Thursday, September 21st 2023
Undervolted Radeon RX 7800 XT Gets Closer to GeForce RTX 4070 Efficiency Levels
Techtesters, a Dutch online publication and YouTube channel, took the time to investigate whether AMD's Radeon RX 7800 XT 16 GB GPU can compete with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB GPU in power efficiency stakes. Naturally, Team Red loses with their new mid-ranger running under normal conditions when lined up against its main rival - ranging from 252 W to 286 W versus 200 W (sometimes 196 W during gaming sessions) respectively. Nada Overbeeke (of Techtesters) chose to set a 90% power limit for their main subject matter—Gigabyte's custom design Navi 32-based Gaming OC model—through AMD software adjustments.
Its "aggressive" 200 W undervolted state was compared to stock performance in a number of modern game environments (refer to the charts below). The Gigabyte RX 7800 XT Gaming OC—using stock settings—consumed around 40% more power while managing only a 9% performance increase over its 200 W undervolted guise. VideoCardz notes that AMD's reference model requires 24% more power at stock: "As mentioned, a 9% performance boost should not be underestimated, but the substantial reduction in power consumption also resulted in quieter GPU operation and lower temperatures." It would have been interesting to see Techtesters undervolt their RTX 4070 FE candidate as well, but emphasis seemed to be placed on the newer card.
The VideoCardz verdict stated: "More importantly, even with a 200 W configuration, the card managed to hold its own against the RTX 4070, which consumed roughly the same amount of power at stock settings. This essentially means that there's virtually no difference between these GPUs once the RX 7800 XT is undervolted. Naturally, the choice between the two cards will heavily depend on the specific games chosen to play, as not everyone is comfortable with undervolting or altering GPU settings."
Undervolting the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT all the way down to RTX 4070 levels 😎:
The Techtesters rig:
Source:
VideoCardz
Its "aggressive" 200 W undervolted state was compared to stock performance in a number of modern game environments (refer to the charts below). The Gigabyte RX 7800 XT Gaming OC—using stock settings—consumed around 40% more power while managing only a 9% performance increase over its 200 W undervolted guise. VideoCardz notes that AMD's reference model requires 24% more power at stock: "As mentioned, a 9% performance boost should not be underestimated, but the substantial reduction in power consumption also resulted in quieter GPU operation and lower temperatures." It would have been interesting to see Techtesters undervolt their RTX 4070 FE candidate as well, but emphasis seemed to be placed on the newer card.
Undervolting the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT all the way down to RTX 4070 levels 😎:
The Techtesters rig:
- CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
- Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 HERO
- Memory: 32 GB Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 (2x16)
- Cooling: Corsair H150i Elite LCD
- PSU: Seasonic Prime TX 1600 Watt
- OS: Windows 11 PRO 22H2
- XMP Setting Applied: Resizable Bar Enabled
- Core Isolation is disabled
33 Comments on Undervolted Radeon RX 7800 XT Gets Closer to GeForce RTX 4070 Efficiency Levels
Also, lowering power target may be unpredictable from stability standpoint when you decrease voltage on GPU (since Power = Voltage^2 * Resistance).
Instead of playing with power slider, just lowering GPU (max.) frequency boost to a point it doesn't crash with decreased voltage setting is better option.
RDNA 3 simply has no redemption if you're talking about absolute performance per watt, it's straight up worse than Ada here.
The 1080p is just a technicality, I'm on some budget monitor until I figure out how to pay for an Odyssey OLED G9 or similarly exuberant display to match my lovely PC.
Anyway, here's my Time Spy result at stock (246 W average board power):
www.3dmark.com/3dm/100224381?
And here's one with the -10% power limit (222 W average board power):
www.3dmark.com/3dm/100225475?
I personally am not, enabling FG on my 4080 makes me nauseous. Interpolated frames just feel off.
As others have said, 4070 can be undervolted as well. At the end of the day Nvidia is just more efficient this generation although I suppose it's nice to know you can UV either and get a nice reduction in power consumption.
Battlefield V at 1080p:
Same with RT. I've seem the still images, and the videos. The only real difference is the framerate. ZOMG A SHADOW IS 5% DIFFERENT ON THAT LEAF THATS WORTH TAKING A 66% FRAMERATE HIT!
Yeah no thanks.
Hopefully AMD's FSR 3 isn't a wreck and you'll be able to pass frame generation some judgment of your own with first hand experience sometime. If anything, it might let you save some power by lightening the load on your card. It's a bonus either way.Sure but it runs on any 40 series GPU right now and could be brought to the 30 and 20 series if Nvidia really felt the pressure from AMD. This is what we want.I'm hoping you are right, I was skeptical until I started using it on Starfield (only game I have ever tried it), and even for a community implementation it has blown me away. It increases the power efficiency/lowers thermals considerably, and fixes up eventual performance shortcomings. I liked it. I agree with the frames feeling off, from the footage I had seen on videos before it did give me that vibe. But on Starfield I just haven't been able to feel it.
It's for people who push demanding monitors and all
But this is for higher level of understanding, that even the PC master race cannot grow to understand..
Ada lovelace undervolts VERY well
cultistspeople who firmly believe that green is "the way it's meant to be played", and people who want the best of the best for one reason or another. Also people who gladly pay 1.5× the price for DLSS and a bit more RT performance either because they want it, or because the media said so. Technology and marketing are Nvidia's cash cows, even if said technology doesn't bring much to the table for the majority of gamers.AMD's "fine wine" argument is a bit laughable, but RDNA 3 shows that there is some truth to it sometimes. With drivers that have less CPU overhead, RDNA 3 has the potential to come out being superior in CPU-limited scenarios, while also being cheaper.
I'm not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong, just that I don't think we had this much differentiation in terms of technology and market positioning within the GPU industry since the 3DFX times.