• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Radeon 7600 Review thread

winjer

Gold Member









average-fps-2560-1440.png


1440p-p.webp


Cost1-p.webp
 
Last edited:

Xyphie

Member
I don't get how this GPU is even a thing. Could've just kept selling Navi 23-based cards with already amortized development cost for another GPU cycle. Instead they spent a bunch of time developing a new GPU that performs the same with the same power consumption, same VRAM amount on the same process node.
 
Guess it fits in with the current lineup in terms of price/performance. But pretty hard to advice someone to buy this over the 6700 XT or a 4060.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
I don't see the problem with this card, it's performing better than the one tier above card of previous generation... Which performance es expected? I'm asking honestly.

I don't think comparing it to the 4060ti is fair, it's still performing waaaay above of the 6600 (non XT) and priced better at launch, it's an actual real improvement over the 6600, what's so bad about it?
 

Xyphie

Member
I don't see the problem with this card, it's performing better than the one tier above card of previous generation... Which performance es expected? I'm asking honestly.

I don't think comparing it to the 4060ti is fair, it's still performing waaaay above of the 6600 (non XT) and priced better at launch, it's an actual real improvement over the 6600, what's so bad about it?

You can buy a better RX 6700 right now for the same price.

Or a similarly performing RX 6650 XT for $239.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the card, it's just too expensive for what it is at the launch price. At closer to $199 it could've been a fantastic product (Better than PS5 performance for half the price of a PS5 DE).
 

FireFly

Member
I don't get how this GPU is even a thing. Could've just kept selling Navi 23-based cards with already amortized development cost for another GPU cycle. Instead they spent a bunch of time developing a new GPU that performs the same with the same power consumption, same VRAM amount on the same process node.
It's actually a bit more efficient.


I imagine it was designed for laptops.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
You can buy a better RX 6700 right now for the same price.

Or a similarly performing RX 6650 XT for $239.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the card, it's just too expensive for what it is at the launch price. At closer to $199 it could've been a fantastic product (Better than PS5 performance for half the price of a PS5 DE).
Yeah but that generation was released during the crypto fiasco, everything was expensive and they've just reduced the price as the market demanded, the new cards will be cheaper way sooner than RDNA 2... Also the cheapest model is $270, still like $60 cheaper than the 6700 XT.

BTW, this probably means the 7700 non-XT will beat the 4060ti on price/performance quite handily.
 

SF Kosmo

Al Jazeera Special Reporter
People wonder why nVidia gets so out of control with their pricing, and it's because they really don't have much competition. A couple of their mid-high stuff might have a little bit, but AMD is so far behind on features that most gamers wouldn't be moved, and they know it.
 

Skifi28

Member
It's not absolutely terrible, but it's a "meh why bother" sort of card seeing the RDNA2 line up still being sold.
 

Astray

Gold Member
And pay for the hardware plus PSN subscription? What kind of crazy person would do that :messenger_tears_of_joy:
We are literally talking about the midrange cards that cost ~$400 on their own. What's worse is, in the case of the market leader, you are now officially paying the same money for less perf (less CUDA cores on 4060ti vs 3060ti at the same price). You still have to pony up for your CPU/RAM/SSD/Mobo/PSU/Monitor/KB+M in order to have a working PC, this is easily +$1,000 in total without buying any games yet. And even then, "badly optimized" games won't work as well on your PC as they will on console.

Paying for online is not great, but it pales in comparison to the above cost. So when I talk about a PC-to-console shift, I am not talking about something that might happen, because this is already happening! Sony has already reported that %30 of PS5 owners never owned a PS4.
 

JackSparr0w

Banned
We are literally talking about the midrange cards that cost ~$400 on their own. What's worse is, in the case of the market leader, you are now officially paying the same money for less perf (less CUDA cores on 4060ti vs 3060ti at the same price). You still have to pony up for your CPU/RAM/SSD/Mobo/PSU/Monitor/KB+M in order to have a working PC, this is easily +$1,000 in total without buying any games yet. And even then, "badly optimized" games won't work as well on your PC as they will on console.

