How do you feel about Radeon RX 7900 XTX?

[WhoDecidedThat]

Not really interested in 300 watt, 1000 dollar GPUs.

Really curious what AMD can do for 7700XT. I am assuming they will use TSMC 6nm for it so I'm expecting much improved performance/price.

As for people expecting it to do as well as Ada Lovelace... well Nvidia is using the best production fabrication process (TSMC 4nm) right now. Hell, even smartphone SoCs are on 4nm and they get the bleeding edge of process nodes.

Nvidia doesn't win just because their engineering is amazing. They win because they are using the best of TSMC's amazing engineering and pricing appropriately for it.

If you don't believe me, compare Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 on Samsung's 4nm versus Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 on TSMC 4nm. The TSMC process has better performance by a landslide.

Nvidia essentially got the benefit of 2 node jumps. Samsung 8nm -> Samsung 4nm -> TSMC 4nm.

 

[baris_karaer]

bad

 

[Space Lynx]

The 7900 XTX is close to what I expected, just a little behind, but the 7900 XT is disappointing to me.

I don't understand why everyone thinks the 7900 XT is bad value for $900, its within 10-15 fps in a LOT of games at 1440p Ultra settings of a XTX.

IMO a $100 isn't worth 10-15 fps extra. at 4k the gap widens sure, but if you are just a 1440p gamer, a XT is not a horrible option (assuming drivers get rid of the kinks)

Not really interested in 300 watt, 1000 dollar GPUs.

my 6800 XT draws 297 watts, just fyi. but is losing out on 40-50 fps the XT gives in God of War and a few other games. so eh. depends how you look at it.

 

[Taisho]

IMO a $100 isn't worth 10-15 fps extra. at 4k the gap widens sure, but if you are just a 1440p gamer, a XT is not a horrible option (assuming drivers get rid of the kinks)

Please stop defending 7900 XT. AMD undelivered in performance, in power efficiency, and set a big tax for trigger-happy shoppers. The alone fact that the 7900 XT's price per frame is worse than that of a higher model is simply outrageous. Some people would kill for 10-15 fps extra, and $100 is nothing when paying $1000 already.

 

[Space Lynx]

Please stop defending 7900 XT. AMD undelivered in performance, in power efficiency, and set a big tax for trigger-happy shoppers. The alone fact that the 7900 XT's price per frame is worse than that of a higher model is simply outrageous. Some people would kill for 10-15 fps extra, and $100 is nothing when paying $1000 already.

media power draw has been fixed in a driver update, AMD already announced.

it draws less watts than my 6800 XT in God of War while also giving me 40+ fps at 1440p.

a 1080 ti aftermarket card on launch day was $750. honestly, all things considered when you are seeing 40% inflation in all industries, $800 for something as powerful as a 7900 XT is not a bad deal.

 

[Taisho]

media power draw has been fixed in a driver update, AMD already announced.

Still, the general power efficiency is lacking versus NVIDIA because of AMD's 5N + 6N vs Huang's 4N. The efficiency when using VSYNC is mediocre against the competition, just as it was with Navi 2. All this while AMD aggressively marketed RDNA3 as the efficiency leader 3 weeks before RTX 4090 became available.

 

[Space Lynx]

Still, the general power efficiency is lacking versus NVIDIA because of AMD's 5N + 6N vs Huang's 4N. The efficiency when using VSYNC is mediocre against the competition, just as it was with Navi 2. All this while AMD aggressively marketed RDNA3 as the efficiency leader 3 weeks before RTX 4090 became available.

you aren't wrong. I'm just pointing out we live in strange times. hell, I can't even go to Arby's anymore and get a beef n cheddar anymore because they are so expensive, I now stay home and fix something instead. never used to even cross my mind, but everything is insanely expensive now. I'm just saying look how many fps a 1080 ti gave you for $750 msrp, and look how many fps you get with a 7900 XT at only $150 more. moore's law imo is dead, node shrinks will be dead in ten years time or irrelevant to matter, so these companies are going to milk it for as long as they can.

I'm just saying it could be worse than it is, that's all.

