce my resolution only to upscale it button please." Look at the Starfield drama over Bethesda only having FSR at release and not DLSS. I saw people with Nvidia 3080's and 3090's MAD they can't enable DLSS at 1080 / 1440p... both of those cards are able to run Starfield at max settings at those resolutions, natively, with no need for upscaling. BUT PEOPLE WANTED IT, and it HAD TO BE DLSS!

It also doesn't help that you have reviewers, like hardware unbox stating "nvidia is worth $200-$300 more than AMD for upscaling!" and praising MSRP $1,600 GPU's like the 4090 having, AND NEEDING upscaling. $1,600 for a video card, to get a $300 level card experience of needing to reduce settings boggles my mind the most. The whole point in buying high end cards, let alone flagships, was for that no compromise experience. You don't need to reduce anything. You can max out the game's settings, and run it natively, and now you have people mad that they buy a $1,000 GPU and can't reduce their image settings by enabling upscaling... I don't get it, and it doesn't matter the amount of mental gymnastics I get from people, I will never get it, nor understand their mental gymnastics. But but my 4k!!! maybe its to soon for 4k still. Maybe dropping $1,600 for a card that still can't do native 4K is a bad investment. If you are going to enable upscaling because no matter what, you can't play native, then maybe just buy a cheaper card to get the same damn experience.

Upscaling unfortunately is here to stay and with people clapping like seals for it, all it does is incentives manufacturers now to build their cards and set their tier class around needing an upscaler enabled now. I don't blame them, they don't have to worry about needing to squeeze maximum performance out of the card anymore. Just reduce your image settings with this neat, one button click! Gamers Nexus approves, says its better than native!!! And with 2020 showing people are willing to sacrifice their first born for a video card, and enabled scalpers, people are more than willing to pay stupid prices for stupid features and stupid cards. As much as people whine about the prices, they still go out there and buy 4090's and 4080's. And 4070's.

[khnazile]

But why? You could spend the extra money that this hypothetical RX 7300 would cost and get a better APU that would offer similar GPU performance. Now a single slot 75W bus powered card would be interesting. With 75W all to itself and more than an order of magnitude more space to work with, you should be able to make something significantly faster than what the APU would offer.

I don't care that much about performance, integrated graphics sucks in more than just way, especially if it's integrated graphics by AMD. People need modern low-power GPUs in form of add-in cards, and 6400 was never a good solution, with only two display outputs, no hardware video encoding and 4x pcie bus.

[Anux]

I don't care that much about performance, integrated graphics sucks in more than just way

Care to explain? I find them to be perfect for anything that doesn't need much 3D/compute perf.

[Panix]

Care to explain? I find them to be perfect for anything that doesn't need much 3D/compute perf.

Those cards are garbage - those are AMD's garbage and Nvidia's are the 4060s.

[Anux]

Those cards are garbage - those are AMD's garbage and Nvidia's are the 4060s.

Buahhh these are Garbage! And Kevin stole my shovel!
Any arguments or just trolling?

[Panix]

If we look at the performance between 4060 and 7600 and then consider the improvements that the XT-version of 7600 has and the MSRP of the GPUs in this segment - then it looks "unexcitingly decent". At this point, if this is your budget and you can't either wait or change your budget, then it's a matter of weighing your personal use-case.

What games you play and what features you favor. And do you like freedom? Then there's untapped potential from driver development. I don't know how far Intel is in squeezing the fruit dry, but at least on Linux, it seems Nvidia is not running at its potential and AMD and Intel are both more mature. Although Intel is arguably more inconsistent and AMD is the more sensible choice. As for Windows, that's where Nvidia are the most competitive.

Personally, I'm completely done with Nvidia's BS. You've got the poor Linux support, the proprietary standards approach which is just an ultimatum that nobody wins from (other than Nvidia), the silly "if you don't make an account and use GeForce Experience, you'll only get quarterly driver updates" and the complete disrespect of customers with their pricing and dishonest product design. It's kind of "amusing" to me that Nvidia took the open standard by VESA ("Adaptive Sync") and made it into a proprietary one and then required a $100 dollar markup from a G-Sync board in all monitors with that feature while AMD made the open standard into a still open standard that didn't put a markup on monitor price. While Nvidia has some truly great technologies, they market them and design them in such a hostile and disrespectful way that to me they might as well not exist. Most of the time you are paying an unreasonable premium for the Nvidia badge. They've done a great job messing up the GPU market and they can because people let them. I wish more people were able to draw a line in the sand.

As for AMD, some of their GPUs have great value (all is relative, the GPU market is arguably broken) while others are quite underwhelming (although not bad). AMD has arguably managed well against the ruthless giant that is Nvidia.

