What Ever Happened to AMD's Radeon RX 6700 Non-XT?

Faked box for hypothetical Radeon RX 6700
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

AMD released its Radeon RX 6700 XT back in March, to generally favorable reviews. It's on our list of the best graphics cards (that you still can't buy at reasonable prices) and currently sits in eleventh place (tenth if you don't count the Titan RTX) in our GPU benchmarks hierarchy, slotting in right between the RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti. It's a great card and AMD's largest volume producer for its latest generation of RDNA2 GPUs. But it also uses the fully enabled Navi 22 GPU, and there will always be a certain percentage of chips that fail to pass muster. So where's the trimmed down RX 6700 non-XT? (FYI, that's a Photoshopped box image up top, in case that wasn't immediately obvious.)

When AMD released its first RDNA cards, the RX 5700 XT and RX 5700, they both launched on the same day — with new Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 CPUs joining the party. I was there; it was a testing and benchmarking nightmare! Not because the products were bad, but because it was too many new things from one company on the same day. That day was July 7, 2019 — a not-so-subtle jab at making it to 7nm well ahead of Intel and Nvidia. Launching multiple products on the same day can create problems, so I get that maybe AMD wanted to do a solo launch for the 6700 XT this round.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • Krotow
    Definitely interesting where partially faulty RX 6700 chips are disappearing. I believe chip binning is still a thing. Maybe they are sold to come specific mining hardware. Or somewhere else. Don't believe that AMD are throwing out in general functional chips who can't exactly match with RX 6700XT clock speed or have some faulty cores.
    Reply
  • donner
    6700M are 36CU cut down Navi 22. Although, I can't find laptops with 6700M after a quick google. But, maybe some manufacturer(s) committed to enough orders to hoover up the defective die and we will see them soon.
    Reply
  • Gillerer
    Isn't TSMC's N7 node supposed to have really good yields? Maybe there are only a limited number of faulty Navi 22 dies to go around.

    The 6700M is all they need and it also gets away with using a partially disabled memory controller at 160 bits instead of 192. I'm not sure desktop users would be happy with "just" 10GB and the lower bandwidth that that entails.

    Unlike normal times, it makes absolutely no sense for AMD to use fully intact 40CU dies in lower-tier products - they'll sell all the 6700XTs and 6800Ms they can make.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    It makes sense for AMD to be trying to get out a GPU with a smaller die.
    For RDNA2 they pulled a 180 over Vega to prioritize a big cache with slower memory over expensive HBM. Unfortunately for AMD, they did not anticipate that TSMC would become a major bottleneck for their production. Cache consumes a lot of die space. Their 6700XT die still has a large cache, so the chip isn't nearly as small as they need it to be. So, their current lineup is not well suited to today's manufacturing limitations. But lower powered GPUs need far less memory bandwidth, meaning an exponentially smaller cache. I would imagine that 6700XT production is pretty limited right now, with priority going to the higher margin 6900XT/6800, and to the smaller chips that they will launch soon. There may not be enough faulty chips available to support launching a 6700 for awhile. But, AMD is definitely working to solve the problem. The chiplet-on-chiplet cache that they recently demonstrated is going to be very important for their future GPUs, assuming they are similar to RDNA2.

    To Nvidia's credit, Samsung's 8nm is not nearly as efficient as TSMC's 7nm, but Samsung had capacity to spare. It looked bad at launch... But in retrospect, I think that decision is working out very well for Nvidia, right now. There's still production bottlenecks, but that's one less for them to deal with.
    Reply
  • Joseph_138
    Maybe they felt the performance gap was too narrow to be able to shoehorn another part in between the 6600XT and 6700XT, and the 6700 non-XT would end up cannibalizing sales from the other two parts to the point where none of the three was profitable enough.
    Reply