AMD's new Radeon RX 7600 XT is basically an RX 7600 with a 16 GB VRAM buffer, but is that worth paying a premium for? Measuring the benefits of extra VRAM can be complex as we'll explore in this review.
AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT Review: Can AMD Kill the RTX 4060 Competition?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
takaozo
Posts: 997 +1,535
What we learned?
AMD just pull out a Nvidia move, see 4060Ti 8 vs 16GB 128bit.
Both cards lack the horsepower to use that framebuffer.
AMD just pull out a Nvidia move, see 4060Ti 8 vs 16GB 128bit.
Both cards lack the horsepower to use that framebuffer.
SantistaUSA
Posts: 123 +63
Atmajaya2020
Posts: 194 +126
True.. imo, its better to have more horsepower than more vram..
better yet, much horsepower with much vram..
yRaz
Posts: 6,676 +10,055
Well with the increase in memory prices they likely are breaking even on the price hike. Originally the card was supposed to be $300 but they increased it to $320 at the last minute because memory prices are going up.
I know everyone says that the card can't use 16GB of vram, and that's true, but with 128bit bus you really have 2 options, 8GB or 16GB. The 6700XT is still widely available for $350 so grab that instead. 8GB will become a bottleneck here shortly. Honestly, what they should do is make all their chips 192bit so they can use the cheaper, 2GB modules and make all their cards 12GB. That would increase performance and keep costs downish. Well, it might increase the price to 340-350 but a 192bit 12GB card would beat the leaving crap out of their 128bit 16GB card.
To me it is more interesting to see how it stacks up against Intel's offerings. My last six cards for personal builds have been Nvidia, going all the way back to a GeForce 2 MX, but they have gone so anti-mainstream consumer that I may be done with them for my price range.
yRaz
Posts: 6,676 +10,055
Well I think AMD is going to be done with low spec GPUs now. Their APUs actually provide pretty good performance and there is an APU with 7600 level of performance in the works. However, I don't understand why people bash MAINSTREAM GPUs because they, by volume, are the biggest sellers. I use to buy the biggest and badest every year but I haven't seen a game worth spending that kind of money on in years. Currently have s 6700xt and I serves my needs fine. I'd probably still have my 1070ti if it didn't die on me.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,589 +10,555
Except when you have games like forspoken, as an example, or resident evil village where even on low settings 8GB results in stuttering and crashes.
No APU will hit 7600xt performance until they have 7600xt memory bandwidth, by which time the hypothetical 7600xt successor will have significantly more.
Atmajaya2020
Posts: 194 +126
8gb is sometimes not enough for some games, but sometimes the problem is that some games are not optimized properly, not the gpu itself..
and there are still lots of games that can be played without needing 8gb of VRAM...
Last edited:
I believed this principle myself… until I saw the 4070 Ti SUPER. Nowadays a deliberately restricted power envelope has a more significant impact on performance potential improvements than anything…
LetTheWookieWin
Posts: 175 +362
Great article as always, Steve!
Quick question: Maybe I’m missing something, but the chart for Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p just looks strange. You show the 6600 beating the 7600 XT, the 7600, and the 6650XT. The next chart for CP2077 at 1440p has the 6600 at the bottom, behind all of those other cards and more inline with what I would expect. Is there an error in your 1080p chart, or perhaps an explanation of how the 6600 is surpassing these other cards?
Quick question: Maybe I’m missing something, but the chart for Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p just looks strange. You show the 6600 beating the 7600 XT, the 7600, and the 6650XT. The next chart for CP2077 at 1440p has the 6600 at the bottom, behind all of those other cards and more inline with what I would expect. Is there an error in your 1080p chart, or perhaps an explanation of how the 6600 is surpassing these other cards?
Last edited:
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,589 +10,555
I love this argument. The current gen consoles have 16GB. People have a real hard time understanding that even properly optimized games are going to push past 8GB today. It's been like that for every game console generation going back to the PS2/xbox days.
The first 8GB GPUs can be traced back to 2014. A decade ago. It's time to move on. IDK why people are so attached to the 8GB figure, but just like 512MB GPUs in 2012, they have reached the end of their service life.
A little late, but just wanted to say this isn't quite right.
Modern consoles have 16GB of Total RAM. That is the split between the background OS, regular system RAM in so far being used for a game, and VRAM.
To add to this last gen(Xbox One and PS4) had 8GB of RAM that was shared the same way.
The gen before that, Xbox 360 and PS3, had 512MB.
Putting that last one into context: they got games like Witcher 2, Battlefield 4, Shadow of Mordor(albeit without Nemesis system) and Wolf NWO running on those same console that had a total of 512MB RAM split between OS, system, and VRAM.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What Ever Happened to Winamp?- Postone replied
