AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Review: RDNA 3 Flagship is Fast

[MarcusNumb]

I did expect more but I'm not disappointed neither. For those who can afford this card at MSRP, hate NVIDIA and does not care about RT, this is a good deal. I don't care about RT and I don't like NVIDIA but I can't afford a 1000euros GPU.

Imagine if this card comes from AIB with prices close to the 4080FE, the situation is very different. Purely from a customer point of view, if for example a ASUS 7900XTX costs me 1150euros, and a 4080 costs me 1200, ofc I'll go for the 4080.

Anw, I still think AMD did well this time, besides the hype, to keep up with NVIDIA, or at least they tried. I'm very clear that my next GPU will be an AMD GPU but probably not this gen.

 

[Puiu]

This is disappointing to say the least. I was expecting it to be better than this considering the pre-release numbers. Even if it didn't hit 50%, it should have been at least close to 45%.

 

[Geralt]

Steven wasn't negative about the 4080, a card with a horrendous price plus the infamous 16 bit connector. In fact, he gave that crap nobody buys a score of 90. Now he is negative with the 7900 XTX because, according to him, it is not living up to the expectations. Techspot should change the reviewer. We don't need one all the time biased to Nvidia really.
According to him the price of the 7900XTX is not good because if you have 1000 dollars you can have 1200 and buy the 4080. According to him too, the 4080 is a superior product because it is better at RT (who cares really?), it has DLSS (no enthusiast like me should care about DLSS or FSR really... those tricks are for peasants with middle/entry level cards) and more efficient. With this kind of biased reviewers this website goes nowhere. I loved more the Guru3d review where Hilbert is more impartial and positive.

 

[brucek]

Review nailed it for me and I did not take it as manufacturer bias although I guess opinions differ, with two most significant factors for me being 1) the price point and 2) the current 3080 being pretty good enough so that I need a big wow factor to want to purchase.

I agree that if this had been a $599 card against a $699 4080, the "$100 less for similar raster performance" would be a more exciting option and a probable buy for me. Or even more exciting if it were a $999 almost-4090 (for raster), same deal.

But as is both this and the 4080 are too much for too little. If I wanted to blow the $1,000/$1,200 (I don't) I'd probably want to go full hog for the 4090.

 

[yRaz]

I will likely wait for the refresh, get a 7950xtx or whatever they will call it. I bought 2 graphics cards this year because of the death of my 1070ti. I went out and replaced it with a 1050ti that cost $230 in the middle of the GPU shortage and then snagged a 6700XT for $320 back in October.

 

[brucek]

So stop whining about prices, we brought that upon our-self's by not being able to control that "buy" button on our screens.

We'll see how much of that "we" was gamers vs. miners. Of course optimistic miners who thought the card was basically guaranteed upside / cash in a box were willing to pay basically any price, and the volume demand for free cash was essentially infinite.

I'm betting we'll find the whale demand for $1K plus GPUs is pretty finite by comparison.

 

[tellmewhy]

Fact 1: All game developers still make games with the 1060 gtx in mind. Fact 2: Human eyes cannot distinguish above 24 fps. Fact 3: Average time per month gaming is negligible (about 10 hours for most people over 30).

So the real question is what the GPU can do for the applications. And for applications only Nvidia exists with cuda and their newer models don't have enough memory.

 

[BrwPCnrd87]

But as is both this and the 4080 are too much for too little. If I wanted to blow the $1,000/$1,200 (I don't) I'd probably want to go full hog for the 4090.

This. Then again, I primarily play single player games and only at 1440p w/ no desire to upgrade to 4K at this point. So it makes even less sense to spend that much.

 

[brucek]

Fact 1:
Fact 2:
Fact 3:

"I'm not sure that word means what you think it means" ;-)

 

[Beerfloat]

That's all? That's the fabled RDNA3?

The 4080 using up to 114W less for the same raster performance? That alone ought to be the fatal blow. I mean, just looking at how loudly the few remaining AMD supporters had been talking up energy efficiency.

But of course ray tracing weakness is also evident. We're talking not even past Nvidia's last gen, never mind its current one!

Put a brave face on it if you must, vocal minority. But the facts here are damning. This is another disaster cycle that is not going to do anything to alter the trend of AMD's discrete GPU marketshare. 10%, gents.

 

[redgarl]

That's the most nonsensical conclusion I've ever seen, putting RT aside (which is a joke in my humble but honest opinion), the 4080 is an inferior product in almost every possible metric, not to mention the infamous connector.

Not only this, but the 4080 scored a 80/100 also while being at 1200$ with a 12VHPWR connector and hosting the same ridiculous cooler size.

Steve is pissed at AMD for providing numbers that don't align, and on that we are all agreeing, but with such a good Cost per frame, the 7900XTX is a 90/100 product.

 

[sreams]

What surprised me about this review is how much the 4090 kicked the crap out of the 7900xtx.
The price may be lower...

Just "lower"? More like $900 lower.

 

[redgarl]

That's all? That's the fabled RDNA3?

The 4080 using up to 114W less for the same raster performance? That alone ought to be the fatal blow. I mean, just looking at how loudly the few remaining AMD supporters had been talking up energy efficiency.

But of course ray tracing weakness is also evident. We're talking not even past Nvidia's last gen, never mind its current one!

Put a brave face on it if you must, vocal minority. But the facts here are damning. This is another disaster cycle that is not going to do anything to alter the trend of AMD's discrete GPU marketshare. 10%, gents.

Well, look, mister fanboy who still cannot fathom the difference between SHIPMENT and SALES from the latest JPR report. During the last quarter Nvidia was trying to move their inventory of Ampere GPU to the retailers, the same for Intel. It doesn't align with SALES, just with the number of units shipped to retailers.

Also, AMD is using 24GB of memory, which is why AMD is consuming 40W more power. Not to mention NVIDIA is on TSMC 4nm and AMD is on TSMC 5nm and TSMC 6nm. LTT made clear graphs showing this and no, the 4080 is not humming 110W less.

Add to this the stupid 12VHPWR and the insane cost and the insane cooler size... and you get a 4080.

 

[nnguy2]

Not only this, but the 4080 scored a 80/100 also while being at 1200$ with a 12VHPWR connector and hosting the same ridiculous cooler size.

Steve is pissed at AMD for providing numbers that don't align, and on that we are all agreeing, but with such a good Cost per frame, the 7900XTX is a 90/100 product.

Don't forget, the 4080 got a "90" but was revised to "80" due to TS community blowback.

 

[Ohnooze]

Just "lower"? More like $900 lower.

Right but the 4090 is massively over priced. It's still a lot to ask imo.

 

[rmcrys]

I'm not looking for a new GPU but if I were, I just couldn't get past AMD's utterly lousy Ray tracing performance and the $200 price differential to the 4080 isn't big enough to convince me otherwise

Correct.

Problem Nr 1: if people pay whatever money is being asked, prices go up (the new die area all together is much smaller than from last gen, so no excuse to be more expensive);

Problem Nr 2: AMD's highest end (for now) is just on par with a 4080, and if we see the complete package (RT, DLSS vs FSR, drivers, optimized games, CUDA engine usable on many professional apps, media engine better than AMD's), the 4080 comes out as the winner. If people are willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money, then $200 won't be too much for the added value.

Problem Nr 3: there are plenty of excellent last gen units for a much lower price (I bought a 3060 Ti, second hand in good shape, for 200€ ~$200). Do people need these new highest end generation to play games?! Most don't.

As most high end 13th gen, 7000 gen CPUs are now a waste of money (as an i5 is as good as an older i9), most high end GPUs are also "too fast". I think until there is a real reason to upgrade, the mid range (7700 / 4070) will be the new high end.

 

[Eldritch]

This is a good card. While many of us are not fan of Ray Tracing but if the top end of RX series has this RT performance then rest of the lineup will not be playable at ultra with RT. Except for that its a really good card with great performance. Nice comparisons and graphs by Techspot giving raster, dlss, rtx separately.
Going by AMD decade long tradition, the performance will significantly improve with driver updates but that's not something that we can count on.
Good card, good value, RT could be better. I dont agree with some of the comments saying that the score is not correct. 80/100 score for this is indeed correct. The 4080 should have been 70/100.

 

[BadThad]

Given my RX6800 can still compete today and provides great bang for the buck today allows me to completely skip this generation of cards from both. I think the value for AMD will be in the low-mid tier cards.

 

[Ohnooze]

Given my RX6800 can still compete today and provides great bang for the buck today allows me to completely skip this generation of cards from both. I think the value for AMD will be in the low-mid tier cards.

Agree. I wish I saw a reason to want to upgrade from my 6800xt but imo this just is not it.

 

[redgarl]

This is a good card. While many of us are not fan of Ray Tracing but if the top end of RX series has this RT performance then rest of the lineup will not be playable at ultra with RT. Except for that its a really good card with great performance. Nice comparisons and graphs by Techspot giving raster, dlss, rtx separately.
Going by AMD decade long tradition, the performance will significantly improve with driver updates but that's not something that we can count on.
Good card, good value, RT could be better. I dont agree with some of the comments saying that the score is not correct. 80/100 score for this is indeed correct. The 4080 should have been 70/100.

But they give the 4090 a 90/100.

But I do agree with the logic behind your comment.

The 4080 is a good product... with the most horrible tag price ever in the history of the industry. However the cooler size and the 12VHPWR is a major blow.

The 7900XTX cost per frame is really good, however RT performances is a hit.

The 4090 is having great performances, but is the most ridiculous GPU I have ever seen. The price is beyond stupid and the design is a joke.

 

[redgarl]

Agree. I wish I saw a reason to want to upgrade from my 6800xt but imo this just is not it.

If I didn't need a second GPU, I would have done the same thing and just stick to my 6900XT. This is the most underwhelming generation of GPUs, not in terms of performance, but in term of pricing.

