Thursday, November 3rd 2022

AMD Announces the $999 Radeon RX 7900 XTX and $899 RX 7900 XT, 5nm RDNA3, DisplayPort 2.1, FSR 3.0 FluidMotion

AMD today announced the Radeon RX 7900 XTX and Radeon RX 7900 XT gaming graphics cards debuting its next-generation RDNA3 graphics architecture. The two new cards come at $999 and $899—basically targeting the $1000 high-end premium price point.
Both cards will be available on December 13th, not only the AMD reference design, which is sold through AMD.com, but also custom-design variants from the many board partners on the same day. AIBs are expected to announce their products in the coming weeks.

The RX 7900 XTX is priced at USD $999, and the RX 7900 XT is $899, which is a surprisingly small difference of only $100, for a performance difference that will certainly be larger, probably in the 20% range. Both Radeon RX 7900 XTX and RX 7900 XT are using the PCI-Express 4.0 interface, Gen 5 is not supported with this generation. The RX 7900 XTX has a typical board power of 355 W, or about 95 W less than that of the GeForce RTX 4090. The reference-design RX 7900 XTX uses conventional 8-pin PCIe power connectors, as would custom-design cards, when they come out. AMD's board partners will create units with three 8-pin power connectors, for higher out of the box performance and better OC potential. The decision to not use the 16-pin power connector that NVIDIA uses was made "well over a year ago", mostly because of cost, complexity and the fact that these Radeons don't require that much power anyway.

The reference RX 7900-series board design has the same card height as the RX 6950 XT, but is just 1 cm longer, at 28.7 cm. It is also strictly 2.5 slots thick. There's some white illuminated elements, which are controllable, using the same software as on the Radeon RX 6000 Series. Both cards feature two DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, one HDMI 2.1a and one USB-C.
This is AMD's first attempt at a gaming GPU made of chiplets (multiple logic dies on a multi-chip module). The company has built MCM GPUs in the past, but those have essentially been the GPU die surrounded by HBM stacks. The new "Navi 31" GPU at the heart of the RX 7900 XTX and RX 7900 XT features seven chiplets—a central large graphics compute die (GCD), surrounded by six memory control-cache dies (MCDs). The GCD is built on the TSMC 5 nm EUV silicon fabrication process—the same one on which AMD builds its "Zen 4" CCDs—while the MCDs are each fabricated on the TSMC 6 nm process.

The GCD contains the GPU's main graphics rendering machinery, including the front-end, the RDNA3 compute units, the Ray Accelerators, the display controllers, the media engine and the render backends. The GCD physically features 96 RDNA3 Unified Compute Units (CUs), for 6,144 stream processors. All 96 of these are enabled on the RX 7900 XTX. The RX 7900 XT has 84 out of 96 unified compute units enabled, which works out to 5,376 stream processors. The new RDNA3 next-generation compute unit introduces dual-issue stream processors, which essentially double their throughput generation-over-generation. This is a VLIW approach, AMD does not double the rated shader count though, so it's 6144 for the full GPU (96 CU x 64 shaders per CU, not 128 shaders per CU).

Each of the six MCDs contains a 64-bit wide GDDR6 memory interface, and 16 MB of Infinity Cache memory. Six of these MCDs add up to the GPU's 384-bit wide memory interface, and 96 MB of total Infinity Cache memory. The GCD addresses the 384-bit wide memory interface as a contiguous addressable block, and not 6x 64-bit. Most modern GPUs for the past decade have had multiple on-die memory controllers making up a larger memory interface, "Navi 31" moves these to separate chiplets. This approach reduces the size of the main GCD tile, which will help with yield rates. The Radeon RX 7900 XTX is configured with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory across the chip's entire 384-bit wide memory bus, while the RX 7900 XT gets 20 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 320-bit wide memory bus (one of the MCDs is disabled). The disabled MCD isn't not "missing", but there's some dummy silicon dies there to provide stability for the cooler mounting.

