Thursday, December 26th 2024
AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT Boosts up to 3.10 GHz, Board Power Can Reach up to 330W
AMD's upcoming Radeon RX 9070 XT graphics card can boost its engine clock up to 3.10 GHz, a new leak that surfaced on ChipHell says. Depending on the board design, its total board power can reach up to 330 W, the leak adds. The GPU should come with a very high base frequency for the engine clock, with the leaker claiming a 2.80 GHz base frequency (can be interpreted as Game clocks), with the GPU boosting itself up to 3.10 GHz when the power and thermals permit. The RX 9070 XT will be the fastest graphics card from AMD to be based on its next-generation RDNA 4 graphics architecture. The company isn't targeting the enthusiast segment with this card, but rather the performance segment, where it is expected to go up against NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070 series.
RDNA 4 is expected to introduce massive generational gains in ray tracing performance, as AMD is rumored to have significantly developed its ray tracing hardware, to reduce the performance cost of ray tracing. However, as it stands, the "Navi 48" silicon that the RX 9070 XT is based on, is still a performance-segment chip, which succeeds the "Navi 32" and "Navi 22," with a rumored compute unit count of 64, or 4,096 stream processors. Performance-related rumors swing wildly. One set of rumors say that the card's raster graphics performance is in league of the RX 7900 GRE but with ray tracing performance exceeding that of the RX 7900 XTX; while another set of rumors say it beats the RX 7900 XT in raster performance, and sneaks up on the RTX 4080. We'll know for sure in about a month's time.
Sources:
ChipHell Forums, HXL (Twitter), VideoCardz
RDNA 4 is expected to introduce massive generational gains in ray tracing performance, as AMD is rumored to have significantly developed its ray tracing hardware, to reduce the performance cost of ray tracing. However, as it stands, the "Navi 48" silicon that the RX 9070 XT is based on, is still a performance-segment chip, which succeeds the "Navi 32" and "Navi 22," with a rumored compute unit count of 64, or 4,096 stream processors. Performance-related rumors swing wildly. One set of rumors say that the card's raster graphics performance is in league of the RX 7900 GRE but with ray tracing performance exceeding that of the RX 7900 XTX; while another set of rumors say it beats the RX 7900 XT in raster performance, and sneaks up on the RTX 4080. We'll know for sure in about a month's time.
114 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT Boosts up to 3.10 GHz, Board Power Can Reach up to 330W
You would have a point if the tables were flopped and over 90% of the dGPU market share was not agreeing with me, but alas. I also have first hand experience of the kind you could not hope to recount.
RT is becoming more and more baked into gaming. Of course it's still very, very far from ideal but it's leagues more powerful than SSR/baked lighting/whatnot. Won't be surprised if every single AAA title of 2030 won't allow you any pure raster and it'll have non-PT Cyberpunk/Alan Wake level RT as their basic mode. With ultra settings going far beyond that.
And when most gamers don't own a 7900 XTX level GPU for their native resolution performance to be good you gotta resort to some sort of upscaling. And no matter how we hate the fact the games are poorly optimised and devs just imply you tick the box anyway, FSR does this job worse. End of story.
P.S. You can use both DLSS and FSR at a 100% scaling so you play true native resolution using more advanced AA than naked TAA and you know what, FSR is so behind it's even better to play 1080p@DLAA than it is to play 1440p@FSR100. Not in all games but in most of them.
There's no right answer to that which applies to everyone.
It's also that upscaling is marketed as something that improves your experience by adding performance (which is exactly what lowering graphics settings does, too), and not as something that blurs your image by rendering at a lower resolution. People don't know what upscaling is - they just think that it's free performance, where in reality, no performance is free.
Talking from the perspective of thinking upscaling is great, I can get an imperceptible loss (I don't see this blur) to clarity and trade that against increased visuals, sometimes even a generational difference in visuals. There's a reason people use statements like "free fps", because it can absolutely feel that way. Will that hold true for everyone? Of course not. Never mind our own tastes, everyone's setup is unique too. I don't think anyone is wrong or 'stupid' to game the way they do, but I get the impression at least relative to this forum I give people a bit more credit than being the easily influenced sheep some (not necessarily you specifically) call them.
My screen is 1080p, right? Just plain 1920x1080. Recent games are made with 4K in mind and textures are optimised for this resolution. I enable virtual super resolution (usually at 3072x1728 or 3200x1800 because can't tell apart and too taxing to run 4K anyway), then apply some upscaling (usually XeSS at 59% aka "Quality") and have games with vastly superior static image and forgivable dynamic artifacts than if I just stayed at native 1080p. Yes, I can see the advantages of going 3K on a 1080p display.
This is a much more powerful tool than it appears at the first glance.
They also help a lot with games where 120+ FPS is REALLY what the doctor ordered but there's no way to achieve it sans.
9070 Bandwidth is 640 GB/s
TBP is 330w maybe for custom models and its not TDP
its xx70 series card not xx80
Other than that, I agree. 4096 cores at ~3 GHz should perform similarly to 5120 cores at ~2.4 GHz, putting the 9070 on par with the 7900 GRE, unless there is some huge magic IPC gain lurking around somewhere.