Paying for online is not great, but it pales in comparison to the above cost. So when I talk about a PC-to-console shift, I am not talking about something that might happen, because this is already happening! Sony has already reported that %30 of PS5 owners never owned a PS4.
A PS5 equivalent GPU costs $260. Add the rest and you end up around $650 total which is easily worth considering PC has no subscription costs, the cheapest and biggest video games library in the world and can also do endless of other tasks.

The Playstation userbase is not growing as Sony recently reported completely stagnant PSN userbase. On the other hand Steam has enjoyed enormous growth year after year.

Badly optimized games perform poorly everywhere and especially on consoles. See Jedi Survivor 720p 17 fps on PS5.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
A year ago we couldn't buy any card because of the crypto prices.

Now that we can buy a card, all of them are shit.

I don't remember PC gaming being so bad and i got my first build 24 years ago.
 

JackSparr0w

Banned
I was thinking about an upgrade end of next year but at this rate I'm going PS5pro.
If there is a PS5pro ( doubtful) Nvidia will obliterate it like they did with the 3080 at a good price.

If you look at history Nvidia always obliterates any new console. AMD as well as they just follow along.

The current GPU prices are just a hangover of Crypto mining and even then you can still get a decent GPU deal.

I had a look around and you can build a PC that matches the PS5 in GPU power and beats it everywhere else for $650. Who wouldn't take that deal considering all the other PC gaming advantages?

Everything has tanked in price and even GPUs have come a long way since the Crypto and Covid frenzy. Soon we'll be back to complete normality.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
We are literally talking about the midrange cards that cost ~$400 on their own. What's worse is, in the case of the market leader, you are now officially paying the same money for less perf (less CUDA cores on 4060ti vs 3060ti at the same price). You still have to pony up for your CPU/RAM/SSD/Mobo/PSU/Monitor/KB+M in order to have a working PC, this is easily +$1,000 in total without buying any games yet. And even then, "badly optimized" games won't work as well on your PC as they will on console.

Paying for online is not great, but it pales in comparison to the above cost. So when I talk about a PC-to-console shift, I am not talking about something that might happen, because this is already happening! Sony has already reported that %30 of PS5 owners never owned a PS4.
There is no evidence that PC players are migrating to consoles. On the contrary Steam is still showing strong growth.

Besides PS5 cannot replace a PC, there are numerous games that are PC exclusive and other assorted benefits that a PS5 just cannot simply work as a drop in replacement.

As for the cost, you can build a PC with console equivalent specs for around $600.
 

Futaleufu

Member
This one doesnt seem as bad as people here say, it's a real upgrade over the 6600 and by the end of the year it should cost around $220, maybe $200 for black friday. I think I'll buy one then.
 

Hydroxy

Member
Good to see reviews trashing the card. AMD is just as scummy as Nvidia and need to be called out on it every time they do something scummy
 

hinch7

Member
If AMD released this at $250 or less it would make more sense. At $30 less that the 4060 why would anyone bother with this nothingburger? At least with Nvidia you get slightly less shitted on with a 4nm chip and better feature sets.

Waste of sand.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
It's basically just holding it's place in the line, same as the 4060ti. If 4060 hits the performance gains it claimed (which is questionable considering the real-world results for the 4060ti), I'd expect that one to perform a little better. It's not bad for its price because unfortunately $299 and under is more high-end to mainstream 1080p territory. But, no one is getting excited about this or the 4060, IMO. These are simply the products that fill the space when the existing products sell out. Not as big of a dud as the 4060ti, but close.

With how well the RX6700xt can compete currently against the 4060ti, the 7700 is the one to watch for. AMD got a good jump in performance while maintaining the price point between the 6600 and the 7600, if they can even boost the existing 6700xt by 15% it could be something (assuming it is still at least a 192bit card). It literally has the chance to be the only interesting card in both lineups for the average gamer if it is priced correctly.
 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Gold Member
This one doesnt seem as bad as people here say, it's a real upgrade over the 6600 and by the end of the year it should cost around $220, maybe $200 for black friday. I think I'll buy one then.
This is what I don't get, people comparing this card to 4060ti. The 7600 is 20% more powerful than the 6600 it's replacing for a cheaper price the 6600 released, and it's gonna be even cheaper as time passes
 

Astray

Gold Member
A PS5 equivalent GPU costs $260. Add the rest and you end up around $650 total which is easily worth considering PC has no subscription costs, the cheapest and biggest video games library in the world and can also do endless of other tasks.

