AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Drops to $710 on Newegg, MSRP Lowered to $749

[RandomWan]

Proof? 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.

It's in customer hands so I don't have any AM5 systems here right now and I'm not in the habit of filming work. If you want proof, buy the hardware and test it yourself. I went through multiple reboots while stress testing the system to ensure there weren't going to be any stability issues. If it's not actively training the memory, it boots that fast. It boots even faster if you perform a restart with Windows 11 since it's using Hibernate to restore it to last state faster (which can sometimes cause Windows 11 to restart when shutting down).

 

[Vya Domus]

5% more shaders, 4% higher clock, 9% expected increase in performance over the 4080

For one thing that's not how percentages work but it wont clock higher, it's physically not possible, if the TDP is the same and the shader count is higher it will actually clock lower. That is of course according to Nvidia's official specs which don't make sense but that's what they claim.

Doesn't matter, these are minute details, in practice this thing will be like 3-4% faster than a regular 4080.

 

[las]

It's in customer hands so I don't have any AM5 systems here right now and I'm not in the habit of filming work. If you want proof, buy the hardware and test it yourself. I went through multiple reboots while stress testing the system to ensure there weren't going to be any stability issues. If it's not actively training the memory, it boots that fast. It boots even faster if you perform a restart with Windows 11 since it's using Hibernate to restore it to last state faster (which can sometimes cause Windows 11 to restart when shutting down).

I build tons of AM4 and AM5 machines, they all boot slow compared to Intel. Even my dated Z390 platform absolutely destroys AM5 in boot time. 5 seconds from press to desktop.
Most AM5 boards are at the 1 minute mark. Some MSI closer to 45 sec but 30 sec I have yet to experience.

 

[JAB Creations]

Not really. You can always adjust settings, while retaining most of the IQ, and the faster GPU will push more frames in the end.

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.

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Performance Benchmark Review - 30+ GPUs Tested

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora features stunning visuals that recreate the movie franchise's unique universe. There's also support for AMD FSR 3 Frame Generation and NVIDIA DLSS. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection...

www.techpowerup.com

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 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" 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 century


Proof? 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.

Says the guy who wasted money on an Intel space heater and 4090. Every single fan boy bolts for the "allocation" false-argument. You can keep your ego and overpriced heaters, I'll keep success, culture and life.

 

[RandomWan]

I build tons of AM4 and AM5 machines, they all boot slow compared to Intel. Even my dated Z390 platform absolutely destroys AM5 in boot time. 5 seconds from press to desktop.
Most AM5 boards are at the 1 minute mark. Some MSI closer to 45 sec but 30 sec I have yet to experience.

I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't have handed it off to the customer if it was taking that long to boot since it would have been perceived as a problem with the system. 7800X3D, MSI B650M Tomahawk Wifi, 64GB Kingston Fury 5600 DDR5, WD SN850 2TB. It was latest BIOS at the time (about a month ago) and Memory Context Restore enabled and it was booting that fast.

 

[Chrispy_]

For one thing that's not how percentages work

1.05*1.04=1.092
9.2%

That is how percentages work and if you don't agree with that then we cannot have a discussion.

 

[Vya Domus]

1.05*1.04=1.092
9.2%

That is how percentages work and if you don't agree with that then we cannot have a discussion.

Dude just no, a 4% increase AFTER a 5% increase DOES NOT EQUAL a 9% increase like you implied with your first comment.

If 1 is baseline 5% more shaders means 1.05, then a 4% increase in clock speed means 1.092 like you said but a 9% increase means 1.09. You might think I am being pedantic but I am not, do not try to backtrack 9% is not the same as 9.2%, these calculations are different and not equivalent.

 

[Chrispy_]

Dude just no, a 4% increase AFTER a 5% increase DOES NOT EQUAL a 9% increase like you implied with your first comment.

If 1 is baseline 5% more shaders means 1.05, then a 4% increase in clock speed means 1.092 like you said but a 9% increase means 1.09. You might think I am being pedantic but I am not, do not try to backtrack 9% is not the same as 9.2%, these calculations are different and not equivalent.

Look, captain pedantic, 9.2% is the wrong answer because you've forgotten all of your school child mathematics about significant figures and accuracy.
4% multiplied by 5% is 9%
4.00% mulitplied by 5.00% is 9.20
You can't go adding precision where there is none to start with!

Anyway, it's not 4%, it's 3.82%, but I already rounded that up because exact clocks aren't really something Geforce cards do. You're talking to a Masters degree engineer who has been doing this stuff daily as part of their job for 25+ years. I don't need schooling in maths, thanks.

 

[Vya Domus]

You're talking to a Masters degree engineer who has been doing this stuff daily as part of their job for 25+ years. I don't need schooling in maths, thanks.

Instead of wanting to die on this hill you should have made it clear that you just used an approximation in your reply which I would have understood but you didn't, you doubled down instead.

4% multiplied by 5% is 9%
4.00% mulitplied by 5.00% is 9.20

This doesn't mean anything, I don't know on what planet a self proclaimed engineer would think that there is no problem whatsoever with writing this nor have I ever seen anyone do math like you do.

If I ask what 1/2 is will you say that it's 0 instead of 0.5 because I didn't say 1.00/2.00 ? Come on dude.

Two consecutive increases of 4% and 5% are equivalent to an increase of 9.2% not 9%, that's not correct.

 

[Deleted member 237269]

Calm down

 

[Chrispy_]

Calm down

Exactly I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the accuracy of an estimate, used as an off-hand remark for pricing purposes and approximate AMD-Nvidia comparisons only. It's not like the exact performance matches up across brands, and even averages vary wildly depending on the resolution and which exact games are in the suite of games tested. I estimate that this line of discussion has gone precisely 192.85000% exactly, off-topic.

Whether the 4080S is 9% faster, 9.2% faster, or only 4% faster is kind of irrelevant overall because it's basically knocking $200-400 off the price of a 4080 at a minimum, and going to be at least as fast as a 4080, at a minimum.

I tried to steer the discussion back to the 7900XT way back in post #75. This is a 7900XT thread. The only relevance of the 4080S is the price change to $999, down from $1199-1599 depending on how much you want to overpay for a beefed-up OC model. Such a huge shakeup of the high-end pricing landscape will 100% affect the pricing of Navi31 cards.

 

[Vya Domus]

Whether the 4080S is 9% faster, 9.2% faster, or only 4% faster is kind of irrelevant overall because it's basically knocking $200-400 off the price of a 4080 at a minimum, and going to be at least as fast as a 4080, at a minimum.

It matters because you said this was going to rinse the 7900XTX which is a crazy claim given the measly performance increase, if you wanted to say it's going to be better value or whatever fine, but that's not what that means.

 

[Chrispy_]

It matters because you said this was going to rinse the 7900XTX which is a crazy claim given the measly performance increase, if you wanted to say it's going to be better value or whatever fine, but that's not what that means.

Catch up please - that was post #75 this morning.

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.

If you're laser-focused on the word "rinse", then the semantics of that word, as I intended them are here - and my intentions are what matter here because nobody is actually rinsing GPUs under a running tap. I could not have been more clear and unambiguous.

It's also important to remember that these are all estimates and predictions with limited accuracy. The 4080 and XTX are a good match for each other, the 4080S will be a little bit faster, and skew the balance a little bit in favour of the Geforce card, whilst also knocking somewhere beween $200 and $600 off the price. That is what matters.

It matters because you said this was going to rinse the 7900XTX which is a crazy claim given the measly performance increase, if you wanted to say it's going to be better value or whatever fine, but that's not what that means.

I never claimed it was going to be a huge performance increase. Your "5% more shaders" post kind of said that already.
(actually 5.26% more shaders to be precise, because talking to you I'm apparently not allowed to round numbers to integers any more)

Taking this from the 7900XTX standpoint, it's a faster raster-only card than the 4080 in some games at 1440p and most games at 4K, but you have to include all the caveats to call that a win. The list of caveats is, as already mentioned, RT/CUDA/DLSS/FG/Efficiency/1080p performance.

The 4080S will basically extend the caveats to 1440p performance as well, meaning that the only reason to spring for a $1000 XTX over a $1000 4080S is because you exclusively want to play at 4K without any of the Nvidia-specific RT/DLSS/FG optimisations. And, to be frank - you are going to want to use DLSS and FG at 4K in modern games. If you can afford a $1000 graphics card you are probably not gaming on a non-gaming 60Hz display. I'm currently sat at a 4K120 OLED TV and there's no way in hell I'll game at 4K60 having paid at least €1000 more than I had to over a regular 4K60 experience for the display alone.

 

[las]

I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't have handed it off to the customer if it was taking that long to boot since it would have been perceived as a problem with the system. 7800X3D, MSI B650M Tomahawk Wifi, 64GB Kingston Fury 5600 DDR5, WD SN850 2TB. It was latest BIOS at the time (about a month ago) and Memory Context Restore enabled and it was booting that fast.

"Compared to Intel" is what I said.

Im at 5 sec boot time from button press to desktop is ready. Even on a dated platform.

But boot times imrproved like I said. It is still not "fast" in my eyes

I will probably be using AM5 myself in Q3 or so. Zen 5. Im hoping 10-20 secs will be doable.

Says the guy who wasted money on an Intel space heater and 4090. Every single fan boy bolts for the "allocation" false-argument. You can keep your ego and overpriced heaters, I'll keep success, culture and life.

Wasted money on a 4090? Its what I needed and AMD has nothing in this segment. Mostly used for 4K/UHD gaming on my QD-OLED TV. It beats everything from AMD with ease for this usecase + I use it for content creation too, where it runs in circles around AMDs best.

I have no reason to replace my space heater yet It's a golden chip after all, still easily runs everything and gives me full GPU usage in all games.

Ahhh.. False Argument. Or just experience? I know how game engines actually work.

Go read.

"Our VRAM testing would suggest that Avatar is a VRAM hog, but that's not exactly true. While we measured over 15 GB at 4K "Ultra" and even 1080p "Low" is a hard hitter with 11 GB, you have to consider that these numbers are allocations, not "usage in each frame." The Snowdrop engine is optimized to use as much VRAM as possible and only evict assets from VRAM once that is getting full. That's why we're seeing these numbers during testing with the 24 GB RTX 4090. It makes a lot of sense, because unused VRAM doesn't do anything for you, so it's better to keep stuff on the GPU, once it's loaded. Our performance results show that there is no significant performance difference between RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB and 16 GB, which means that 8 GB of VRAM is perfectly fine, even at 4K. I've tested several cards with 8 GB and there is no stuttering or similar, just some objects coming in from a distance will have a little bit more texture pop-in, which is an acceptable compromise in my opinion."

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Performance Benchmark Review - 30+ GPUs Tested

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora features stunning visuals that recreate the movie franchise's unique universe. There's also support for AMD FSR 3 Frame Generation and NVIDIA DLSS. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Avro Arrow]

$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.

I'm not even sure that $750 is low enough. Steve Burke said that the Powercolor Radeon RX 7900 XT Hellhound was extremely compelling at $720 and I agree with that. At $710 though, it's a no-brainer for gaming (which is the use-case of over 95% of users).

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.

They can do it too. My XTX only cost me (the equivalent of) $850USD (it was $1148CAD) back in August. I wasn't even really thinking of getting a new card (my RX 6800 XT was doing more than fine) but I couldn't say no to that. Mark my words, if any XTX reaches $850, it will become hard to find because it will have sold out everywhere.

That is the point, you don't want to be in a situation where the GPU is powerful enough but it lacks VRAM and so its performance tanks because of it. You always want to have it where the GPU is the limiting factor, not the VRAM.

You're not wrong. I had that problem with my R9 Furies. They had brutish GPU horsepower but were severely limited by their 4GB of VRAM (even if it was HBM). It was maddening and, for me, a lesson learned. It taught me to give a lot more value to the size of a card's VRAM buffer than I ever had before.

 

[kapone32]

Right now in Canada the cheapest 7900XT at Newegg is $1049 for the As Rock cards. The Cheapest 4080 is $1699 and the 4090 is $2700. Unless money is not a priority in your life and you don't want to spend that the 6700 and 6750XT are still cheaper as the 7800XT is $700 and a tier up in performance. I will be getting a 7600XT 16GB card for sure to see how that buffer handles different tasks vs the 8GB card. If the OP has the budget though the 7900XT is a no brainer for high refresh 4K.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Right now in Canada the cheapest 7900XT at Newegg is $1049 for the As Rock cards. The Cheapest 4080 is $1699 and the 4090 is $2700. Unless money is not a priority in your life and you don't want to spend that the 6700 and 6750XT are still cheaper as the 7800XT is $700 and a tier up in performance. I will be getting a 7600XT 16GB card for sure to see how that buffer handles different tasks vs the 8GB card. If the OP has the budget though the 7900XT is a no brainer for high refresh 4K.

Well, it would appear that the cost of the RX 7900 XT is sinking in Canada like a stone. Not more than two days ago, the cheapest was $1080, then you came across $1049 at Newegg and I just came across $1039 at Canada Computers for the Sapphire Pulse model.

 

[kapone32]

Well, it would appear that the cost of the RX 7900 XT is sinking in Canada like a stone. Not more than two days ago, the cheapest was $1080, then you came across $1049 at Newegg and I just came across $1039 at Canada Computers for the Sapphire Pulse model.

I so miss the days of resolving spend $299 (HD 7950) on card and being blown away after spending that much.

 

[Chrispy_]

Right now in Canada the cheapest 7900XT at Newegg is $1049 for the As Rock cards. The Cheapest 4080 is $1699 and the 4090 is $2700. Unless money is not a priority in your life and you don't want to spend that the 6700 and 6750XT are still cheaper as the 7800XT is $700 and a tier up in performance. I will be getting a 7600XT 16GB card for sure to see how that buffer handles different tasks vs the 8GB card. If the OP has the budget though the 7900XT is a no brainer for high refresh 4K.

I am also eagerly waiting on the 7600XT as a "budget gaming PC that will still be vaguely relevant in 5 years time". Luckily I have surplus cash to keep two high-end PCs and displays current, plus a Steam Deck, and a gaming laptop. So many people lack that luxury and want a PC to have similar costs and longevity to the consoles. They can only justify a $750 PC over a $400 console because they can also use the PC for work/browsing etc. Like it or not, this is something like 50% of the gaming PC market - you forget that the audience here are very much PC enthusiasts rather than your Average Joe/Jane....

I know it's not a strong GPU in terms of shaders, but as much as I hate upscaling, that seems to be the direction all game engines are going in. Upscaling with enough VRAM is a much better experience than having enough performance to run at native but with texture pop, crashes to desktop, and other associated minimum quality issues.

I also don't like the MSRP of the 7600XT if the street price ends up being $330, but as a sub-300 option, I think there's a definite gap in the market for "budget card that won't blow chunks in a few years' time". It's not glamourous but none of the 8GB cards are going to fare well that far into the future and I'm not even sure 12GB cards are going to be having a great time that far out....

 

[JohH]

Best I can do is $669.

 

[Chrispy_]

Best I can do is $669.

"nice"

Srsly tho, I genuinely think the reasonable price of the 7900XT is going to be $675 +/- $25 once the dust settles on the 40-series Super launches and the AMD prices adjust to reflect relative performance for market value. The 4080S will squeeze the high end by adding performance at a $200 discount over the 4080 and worry the XTX, while the 4070 Ti Super at $800 should be slightly faster than the XT in raster, much faster in RT, and with a better feature set and lower power consumption.

It's going to be very difficult to justify more than $750 for an XT and that's only if you completely ignore both feature set and ray tracing - which are things you really can't ignore at this price point. I'm sure the initial price of the 7900XT will stabilise at $725 but once the scalping has stopped on the 4070Ti S and those sell at list price, you'd need be pity-voting to buy an XT that's slower, power hungy and lacking DLSS, CUDA, and other feature parity for a mere 10% discount.

 

[RandomWan]

The 4070 Ti Superfragilisticexpialodocious has the edge in 4K/1440 RT, but evens out with raster.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super review: More VRAM and bandwidth, slightly higher performance

There's surprisingly little uplift in most games from the memory upgrades.

www.tomshardware.com