Marcus LYes, obviously during design and QC they didn't plug an 8 pin PCIE cable into the 7600 :cool:

Bomby569Worst part is whatever the redesign involves will be passed to the consumers as always is.

john_Not this time. Custom cards don't have issues and also the price was already announced at $269. They can't change it
"We change the price at $273 because we feel consumers should pay for that design error.".

SOAREVERSORThere is a dirty reality that high end PC gamers forget or just deny. Most PC gamers run potato PCs that get smoked by modern consoles. The dirty reality of PC gaming is it's largely 1060, 2060, 3060, or even 1660 nvidia stuff that will get upgraded to another mid range card later and people are running at 1080p 60hz with lower details and frame rates than a console would spit out. But it's worth it because piracy and game sales make it the poor mans gaming option and the ability to cheat like crazy is the draw when it comes to gameplay.

For how most people game on the PC this card is just fine and a good deal. That those of us here wouldn't touch it doesn't change that.

WirkoSome users are perfectly able to fix the flaw themselves. I mean properly, without damaging anything. AMD should clearly state if such a modification voids the warranty or not.

ZoneDymosomething this "low end" should not even be released today

SquaredThis reminds me a lot of the RX 480 launch. The RX 480 4GB was about $250 at launch in 2023 dollars, compared to $270 for the RX 7600. The 480 reference card had a 6-pin power connector but it drew more power than the spec allowed until a firmware update, and the 7600 reference also has a power connector issue (but this time customers won't see the issue). Neither was power-efficient for its time (but the RX 480 was AMD's most power-efficient graphics card in its time, whereas the 7600 is the least-efficient of RDNA3). I almost like it. If it had 16 PCIe lanes it'd be a very nice upgrade from my RX 480 4GB. But it only has 8 lanes, and I saw this coming so I replaced my RX 480 4GB months ago with a full x16 card.

(I know, usually there's no significant performance hit to PCIe 3.0 x8 as Tech Power Up tested on the RX 6600 XT. But the 7600 outperforms the 6650 XT, so it needs more bandwidth, and in the worst case the performance loss may be over 10%, which means it'll perform on par with the 5700 XT which can be bought used for much cheaper and has a full PCIe 4.0 x16 interface.)

Wait. The 5700 XT performs as well in 4K, probably thanks to its 256-bit memory interface. Maybe I'm being too optimistic about this card; it's a little bit of an electricity guzzler, it only has 8GB of memory, it struggles at higher resolution where it's cache isn't enough to make up for it's 128-bit memory, and it has only 8 PCIe lanes. This is no RTX 4060 Ti, which costs 48% more and has all the same downers except power efficiency while only performing 25% better in today's games, but I guess the RX 7600 is still a little disappointing.

john_You don't need to cut the backplate or remove it. Either find an 8pin extension cable that fits, or just trim the plastic bump on the cable you already have. No reason to do anything on the card.


The only problem is the price. 15 years ago something that was just a little faster than an integrated GPU was prices at under $50, even lower than $30. Today at $100+. A low end GPU was priced at under $100, today at under $300. That's the problem, pricing.

As for the reason why it is released today. Well, the fact that there where bigger, stronger, faster cars than a modern Smart 50 years ago, doesn't mean that anything under a Ferrari doesn't make sense today. It does. As you can do your job with the RX 480, the same someone can do their job with an RX 6500XT, a GTX 1650, even an A380. At a lower price 7600 will be a very good option for people who don't care setting everything at ultra, or are satisfied with lower settings, indy games, or older games at high/ultra settings.

ZoneDymoI know and recognize that, but again my point is something this "low end" should not even be released today, we need to move forwards...not just stay were we are.

Look im one of those people, I still run an RX480 today, mostly because gaming just barely grabs my attention anymore, I have been gaming for over 20 years now and I see games basically dont progress in meaningful ways for me, I recently started playing Prince of Persia Sands of Time (already completed the first...literally 20 years ago (2003 game) but never the sequels, I own it all on PC so I thought id do a complete playthrough) and obviously that runs at hundreds of FPS just fine, and playing that I once again am confronted about how little games have progressed so yeah, gaming barely grabs me anymore, just more of the same year in year out.

Cyberpunk was going to move the needle....and we all saw how that turned out, it moved the needle alright...just backwards.

Anywho, long story short, they could bring out a GPU today whos performance is equivalent to a GTX980 and it would be better then my RX480....the point is that that would be laughable to release today...there should not be a standard that low.....

and the same for this RX7600...it should not exist as this low end a product imo....

ZoneDymoI genuinely dont know why anyone would be interested in a card that preforms worse then a 3060ti

AusWolfWhy not? Just because you don't need one, no one else should?

ZoneDymoI know and recognize that, but again my point is something this "low end" should not even be released today, we need to move forwards...not just stay were we are.

Look im one of those people, I still run an RX480 today, mostly because gaming just barely grabs my attention anymore, I have been gaming for over 20 years now and I see games basically dont progress in meaningful ways for me, I recently started playing Prince of Persia Sands of Time (already completed the first...literally 20 years ago (2003 game) but never the sequels, I own it all on PC so I thought id do a complete playthrough) and obviously that runs at hundreds of FPS just fine, and playing that I once again am confronted about how little games have progressed so yeah, gaming barely grabs me anymore, just more of the same year in year out.

Cyberpunk was going to move the needle....and we all saw how that turned out, it moved the needle alright...just backwards.

Anywho, long story short, they could bring out a GPU today whos performance is equivalent to a GTX980 and it would be better then my RX480....the point is that that would be laughable to release today...there should not be a standard that low.....

and the same for this RX7600...it should not exist as this low end a product imo....

mechtechIt would be nice, but there is profit margins, and I would assume selling a 16GB RX6800 for $250 probably wouldn't meet the margins or possibly even be profitable. In a way I am kind of suprized that grfx cards aren't more money. I think of it in terms of CPU, maybe I am wrong to think of it in those terms. So if I buy a $300 CPU its usually good for ~6yr, and there is no PCB, no ram, no level of driver support like a GPU requires, no VRM like graphics card, etc. etc. If you put the motherboard and cpu together a lot of times it's combined value is more than a mid entry card.

Also most reviews run ultra max settings, which I suppose is a good way to see what the card can handle at max, but I find is they don't do medium or optimized settings to show that the card is still completely capable of playing most games.

I had an RX480 when BL3 came out and on auto settings at 1440p it would drop well below 60fps and the fans were very loud.............I watched an optimization video, and adjusted my settings with virtually no/minimal visual loss and held 60fps consistantly and fans never ramped up.

As for the RX7600 it's probably over double the performance of an RX480 if not more, and the RX480 was $239 in 2016 ...........is equivalent in purchasing power to about $302.09 today, while the RX7600 is $269, plus it has more features (whether or not you use them is another thing) supports newer standards and features, etc. etc.

I suppose another thing is back in 2016, 1080p was probably still king.............with 1440p and 4k there is more market areas now as well? So anywho, I'm kind of glad there is a 7600 beacuse I don't want to pay $250 for an RX6400 :)

john_1. An R5 5500, a B450 motherboard and 16GBs of DDR4, is much more silicon and PCB and parts than an RX 7600 or an RTX 4060 Ti, but they cost less (much less compared to 4060 Ti). And they are 3 times marketing, 3 times boxes, 3 times almost every expenses, compared to one product, one card. But profit margins are probably also much lower. Granted AM4 is old, but it is still on the market, so I guess it still makes profit and that's why it still sells. Comparing to AM5, or LGA 1700, with DDR5, probably we will go over the RX 7600 price, but we will remain way under the 4060 Ti price.

It's more or less relative to what you compare.

2. In my opinion, a $300 CPU is the equivalent to a $700 graphics card. So the comparison should be done with those cards. And even then I believe that the hardware on a graphics card is much less expensive compared to the hardware on a current gen motherboard, with a current gen CPU and plenty of DDR4/5 memory on it.


Using specific settings makes it easier to compare all cards, from the faster to the slowest. Getting 60 fps with an RTX 4090 at ultra settings and 60 fps with an RTX 4060 Ti at medium settings, will only create confusion, because most people will look at those 60fps, but they will have a problem spotting that "medium" in place of "ultra" in the charts. People without technical knowledge would not even know that they have to search for that little detail.


3. There is stagnation. Going back to 2016 to find a favorable scenario, it is bad already. But we see companies doing it in their slides lately all the time, going back 2-3 generations with the excuse of "we want to show to users of old hardware that now it is the time to upgrade". Why? Because there is no real performance improvements compared to previous gens. 50-100% performance improvements where normal many many years ago. Of course now we have hit some ceiling and we can't expect 50-100% performance improvements to come easily. But still, what do we get under $500? The RTX 4060 Ti offers performance close to the RTX 3070 at a price close to that of an RTX 3070. RX 7600 offers the same performance at the same price as the RX 6650 XT having about the same specs. AMD cut the XT from the name to have the excuse to compare the card with the 4. plain 6600, but 6600 costs $200, not 270.

Stagnation. The company that CAN offer higher performance at under $500, increases prices, the company that CAN'T offer higher performance at under $500, keeps offering the same performance at the same price.

mechtech1. thats all last gen not current
2. relative to opinion and where you live in the
3. perhaps - but feel free to start up a company and make an RX6800 16GB equivalent for $250 and I will buy one :)
4. again last gen and now it does...............it didnt when it was released.............I can get a 10 year old car cheaper than a new one as well :)

End of the day it's a decision, don't have to buy anything, vote with your wallet I belive the saying is.

john_1. It doesn't matter if the example is last gen. I don't understand how this is a parameter. Still a 13th gen i3, an under $100 new motherboard and 16GBs of DDR5 will cost as much as an RX 7600 if not less.
2. It's relative. Making assumptions about pricing it's relative. That's what I am saying. I wasn't going to use that $300 example, but you did, so I played with your rules. And you can't compare a $300 CPU to a $260 card. The $260 card is considered entry today. The $300 CPU not. It's mid range close to hi end. So you have to compare with a $700 card at least.
3. This is not an argument. What you post is not an argument. Explain to me why it is an argument. We have stagnation and what you post is not an argument. I really don't know what it is.
4. Well, that old car is in fact brand new meaning with full support and warranty. It has almost the same specs, the same performance as the new one. You are again missing my point here. Maybe you didn't understood what I wrote, maybe you choose to miss my point. Don't know.

Closing with a general comment with which the majority agrees, doesn't make the rest of the post correct.

eidairaman1It be like me writing what's the point of a gf fx 5500 or a fx 5200

He's gone off his rocker...

mechtechMy only argument is that when comparing realease to release the RX7600 relatively speaking is decent card for the money for 1080p gaming. It's not awesome, but not bad.

Bomby569Going against the trend, i do get his point, what is the point of releasing the 7600 and 4060 when they bring nothing to the gpu market? And worst in some cases they can be a poisoned pill for uninformed buyers

john_RX 7600 sells at the same price as the RX 6650 XT while offering the same performance. AMD did something very simple. It matched the price of the RDNA2 product that offers the same performance and removed the XT from the name to compare with 6600 and not 6650 XT. Looking at specs and current pricing, everyone can see that 7600 Xt is a replacement of 6650 XT and not of 6600. So, while it is decent, it is also stagnation for 2 more years.

john_RX 7600 sells at the same price as the RX 6650 XT while offering the same performance. AMD did something very simple. It matched the price of the RDNA2 product that offers the same performance and removed the XT from the name to compare with 6600 and not 6650 XT. Looking at specs and current pricing, everyone can see that 7600 Xt is a replacement of 6650 XT and not of 6600. So, while it is decent, it is also stagnation for 2 more years.