Just last week, we've posted nine reviews of AMD's new Radeon RX 7700 XT/7800 XT lineup. Today we have our tenth review, the Sapphire Radeon RX 7700 XT Pure. While the RX 7700 XT Pulse is designed to be a "good enough" card that targets the AMD $450 MSRP, the Pure is a little bit more premium, with a white color theme, factory overclock, triple fan cooler and red illumination. Under the hood, both cards are based on the same Navi 32 graphics processor, which, just like Navi 31 uses the chiplet design approach that made Ryzen processors so successful. Instead of a single large monolithic die, the processor is made up from several smaller pieces, which are easier to build, with a much lower defect rate. The chiplet strategy on Navi 32 is identical to Navi 31. A central GCD die, which contains all the shaders engines, is surrounded by several MCD dies, which provide the memory interface and L3 cache. On the RX 7800 XT there's four MCDs, to build a 256-bit memory interface, whereas RX 7700 XT uses only three MCDs, resulting in a 192-bit interface. The fourth die is not "missing," but AMD has placed a non-functional dummy die here instead, to provide structural stability.

In terms of clock speeds you get a small OC to 2226 MHz game clock, or +55 MHz / +2.5%, above the AMD default of 2171 MHz. This is slightly lower than what we've seen on XFX 7700 XT Qick 319 and ASUS TUF, which both tick at 2276 MHz. At the end of the day neither of that makes much of a difference, all the cards are within 2% of each other in real-life performance—that's just how factory overclocks work these days.

Averaged over the 25 games in our test suite, at 1440p resolution, the RX 7700 XT ends up considerably faster than the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, by roughly 20%. Due to its narrow memory bus width, the RTX 4060 Ti will fall behind more quickly than the RX 7700 XT as you increase resolution, but that also means that it will be slightly more competitive at 1080p, than at 1440p. Compared to its bigger sibling, the RX 7800 XT, the performance difference is only 15%, but you have to consider the small $50 price difference, which is just 11%, at least for MSRP pricing. The Sapphire Pure costs $470, which makes the gap even smaller. Compared to previous NVIDIA GeForce 30 cards, the RX 7700 XT ends up roughly in the middle between RTX 3080 and RTX 3070 Ti. NVIDIA used to charge $1200 for GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, now the $450 RX 7700 XT is 20% faster. If you're still on the older RX 5700 XT, AMD's flagship from a few years ago, the RX 7700 XT offers an 80% performance uplift. These performance numbers make RX 7700 XT a good card for 1440p gaming. It should be able to reach 60 FPS in virtually all titles at max settings. Lighter games will run on 4K, too, especially if you combine upscaling with lowered details.

Ray tracing is weaker on AMD than NVIDIA, everyone knows that. However, on average in our mix of light, medium and demanding RT games, the RX 7700 XT is actually able to match the RTX 4060 Ti—this is pretty big. However, if you look at individual titles it becomes clear that the differences can be quite substantial in some games. Still, I don't think it could be called "much slower" or "cannot do ray tracing." RX 7700 XT is also kinda close to the mid-range segment where many people will be willing to compromise on ray tracing in return for a lower product cost. No doubt, if you're betting on ray tracing, then NVIDIA is the better choice.

NVIDIA's biggest selling point for the GeForce 40 Series is support for DLSS 3 Frame Generation. At Gamescom AMD has confirmed that their own FSR 3 Frame Generation implementation is coming, too, finally, but we'll have to wait just a little bit longer. In DLSS 3, the Frame Generation algorithm takes two frames, measures how things have moved in those two frames and calculates an intermediate frame in which these things moved only half the distance. While this approach is definitely not problem-free, especially when pixel-peeping at stills or slowed down video, in real-time it's nearly impossible to notice any difference. As you run at higher FPS and resolution it becomes even more difficult, because the deltas between each frame are getting smaller and smaller. Being able to double your FPS is a huge capability, because it means you can enable ray tracing for free, or game at higher resolutions. Of course you are limited to games with DLSS 3 support, of which there are currently around 40, mostly AAA titles, but not every title will support it. AMD has announced 12 games for FSR 3 and I'm sure more are in the pipe. I'm still surprised that they are not releasing it yet, because it is an important selling point that greatly affects the RX 7700 XT value proposition. Outside of AMD nobody has seen FSR 3 in action, so we don't know how well it works, how it looks like, what's required in terms of game support etc. Still, it's good to see that Team Radeon is definitely hard at work to make up lost ground against NVIDIA. On the other hand, if you buy a GeForce 40 card today, you'll be able to use Frame Generation immediately and it works very well. NVIDIA recently announced DLSS 3.5, which promises to improve the look of denoising during RT rendering, no independent testing available yet either, we'll keep you updated.

NVIDIA hasn't exactly been generous with VRAM sizes on GeForce 40, AMD does a better job here. The RX 7700 XT comes with 12 GB VRAM, the RX 7800 XT even has 16 GB. NVIDIA's RTX 4060 Ti offering comes in 8 GB and 16 GB (which really made no difference in our RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB testing). Especially at 1440p, having more than 8 GB of VRAM is not essential, but to quote Franz Kafka "Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have." AMD's RX 7700 XT 12 GB is $60 more expensive than the 8 GB RTX 4060 Ti though. Just for the extra 4 GB I would not spend that money, other performance aspects are much more tempting.

