AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

[AusWolf]

Quoting prices from one place is kinda cherrypicking the data. In my country I can find the 4060ti for 499 and the 7800xt for 730. That's a 45% price difference..

I just cherry picked the UK's (probably) largest PC hardware retailer. Totally irrelevant, of course.

 

[apoklyps3]

Quoting prices from one place is kinda cherrypicking the data. In my country I can find the 4060ti for 499 and the 7800xt for 730. That's a 45% price difference..

Isn't your country just one place too?

If you live in country where the price is highly inflated by the local stores you choose what's best for the money you have, of course.
As i hear the 7800xt is a massive hit. Not in stock=high price displayed(might not be real)
If in my country 7800xt won't be less than 4070 , I'm going to bite the dust and get 4070

 

[AusWolf]

On a different note, I'm wondering how AMD got 3840 CUs into the chip. The review says, they're spread across 4 shader engines, which gives 960 CUs per shader engine as opposed to the 1024 CUs per shader engine found in Navi 31 and 33.

 

[Taraquin]

Good price, good efficiency, meeeeh performance vs 6800XT...

 

[AnotherReader]

I even posted on these very forums a 'mini review' of the 570 and 460 with a focus on OC's, here are the results. (shame TPU image hosting is bust now )

I'd call 23-31% way more than 10% personally, contrary to prior assertions in this thread, but that's par for the course.

As for this card... time will tell it's success based on price and availability I suppose. Makes me pretty content with my purchase decision that's for sure.

Overclocks like that disappeared after Maxwell, but even the reviews from that time and other GPUs in the 28 nm generation show what has been lost: 26.5% over reference for a Radeon HD 7790 and a ludicrous 35% for a 980 Ti.

 

[kapone32]

Exactly that. your 10% means nothing if you talking about performance per dollar since that metric tells you all you need to know already and diverting to percentage difference between two products is pointless. This clearly shows that the card like 7800xt is faster by a noticeable margin and costs noticeably less. What else do you need to know the 4060Ti 8GB and 16Gb is garbage?
You may argue that few cents is nothing huge to pay for performance so if you said you would still go 4070 i would not blame you but saying the 4060Ti's are good because you have deducted 10% difference in cents value? That is not what that metric is for.

Ultra Nvidia fans will always try to move the Goalposts in why a 4060TI (of all things) would be a better buy at less money than a 7800XT.

 

[ratirt]

Ultra Nvidia fans will always try to move the Goalposts in why a 4060TI (of all things) would be a better buy at less money than a 7800XT.

there is nothing wrong about being a fan of something. looking for a reason to prove something that does not exist is a mental problem.
You can support your soccer team even though they are losing or are not good in comparison to other seasons that's OK. Keep cheering for them but saying they are winning because they had more shots on goal not actual scored goals is crazy.
4060Ti loses to 7800xt and that is a fact. Not sure why people even compare these two cards when these are different tiers in my opinion. With soccer analogy, it would be to compare 1st league team to a team from 2nd league by goals scored solely without putting into account the difficulty of scoring a goal in the 1st league.

 

[kapone32]

Ok I have read a few reviews and have a few points to make, from reading some of the comments in the Discussion parts.

1. The Gaming benchmarks clearly show that the 7800Xt is faster than it's generational competitor. There was the fact that AIB 6800XTs were about 15% faster than reference without tweaking so take that into account as well.
2. Some retailers actually buy their product. As a result some 68/6900Xts are still more than double what the 7800XT mean price is right now.
3. All reviews say the same thing.
4. The RT performance is actually fine.
5. People are too caught up on labels. This is not a 7750,7700,7800 non XT in disguise. The only place those really matter are to determine sales numbers by sku
6. The price is not bad but also not good
7. For the performance bump (over a 6700XT) the 7700XT at a budget price would be the best choice.
8. It has AV1 which makes Streaming from Adrenlin software even better
9. DP 2.1 makes these cards perfect for upcoming OLED and Mini LED Displays
10. They are actually available to purchase and not a paper launch.

It is not all Golden. The power draw does not matter to me but could be better but it is still better than what we used to get. One of the ways of looking at the 7800XT is the sweet spot between performance and price. I expect the price to go up when the next batch of cards is released to retail channels.

GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GAMING OC 16G Graphics Card, 3x WINDFORCE Fans, 16GB 128-bit GDDR6, GV-N406TGAMING OC-16GD Video Card - Newegg.com

Buy GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GAMING OC 16G Graphics Card, 3x WINDFORCE Fans, 16GB 128-bit GDDR6, GV-N406TGAMING OC-16GD Video Card with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.ca

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G Graphics Card, 3x WINDFORCE Fans 16GB 256-bit GDDR6, GV-R78XTGAMING OC-16GD Video Card - Newegg.com

Buy GIGABYTE Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G Graphics Card, 3x WINDFORCE Fans 16GB 256-bit GDDR6, GV-R78XTGAMING OC-16GD Video Card with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.ca

Those are basiclly the same price with the same amount of VRAM. The comparison ends there.

there is nothing wrong about being a fan of something. looking for a reason to prove something that does not exist is a mental problem.
You can support your soccer team even though they are losing or are not good in comparison to other seasons that's OK. Keep cheering for them but saying they are winning because they had more shots on goal not actual scored goals is crazy.
4060Ti loses to 7800xt and that is a fact. Not sure why people even compare these two cards when these are different tiers in my opinion. With soccer analogy, it would be to compare 1st league team to a team from 2nd league by goals scored solely without putting into account the difficulty of scoring a goal in the 1st league.

I hear you on that 100%. I happen to be a fan of Liverpool and West Ham. The comparison would be Wrexham FC vs Brighton & Hove Albion for me. Even the review sites are all in agreement that the 7800Xt is good and the 4060TI is not as good.

 

[JustBenching]

Isn't your country just one place too?

Yes, that exactly was my point, lol

Ultra Nvidia fans will always try to move the Goalposts in why a 4060TI (of all things) would be a better buy at less money than a 7800XT.

You are reading it wrong. I'm saying, and everyone agrees, the 4060ti is dogshit in terms of performance per dollar. The 7800xt has similar performance per dollar.

Therefore, logic dictates that the 7800xt is also dog poop. But obviously logic doesn't apply if it's an amd product

 

[kapone32]

Yes, that exactly was my point, lol


You are reading it wrong. I'm saying, and everyone agrees, the 4060ti is dogshit in terms of performance per dollar. The 7800xt has similar performance per dollar.

Therefore, logic dictates that the 7800xt is also dog poop. But obviously logic doesn't apply if it's an amd product

I am so glad I posted the thread after that one. I don't want to insult you but there are 7 or more reviews on TPU that show that logic has nothing to do with it what you are purporting.

 

[L'Eliminateur]

So the "best" we can have right now on GPU performance is "well... it doesn't suck"....

We've long reached "intel point"(with skylake++++++++ for years) of not delivering any meaningful performance increase for years, as several have mentioned, what's the point of a NEW product that performs the same as old ones?, where's the increase in performance?

Back in the day, the new midrange GPU was faster than the fastest of the old generation(think about 980 to 1060, 1080 to 2060) at less price, now you have something that's way more expensive than the previous top of the range(that can hardly be called midrange anymore) that has the same performance as the old midrange and years late.

¿what's the point?, i'd rather buy a cheap 3080 than this and i don't have to dance around the laundry list of AMD feature shortcomings.

So maybe in 10 years we'll see some improvement in performance for a midrange gpu compared to a 3080....?

 

[theouto]

Yes, that exactly was my point, lol


You are reading it wrong. I'm saying, and everyone agrees, the 4060ti is dogshit in terms of performance per dollar. The 7800xt has similar performance per dollar.

Therefore, logic dictates that the 7800xt is also dog poop. But obviously logic doesn't apply if it's an amd product

It's almost like you are covering your ears and yelling instead of trying to listen, low performance per dollar doesn't always mean good value, nor is it the only stat that may determine good value.

and even then, the 7800XT still has a better performance per dollar metric, better performance. Both GPUs retail for similar if not the same prices (MSRP at least is the same, and street price is very close), and while the 7800XT performs better than a 4070, an around 600 usd gpu, the 4060ti 16gb for the same prices performs like the 4060ti 8GB, a card that we have all agreed is already a very bad card that is not worth your money for what it offers.

 

[JustBenching]

It's almost like you are covering your ears and yelling instead of trying to listen, low performance per dollar doesn't always mean good value, nor is it the only stat that may determine good value.

and even then, the 7800XT still has a better performance per dollar metric, better performance. Both GPUs retail for similar if not the same prices (MSRP at least is the same, and street price is very close), and while the 7800XT performs better than a 4070, an around 600 usd gpu, the 4060ti 16gb for the same prices performs like the 4060ti 8GB, a card that we have all agreed is already a very bad card that is not worth your money for what it offers.

Agreed. The 4060ti 8gb is a very bad card not worth the fps you get per dollar spent. The 7800xt gives you the same fps per dollar spent. So...

 

[theouto]

Agreed. The 4060ti 8gb is a very bad card not worth the fps you get per dollar spent. The 7800xt gives you the same fps per dollar spent. So...

No it doesn't, and again, price to performance isn't the be all end all, it can have a good price to performance ratio and still be bad, specially when factoring in street price and last gen offering. Also did we not mention how the extra 8GB of VRAM makes a world of difference nowadays? Further showing how price to performance is not everything you should focus on a review? It's a useful metric, metric, not a review packed into a stat, it's a metric to consider when buying a GPU.

 

[kapone32]

Agreed. The 4060ti 8gb is a very bad card not worth the fps you get per dollar spent. The 7800xt gives you the same fps per dollar spent. So...

Can we discuss something that is based in reality? Will Asus ever release a Win 10 or 11 driver for the Xonar AE. I was watching a video on Computer Chronicles and it was about Graphics cards. It was crazy how confident the person representing PCI was on how future proof the technology was even though it was not the fastest. How did IBM lose their position was it RISC vs 386? What part did MS play in that after realizing what Direct X meant. Now we have GPUs with billions of transistors and can drive displays like 4K. It is amazing and interesting to see how far we have come.

 

[JustBenching]

No it doesn't, and again, price to performance isn't the be all end all, it can have a good price to performance ratio and still be bad, specially when factoring in street price and last gen offering. Also did we not mention how the extra 8GB of VRAM makes a world of difference nowadays? Further showing how price to performance is not everything you should focus on a review? It's a useful metric, metric, not a review packed into a stat, it's a metric to consider when buying a GPU.

I didn't say price to performance is everything. I just said both cards have very similar price to performance. I don't understand why people keep reacting to that when it's the freaking truth, lol.

The 4060ti gives you 0.195 fps per euro, the 7800xt gives you 0.216 fps per euro according to the graph you posted. The difference is 7%, you wouldn't even notice.

I mean we all agreed that the 4060ti was dog poop. Yet - until yesterday, it was leading the chart you just posted right?

 

[Macro Device]

Whoever bought either of Navi 32 GPUs, can you confirm if it's possible to save more than 90% of performance under severe undervolting to, say, 150 and 175 W (3DMark Time Spy mean (not max) wattage) for 7700 and 7800 respectively?

 

[theouto]

I didn't say price to performance is everything. I just said both cards have very similar price to performance. I don't understand why people keep reacting to that when it's the freaking truth, lol.

The 4060ti gives you 0.195 fps per euro, the 7800xt gives you 0.216 fps per euro according to the graph you posted. The difference is 7%, you wouldn't even notice.

I mean we all agreed that the 4060ti was dog poop. Yet - until yesterday, it was leading the chart you just posted right?

You didn't say it, yet are heavily implying it by literally only talking about price to performance and treating it like the most important metric, like you are doing right now, do you read what you or others say?

 

[JustBenching]

You didn't say it, yet are heavily implying it by literally only talking about price to performance and treating it like the most important metric, like you are doing right now, do you read what you or others say?

I don't think price to performance is everything, there are other stuff like power consumption and features, but in those nvidia leads by a mile so no point talking about them. Im just trying to understand how is this card considered a great card when it's not even great at raster per dollar, being so close to that regard to cards considered dog poop. It's fine, we don't have to agree. I'm just saying, I expected the 7800xt to lead the 4070 by at least 20% in raster and match it in RT, since the 4070 is basically a 4060 in disguise in terms of performance, and a 4080 in terms of price. Having 10-15-20% better value than a 4070 is still in the dog tier category in my eyes.

 

[Steevo]

Zotac GeForce 9800 GTX Review

Today NVIDIA launches their new GeForce 9800 GTX cards. Like many products in the GeForce 8 Series they are based on the G92 graphics processor. This is also the reason why there are no real technological innovations on this $299 card.

www.techpowerup.com

Diamond HD 4870 512 MB GDDR5 Review

AMD's new Radeon HD 4870 is the first graphics card to feature GDDR5 memory. GDDR5 offers twice the memory bandwidth over previous GDDR generations which helps the HD 4870 gain a nice performance advantage over the HD 4850.

www.techpowerup.com

more than 10% when? ~15% was always the best possible overclocking. Now if you mean something before 2000 then probably yes

My 7970 went almost 30% on overclocks, starting with 9600 15% overclocks with a $30 cooler upgrade or buying different partner card gave you 5-10% higher clocks out of the box and that trend continued for a lot of years.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

View attachment 312527View attachment 312528
No it doesn't, and again, price to performance isn't the be all end all, it can have a good price to performance ratio and still be bad, specially when factoring in street price and last gen offering. Also did we not mention how the extra 8GB of VRAM makes a world of difference nowadays? Further showing how price to performance is not everything you should focus on a review? It's a useful metric, metric, not a review packed into a stat, it's a metric to consider when buying a GPU.

I'm (mostly) with @fevgatos here. Let's look at the general sentiment about each card:

7800 XT: Best value this generation!
4060 ti: Garbage! Worst value this generation! Waste of sand! Kill it with fire!

No, they don't compete with each other directly, but that's not really the point. Perf/$ is perf/$, no matter where you are in the stack. Are we even looking at the same graphs? From the 1440p HUB chart that's been referenced multiple times:

Yes, the 7800 XT does better than everything else, including the 4060 ti. But the 4060 ti is in second place. This raises the question on both fevgatos' mind and mine: Why, when the two cards are so close in this IMO very important value metric, does the 7800 XT get a parade and the 4060 ti get the torches and pitchforks? And don't say "because VRAM". The 4060 ti 16GB shows that more framebuffer hardly helps that chip at all. Even Wizz has said in multiple review conclusions that >8GB isn't nearly as important as folks like to think.

So no, if you're looking for 7800 XT levels of performance, you're not going to buy a 4060 ti; that's absurd. But if you do buy a 4060 ti, you're getting similar performance per dollar, yet that card is terrible while the 7800 XT is fine. I don't get it.

 

[JustBenching]

I'm (mostly) with @fevgatos here. Let's look at the general sentiment about each card:

7800 XT: Best value this generation!
4060 ti: Garbage! Worst value this generation! Waste of sand! Kill it with fire!

No, they don't compete with each other directly, but that's not really the point. Perf/$ is perf/$, no matter where you are in the stack. Are we even looking at the same graphs? From the 1440p HUB chart that's been referenced multiple times:

View attachment 312540

Yes, the 7800 XT does better than everything else, including the 4060 ti. But the 4060 ti is in second place. This raises the question on both fevgatos' mind and mine: Why, when the two cards are so close in this IMO very important value metric, does the 7800 XT get a parade and the 4060 ti get the torches and pitchforks? And don't say "because VRAM". The 4060 ti 16GB shows that more framebuffer hardly helps that chip at all. Even Wizz has said in multiple review conclusions that >8GB isn't nearly as important as folks like to think.

So no, if you're looking for 7800 XT levels of performance, you're not going to buy a 4060 ti; that's absurd. But if you do buy a 4060 ti, you're getting similar performance per dollar, yet that card is terrible while the 7800 XT is fine. I don't get it.

As I've said, it's an amd product, logic does not apply.

 

[theouto]

I'm (mostly) with @fevgatos here. Let's look at the general sentiment about each card:

7800 XT: Best value this generation!
4060 ti: Garbage! Worst value this generation! Waste of sand! Kill it with fire!

No, they don't compete with each other directly, but that's not really the point. Perf/$ is perf/$, no matter where you are in the stack. Are we even looking at the same graphs? From the 1440p HUB chart that's been referenced multiple times:

View attachment 312540

Yes, the 7800 XT does better than everything else, including the 4060 ti. But the 4060 ti is in second place. This raises the question on both fevgatos' mind and mine: Why, when the two cards are so close in this IMO very important value metric, does the 7800 XT get a parade and the 4060 ti get the torches and pitchforks? And don't say "because VRAM". The 4060 ti 16GB shows that more framebuffer hardly helps that chip at all. Even Wizz has said in multiple review conclusions that >8GB isn't nearly as important as folks like to think.

So no, if you're looking for 7800 XT levels of performance, you're not going to buy a 4060 ti; that's absurd. But if you do buy a 4060 ti, you're getting similar performance per dollar, yet that card is terrible while the 7800 XT is fine. I don't get it.

I like this response better

Yeah, price to performance are rather close, and efficiency is on the side of the nvidia gpu, but I would imagine that the people sticking to vram (such as myself) have concerns over the longevity of the card itself, like I've mentioned before, in some games even if it can technically run on 8GB, image quality ends up suffering, rt too (though like I've also mentioned before, that is still not the greatest experience in this price class)

Also comparing the 4060ti to a 7800XT doesn't make that much sense (to me anyway, but this part is largely subjective) mostly because of the price class, it's a 100usd price difference, and the one 4060ti that does have price parity is the one that we all agree is the worst gpu we've seen in a while.

it's probably why we won't reach an agreement anytime soon if we keep comparing these 2 gpus, because I don't think they are meant to be directly comparable either, I think the 7700XT is a better comparison for the 4060ti (hey amd, why didn't you price the 7700XT just 50usd lower? That would've been a dagger to the 4060ti!)

So yeah, on price to performance, it is similar yes, but because of it being a different class altogether, I don't think it's that fair to compare them? Perhaps I am wrong on this one

 

[JustBenching]

I like this response better

Yeah, price to performance are rather close, and efficiency is on the side of the nvidia gpu, but I would imagine that the people sticking to vram (such as myself) have concerns over the longevity of the card itself, like I've mentioned before, in some games even if it can technically run on 8GB, image quality ends up suffering, rt too (though like I've also mentioned before, that is still not the greatest experience in this price class)

Also comparing the 4060ti to a 7800XT doesn't make that much sense (to me anyway, but this part is largely subjective) mostly because of the price class, it's a 100usd price difference, and the one 4060ti that does have price parity is the one that we all agree is the worst gpu we've seen in a while.

it's probably why we won't reach an agreement anytime soon if we keep comparing these 2 gpus, because I don't think they are meant to be directly comparable either, I think the 7700XT is a better comparison for the 4060ti (hey amd, why didn't you price the 7700XT just 50usd lower? That would've been a dagger to the 4060ti!)

So yeah, on price to performance, it is similar yes, but because of it being a different class altogether, I don't think it's that fair to compare them? Perhaps I am wrong on this one

Well, if you take a look in the comment section of the 4060ti review, people were not just complaining about the VRAM. They were saying that the performance for the price is dogpoop. Hence, the 7800xt is a tiny teenie little bit less dogpoop, but dogpoop none the less.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm (mostly) with @fevgatos here. Let's look at the general sentiment about each card:

7800 XT: Best value this generation!
4060 ti: Garbage! Worst value this generation! Waste of sand! Kill it with fire!

No, they don't compete with each other directly, but that's not really the point. Perf/$ is perf/$, no matter where you are in the stack. Are we even looking at the same graphs? From the 1440p HUB chart that's been referenced multiple times:

View attachment 312540

Yes, the 7800 XT does better than everything else, including the 4060 ti. But the 4060 ti is in second place. This raises the question on both fevgatos' mind and mine: Why, when the two cards are so close in this IMO very important value metric, does the 7800 XT get a parade and the 4060 ti get the torches and pitchforks? And don't say "because VRAM". The 4060 ti 16GB shows that more framebuffer hardly helps that chip at all. Even Wizz has said in multiple review conclusions that >8GB isn't nearly as important as folks like to think.

So no, if you're looking for 7800 XT levels of performance, you're not going to buy a 4060 ti; that's absurd. But if you do buy a 4060 ti, you're getting similar performance per dollar, yet that card is terrible while the 7800 XT is fine. I don't get it.

I think this mostly has to do with the 4060ti offering less than a 10% generational improvement while still only including 8GB of vram it actually loses to it's predecessor in some scenarios..... The 7800XT offers nearly 38% more performance slightly exceeding the 4070 in rasterized performance doubles the vram and even if you want to say it doesn't improve on the 6800XT which it really isn't a successor to it still drops the MSRP by 150usd it really is a 6800 replacement at best but is closer to the MSRP of the 6700XT.

The 4060ti 16GB is closer in price and really should be what is compared directly given that it's the card closes in price to the 7800XT and really nobody should be buying one over the 7800XT. The only real downsides are FSR2 which AMD users seem more than fine with and the RT Performance in game like Ratchet and Clank, CP2077, and I'm sure Alan Wake but if RT isn't your thing it really doesn't matter. Power consumption isn't it's strong suit but it isn't terrible either even at my general 40 cents a Kilowatt it would take a while to break even with the 4070 around 3 years.

It's a fine line though if the 4060ti had let's say 15-20% more performance and scaled better at higher resolutions and came with 12GB of vram it would have been a real winner as it stand the 7800XT is the best card for anyone who can't spend more than 500 usd beyond that it really comes down to how much you value RT and upscaling.

Now for those who can't spend a dime over 400 usd I really feel bad for them because neither AMD nor Nvidia gives two shites about em. Well I guess the 6700XT isn't too bad but AMD would rather that card never dropped below 400 usd I'm sure.