Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
    replied
    Originally posted by khnazile View Post
    Can we have a 35W RX7300 please?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
    replied
    This whole generation of cards from both Nvidia and AMD is depressing. Unless you have a hard requirement for the AV1 encoder, I'd rather have a $320 RX 6700 XT. If you need 16GB of VRAM, you can pick up a RX 6800 for $400 and get a vastly more powerful card.

    Leave a comment:


  • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
    replied
    Originally posted by panikal View Post

    This was true with my RX6600, aka AMD SAM / REBAR boosted my frame rates by 20%. I've read nvidia is more spotty perhaps but with my amd stack is was definitely required. Generally any newer motherboard should support this too I thought, like in the last 2-3 years ish?
    There's a misinterpretation of the word required here. Your card doesn't require ReBAR / SAM, but you get a very nice performance boost in many games. For ARC, ReBAR / SAM is basically a hard requirement for usable 3D performance. You can put it in an old system without ReBAR / SAM and you'll get a display output and you can use the excellent media encode / decode capabilities. But even the A770 is useless for gaming without ReBAR / SAM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by Eudyptula View Post
    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​
    You are WRONG! It was $250

    (I know because I paid it.)

    Leave a comment:


  • dimko
    replied
    Who does not have 1080P GPU after last 10 years or so? WHY this exists?

    Leave a comment:


  • sophisticles
    replied
    You have to love marketing weenies, the graphs compare a 4060 8gb that costs under $300 depending on who you buy from with a 16gb 7600 XT and in DLSS quality mode the results are pretty close, with Nvidia even winning some of them.

    It's only when we compare the other modes, where I am guessing memory capacity comes into play, that AMD wins handily.

    As someone else pointed out, for me the smart play is an Arc based card from Intel that can be had for under $150.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eudyptula
    replied
    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.


    Originally posted by gukin View Post
    but looking at the pictures, it's got a second 75 watt eight-pin connector, that uplift may come at the price of a big power increase
    There will definitely be a penalty. It's a card pushed far beyond the power-to-performance sweetspot.​
    Last edited by Eudyptula; 08 January 2024, 01:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gukin
    replied
    Looking at the graphs, the 7600xt does seem to have a decent boost over the plain vanilla rx 7600 but looking at the pictures, it's got a second 75 watt eight-pin connector, that uplift may come at the price of a big power increase; I hope that AMD sends Michael one soon.

    As for the rebar scene, current AMD BIOS supports REBAR as far back as the B350 motherboard but some old, crochity processors like the 2400g and 3400g do NOT support rebar. I tried running my wonderful ARC A380 on a Gigabyte AB350M-DS3H with a 2400g and it was "unrewarding", the integrated Vega 11 outran the A380 in almost every case. Moving the A380 to a B450 and a 5600g drastically improved the performance of the A380. My RX 6400 still easily outperforms the A380 but considering the RX 6400 is a $140 card and my A380 was $100, the performance isn't bad for the A380.

    I was able to track down Powercolor RX 7600 in November for $250 so I can play most games in the double if not triple digit frame rates.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Meh. Not really good enough for many modern games, but too expensive if you don't play games. And AMD is doing the Nvidia thing now where they use resolution upscaling and frame rate interpolation in their charts to show off how much FPS you're getting, completely hiding the actual performance of the GPU.

    I guess we can't have nice things anymore. You either get ripped off by AMD for mediocre performance, or you need to sell a kidney, an arm and a leg for a higher perf Nvidia card. Maybe Intel's future GPUs will bring something worth looking at.

    Leave a comment:


  • khnazile
    replied
    Can we have a 35W RX7300 please?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X