I might have to agree on this one ngl, with probably longer support with its own amd competitor which is the 6700 XT, and not to mention the availability on other countries such as mine where the 6700 XT is only available in powercolor 2 fans for 370$ 😅
Correction 7:58 - Should say 2 DisplayPort connectors and 2 HDMI ports. 22:02 - Cost Per Frame on 4070 SUPER is listed wrong, should say '$5.69' Per Frame 22:02 - Cost Per Frame charts read as "Higher Is Better" but should say 'Lower Is Better'
Still don't understand it having DisplayPort 2.1 ports on this price range of card. When there is no sub £1,000 DisplayPort 2.1 gaming monitors currently that can support it. Unless more makers are slow to test it to check the benefits.
How can you exclude the RX 6700XT/6750XT from the charts when its the same price but with better performance? That is a super relevant part to compare to the 7600XT.
For at least a year the 7600 XT will fill the non-gaming niche of "entry level workstation" card, because of its mandatory DP 2.1 + HDMI 2.1 outs. If you want to drive a 2x4K 240 Hz display for work (i.e. Windows desktop) without ugly DSC problems and limitations on the 40 series, this is your cheapest option (bar some premium 7600 models that are very hard to find and very overpriced).
Great to see Radeon lose another opportunity to get in front of Nvidia 🤦♀🤦♂🤦🙈. AMD should just from the bottom up again and actually put some Ryzen profits in Radeon R&D for better gpus. In addition, the only way they’re going to decent market share is by delivering a moderately faster GPU and moderately lower price point to Nvidia e.g. Nvidia creates the 4060 and AMD needs to get 4060 + ~25% more fps at rasterisation and at ~25-30% less money. Why: - DLSS upscaling with its AI is way better in terms of image quality over FSR, - DLSS generally delivers better frames boost than FSR, - Ray Tracing is waaaay more frames on Nvidia over AMD, - Nvidia has waaaay better production software support (hopefully RocM can gain some ground for), - Nvidia delivers more per game driver updates for its lower performing results than Radeon AMD sees itself as an alternative to Nvidia which it’s not and can’t justify its prices compared to Nvidia (yes pricing this generation is f’ed). I mainly game with Nvidia, use production software with better nvidia support, but I do use a 6700XT for some gaming too and see the differences!
At the end in the cost per frame charts you should title 'lower is better' instead of 'higher is better'...and the best value cards should be in top. Not on the bottom...
Why would there be refrence to a 2000 dollar card... makes your graphs very misleading and shows your confirmation bias is being fully tickled. If your testing a lower end mid range card maybe keep it to mid range so your graphs have more spread.
@@eTeknix Then you have the cost per frame chart wrong. The 7600 XT is 22% more expensive. If the 7600 XT isn't 20% more powerful, then cost per frame can't be just 2% worse.
@@JackJohnson-br4qr It is 22% more expensive, and is only 20% more powerful with the 2 outliers as explained above, so there really isn't anything in it. Would you pay 22% more money for 20% more performance?
@@eTeknix Yes. 100%. New GPUs with only 8GB of VRAM in 2024 should be banned. It's like a car with 3 wheels. No matter how cheap it is, I don't want it. I'm not an acrobat to try to juggle with settings in games just to prove to you 8GB is fine. It is already evident today that 8GB is not enough in some games even at 1080p. And I don't buy a GPU just for a month until a new one comes out (as some do).
@@JackJohnson-br4qr if you’re on a strict budget though, it’s a tough one and turning down from ultra to high would negate the memory issues for the most part. I’m not saying 8gb is enough but someone on a budget would find the extra cash a bit too much.
It's not a bad card at all. Imagine if it came out at around $300. That would have been a home run for AMD.
I might have to agree on this one ngl, with probably longer support with its own amd competitor which is the 6700 XT, and not to mention the availability on other countries such as mine where the 6700 XT is only available in powercolor 2 fans for 370$ 😅
i consider to buy it in for my pc its pretty cheap and fits in my budget (i m saving up for a pc) and i like 16 gb of vram
@@Enjoy33r or u can get the 6700 XT for 192 bit 12 GB Vram, and it does have more performance
@@_ynnek thanks but I already realized that's this would be a better option
@@Enjoy33r alright, good for u men atelast u did not take a 4060 is all that matters (atleast for gaming)
Correction
7:58 - Should say 2 DisplayPort connectors and 2 HDMI ports.
22:02 - Cost Per Frame on 4070 SUPER is listed wrong, should say '$5.69' Per Frame
22:02 - Cost Per Frame charts read as "Higher Is Better" but should say 'Lower Is Better'
Still don't understand it having DisplayPort 2.1 ports on this price range of card. When there is no sub £1,000 DisplayPort 2.1 gaming monitors currently that can support it. Unless more makers are slow to test it to check the benefits.
@@roythunderplumpi assume it's a futureproofing thing
How can you exclude the RX 6700XT/6750XT from the charts when its the same price but with better performance? That is a super relevant part to compare to the 7600XT.
Arnt those 12 gb vram
For at least a year the 7600 XT will fill the non-gaming niche of "entry level workstation" card, because of its mandatory DP 2.1 + HDMI 2.1 outs. If you want to drive a 2x4K 240 Hz display for work (i.e. Windows desktop) without ugly DSC problems and limitations on the 40 series, this is your cheapest option (bar some premium 7600 models that are very hard to find and very overpriced).
Great to see Radeon lose another opportunity to get in front of Nvidia 🤦♀🤦♂🤦🙈.
AMD should just from the bottom up again and actually put some Ryzen profits in Radeon
R&D for better gpus. In addition, the only way they’re going to decent market share is by delivering a moderately faster GPU and moderately lower price point to Nvidia e.g. Nvidia creates the 4060 and AMD needs to get 4060 + ~25% more fps at rasterisation and at ~25-30% less money. Why:
- DLSS upscaling with its AI is way better in terms of image quality over FSR,
- DLSS generally delivers better frames boost than FSR,
- Ray Tracing is waaaay more frames on Nvidia over AMD,
- Nvidia has waaaay better production software support (hopefully RocM can gain some ground for),
- Nvidia delivers more per game driver updates for its lower performing results than Radeon
AMD sees itself as an alternative to Nvidia which it’s not and can’t justify its prices compared to Nvidia (yes pricing this generation is f’ed).
I mainly game with Nvidia, use production software with better nvidia support, but I do use a 6700XT for some gaming too and see the differences!
Hi, do you need quality thumbnails for video?
With all of the price drops it'll be a good buy soon enough at 250-300.
Can't decide between this and a 4060 for 2560x1080p max settings gaming :(
Well, at least AMD isn't competing with its own boardpartners
Literally just bought this graphics card... feeling quite the deep regret but just coping with the idea that it will do what it will do ;-;
Regret why? It doesn't perform well?
Please productivity benchmark
Thats what I need so badly, but no benchmarks on that anywhere..
Very nice
the 7600xt beats the 1660 I was previously using so I'm happy with my 7600xt.
At the end in the cost per frame charts you should title 'lower is better' instead of 'higher is better'...and the best value cards should be in top. Not on the bottom...
Why would there be refrence to a 2000 dollar card... makes your graphs very misleading and shows your confirmation bias is being fully tickled. If your testing a lower end mid range card maybe keep it to mid range so your graphs have more spread.
Спасибо за информацию,очень интересно ,вы лучшии блогер
Appreciate that ❤️
15:33 damn, the 4090 kills the 7900 xtx
Your overall results stating 20% more performance at 1080p but your verdict is: No difference vs 7600 non XT? :😀
Cyberpunk RT and COD makes up for most of that. Across more games, it’s just not worth 2 extra FPS.
@@eTeknix Then you have the cost per frame chart wrong. The 7600 XT is 22% more expensive. If the 7600 XT isn't 20% more powerful, then cost per frame can't be just 2% worse.
@@JackJohnson-br4qr It is 22% more expensive, and is only 20% more powerful with the 2 outliers as explained above, so there really isn't anything in it. Would you pay 22% more money for 20% more performance?
@@eTeknix Yes. 100%. New GPUs with only 8GB of VRAM in 2024 should be banned. It's like a car with 3 wheels. No matter how cheap it is, I don't want it. I'm not an acrobat to try to juggle with settings in games just to prove to you 8GB is fine. It is already evident today that 8GB is not enough in some games even at 1080p. And I don't buy a GPU just for a month until a new one comes out (as some do).
@@JackJohnson-br4qr if you’re on a strict budget though, it’s a tough one and turning down from ultra to high would negate the memory issues for the most part. I’m not saying 8gb is enough but someone on a budget would find the extra cash a bit too much.