If gaming is all you use the card for RDNA3/RDNA2 doesn't really matter. The RT performance is a little better with 3, but if they are going to drop the number of CUs in the 7800XT from the 6800XT, then even that is diminished considerably. Same with the 7700XT going from 54 CUs down to 32? That's what rumors have Navi 33 pegged at. So if that is the case, your going from 54 RT accelerators to 32, so what if they are 1.5X better. Yeah, I know these are rumored specs, but I'm not sure what to be excited about here.
AMD confirms mainstream RDNA 3 GPUs before summer, accidentally lists Radeon 7950 XTX
- Thread starter nanoguy
- Start date
yRaz
Posts: 6,409 +9,479
Well the only positive I can say about it is that it would be an absolute marketing and sales disaster if the 7800xt was slower than the 6800xt. I don't think AMD would do that. I believe it will be faster, if only marginally and probably more expensive. But I see a large group of people refusing to buy last gen cards for no other reason then they are last gen cards, even if they're new in box. Frankly, as long as it has more than 16 gigs of VRAM and costs the about the same as the 4060ti then people are going to buy it, even if they buy it begrudgingly.
b3rdm4n
Posts: 180 +130
I mean, when you set the criteria for this choice, you've intentionally make it super dumb and unrealistic to choose the 4090 unless you go super fanboy mode, of course I'd go with the 7900XTX, but lets say I was actually choosing between the two, the factors at play nothing like your created example.
The difference where I live is about $650 USD, perhaps less even depending on specials (which are happening for both). To get something that fits my needs, it must have 2x native HDMI 2.1 ports on the card, I can't find a single 7900XTX that has that, couple that with the multi monitor issues, then the 4090's higher performance ceiling and stronger feature set and the choice isn't as obvious all of a sudden.
Now, I'm not actually going to buy either tbh, a 4090 or a 7900XTX at current prices, referenced against my needs and personal criteria makes both of them a hell no. When I can get ~2x a 3080 performance, with min 16GB VRAM for under $1000 USD, I'll upgrade, as it stands the options that could fit that bill aren't fast enough or are too expensive.
I have zero brand loyalty, I'll buy from any of the 3 camps if they make a product that fits that description and my specific needs.
yRaz
Posts: 6,409 +9,479
I'm glad you brought up the HDMI port thing. I, too find cards with only 1 HDMI port annoying but I've never had issues using a display port to HDMI adapter.
b3rdm4n
Posts: 180 +130
Unfortunately too they must be full fat HDMI 2.1, as I have two 4k120 VRR monitors/TV's and I haven't seen any DP adapters that can support 4k120 + VRR without Chroma Subsampling, perhaps DP 2.1 to HDMI 2.1 will start coming out that works without compromise.
yRaz
Posts: 6,409 +9,479
Yeah, that's a real bummer. I think it's only a matter of time, though. DP2.1 is relatively new and that's a fairly niche need.
Well best of luck, I hope that gets solved soon.
b3rdm4n
Posts: 180 +130
Oh it's absolutely a niche need on my part, and I got 'lucky' choosing my current hardware that the specific model I chose happened to fulfill it and enable me to use it, but now it's a requirement for future purchases. I really hope AIB Radeon models consider 2xHDMI 2.1 ports.
yRaz
Posts: 6,409 +9,479
Honestly, I wish they'd put DP on TVs because I, too, use a TV as a monitor
b3rdm4n
Posts: 180 +130
I'd absolutely love that. imo DP > HDMI, and annoyingly even on higher end TV's none have it unless they're effectively branded as a monitor, very annoying.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
same feelings with my 3060ti...
I don't think it will be slower, the increased frequency will make it a tad faster, kind of like the 4070 Ti vs the 3080. The 4070 Ti has less cores, but the higher frequency more than makes up for the difference. However, I believe that AMD touted something like 1.5X -1.7X RT performance from its RT cores. A lot of that came from the increased frequency. But, you won't see 1.5X RT performance on the 7800XT if it has 12 less cores than the 6800XT, you are starting with 17% less cores to begin with. So RT gains wouldn't be that impressive either. The true successor to the 6800 XT is the 7900 XT, but AMD opted to call it the 7900 XT to justify the massively increased price tag. Somehow AMD got away with what Nvidia got called out on, which was bumping up a GPU's tier in order to justify a price increase. Well, I guess they technically did not, sales of the 7900 XT were terrible until the price drop and still are not great.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,438 +1,222
The problem is you are full of misconceptions... then go on to rant about them.
-The Radeon 7800xt will be slightly slower than the 4070ti and about the performance of 6950xt for around $649...
-The Radeon 7700xt will be on par with the 4070 for around $549...
Please tell us what the rtx4070 should be selling for...? Since it will be slower than those two cards..!
