• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The Radeon RX 7600 Review Thread

Not at this level , theres already videos of a 4060Ti suffering with dlss 3 and frame generation. Sure the counter says 100 fps, but subjective gameplaying shows lag, giving a lie to the numbers on screen. The concensus being, starting from 40 fps and upscaling and adding frames isnt a good experience.

I'm not referring to dlss 3/fg but just the upscaling side of dlss, dlss is still way ahead of fsr 2 especially for lower presets and lower res. which is where these gpus will be aiming at the most.
 
I would personally pay £40 more for dlss 2 and DLDSR alone, with these gpus, you are definitely going to need upscaling so get the gpu that offers the considerably better option.

Other reasons/pros, reflex, shadowplay/nvenc for recording and streaming if that's your thing.

And of course, probably will pull ahead in RT.
Using RT on a 4060 is going to be somewhat... aspirational. I mean I've done it on my 3060 but it's never worth it and that thing is going to be barely any faster.
 
Watch the videos, its not as amazing at 1080p as you think; then both cards hit the throughput limit of the ring bus (128bit)

It's not amazing but it is leaps and bounds better than FSR 2 is for lower resolution and lower presets, also when used in combination with DLDSR, you can get very good results.

EDIT:

Also, this is taking into consideration the latest DLSS versions from 2.5.1 and above where massive improvements were made to lower presets of dlss.

Using RT on a 4060 is going to be somewhat... aspirational. I mean I've done it on my 3060 but it's never worth it and that thing is going to be barely any faster.
Yup, sacrifices will have to be made but one will be more usable than the other.
 
Last edited:
I would personally pay £40 more for dlss 2 and DLDSR alone, with these gpus, you are definitely going to need upscaling so get the gpu that offers the considerably better option.

Other reasons/pros, reflex, shadowplay/nvenc for recording and streaming if that's your thing.

And of course, probably will pull ahead in RT.

Well if AMD are thinking (which is always in doubt tbh) they could easily offer a 7600 with 16GB of vram for the same price as the 4060. Then the choice is double the vram or DLSS/FG pick your posion.
 
yeah slap me some of that 320p upscaling at 1080! what could go wrong
Sort of in the same way that a dark chocolate teapot will last a bit longer than a milk chocolate teapot but sure.

I rather have a crap experience than a dog **** experience :cry: Lesser of 2 evils and all that.

With the way games are nowadays even on the ££££ hardware, no chance of avoiding the need of upscaling for gpus of this level so at least get one that will provide you with a somewhat better experience here.

Simple solution, don't buy any :)
 
It's not amazing but it is leaps and bounds better than FSR 2 is for lower resolution and lower presets, also when used in combination with DLDSR, you can get very good results.

EDIT:

Also, this is taking into consideration the latest DLSS versions from 2.5.1 and above where massive improvements were made to lower presets of dlss.

Its not though and thats the problem; the cards have both a hard ring bus limit and a ram limit. dlss et al both take ram , which takes more of that space. 1080p medium might get acceptable results (where ultra or high dont) , but this is a £400 gpu in 2023 (where the 1070 launched at)
 
Last edited:
Its not though and thats the problem; the cards have both a hard ring bus limit and a ram limit. dlss et al both take ram , which takes more of that space. 1080p medium might get acceptable results (where ultra or high dont) , but this is a £400 gpu in 2023 (where the 1070 launched at)

What do you mean? Upscaling tech reduces vram usage.... Frame generation is what uses up vram, which is why the 4060 buckles here, dlss2/upscaling is fine.
 
Last edited:
I think people are forgetting, if you need upscaling that's not a good thing, it means your hardware isn't good enough for the resolution and settings you want to run. It's a solution looking for a problem, a problem engineered by cut down chips and lack of VRAM.

Does that mean when a 4090 ***** the bed in some games at 4k natively and needs upscaling or/and frame generation to bring back up it's fps, it's not good enough?
 

Also can happen in some games at 1440p too, a 24gb gpu having issues at that res in this day and age, shock horror! :D



On a more serious note though, people really should experiment with DLDSR and DLSS, it is fantastic, native 3440x1440 vs 4587x1920 dlss performance


Better IQ and better performance and less vram used than native. DLSS quality looks great too and fps is about 75/80 but DLSS perf 4587x1920 if you want better IQ is the way to go.

And AA is broken with DLSS in TLOU too, in something like hogwarts, the difference is massive.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean when a 4090 ***** the bed in some games at 4k natively and needs upscaling or/and frame generation to bring back up it's fps, it's not good enough?
Short of some dodgy coding yes. I don't remember a time in the past where people expected any hardware to run everything at all settings maxed out. Remember Crysis? No hardware was able to max it out. The hardware wasn't bad but it couldn't do that job. The same can be said now, a lot of the hardware is being upsold, 1080p cards sold as 1440p cards but only if you use upscaling. They were simply never 1440p GPU's and the 4090 isn't good enough to max out some games natively at 4K, that's ok but let's not pretend it can.
 
Back
Top Bottom