AMD Announces 7900XTX $999, 7900XT $899, Arriving December 13

[Mister Woof]

I just want a card that offers a bit more performance than my 3080 but use less power.

[Avcn42]

I really wish they'd call them RX 7900 and RX 7900 XT instead.

 

Seems far more intuitive to add the suffix for the top one and remove it on the one that's a tier lower.

 

XTX just makes it sound so redundant and unnecessarily ""complicated"".

[Motifator]

1 minute ago, Shimejii said:

Its slower then the 4090, there is a reason they didnt show it in the graphs. Compare their benchmarks of the 6950XT vs a 4090, it gets beat. 83 FPS for the 4090 in cyberpunk, 50 FPS for 6950XT. It should be around 70-80 FPS, so close but not beating it and that is AT BEST.

 

It should certainly put up a good fight, and is a much better value.

There are other factors involved, like how well supersampling works such as DLSS vs FSR in the specific game you're playing.

If you don't have either, it'll be a screw all for both cards where raw power will matter. Such as in an indie game, this for example is a situation where the AMD card could edge out. Mind you, there are a lot of indie games from older years without DLSS or FSR. Running 4k with them, with these cards, could as well be easier.

I'd personally take the AMD card, it's 2.5 slots to begin with and not stupidly 4. This matters to me a lot, I run several HHHL SSD sticks.

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Avcn42 said:

I really wish they'd call them RX 7900 and RX 7900 XT instead.

 

Seems far more intuitive to add the suffix for the top one and remove it on the one that's a tier lower.

 

XTX just makes it sound so redundant and unnecessarily ""complicated"".

XTX is a callback, which is fine. At least it's more indicative of a performance delta than say, simply 12gb or 16gb

[Avcn42]

3 minutes ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

XTX is a callback, which is fine. At least it's more indicative of a performance delta than say, simply 12gb or 16gb

Sure, but to most customers, that matters far less than a comprehensive, easy to promptly understand lineup of new products.

 

They could've found out a better, more discrete way to salute the enthusiast who stuck by enough to get that reference. Hell, 7900 and 7900 XTX would be fine by me too.

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, Avcn42 said:

Sure, but to most customers, that matters far less than a comprehensive, easy to promptly understand lineup of new products.

 

They could've found out a better, more discrete way to salute the enthusiast who stuck by enough to get that reference.

I don't have a problem with it at all. It's an extra letter that has no explanation and at the very least makes consumers ask "what does that mean"

 

Vs. simply using 12gb vs 16gb which to most people means "4 more gb" 

[heimdali]

Hm, cool, assuming that people might replace their current cards with these for xmas (or whenever the new ones are available), I need to ask this:

 

1.) Considering that graphics cards usually last only as long as their warranty, would it be worthwhile to get a used card off ebay like in December/Janurary (or whenenver) from someone who replaced theirs?

 

2.) Which card I should be looking for?  All these numbers and letters they're using are so meaningless and non-rememberable that I can't keep track, and there are so many of them.

 

3.) Or would I be better off waiting for less expensive cards to come out which may be as fast as the old used ones and buy a new one then?

 

 

Given a good price, I might use my current card as a spare because it's a bit weak with a 4k monitor, or sell it.  I might have bought better, but prices were so ridiculously high when I needed it that I didn't, and I'm glad that I didn't spend that much.

 

On a side note, how would make it sense to buy the XT instead of XTX when the price difference is only $100?  Couldn't they have better skipped the XT altogether?

 

[AlTech]

12 hours ago, Shimejii said:

Its slower then the 4090, there is a reason they didnt show it in the graphs.

They could be sandbagging and don't want Nvidia to realize how good their cards are.

 

Or they could simply decide it's not worth making benchmarks comparing them since nobody trusts their cherry picked benchmark numbers.

 

Or a hundred other legitimate reasons for not advertising their cards' performance.

12 hours ago, Shimejii said:

Compare their benchmarks of the 6950XT vs a 4090, it gets beat. 83 FPS for the 4090 in cyberpunk, 50 FPS for 6950XT. It should be around 70-80 FPS, so close but not beating it and that is AT BEST.

 

It should certainly put up a good fight, and is a much better value.

And until we see actual benchmarks there's no way to tell for sure.

 

Cyberpunk isn't where an AMD card will be performing at it's best. I still maintain cyberpunk is a badly performing game and an outlier amongst benchmarked games. 

[solado]

Ahh, nothing like a new announcement to solidify in my head that my 3090 is no longer viable as a gaming card and FOMO me into a new product.

 

Anyone want to by a used RTX 3090 FE? $5 and free shipping?

[Avcn42]

2 minutes ago, solado said:

Ahh, nothing like a new announcement to solidify in my head that my 3090 is no longer viable as a gaming card and FOMO me into a new product.

 

Anyone want to by a used RTX 3090 FE? $5 and free shipping?

I'll take it for $7.

 

But dm me quick before I change my mind and make it $6.

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, solado said:

Anyone want to by a used RTX 3090 FE? $5 and free shipping?

Ill buy $10

[venomtail]

I really hope 2 slot models get some love. 4090's are all 3-4 slot monsters so if the top flagship model is a 2.5 slot card, there's some real hope that a GPU that actually fits in a case will be offered.

[porina]

56 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

AMD's not holding back the RAM.

 

AMD's 7900 XTX - 24GB VRAM - $1000

AMD's 7900 XT - 20GB VRAM - $900

This does imply a difference in vram bus width of 20%. Does their cache mitigate that?

 

It's been said many times but I too also felt that difference is too small. If you're going to 900, you might as well go to 1000. That their pricing like this implies one of two things: their perf overall and/or feature set is still lacking vs nvidia, or they are actually making a push for market share this time. We'll need direct perf testing to see which is the case. 

 

40 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

We don't have benchmarks and theoretical TFLOP numbers aren't good indicators of real world perf.

FLOPS are great indicators of real world perf - as long as that perf is more compute than gaming.

 

26 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Ray Tracing performance was pretty lack luster, so it seems they havent really made a major bump there

From their numbers it was looking like that RT increases were in line with raster increases, so no change to the balance between them.

 

 

Until we get more information, my feeling is RDNA 3 isn't changing the balance. If you look mainly at raster it'll be competitive enough but will still have weak areas around it.

[xg32]

i still keep RT off, so rast is all that matters even if i end up getting a 4090 (not likely anymore with the xtx at 1k), 60% faster than last gen just enough for 4k/120 at 1k usd, decent.

[Zando_]

16 minutes ago, heimdali said:

1.) Considering that graphics cards usually last only as long as their warranty

?? Who told you this? I have GTX 780s still kicking, 9 year old cards. And an HD4870, a 14 year old card. That's in a Mac Pro, the original Nvidia GT 6300 (IIRC that's the model) from 2006 - so 16 years old - is still kicking but just doesn't support newer graphics APIs so I replaced it. 

19 minutes ago, heimdali said:

2.) Which card I should be looking for?  All these numbers and letters they're using are so meaningless and non-rememberable that I can't keep track, and there are so many of them.

 

3.) Or would I be better off waiting for less expensive cards to come out which may be as fast as the old used ones and buy a new one then?

 

Wait for 3rd party benches to see how the cards perform + if there's any major launch issues.

[pesho77777]

When do testers get these cards? Do they have to wait all the way until it launches officially or do they get sent the tech earlier in order to drum up hype?

[PcBeExpensive]

this shits cheap. The 7900 xtx is real competitive with the 4090 and definitely be extremely competitive with the 4080 for much cheaper. Wow I was shitting myself when I saw the price.

[Quackers101]

also how they announced FSR 2.2 coming soon. to improve more for ghosting etc. + FSR 3?? (FSR 3 to double frames, motion generation? 2023)

although weird numbers they used, but some looks fun, others look like the card struggled but helped by FSR.

 

on ultra settings they "had to use FSR" for raytracing, without it sucked for 4K. where 4090 from their video seems to be 50-20% as fast for RT (maybe very game specific), the lead if doing DLSS 2, 3 or native. maybe 100-200 watt difference for the cards tho.

