Just two weeks ago, at Gamescom, AMD unveiled their new Radeon RX 7800 XT and RX 7700 XT Series. Both cards are designed to fill the huge hole in AMD's product stack between the RX 7600 ($250) and RX 7900 XT ($750). While the Radeon RX 7800 XT retails at $500, the RX 7700 XT comes in only marginally cheaper, at $450. In our review coverage we've looked at nine cards today: AMD RX 7800 XT Reference, ASRock RX 7800 XT Phantom OC, ASUS RX 7800 XT TUF OC, PowerColor RX 7800 XT Hellhound OC, Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+, XFX RX 7800 XT Merc 319, ASUS RX 7700 XT TUF OC, Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pulse, XFX RX 7700 XT Qick 319.

Both the RX 7800 XT and RX 7700 XT are built using the new Navi 32 graphics processor. Just like Navi 31, it 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.

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%. 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 XFX Radeon RX 7700 Qick 319 uses a large triple-slot, triple-fan thermal solution that does a good job keeping the card cool. Temperatures are excellent and noise levels are good, too, reaching just 30 dBA. The card is almost whisper quiet, even in a quiet room. XFX does include a dual BIOS feature with their card, but both BIOSes are identical, not sure why. Other vendors use this capability to implement a "quiet" BIOS that runs the fans at a more relaxed curve, which allows higher temperatures but greatly improves noise levels. Right now the dual BIOS is just added cost, BIOS modding is dead due to signature requirements, so only a minority of people will ever flash a BIOS and only a tiny subset of those will run into troubles, so they could have a use for a dual BIOS acting as fail safe. Our normalized apples-to-apples cooler comparison test reveals that the cooler on the XFX Qick 319 is considerably more powerful than what AMD put on the RX 7800 XT reference design. 13°C better under load, which is what let XFX lower the fan curve down so much to achieve such a quiet card. 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 +17% (!) 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 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, just two chips 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 XFX Qick 319 sells for $470, which makes the offering even less interesting. I'm not sure who would buy a $470 RX 7700 XT, if they can buy a RX 7800 XT for $500, even if it's a stock-clocked model with a slightly weaker cooler. PowerColor's RX 7800 XT comes at $500, so you actually have an excellent option here, if it's available in your region. 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). Probably the strongest competition for RX 7700 XT is the RX 7800 XT. For an additional $50 (or 11%) 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.