Entry-level RDNA 3 RX 7400, RX 7300 graphics cards purportedly coming soon

Radeon RX 6500 XT Phantom Gaming 8GB OC
(Image credit: ASRock)

Two years after the original RX 7000 launch, new rumors have surfaced that RDNA 3 will finally make its way to the entry-level desktop market to compete with the likes of the RTX 3050 — not one of the best graphics cards, but perhaps something people might consider in a pinch. GPU leaker Komachi_Ensaka on X reports that AMD is making two new entry-level GPUs, the RX 7400 and RX 7300, both based on the Navi 33 die.

Specs were not shared, but the shout-out to Navi 33 gives us an idea of how these GPUs will be configured. Navi 33 is the smallest and least powerful RDNA 3 GPU die AMD currently makes, and it's the only RDNA 3 die that doesn't utilize chiplets, instead sticking to the traditional monolithic design. The only desktop GPUs that use Navi 33 right now are the RX 7600 and RX 7600 XT, which both come with 2,048 shader cores and a 128-bit memory interface.

RX 7400/RX 7300 Leak

(Image credit: X - Twitter)

Should these cards surface, we can expect the RX 7400 to be a shaved-down variant of the RX 7600 and the RX 7300 an even further hobbled version. We can't say exactly how AMD will tweak Navi 33 for these two SKUs, but logically it will disable some of the Compute Units (CUs) and shader cores, possibly lower the clocks, and potentially reduce the memory bus width and VRAM capacity.

We would guess the RX 7400 will have anywhere between roughly 1,024 to perhaps 1,792 shaders, or 16 to 28 CUs. AMD could stick with the same 128-bit memory interface and 8GB VRAM as the RX 7600, or it could drop down to a 96-bit interface and 6GB of VRAM. Either way, it ought to deliver a superior experience to the RX 6500 XT and RX 6400, which normally only have 4GB of memory (though there is a newer 8GB 6500 XT variant now).

The RX 7300 would naturally trim down the specs even further. It may end up with a 64-bit memory interface and 1,024 shaders or less. Or, depending on how the 7400 gets configured, it could even have a 96-bit interface. This is all just educated guessing on our part, though the model numbers suggest there will be a larger gap between the 7400 and 7600.

One thing that Navi 33 does bring to the table, assuming it's not disabled, is full video encoding hardware acceleration. That's a feature missing from the previous generation budget GPUs, and RDNA 3 also adds support for AV1 encoding as a bonus. That should make for a more interesting solution if AMD leaves the VCU (Video Codec Unit) enabled.

However AMD decides to spec the RX 7400 and RX 7300, it could finally have RDNA 3 GPUs aimed at the entry-level segment — again, assuming the rumors are true. Consumers would potentially have an RX 6500 XT successor, which we've called one of the worst AMD GPUs ever made. The RX 6500 XT was made to combat pandemic-era GPU shortages, using mobile variants of RDNA 2's Navi 24 die that lacked several key features, saddled with a 64-bit memory interface. Needless to say, those are very big boots to fill.

If the RX 7400 and RX 7300 come out, we can't help but wonder how they'll fare when compared with the 6500 XT and 6400. The former chip only has 16 CUs and 1,024 shaders, so there's little chance an RX 7400 with a newer architecture and more CUs wouldn't beat it... unless AMD cuts things too far. Time will tell whether we actually see these new variants hit the retail market, and if so, how they end up performing when compared with other entry-level options from our GPU benchmarks hierarchy.

Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • usertests
    If the price is right (very low and on sale, not whatever the asinine MSRP will be), I might buy it. Especially with 6-8 GB. And it hopefully isn't severely limited in lanes/decoder if it's based on Navi 33.

    I've got systems with UHD 630 graphics that I could upgrade. I only need to check if I can use over 75W or not.

    Remember when 6500 XT dropped to about $100 with a free game? Let's see that and maybe I'll buy two.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    A380 6GB at $120. Fully featured. So the RX7300 had better be comparable. With the RX 6600 often at $190, even the A580 at $170, not much room for the the RX7400, at $150 maybe.

