pros
- 16GB is plenty
- Drivers are solid
- Runs cool and quiet
cons
- Better value options available
- Factory OC ramps up price
- Larger VRAM often doesn’t make a difference
- Same GPU silicon as much cheaper card
The amount of memory available to your graphics card plays a vital role in gaming performance. However, is investing in a larger buffer always necessary for better results? The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT challenges this notion by offering 16 gigabytes of VRAM, paired with a well-known GPU, with prices starting at around.
The RX 7600 XT shares a similar foundation with the RX 7600, which was released in May of the previous year. Both models are equipped with the Navi 33 GPU, containing a maximum of 2,048 shaders distributed among 32 compute units (CUs). Unfortunately, the XT variant falls short as the standard RX 7600 utilizes the complete set of cores available in this chip, totaling 2,048, leaving no room for enhancement on the XT without a completely new GPU design. As such, the XT closely mirrors the non-XT model in nearly all aspects.
The RX 7600 XT presents no unexpected features, from the matching shader count to the memory subsystem. It is equipped with 32MB of Infinity Cache, which serves to reduce the need for VRAM access, and when necessary, the GPU accesses data over a 128-bit memory bus.
The XT card boasts faster clock speeds compared to the non-XT card, including the standard non-OC models. However, the PowerColor Hellhound being reviewed here is a factory OC model with game clock speeds reaching up to 2,539MHz and boost clock speeds up to 2,810MHz, surpassing the reference specification of 2,460MHz and 2,760MHz, respectively.
| Header Cell – Column 0 | RX 7600 XT | RX 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| GPU | Navi 33 | Navi 33 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3 | RDNA 3 |
| Lithography | TSMC 6nm | TSMC 6nm |
| Stream Processors | 2048 | 2048 |
| Compute Units | 32 | 32 |
| Ray Accelerators | 32 | 32 |
| AI Accelerators | 64 | 64 |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| Infinity cache | 32MB | 32MB |
| Boost clock (reference) | 2,760MHz | 2,625MHz |
| Memory | 16GB GDDR6 | 8GB GDDR6 |
| Memory interface | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 288 GB/s |
| Die size | 204mm² | 204mm² |
| Transistors | 13.3B | 13.3B |
| TGP | 190W | 165W |
AMD is aiming to attract customers with the 16 gigabytes of GDDR6 memory.
The VRAM capacity of this graphics card is significantly higher compared to other models available at similar price points. For instance, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 priced at and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 priced at both only offer eight gigabytes of VRAM. The advantage of having more VRAM is the reduced risk of reaching the limits of the onboard memory chips, which would then require utilizing much slower system memory located further away on the motherboard—far away in cache terms, at least.
Experiencing a shortage of VRAM on your graphics card can severely impact game performance. Nevertheless, simply having more memory available does not guarantee improved performance across all games; it only benefits those that are limited by an 8GB memory capacity, a scenario that is rare based on the benchmarks provided below.
There should be some overall improvement in every resolution tested as a result of the higher clock speed of the RX 7600 XT. This is mostly evident in my findings. I have observed consistent enhancements in both average and minimum frame rates with the XT, although they are mostly marginal. The improvement is definitely influenced by the fact that I am comparing a reference RX 7600 with a factory overclocked RX 7600 XT.
The extent to which the slight improvement in my benchmarking suite can be attributed to higher memory requirements is a separate matter altogether.
Based on my benchmarking of various games that offer details on anticipated memory usage, Far Cry 6 and Red Dead Redemption 2 do not fully utilize 8GB even when running at 4K resolution with the highest graphical settings. While RDR2 does not come close to reaching the 8GB limit, Far Cry 6 almost reaches it. This could be the reason why the 8GB RX 7600 struggles at 4K in Far Cry 6, resulting in slow performance and being surpassed by the RX 7600 XT.
I am not completely content with this explanation. The presence of Nvidia, AMD’s rival, poses a challenge. The RTX 4060, equipped with 8GB, delivers performance almost on par with the RX 7600 XT in Far Cry 6. This contradicts the prevailing theory, considering both companies incorporate ample cache in their latest graphics cards. It is possible that Nvidia’s strategy of significantly increasing L2 cache in the RTX 40-series is more suitable for Far Cry 6 compared to AMD’s Infinity Cache and smaller L2 cache. This could be the reason why Nvidia’s resilient card manages to stay competitive.
Although I believe that the significant decrease in performance in Far Cry 6 for the RX 7600 is likely attributed to its smaller memory buffer, the RX 7600 XT’s larger memory capacity may not be the sole determining factor for overall performance at this point in time.
In the majority of other games, the RX 7600 XT and RX 7600 exhibit similar performance levels across various resolutions. The sole exception is Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K. Analyzing the data, it appears that the RX 7600 XT manages to maintain stability unlike its non-XT counterpart when faced with the demanding ray-traced effects of Cyberpunk 2077. However, it is evident that all budget graphics cards face challenges in achieving satisfactory performance due to the heavy ray tracing present in this benchmark. The situation can be described as a fierce competition.
Increasing the resolution to 4K frequently leads to increased memory requirements, sometimes exceeding 8GB. However, it is important to acknowledge that this budget-friendly graphics card is not designed for such high demands.
The RX 7600 XT is primarily designed for 1080p gaming, excelling in delivering over 60 frames per second in the latest games at highest settings. With AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution and Frame Generation features, you can enhance performance even more in supported titles. While it can also handle 1440p gaming well in certain games, it falls short as a 4K capable card.
I am aware that the number of games requiring more memory capacity is expected to increase in the future. The Last of Us Part 1 has already demonstrated high VRAM demands, but this has been attributed to a poor PC port rather than limitations of the game’s engine. It is likely that there will be games in the future that will require reducing graphics settings to run on 8GB cards. However, I believe that the cost of the 16GB card attached to a relatively small GPU is too high to justify the investment.
The cost of the PowerColor Hellhound model is. Despite its quiet operation and ability to maintain low temperatures under heavy use, it’s difficult to justify the higher price of the RX 7600 XT. Instead, you may want to consider the frequently discounted RX 6700 XT as an alternative. With 12GB of memory and consistently better performance than the RX 7600 XT, it’s currently available for around, making it a worthwhile purchase while supplies are still available.
I would personally opt for AMD’s previous generation card, or if that’s not available, the RTX 4060, which is priced at under, for any budget-friendly PC build I am considering today. If you need 16GB on a limited budget, perhaps for some AI experiments you are conducting, the Intel Arc A770 16GB will be more affordable than AMD’s card and may even outperform it at times. While Intel’s Arc card may show varying results in benchmarking compared to AMD or Nvidia’s options, it remains a reliable performer and is often available at a lower price.
The RX 7600 XT bears numerous resemblances to the significantly more affordable RX 7600, a consequence of AMD’s decision to use the same GPU. However, the minor advantages it provides to gamers in the near future, and possibly in the medium term, are insufficient to warrant the additional expenditure. Furthermore, it faces challenges in competing with the less expensive options offered by Nvidia and Intel.