The Playstation userbase is not growing as Sony recently reported completely stagnant PSN userbase. On the other hand Steam has enjoyed enormous growth year after year.

Badly optimized games perform poorly everywhere and especially on consoles. See Jedi Survivor 720p 17 fps on PS5.
Find me a system that can play 4k (whether full pixel count or upscaled) for 650 and let me know, I'm genuinely parts shopping for my brother's PC project right now and I'm at a legit loss here, he plays AAA stuff.

The reason ports are "bad" are mainly down to new console gen pushing min specs up, it's not a coincidence that most of the games that are seen as problematic ports (TLOU/Jedi Survivor/Hogwarts) are all "next-gen only" games, everything is VRAM hungry nowadays it seems.

Also for some reason AMD and Nvidia are both really shitting the bed lately in terms of pricing and product QA.

Any other time and I would agree with all your suggestions, but at this moment in time I have to disagree.
As for the cost, you can build a PC with console equivalent specs for around $600.
PC parts have gotten far more expensive in terms of frame/$ lately, this isn't the GTX1000 series days where a 1080 or 1070 would last for a long-ass time.
 

lukilladog

Member
This is what I don't get, people comparing this card to 4060ti. The 7600 is 20% more powerful than the 6600 it's replacing for a cheaper price the 6600 released, and it's gonna be even cheaper as time passes

The 6600 already was considered as stagnation, and 8gb is 2016 old and not good enough anymore. Crappy card.
 

JackSparr0w

Banned
Find me a system that can play 4k (whether full pixel count or upscaled) for 650 and let me know, I'm genuinely parts shopping for my brother's PC project right now and I'm at a legit loss here, he plays AAA stuff.

The reason ports are "bad" are mainly down to new console gen pushing min specs up, it's not a coincidence that most of the games that are seen as problematic ports (TLOU/Jedi Survivor/Hogwarts) are all "next-gen only" games, everything is VRAM hungry nowadays it seems.

Also for some reason AMD and Nvidia are both really shitting the bed lately in terms of pricing and product QA.

Any other time and I would agree with all your suggestions, but at this moment in time I have to disagree.

PC parts have gotten far more expensive in terms of frame/$ lately, this isn't the GTX1000 series days where a 1080 or 1070 would last for a long-ass time.
Firstforget 4k because no recent PS5 game gets even remotely near that.

Start with an AMD 5600 and an 6700XT and with some sensible choices (no dumb expensive motherboards and PSUs) you should end up with a PC at $700 that beats the PS5 across the board. Drop down to an AMD 6650 XT for a PC that matches the PS5 at $650. Optimizing graphics settings goes a long way and console games come with some settings turned down by default.

You say "lately" and then mention the GTX1000 series which came out 7 years ago. Lately which means the past year or two PC components prices have been tanking.
 

Zathalus

Member
Find me a system that can play 4k (whether full pixel count or upscaled) for 650 and let me know, I'm genuinely parts shopping for my brother's PC project right now and I'm at a legit loss here, he plays AAA stuff.

The reason ports are "bad" are mainly down to new console gen pushing min specs up, it's not a coincidence that most of the games that are seen as problematic ports (TLOU/Jedi Survivor/Hogwarts) are all "next-gen only" games, everything is VRAM hungry nowadays it seems.

Also for some reason AMD and Nvidia are both really shitting the bed lately in terms of pricing and product QA.

Any other time and I would agree with all your suggestions, but at this moment in time I have to disagree.

PC parts have gotten far more expensive in terms of frame/$ lately, this isn't the GTX1000 series days where a 1080 or 1070 would last for a long-ass time.
A 13100 16GB 6650XT PC can be built for around $600. It's roughly as powerful as a PS5, better in some games actually.
 
Top Bottom