 

[Kapone33]

I really don't understand why people always have to compare AMD's top card vs Nvidia. The 4090 is at least double the cost of the 4090 outside of the US. On top of that do AMD users really compare it against the current Nvidia offerings vs the uplift in performance vs the previous AMD Gen? As far as I can see the XT is not a bad card but the potential of the AIB 3 pin XTX cards cannot be ignored. On top of that we who have AMD know that as much as the narrative is that AMD drivers are bad that they are the secret sauce that AMD uses to catch and pass Nvidia. Even now that evidence has proven that the AIB cards do support (mostly) AMD's claims and the high power draw issue has been concentrated enough to half the power draw in 2 weeks of the card launching. There was a time where Console Ports suffered but AMD's work in the console is realized when you play Horizon Zero Dawn, Spiderman or God of War. Even the ease of Game Pass games being released on PC and Xbox at the same time is thanks to AMD. I am so tired of reading about DLSS 3.0 and Ray Tracing being weak on AMD from users with a 20 or 30 series cards when they can't even use some of the features. I also don't appreciate how it is rare in these reviews that mention DLSS 3.0 that they don't reference that FSR is the only up scaling technology that will be updated will support your card too.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I don't understand why everyone thinks the 7900 XT is bad value for $900, its within 10-15 fps in a LOT of games at 1440p Ultra settings of a XTX.

Because it averages ~15% slower but its only 10% cheaper, representing a far worse perf/$ ratio, one that is close to ada lovelace levels of silly.

I really don't understand why people always have to compare AMD's top card vs Nvidia. The 4090 is at least double the cost of the 4090 outside of the US.

Gee, I wonder why the top card is compared against the top card? It sure is a hard mystery, I tells ya.....

On top of that do AMD users really compare it against the current Nvidia offerings vs the uplift in performance vs the previous AMD Gen? As far as I can see the XT is not a bad card but the potential of the AIB 3 pin XTX cards cannot be ignored. On top of that we who have AMD know that as much as the narrative is that AMD drivers are bad that they are the secret sauce that AMD uses to catch and pass Nvidia. Even now that evidence has proven that the AIB cards do support (mostly) AMD's claims and the high power draw issue has been concentrated enough to half the power draw in 2 weeks of the card launching. There was a time where Console Ports suffered but AMD's work in the console is realized when you play Horizon Zero Dawn, Spiderman or God of War. Even the ease of Game Pass games being released on PC and Xbox at the same time is thanks to AMD. I am so tired of reading about DLSS 3.0 and Ray Tracing being weak on AMD from users with a 20 or 30 series cards when they can't even use some of the features. I also don't appreciate how it is rare in these reviews that mention DLSS 3.0 that they don't reference that FSR is the only up scaling technology that will be updated will support your card too.

AMD doesnt exist in its own bubble, away from all danger. AMD has to compete with nvidia if its wants to survive. Ignoring what nvidia is capable of will only guarantee AMD stays at single diget marketshare moving forward.

Comparing the 7900xtx and 7900xt to only AMD's previous cards may work for those of us who buy AMD, but we're only 8% of the market (and lets be honest, the majority of AMD's userbase is still using polaris or is using 6600/6700 tier cards, they are not int he market for $1000 GPUs). Since AMD has decided it wants to be a "premium" brand, it's gonna get compared to the premium brand, which is nvidia, and they just dont have the firepower to match the 4090. That previous comment showing the relative power of the 4090 and 7900xtx is rather sobering, AMD has gotta get the "fine wine" attitude out of their head and release something competitive with the highest end nvidia can offer like the good old days of evergreen

 

[mama]

As usual, the comments on these types of "is it good?" threads go into hyperbole. The 7900XT is good. In time when the price improves it will be obvious. Too many foot soldiers for AMD/Nvidia clouding the issue.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

Do you guys think people would be less mad if 7900 XTX/7900 XT were launched as 7800 XT and 7800?

7800 XT to beat the 4080
7800 to beat the 4070 Ti (earlier known as 4080 12 GB)

 

[chr0nos]

Do you guys think people would be less mad if 7900 XTX/7900 XT were launched as 7800 XT and 7800?

7800 XT to beat the 4080
7800 to beat the 4070 Ti (earlier known as 4080 12 GB)

Im 99% sure this is the case, they really are 7800 class GPU's.

They're just milking ppl willing to pay absurd prices, while everyone else just watch how stupid high prices are... I paid $400 for my RX5700XT Nitro 1 Month after release FFS...

Edit: Never gonna pay more than $400 for a GPU, its just not worth it for me.

