AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Re-Review: What Should Have Been

[Steve]

Let's pretend for a minute it's 2022 again, and the Radeon RX 7900 XT is just getting released. But in this scenario, the GPU is introduced with 9 months of driver development and $150 slashed off the MSRP.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2717-amd-radeon-7900-xt-again/

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

At $750 it's still overpriced by at least $250.00. These cards are so out of reason, it's like the Ironman forgot to Snap the fingers to bring everything back to reality.

 

[oasked]

"what we do know is that yet another generation has passed us by where the Radeon group continues to tread through the waters of irrelevancy"

Seems a little harsh?

Plenty of enthusiasts have picked up RDNA3 cards (including me) over the last year or so

 

[Lew Zealand]

At $750 it's still overpriced by at least $250.00. These cards are so out of reason, it's like the Ironman forgot to Snap the fingers to bring everything back to reality.

That price would only be relevant if there was another card at $500 with the same performance. Go ahead and point that one out.

 

[godrilla]

The best deal on enthusiast graphics just dropped at Lenovo's website for the 4090 suprim liquid normally selling for $1749 can be bought for $1562.49 with free shipping fyi. Use code BUYMORELENOVO and EXTRA5
As far as the 7900xt the best price is $749 via pcpartpicker website.

 

[HardReset]

"what we do know is that yet another generation has passed us by where the Radeon group continues to tread through the waters of irrelevancy"

Seems a little harsh?

Plenty of enthusiasts have picked up RDNA3 cards (including me) over the last year or so

Exactly. Market has decided to buy more Nvidia, not caring about facts. Why should AMD care before market has more brains?

For example, Nvidia launched RTX 2000 -series with superduper ray tracing support. Now 5 years later, ray tracing is supported on few games and those run like crap on RTX 2000 -series cards (when ray tracing is used). Basically buying RTX 2000 -series card "because it has ray tracing" and at same time ignoring AMD cards "because lack of or slow ray tracing" was very dumb move. Still, same editors that recommended RTX series 5 years ago still promote ray tracing because, yeah, because why?

That's what I mean. Nvidia sells because stupid buyers are willing to pay huge premium for useless features. No wonder AMD doesn't care.

 

[Kam7r]

"fine wine"

 

[yRaz]

Exactly. Market has decided to buy more Nvidia, not caring about facts. Why should AMD care before market has more brains?

For example, Nvidia launched RTX 2000 -series with superduper ray tracing support. Now 5 years later, ray tracing is supported on few games and those run like crap on RTX 2000 -series cards (when ray tracing is used). Basically buying RTX 2000 -series card "because it has ray tracing" and at same time ignoring AMD cards "because lack of or slow ray tracing" was very dumb move. Still, same editors that recommended RTX series 5 years ago still promote ray tracing because, yeah, because why?

That's what I mean. Nvidia sells because stupid buyers are willing to pay huge premium for useless features. No wonder AMD doesn't care.

This is actually a valid point and I never considered it.

 

[Beerfloat]

"what we do know is that yet another generation has passed us by where the Radeon group continues to tread through the waters of irrelevancy"

Seems a little harsh?

Plenty of enthusiasts have picked up RDNA3 cards (including me) over the last year or so

Harsh? Maybe. Not unfair, though.

Sure, we see an anecdotal news item now and then about how this or that shop sold a few hundred during launch week. You might know someone or even more than one person who has one. And you can always find a bunch of testimonials on youtube comments and other forums that loudly proclaim satisfied ownership.

But is there anyone that honestly believes that RDNA cards are actually doing volumes? Because if that were the case, why is it that they keep being discounted lower and lower? And why don't they show up in Steam surveys in significant numbers?

 

[redgarl]

Just a better GPU than the 4080 12GB, pardon, the 4070 TI... and it cost less...

 

[redgarl]

At $750 it's still overpriced by at least $250.00. These cards are so out of reason, it's like the Ironman forgot to Snap the fingers to bring everything back to reality.

Ah please, first off, the bottom price was 700$ mere weeks ago for an XFX MERC319 Black...

Secondly, the 6950XT is at 650$ and was having a MSRP of 1050$. So AMD literally drop their price per performance ratio, unlike Nvidia who didn't do a damn about it.

So stop complaining about the price if your sole motive is for AMD to drop price so you can buy that Nvidia GPU at a lower price as a collateral effect.

 

[ddferrari]

At $750 it's still overpriced by at least $250.00. These cards are so out of reason, it's like the Ironman forgot to Snap the fingers to bring everything back to reality.

Based on what, exactly? It destroys the 3090Ti for well under half the price. Wishful thinking and realistic market prices are two very different things.

$750 for this card is very reasonable. The 1080Ti was $699 in 2017, so for nearly double the VRAM and triple the performance - and adjusting for 6 years of inflation - at just $50 more this a very good value.

