Thursday, September 21st 2023

Undervolted Radeon RX 7800 XT Gets Closer to GeForce RTX 4070 Efficiency Levels

Techtesters, a Dutch online publication and YouTube channel, took the time to investigate whether AMD's Radeon RX 7800 XT 16 GB GPU can compete with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB GPU in power efficiency stakes. Naturally, Team Red loses with their new mid-ranger running under normal conditions when lined up against its main rival - ranging from 252 W to 286 W versus 200 W (sometimes 196 W during gaming sessions) respectively. Nada Overbeeke (of Techtesters) chose to set a 90% power limit for their main subject matter—Gigabyte's custom design Navi 32-based Gaming OC model—through AMD software adjustments.

Its "aggressive" 200 W undervolted state was compared to stock performance in a number of modern game environments (refer to the charts below). The Gigabyte RX 7800 XT Gaming OC—using stock settings—consumed around 40% more power while managing only a 9% performance increase over its 200 W undervolted guise. VideoCardz notes that AMD's reference model requires 24% more power at stock: "As mentioned, a 9% performance boost should not be underestimated, but the substantial reduction in power consumption also resulted in quieter GPU operation and lower temperatures." It would have been interesting to see Techtesters undervolt their RTX 4070 FE candidate as well, but emphasis seemed to be placed on the newer card.
The VideoCardz verdict stated: "More importantly, even with a 200 W configuration, the card managed to hold its own against the RTX 4070, which consumed roughly the same amount of power at stock settings. This essentially means that there's virtually no difference between these GPUs once the RX 7800 XT is undervolted. Naturally, the choice between the two cards will heavily depend on the specific games chosen to play, as not everyone is comfortable with undervolting or altering GPU settings."

Undervolting the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT all the way down to RTX 4070 levels 😎:


The Techtesters rig:
  • CPU: Intel Core i9-13900K
  • Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 HERO
  • Memory: 32 GB Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 (2x16)
  • Cooling: Corsair H150i Elite LCD
  • PSU: Seasonic Prime TX 1600 Watt
  • OS: Windows 11 PRO 22H2
  • XMP Setting Applied: Resizable Bar Enabled
  • Core Isolation is disabled
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Undervolted Radeon RX 7800 XT Gets Closer to GeForce RTX 4070 Efficiency Levels

#26
Vayra86
THU31Comparing an undervolted card to a different stock card seems kind of weird. My undervolted 4070 is peaking at ~150 W, and most of the time it's 100-120 W when playing with a capped framerate.
Everything for clicks, I don't even get why TPU keeps posting this other than for ad revenue

Fcking sheep behaviour. And that includes even watching a video where some lowlife shows you how to drag a few sliders to the left. Everything about it just breathes incapability and apathy.
Posted on Reply
#27
Unregistered
Shows how the cards are push now, which both good and bad as you get max performance without requiring OC, but hardware consumes a lot for little performance improvement.

We ought to have eco mode like with Ryzens for GPUs. I haven't used AMD GPUs in a couple of years so note sure if such thing exists, but on nVidia haven't seen an option for that.
#28
Sabotaged_Enigma
AusWolfWell, the opening article shows that you actually can.
This stands if Ada is not undervolted... Ada can also be undervolted, too. I mean it's inferior from the start.
ARFI am not sure that they can't at least try to fix the issues with another revision of the silicon,
I'd say it's better for them to abondon RDNA 3 straight away and move on to a proper next gen. Repairing jobs couldn't help much.
Posted on Reply
#29
AnotherReader
Xex360Shows how the cards are push now, which both good and bad as you get max performance without requiring OC, but hardware consumes a lot for little performance improvement.

We ought to have eco mode like with Ryzens for GPUs. I haven't used AMD GPUs in a couple of years so note sure if such thing exists, but on nVidia haven't seen an option for that.
Adjustable power limits have been a part of AMD's control panel for a long time. It was introduced with the HD 6970 in late 2010. With the release of Vega, they added presets such as Power Saver and Turbo, but still allowed manual adjustment of power limits.
Posted on Reply
#30
AusWolf
Xex360Shows how the cards are push now, which both good and bad as you get max performance without requiring OC, but hardware consumes a lot for little performance improvement.

We ought to have eco mode like with Ryzens for GPUs. I haven't used AMD GPUs in a couple of years so note sure if such thing exists, but on nVidia haven't seen an option for that.
As said above, the option exists:


Also, check my post above with my 3DMark results... you lose 2.3% performance with a -10% power limit adjustment. ;)
Яid!culousOwOI'd say it's better for them to abondon RDNA 3 straight away and move on to a proper next gen.
They already have. There are no more RDNA 3 chips coming - maybe just more SKUs based on existing chips.
Posted on Reply
#31
HOkay
Dr. DroI was every bit as skeptical as you, if you experience DLSS-G (at least with DLAA preset F applied, so native resolution without upscaling), I promise you can't tell the difference, even if you're sensitive to motion. and I am.
Hard disagree from me I'm afraid, I tried FG on CP2077 & Witcher 3, & absolutely hated it! Specifically for the scenario of doubling an unacceptable frame rate that is. Sure it looks visually smoother, but it still feels unacceptable. I get that weird jelly controls feeling due to the input lag still being too high, higher vs the original frame rate even! It's really interesting how it's so subjective, like high refresh it's really something you have to try for yourself before you can know whether it's something you care about & want or not.

I'd be interested to know if turning down the settings to get the same frame rate as FG feels any different for you? Doing that there was no question for me that I prefer the lower visual settings with better responsiveness.
Posted on Reply
#32
Dr. Dro
HOkayHard disagree from me I'm afraid, I tried FG on CP2077 & Witcher 3, & absolutely hated it! Specifically for the scenario of doubling an unacceptable frame rate that is. Sure it looks visually smoother, but it still feels unacceptable. I get that weird jelly controls feeling due to the input lag still being too high, higher vs the original frame rate even! It's really interesting how it's so subjective, like high refresh it's really something you have to try for yourself before you can know whether it's something you care about & want or not.

I'd be interested to know if turning down the settings to get the same frame rate as FG feels any different for you? Doing that there was no question for me that I prefer the lower visual settings with better responsiveness.
Try it on Starfield. Works amazing.
Posted on Reply
#33
HOkay
Dr. DroTry it on Starfield. Works amazing.
I can't see why it would be any different in Starfield over those other two, but it's on Game Pass so why not! I'll report back, but I'm away this weekend so won't be until next week :oops:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 31st, 2024 21:59 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts