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

[jurij]

I'm considering this graphics card, time to upgrade my old one

[Panix]

I don't see how this is backwards, it's what I said except for the fact that Nvidia was the underperformer in this regard last generation. Like I said, this changed with the introduction of the 4000-series.

The power-efficiency of the 7000 series is underwhelming because of the 4000 series as well as its minimal improvement over the 6000 series.



Yeah, we agree on this, it's what I said in my previous comment.



They're trash because RX 7600 is considerably better bang for your buck.



This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't that be the exact reason for caring?

The worst part about all this is that Nvidia genuinely have great technology and they genuinely innovate, in terms of technological advances. But they take drag this innovation through questionable business practices and make it into anti-consumer products.

I don't think innovation, capitalism and monopoly is an excuse to be shitty. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. People defend way too much crap for these silly reasons.



Yeah, AMD suck at creation and productivity, but they aren't useless. The performance is just really bad. If you're in the market for a card for serious non-gaming related tasks, sure, Nvidia is no doubt the better buy.

You end it by saying "Nvidia is recommended there, too" which contradicts what we've talked about and isn't accurate. For gaming AMD does have a higher number of good buys. Having said that, Nvidia is in the process of "Superization" of their lineup and as far as the new 4070 Ti SUPER goes it just adds to the list of silly cards nobody should buy. It even looses in terms of power-efficiency compared to 7900 XT, which is also cheaper and performs better. It even trade blows in ray tracing.



I don't dual-boot. I'd say that the very few games not working on Linux aren't really games you have to play anyway. We have more good games than people are able to play in their lifetime now. To me, whatever doesn't work on Linux doesn't exist. But I know a lot of people would agree with my sentiment. That's fine.

As for productivity software, I can't comment too much other than Kdenlive being solid. So whether Blender works well or not, I don't know. However, I know a lot of people are too impatient and expect everything to work perfectly at launch and forget about driver and sotware improvements and fixes over time. Should it work perfectly on launch? Not really? There will always be bugs which takes time to find and to fix.

It seems you haven't really tried using your productivity software on Linux, though. The best way of actually knowing how it works is trying it and if problems occur, not just give up from the first road block which is often easy to get past.




As for Blender, yeah. Davinvi Resolve? I have no idea. Regarding the need of closed source stuff, this is true for both, though. You can't really escape it.


It's not a major mess, it's simply a distinction between what AMD cards are viable for and what they are not.

But yeah, I can agree with this, that Nvidia is the brand of choice for productivity work.




I think we got there in the end, fortunately. But it was the way you framed it from the beginning that really didn't give me much else to go by. Here's how I saw it from my perspective:


I think you can agree that this paints a very biased and scewed picture and also does a disservice to yourself and your following comments. It very strongly conveys a narrative that you did not correct or reformulate in the following comments (so why should I assume you somehow didn't mean what you wrote?). I can only go by what you articulate in order to gauge what your stance is. Although I don't disagree with the productivity vs gaming argument, I think you can understand how hard you made it for someone to not interpret your narrative as argumentation for AMD cards in generall being total dog water without much use at all, as that's what you explicitly expressed in length.

