The beginning of the year 2024 is certainly a busy time for graphics card launches, as today marks the end of the NDA for the AMD RX 7600 XT 16GB cards announced at CES 2024. As there will be no reference model, we received a copy of the ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT 16GB graphics card for this test.
As a reminder, in May 2023 we tested the RX 7600 8GB, designed for 1080p definition and with an MSRP of $269 (299 euros in Europe). As for the RX 7600 XT 16GB model, AMD has announced an MSRP of $329, which translates into 364.90 euros in Europe.
In our previous tests, we saw that the performance of NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 was neck-and-neck with that of the RX 7600. NVIDIA has decided to offer a 16GB version of its RTX 4060 Ti, and AMD is following suit with a 16GB RX 7600 XT.
Thanks to AMD and ASUS for making this copy of the TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT 16GB available.
[nextpage title=”ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT :”]
Architecture:
This AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the sixth card in our hands to benefit from the brand-new RDNA3architecture. This new architecture succeeds RDNA2, which was represented in particular by the latest high-end model, the RX 6950 XT. AMD has chosen to launch its two top-of-the-range models directly, as NVIDIA has done with its RTX 4090. AMD had and still has stocks of cards from the previous generation, hence this choice of launch. We also thought that the AMD RX 7000 range was complete after the launch of the RX 7700 XT and RX 7800 XT, as AMD had implied.
In the end, this was not the case, as today sees the arrival of the RX 7600 XT 16GB. We have to admit that the name of this card raises a few questions, which we hope to answer in our tests. In fact, as the design remains identical, we think its name should be RX 7600 OC 16GB. Here’s the table proposed by NVIDIA at CES 2024.
However, we can see that the frequencies are slightly higher in order to boost this model’s performance. It remains to be seen whether our TUF Gaming model will match these frequencies or whether they will be higher. We’ll be testing this model in 1080p as well as in 1440p for rasterization.
The bundle:
As you can see from the photos below, the box for our copy of the TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB is very much in the spirit of the ASUS series. The packaging is fairly compact, which is good news for the card’s size. While the box has a touch of green for NVIDIA models, here we have red for AMD.
On the rear, ASUS highlights the PCB design, the cooling system and its GPU Tweak III overclocking software, which we’ll come back to at the end of the week. The opening is on the side, where we find our graphics card perfectly protected in a foam block. The bundle includes a quick installation guide and a vertical support to place in your case to hold your graphics card horizontally. It can also be used as a Phillips screwdriver.
This is a “custom” card, i.e. with a PCB and cooling system specific to AMD’s partner brand, i.e. ASUS. There will be no AMD reference board, as was the case with the RX 7600.
Cooling :
The TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB boasts a cooling system consisting of three 92 mm fans. The design of this TUF model is visually very pleasing and features a few touches of RGB backlighting. The gray color of the aluminum casing will match any motherboard and any case. It’s simple and effective, just the way we like it.
Axial-tech fans run on double ball bearings, increasing the volume of air passing through the radiator. The result is higher temperatures and reduced noise pollution. The two side fans turn counter-clockwise. The aim is to minimize turbulence and maximize air dispersion through the radiator.
These fans have 11 blades and will remain at rest when the board is not in use, and vice versa. They become active again when the temperature requires it. As you can see, the hot air escapes through the top edge of the board, through the bracket and also through the aluminum backplate cut out at the end. In fact, the PCB is much shorter than the heat sink. The radiator ends at the PCB’s two power connectors.
As previously mentioned, the rear of the board is protected by an imposing grey backplate. Its role is to prevent the PCB from twisting, but it also plays a role in heat dissipation, with the presence of pads between it and the PCB. We’ll be able to judge the temperature of the latter during our tests. In terms of thickness, our sample occupies 3 slots.
The card also features a dual BIOS: Pmode (performance) and Qmode (quiet). By default, Pmode is selected, and in our opinion, this is the best choice, even if the differences between the two BIOS are virtually non-existent.
Connectors :
To power our board, and this is excellent news, AMD has chosen to retain two 8-pin power connectors. We also know that, as far as memory is concerned, AMD is using GDDR6 instead of GDDR6X for both boards, mainly because the latter consumes less energy and is incidentally less expensive.
AMD has opted for DisplayPort 2.1 support on these new boards. AMD offers simultaneous encoding or decoding for AV1, which will be of interest to content creators. All in all, we have three DisplayPort 2.1 and one HDMI 2.1.
[nextpage title=”Technical specifications: “]
Technical specifications:
In terms of frequency, here’s that of our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB. The base frequency is announced at 2539 MHz, while the Boost peaks at 2810 MHz. The 16 GB G-DDR6 memory runs at 2250 MHz (288 GB/s) on a 128-bit bus. Compared with the previous generation, the RX 6600 XT, frequencies have been revised upwards. These frequencies correspond to those announced by AMD at CES 2024. At present, it’s hard to say whether we’ll see factory-overclocked cards from AMD’s partners, perhaps with higher frequencies.
Compared with the RX 7600, the design remains identical, but the frequencies were lower. We had the base frequency at 2250 MHz, while the Boost peaks at 22655 MHz. The power limit is also higher on our RX 7600 XT to boost performance.
A quick run through GPU-Z to check that the information read is correct. Don’t forget that the latter will be higher in benchmarks, depending on the quality of your chip and cooling system.
[nextpage title=”Test configuration: “]
As we said in the introduction, we’re busy (again) updating all our graphics using the latest drivers from NVIDIA, AMD and, of course, INTEL. We’ve also taken the opportunity to slightly modify our test configuration and add new games to our protocol. So here we go again, with a new series of tests and graphics on this slightly modified configuration:
- Motherboard: ROG Maximus Z690 APEX
- Processor: Intel Alder Lake i9-12900K
- Memory : 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 7200 CL38 DDR5
- Graphics card: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB
- Cooling system: ROG Ryujin II 360
- SSD: Western Digital Black SN750 2 TB EKWB radiator
- Power supply: Corsair AX1600i adapter 12VHPWR 600W
- Operating system: Windows 11 64-bit (23H2)
For this test, we used a high-end configuration featuring an i9-12900K processor and DDR5. The use of a 144 Hz 4K display is also a sine qua non. For our tests, we’re using the ROG PG27UQ.
Our test protocol :
All cards are tested at stock frequencies and without any optimization. For the various benchmarks, whether synthetics or games, we’ll opt for 1080p, 1440p and 2160p resolutions, depending on the card’s performance. Here, with this model, we’ll be using 1080p and 1440p definitions for rasterization and ray tracing , as this seems the most appropriate for the placement of this RX 7600 XT 16GB.
Some cards may straddle the line between two definitions. That’s why we’ve also added the Intel A770 ARC 16GB and the NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti 8GB/16 GB at 1440p definition, even if it’s going to be very complicated for the Intel model. Our current reference card in definition is the NVIDIA RTX 3070 Ti 12GB. For a long time, we hesitated to choose a card with more memory, but in the end, the RTX 3070 Ti 12GB still delivers 1440p definition without difficulty.
As you can see, we’re now running Windows 11 and have activated the “ReSize BAR” in the BIOS, which can be seen in GPU-Z. As a reminder, our tests are still underway on the previous generation, and other cards will be added to the various definitions. Now that you know everything about our test configuration, it’s time to get started!
[nextpage title=”Synthetic and application benchmarks: “]
Our first series of tests will be dedicated to synthetic benchmarks. These are often used for overclocking competitions, but are also very interesting for comparing different GPUs. We’ll be focusing on benchmarks from the 3DMark series. Our scores may sometimes appear slightly lower, but that’s because we’re testing them with a native definition of 2160p on our ROG PG27UQ screen. If we change our screen definition to 1080p for 3DMark tests, the GPU score is better.
As we mentioned in the introduction, we’re busy re-testing all our graphics cards, and our table should be complete again for the release of the other SUPER models. We still have to test the RTX 3000 and RX 6000 for 1080p definition. In the meantime, you can find our latest graphics card panel here. But the good news is that we’ve come to the end of our tests.
We’ll be testing the following benchmarks:
- Fire Strike (1080p)
- Fire Strike Ultra (2160p)
- Time Spy (1440p)
- Time Spy Extreme (2160p)
- 3DMark Speed Way
- 3DMark Port Royal
3DMark Fire Strike and Fire Strike Ultra :
Let’s start with 3DMark Fire Strike, one of today’s most widely used benchmarks. It consists of two graphics tests, a CPU test and a fourth test that combines GPU and CPU. Don’t forget to deactivate the demo, which makes no contribution to the final score and prolongs the benchmark’s duration (unnecessarily). The version used for these tests is, of course, the latest available.
Our first benchmark with this ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB is well ahead (again) of the RTX 4060, with a gain of 3.7% over the RX 7600. In other words, nothing exceptional.
Under Fire Strike Ultra, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB takes the lead over NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 Ti 8GB, with a score of 7645 points. The gap increases slightly with the RX 7600, to 4.4%. We’ll try to get our hands on a copy of an RTX 4060 Ti 16GB to add to our tests.
3DMark Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme:
The second test is 3DMark Time Spy. Although this one is performed in 1440p, its main feature is that it uses DirectX 12. It consists of two graphics tests and a CPU test. As with Fire Strike, don’t forget to disable the demo. These first two benchmarks are provided by UL Benchmark.
The performance obtained in Time Spy is often representative of what we’ll get in games. Here, our sample of the day scores 12036 points, a 3.7% gain over the RX 7600. We’ll see if we get the same differences in rasterization and 1440p definition.
Under 3DMark Time Spy Extreme, we obtain a score of 5707 points. We should see a more interesting performance gain in 1440p than in 1080p, but we’ll have to wait and see.
3DMark Speed Way:
Ulbenchmark’s latest benchmark, and it’s nice to be able to say we’re going to benchmark this Speed Way. It uses DirectX 12 and defaults to 1440p. We haven’t modified anything, so we’re using the original benchmark.
Here too, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB scores 2062 points and takes penultimate place on our graph.
3DMark Port Royal:
Here’s a benchmark we left out last year, but which you may have wanted to see again in our tests. It’s still widely used, especially in the overclocking community. So we’ve decided to add it to our tests.
There were no surprises in this latest benchmark in the 3DMark series, with a score of 5930 points and penultimate place in our graph. Next month sees the arrival of a new benchmark, Steel Nomad, which we will of course be adding to our tests.
[nextpage title=”Gaming performance 1440p rasterized: “]
We’ve decided to select eight games, as they seem to us to be sufficiently representative. We opted for DirectX12 and Vulkan, with the following games:
- Borderlands 3
- Red Dead Redemption II
- Far Cry 6
- Watch Dogs: Legion
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
- Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3
- Assassin’s Creed Mirage
- Forspoken
We’ve chosen to use the built-in benchmarks for these games.
Why do you ask? Quite simply to enable you to compare your results with ours if you also own a copy of one of these games. It’s a thought-provoking approach that will enable you to compare your results with ours.
As we mentioned on page 4 of this article, we have activated the Resizable Bar in the BIOS, which is now supported by all (recent) GPUs. Finally, we’ve opted for 1080p definition, but also 1440p, as this RX 7600 XT 16GB should prove comfortable in this definition, depending on the game and the technologies available.
Our 1080p performance charts are “a little light “, and we’ll have to update them to include the RTX 3000 and RX 6000. Everything will be in order by the end of the month. In one definition, we have no fewer than 30 benchmarks to carry out, repeated three times to obtain an average and, above all, to ensure that there are no major differences.
Borderlands 3:
Let’s start with Borderlands. The graphics options are set to ” Brutal “. It’s worth noting that Borderlands 3 is quite greedy, and that this choice of settings has quite a strong impact on FPS. It’s a game that’s often praised in announcements of new graphics cards, and precisely in this Brutal mode.
As you can see, you’ll see performance in 1080p and 1440p for our various games. And it starts well enough, with a gain of 11% in 1080p and 3.6% in 1440p. In the end, on this first benchmark, we’re not far behind the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB.
Red Dead Redemption 2:
Second and by no means least, the sublime Red Dead Redemption II. The advantage of this opus is the possibility of testing the integrated Vulkan benchmark. We opt for the ” ultra ” graphics options.
Secondly and by no means least, RDR2 offers the possibility of testing the integrated Vulkan benchmark. The positions in our graphs are once again identical for our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB. The gains are 8.7% in 1080p and 6.2% in 2160p. The higher frequencies of the RX 7600 XT make this FPS gain possible.
Far Cry 6:
Far Cry 6 supports DXR and FSR from AMD. You’ll also find it on the next page. For our benchmarks, we opted for ” ultra ” graphics quality.
Even though our review of this game showed an advantage for AMD cards, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB once again comes through perfectly and maintains a good lead over the RX 7600.
Watch Dogs Legion:
Let’s move on to Watch Dogs Legion, which will also be used for our Ray Tracing tests. For our benchmarks, we have opted for a graphics quality of ” very high
“. Even though this game is not very recent, it’s quite interesting, since it requires a lot of memory.
The positions remain unchanged, with the ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB still ahead of the RX 7600, but the RTX 4060 Ti 8G is ahead again in this game.
Cyberpunk 2077:
Here’s a game we’ve been wanting to add for a while, and now we have, with an integrated benchmark. We’ll also be using this game for our Ray Tracing tests. For our benchmarks, we’ve opted for “ultra” graphics quality.
In 1080p, we achieved an average of 87.7 FPS, but in 1440p, none of our entry-level cards managed to reach 60 FPS.
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora:
One of the three new games we’ve just included in our rasterization tests. It’s a recent game from 2023 that tends to put a strain on our graphics cards. For our benchmarks, we’ve opted for “ultra” graphics quality. This game will also feature in our DLSS/FSR/Xess tests, as it supports FSR3.
The graph speaks for itself. Our graphics cards are suffering, and NVIDIA models are faring best. On the next page, we’ll look at what FSR3 can do for this title.
Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3:
We couldn’t do without adding Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 to our graphics card tests. For our benchmarks, we have opted for “extreme” graphics quality. This game will also feature in our DLSS/FSR/Xess tests, since it supports frame generation.
In 1080p, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB manages to hold its own against the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB, but in 1440p it’s a different story, losing 10% to its rival. Compared with the RX 7600, it performs 7% better.
Assassin’s Creed Mirage:
With a fairly recent integrated benchmark, we decided to add Assassin’s Creed Mirage to our tests.
As always, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB retains second place in 108P, but is a distant second to the RTX 4060 Ti in 1440p.
Forspoken:
This is the last game we’re adding, as it will also be used on the next page, with the presence of FSR 3. It’s also a fairly recent game, and one that also puts a strain on our graphics cards.
Forspoken is also very strong for our entry-level cards, and only the RTX 4060 Ti manages to exceed 60 FPS in 1080p. Things get even tougher in 1440p, where our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB only achieves an average of 39 FPS.
Gaming average :
For the gaming average, the RTX 3070 Ti is still our reference card in 1440p definition. Other cards score either higher or lower, depending on their performance against this model.
So what’s our first conclusion? First of all, overall, performance is real compared to the first RX 7600. But, as we said in the introduction, it’s the fairly substantial overclocking compared to the RX 7600 that brings this performance gain, even if on certain titles, the 16GB does some good. In 1080p, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB outperforms the RTX 4070 Ti by 10%. In 1440p, the picture is identical, although the differences are slightly smaller.
[nextpage title=”Ray tracing and DLSS/FSR 1440p performance:”]
Let’s take a look at the eight games we’ve selected that support ray tracing, DLSS, AMD’s FSR and Intel’s XeSS technology. As we’ve already reminded you, while DLSS remains the property of NVIDIA, FSR and XeSS can be used with any card from AMD, Intel or even NVIDIA. We’ve chosen to remove Watch Dogs: Legion since it’s the only game that supports only one technology, DLSS.
The eight DirectX 12 games we’ll be testing with ray tracing, if available, as well as DLSS, FSR or XeSS are :
- Shadow of the Tomb Raider (RT – DLSS – XeSS)
- Far Cry 6 (DXR – FSR)
- Cyberpunk 2077 (RT – DLSS 3 – FSR – XeSS)
- Hitman 3 (RT – DLSS 3 – XeSS – FSR)
- Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora (DLSS – XeSS – FSR 3)
- Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 (DLSS 3 – XeSS – FSR)
- Assassin’s Creed Mirage (DLSS – Xess – FSR)
- Forspoken (DLSS – XeSS – FSR 3)
No change for this new series of games, since we’re sticking with 1080p and 1440p definition, as for rasterization. Since these are entry-level cards, they may suffer from ray tracing in 1440p. Depending on the card, we’ll use either DLSS for NVIDIA or FSR or XeSS for AMD and Intel models. If FSR is not available in a game, then we’ll give our AMD card the benefit of XeSS technology.
DLSS 3: watch out for our results!