    Perhaps an OEM only option?
    Reply
  • Notton
    Hey, as long as the price is right, and it retains support for H.264, H.265, and AV1 encode/decode, I am all ears.
    Reply
  • velocityMarcus
    Notton said:
    Hey, as long as the price is right, and it retains support for H.264, H.265, and AV1 encode/decode, I am all ears.
    Agree. I think this would be great as a bare-minimum option for H.264 encoding. Always excited for the lower end of the spectrum to be filled out by AMD, even if the bulk of the impact will come when these cards are older and/or cheaper.
    Reply
  • DS426
    RX 7300 seams like it would be mostly OEM and common in HH-HL configurations. RX 7400 might work for HH-HL as well if TBP is 75W, though it seems like it might be slotting in closer to 100W if the RX 7500 is at 130W.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    Notton said:
    Hey, as long as the price is right, and it retains support for H.264, H.265, and AV1 encode/decode, I am all ears.
    I agree. The RX 6400/6500 was really good for nothing apart from being able to display images on the screen. Sure it can do some very light games, but it’s way to cut down in terms of specs and features. I feel the Intel A380 was a much better card since it’s feature rich despite its poor gaming performance.
    Reply
  • Guardians Bane
    usertests said:
    If the price is right (very low and on sale, not whatever the asinine MSRP will be), I might buy it. Especially with 6-8 GB. And it hopefully isn't severely limited in lanes/decoder if it's based on Navi 33.

    I've got systems with UHD 630 graphics that I could upgrade. I only need to check if I can use over 75W or not.

    Remember when 6500 XT dropped to about $100 with a free game? Let's see that and maybe I'll buy two.
    If it's is priced right and can perform better than the 8000 "G" series, I'd be interested as well! No so much for games. But just to have a AM5 entry level builds that I can upgrade down the road. If these don't beat the graphics on the 8600g and 8700g, I don't see many people being interested.
    Reply
  • usertests
    Guardians Bane said:
    If it's is priced right and can perform better than the 8000 "G" series, I'd be interested as well! No so much for games. But just to have a AM5 entry level builds that I can upgrade down the road. If these don't beat the graphics on the 8600g and 8700g, I don't see many people being interested.
    The RX 6500 XT has 16 CUs RDNA2 (the full Navi 24 die), RX 6400/6300 has 12 CUs.

    780M graphics in the 8700G has 12 CUs RDNA3, 760M in the 8600G has 8 CUs.

    780M graphics is usually slower than the 6500 XT, with some exceptions when the 6500 XT is limited by PCIe 3.0.

    The Navi 33 die has 32 CUs. Even if they disable it to 12-16 CUs in hypothetical RX 7200/7300, it should be able to match or beat the 780M, unless low VRAM causes severe issues. At 24 CUs, no problem.

    An RX 7400 with 24 CUs, PCIe 4.0 x8, and 6 GB VRAM, should be substantially better than the 6500 XT. Even an RX 7300 with 16 CUs and 4 GB could be better.
    Reply
  • Guardians Bane
    usertests said:
    The RX 6500 XT has 16 CUs RDNA2 (the full Navi 24 die), RX 6400/6300 has 12 CUs.

    780M graphics in the 8700G has 12 CUs RDNA3, 760M in the 8600G has 8 CUs.

    780M graphics is usually slower than the 6500 XT, with some exceptions when the 6500 XT is limited by PCIe 3.0.

    The Navi 33 die has 32 CUs. Even if they disable it to 12-16 CUs in hypothetical RX 7200/7300, it should be able to match or beat the 780M, unless low VRAM causes severe issues. At 24 CUs, no problem.

    An RX 7400 with 24 CUs, PCIe 4.0 x8, and 6 GB VRAM, should be substantially better than the 6500 XT. Even an RX 7300 with 16 CUs and 4 GB could be better.
    I might have to look into this when I get all my components for my next build. I'm not planning on heavy gaming until I get a 4070 super or 5070 (if it isn't too expensive). So I'm just needing something to get me by for another couple months or so. But I'd still like to dabble in some Fallout 4 and others like that. But for now, I still have my UM690s with 6900hx and 680m graphics. Lol, so anything would be better than that ATM.
    Reply
  • Avro Arrow
    I have a sinking feeling that these cards are going to be just as bad as the RX 6500 XT and RX 6400. Speaking of which, why is there no RX 7500? It doesn't make sense to have an RX 7300, RX 7400 and then jump straight to the RX 7600.

    The problem with making cards at this extremely low level a good value is the fixed costs involved with the production of the cards themselves. Sapphire, XFX or Powercolor could be getting the silicon for free but the cost of PCB, labour, power connectors, etc. still have to be addressed and if the performance is abysmal (which it will be), then the cards are just not worth producing in the first place.

    I 100% agree with @Eximo that these cards are going to have to be competitive with the A380 if anyone is going to take them seriously without them being $<100 (which we know they won't be). I doubt that I'll change my recommendation that the only card that anyone should consider below $300CAD is the RX 6600.

    I would be willing to bet that these cards would be far more popular with system OEMs like Dell than DIY pc builders.
    Reply