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

How do you feel about Radeon RX 7900 XTX?

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is..

  • .. about what I expected

    Votes: 3,812 46.2%

  • .. better than expected

    Votes: 968 11.7%

  • .. worse than expected

    Votes: 3,474 42.1%
  • Total voters
    8,254
  • Poll closed .
The product is very solid by itself but lack any "wow" factor you might expect out of a very top tire product. I guess it`s from a cost consideration so I gave it "as expected".
But having an 'halo' product that is 'meh, as expected' tint it as a slight disappointment, if anything.
 
Last edited:
What if AMD is going full-send only with a potential 7970 ? To give it a proper tribute by actually competing with NVidia's top-end.
 
damric said:
I'm happy that AMD decided to leave some overclocking headroom. It seems like they tuned for efficiency instead of jamming the clocks to the maximum and power hogging it.
Click to expand...
Efficiency was always at the forefront of classic company marketing tactics slides.
 
The RX 6000 series brought AMD within throwing distance of the rasterization performance of Nvidia's best while matching the power efficiency 1:1 on a similar process node to Nvidia for the first time since Nvidia launched Maxwell, and it had ray tracing at all. I expected AMD to compete hard with the RX 7000 series now that AMD has money for R&D. But in rasterizarion and efficiency the 7900 XTX falls short of the 4090 and the ray tracing performance is now further behind. Moreover the generational gains are good but not great, so the name XTX seems disingenuous. I think 7900 and 7900 XT would've been more appropriate names for these first two models.

Also, AMD has struggled with multi-monitor power efficiency a lot of times; reviews showed 40W power consumption at idle on both my RX 480 and my RX 5600 XT, so for the 7900 XTX to launch with 80W of multi-monitor idle power consumption is big failure on AMD's part. I can't imagine using only one monitor especially on a $1000 GPU, so this should've been a priority.
 
Last edited:
I wonder when will AMD learn how important is the first impression and stop releasing hardware/software that is clearly not ready for primetime.

As for the poll, "worse than expected". Maybe AMD should spend more on R&D and QA, and less on buybacks. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Half impressed here but the price is too high. Either it should have been stronger at stock power or it shouldve been cheaper. 800 tops.

z1n0x said:
I wonder when will AMD learn how important is the first impression and stop releasing hardware/software that is clearly not ready for primetime.

As for the poll, "worse than expected". Maybe AMD should spend more on R&D and QA, and less on buybacks. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
This. They damaged themselves again with this release, even more so because they ask nearly the same premium as a competitor that has a better featureset. The perf/$ gap is about equal to the RT perf gap to 4080. A weird form of stagnation really.
 
Last edited:
What I expected.

The XTX is okay: 30-ish % improvement over last gen, no considerable increase in size, heat and power consumption, same MSRP. Nice. Not excellent, just nice.

The XT is too expensive. After a price drop of around 100 bucks, it'll be a good choice.
 
Didn't vote because I don't care much and not buying this...
 
  • Like
Reactions: N/A
Not great, not terrible.
 
AMD's marketing mixed with all the hype had me expecting more, so I'm a little let down, but more so by the other issues reported at launch. There were good few level headed people with tempered expectations, but all the graphs floating around where people had superimposed projected 1.5x and 1.7x performance were just that bit optimistic, it's far closer to the 4080 in Rast at 4k than I think a lot of people expected.

It's like a curse they can't shake at this point, something always goes awry at launch that takes some of the shine off the cards, performance increase not withstanding.
 
wolf said:
all the graphs floating around where people had superimposed projected 1.5x and 1.7x performance were just that bit optimistic, it's far closer to the 4080 in Rast at 4k than I think a lot of people expected.
Click to expand...
I think that's down to people misunderstanding the graphs. If I recall correctly, AMD never promised a 1.5x performance increase. What they promised was 1.5x increase in performance-per-watt. It's a different story that even that doesn't necessarily hold up with launch drivers. The only reason I'm not disappointed by any of this is that at least the XTX's MSRP is the same as the 6900 XT's was, so you're getting a bit more for the same money, which is used to be normal before Nvidia Ada came along.
 
The power consumption is a problem imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: N/A
AusWolf said:
I think that's down to people misunderstanding the graphs. If I recall correctly, AMD never promised a 1.5x performance increase.
Click to expand...
I recall the below slide being the focus of people extrapolating that roughly 1.5x was what we could expect over the 6950XT at 4k, and up to 1.7X in best base scenario's (where it seems like "up to" certainly applied to both numbers), where what we get on a balance of testing suites in 3rd party reviews is more like 1.35X the 6950XT. It's interesting that a few of the titles use RT where RDNA3 has genuinely improved vs RDNA2, helping stretch the perceived increase, and not many testers I watch/read include many or even any games with RT in the relative performance or multi game averages. There's a slide about perf/watt improvement being 54% but iirc that's with both gpu's at the same wattage maybe 300w?

Of course, always take marketing slides with a pinch of salt, lord knows NVidia showed some wild best case scenario's on their Ada launch too,

1671369334124.png
 
wolf said:
Of course, always take marketing slides with a pinch of salt
Click to expand...
And that's my conclusion during literally EVERY single product launch. :)
 
Welp I still 'might' upgrade to a 7900XTX, but the price like that of the 4080_16GB is still too high.
 
wolf said:
I recall the below slide being the focus of people extrapolating that roughly 1.5x was what we could expect over the 6950XT at 4k, and up to 1.7X in best base scenario's (where it seems like "up to" certainly applied to both numbers), where what we get on a balance of testing suites in 3rd party reviews is more like 1.35X the 6950XT. It's interesting that a few of the titles use RT where RDNA3 has genuinely improved vs RDNA2, helping stretch the perceived increase, and not many testers I watch/read include many or even any games with RT in the relative performance or multi game averages. There's a slide about perf/watt improvement being 54% but iirc that's with both gpu's at the same wattage maybe 300w?

Of course, always take marketing slides with a pinch of salt, lord knows NVidia showed some wild best case scenario's on their Ada launch too,

View attachment 274944
Click to expand...

In the past AMD has been a lot more honest about it's performance RDNA1 and RDNA2 where spot on and even their CPU lines have matched up pretty well. After watching the conference and seeing reviews I feel like AMD at best was misleading and at worst straight up lied.
 
It's worse than I was hoping, but it competes with the 4080, and that's okay enough. I'd really want it to be 4090 performance.
 
looks right, it wasn't meant to beat the 4090, but the latter is also weaker than expected. Judging by the transistor count AMD has lost on efficiency by 20%. I mean like 58 B vs 46 B on 4080, so yes. beaten by a mile. But it still outperforms 4090 in some titles, a bit of a mixed bag and can be improved.
 
Much worse than expected.
It has very high power consumption in certain cases and extremely high price - in Germany now it tries to reach new highs as 1800 euros.

About the performance I cannot comment before very deep analysis to clarify why nvidia has so fast RTX 4090.
RTX 4090 shouldn't be that fast.

RTX 4090:

1671559724110.png


RX 7900 XTX:

1671559748073.png
 
Hi,
Yeah but how do they mine, asking for a friend :laugh:
 
It's about where I expected it to be. I expected it to be pretty much the same as the RTX 4080 but $200 less expensive. I don't think that it's priced very well (especially the XT) but the performance doesn't really surprise me.
 
The 7900 XTX is close to what I expected, just a little behind, but the 7900 XT is disappointing to me.
 
It's substantially worse than I expected. Based upon the numbers AMD shared before the launch, I was expecting the 7900 XTX to be closer to the 4090 than the 4080.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top