Here's my response to the bold text:
- AMD GPUs aren't weak
- The features are definitely existent and a lot of them are really good
- AMD cards are definitely not just for playing videos, as we've gone through
- And definitely not limited to being good in laptops, which they also are. They doing very good in the mobile space, actually.
- You read it has defects and design flaws? It's not the case. There was an initial vapor chamber issue, pretty minor in the big picture. It doesn't mean there's an architectural design flaw.
- It was initially more power hungry, which was since fixed. While the power-efficiency is generally behind, AMD actually beats Nvidia in this regard for certain models. So this is pretty exaggerated and sometimes simply untrue.
- Sarcastic claps, uncalled for. It makes you seem so much more frivolous.
- They keep up regardless of resolution and like I've said, have a number of cards considerably better than Nvidia's (for gaming, yes). The maybe at the end was again completely uncalled for and unwarranted.
- "AMD doesn't care about Linux": this is kind of subjective. They certainly care massively more than Nvidia which has been notorious and infamous for neglecting Linux support. This is where the most users have been complaining to the point where people's first question to PC support threads is often "are you using an Nvidia card?". So does AMD care about Linux? Certainly, but they don't have the resources Nvidia have and while they have been hiring a lot of Linux developers, they're still a company first and foremost in the game to make money like the rest. But there's no comparison to Nvidia which deservingly gets the reward for the shitties GPU support on Linux.
- "all they care about is their gaming - in particular, their consoles and now AI": If you reformulated the first part and removed the latter bits (or at the very least reframed it), this would make sense. But instead it just adds to creating a message of bias and inaccuracy.
- Again, they certainly have good features, some of which are trading blows with Nvidia, but there are certainly aspects where they are lacking. I wish AMD put more energy into this.
- You say they are poorly implemented. Again, often this is not true. You have to be more specific for someone to be able to address it, not just make a generalized statement that paints a picture with a too wide brush. Same with the "I read about disgruntled AMD GPU owners". It insinuates, especially with the surrounding context of your comment, that this is a large problem exclusive to AMD. Not only is it not accurate but it's also not a fair representation of the situation.
- "So frustrated they're gonna switch to Nvidia": same thing as above
- You sarcastically bash the 7900 XT, which ironically is one of its strong cards and one that even beats a number of Nvidia cards in terms of power-efficiency. Again, you did yourself a disservice.
- Then there's more sarcasm and bashing about power consumption (which really isn't that bad and sometimes quite good, in comparison to certain Nvidia cards).


This is why I said you painted an inaccurate picture. This is the narrative you led. This is what I was left to interpret your opinions and perspective from.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to disregard that comment if you change your mind on it and misspoke (perhaps got a bit carried away). What matters is getting to the truth and finding common ground. It seems to me we can actually agree on a lot of things (although in the end, what matters is what is true). I'm optimistic that your stance isn't as scewed and biased as your initial comment made it seem, even though I'm still confused as to why you wrote your initial comment like you did. And so the following short comments were still confusing because of the context of your more lengthy initial narrative. Until your last comment which was a lot more helpful to the discussion. That's how we get somewhere.

You sound like an AMD shill - almost as bad as Mr. Q - well, maybe worse. The last gen - AMD wasn't that much better - I'd argue it was worse in a lot of ways - the flagship cards - I know the 6900 XT ran hot, had higher transient spikes than even the 3090 - had high power consumption and although it might have beaten the 3090 in many games - it was the same story with productivity - the Nvidia gpu was the better, all-around gpu - if you need it for gaming but other tasks too - it was the better choice. There may be a reason to pick the AMD gpu for better Linux support but Wayland/Nvidia was in bad shape then?

However, for the average user who just wants a gpu for all-around work - the Nvidia gpu was a better performer.

This continues with the next gen - except Nvidia improved their weaknesses or flaws - now the power consumption is much better - and the heat problem isn't as bad - compared to RDNA 3, anyway - the temps of the 7900 series cards are pretty bad. Power consumption for them are bad, too.

I didn't say I don't care about Nvidia being a bad company - I said, that won't necessarily determine my gpu choice - as I can just buy used and therefore, Nvidia doesn't get my money - I agree, their business practices are not good - but, when you only have two choices - and AMD is unable to warrant or justify in their investment, you need to pick the Nvidia gpu.

There's many reasons or indications that their gpu is a choice that is lacking in features and advantages:
1) inefficient power - high power consumption - which often means a louder, hotter running card - the RDNA 3 gpus - especially, the 7900 XT/XTX run hot - and many either have fan issues, bad coil whine or other issues
2) rep - there's still claims of poor support - w/ drivers - crashes, freezers etc. - in Windows AND Linux
3) programs/apps either don't work properly or lack features - I already brought this numerous times with Blender as my example; however, other programs are often mentioned as having issues - including those in the AI world
4) hdmi 2.1 - the open source ecosystem has advantages but here's one in which it exists with hassles or obstacles - try using a 4k TV as your display - which only has hdmi ports - if you have hdmi 2.1 - you'll need an adapter - and it won't have VRR - you also have to run through hoops and pray that it works - as they're not all the same.
5) gaming/drivers - Nvidia has DLSS and ray tracing - both are supposedly better (performers) vs AMD's - and AMD competes mostly on rasterization? AMD's FSR(3) is trying to catch up but afaik, isn't there yet. I think this is a wash - pick your poison - ray tracing enabled 'kills' frames - it has an impact on performance and many say it's overrated - however, for the ray tracing acceleration - it's a major benefit in productivity software
6) Wayland - Nvidia w/ Wayland was a reason to avoid Nvidia in Linux - but, it sounds like it's improving - although FOSS AMD is generally good for gaming - there's a lot of programs that need proprietary software/packages - doesn't that cancel out the 'good stuff? in AMD's favour?

Finally, I'll mention price - this is the only area that is in AMD's favour and if one buys used - I think this adv. disappears - if buying new, I believe the 7900 XT and 7900 XTX are better 'deals' than Nvidia gpus in the same tier - but, you can still go by the above list and argue that the Nvidia gpu is the better buy if the price gap isn't too large. I think it's really difficult to recommend AMD gpus even in Linux and I am not advocating buying a new Nvidia gpu - it's just a practical viewpoint regarding which gpu offers more.

[Eudyptula]

I think you have it backwards - yes, the 30 series might have power issues - so Europeans will have to undervolt that (30) series but that holds true for AMD's flagship RDNA 3 cards too. But, the 40 series is much better except for the 4090 - but, then, if they can afford that - they can afford the electricity it will consume, right?

I don't see how this is backwards, it's what I said except for the fact that Nvidia was the underperformer in this regard last generation. Like I said, this changed with the introduction of the 4000-series.

The power-efficiency of the 7000 series is underwhelming because of the 4000 series as well as its minimal improvement over the 6000 series.

The 40 series is a much more efficient series, overall than RDNA 3.

Yeah, we agree on this, it's what I said in my previous comment.

I concur, the 4060 / 4060 Ti are junk cards - the 'improvement/progress' over the similar/corresponding 30 series - i.e. 3060 / 3060 Ti is modest at best. Lots of reviewers called it 'trash' - yeah, I concede that

They're trash because RX 7600 is considerably better bang for your buck.

but, I don't care. Nvidia is a crappy company and that's what they do.

This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't that be the exact reason for caring?

The worst part about all this is that Nvidia genuinely have great technology and they genuinely innovate, in terms of technological advances. But they take drag this innovation through questionable business practices and make it into anti-consumer products.

I don't think innovation, capitalism and monopoly is an excuse to be shitty. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. People defend way too much crap for these silly reasons.

But, there's really only 2 companies to choose from right now - right? The 40 series - 4080 / 4090 equivalents on the AMD side is the 7900 XT and 7900 XTX and those RDNA 3 gpus are primarily gaming cards - from my research and reading - all they are really good for considering their high price (it's irrelevant that they're cheaper than the 4080/4090) is gaming. They are not good at productivity software - if you read their performance and situation in Blender, for e.g., or for video editing (often slower depending on the use case - and often occurring with complaints of crashing/issues) or even AI - although, maybe that gap is narrowing - don't know - I haven't really researched that field but usually, Nvidia is recommended there, too.

Yeah, AMD suck at creation and productivity, but they aren't useless. The performance is just really bad. If you're in the market for a card for serious non-gaming related tasks, sure, Nvidia is no doubt the better buy.

You end it by saying "Nvidia is recommended there, too" which contradicts what we've talked about and isn't accurate. For gaming AMD does have a higher number of good buys. Having said that, Nvidia is in the process of "Superization" of their lineup and as far as the new 4070 Ti SUPER goes it just adds to the list of silly cards nobody should buy. It even looses in terms of power-efficiency compared to 7900 XT, which is also cheaper and performs better. It even trade blows in ray tracing.

I'm a Linux user - athough, I concede I dual boot - I will have to - I dont' have much confidence in using this software in Linux - as there's reports of many problems or issues - but, my intention is to eventually 'transition' over - if possible. Both Blender and Davinci Resolve have Linux versions and theoretically, I should be able to use Linux in them and there are also open source options in the video editing world I can experiment with.

I don't dual-boot. I'd say that the very few games not working on Linux aren't really games you have to play anyway. We have more good games than people are able to play in their lifetime now. To me, whatever doesn't work on Linux doesn't exist. But I know a lot of people would agree with my sentiment. That's fine.

As for productivity software, I can't comment too much other than Kdenlive being solid. So whether Blender works well or not, I don't know. However, I know a lot of people are too impatient and expect everything to work perfectly at launch and forget about driver and sotware improvements and fixes over time. Should it work perfectly on launch? Not really? There will always be bugs which takes time to find and to fix.

It seems you haven't really tried using your productivity software on Linux, though. The best way of actually knowing how it works is trying it and if problems occur, not just give up from the first road block which is often easy to get past.

But, Nvidia is often recommended with both programs - what I'm told time and time again is that AMD doesn't compare - either performance is way behind or you even have issues like crashes or things just don't work - or that you have to manually configure the software PLUS there's assertions that you need closed source stuff - I assume closed source packages relating to opencl?

As for Blender, yeah. Davinvi Resolve? I have no idea. Regarding the need of closed source stuff, this is true for both, though. You can't really escape it.

To summarize, it sounds like a big can of a major mess despite the FOSS part but again, it's much simpler if you're just gaming (which is my point). Try to find Linux users who use those programs with AMD gpus - good luck on that. "If you're a Linux user and you use programs unrelated to gaming - Nvidia SUDDENLY becomes relevant.'

It's not a major mess, it's simply a distinction between what AMD cards are viable for and what they are not.

But yeah, I can agree with this, that Nvidia is the brand of choice for productivity work.

I think you'll find I paint a very accurate picture of the current situation. Unfortunately... :-( AMD only supports gaming and now - AI.

I think we got there in the end, fortunately. But it was the way you framed it from the beginning that really didn't give me much else to go by. Here's how I saw it from my perspective:

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.

I think you can agree that this paints a very biased and scewed picture and also does a disservice to yourself and your following comments. It very strongly conveys a narrative that you did not correct or reformulate in the following comments (so why should I assume you somehow didn't mean what you wrote?). I can only go by what you articulate in order to gauge what your stance is. Although I don't disagree with the productivity vs gaming argument, I think you can understand how hard you made it for someone to not interpret your narrative as argumentation for AMD cards in generall being total dog water without much use at all, as that's what you explicitly expressed in length.

Here's my response to the bold text:
- AMD GPUs aren't weak
- The features are definitely existent and a lot of them are really good
- AMD cards are definitely not just for playing videos, as we've gone through
- And definitely not limited to being good in laptops, which they also are. They doing very good in the mobile space, actually.
- You read it has defects and design flaws? It's not the case. There was an initial vapor chamber issue, pretty minor in the big picture. It doesn't mean there's an architectural design flaw.
- It was initially more power hungry, which was since fixed. While the power-efficiency is generally behind, AMD actually beats Nvidia in this regard for certain models. So this is pretty exaggerated and sometimes simply untrue.
- Sarcastic claps, uncalled for. It makes you seem so much more frivolous.
- They keep up regardless of resolution and like I've said, have a number of cards considerably better than Nvidia's (for gaming, yes). The maybe at the end was again completely uncalled for and unwarranted.
- "AMD doesn't care about Linux": this is kind of subjective. They certainly care massively more than Nvidia which has been notorious and infamous for neglecting Linux support. This is where the most users have been complaining to the point where people's first question to PC support threads is often "are you using an Nvidia card?". So does AMD care about Linux? Certainly, but they don't have the resources Nvidia have and while they have been hiring a lot of Linux developers, they're still a company first and foremost in the game to make money like the rest. But there's no comparison to Nvidia which deservingly gets the reward for the shitties GPU support on Linux.
- "all they care about is their gaming - in particular, their consoles and now AI": If you reformulated the first part and removed the latter bits (or at the very least reframed it), this would make sense. But instead it just adds to creating a message of bias and inaccuracy.
- Again, they certainly have good features, some of which are trading blows with Nvidia, but there are certainly aspects where they are lacking. I wish AMD put more energy into this.
- You say they are poorly implemented. Again, often this is not true. You have to be more specific for someone to be able to address it, not just make a generalized statement that paints a picture with a too wide brush. Same with the "I read about disgruntled AMD GPU owners". It insinuates, especially with the surrounding context of your comment, that this is a large problem exclusive to AMD. Not only is it not accurate but it's also not a fair representation of the situation.
- "So frustrated they're gonna switch to Nvidia": same thing as above
- You sarcastically bash the 7900 XT, which ironically is one of its strong cards and one that even beats a number of Nvidia cards in terms of power-efficiency. Again, you did yourself a disservice.
- Then there's more sarcasm and bashing about power consumption (which really isn't that bad and sometimes quite good, in comparison to certain Nvidia cards).


