by The amount of memory your graphics card has access to is critical to gaming performance, but is it always worth spending more money on a bigger buffer? The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT puts this theory to the test, delivering 16 gigabytes of VRAM alongside a very familiar GPU and starting at ~$329.
The basic core of the RX 7600 XT is pretty much identical to the RX 7600, which was launched in May of last year. They both use the same Navi 33 GPU, which has up to 2,048 shaders shared across 32 compute units (CU). What’s too bad for the XT model is that the regular RX 7600 uses the full complement of cores available with this chip, the full 2,048, which means the XT has no room for improvement without completely different GPU design. Since that is not happening, we are left with an XT that is similar to the non-XT in almost all attention.
From the identical shader count to the memory subsystem, the RX 7600 XT doesn’t hold any surprises. There’s 32MB of Infinity Cache, which is used to help limit calls out to the VRAM, and when the GPU needs to go further, it does so over a 128-bit memory bus.
The XT comes with faster clock speeds than the non-XT card, even on the standard non-OC models. That said, the PowerColor Hellhound I’m looking at here is a factory OC model and runs up to a game clock of 2,539MHz and a boost clock of 2,810MHz, above the reference spec of 2,460MHz and 2,760MHz, respectively.
It’s the 16 gigabytes of GDDR6 memory that AMD is hoping to draw the punters in, though.
That’s a bounty of VRAM compared to other graphics cards in the market at similar prices. Both $299 (~£300). Driver for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 and $269 (~£250) Driver AMD Radeon RX 7600 come with just eight gigabytes. The benefit of having more is that you’re less likely to hit the limits of the onboard memory chip and have to resort to the much slower system memory system far away on your motherboard – far away in terms of cache, however.
Running out of VRAM on your graphics card can be quite devastating to game performance. However, access to larger amounts of memory does not necessarily help you achieve higher performance in all games, only those where 8GB of memory capacity is a problem, of which there are very few, as is clear from the benchmarks set out below.
Test rig
CPU: Driver Intel Core i9 12900K
Motherboard: Asus ROG Strix Z690-F WiFi Gaming
Storage: 2TB Sabrent Rocket 4.0 Plus
Colder: Asus ROG Ryujin II
PSU: Gigabyte Aorus P1200W
Memory: G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo DDR5-6000 CL30 2x 16GB
Graphics cards:
PowerColor Hellhound Radeon RX 7600 XT 16GB
AMD Radeon RX 7600 (MBA)
Acer Predator BiFrost Arc A770 16GB
MSI Ventus Black 2X RTX 4060
You’d expect a more general improvement at all resolutions tested due to the increase in clock speed with the RX 7600 XT. That is largely true throughout my findings. I’m seeing consistent improvements in average and minimum frame rates with the XT, if quite small most of the time. That improvement certainly helped along with the fact that I’m testing a reference RX 7600 against a factory overclocked RX 7600 XT.
How much of that slight increase over my benchmark suite is a result of increased memory demand is another question entirely.
In the games I benchmarked that provide information about expected memory usage, Far Cry 6 and Red Dead Redemption 2, they don’t keep a maximum of 8GB even at 4K with the highest graphic presets enabled. That said, while RDR2 doesn’t claim to use anywhere near 8GB, Far Cry 6 is almost at the limit. That seems to explain why the 8GB RX 7600 falls apart at 4K in Far Cry 6, managing only a snail’s pace, and easily outperforming the RX 7600 XT.
But I am not entirely satisfied with this explanation. That’s because of a thorn in AMD’s side, named Nvidia. The RTX 4060 comes with 8GB and performs almost the same as the RX 7600 XT in Far Cry 6. That flies in the face of theory, and Nvidia and AMD put a lot of cache into their modern cards. That said, perhaps Nvidia’s approach with significantly increased L2 cache sizes on the RTX 40-series is better suited for Far Cry 6 than AMD’s Infinity Cache and smaller L2 cache, and somehow keeps the wolves from the door for a plucky Nvidia card.
So while I think the big performance drop in Far Cry 6 for the RX 7600 is due to its smaller memory buffer, which the RX 7600 XT avoids by having a lot more memory available, I’m not sure it’s okay. and still at the end of the performance.
In most other games, the RX 7600 XT and RX 7600 perform within a few frames of each other at almost all resolutions. The only other exception is Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K. You could suggest, from looking at the numbers, that the RX 7600 XT like the non-XT card doesn’t fall under the weight of the track-tracking glory of Cyberpunk 2077, although this is strawman. All budget graphics cards struggle in the individual numbers due to the intensive ray tracing used throughout this benchmark. It’s in her blood.
Increasing the resolution to 4K will often result in higher memory demands, and often more than 8GB. Although I’d like to try to be realistic here: this affordable graphics card is meant to be used for the exact opposite.
Buy if…
✅ You must have 16GB: If you’re desperate to ditch 8GB, you might be justified in picking up the RX 7600 XT. Although the Intel Arc A770 16GB won’t sleep, either. Or the RX 6700 XT!
Do not buy if…
❌ You need the best value graphics card: You could save some money and get equal or better net performance with an RTX 4060, or you could spend the same on a last gen RX 6700 XT for even more frames and plenty of memory.
❌ You are not limited by 8GB: It may not be the perfect amount of VRAM for the future, but for now 8GB is suitable for most games. For a more affordable card like this, it will probably be possible for a while longer.
For the most part, this RX 7600 XT is a 1080p card, and a good one at that. The latest games typically crank out over 60 frames per second at the highest settings, and you can use AMD’s amazing FidelityFX Super Resolution and Frame Generation to pump those numbers up even more in titles supported. It’s also reasonable to expect solid 1440p performance, depending on the game. But a 4K capable card, it is not.
I understand that the number of games that will demand more memory capacity will only increase in the coming years. We’ve already seen The Last of Us Part 1 come around with high VRAM demands, though that’s largely chalked up to a poor PC port rather than an intrinsic limitation of the game’s engine. I’m sure there will be games that require pulling back some graphics settings to run on 8GB cards at some point in the future, but my argument today is that this card costs too much to pound 16GB when paired with a relatively small GPU.
The biggest thing is the price of this specific model: the PowerColor Hellhound. He is $350 card, and while it runs quietly and maintains low temperatures under load, it’s even harder to justify the increased price of the RX 7600 XT. For that money, you could consider the wildcard option: the option that is often discounted RX 6700 XT. With 12GB of memory and performance consistently ahead of the RX 7600 XT, for around the $340 mark today, it’s a solid buy while stocks last.
Personally, I’d stick with AMD’s last-gen card, or failing that, the RTX 4060, which can be found under $300, for any affordable PC build I’ve planned today. If you really need to have access to 16GB on a budget, say for some AI experiments you’re doing, and Intel Arc A770 16GB will cost you less than an AMD card and sometimes it’s better. Intel’s Arc card bounces around in benchmarking more than AMD or Nvidia’s alternatives, but it’s a solid performer and often goes cheap.