Each CU also features two AI acceleration components that provide a 2.7x uplift in AI inference performance over SIMD, and a second-generation RT accelerator that provides new dedicated instructions, and a 50% performance uplift in ray tracing performance. The AI cores are not exposed through software, software developers cannot use them directly (unlike NVIDIA's Tensor Cores), they are used exclusively by the GPU internal engines. Later today AMD will give us a more technical breakdown of the RDNA3 architecture.
For the RX 7900 XTX, AMD is broadly claiming an up to 70% increase in traditional raster 3D graphics performance over the previous-generation flagship RX 6950 XT at 4K Ultra HD native resolution; and an up to 60% increase in ray tracing performance. These gains should be good to catch RTX 4080, but AMD was clear that they are not targeting RTX 4090 performance, which comes at a much higher price point, too.
AMD is attributing its big 54% performance/Watt generational gains to a revolutionary asynchronous clock domain technology that runs the various components on the GCD at different frequencies, to minimize power draw. This seems similar in concept to the "shader clock" on some older NVIDIA architectures.
AMD also announced FSR 3.0, the latest generation of its performance enhancement, featuring Fluid Motion technology. This is functionally similar to DLSS 3 Frame Generation, promising a 100% uplift in performance at comparable quality—essentially because the GPU is generating every alternate frame without involving its graphics rendering pipeline.
The new dual-independent media-acceleration engines enable simultaneous encode and decode for AVC and HEVC formats; hardware-accelerated encode and decode for AV1, and AI-accelerated enhancements. The new AMD Radiance Display Engine introduces native support for DisplayPort 2.1, with 54 Gbps display link bandwidth, and 12 bpc color. This enables resolutions of up to 8K @ 165 Hz with a single cable; or 4K @ 480 Hz with a single cable.
The "Navi 31" GPU in its full configuration has a raw compute throughput of 61 TFLOPs, compared to 23 TFLOPs of the RDNA2-based Navi 21 (a 165% increase). The shader and front-end of the GPU operate at different clock speeds, with the shaders running at up to 2.30 GHz, and the front-end at up to 2.50 GHz. This decoupling has a big impact on power-savings, with AMD claiming a 25% power-saving as opposed to running both domains at the same 2.50 GHz clock.
AMD claims the Radeon RX 7900 XTX to offer a 70% performance increase over the RX 6950 XT.

The complete slide-deck follows.
Add your own comment

336 Comments on AMD Announces the $999 Radeon RX 7900 XTX and $899 RX 7900 XT, 5nm RDNA3, DisplayPort 2.1, FSR 3.0 FluidMotion

#151
medi01
Let's recap the event
•Rdna3 announced
•300mm2 die size
•Up 56 Billion transistors (165% more transistors per mm2)
•First displayport 2.1 gpus on the market(support for up to 4k480fps & 8k165fps)
•Does not use the hazardous VHPWR connector(no need to change your psu, if you have a good one)
•World's first chiplet based architecture (5nm gcd & 6nm mcd chiplets)
•52 TFLOPS & 61 TFLOPS for 7900xt and 7900xtx respectively
•2.1Ghz & 2.3Ghz on 7900xt and 7900xtx respectively
•Memory bandwidth at 800GB/s & 960GB/s on Xt & Xtx respectively (according to amd product pages)
•7900xt features 20GB Gddr6 vram on a 320bit bus, 24GB and 384bit bus on 7900xtx
•Second gen infinity cache
•Faster interconnect bandwidth (Up to 5.3 TB/s)
•80 & 96MB of infinity cache on 7900Xt & 7900Xtx respectively
•Costs between 899 & 999(600-700 dollars cheaper than 4090)
•New/faster display/media engine(Radiance Display Engine, dual media engine up to 7x faster)
•Optimised performance for some encoding/streaming apps(Obs, ffmpeg, Premiere ,handbrake. More apps soon)
•1.54x improvement in perf/watt over rdna2
•New dedicated Ai accelerators with 2.7x ai improvement over rdna2(2 ai acceleration units in each cu)
•1.5x higher rt performance compared to previous high end flagship(rt performance can be up to 1.8x higher)
•Total board power at 300w for 7900xt & 355w for 7900xtx respectively
•New adrenalin software with more unified features
•Sneak peak at Fsr3.0 with new frame doubling feature
mahoney6900xt they compared vs the 3090 and even used their SAM and Rage mode
They only compare products when they have faster products.
mahoneyEvery time AMD was confident in their gpu performances they showcased them vs Nvidia's.
BS.
Posted on Reply
#152
AusWolf
mahoneyAnd the way they did it now isn't? It look like they're hiding the actual performance against Nvidia's flagship. Which probably means the 4090 could be way faster than anyone seems to realize. The way they started doing those product advertisements for the display port cable and later on for the monitor... Like jesus christ did none of you's alarm bells go off?
They're not hiding. The performance numbers are there. If you want to compare it yourself, you're free to do so. They're not trying to release something against Nvidia. They're just releasing something. To me, this approach seems more confident and honest. I don't want an AMD presentation to be all about Nvidia. That would only signal a sense of inferiority. When did you see an Nvidia launch compare performance against AMD? If you know that your product is good, you can talk about it without mentioning the competition. Only when you're scared that people will choose the competition, you try to talk them out of it with comparisons. Do you see what I mean?
Posted on Reply
#153
Luminescent
I think AMD's approach to RDNA 3 was let's make a normal high end GPU that can work in most computers and Nvidia was like, let's see how you can compete with this absurdity.
As i said before, high end cards are not important, let's see what they do in the 6700 xt - rtx 3070 range and lower, after they clear stock of old cards of course.
Posted on Reply
#154
mahoney
AusWolfThey're not hiding. The performance numbers are there. If you want to compare it yourself, you're free to do so. They're not trying to release something against Nvidia. They're just releasing something. To me, this approach seems more confident and honest. I don't want an AMD presentation to be all about Nvidia. That would only signal some sense of inferiority.
They're not. All the showed was some fps with 'up to'. What are we supposed to take from that? Average FPS? Max FPS?
Like i said if they were confident in their product they'd have done an 8 game gpu benchmark with their cherry picked games but they didn't which means 4090 probably absolutely stomps on this thing. Even Greymon tweeted 1h before the launch Nvidia is still king...
Posted on Reply
#155
Bzuco
Can someone explain difference in shader units count? TPU database 12288, AMD site 6144...
Posted on Reply
#156
AusWolf
mahoneyThey're not. All the showed was some fps with 'up to'. What are we supposed to take from that? Average FPS? Max FPS?
Like i said if they were confident in their product they'd have done an 8 game gpu benchmark with their cherry picked games but they didn't which means 4090 probably absolutely stomps on this thing. Even Greymon tweeted 1h before the launch Nvidia is still king...
Happy? (25:30) If you expect more from a product launch video, then I guess you haven't watched a lot of these in the past.

