Radeon RX 7600 XT vs VII
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon VII and Radeon RX 7600 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
7600 XT outperforms VII by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 134 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.40 | 76.27 |
| Power efficiency | 10.20 | 16.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Navi 33 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 7600 XT has 338% better value for money than Radeon VII.
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 cores | 3840 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2755 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 13,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 420.0 | 352.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.44 TFLOPS | 22.57 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 280 mm | 204 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
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 type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 HD | 121
+0.8%
| 120−130 |
| 1440p | 75 | 80−85
+6.7%
|
| 4K | 58 | 60−65
+3.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.78 | 2.74
+52.5%
|
| 1440p | 9.32 | 4.11
+55.9%
|
| 4K | 12.05 | 5.48
+54.5%
|
- RX 7600 XT has 53% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7600 XT has 56% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 7600 XT has 55% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 230−240
+6.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 95−100
+4.4%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 100−110 | 110−120
+3.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 136 | 140−150
+2.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 230−240
+6.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 95−100
+4.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99 | 100−105
+1%
|
| Fortnite | 195 | 200−210
+2.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 163 | 170−180
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 157 | 160−170
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 230−240 | 240−250
+3%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 137 | 140−150
+2.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 230−240
+6.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 290−300
+4.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 95−100
+4.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 160 | 170−180
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95 | 100−105
+5.3%
|
| Fortnite | 154 | 160−170
+3.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157 | 160−170
+1.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 111
+0.9%
|
110−120 |
| Metro Exodus | 88 | 90−95
+2.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 158 | 160−170
+1.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 139 | 140−150
+0.7%
|
| Valorant | 230−240 | 240−250
+3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 127 | 130−140
+2.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 95−100
+4.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 147 | 150−160
+2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91 | 95−100
+4.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130 | 130−140 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 143 | 150−160
+4.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75 | 80−85
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 197 | 210−220
+6.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 114 | 120−130
+5.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 290−300
+5.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43 | 45−50
+4.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56 | 60−65
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 180−190
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 260−270 | 280−290
+4.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 100−105
+4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 120−130
+7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 80−85
+6.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 110−120
+5.8%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62 | 65−70
+4.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 240−250 | 250−260
+3.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73 | 75−80
+2.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 80−85
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77 | 80−85
+3.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 58 | 60−65
+3.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 44 | 45−50
+2.3%
|
This is how Radeon VII and RX 7600 XT compete in popular games:
- Radeon VII is 1% faster in 1080p
- RX 7600 XT is 7% faster in 1440p
- RX 7600 XT is 3% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.75 | 41.55 |
| Recency | 7 February 2019 | 8 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 190 Watt |
RX 7600 XT has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 36% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon VII and Radeon RX 7600 XT.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