 

[tommo1982]

Do you guys think people would be less mad if 7900 XTX/7900 XT were launched as 7800 XT and 7800?

7800 XT to beat the 4080
7800 to beat the 4070 Ti (earlier known as 4080 12 GB)

Spot on. It'd make more sense to name them as such. I believe they didn't have the time to do that though. One of AMD people said they were surprised with 4090 performance, even.

 

[AusWolf]

Gee, I wonder why the top card is compared against the top card? It sure is a hard mystery, I tells ya.....

You can't compare a $1000 top card to a $1600 top card. It's like comparing Ford's top level car to Ferrari's. The 7900 XTX is a competitor to the 4080, not the 4090.

AMD doesnt exist in its own bubble, away from all danger. AMD has to compete with nvidia if its wants to survive. Ignoring what nvidia is capable of will only guarantee AMD stays at single diget marketshare moving forward.

Comparing the 7900xtx and 7900xt to only AMD's previous cards may work for those of us who buy AMD, but we're only 8% of the market (and lets be honest, the majority of AMD's userbase is still using polaris or is using 6600/6700 tier cards, they are not int he market for $1000 GPUs). Since AMD has decided it wants to be a "premium" brand, it's gonna get compared to the premium brand, which is nvidia, and they just dont have the firepower to match the 4090. That previous comment showing the relative power of the 4090 and 7900xtx is rather sobering, AMD has gotta get the "fine wine" attitude out of their head and release something competitive with the highest end nvidia can offer like the good old days of evergreen

That I sort of agree with. Although, I have to add that there used to be a Titan card that AMD never competed with. They were (kind of) always on par with the x80-level (except for the 5700 XT which was more like a mid-range 2070 competitor). Now we don't have Titan, but a "consumer" x90 card instead. The performance tiers haven't changed. The only thing that changed is Nvidia's marketing.

 

[Vayra86]

You can't compare a $1000 top card to a $1600 top card. It's like comparing Ford's top level car to Ferrari's. The 7900 XTX is a competitor to the 4080, not the 4090.


That I sort of agree with. Although, I have to add that there used to be a Titan card that AMD never competed with. They were (kind of) always on par with the x80-level (except for the 5700 XT which was more like a mid-range 2070 competitor). Now we don't have Titan, but a "consumer" x90 card instead. The performance tiers haven't changed. The only thing that changed is Nvidia's marketing.

Unfortunately AMD is the one trying to mimic Nvidia in naming this gen. The fact is undeniable that 7900 XTX is the fattest chip they want to produce in this stack. Maybe we will see a 7950 XXX pr0n Epeen Edition that gains 5% over it. They then make it even worse here by placing a 7900XT underneath with a worse perf/$. So now they produce two 'top end' named GPUs that compete with x80 and x70ti. Its like they wanted to help Nvidia after they misfired on that 12GB 4060ti thats now a 4070ti. Consider that sentiment for a moment. AMDs x900 is situationally surpassed (RT!) by Nv's pseudo x60ti.

This is all on AMD not the fanbase of either camp. This is a new example in a long history of shitty marketing strategies that backfire on AMD. This company doesnt need enemies... fully capable of digging its own hole and jumping into it again every time they had just managed to climb out.

Also they once again managed to place the spotlight on a horrible underperforming reference version as opposed to giving the honor to Sapphire or sth to produce an overclocked baseline making use of the immense OC potential. Instead we got that in the second wave. So stupid...

 

[AusWolf]

Unfortunately AMD is the one trying to mimic Nvidia in naming this gen. The fact is undeniable that 7900 XTX is the fattest chip they want to produce in this stack. Maybe we will see a 7950 XXX pr0n Epeen Edition that gains 5% over it. They then make it even worse here by placing a 7900XT underneath with a worse perf/$. So now they produce two 'top end' named GPUs that compete with x80 and x70ti. Its like they wanted to help Nvidia after they misfired on that 12GB 4060ti thats now a 4070ti. Consider that sentiment for a moment. AMDs x900 is situationally surpassed (RT!) by Nv's pseudo x60ti.

This is all on AMD not the fanbase of either camp. This is a new example in a long history of shitty marketing strategies that backfire on AMD. This company doesnt need enemies... fully capable of digging its own hole and jumping into it again every time they had just managed to climb out.

Also they once again managed to place the spotlight on a horrible underperforming reference version as opposed to giving the honor to Sapphire or sth to produce an overclocked baseline making use of the immense OC potential. Instead we got that in the second wave. So stupid...

That's one way to see it. I still see a 35% faster card than the predecessor in the XTX, with the same power consumption and price. It doesn't rock my boat, but it's fine.

The XT is too expensive. It should have been around the $800 mark. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the series, so far.

 

[Squared]

Do you guys think people would be less mad if 7900 XTX/7900 XT were launched as 7800 XT and 7800?

7800 XT to beat the 4080
7800 to beat the 4070 Ti (earlier known as 4080 12 GB)

Those names make sense in competition with Nvidia, but the name "7800 XT" could imply a "7900 XT" to follow and it kind of implies performance in the ballpark of the 6950 XT, as traditionally the 8 series has performance in the ballpark of the last-gen leader. Certainly "RX 7900" and "RX 7900 XT" would've made more sense. Considering that AMD will probably release a higher-clocked version (like they did with the 6950 XT) and considering that the RX 7900 XT is slower than the RTX 4080 and only a little faster than the RX 6950 XT, maybe the names "RX 7800 XT" and "RX 7900" would've made more sense.

 

[Vayra86]

That's one way to see it. I still see a 35% faster card than the predecessor in the XTX, with the same power consumption and price. It doesn't rock my boat, but it's fine.

The XT is too expensive. It should have been around the $800 mark. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the series, so far.

Its not a problem per say, but it explains why people compare to the 4090: AMD gave the audience a general reason to, by product placement.

 

[AusWolf]

Its not a problem per say, but it explains why people compare to the 4090: AMD gave the audience a general reason to, by product placement.

With that logic, people could have compared the 5700 XT to the 2080 Ti, yet, they didn't. Just because both products have a "9" in their name, or that they're the top offering of the two companies, it doesn't mean comparing them makes any sense.

 

[Vayra86]

With that logic, people could have compared the 5700 XT to the 2080 Ti, yet, they didn't. Just because both products have a "9" in their name, or that they're the top offering of the two companies, it doesn't mean comparing them makes any sense.

No? Thats not the same logic at all; the card is called 5700XT. Not 5900 XTX.

This was never about sense, its about how companies choose to go about product placement. They market stuff with intent, the intent here backfired on AMD. People are comparing the cards as they are placed in the stack. Price does not factor in for everyone in the same way.

 

[AusWolf]

This was never about sense, its about how companies choose to go about product placement. They market stuff with intent, the intent here backfired on AMD. People are comparing the cards as they are placed in the stack.

The 7900 XTX is the top of AMD's stack. That doesn't mean that it has to be as fast as the 4090, especially not with a $600 difference in MSRP between the two.

Price does not factor in for everyone in the same way.

How does it not? Is spending $1600 the same as spending $1000 to you?

Edit: Let's play a game - let's suppose Matrox is coming back from their ashes, and are releasing a gaming GPU with the name Wonder Vision 900 for an MSRP of $500. Would you assume that it's a 4090 competitor just because it has a "9" in its name? Or would you assume that it's a 3060-3070 competitor because it's sold for $500?

 

[ARF]

The 7900 XTX is the top of AMD's stack. That doesn't mean that it has to be as fast as the 4090, especially not with a $600 difference in MSRP between the two.

The true price is much much different.
1569 vs 1965. 25% difference for 20% more FPS without ray-tracing and 50% more FPS with ray-tracing.
This offer by AMD is definitely not serious given its history and extremely low market share of only 8% and declining.

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

 

[Vayra86]

The 7900 XTX is the top of AMD's stack. That doesn't mean that it has to be as fast as the 4090, especially not with a $600 difference in MSRP between the two.


How does it not? Is spending $1600 the same as spending $1000 to you?

Edit: Let's play a game - let's suppose Matrox is coming back from their ashes, and are releasing a gaming GPU with the name Wonder Vision 900 for an MSRP of $500. Would you assume that it's a 4090 competitor just because it has a "9" in its name? Or would you assume that it's a 3060-3070 competitor because it's sold for $500?

The true price is much much different.
1569 vs 1965. 25% difference for 20% more FPS without ray-tracing and 50% more FPS with ray-tracing.
This offer by AMD is definitely not serious given its history and extremely low market share of only 8% and declining.

View attachment 275980

View attachment 275981

View attachment 275978
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

View attachment 275979
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

@ARF made my argument for me.

In the end, the market pays and scales according to real performance. I already said it: this is not about sense. Or logic. Logic is rationale. The market is not built on rationale alone, the better half of the actual market price in real life is emotion. MSRP is a price based on rationale alone: price vs FPS & featureset; then, emotions and 'local rationale' get added, and we end up with local pricing.

The facts: AMD has its top end offering in the shape of a 7900XTX, and Nvidia has its top end in the shape of a 4090. When you're in the market for a top end card, you will compare the two, despite the price difference. When you have 1000 bucks to spend for a 7900XTX, you absolutely will form an image of its performance compared to the 4090 and the 4080. You will consider moving up to get more, and if you're not, you're going to convince yourself you don't need to.

Other facts: If you were gunning for a 4080, you will be comparing it to probably both the 7900XTX and the 7900XT. In both cases you're looking at a price/perf comparison that is just about the same. Its not strange to compare this to the 4090 while you're at it, which arguably has a better perf/$ simply because its absolute performance is higher which is a lifetime increase on top of its perf alone. And again, that is the exact same trick for both Nvidia and AMD's product placement isn't it? The 7900XT is also not quite a good perf/$ purchase despite its lower position in the stack. This supposed counter intuitive product placement serves the idea that they want to upsell their products. They'd rather have fat lines for the 4090 and the XTX, so they price them along the same perf/$ metric. This is a sound strategy for Nvidia, already commanding the vast majority of market share. It is however NOT a great strategy for AMD, unless they've pretty much given up on gaining share, which I think is the case.

Price in isolation is never a good guide. The stack order, the product placement and the comparative perf/$ of each part is not sensitive to the actual sale price. Even a 2000 dollar card can be on a great perf/$ even if the absolute price is unbearable. AMDs problem in a nutshell: they chose not to dive under the perf/$ metric of Nvidia's offerings by any reasonable measure, so they chose to get their card compared to whatever is Nvidia's greatest. The gap is too small to not consider the 4090 when you're already spending upwards of 1K - this is way beyond the territory of mid range price conscious buyer markets.

All of this is not new. AMD was trailing top end performance before, and Nvidia made bank on it before. They'll do it again. Back then, AMD was ready to compete on price by killing its margins. Lisa Su is not of that category, clearly, we see it on Zen, and we see it on RDNA. That's AMD's choice. And where are they now? 8% share... We can applaud her for bringing AMD back... I'm not quite so convinced since RDNA3.

Edit: Let's play a game - let's suppose Matrox is coming back from their ashes, and are releasing a gaming GPU with the name Wonder Vision 900 for an MSRP of $500. Would you assume that it's a 4090 competitor just because it has a "9" in its name? Or would you assume that it's a 3060-3070 competitor because it's sold for $500?

Matrox coming back after a long absence would be treated just like Intel is right now. Cautiously.

AMD however has historically been trying to 'counter' Nvidia at every turn. So it makes sense their x900 is seen as competitive to the x90. Its that simple, honestly. AMD was also not shy of entering the semi pro markets with their gaming line up. They've been following Nvidia every step of the way, in feature set, in product line up, etc and they misfired with the way they priced and placed their 7900 line up.

And... look at Zen! Its the exact same picture. Intel 9? Ryzen 9. AMD is always 'we can do it too'. Never 'we just did this'.

 

[AusWolf]

The true price is much much different.
1569 vs 1965. 25% difference for 20% more FPS without ray-tracing and 50% more FPS with ray-tracing.
This offer by AMD is definitely not serious given its history and extremely low market share of only 8% and declining.

View attachment 275980

View attachment 275981

View attachment 275978
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

View attachment 275979
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Grafikkarte (2022) Preisvergleich | Günstig bei idealo kaufen

Those prices are mad, but I think it only shows how much interest there is for these cards, while for the 4080 and 7900 XT, not so much.

 

[ARF]

Those prices are mad, but I think it only shows how much interest there is for these cards, while for the 4080 and 7900 XT, not so much.

There is no so much a particular interest in the XTX.
AMD's supply is tied, maybe the yields are very low for the full Navi 31, hence the mad price hike.