As you know, NVIDIA unveiled DLSS 3 with the arrival of the RTX 4000 graphics cards, and in particular with the launch of the RTX 4090 version. So why the warning? Because NVIDIA now offers DLSS 3 support on many games, but this is only supported by RTX 4000s. To put it simply, if we test a game that benefits from DLSS 3, our RTX 4060 Ti will take advantage of it, but an RTX 30xx will make do with DLSS 2, resulting in even greater discrepancies, especially thanks to frame generation. We currently have three games that support DLSS 3, and we’ll be increasing this number over the coming weeks.
But AMD has also reacted by offering its FSR 3, also combined with frame generation technology, which significantly increases the number of FPS. But now it’s time for the graphics, which will speak volumes in terms of performance.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider:
First, which we’re adding to this comparison and which supports Ray Tracing and DLSS 2.0. Three levels of Ray Tracing are offered in the game (medium – high – ultra) and the four levels of DLSS (performance – quality – balanced – ultra performance).
For our benchmarks, we opted for “very high” graphics quality, “ultra” Ray Tracing and “balanced” DLSS.
With Ray Tracing activated in ultra, an average of 89 FPS is achieved in 1080p, and 58 FPS in 1440p. Performance with FSR is far more interesting, even though NVIDIA cards dominate this benchmark.
Far Cry 6:
Far Cry 6 supports DXR and AMD’s FSR, but not DLSS.
For our benchmarks, we opted for Ultra graphics quality, activated both DRX options and FSR in “balanced” mode.
In Far Cry 6, FSR is the only choice available to boost FPS after activating Ray Tracing. So all our cards can benefit, regardless of manufacturer. Our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB takes full advantage of this and we can see the very interesting gains obtained.
Cyberpunk 2077:
Cyberpunk 2077 features DLSS and FSR activation in its settings. Note that this was the first game to enable DLSS3 for RTX 40xx graphics cards, as well as frame generation. For our benchmarks, we opted for “ultra” graphics quality, “ultra” Ray Tracing and “balanced” DLSS/FSR.
This is one of our most demanding games, where our cards have a hard time keeping up. Even with FSR enabled to compensate for ray tracing, our card can’t reach 60 FPS in 1080p. As NVIDIA RTX 4000 cards benefit from DLSS3, this is a slap in the face for AMD models.
Hitman 3:
Hitman 3 now supports DLSS, FSR and XeSS technology. Depending on the model of card tested, we opt for one of these three technologies.
For our benchmarks, we opted for “high” graphics quality, “enabled” Ray Tracing and “balanced” DLSS/Xess.
The same applies to Cyberpunk 2077, as Hitman 3 also features DLSS3. Our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB therefore lags behind.
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora:
One of the three new games we’ve just included in our rasterization tests. It’s a recent game from 2023 that tends to put a strain on our graphics cards. For our benchmarks, we’ve opted for “ultra” graphics quality. This game will also feature in our DLSS/FSR/Xess tests, as it supports FSR 3. The idea is to balance games that benefit from DLSS 3 and FSR 3.
No ray tracing here, so we’ve taken rasterization performance and activated the technologies that enable FPS gains. No DLSS3 here, but FSR3, which boosts the performance of our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB in both 1080p and 1440p.
Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3:
We couldn’t do without adding Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 to our graphics card tests. For our benchmarks, we have opted for “extreme” graphics quality. This game will also feature in our DLSS/FSR/Xess tests, since it supports frame generation.
As with Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, there’s no ray tracing here, so we’ll be activating each manufacturer’s own technology. And in that respect, it’s pretty much the same, FSR 3 is now supported in Call Of Duty Modern Warefare 3. We’ll be back in a few weeks with a DLSS3 and FSR3 feature.
Assassin’s Creed Mirage:
As we have a fairly recent integrated benchmark, we decided to add Assassin’s Creed Mirage to our tests.
Our sample of the day here is almost on a par with the RX 7600, and NVIDIA’s model, as in rasterization, stays ahead.
Forspoken:
This is the last game we’re adding, as it will also be used on the next page, with the presence of FSR3. It’s also a fairly recent game, and one that’s also taking its toll on our graphics cards.
It’s FSR3 and AMD’s frame generation that are the most brutal here, especially in 1080p, where the FPS gain takes it from 57 to 154 FPS. It will of course be very interesting to come back to these technologies to see what happens to image quality.
So, ray tracing with the ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB?
Out of the 8 games we tested, our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB had great difficulty with ray tracing enabled. As we all know, it’s the greens that do best in this game. What “saves” our sample is the availability of FRS3 combined with frame generation in compatible titles, but unfortunately too few at present compared with the number of titles compatible with DLSS3.