This is why I said you painted an inaccurate picture. This is the narrative you led. This is what I was left to interpret your opinions and perspective from.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to disregard that comment if you change your mind on it and misspoke (perhaps got a bit carried away). What matters is getting to the truth and finding common ground. It seems to me we can actually agree on a lot of things (although in the end, what matters is what is true). I'm optimistic that your stance isn't as scewed and biased as your initial comment made it seem, even though I'm still confused as to why you wrote your initial comment like you did. And so the following short comments were still confusing because of the context of your more lengthy initial narrative. Until your last comment which was a lot more helpful to the discussion. That's how we get somewhere.

[Panix]

What exactly is AMD only good for on the gaming side? At having a number of cards providing better performance per dollar? Because that's certainly the case even on Windows.

The 7600 XT mainly competes with AMD itself. It's similar to RTX 4060 but has double the VRAM. Still, 7600 is the winner here. It's cheaper than both and trade blows with RTX 4060 while being cheaper.

If they gave the 7600 XT some more power and stopped at 12 GB VRAM it would be a better card, but a price adjustment can still redeem it.

On Linux the situation is a lot worse for Nvidia, according to Phoronix's benchmarks. The RTX 4060 on Linux is pointless and 7600 XT gets you 10 - 27 % more performance for only 10 % more money. The 7600 is still a much better value if the extra VRAM is not needed. The previous generation still going strong (which shows us how silly Nvidia's 3000-series lineup was).


The 4000-series improves power-efficiency a lot compared to the 3000-series and it was much needed. They went from being worse than AMD to being better. But AMD still provides more per dollar, more often than not.

So while I think power-efficiency is important, it's not really worth much if the total cost of ownership still is higher for the same performance....

If you have insane electricity prices and is very focused on utility bill, you'd usually be better off buying an AMD card and make some slight adjustments to its power profile and save a couple of dollars a month (assuming an increase in consumption of 50 watts for 6 hours each day for twice the electricity price compared to US average). So for most people, it's not a deciding factor.

When it comes to ray tracing, it's simply irrelevant at this product segment. You won't get anywhere near playable performance. Only the high-end cards perform well enough for it to be worth mentioning.


For Windows users, Nvidia have some competitive cards. On Linux, there are few to none. Hopefully they can improve this situation with drivers. I'm not holding my breath, though, as AMD can also play that game.


On Windows the RTX 4070 Ti is a compelling card. The RTX 4070 would be, although 6800 XT is in its way, as well as 7800 XT being priced lower. The 4060 could be compelling with a price-decrease (the 7600 gets your more for your money). The 4080 and 4090 are silly cards, especially the latter. Just utter disrespect for the customer. You get the most performance, but the price you pay is so unreasonably high that you'd be better off spending it elsewhere or wait for the next generation. Those cards don't deserve such a price and Nvidia shouldn't be enabled to operate with such prices... Ideally, AMD would have higher performing cards, but the lack there of doesn't mean people should spend the money Nvidia is asking for their top cards...