The 7800XT will likely slot in between the 4070 Ti and 4070 as you suggest, but the 7700XT, if its accurate that it will be Navi 33, will not be on par with the 4070, it will be closer to the 4060 Ti (just like 6700 XT was behind the 3070 and barely ahead of the 3060 Ti). The 4070 is $600, but guess what, its not selling. So what makes you think a slightly more powerful 7800 XT at $650 is going to sell? It won't. It's more expensive than what you can get a 6950XT for right now and it will not beat that card. You only need to look at the 7900XT which is only 14% faster than the 6950 XT and has 84CUs, the 7800XT will have only 60CUs, given similar frequency, it will be at least 25% slower than the 7900XT. AMD needs to sell their cards at a discount compared to Nvidia already to get any traction, so there is just now way a $650 7800XT is a big seller unless the rumors are all wrong, it ends up on Navi 31 and 7700 XT ends up on Navi 32, but this article and leaks suggest otherwise. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but I'm going with the rumored specs that seem to be confirmed by this leak. I know its not obvious unless you read my entire chain of posts, but my whole premise is what it would take for AMD to really shake up the market.
The prices I have been putting in are absolutely not likely to be the final prices, but they are the prices that would move the goal posts. The problem we have right now is that gamers don't want to pay these prices, but costs have gone up disproportionately to what gamers are willing to pay. So, with the exception of the 4090 which is for those that have more money than sense, none of these "high-end" high costs GPUs are moving fast.
Last edited:
m3tavision
Posts: 1,438 +1,222
You keep making claims, based off nothing.
Here is an example of it:
"But, you won't see 1.5X RT performance on the 7800XT if it has 12 less cores than the 6800XT, you are starting with 17% less cores to begin with. So RT gains wouldn't be that impressive either."
50% more performance per CU....
Now for comparison between RDNA2 and RDNA3.
- -Navi21 (6950xt) = 80 Compute Unites and 5120 Cores using RDNA2.
- -Navi31 (XTX) = 96 Compute Unites and 6144 Cores using RDNA3.
So you are trying to tell us that Navi 32 & 33 won't have the same improvements, because you theorized so...? Without understanding that RDNA3 architecture is different than RDNA2..?
You really can't compare CU to CU because rdna3's SIMD are different & VGPR are bigger, etc....? (Understand, per CU RDNA3 is more powerful than RDNA2.)
PS:
Also, is there is a reason you keep using cut down chips such as the XT and 6800 and afraid to outright compare die to die...?
Navi31 = 96cu (6144 SP)
Navi32 = 60cu (3840 SP)
Navi33 = 32cu (2048 SP)
You are confusing the issue playing the naming game. Will the 7800xt use a cutdown Navi31 (72 CU ?), or will it be the full Navi32 die w/60cu..?
None of it makes ANY sense without comparing it to AD104 prices...!!
Actually, if you would just read what I wrote you would understand what I meant because I spelled it out. But let's do the math shall we? 1.5 X 60 = 90 and 1 X 72 = 72 90/72= 1.25 so there you have it. As I said, the 7800 XT will not have 1.5X the RT performance of the 6800 XT, it will have 1.25X... Because its not 1:1 the number of CUs. The article that you obviously failed to read shows the 7800 XT slated for Navi 32... Everything I have said is based on the specs that we currently have and they are rumors and I have said as much. All of this could change if 7800 end up on Navi 31, but it's unlikely. Thank youYou keep making claims, based off nothing.
Here is an example of it:
"But, you won't see 1.5X RT performance on the 7800XT if it has 12 less cores than the 6800XT, you are starting with 17% less cores to begin with. So RT gains wouldn't be that impressive either."
50% more performance per CU....
Now for comparison between RDNA2 and RDNA3.
- -Navi21 (6950xt) = 80 Compute Unites and 5120 Cores using RDNA2.
- -Navi31 (XTX) = 96 Compute Unites and 6144 Cores using RDNA3.
So you are trying to tell us that Navi 32 & 33 won't have the same improvements, because you theorized so...? Without understanding that RDNA3 architecture is different than RDNA2..?
You really can't compare CU to CU because rdna3's SIMD are different & VGPR are bigger, etc....? (Understand, per CU RDNA3 is more powerful than RDNA2.)
PS:
Also, is there is a reason you keep using cut down chips such as the XT and 6800 and afraid to outright compare die to die...?
Navi31 = 96cu (6144 SP)
Navi32 = 60cu (3840 SP)
Navi33 = 32cu (2048 SP)
You are confusing the issue playing the naming game. Will the 7800xt use a cutdown Navi31 (72 CU ?), or will it be the full Navi32 die w/60cu..?
None of it makes ANY sense without comparing it to AD104 prices...!!
Last edited:
Vanderlinde
Posts: 433 +273
Quite the understatement, knowing the 7900 series is already a succes for it's pricepoint. They got a winner of a chip.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,438 +1,222
Yeah, but you forgot to say... "Based off my assumptions"...