Posted on Reply
#157
mahoney
AusWolfHappy? If you expect more from a product launch video, then I guess you haven't watched a lot of these in the past.

This was a fricking Display Port advertisement and they even used FSR ffs.
Oh i watched a lot of these. I still remember the Polaris hype and then they went and did a Crossfire to compare it with the gtx 1080 at 4k was it? :roll:
Like i said if they're not confident in their product they hide as much of the gaming performance as possible. I'm almost certain the 4090 is gonna be at least 25% faster on average if not more. It's gonna be around 10-15% faster than the 4080 so that's a win i guess
Posted on Reply
#158
GunShot
DenverWe don't need that, Nvidia can keep its fake frames and other disposable features like its self-destruct function.

AMD just delivered what most of us wanted, a card with a lot of performance at a reasonable price, have a nice day.
Confirm this "we-us" number. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#159
spnidel
TheLostSwedeWhat's with the three copper coloured "blades" in the heatsink?
rdna 3
Posted on Reply
#160
AusWolf
mahoneyThis was a fricking Display Port advertisement and they even used FSR ffs.
Oh i watched a lot of these. I still remember the Polaris hype and then they went and did a Crossfire to compare it with the gtx 1080 at 4k was it? :roll:
Like i said if they're not confident in their product they hide as much of the gaming performance as possible.
Yeah, to signal "hey, we're not the underdog, we can actually compete with Nvidia, you just have to buy two of these poor things". If you compare, you'll always be the underdog.

I still don't see why you think they were hiding anything. We got some FPS numbers. Not more than during any other product launch. For real numbers, you'll have to wait for reviews. This has always been the case.
Posted on Reply
#161
mahoney
AusWolfYeah, to signal "hey, we're not the underdog, we can actually compete with Nvidia, you just have to buy two of these poor things". If you compare, you'll always be the underdog.

I still don't see why you think they were hiding anything. We got some FPS numbers. Not more than during any other product launch. For real numbers, you'll have to wait for reviews. This has always been the case.
Watch the 6000 series presentation video and then compare it to this one. They hyped so much rdna 3 how it was gonna be so fricking fast and then they didn't even show any comparisons benchmarks with their games? Like c'mon. With rdna 2 they were confident they could go toe to toe with Nvidia they showed numerous graphs comparing the 6800,xt and the 6900xt to the rival models.
Posted on Reply
#162
LabRat 891
Impressive. Even subtracting some 'points' for marketing 'fluff', I'm impressed.

Age has taught me to wait, though. Never be an early adopter; I'll be excitedly keeping an eye on these as this generation matures.
Posted on Reply
#163
AusWolf
mahoneyWatch the 6000 series presentation video and then compare it to this one. They hyped so much rdna 3 how it was gonna be so fricking fast and then they didn't even show any comparisons benchmarks with their games? Like c'mon. With rdna 2 they were confident they could go toe to toe with Nvidia they showed numerous graphs comparing the 6800,xt and the 6900xt to the rival models.
I still think comparing to the rival in a launch presentation is a sign of inferiority.

It's like comparing your muscles, your car, (your penis), etc. to someone else's. Only insecure people do that. When you know you've got what it takes, you just don't care.
Posted on Reply
#164
mahoney
AusWolfI still think comparing to the rival in a launch presentation is a sign of inferiority.