You paint a very inaccurate image of the situation. Both GPU giants have some compelling cards, AMD aguably having more of them (undoubtedly true for Linux users). Both AMD and Nvidia each have their pointless cards, the green giant being the worse offender. It shouldn't be controversial considering some of Nvidia's prices not even remotely reflecting what you get in return. The RTX 4090 cost $2250 while the 7900 XTX costs $960... The RTX 4090 should've cost $1400 at most. Which would still be too much, unless you only care about ray tracing and ignore the much smaller performance difference in other games.

Only in terms of high-end cards is ray tracing actually useful, but at that point you're paying so much that it's a sadistic joke. Price for price, for cards with playable ray-tracing performance, AMD is not far off. Meaning, accounting for all metrics, Nvidia really isn't too competitive with most their cards.

Both of them trade some blows, each of them have their weaknesses. Both of them have pointless cards. Nvidia is the worse offender in terms of asking for more money than they should. If you are a Linux user, Nvidia is kind of irrelevant.

I didn't talk much about Intel. Their prices are very competitive and more than accounts for the inconsistent performance. Compelling cards for someone on a budget.

I think you have it backwards - yes, the 30 series might have power issues - so Europeans will have to undervolt that (30) series but that holds true for AMD's flagship RDNA 3 cards too. But, the 40 series is much better except for the 4090 - but, then, if they can afford that - they can afford the electricity it will consume, right?

The 40 series is a much more efficient series, overall than RDNA 3. The 4090 has the power cable scandal - that's about it - for complaints. It's serious but the RDNA 3 series has way more on the whole - they have high power consumption just playing a video, high power consumption when using more than one monitor - due to varying refresh rates? Either way - they have some sort of peculiar issues there. The power consumption is generally higher than Nvidia's 40 series.

I concur, the 4060 / 4060 Ti are junk cards - the 'improvement/progress' over the similar/corresponding 30 series - i.e. 3060 / 3060 Ti is modest at best. Lots of reviewers called it 'trash' - yeah, I concede that - but, I don't care. Nvidia is a crappy company and that's what they do. But, there's really only 2 companies to choose from right now - right? The 40 series - 4080 / 4090 equivalents on the AMD side is the 7900 XT and 7900 XTX and those RDNA 3 gpus are primarily gaming cards - from my research and reading - all they are really good for considering their high price (it's irrelevant that they're cheaper than the 4080/4090) is gaming. They are not good at productivity software - if you read their performance and situation in Blender, for e.g., or for video editing (often slower depending on the use case - and often occurring with complaints of crashing/issues) or even AI - although, maybe that gap is narrowing - don't know - I haven't really researched that field but usually, Nvidia is recommended there, too.

I'm a Linux user - athough, I concede I dual boot - I will have to - I dont' have much confidence in using this software in Linux - as there's reports of many problems or issues - but, my intention is to eventually 'transition' over - if possible. Both Blender and Davinci Resolve have Linux versions and theoretically, I should be able to use Linux in them and there are also open source options in the video editing world I can experiment with.

But, Nvidia is often recommended with both programs - what I'm told time and time again is that AMD doesn't compare - either performance is way behind or you even have issues like crashes or things just don't work - or that you have to manually configure the software PLUS there's assertions that you need closed source stuff - I assume closed source packages relating to opencl? To summarize, it sounds like a big can of a major mess despite the FOSS part but again, it's much simpler if you're just gaming (which is my point). Try to find Linux users who use those programs with AMD gpus - good luck on that. "If you're a Linux user and you use programs unrelated to gaming - Nvidia SUDDENLY becomes relevant.'

Find me some Linux users who have compared/tried both AMD and Nvidia gpus (preferably, more recent series/generations) with these programs - and see what they say/report. I think you'll find I paint a very accurate picture of the current situation. Unfortunately... :-( AMD only supports gaming and now - AI.

