AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Video Card Review

[SmokeRngs]

Another thing I will add, so many reviewers are only focusing on the result, the number, "bigger bar is better" value, instead of the actual gameplay experience that the card delivers. Instead of just looking squarely at which card is 10% one or the other below or above the other, why not actually look at the performance the card is delivering, and determine if that is a playable enough experience for you? For example, the 4090 may give 120fps in one game, and the 7900 XTX gives you 100fps, well that is a 20% difference, and one could say the 4090 is the better buy, BUT LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FRAMERATE MY GOSH, 100FPS is playable too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In this example, the 7900 XTX delivers a playable gameplay experience, plenty of performance in the game, and smooth gameplay. If it's $600 less, well that would be a much better value, and all you need to enjoy the game, right?

Perhaps I need to make a video editorial, to get these points across. Not enough people are hearing this.

I agree with you 100% and have looked at hardware this way for a very long time. As much as I'd probably enjoy reading an editorial regarding this very subject I sadly think few people will be affected by it (but you should definitely do it.) Despite what you tend to read on forums, most people are looking for bang for the buck. Most people aren't buying $1000+ cards. Hell, most people aren't buying $500+ cards. And most people preaching of nVidia 4090 performance won't ever seen one of those cards in their lives much less own one. I think it boils down to intentional ignorance. Whether this is because someone doesn't want to learn something or simply fanboy enthusiasm is irrelevant.

I also agree that relatively speaking the 7900XTX is a great value.

Beyond that, I'm with others who say ray tracing is still moot. When it requires a halo card to have a chance of running it decently it's not a feature worth worrying about. Come talk to me about ray tracing when the lower mid range cards can run it without catastrophic performance reductions. When ray tracing was introduced on the 2x00 nVidia line I figured it would be three generations before it could be usable. I was dead wrong about that. From the look of things is going to be at least six generations before that happens. Until then raster is king no matter what anyone says and game makers seem to be of the same mindset considering how few games make any use of ray tracing at all.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is AMD's first attempt at a chiplet style GPU. AMD obviously applied a lot of what they learned with Zen chiplets to RDNA 3 but it would be a complete surprise if there isn't more performance to be had as time goes on through drivers and/or game optimizations. There were performance improvements over time with Zen via hardware revisions and software. The Windows scheduler until updated for various Zen revisions definitely had issues.

 

[Brent_Justice]

Beyond that, I'm with others who say ray tracing is still moot. When it requires a halo card to have a chance of running it decently it's not a feature worth worrying about. Come talk to me about ray tracing when the lower mid range cards can run it without catastrophic performance reductions. When ray tracing was introduced on the 2x00 nVidia line I figured it would be three generations before it could be usable. I was dead wrong about that. From the look of things is going to be at least six generations before that happens. Until then raster is king no matter what anyone says and game makers seem to be of the same mindset considering how few games make any use of ray tracing at all.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is AMD's first attempt at a chiplet style GPU. AMD obviously applied a lot of what they learned with Zen chiplets to RDNA 3 but it would be a complete surprise if there isn't more performance to be had as time goes on through drivers and/or game optimizations. There were performance improvements over time with Zen via hardware revisions and software. The Windows scheduler until updated for various Zen revisions definitely had issues.

Exactly, to think they would nail Chiplets on the first try for GPU is short-sighted. Zen didn't go off without issues, I'm not shocked they ran into problems, but I have confidence they will be fixed, some in drivers, and others in new hardware revisions or refreshes, especially in RDNA 4.

As for RT, you make a good point about the midrange not running it well, and that is where it matters, and when a feature has truly come into its own. Right now it requires the top-end, halo cards, to run well, so that is a niche feature still. It's not mainstream yet. Do I want it to be? Yes. It will get there, but 3 Generations in, we are not there yet.

 

[GunShot]

I have also seen a lot of reviews focus more heavily on the RTX 4090 comparison to RX 7900 XTX, and I believe that is not the intended comparison.

Clearly, I disagree.

It's not for us (the consumer) to determine, figure out, what's AMD's "intent" is, though, regardless on how AMD is trying to ~ spin ~ it. When they LOUDLY label their product "it's the best architecture we've ever designed or "our latest greatest *flagship*", well, all gloves are off to confirm that claim next to its biggest competitor, no excuses.

I've seen so many people overlook how competitive the RX 7900 XTX is to the 4080, and how close it comes to the 4090 and they forget the 4090 is 60% more expensive, and in a completely different price segment, a halo pricing.

What I find overlooked in this review is how ridiculous the power consumption metrics from these cards weren't mentioned and that alone shows that "cheaper" and "close to" performance have its caveats.

 

[Brent_Justice]

Clearly, I disagree.

It's not for us (the consumer) to determine, figure out, what's AMD's "intent" is, though, regardless on how AMD is trying to ~ spin ~ it. When they LOUDLY label their product "it's the best architecture we've ever designed or "our latest greatest *flagship*", well, all gloves are off to confirm that claim next to its biggest competitor, no excuses.


What I find overlooked in this review is how the ridiculous the power consumption metrics from these cards weren't mentioned and that alone shows that "cheaper" and "close to" performance have its caveats.

View attachment 2117

AMD stated their own intent already to the world, it was clearly stated.

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-con...3-may-be-supported-by-pre-rdna3-architectures

This quote is direct from Frank Azor

[Radeon RX 7900 XTX] is designed to go against 4080 and we don’t have benchmarks numbers on 4080. That’s the primary reason why you didnt see any NVIDIA compares. […] $999 card is not a 4090 competitor, which costs 60% more, this is a 4080 competitor.

I do not have the timestamp, but he said this a month ago at the official announcement in Las Vegas.

At the end of the day, you have to compare video cards by their prices. You compare like-minded pricing, and see how the performance compares at those price points, that is the benchmark by which it should be judged. The 7900 XTX is $600 apart from the RTX 4090, they are in different price segments, different competitors. The 7900 XTX is closer in price to RTX 4080, thus the logical competitor.

 

[GunShot]

AMD stated their own intent already to the world, it was clearly stated.

Yeah, that's called... spin! And ironically, that "hurry-up" PR was ~ after ~ the 4090s reveal.

The 7900 XTX is $600 apart from the RTX 4090, they are in different price segments, different competitors.

...and that's the ~ illusion ~, thanks for confirming my point.

When I know that my biggest rival will more than likely tax a much higher premium on all of its product, let me sit back and WAIT UNTIL they reveal their product, note its specs, its p-2-p ratio, etc. and undercut my rival to appear more consumer centric.

 

[Denpepe]

My biggest annoyance with reviews about GPU's is that they mostly compare to random stuff that does not realy matter and rarely to something I find usefull. I would find test against older GPU's more usefull then only a handfull of current gen and or previous gen but maybe that's just me.

A more specific complaint to this site is that the suite of games you tested on has only 1 game on it that I play and no test on 1440p for this card, but I get that you can't test everything on 2 new cards in the short amount of time you get and it's always a good idea to compare different reviews to find a more complete picture.

At least the XT review had 1440p results

 

[Brent_Justice]

My biggest annoyance with reviews about GPU's is that they mostly compare to random stuff that does not realy matter and rarely to something I find usefull. I would find test against older GPU's more usefull then only a handfull of current gen and or previous gen but maybe that's just me.

A more specific complaint to this site is that the suite of games you tested on has only 1 game on it that I play and no test on 1440p for this card, but I get that you can't test everything on 2 new cards in the short amount of time you get and it's always a good idea to compare different reviews to find a more complete picture.

At least the XT review had 1440p results

Yes, it is sometimes hard to understand what the reviewer must go through in this process, but we do have limited time, and uniquely I had to do write 2 reviews to publish at the same time for launch, we only had access to the driver 1 week before launch. So with 2 reviews to do testing, and write, only so much can be done.

As for the game selection, this is always going to be a variable, we are never going to hit every game that everyone wants to see. Some people value different games over other games, so it is impossible to please everyone on the game selection. I try and have a variety at least for different reasons that have a different focus. I also like to use newer games when I can, and popular games, right now everyone is playing Call of Duty, so I made sure to include that as it is relevant right now. The game suite will be ever-evolving and changing, so what will happen is as time goes on, you will see the 7900 XTX and 7900 XT in the future with newer games used over time in future reviews, so stick around and you will see different games in the year to come.

I included 1440p in the 7900 XT, but I did not in the 7900 XTX because it seemed to me someone buying that card would be more likely to want to know its 4K performance, or prioritize 4K gaming, while the 7900 XT being cheaper would be more aligned with someone in the 1440p and 4K range, both.

One thing we can do in the future is a resolution scaling review, where we see how cards perform across 1080p to 4K, so keep in mind that these two launch reviews are not the only coverage we will ever have of these GPUs, you will see more testing as time goes on, this is just what we could do in a week, and it took every bit of my week to make it happen.

 

[Denpepe]

Prices seem to suck for these also in Europe

1.399€ for a powercolor one
1.499€ for a Sapphire one

Also 1.249€ an 1.329€ for the XT variant

(there is a 4080 available for 1.599€ currently for reference)

 

[Riccochet]

Tried to buy one this morning. It sold out within seconds at every outlet. RIP

 

[Brent_Justice]

OH, and another thing I've noticed in some reviews, some reviewers are not using fast enough CPUs to overcome CPU bottlenecks, and that is why they may be seeing closer results. I've seen some reviews with a 5800X CPU, that just won't cut it. You need 5800X3D at the least, or Alder Lake/Raptor Lake or Zen 4 to see better scaling. So be weary, make sure you look at the reviewers test setup, for the record I use a 7900X, and Smart Access Memory is enabled.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I've been saying for a number of years now with both Monitor and GPU reviews, and especially GPU reviews, there is so much more to cover now than there was 10 years ago. I also spend a lot of time reading reviews and have noticed it's constantly a mixed bag in regard to what each site is looking at and you sometimes really have to look at all the fine print to get a handle on what they measured and what equipment was used.