Something to remember is that price decides how good a GPU is. It doesn't matter what it's called, whether today's announced product was 7500 XT, 7600 XT or 7700 XT - What matter is what you get for the price you pay.

If the 7600 XT is indeed on par with the 4060 8 GB for about the same price, then its a win. Not everything is reflected in all benchmarks, doubling the VRAM matters. If it's better than the 4060 8 GB (like AMD is claiming), then it certainly doesn't deserve any more bad rep than the products it's up against and could actually be an okay-ish product.

At that price point it's starting to get difficult to cut the prices as all GPUs have a base cost associated. The sweetspot will always be mid-range, although the definition of "mid-range" is bound to both the lower-end and higher-end segments - which we all know are broken.



There will definitely be a penalty. It's a card pushed far beyond the power-to-performance sweetspot.

What are you going to do with a weak AMD gpu, though? The features are non-existent - and it's just a gpu to play videos? Or are some versions in laptops?

I read that the 7900 series has all these defects or bad design flaws - they are also power hungry - maybe not these lower tiers - but, yes, there is open source for them.......... yay!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clap, clap, clap, clap. I guess you can game at 720p or 1080p with them - maybe?

I know Nvidia is a horrible company but AMD doesn't care about Linux - all they care about is their gaming - in particular, their consoles and now AI - just like Nvidia. But, AMD also has very little in the way of features and the features they do have - are poorly implemented. I have read a lot of disgruntled AMD gpu owners' posts in various sites - and some are so frustrated, they're gonna switch to Nvidia - some are even Linux users. It gives me great confidence in picking an AMD gpu - especially one that is in the more expensive bracket like a 7900 XT /s.

Not. Oh, also, they are power hungry hogs - and can heat your home. Nvidia has them beat on that, too - they're way more power efficient.

[Eudyptula]

What are you going to do with a weak AMD gpu, though? The features are non-existent - and it's just a gpu to play videos? Or are some versions in laptops?

I read that the 7900 series has all these defects or bad design flaws - they are also power hungry - maybe not these lower tiers - but, yes, there is open source for them.......... yay!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clap, clap, clap, clap. I guess you can game at 720p or 1080p with them - maybe?

I know Nvidia is a horrible company but AMD doesn't care about Linux - all they care about is their gaming - in particular, their consoles and now AI - just like Nvidia. But, AMD also has very little in the way of features and the features they do have - are poorly implemented. I have read a lot of disgruntled AMD gpu owners' posts in various sites - and some are so frustrated, they're gonna switch to Nvidia - some are even Linux users. It gives me great confidence in picking an AMD gpu - especially one that is in the more expensive bracket like a 7900 XT /s.

Not. Oh, also, they are power hungry hogs - and can heat your home. Nvidia has them beat on that, too - they're way more power efficient.

Hmm, okay. The discussion is based around a certain segment of graphics cards and in this specific segment both Nvidia and Intel have cards with similar performance. What makes the best product is which product gives you the most (useful) features and performance for the lowest price. The point of my comment, which I think you missed, was that the 7600 XT seems to match certain competing cards with its reasonable price.

So it's not very logical of you to ask the question "what are you going to do with a weak AMD GPU?" when Nvidia's and Intel's corresponding cards are in the exact same performance bracket and aren't necessarily better buys. If you were to not deviate from this objective fact, you'd instead ask "what would you do with a card in this product segment?", at which point large parts of your comment would cease to makes sense. You build arguments on top of the foundational argument that the 7600 XT is useless. For that to be true, Nvidia would have to be guilty of the same exact thing and you'd be contradicting yourself.

And by the way, a lot of people would reply to your question with "gaming and still have money left over for food and bills". Not everyone feel the need to buy every new AAA game (many of which are pretty low-quality nowadays, anyway). You can definitely do a lot of gaming at >60 FPS on 7600 XT without having to go below your monitor's native resolution. If you don't have 7 kids, why buy a large minivan? Anything that isn't a minivan isn't automatically the equivalence of a bike. There's a lot of stuff in between. Nuances, for those with good eyes.

The rest of the comment is pretty one-sided (read: heavily biased) and what could only be labeled as "low-hanging fruit drawn on paper cut-outs". And the sky sprinkled with seemingly speculative arguments of fictitious nature.

The picture you are painting certainly doesn't mirror what I've seen and what reviews, feature analyses and user experiences are saying. You're up against a lot of contradictory data if you insist on running with your campaign. Your comment doesn't exactly leave the door open for any arguments against a certain green giant.

What I'm trying to say here is, there's not much to say to that very biased one-sided narrative written in a seemingly disgruntled tone. By doing so you lead the way to where the road ends. I'd rather stay on a road that leads somewhere, if you catch my drift.