[Eudyptula]

AMD on the gaming side - that's all it's good for, though, right? I dunno but possibly some used gpus - even if older gen - is a better performer, perhaps? I suppose the 7600 XT isn't officially out/released yet and might be some super gpu - but, I wouldn't get my hopes up - yes, it's probably okay for a budget 1080p card.

What exactly is AMD only good for on the gaming side? At having a number of cards providing better performance per dollar? Because that's certainly the case even on Windows.

The 7600 XT mainly competes with AMD itself. It's similar to RTX 4060 but has double the VRAM. Still, 7600 is the winner here. It's cheaper than both and trade blows with RTX 4060 while being cheaper.

If they gave the 7600 XT some more power and stopped at 12 GB VRAM it would be a better card, but a price adjustment can still redeem it.

On Linux the situation is a lot worse for Nvidia, according to Phoronix's benchmarks. The RTX 4060 on Linux is pointless and 7600 XT gets you 10 - 27 % more performance for only 10 % more money. The 7600 is still a much better value if the extra VRAM is not needed. The previous generation still going strong (which shows us how silly Nvidia's 3000-series lineup was).


The 4000-series improves power-efficiency a lot compared to the 3000-series and it was much needed. They went from being worse than AMD to being better. But AMD still provides more per dollar, more often than not.

So while I think power-efficiency is important, it's not really worth much if the total cost of ownership still is higher for the same performance....

If you have insane electricity prices and is very focused on utility bill, you'd usually be better off buying an AMD card and make some slight adjustments to its power profile and save a couple of dollars a month (assuming an increase in consumption of 50 watts for 6 hours each day for twice the electricity price compared to US average). So for most people, it's not a deciding factor.

When it comes to ray tracing, it's simply irrelevant at this product segment. You won't get anywhere near playable performance. Only the high-end cards perform well enough for it to be worth mentioning.


For Windows users, Nvidia have some competitive cards. On Linux, there are few to none. Hopefully they can improve this situation with drivers. I'm not holding my breath, though, as AMD can also play that game.


On Windows the RTX 4070 Ti is a compelling card. The RTX 4070 would be, although 6800 XT is in its way, as well as 7800 XT being priced lower. The 4060 could be compelling with a price-decrease (the 7600 gets your more for your money). The 4080 and 4090 are silly cards, especially the latter. Just utter disrespect for the customer. You get the most performance, but the price you pay is so unreasonably high that you'd be better off spending it elsewhere or wait for the next generation. Those cards don't deserve such a price and Nvidia shouldn't be enabled to operate with such prices... Ideally, AMD would have higher performing cards, but the lack there of doesn't mean people should spend the money Nvidia is asking for their top cards...


You paint a very inaccurate image of the situation. Both GPU giants have some compelling cards, AMD aguably having more of them (undoubtedly true for Linux users). Both AMD and Nvidia each have their pointless cards, the green giant being the worse offender. It shouldn't be controversial considering some of Nvidia's prices not even remotely reflecting what you get in return. The RTX 4090 cost $2250 while the 7900 XTX costs $960... The RTX 4090 should've cost $1400 at most. Which would still be too much, unless you only care about ray tracing and ignore the much smaller performance difference in other games.

Only in terms of high-end cards is ray tracing actually useful, but at that point you're paying so much that it's a sadistic joke. Price for price, for cards with playable ray-tracing performance, AMD is not far off. Meaning, accounting for all metrics, Nvidia really isn't too competitive with most their cards.

Both of them trade some blows, each of them have their weaknesses. Both of them have pointless cards. Nvidia is the worse offender in terms of asking for more money than they should. If you are a Linux user, Nvidia is kind of irrelevant.

I didn't talk much about Intel. Their prices are very competitive and more than accounts for the inconsistent performance. Compelling cards for someone on a budget.

[Panix]

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.

AMD on the gaming side - that's all it's good for, though, right? I dunno but possibly some used gpus - even if older gen - is a better performer, perhaps? I suppose the 7600 XT isn't officially out/released yet and might be some super gpu - but, I wouldn't get my hopes up - yes, it's probably okay for a budget 1080p card.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.