However, we’ll soon be telling you about the arrival of AMD Fluid Motion Frames or AFMF, a frame generation integrated directly into the drivers. It will be compatible with RX 6000 and RX 7000 cards and can be activated for all games without the need for integration by the publisher. We’ll be back with more on performance in the weeks to come, as soon as the release news calms down a little.
[nextpage title=”Temperature and power consumption: “]
Temperature :
To record temperatures, we opted for the Superposition stress test in Extreme mode. We opted for three 5-minute runs with 10-minute intervals between each test. We took advantage of this benchmark to record the graphics card’s power consumption for the table above.
To find out the Idle temperature, after completing the three stress test loops, we let the card rest for 20 minutes before taking the temperature reading. Bear in mind that most boards benefit from “0 dBa” technology, so the fans cut out below a certain temperature, often between 50 and 55°C. It therefore takes longer to dissipate heat after a period of stress testing or gaming. A card that does not benefit from this technology will be noisier than others at rest. A quick reminder: our temperature readings are taken in Open-Air. In a closed case, the cards will inevitably be warmer.
This isn’t the first time we’ve tested the cooling system on our sample of the day. Not surprisingly, temperatures are very good, especially when compared with AMD’s cooling system for the RX 7600. Your chip will be nice and cool, and we’ll be testing overclocking shortly.
Power consumption (full configuration) :
We use a wattmeter to measure power consumption at the output of our power supply. Our modular power supply is a CORSAIR AX1600i. The result is the average total power consumption of our configuration. Only the graphics card changes between each reading. So it’s easy to calculate the difference between each graphics card.
But the good news is that we should (finally) be properly equipped to isolate power consumption solely from the graphics card, as we have pre-ordered the BENCHLAB from Elmorlabs.
Power consumption is unsurprisingly higher than that of the RX 7600: the higher frequencies and the additional 8 GB increase power consumption from 248 to 303 watts for the complete configuration.
[nextpage title=”The last word:”]
Pricing?
Let’s start straight away with pricing, which is often the most complicated aspect of partner cards when compared with the reference card, whether offered by NVIDIA or AMD. Here, we’re not talking about “made by AMD” boards, so we’ll be basing ourselves on the MSRP price defined by AMD, i.e. an MSRP of $329, which in Europe translates into 364.90 euros. The first question is: “Will there be any models available at this price?
As far as the price of our ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB is concerned, we haven’t received it at the time of publishing this article, and as you’d expect, that’s quite problematic. Based on the MSRP price, we find it unfortunately too high for a 10% gain in rasterization, especially on entry-level products. Now, at what price will this TUF be offered? Difficult to estimate, since this model does not exist in RX 7600, but in Dual OC, priced at 329 euros.
Performance?
Following on from the price/performance ratio, performance is indeed on the rise, and can sometimes titillate the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB in rasterization, depending on the game. Now, the 16 GB can be seen as a plus, but are they necessary on this model? Unfortunately, not on this RX 7600 XT, especially with a 128-bit bus. On a personal note, we would have preferred to see the RX 7600 become a “real” RX 7600 XT, gaining units in terms of architecture and, why not, keeping its 8 GB, still sufficient for 1080p and 1440p.
Now, we can’t say that the purchase of an entry-level card is obvious on current generations. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 is under the 400-euro mark, but struggles to keep up with the AMD model in terms of rasterization. Admittedly, with ray tracing and DLSS3 support, it may have its arguments. In the end, the best deal for those on a tight budget may well be found on the second-hand market.
The card?
As we hinted in our presentation of the card, we’re becoming increasingly attached to this TUF Gaming series. It boasts a rudely efficient cooling system, a sober design and a perfect finish. We’re also inclined to see it more favorably priced than the STRIX models. Remember that the Dual model could also prove very interesting if you’re looking for an even more affordable price.
ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB
So, the RX 7600 XT didn’t totally convince us, even if its performance is up on that of the RX 7600, and not in the same proportions. The absence of a reference card, and therefore the availability of partner cards only, is likely to drive up the price quickly. On the other hand, the competition doesn’t offer anything much more tempting, unfortunately for us. As for the ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7600 XT OC 16GB award, we’ll have to wait and see how much it costs, which we hope will be close to MSRP.