Still, AMD really delivered on that aspect by matching cost per frame of cards like the 6800XT at around 650$.

 

[Beerfloat]

But they give the 4090 a 90/100.

But I do agree with the logic behind your comment.

The 4080 is a good product... with the most horrible tag price ever in the history of the industry. However the cooler size and the 12VHPWR is a major blow.

The 7900XTX cost per frame is really good, however RT performances is a hit.

The 4090 is having great performances, but is the most ridiculous GPU I have ever seen. The price is beyond stupid and the design is a joke.

You have rather curious priorities. Sure, price matters. Lowballing is how AMD makes their sales, such as they are. That's pretty much been the company's strategy for ever.

But design of the cooler? 12VHPWR? Irrelevant.

 

[redgarl]

You have rather curious priorities. Sure, price matters. Lowballing is how AMD makes their sales, such as they are. That's pretty much been the company's strategy for ever.

But design of the cooler? 12VHPWR? Irrelevant.

ROFL... it is when it limits the integration of the GPU due to your PC Case. Some people had to get rid of their TYorrent Compaq because the new 4000 series don't fit in the case.

And let's not talk about that stupid adapter...

 

[Eldritch]

But they give the 4090 a 90/100.

But I do agree with the logic behind your comment.

The 4080 is a good product... with the most horrible tag price ever in the history of the industry. However the cooler size and the 12VHPWR is a major blow.

The 7900XTX cost per frame is really good, however RT performances is a hit.

The 4090 is having great performances, but is the most ridiculous GPU I have ever seen. The price is beyond stupid and the design is a joke.

You know whats funny? They gave RTX 4080 a 90/100 at first but after the backlash they made it 80/100. Props for that but the fact that it happened in the first place is absurd.
Also, I feel like that for both Nvidia and AMD, RT is a hassle and they can't swallow it but they can't spit it either. Result are bulkier, hungrier and costlier GPUs with not that much of gain when adjusting for price, size and power.

 

[EdmondRC]

Funny that something so insignificant (numbers wise) is so important for Steve.
Insignificant because like it or not, there ARE several factors that are always conveniently ignored by reviewers:

1- The amount of games that support RT are simply minuscule compared to the immense library of games (that many of us haven't played yet) that don't have it, neither need it.

2- Talking about the ones that have it, very, very few of the games that have RT, gives you the visual reward that is supposed to have, but at an insane performance hit.

3- None of these GPUs, except that obscenely priced 4090 (but that is surprisingly never an issue for that GPU) are future proof if we only look at the RT gimmick, so again, RT is insignificant.

4- That second quote "DLSS superior", its really disappointing, considering that even Tim (who is very pro Nvidia) showed us on the previous video, that in reality, they were both very close and worse, both techs are inferior than the games built in TAA.

Personally, I have said this before, I will not buy nvidia simply because everything they do is anti-consumer, against open standards and everything they push is to keep you locked into their hardware. And how little they think of us the consumers when they are on top or you forgot how much they charged for the 3090Ti?

And again, those point are never mentioned by reviewers either.

In my opinion AMD has much better mid-tier offerings at the moment than Nvidia and the primary reason for that is because RT is not really accessible for either manufacture in that price range. Sure, the 3060 can play a few RT games okay at lower resolutions, but for the most part, the performance hit you take is just not worth it. If I was going to buy a mid-range card, I would buy the RX 6700 XT at the moment because you can easily find it under $400, with a game bundle, where the RTX 3060 and 3060 Tis are still hard to find under $400-$500. Last week I was seeing 6650XTs under $300! In fact, there is still one on Newegg for $269, $249 if you take advantage of the mail in rebate. Nvidia has nothing that touches that. That being said we're talking here about a $1000.00 GPU and so the expectations are high and that means yes, I want to be able to run games at the very best settings as possible including RT and a card that is 50% faster at RT and about the same at raster is more attractive, even if 20% more expensive simply because you are already in the top tier range at this point. That 50% advantage at RT and the widely supported DLSS are important when we're talking $1000 +.

It's not that the 7900 XTX is not a great GPU or even that it's not impressive. The point is that it doesn't really bring the value proposition that people were hoping to bring some pricing sanity to the GPU market. If anything, it does more to justify the 4080s price than it does to refute Nvidia's "Moore's Law is Dead" claim. For me, the 4080 is overpriced by at least $300 and really, I think $400. The 7900 XTX was poised to prove this, being significantly better at raster for a lower cost, or at least that is what we thought given AMD's benchmark claims. What we found out though is that the 7900 XTX, while being a better value if you ignore RT and DLSS, is actually at a price point that makes sense against the 4080's higher price tag, but better feature set and more impressive RT. You can make the argument all day long that RT is a scam, but I personally think it looks amazing in games like Control and Cyber Punk. You are not just getting better RT and DLSS for $200 more, you are also getting lower overall wattage and a card that stays cooler. AMD did not make the 7900 XTX the obvious choice here, even at $200 less.