 

hypr RX, maybe like nvidia reflex + something or whatever that was. do wish they got more into it like intel.

[Gamer Schnitzel]

I'm a bit disappointed about the AMD cards. I just wanted them to finally surprise us with performance but 1.7x is not going to be even close to reaching NVIDIA. I refuse to buy NVIDIA and will instead just sit on my 3080 and hope that next year when they release the refresh it will be more impressive.

[Quackers101]

lol AMD trying to brag about using both CPU + GPU, like if they are the only ones.

SmartAccess Video for using both for decode + encode.

 

their claims of 7x improvement for streaming, I guess AV1 is good for them, do wonder how their AI part will handle streaming compared to NVENC AV1 or intels AV1.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Quackers101

[Motifator]

1 hour ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I don't have a problem with it at all. It's an extra letter that has no explanation and at the very least makes consumers ask "what does that mean"

 

Vs. simply using 12gb vs 16gb which to most people means "4 more gb" 

More letters, more aggressive naming as so the saying goes - people would think, better. At least, what one would expect. So in this case, GTX is better than GT, for instance. Or take it more like, super duper being better than just super edition.

XTX is an old school AMD thing, it dates couple decades back. It's like the Ti of Nvidia that they keep bringing back. For example, back in 2006, there was the X1950 XTX. That was the top end card, one tick above the X1950 XT.

[Reme86]

Really unsure what to do. My 4090 FE got delivered today (no chance I'm buying an AIB card, FE pricing was my absolute limit) I specifically didn't open it yet because I wanted to wait for AMD announcement and consider my options before thinking of whether to return or not. I dont mind paying the 4090 FE price I can afford it, thats not my issue, I just want to know I'm actually getting more for my money and it being even somewhat worth it. Hence why I went 3080 last gen over 3090. Not because of affordability, but value for money.

I work from home as a 3d artist all day and game all night so its an investment that is worthwhile regardless. What are peoples thoughts? Is 4090 now terrible value, or just slightly less good value than it was this time last week.

[PaulFCB]

1 hour ago, Motifator said:

RT in COD sucked for long...

 COD sucked for long, even their best games are nothing but the best example of a mediocre first person shooter and subpar to terribly drawn maps with viciously lazy written single player campaigns that are just reboots of the previous game in the series. If that piece of shit of a franchise is your benchmark then nothing surprises me, spend $1000(+VAT and AIB premiums) on a rock wrapped in a nice looking box.

 

1 hour ago, Motifator said:

The hell are you on lol, there is no "8k ultrawide" standard to my knowledge. 8k is a TV standard and even if there is a stretched form of it, almost nobody is well aware of it or using such standard out in the wild. I'm just here reading your pointless comment, and I don't watch Steve.

 

 Brah, I don’t care which channels you watch, just watch their presentation and draw the conclusions yerself, I just told you pretty clearly that they mislead viewers with their presentation and it’s not a typo or anything, they said 8k uw themselves for a display that will launch next year with a 7680x2160 resolution. That’s not even as many pixels as a standard 8k. I don’t need you tell me what DP 2.1 or 8k is.

 

 

[Reme86]

2 minutes ago, PaulFCB said:

 COD sucked for long, even their best games are nothing but the best example of a mediocre first person shooter and subpar to terribly drawn maps with viciously lazy written single player campaigns that are just reboots of the previous game in the series. If that piece of shit of a franchise is your benchmark then nothing surprises me, spend $1000(+VAT and AIB premiums) on a rock wrapped in a nice looking box.

 

 

 Brah, I don’t care which channels you watch, just watch their presentation and draw the conclusions yerself, I just told you pretty clearly that they mislead viewers with their presentation and it’s not a typo or anything, they said 8k uw themselves for a display that will launch next year with a 7680x2160 resolution. That’s not even as many pixels as a standard 8k. I don’t need you tell me what DP 2.1 or 8k is.

 

 

if I see 7680x2160 I think 4k super ultrawide.

I dont look at the current samsung g9 and call it 5k, its a 1440p super ultrawide

 

[Delicieuxz]

A rough estimate of how the 7900 XTX should perform, taking AMD's word at face-value: