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

Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 XT Nitro+

The pricing of this SKU isn’t new to Sapphire. The Nitro+ 7900 XTX was $100 above the $999 MSRP. Same with the 6950 XT Nitro+ PURE years ago.

Adrian Andrzejewski said:
What's wrong with the power consumption on Sapphire model?! Is it 100w more for gaming in comparison to Asus model?
Click to expand...
The ASUS TUF review before this is the RX 9070 non-XT.
 
So at MSRP it's 22% better price/perf than a 5070 ti and 6% than a 5070.

And lets see if MSRP is as fake as Nvidia. This card is 730 not 600, not a good sign.

It's a GPU that costs more than a console and is worst at productivity than the cheaper 5070 ( on a side note, @W1zzard is their any reason for the smaller compute test compared to Nvidia cards, and is there any explanation for the abysmal blender performace.)

Last gen the 7900xtx had 20% better price performance than it's competition the 4080, and you had the 7900xt with worst price performance to up sell the xtx.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Did wonders for Radeon market share didn't it?

A card with a die that costs less than 150$ if you grossly underestimate wields and don't optimise die measures, has less than 40$ of ram, from a brand with 10% market share cost at minimum 600$!

As far as I'm concerned it's just more overpriced garbage same as Nvidia.
Personally I think ppl should wait if they are interested in the card, once Nvidia cards are available in quantity and prices drop AMD will significantly lower the price as they did before, if they don't you just skip another gen of insanely priced GPUs.
 
calhau said:
is their any reason for the smaller compute test compared to Nvidia cards
Click to expand...
No time and lack of software support

calhau said:
and is there any explanation for the abysmal blender performace
Click to expand...
that seems normal I think. using the experimental hip support shaves off like 20%, still not competitive
 
calhau said:
So at MSRP it's 22% better price/perf than a 5070 ti and 6% than a 5070.

And lets see if MSRP is as fake as Nvidia. This card is 730 not 600, not a good sign.

It's a GPU that costs more than a console and is worst at productivity than the cheaper 5070 ( on a side note, @W1zzard is their any reason for the smaller compute test compared to Nvidia cards, and is there any explanation for the abysmal blender performace.)

Last gen the 7900xtx had 20% better price performance than it's competition the 4080, and you had the 7900xt with worst price performance to up sell the xtx.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Did wonders for Radeon market share didn't it?

A card with a die that costs less than 150$ if you grossly underestimate wields and don't optimise die measures, has less than 40$ of ram, from a brand with 10% market share cost at minimum 600$!

As far as I'm concerned it's just more overpriced garbage same as Nvidia.
Personally I think ppl should wait if they are interested in the card, once Nvidia cards are available in quantity and prices drop AMD will significantly lower the price as they did before, if they don't you just skip another gen of insanely priced GPUs.
Click to expand...

I'm also confused by the headline "beating Nvidia", like, in exactly 1 area, offering 20% better price to raster perf? Didn't AMD do the same with 7800XT vs 4070, 6800 vs 3080, 5700XT vs 2070.

Overall 5070Ti is still a superior product with higher efficiency and better features, selling for higher price make sense. If both are at MSRP it's even split between 9070XT vs 5070Ti.

It's pretty funny seeing the same headline "beating Nvidia" across multiple review outlets too LMAO, hardware reviewers are becoming a collective against Nvidia :roll:
 
Last edited:
nguyen said:
I'm also confused by the headline "beating Nvidia", like, in exactly 1 area, offering 20% better price to raster perf? Didn't AMD do the same with 7800XT vs 4070, 6800 vs 3080, 5700XT vs 2070.

Overall 5070Ti is still a superior product with higher efficiency and better features, selling for higher price make sense. If both are at MSRP it's even split between 9070XT va 5070Ti
Click to expand...

It's beating in price/performance.

More importantly, because it's using gddr6, there should be mountains of supply and low prices.

The street price of 5070ti has been up to 50% over MSRP ....

Some reviews have 9070xt beating it overall, depends on the game mix.

Most importantly, these cards have OC headroom and seemingly no driver limitations... So a dream for those of us that like tweaking voltage curves etc
 
zero989z said:
Every frame matters when your monitor is 480hz/500hz. The input lag difference is quite noticeable.
Click to expand...

You can’t honestly say you notice the difference with that high of a frame rate/refresh rate. But then again I played CS1.6 and Source on a CRT.

You can literally run CS:GO on a potato these days.

Anyway, I am happily surprised all around at this generation from AMD. Not too high, not too low, just about right.

If there is an AQUA or waterblock available at some point, I’d likely pick one up to play with.
 
If I can find one at MSRP, I might just flip my 4080 for this +new ssd +new hdd for pure science and curiosity. Intel I've already tried, but the last time I had an AMD card was with 6850, lol.
 
Xuper said:
Whoa , Power consumption is really GOOD for various tests ( except gaming , maximum ) , at V-sync 60hz , It beats all 5000 series !


Well done AMD !
Click to expand...

This is my major takeaway from this review. I rarely run at 100% GPU usage as I cap framerates to what's useful in a game. 144 for esports 60-100 for everything else. Nvidia has been a bit better in the past about clocking and volting down in lower-use situations (see Cyberpunk VSync tests here) but not with Blackwell. And that won't change with a driver update, those behaviors are inherent to design. Ada was fine as were previous gens but Blackwell sucks for this.

And this 9070 XT is great at it. I was fully expecting to buy a 5070 Ti this round but that doesn't look like what will happen. 9070/XT are the clear front runners now.
 
csendesmark said:
It is just common sense,
Source 2 engine is important game engine, it is a safe bet that AMD will fix it in a short time.
:toast:
Click to expand...
lmao common sense in this gpu market
 
obs said:
I was looking at the caped 60fps scaling results and this is really great and though heh it's the Nitro OC from Sapphire so it's super power hungry so this is the worst case scenario and the standard models will likely scale very good on power usage.
Click to expand...
My issue is that AMD's power slider has been capped with a -10% limit in the past, so the lowest you could run 7800 and 7900 GPUs at was 90% of their original TBP.

That means that a 9070XT will use at least 297W at full load, which is still a LOT of power. I miss the days when the slider went from -50% to +50%
 
The discussion becomes much cleaner and more civil once you click ignore on all the whining flamers.

1741195907654.png


I hadn't noticed that. It seems like they really focused on addressing all the deficiencies as much as possible.
 
AMD fixed the multimonitor issue?

Wow wow wow wow wow. :D

But in all seriousness, looks good. Now lets hope they actually made enough.

nguyen said:
I'm also confused by the headline "beating Nvidia", like, in exactly 1 area, offering 20% better price to raster perf? Didn't AMD do the same with 7800XT vs 4070, 6800 vs 3080, 5700XT vs 2070.

Overall 5070Ti is still a superior product with higher efficiency and better features, selling for higher price make sense. If both are at MSRP it's even split between 9070XT vs 5070Ti.

It's pretty funny seeing the same headline "beating Nvidia" across multiple review outlets too LMAO, hardware reviewers are becoming a collective against Nvidia :roll:
Click to expand...
it's maybe because the 5070ti sells for 1200€.

Nvidia isn't well liked right now.
 
Thanks for the review @W1zzard

Did you happen to make a note of what minimum and maximum power limits are for the tuning slider? I'm actually more interested in the minimum value than anything else.

Thanks
 
AnotherReader said:
Judging from the relative performance charts, a 96 CU die would have beaten the 4090 and a 128 CU die would have landed closer to the 5090 than the 5080. The performance per mm^2 is encouraging; hopefully, AMD will try and ship at least a 500 mm^2 die next time to entice the whales.
Click to expand...
A lost cause though.
All the R&D effort for much smaller margins and market share.

People in that segment are after halo products and don't care about 20% discounts.
 
SilentPeace said:
In the UK it looks like a similar price to the 5070 Ti so no particularly compelling reason to get it over that.
Click to expand...

Where you looking?

OCUK has models at £569. The 5070ti's are all £800+

All out of stock, but OCUK have stock incoming.
 
Denver said:
The discussion becomes much cleaner and more civil once you click ignore on all the whining flamers.

View attachment 387998

I hadn't noticed that. It seems like they really focused on addressing all the deficiencies as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I just don't get it.
How could it be both more power hungry and less performant in HUB review, if it is so ahead at fixed FPS?
 
Like RDNA3 before it, RDNA 4 clocks very high in pure shader workloads. The screenshot is from a Chips and Cheese video.

1741197100934.png
 
That 3650mhz does not surprise me.

An important thing for some to consider is to look at the bottom of this page. Look at the clocks it runs (gaming/RT, etc). This is at stock. It runs up to 3358mhz.

Now figure in an overclock that gives it 8-10% more performance, as this review has shown.

I am not questioning W1zard's notation of average reported clocks that he lists for an OC...but I don't think it's the whole story. Perhaps add 8-10% to those variant numbers...and that makes a little more sense.

Clocks would be up to where? That's right. ~3700mhz. Where did I say it would likely clock at maximum?

Problem is, it likely needs more BW to saturate all units. Hence...Probably 24gbps ram on a XTX (/9080xt/whatever). At some point you will realize I am not full of shit, and then we can be friends.

I literally wrote a whole damn thread about how it was likely equalized to ~3150mhz/20gbps days before it came out. What is the average clock? Holy shit, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about. :p

I get no joy from saying I told you so...on this; me and my walls of text. I will from when the 9216sp Rubin replaces the 5080 16GB and you understand ram limitations you don't think exist. That'll be fun.
 
Last edited:
nguyen said:
I'm also confused by the headline "beating Nvidia", like, in exactly 1 area, offering 20% better price to raster perf? Didn't AMD do the same with 7800XT vs 4070, 6800 vs 3080, 5700XT vs 2070.

Overall 5070Ti is still a superior product with higher efficiency and better features, selling for higher price make sense. If both are at MSRP it's even split between 9070XT vs 5070Ti.

It's pretty funny seeing the same headline "beating Nvidia" across multiple review outlets too LMAO, hardware reviewers are becoming a collective against Nvidia :roll:
Click to expand...
Kinda depends on what you're comparing I guess.

Raster? Beats Nvidia's same price tier 5070 handily. Trades blows with the higher priced 5070 Ti depending on title.

RT? Definitely competitive with the 5070 plus or minus depending on the title at realistic settings. Path tracing? Still an Nvidia win there.

VRAM? 16GB > 12GB

Availability and supply? Remains to be seen.

Price? Well at least comparing MSRP to MSRP, decent win against the 5070 Ti. We'll have to see where the street pricing lands for the 9070 XT though.

Software? Need to see more FSR4 vs DLSS4 data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top