The Sapphire Radeon RX 7700 Pulse uses a large triple-slot, triple-fan thermal solution. Compared to the Pulse, the cooler is same width and height, but 32 cm long instead of 28 cm. Sapphire made good use of that extra space by adding a third fan. Despite the third fan, the noise levels are actually slightly lower than the Pulse. With merely 25.6 dBA, the Pure is extremely quiet, just like the Pulse. Subjectively, without measuring equipment, the noise levels of both cards are identical, and both are extremely quiet—whisper quiet, even in a quiet room with no active components. When running inside a case the card will be inaudible—at full load. Our normalized apples-to-apples cooler comparison test reveals that the cooler on the Sapphire Pure is a bit better than the one on the Pulse, by roughly 6°C at the same noise level and heat load. This makes the Pure's cooler a little bit stronger than the one on the XFX Qick 319, still a good deal behind ASUS TUF. Just like all other recent graphics card releases, the RX 7700 XT will stop its fans in idle, desktop work, internet browsing and light gaming.

Power consumption of the RX 7700 XT is slightly higher than the RX 6700 XT, by 20 W or so. You do have to consider the performance improvement here, too. Overall energy efficiency is around 20% better. NVIDIA's recent releases are much more energy efficient though. For example, the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB consumes only 150 W, while the RX 7700 XT needs 240 W. While 90 W is a pretty big difference, it's not really significant in terms of PSU requirements. Getting rid of the heat isn't a problem either, all three RX 7700 XT cards that we've tested today have excellent cooling solutions that are whisper quiet. So that leaves only your power bill. Assuming three hours of gaming per day and a power cost of 30 cents per kWh, a 90 W difference results in a $30 cost savings, not nothing, but not hundreds of dollars either, unless you really do nothing but gaming all day. Undervolting the RX 7700 XT is easy, because AMD runs them at such a high default voltage. Just lower it from 1.15 V to 1.0 V and you'll not only lower power consumption to sub-200 W, but the AMD clocking algorithm will also net you a few % in additional performance.

What could turn out to be a great selling point for the new Radeons is their overclocking potential. We've achieved a +15% (!) real-life performance improvement, which is something that hasn't happened in a long time. While overclocking is fairly complicated (a step-by-step guide is on the OC page), the gains are pretty spectacular and you should be able to match or beat RTX 4070 performance levels.

AMD's $450 price point for the RX 7700 XT feels weird. It's just $50 less than the $500 RX 7800 XT, which appears to live in a completely different segment, due to the "7700" vs "7800" naming, but that's not the case. Actually, under the hood, the cards are pretty much identical: same GPU, same memory, one MCD less, same VRM design, just one fewer power phase. In terms of PCB design, the RX 7700 XT looks much more complex than the RTX 4060 Ti, which will hurt AMD and the board partners should NVIDIA choose to go for aggressive pricing. Not sure why AMD requires such a complex PCB, with three smart voltage controllers that drive multiple rails, while NVIDIA makes do with a 5+1 design driven by a cheap uPI controller and a dumb buck controller.

While the PCB design might help explain the pricing of 7700 XT, it doesn't change the fact that this card appears fairly expensive. Its price/performance ratio is worse than that of the faster RX 7800 XT, which is usually a red flag. While performance compared to the $400 RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is clearly better in rasterization, RT performance is no clear win, and NVIDIA has DLSS 3 to offer. AMD's bigger 12 GB framebuffer doesn't bring any tangible improvements, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty of people out there that will buy the $50 cheaper NVIDIA offering, also because of its lower barrier of entry. AMD knows that, too, which makes me wonder why they didn't at least price the RX 7700 XT at $430, to move further away from the psychologically important $450 price point. Radeon RX 6800 non-XT currently sells for $430, which makes both cards even in terms of Performance per Dollar. The Sapphire Pure sells for a $20 price increase, or $470. Compared to the $450 Pulse you get a better cooler, with similar noise levels, slightly lower temperatures, a 1% factory OC and red lighting. While that isn't such a bad value proposition, it still brings the card much closer to the $500 RX 7800 XT. Even a stock clocked RX 7800 XT, with a weaker cooler will result in a better gaming experience overall, unless you're looking for a card to go with a white build of course. PowerColor's RX 7800 XT Hellhound comes at $500, so you actually have an excellent option here, if it's available in your region, and in stock. Grabbing a previous-generation card at similar pricing makes little sense to me, even though it's a 16 GB vs 12 GB trade. RTX 3070 Ti for $390 could be an option, it's faster than RTX 4060 Ti in both ray tracing and rasterization, but lacks DLSS 3, which makes the $400 RTX 4060 Ti the better choice for most users. If you don't care about DLSS 3, but want DLSS 2 for maximum game compatibility, then RTX 3080 could be a viable choice, it'll be 30% faster in RT, 12% faster in raster, for a modest $20 more (or $470). Just recently, reacting to AMD's launch, NVIDIA dropped the price of GeForce RTX 4070 from $600 to $550, which makes it much more competitive, even though it's still a little bit out of reach for RX 7700 XT buyers. Probably the strongest competition for RX 7700 XT Pure is the RX 7800 XT. For an additional $30 you get 16% in extra performance, in both RT and raster, and an additional 4 GB of VRAM. Maybe that's AMD's plan, to drive more sales to the RX 7800 XT, but right now, the RX 7700 XT isn't priced aggressively enough to make NVIDIA rethink their pricing strategy for RTX 4060 Ti. What definitely works in favor of the RX 7700 XT is that AMD is bundling Starfield for free with their cards.