 

[systemBuilder]

Perhaps you are the type of gamer that prefers motion smoothing on your television (even though every reviewer turns it off in every TV review). Perhaps you are the type of gamer who buys a DVD player with upscaling instead of a true blu-ray player because you can only afford the cheaper DVDs. Perhaps you are the type of laptop owner who buys 8-bit LCD panels "because I'm just not worth 12-bit color, I'm don't love myself enough." If you are this type of person, an NVidia card with its fake colors, fake resolution, and fake frame rates is the perfect device for you!

 

[SAYEDMOHD]

RX 6950 XT is the best GPU in the market right now

 

[llamapanda]

Was the 4070Ti retested with the latest drivers as well? If AMD are allowed to see gains since release, for this to be a fair test then nVidia need to be given equal chance to up their respective game.

 

[HardReset]

But is there anyone that honestly believes that RDNA cards are actually doing volumes? Because if that were the case, why is it that they keep being discounted lower and lower? And why don't they show up in Steam surveys in significant numbers?

Um, because AMD 7800XT is direct competitor against 6xx0 cards? And keeping 7800XT too long on storage also costs. Basic thing, sell previous generation before releasing new.

Steam survey is buggy as Hell. Also Steam survey won't show any actual numbers, not hard to guess why.

 

[hnrichardc]

I think AMD graphics cards particularly in the high end segment need to be much lower than NVIDIA because of the lack of features - once AMD can implement these things they can legitimately price closer to NVIDIA.

Another thing, you'd expect more games to run better on AMD CPUs because they must optimise for consoles based on rdna2

AMD used to be the well priced underdog, but recently they seem to charge a premium. Mind you there were some expensive CPUs like the top end one that was launched when athlon 64 first launched.

 

[LucidStrike]

I think AMD graphics cards particularly in the high end segment need to be much lower than NVIDIA because of the lack of features - once AMD can implement these things they can legitimately price closer to NVIDIA.

AMD used to be the well priced underdog, but recently they seem to charge a premium.

In order to develop compelling features sooner, there has to be more R&D. In order for there to be more R&D, there has to be more funding. In order for there to be more funding, there has to be more revenue. Uncontroversial of course.

But many folks — including TechSpot / HUB — insist the only valid way to increase revenue is to lower prices and sell more volume. Problem is, when they charge bargain prices, they often get screwed by consumers who buy were gonna buy Nvidia regardless.

So instead, AMD's strategy seems to be to first advance on increasing the cost effectiveness of manufacturing. That allows them to undercut Nvidia meaningfully while still getting enough margin to fund R&D on features.

And once those features have been developed which AMD is confident can overcome Nvidia's mindshare, they'll be ready for a price war — because they'll have advanced so much in cost effectiveness too.

That's why I'm not so bothered AMD isn't currently charging as low as many think they should. If the industry is gonna get TRULY competitive, Radeon needs to go through a period of basically 'primitive accumulation'.

 

[cfenton]

Based on what, exactly? It destroys the 3090Ti for well under half the price. Wishful thinking and realistic market prices are two very different things.

$750 for this card is very reasonable. The 1080Ti was $699 in 2017, so for nearly double the VRAM and triple the performance - and adjusting for 6 years of inflation - at just $50 more this a very good value.

But the 1080Ti was the fastest card of that generation. The 4090 is this generation's equivalent. The 7900XT isn't even the fastest in its product family. It's the 4th fastest of its product generation, which is about where the Vega 56 or 1070 were. The whole stack has moved up in price from both companies and it sucks.

 

[Tantor]

"what we do know is that yet another generation has passed us by where the Radeon group continues to tread through the waters of irrelevancy"

Seems a little harsh?

Plenty of enthusiasts have picked up RDNA3 cards (including me) over the last year or so

Steve's basis for calling the 7900xt irrelevant appears to be the $900 MSRP. But, as he noted, the street price has dropped significantly. So what's the beef? It has 20GB Ram and beats the 4070 in performance. Idle power draw is less and that's where computers spend 90% of their time. It even keeps up with 4080 performance in many areas. The 7900xtx gives you more performance for the money, but that has other drawbacks such as size and power draw.

I picked up an OEM 7900xt. Overall I consider it to be the best GPU purchase I have made in the last few years. Rock solid, quiet, compact, and runs 4k flawlessly. I don't want or need a larger GPU.

Relevancy is in the eye of the beholder. One of my rules for the last 25 years has been to buy only AMD. That may change as AMD gradually levels the playing field with Intel and Nvidia.

 

[ddferrari]

But the 1080Ti was the fastest card of that generation. The 4090 is this generation's equivalent. The 7900XT isn't even the fastest in its product family. It's the 4th fastest of its product generation, which is about where the Vega 56 or 1070 were. The whole stack has moved up in price from both companies and it sucks.

