RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon RX 7600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 7600 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

RX 7600
2023, $269
8 GB GDDR6, 165 Watt
39.29
RTX 2000 Ada Generation
2024, $649
16 GB GDDR6, 70 Watt
40.44
+2.9%

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms RX 7600 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking132118
Place by popularity26not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation84.4536.88
Power efficiency18.5544.99
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameNavi 33AD107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date24 May 2023 (3 years ago)12 February 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$269 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 7600 has 129% better value for money than RTX 2000 Ada Generation.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores20482816
Core clock speed1720 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed2655 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate339.8187.4
Floating-point processing power21.75 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs12888
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Cores3222
L0 Cache512 KBno data
L1 Cache512 KB2.8 MB
L2 Cache2 MB12 MB
L3 Cache32 MBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Length204 mm168 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2250 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.14x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.23.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RX 7600 39.29
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 40.44
+2.9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX 7600 16437
Samples: 6819
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 16920
+2.9%
Samples: 1080

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD141
+0.7%
140−150
1440p71
+1.4%
70−75
4K37
+5.7%
35−40

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.91
+58.8%
4.64
1440p3.79
+59.1%
9.27
4K7.27
+60.8%
18.54
  • RX 7600 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 7600 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 7600 has 61% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 213
+1.4%
210−220
Counter-Strike 2 348 350−400
+0.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 148 150−160
+1.4%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 158 160−170
+1.3%
Battlefield 5 130−140
+3.8%
130−140
Counter-Strike 2 336
+12%
300−310
Cyberpunk 2077 117 120−130
+2.6%
Far Cry 5 183
+1.7%
180−190
Fortnite 170−180
+1.2%
170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+2%
150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 160−170
+2.6%
Valorant 230−240 240−250
+1.7%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 93 95−100
+2.2%
Battlefield 5 130−140
+3.8%
130−140
Counter-Strike 2 179 180−190
+0.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 280−290
+0.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 100 100−105
Far Cry 5 174
+2.4%
170−180
Far Cry 6 158 160−170
+1.3%
Fortnite 170−180
+1.2%
170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+2%
150−160
Grand Theft Auto V 150 150−160
Metro Exodus 113
+2.7%
110−120
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 160−170
+2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 210 210−220
Valorant 230−240 240−250
+1.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140
+3.8%
130−140
Cyberpunk 2077 90 90−95
Far Cry 5 163
+1.9%
160−170
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+2%
150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 160−170
+2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 123
+2.5%
120−130
Valorant 230−240 240−250
+1.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180
+1.2%
170−180

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 90−95
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280−290 280−290
Far Cry 6 83 85−90
+2.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 77
+2.7%
75−80
Metro Exodus 65 65−70
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 180−190
+2.9%
Valorant 270−280 270−280

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+1%
100−105
Cyberpunk 2077 56
+1.8%
55−60
Far Cry 5 115
+4.5%
110−120
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+3.6%
110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 86
+1.2%
85−90

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+6%
100−105

4K
High

Atomic Heart 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
Counter-Strike 2 22
+4.8%
21−24
Far Cry 6 25
+4.2%
24−27
Grand Theft Auto V 82
+2.5%
80−85
Metro Exodus 38
+8.6%
35−40
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59 60−65
+1.7%
Valorant 240−250 250−260
+2.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65 65−70
+1.6%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 24 24−27
Far Cry 5 57
+3.6%
55−60
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+1.3%
75−80
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+6%
50−55

This is how RX 7600 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RX 7600 is 1% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7600 is 1% faster in 1440p
  • RX 7600 is 6% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.29 40.44
Recency 24 May 2023 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 17% more advanced lithography process, and 58% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 7600 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation.

Be aware that Radeon RX 7600 is a desktop graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 4047 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 100 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 7600 or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.