Wednesday, January 17th 2024
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Drops to $710 on Newegg, MSRP Lowered to $749
AMD has lowered the official MSRP of the Radeon RX 7900 XT graphics card to $749, down from its launch price of $899. Its street price, as TweakTown found out, is lower still, with certain custom-design RX 7900 XT cards selling for as low as $710 on Newegg. At this price, the RX 7900 XT is set up for a major clash with certain overclocked NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER graphics cards, leftover inventories of the recently retired GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, and probably even looks to soak up some sales before the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER hits the scene on January 24. The cheapest RX 7900 XT is actually one of the better-appointed custom designs out there, the ASRock RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming and XFX RX 7900 XT Merc 319, which had originally launched at prices comparable to the PowerColor Hellhound. These are followed by the PowerColor RX 7900 XT Hellhound and Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse OC at $720.
The Radeon RX 7900 XT is a very capable high-end GPU that AMD categorizes as capable of 4K Ultra HD gaming with settings maxed out. It's carved out from the "Navi 31" chiplet GPU, and configured with 84 RDNA3 compute units, worth 5,376 stream processors, 168 AI accelerators, 84 Ray accelerators, 336 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The best part about this card is its memory sub-system, with 80 MB of Infinity Cache, and 20 GB of 20 Gbps GDDR6 memory across a 320-bit wide memory bus with 800 GB/s of bandwidth on tap, which should come in handy at 4K, or when using creator or AI applications.
Source:
Tweaktown
The Radeon RX 7900 XT is a very capable high-end GPU that AMD categorizes as capable of 4K Ultra HD gaming with settings maxed out. It's carved out from the "Navi 31" chiplet GPU, and configured with 84 RDNA3 compute units, worth 5,376 stream processors, 168 AI accelerators, 84 Ray accelerators, 336 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The best part about this card is its memory sub-system, with 80 MB of Infinity Cache, and 20 GB of 20 Gbps GDDR6 memory across a 320-bit wide memory bus with 800 GB/s of bandwidth on tap, which should come in handy at 4K, or when using creator or AI applications.
96 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Drops to $710 on Newegg, MSRP Lowered to $749
We don't need more fps, we need lower cost.
2.- It was not steam banned, it was a VAC ban on CS2, and that was rectified.
I use an AMD gpu, really the only time I've had trouble is when OCing is involved, so nothing unexpected.Man I need to look into thatDidn't the 7800XT sell out?Works fine on my machine (tm)
It's under the OC Settings.
- ASRock Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming OC 20GB
- Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XT Pulse 20GB
- XFX Radeon RX 7900 XT Speedster MERC310 20GB
Unfortunately, these prices don't seem to exist outside of the USA. Here in Canada, the XFX model is the least expensive at $1,080CAD ($800USD). It's darkly ironic since Radeons are born here.Don't you mean "jump ship"? ;):DClearly, that's an nVidia fanboy drinking the kool-aid because it's the first time that I've read someone preferring nVidia's user interface over Adrenalin. You're also correct about the RX 7800 XT because TweakTown did an article about exactly that back in November:AMD's top-end RDNA 3 sales blow away NVIDIA rivals - is this why new Super GPUs are coming?
Some people just make things up as they go along which usually manifests itself as someone making ridiculous and partisan claims without evidence. Whenever I say something that would appear counter-intuitive, I automatically include evidence (links and/or pics) because I don't expect people to just take my word for it. Clearly, this person is of the "trust me bro" mentality. :roll:
$850 was still overpriced for the 7900XT with $800 being good enough. But at $750 that would be very competitive with the RTX 4070 Ti and its Super kin.
Just need the XTX to be at $850 to $900 and they can give NVIDIA a run for their money, even though the 4080 SUPER will beat it regardless.
It's funny how people think that the PC gaming market is mostly playing AAA games on absolute max settings at 4K/UHD or higher. In reality very very few people cares about this, and the ones that do, often buys high-end stuff anyway. 4090 is the king of 4K+ gaming and this probably won't change before 5090.
In reality 95% of PC gamers use 1440p and the most popular PC games are not even demanding in terms of VRAM. Esport titles and popular multiplayer games in general are made for the masses, and 96% of Steam users have 12GB VRAM or less. Do you think developers code games for the 4%? They want to actually sell games.
Unless you want to push heavy RT or even Path Tracing at 4K/UHD native with Frame Gen on top, pretty much no-one needs more than 8-12GB and won't need it for years. VRAM requirement won't change before next gen consoles hit in 2028, meaning 4 years from now, and by then, every single GPU today is considered mid-end or even low-end at that point. GPU is simply too weak.No you have not. You have allocated that amount. Allocation does not mean required amount. The fact you don't even knows this simple fact, is just sad.
www.techpowerup.com/review/avatar-fop-performance-benchmark/5.html
12GB cards stomps your RX6800. Even the 3070 8GB is beating your 6800 16GB. Even in 4K minimum fps numbers.
This is an AMD sponsored game on top :laugh: and a great looking one. 4090 beats 7900XTX by more than 50% at 4K/UHD. In terms of minimum fps, 4090 beats 7900XTX by ~60%
4070 Ti beats 7900XT and easily stomps entire last gen 6800 and 6900 series.
"But but but only 12GB VRAM!!!111" :laugh: :laugh: Seems like alot of people on this forum should read about actual VRAM requirement vs allocation.
That said, 6500XT is probably the worst GPU released in this centuryProof? Because this is one of the biggest gripes about AM5. Former Intel owners are used to lightning fast boot times and AM5 on release were 2+ mins, now we are down to 45-75 sec for most but the majority are still at 30-45sec with newest firmwares + AGESAs, even with MCR and every single of those features enabled.
7900XT is nowhere near 4090 and CPU means little in 4K gaming, with FG enabled in games like Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2, CPU is pretty much idling and GPU blasts at full usage every single scene.
When Zen 5 or Arrow Lake hits later this year, about 6-9 months, I will upgrade. No reason to upgrade till true leaps happen and my 9900K at 5.2 GHz performs close to many of the newer CPUs anyway.
4K gaming in demanding AAA games with ultra preset means CPU don't really matter. Enable FG, and CPU don't matter at all. Very simple, just look at GPU usage, and I will know. Its peaking. Minimums might be affected in a few games, but not alot. My 9900K at 5.2 GHz performs better than 11900K and close to 12th gen i5 and i7. Tested myself.
At 1440p my system destroys any game as well, CPU is not holding me back at all. I easily get 200+ fps in shooters, maxing out my 280 Hz monitor.
I will probably go 1440p OLED at 360-480 Hz this year or next, so CPU upgrade will be needed. Looking forward to Zen 5 3D vs Arrow Lake reviews, and I will make my purchase shortly after. Just in time for winter.
See how 7900X3D is not even listed, because of miniscule sales numbers. People are simply going either 7800X3D or 7950X3D. Only 6 cores with 3D cache on the 7900X3D makes people not buy it.
Right now I am playing Avatar and 4090 absolutely wrecks 7900XT -> www.techpowerup.com/review/avatar-fop-performance-benchmark/5.html
Your "true 4K without using upscaling" GPU is doing 33 fps average.
+ DLSS/DLAA easily beats FSR in this game too, even tho its AMD sponsored :laugh: -> www.techpowerup.com/review/avatar-frontiers-of-pandora-dlss-2-vs-fsr-3-comparison/
However this is nothing new. DLSS/DLAA beats FSR in pretty much every single game.
Most of the AMD GPU users simply don't know how important good features are and only looks at raster perf, still. Meanwhile most new AAA games uses upscaling and leaves out AA completely, native res gaming is dying fast and DLAA and FSR Native beats native every time. DLAA beats FSR Native tho. FOMO makes people go into denial. Nothing new.
If AMD GPUs were actually truly great and competitive, they would be selling in much bigger numbers and prices would be on par with Nvidia and not lower. This is a telltale sign of AMD being behind. This was to expected tho, since GPUs are not AMDs main business. They don't have the R&D funds to compete with Nvidia here.
You can't expect AMD to be competitive in both CPU and GPU sector. And they never are.
Upscaling is the future and upscaling is replacing anti aliasing in AAA games. Already a thing in tons of new games. Nvidia did not restrict FG to 4000 series, it was not possible to do on 3000 series because of hardware requirements.
DLSS, DLAA and FG actually works well, because of this dedicated hardware. And this is why AMD is in panic mode trying to get on par with a pure software approach.
AMD likes playing the good guy, but in reality, FSR is often worse than XeSS which is also "free" to use.
At the moment, the 4080 is faster than the XTX in raster-only titles by about 10% at 1080p, about 10% slower at 4K. The 4080S will basically take those small victories the XTX had over the 4080 and instead take the win in the overwhelming majority of tests. Perhaps "rinsed" is the wrong word, but rather than the tally being 50:50 tests running better on a 4080 than an XTX and them being "evenly matched" with caveats, there will be no caveats with the 4080 Super vs the XTX. Pick any game, pick any resolution, pick any settings, and the 4080 will, at worst, tie with the XTX. That's what I mean by rinsed, even if it's overall only 10% faster overall.
This thread is about the 7900XT though - what really matters is the cost of the nearest-performing Nvidia GPU, and that's going to be the $600 4070S. The 4080S was mentioned only because it will squeeze the Nvidia upper product stack prices down. Factory OC'd 4080's costing $1300-1500 are soon going to be worth $1000 because they'll match a $999 4080S The 4070 Ti S is going to bring 4080-ish performance to the $800 price point, making a $950 XTX look like a raw deal.