From rig specifics and configuration, OS type/version, different drivers, DX/Vulkan, to the 3x current resolutions, 3x current resolution scaling methods, RT, latency, FPS, power consumption, temps at multiple points on the card, OC experience, price vs performance, and now size considerations with our recent behemoths, synthetic and real benchmarks, and I'm sure a few other things I've forgotten here, there is a lot to cover. It's easy for someone to look at a chart or graph and think they've got the whole picture but it takes a bit more to realize what isn't listed there. All of that and it doesn't even include when you have a limited timeframe to get it done before the card(s) have to be returned and the manufacturer doesn't get the driver out until a day or two before a deadline.

Thanks, @Brent_Justice for all that you do.

 

[Grimlakin]

Yeah, that's called... spin! And ironically, that "hurry-up" PR was ~ after ~ the 4090s reveal.



...and that's the ~ illusion ~, thanks for confirming my point.

When I know that my biggest rival will more than likely tax a much higher premium on all of its product, let me sit back and WAIT UNTIL they reveal their product, note its specs, its p-2-p ratio, etc. and undercut my rival to appear more consumer centric.

Don't spend that Gorilla Marketing check all in one place man.

 

[Denpepe]

OH, and another thing I've noticed in some reviews, some reviewers are not using fast enough CPUs to overcome CPU bottlenecks, and that is why they may be seeing closer results. I've seen some reviews with a 5800X CPU, that just won't cut it. You need 5800X3D at the least, or Alder Lake/Raptor Lake or Zen 4 to see better scaling. So be weary, make sure you look at the reviewers test setup, for the record I use a 7900X, and Smart Access Memory is enabled.

Well, you are right to watch out for testbeds, but results like 5800X are also valuable as not everyone has the latest and greatest and can then see what such card does on their machine, or they might be dissapointed if they do not get the same scores you do.

 

[Denpepe]

Prices seem to suck for these also in Europe

1.399€ for a powercolor one
1.499€ for a Sapphire one

Also 1.249€ an 1.329€ for the XT variant

(there is a 4080 available for 1.599€ currently for reference)

Adding to this, cards from AMD itself are a bit more reasonable in price at 1135.01€ for the XTX and 1021.39€ for the XT, now to find them in stock

 

[Brent_Justice]

Well, you are right to watch out for testbeds, but results like 5800X are also valuable as not everyone has the latest and greatest and can then see what such card does on their machine, or they might be dissapointed if they do not get the same scores you do.

It will make the cards look less like an upgrade though, and show less perf vs previous gen, and that isn't the cards fault.

 

[Grimlakin]

It will make the cards look less like an upgrade though, and show less perf vs previous gen, and that isn't the cards fault.

I'll gladly do the test for you. Just send me a 7900xtx and I'll slap it in my machine and give you some before and after numbers. No problem.

I'll even do a long term test drive and send you updates with the driver releases for the next 2-3 years.

 

[Grimlakin]

Hey I'm not kidding I'll gladly do this!

 

[Stoly]

OH, and another thing I've noticed in some reviews, some reviewers are not using fast enough CPUs to overcome CPU bottlenecks, and that is why they may be seeing closer results. I've seen some reviews with a 5800X CPU, that just won't cut it. You need 5800X3D at the least, or Alder Lake/Raptor Lake or Zen 4 to see better scaling. So be weary, make sure you look at the reviewers test setup, for the record I use a 7900X, and Smart Access Memory is enabled.

I can see the results affecting mainly 1080p scores and some 1440p scores, but 4k should be unaffected and as you stated, 4K is what these cards would be gamed on

 

[noko]

I have to say I'm not looking at just this review benchmarks, but what I've seen in other reviews.

One thing is for sure, nvidia will have to reduce the price of the RTX4080. $200 for the "nvidia tax" is just too much even at that price range.
Its clear people were waiting for the 7900XTX release and it may have payed off one way or the other.

Yep, Nvidia is helping AMD in selling 7900 series GPUs.

Hope to see some in stock. I went to Bestbuy last night and got caught off guard having a XFX Speedster Merc 7900 XTX available to buy. Not having a clue what the difference was with the reference I hesitated and started looking it up. Anyways that availability closed as soon as I was ready to say let's do it.

I thought the window was 9am, not after midnight. Plus thought only reference models. If I was more aware by all these so called You Tube videos getting the launch wrong, I would most likely have a XFX Merc coming my way.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I get what @Denpepe was saying but also understand the need to let a GPU fully stretch its legs for max performance statistics. The following was me until a year or two ago when I revived my old rig again for wfh, 2600K as well, and used it for some gaming. The last card I put in it was a 2080 Super, at which I really started to see the bottlenecks in 1080p and 1440p.




These days I'm a lot more aware about CPU bottlenecks as I've honestly been seeing them happen with my 4930K, even at 4K 60Hz and UW 1440p 100 Hz, when it comes to playing games with all of the latest RT features. It's sort of minimal, maybe ~10 FPS but that and frametimes are enough to lessen the experience. Although my wallet says otherwise I can't wait to build that 7000 (CPU) series X3D build to replace it.