I see your point, but my basis for comparison is the performance increase between cards that are/were around the same MSRP, regardless of their model number or where they fall in the lineup. Unlike specs and performance, these numbers do not enhance my gaming experience - so to me they are irrelevant.

 

[hnrichardc]

I don't totally disagree with you. I do think it needs to be a bit cheaper still, not by massive amounts but enough to convince consumers there is a price/features advantage.

I also think AMD probably must have a lot of R&D going into GPU development, considering they develop technology for consoles - NVIDIA appears to be concentrating more on AI now, although I could be wrong.

Compared to the price/performance of consoles I think GPUs are generally too expensive. Although in comparison to the price of how much essentials like food have gone up in price it somewhat makes sense.

In order to develop compelling features sooner, there has to be more R&D. In order for there to be more R&D, there has to be more funding. In order for there to be more funding, there has to be more revenue. Uncontroversial of course.

But many folks — including TechSpot / HUB — insist the only valid way to increase revenue is to lower prices and sell more volume. Problem is, when they charge bargain prices, they often get screwed by consumers who buy were gonna buy Nvidia regardless.

So instead, AMD's strategy seems to be to first advance on increasing the cost effectiveness of manufacturing. That allows them to undercut Nvidia meaningfully while still getting enough margin to fund R&D on features.

And once those features have been developed which AMD is confident can overcome Nvidia's mindshare, they'll be ready for a price war — because they'll have advanced so much in cost effectiveness too.

That's why I'm not so bothered AMD isn't currently charging as low as many think they should. If the industry is gonna get TRULY competitive, Radeon needs to go through a period of basically 'primitive accumulation'.

 

[loki1944]

Elephant in the room not addressed in this article is the inferior quality control and optimization of AMD drivers; what a massive headache compared to Nvidia; I've got loads of both teams cards and my 7900XT is the worst experience of all; on top of the recurring issues AMD drivers ignore/don't fix for years on the older series' cards I have (like Combat Mission series OGL crash with AMD cards; still not fixed, forcing AF not working in older games like Operation Flashpoint/Oblivion; disabling vsync not working in some games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl to name a few); but the 7900XT has convinced me to never buy another AMD card again; it literally will not work on some systems because of how 8up AMD devs are; across 4 different i7 and i9 systems running the latest version of W10; I ran into multiple issues; and in the case of one system absolutely irreconcilable...I.e. the 7900XT simply will not work with that system. My Vega 64/R9 Fury/R9 Nano/R9 290X and 3080Ti/2080Ti/1080Ti/980Ti /780Ti cards all boot in the systems with 0 issues; but the 7900XT is a nightmare; and when you tack on the plethora of sloppy driver issues (I mean AMD is giving me flashbacks to trying to run my Voodoo 5 5500 in XP with 3rd party drivers ). It is simply not worth the hassle to go AMD anymore; they don't have the QC to match the products any more; and the enduring nature of some of these issues makes it clear they don't GAF.

 

[rmcrys]

"Nonetheless, we believe this generation was destined to fail. It failed because the crypto boom ended overnight"

No, this generation was destined to fail die to:
- greed

- planned the silicon and price tag more to "desperate" crypto miners and AI clients, than for their loyal costumers: gamers and small multimedia businesses

- greed, greed, greed

Based on those aspects, I refuse myself to buy any current generation (Nvidia, AMD or Intel) chip, as I like to show that I don't like to taken for idi@t and I don't like to be scr.w.d.

Everyone is free to do whatever they want, but the more we buy this gen and help these companies to maintain high costs and to get rid of stock, the more they feel freedom to treat us badly. This way (not buying) they can rethink their attitude and perhaps rebadge the current gen with a lower price tag.

 

[waclark]

Exactly. Market has decided to buy more Nvidia, not caring about facts. Why should AMD care before market has more brains?

For example, Nvidia launched RTX 2000 -series with superduper ray tracing support. Now 5 years later, ray tracing is supported on few games and those run like crap on RTX 2000 -series cards (when ray tracing is used). Basically buying RTX 2000 -series card "because it has ray tracing" and at same time ignoring AMD cards "because lack of or slow ray tracing" was very dumb move. Still, same editors that recommended RTX series 5 years ago still promote ray tracing because, yeah, because why?

That's what I mean. Nvidia sells because stupid buyers are willing to pay huge premium for useless features. No wonder AMD doesn't care.

169 currently supported games are more than a "few". And, I do not think RT is a useless feature. If I pay the same price for a GPU and raster is within 10%, then the one with better RT performance is likely the one I would go with. When I'm pushing 150+ fps in a game, losing 20 or 30 fps for RT isn't a big deal.

If AMD were to improve their RT performance, you can bet the AMD crowd would be touting that over NVidia in a heartbeat. One wonders why there was no RT testing in this article?