AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT Boosts up to 3.10 GHz, Board Power Can Reach up to 330W

[AcE]

I stopped following some time ago tbh. These always devolve into some victim complex where a pitiful one is facing a great evil, followed by a stream of self reassuring posts and brand loyalty remarks, its amusing at first but it gets old fast

You’re also firmly part of those users. Ironic.

Sony explicitly threatened to ditch AMD if the latters won't improve RT.

Source for that? (X) never happened.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You’re also firmly part of those users. Ironic.

Source for that? (X) never happened.

Wrong. I am not a fan of any given brand. I simply make it known I dislike AMD's current approach to graphics cards and I will happily point out the inconvenient truths and the undesirables, I don't really have to justify myself.

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.

 

[AcE]

Wrong. I am not a fan of any given brand.

Again you made a good joke. I’m gonna leave it at that.

 

[Macro Device]

The fact that AMD fails to deliver on bullshit gimmicks invented by Nvidia to artificially divide the market, bears no significance in my eyes.

Gimmicks or not, it's a part of the modern gaming. A part you can't just ignore. AMD could have declared all of it pure nonsense but in order for that statement to have some ground under its feet and to bring some actual improvements to the gaming GPU market AMD should've also had created something noteworthy; revolutional, even. Which never happened. AMD GPUs just barely outperform NVIDIA offerings at pure raster (not in all games by the way) and lose miserably at everything else. Most notably, RT.

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.

 

[wolf]

It is painfully obvious

But, they're my favourite brand and it suits me better if I spin it differently!

 

[Event Horizon]

I'll probably buy one if they've figured out how to eliminate coil whine.

 

[AusWolf]

Gimmicks or not, it's a part of the modern gaming. A part you can't just ignore. AMD could have declared all of it pure nonsense but in order for that statement to have some ground under its feet and to bring some actual improvements to the gaming GPU market AMD should've also had created something noteworthy; revolutional, even. Which never happened. AMD GPUs just barely outperform NVIDIA offerings at pure raster (not in all games by the way) and lose miserably at everything else. Most notably, RT.

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.

Personally, I'd rather just disable RT and turn my graphics down a notch instead of relying on upscaling, but each to their own. I know using DLSS/FSR with ultra graphics is much more popular than using high or medium graphics at native res, I just can't understand why. I can live with a bit less detail on my shadows, but I can't stand a blurry image.

 

[wolf]

I just can't understand why.

Just personal preferences really, some people don't care for the bells and whistles and aren't particularly driven by high end visuals, others are and are willing to lean a little on upscaling to get that experience.

There's no right answer to that which applies to everyone.

 

[AusWolf]

Just personal preferences really, some people don't care for the bells and whistles and aren't particularly driven by high end visuals, others are and are willing to lean a little on upscaling to get that experience.

There's no right answer to that which applies to everyone.

I'm sure it's personal preference for some people. But I also think that reviews have a lot to do with influencing common taste. Since reviews are done with maxed out graphics, I guess people assume that it's the only real way to play the game even if you have to rely on heavy upscaling for acceptable performance.

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.

 

[wolf]

@AusWolf i suppose we all make trade-offs, lowering setting to increase fps is a trade off visually, just like upscaling is. Often times I even do both.

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.

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf i suppose we all make trade-offs, lowering setting to increase fps is a trade off visually, just like upscaling is. Often times I even do both.

I agree. It's just that the trade-off of lowering some visual settings seems much more acceptable to me than that of enabling upscaling.

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.

Feelings can be influenced. You may be presented with a lower quality image, but if every major review site says that it's actually better because they analysed every pixel in a static image, you'll doubt yourself. This is where the distinction between an adult human being and sheep is. A real person can decide what they like for themselves and consider everything else a personal opinion. Sheep are influenced by the "influencers" (this is why I hate this word) and use the commonly accepted (that is: the loudest) public opinion as gospel that no one else must deviate from. Needless to say, I have no interest in listening to a single word that such people (sheep) have to say.

 

[Macro Device]

I just can't understand why.

I personally use upscalers for the circus method.

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.

 

[AusWolf]

I personally use upscalers for the circus method.

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.

Together with VSR, I guess I can see some point in it.

 

[Dawora]

Since it will most likely be using a 4nm or 3nm process and running at such high clocks, at this power draw (330W) my guess it would perform about the same as an RTX 4080.

Low core count
9070 Bandwidth is 640 GB/s
TBP is 330w maybe for custom models and its not TDP

its xx70 series card not xx80

 

[AusWolf]

Low core count
9070 Bandwidth is 640 GB/s
TBP is 330w maybe for custom models and its not TDP

its xx70 series card not xx80

70 and 80 are just arbitrary names, randomly made up. Totally not comparable across different vendors or even generations of the same vendor.

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.

 

[Mr_Engineer]

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.

Well GRE only boosts to 2.3GHz. So if reports are true that the 9070 clocks up to 3GHz, then that's already 30% faster clocks. (5120 cores vs 4096 is 25% difference).

Also, in TPU relative performance, the GRE is 78% faster than the RX 7600XT (2048 cores - max clocks at 2.75GHz) as shown below:

If we assume that the 9070 simply doubles the resources, cores/ROPs/cache etc of the 7600XT, and RDNA4 has slightly higher IPC, while running at 3GHz. The card should perform at least 200% faster than the RX 7600XT which makes it perform closer to the RTX 4070 TI Super and even RX 7900XT:

This is how I believe the card may perform, at least at 1080p and 1440p and fall behind at 4K.

 

[AusWolf]

Well GRE only boosts to 2.3GHz. So if reports are true that the 9070 clocks up to 3GHz, then that's already 30% faster clocks. (5120 cores vs 4096 is 25% difference).

Also, in TPU relative performance, the GRE is 78% faster than the RX 7600XT (2048 cores - max clocks at 2.75GHz) as shown below:
View attachment 377460
View attachment 377461

If we assume that the 9070 simply doubles the resources, cores/ROPs/cache etc of the 7600XT, and RDNA4 has slightly higher IPC, while running at 3GHz. The card should perform at least 200% faster than the RX 7600XT which makes it perform closer to the RTX 4070 TI Super and even RX 7900XT:
View attachment 377462

This is how I believe the card may perform, at least at 1080p and 1440p and fall behind at 4K.

Well, if the 7900 GRE only clocks up to 2.3 GHz, and the 9070 XT to 3.1 GHz (which is equivalent to 2.48 GHz with 5120 cores), then it's a 7% difference. Just enough to put the 9070 slightly above the GRE, which isn't much to write home about, imo, unless it comes with an unbeatable price tag.

We'll see about the IPC improvements (if any), and the promised better RT. I'm not entirely hopeless, just trying to look at it as realistically as possible.

 

[leonavis]

Well, if the 7900 GRE only clocks up to 2.3 GHz, and the 9070 XT to 3.1 GHz (which is equivalent to 2.48 GHz with 5120 cores), then it's a 7% difference. Just enough to put the 9070 slightly above the GRE, which isn't much to write home about, imo, unless it comes with an unbeatable price tag.

We'll see about the IPC improvements (if any), and the promised better RT. I'm not entirely hopeless, just trying to look at it as realistically as possible.

I actually like the 7800XT. It's an 6800XT with a little less power consumption and a little better Raytracing performance.

I don't know how sensible they can make the 9070. But if it's relatively cheap and has a good power budget for what it's delivering, it could become popular. I'm not too convinced that that'll happen, but we'll see.

 

[AusWolf]

I actually like the 7800XT. It's an 6800XT with a little less power consumption and a little better Raytracing performance.

I don't know how sensible they can make the 9070. But if it's relatively cheap and has a good power budget for what it's delivering, it could become popular. I'm not too convinced that that'll happen, but we'll see.

I liked my 7800 XT as well. I wish I never sold it, but I needed the money. I like my 6750 XT, too, but I'm itching for something new. I'll most probably get a 9070 XT not just for what it is, but because I'm curious.

 

[Krit]

RX 7900 XT was nice but to power hungry (no UV options and lauder due to higher TDP) that's way i like RX 7800 XT a bit better.

For me RX 7900 GRE is quite boring gpu becouse performance difference between RX 7800 XT is almost invisible. It would be shame if RX 9070 XT performs the same as RX 7900 GRE (Hair splitting boost).

 

[Dawora]

RX 7900 XT was nice but to power hungry (no UV options and lauder due to higher TDP) that's way i like RX 7800 XT a bit better.

For me RX 7900 GRE is quite boring gpu becouse performance difference between RX 7800 XT is almost invisible. It would be shame if RX 9070 XT performs the same as RX 7900 GRE (Hair splitting boost).

There is soon nvidia 5000 series for those who want faster Gpus, 5070Ti/5080 can be good options

 

[Krit]

There is soon nvidia 5000 series for those who want faster Gpus, 5070Ti/5080 can be good options

I seriously doubt that nvidia will price correctly their new gen RTX 50 Series, that's way i was not buying any of current RTX 40 Series gpus (Weak p/p ratio)

If RX 9070 XT will perform something like RX 7900 XT/RTX 4070 Ti Super at 540-580$ then i wold consider to buy one. If RX 9070 XT will fail than there are options in used market RX 7900 XTX or RTX 4070 Ti Super.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

They should do the exact same what they did with Polaris. RX 480/580 wasn't the fastest card on the market, but it was priced very competitively.

Believe it or not, even the RX 7600 "non-XT" is up there, especially for an 8 GB card. Looks like it beats RTX 3060 12 GB.

 

[Smuty]

9070xt have to beat atleast 7900xt in raster and touch 4080 in rt.
If not I go nvidia.

"9070xt have to beat atleast 7900xtx in raster and touch 4090 in rt.
I"ll still go nvidia."

Corrected it for you to be more truthful

 

[leonavis]

"9070xt have to beat atleast 7900xtx in raster and touch 4090 in rt.
I"ll still go nvidia."

Corrected it for you to be more truthful

It should also generate power and cool my CPU.