Bcz nobody really believes that AMD made a chiplet design for just two SKUs... so to humor the people in the thread, why don't you do some nifty math and compare a 72CU 7800xt with a 72CU 6800xt and see what kind of assumptions you can come up....
For a card that will cost $150 less than the $800 XT, for about $649....
It's not based on my assumptions. It's based on every single leak and rumor for the 7800 XT. They all have it based on Navi 32. But because you refuse to actually read the article here it is:
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7950 XTX | RDNA3 | gfx1100
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7950 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1100
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7900 XTX | RDNA3 | gfx1100
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7900 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1100
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7800 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1101
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7700 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1102
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7600 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1102
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7500 XT | RDNA3 | gfx1102
- AMD Radeon™ RX 7600M XT | RDNA3 | gfx1102
- This is what was the entire article was about. This is the SKU list that leaked.
Actually, according to this Navi 31 will have 4 SKUs if you count the 50 refresh models, its the Navi 32 that really doesn't make much sense with a single SKU thus far. However, this has been consistently how these things line up when new information has leaked. Everything else is on Navi 33. And I have said clearly that its based on leaked/rumored specs.
I would be very happy if these leaks and rumors proved false and the 7800 XT did have at least 72 CUs, but it seems that there may have been a 7800 XTX that was cancelled due to better than expected yeilds of Navi 31 that had 72 CUs. This makes sense considering there is already a cut down Navi 31.
So, the question then is, if the rumors are true and the 7800 XT is only 60 CUs and is only 10-15% faster than the 6800 XT and maybe 25% faster with RT. Are you still willing to pay $649? It's irrelevant to speculate that these leaks and rumors are wrong because we are having a discussion about leaks and rumors.
What is really sad is that FSR works on more Nvidia GPUs than DLSS.
Nobina
Posts: 4,505 +5,507
Terrible idea. Mid-range cards are more expensive then ever. Optimizing for Crossfire has been awful back then to the point where in some games you were getting the same performance. Not to mention GPUs today are very power hungry so you would need a beefy PSU which means you have to spend more money. AMD is not known for optimizing anyway. It will never work.
Nobina
Posts: 4,505 +5,507
They're not alienating people who only know of Nvidia as the GPU vendor. However, if that is true, we will see AMD gaining some market share in the near future but I doubt it.
The Navi 31, so far, has been segmented as follows:
7900 XTX = 6 SEs, 96 CUs, 2.5 GHz Boost
7900 XT = 6 SEs, 84 CUs, 2.4 GHz Boost
W7900 = 6 SEs, 96 CUs, 2.5 GHz Boost
W7800 = 5 SEs, 70 CUs, 2.5 GHz Boost
So there's certainly scope for a 7800 XT powered by a 5 SE, 72-78 CU, 2.3-2.5 GHz Navi 31, just from the pattern of the above binning. On paper, the 7900 XT is roughly 84% of the performance of the 7900 XTX (and about the same in average gaming), a 72 CU, 2.3 GHz 7800 XT would be approximately the same percentage of the 7900 XT's performance.
However, the expected specs for the Navi 32 7800 XT are, of course, 60 CUs @ 2.8 GHz, which is 83% of a 7900 XT. So a Navi 31-based 7800 XT, using 72 CUs, wouldn't really be that much better, if at all. They'd have a similar number of SEs, the same amount of cache, and the same local bandwidth.
Until now, I haven't seen any mention of the clocks on these cards so I assumed similar clocks to Navi 31 cards. If indeed they are clocked 12.5% faster, well that makes a huge difference.
Reports of clocks have been a mixture of speculation and supposed leaks, leading to an expectation of what the 7800 will be clocked to. But simply going from the differences in Boost clocks in Navi 21 and 22, Navi 32 should have no issue with reaching at least 2.8 GHz.
RX 6750 XT (Nav 22, 40 CUs) = 2.60 GHz
RX 6950 XT (Navi 21, 80 CUs) = 2.25 GHz
RX 6700 (Navi 22, 36 CUs) = 2.45 GHz
RX 6800 (Navi 21, 60 CUs) = 2.11 GHz
GPUs with smaller dies can simply be clocked higher and if AMD managed to achieve a 16% difference between the RDNA 2 upper and mid-range dies, then the same uplift against the 7900 XT and XTX would put the 7800 clocks in a range of 2.78 to 2.90 GHz.
But, even at that, we're talking about 6950 XT level of performance, which is fine, great actually. However, at $650 you can already have this with the 6950 XT ($620 today). You might see a little more performance in RT and of course you're hopefully using less power. But, pricewise, you would think AMD would need to get the 7800 XT under $600 to see any significant movement. At least at $600 it would be 10% faster than the 4070, but a little cheaper, $550 and it might really move some units.
Similar threads
