• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX

Seems like chiplet GPUs is not as easy as it seems, for sure, not as "easy" as CPUs were.
Unfortunately for AMD and for us, they will have to drop prices to sell these and also, the worst part is that nvidia can keep their HALO prices, cause yeah, RTX 4090 is unbeatable so they can ask whatever they want for it.

In any case, RDNA2 was a bigger increase partly because RDNA1 was crap and full of bugs and partly because nvidia didn't have a great round with the 30 series cards which were made on a poor process, samsung 8nm. Heck, nvidia left a lot of potential raster performance on the table with the 4090, because they did spend quite a bunch of their transistor budget on making dlss 3 a reality.
 
Compact and loud go together. Too bad, why can't they design these things better?
But other than RT performance it's quite great.

The XT is only about 20w more than 6800xt, that's a high increase in efficiency
 
Review Trolling
Vayra86 said:
View attachment 274144
16% RT gap, on par in raster, with more games pushing past the 4080 than there are games ending up worse.

999 is priced right in relation to the 4080. But not priced right. The 7900XT OTOH is half a tier below the 4080 but has virtually the same perf/$.
Overall this makes AMD's offering on the (too-) pricy side IMHO, much like Nvidia's.

Guess I'm saving that 13th month for now :)
Click to expand...

It's 16% in wizzard's cherry picked amd favoured and small sample selection. In actual fact, when taken a broader sample and more diverse, the 4080 is 26% faster in RT than the XTX, nearly 50% faster than the XT and the 4090 is 75% faster than the XTX and more than doble than the XT. In ray tracing.

You also have to laugh at wizzard's conclusions "faster in rasterization". You look at the average: 124 fps vs 125 fps. :)))) yeah, thats faster in raster allright. "MUCH lower price" yeah, 1000 vs 1200. Gotta accentuate that "much"
 
Well I have a 6800XT and from what I can see the XTX is about 60% faster overall than my card. That is enough for me with the additional 8GB of VRAM. People can wax on all they want about 40 series cards too as, give me AMD's overall package anyday before Nvidia. With my 5800X3D this thing will give me that smile that you get the first time you use compelling hardware. I want the Aqua from As Rock too. That way I don't have to wait for a block to arrive from Slovenia or Germany.
 
While my prediction was wrong about the 7900 XTX prediction of competing with the 4090 (In traditional rasterization at least the 7900 XTX is not that far off but for Ray Tracing Nvidia is still the way to go.) This is going to force a MSRP cut for the 4080 definitely

nicamarvin said:
Color me Surprised, W1zzard Blatant Biased yet again. Pairing a AMD GPU with an Intel CPU. He think he is slick. He knows AMD's GPU perform the best with AMD CPUs... I am done with W1zzard's antics.
Click to expand...
Of course another group of idiots are going to complain about the CPU choice after a long time of whining about how the "5800X is a massive bottleneck

smh
 
TheLostSwede said:
Ah yes, very much expected comment now that the test system was switched, because loads of people complained about the Ryzen 7 5800X...

Star Trek Reaction GIF
Click to expand...
There are actually 5800X numbers in the Gaming charts
 
how about PRODUCTIVITY TESTS?
x264, AV1 H265
CONDING ENGOCING DECODING VIRGINING?
 
Nkd said:
LMAO. Wizzard found a way to call this a bad value and bang on it for price and pitch people 4080 still at the end? I get the review but conclusion really feels like someone in the forum who loves nvidia.
Click to expand...
you don't get it man, the 8gb less VRAM and 16% better RT performance is worth the extra $200 bucks
as for the performance itself... this is vega 64 all over again. not impressed, the 6800 xt was a far better product.
given that the 7900 xt is only 33% faster than a 6800 xt, I can only expect the 7800 xt to be 20% faster than the 6800 xt - a lame fucking generational leap and I am 100% sure the 7800 xt will have a higher MSRP than the 6800 xt

vega 64 all over again, unbelievable, AMD needs to stop smoking crack and lower the fucking prices
 
So AMD claimed a 54% perf/watt increase over the 6900XT when both the 7900XTX and 6900XT are running at 300W. At full power in this benchmark (and others) it seems like it can't even hit 50% faster than the 6900XT with 355W of power.

Either those 55W are doing practically nothing or AMD cherry picked really really hard and in either event I am disappointed with AMD for being this misleading.

EDIT: Although I do think a CIV 6 FPS benchmark is a total waste of a slot which could be used for a different game.
 
Thanks for the review. I had hoped AMD would price its cards around $150 lower... but I was wrong :(

It's a bit *meh* for this price tag
 
birdie said:
This is a disaster for the consumer.

Instead of soundly beating NVIDIA at least in raster AMD offers comparable performance at the comparable price while not offering unique distinguishing features like e.g. DLSS 3.0. And RTRT performance is again hugely lacking though AMD has managed to reach ... Ampere levels of performance.

I hate both NVIDIA and AMD. It looks like both companies are in cahoots and are no longer interested in advancing the gaming industry and graphics.

You want more performance? You pay proportionally more money. This is not how the GPU industry worked for the previous 20 years. This is just disgusting.

And what's up with multimonitor power consumption? They had 5 years to perfect the architecture and we look at 103W at idle? WTF AMD?

This card doesn't disrupt anything. It's a mockery of competition.

This is a bloody duopoly.
Click to expand...
I bet you that by this time next year these cards will be competing with the 40 series at every level. AMD is not sitting on their laurels and have refined their software suite. As I have said before (I have a 3060) what Nvidia give's you in comparison is laughable. I will also say that vs a 6800XT this thing is seriously telling of justt how good they are.
 
nicamarvin said:
Color me Surprised, W1zzard Blatant Biased yet again. Pairing a AMD GPU with an Intel CPU. He think he is slick. He knows AMD's GPU perform the best with AMD CPUs... I am done with W1zzard's antics.
Click to expand...
Clearly you didn't go through the review very well. W1zzarid has the results of the 4080 and 7900XTX paired with a 5800x in all the game and relative performance graphs. Was it because it was with a 5800x and not maybe a 7700 or 7900 CPU, is that why you're so bitter?

It's sad to see that people cry on both ends of the spectrum. W1zzard received grief when he wasn't using the fastest gaming CPU (arguably the 13900k) when the 4080 launched and now he's getting shit for not using an AMD CPU, when in actuality he has data listed for the GPUs in this review on all the graphs about being used with the 5800x.

So sorry he can't do a review with every single CPU out there and keep a constant base to use for his review work over multiple years. If you're so unappreciative of the work that him and other review sites do because they're not using the hardware you want, then by all means, go out and spend thousands for testing hardware and spend hundreds of hours creating benchmarks for us. Once you do, we'll be sure to bitch about how we don't like the methods you used.
 
_JP_ said:
Provide data to backup your antics or stop the trolling, please.
Click to expand...
It is on my list, but don't think I'll be able to test this before xmas (50+ games RX 7900 XTX 13900K vs 7700X)
 
Just playing a simple youtube video?


power-video-playback.png
 
Folks can critique the review as much as they want, but do not make it personal. Points for that.
 
Nkd said:
Just playing a simple youtube video?
power-video-playback.png
Click to expand...
I'm testing a video file, not a stream, so I have perfect repeatability, independent of internet speed, YT shenanigans, codec changes etc. But yes, should be for YT as well
 
kapone32 said:
There are actually 5800X numbers in the Gaming charts
Click to expand...
Transition period so people can compare with older results. Makes sense.
 
This is an absolute failure by AMD. 4090 is 22% faster - that's much worse than RX 6900 XT vs RTX 3090 in which case the performance difference was only 7%.

Why is RDNA 3 so damn slow?

AMD has a chance, if:
1. lowers the prices
2. releases Navi 32 with very close performance and much much cheaper
 
Overall a good card but at 1150€ too expensive, just like all new cards...

And that 5800x bottleneck in some games is astonishing.
 
if AIBs don't overclock far better than reference cards to compensate for the shitty generational leap, then this is another vega 64 moment for AMD. so fucking disappointing.
"up to 1.7x faster than 6950 xt" my fucking ass
 
Overall disappointed . The cards are not competitive enough to move the market and prices. Why does it feel like these 2 giants always rely on misinformation to hype the cards and always end up pricing their cards in a way that don't threaten each other !
Anyways I pray the video playback and multi monitor power usage is a driver issue and gets fixed ! 90w on playback is insane !
 
ARF said:
This is an absolute failure by AMD. 4090 is 22% faster - that's much worse than RX 6900 XT vs RTX 3090 in which case the performance difference was only 7%.

Why is RDNA 3 so damn slow?

AMD has a chance, if:
1. lowers the prices
2. releases Navi 32 with very close performance and much much cheaper
Click to expand...

I'd say, why is the 4090 so damn fast? That's a helluva card (too pricey for me) and was always going to be a reach for AMD to catch it.

I think the XTX is good but the XT would be better at $800 max (or ideally, £799 UK equiv.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top