It's like comparing your muscles, your car, (your penis), etc. to someone else's. Only insecure people do that. When you know you've got what it takes, you just don't care.
jesus christ the copium :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#165
AusWolf
mahoneyjesus christ the copium :kookoo:
I don't know what you mean by that, but my point stands: if you're interested in real performance numbers, wait for the reviews. This has been said during basically every single product launch in the past.
Posted on Reply
#166
mahoney
AusWolfI don't know what you mean by that, but my point stands: if you're interested in real performance numbers, wait for the reviews. This has been said during basically every single product launch in the past.
It means that you can't see the big problem.
Posted on Reply
#167
AusWolf
mahoneyIt means that you can't see the big problem.
What problem? That they didn't compare penis sizes with Nvidia? Like I said: that's what reviews are for. This is a product launch presentation. These are entirely different things.
Posted on Reply
#168
LabRat 891
AusWolfI still think comparing to the rival in a launch presentation is a sign of inferiority.

It's like comparing your muscles, your car, (your penis), etc. to someone else's. Only insecure people do that. When you know you've got what it takes, you just don't care.
Marketing is marketing.
Go to *any* 'competitive' marketplace (dating site?) and you'll find such boisterousness and comparisons.
It's a necessity of 'the game'. Doesn't matter 'what you're selling'.

Yeah, it sucks. But it's an extension of human norms.
Posted on Reply
#169
AusWolf
LabRat 891Marketing is marketing.
Go to *any* 'competitive' marketplace (dating site?) and you'll find such boisterousness and comparisons.
It's a necessity of 'the game'. Doesn't matter 'what you're selling'.

Yeah, it sucks. But it's an extension of human norms.
I disagree.
Since you mentioned dating sites, if you went on one and saw someone saying "my d*** is bigger than Joe's" or "my boobs are firmer than Jill's", what would you think? I would think they're world-class losers.
Posted on Reply
#170
mahoney
AusWolfWhat problem? That they didn't compare penis sizes with Nvidia? Like I said: that's what reviews are for. This is a product launch presentation. These are entirely different things.
oh boy... When you're confident in something you show it if not you don't.

Why do i have to keep repeating myself

When they launched 6000 series they compared them with rival gpu's - 6800 vs 2080ti

When they launched the 5000 series they also compared them with their rival gpu's - 5700 vs RTX 2060

When they launched the Radeon 7 - compared it to the 2080

Even when they launched Vega - they at least compared it to their previous flagship Fury X

Nothing suspicious with not showing any actual benchmarks right? RIGHT?!?! :oops:
Posted on Reply
#171
AusWolf
mahoneyoh boy... When you're confident in something you show it if not you don't.
They showed it.
mahoneyWhen they launched 6000 series they compared them with rival gpu's - 6800 vs 2080ti
Yeah, comparing to a then already two-year-old GPU that had its replacement coming. Shows real confidence!
mahoneyWhen they launched the 5000 series they also compared them with their rival gpu's - 5700 vs RTX 2060
The fastest GPU they had compared with Nvidia's midrange. Um... great?
mahoneyWhen they launched the Radeon 7 - compared it to the 2080
Yet, the Radeon 7 ended up being generally unavailable, and unprofitable for AMD to make, not to mention its many problems. Comparison or not, it was a big failure.
mahoneyEven when they launched Vega - they at least compared it to their previous flagship Fury X
You want comparisons with the previous flagship? Here you go:
mahoneyNothing suspicious with not showing any actual benchmarks right? RIGHT?!?! :oops:
Did you look at my last screenshot? Jesus... If you want more accurate numbers, wait for reviews. How many times do you want me to repeat myself?
Posted on Reply
#172
mahoney
AusWolfThey showed it.


Yeah, comparing to a then already two-year-old GPU that had its replacement coming. Shows real confidence!


The fastest GPU they had compared with Nvidia's midrange. Um... great?


Yet, the Radeon 7 ended up being generally unavailable, and unprofitable for AMD to make, not to mention its many problems. Comparison or not, it was a big failure.


You want comparisons with the previous flagship? Here you go:



Did you look at my last screenshot? Jesus... If you want more accurate numbers, wait for reviews. How many times do you want me to repeat myself?
Take away FSR and it looks seriously depressing. That's why they didn't show it like they used to in the past.
Also that's not your average benchmark chart is it? :roll:
Posted on Reply
#173
AusWolf
mahoneyTake away FSR and it looks seriously depressing. That's why they didn't show it like they used to in the past
Well, product launch performance numbers are always flawed one way or another. Do you remember Nvidia's Ampere launch with their "up to 1.5x" type comparisons with Turing, drawn as data points on some dodgy diagram, that ended up being totally irrelevant and inaccurate in the end? That's why I said: wait for reviews before you draw conclusions.
Posted on Reply
#174
mb194dc
Why would you trust the manufacturer canned benches anyway?

Just wait for the reviews under controlled conditions.
Posted on Reply
#175
AusWolf
mb194dcWhy would you trust the manufacturer canned benches anyway?

Just wait for the reviews under controlled conditions.
Exactly my point. Thank you! :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 4th, 2024 03:09 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts