6950 XT, 7900 XT (USA)

[Kobathor]

Quick advice wanted!

 

I want to upgrade my monitor to that new LG OLED 1440p 240Hz panel. My 5700 XT is still running great at 1080p but in some brand new games it can't get over ~80 FPS at higher settings. So, I want to upgrade my graphics card as well.

 

At today's prices, I can get a 6950 XT new for about $650 + tax. Currently, a new 7900 XT is $800 + tax.

 

I know both of these cards can easily handle 1440p at high FPS. But the 7900 is obviously faster, and has some extra goodies like better RT performance. But is it worth another $150 + tax?

 

I know only I can say if it's worth it or not for myself, but I wanted some feedback from the community. Maybe some pros and cons. Thanks!

[filpo]

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

Quick advice wanted!

 

I want to upgrade my monitor to that new LG OLED 1440p 240Hz panel. My 5700 XT is still running great at 1080p but in some brand new games it can't get over ~80 FPS at higher settings. So, I want to upgrade my graphics card as well.

 

At today's prices, I can get a 6950 XT new for about $650 + tax. Currently, a new 7900 XT is $800 + tax.

 

I know both of these cards can easily handle 1440p at high FPS. But the 7900 is obviously faster, and has some extra goodies like better RT performance. But is it worth another $150 + tax?

 

I know only I can say if it's worth it or not for myself, but I wanted some feedback from the community. Maybe some pros and cons. Thanks!

better to invest in the 7900 xt but watch this vid to decide

 

 

 

[CyberneticTitan]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-xt-pulse/31.html

 

7900XT is about 20% faster but costs about 23% more, before tax at 1440p. For the extra performance and other features it seems worth.

 

If you haven't already, consider buying a used GPU.

[QuantumSingularity]

For 1440p i would say it's not worth the additional $150. That's the problem with the 7900XT i should've been a $750 GPU from the beginning. For 1440p 6950XT is more than enough. Even my 6900XT breaks no sweat and i cap it at 144FPS. 

[xAcid9]

Worth it if you need AV1 and want to try RT games imo. 

[QuantumSingularity]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

Worth it if you need AV1 and want to try RT games imo. 

yeah, but we are not talking about 4k; 1440p RT is basically the same on both 6950XT and 7900XT and both need FSR to produce acceptable fps.

[GamerDude]

1 hour ago, QuantumSingularity said:

yeah, but we are not talking about 4k; 1440p RT is basically the same on both 6950XT and 7900XT and both need FSR to produce acceptable fps.

There IS a distinct difference in RT performance between the RX 6000 and RX 7900 series. I have a Nitro+ RX 6900 XT, and a MERC 310 RX 7900 XTX, as per my sig, and RT performance between them is quite noticeable. I played Metro Exodus PC Enhanced with ingame graphics setting maxed out, including RT, and the RX 6900 XT got me 50+ fps with dips below 40fps, and Crysis Remastered was barely playable at max setting (didn't even try 'Can it run Crysis' preset).

 

With the RX 7900 XTX, Metro Exodus PC Enhanced is quite playable at 70fps and higher, and Crysis was playable at 'Can it run Crysis' preset. This is at 3840x1080 which is a little harder on the GPU than 2560x1440, same res as when I tried these games with the RX 6900 XT. The RX 6900 XT RT performance is well below that of, say, the RTX 3080/3090, the RX 7900 XTX RT performance is about there with the RTX 3080/3090.

 

So, if light to medium RT performance is desired at 1440P, the RX 7900 XT is the one, besides, with newer games chewing up VRAM like bad muthas, just look at Hogwarts and Forspoken, the 20GB VRAM on the RX 7900 XT would definitely be better. It's obviously faster at rasterize games, and with RT enabled, it outclassed the RX 6950 XT by a wider relative margin.

[QuantumSingularity]

3 hours ago, GamerDude said:

There IS a distinct difference in RT performance between the RX 6000 and RX 7900 series. I have a Nitro+ RX 6900 XT, and a MERC 310 RX 7900 XTX, as per my sig, and RT performance between them is quite noticeable. I played Metro Exodus PC Enhanced with ingame graphics setting maxed out, including RT, and the RX 6900 XT got me 50+ fps with dips below 40fps, and Crysis Remastered was barely playable at max setting (didn't even try 'Can it run Crysis' preset).

 

With the RX 7900 XTX, Metro Exodus PC Enhanced is quite playable at 70fps and higher, and Crysis was playable at 'Can it run Crysis' preset. This is at 3840x1080 which is a little harder on the GPU than 2560x1440, same res as when I tried these games with the RX 6900 XT. The RX 6900 XT RT performance is well below that of, say, the RTX 3080/3090, the RX 7900 XTX RT performance is about there with the RTX 3080/3090.

 

So, if light to medium RT performance is desired at 1440P, the RX 7900 XT is the one, besides, with newer games chewing up VRAM like bad muthas, just look at Hogwarts and Forspoken, the 20GB VRAM on the RX 7900 XT would definitely be better. It's obviously faster at rasterize games, and with RT enabled, it outclassed the RX 6950 XT by a wider relative margin.

XTX being the key here. We were talking about 6950XT which is measurably faster than the 6900XT (i have the same Nitro+) and the 7900XT(non-second-X) which is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the 7900XTX.

[xAcid9]

On 3/26/2023 at 7:10 PM, QuantumSingularity said:

yeah, but we are not talking about 4k; 1440p RT is basically the same on both 6950XT and 7900XT and both need FSR to produce acceptable fps.

I'm not talking about 4K and not all RT games perform like CP or shitty next-gen W3. 

 

6950XT with aftermarket cooler is around 8-10% above reference 6900XT

 

Spiderman Remastah RT

Ref 7900XT = 123.7 vs AIB 6950XT = 107.8 |  +14.7%

Spoiler

 

RE Village RT

Ref 7900XT =  137.3 vs AIB 6950XT = 117.6 | +16.7%

Spoiler

 

Far Cry 6 RT

Ref 7900XT = 135.7 vs AIB 6950 XT = 130.4 | +4%

Spoiler

 

Metro Exodus RT

Ref 7900XT = 119.3 vs 6950XT = 95.7 | +24.6%

Spoiler

 

F1 2022 RT

Ref 7900XT = 84.7 vs AIB 6950XT = 67.32 | 25.8%

Spoiler

 

Doom Eternal

Ref 7900XT = 202.2 vs AIB 6950XT = 160.2 | +26.2%

Spoiler

 

Deathloop

Ref 7900XT = 102.1  vs AIB 6950XT = 90.86 | +12.3%

Spoiler

 

Control

Ref 7900XT = 55.9 vs AIB 6950XT = 48 | +16.4%

Spoiler

 

If you want to include CP2077

Ref 7900XT = 35.4 vs AIB 6950XT = 27.3 | +29.6%

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

XTX being the key here. We were talking about 6950XT which is measurably faster than the 6900XT (i have the same Nitro+) and the 7900XT(non-second-X) which is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the 7900XTX.

Average from 9 games above, the reference 7900XT is 19% faster compare to an aftermarket 6950XT.

By your words they're performed basically the same but when the XTX is 13% faster than XT, the XT is significantly slower? 

 

Spoiler

 

Without RT the 7900XT is right in the middle between 7900XTX and 6950XT.

 

 

On 3/26/2023 at 2:34 AM, Kobathor said:

I want to upgrade my monitor to that new LG OLED 1440p 240Hz panel. My 5700 XT is still running great at 1080p but in some brand new games it can't get over ~80 FPS at higher settings. So, I want to upgrade my graphics card as well.

I just realised nobody asked you this. What is your system spec? 

[QuantumSingularity]

Idk why you need to "estimate" when there are benchmarks with these GPUs. 

The 7900XT ranges from 15%-20% faster at best to even slower than the 6950XT at worst. The 7900XTX is a giant a 20% assured jump from the XT in basically all cases. That's why everyone goes for the XTX or drops down to the 6950XT. The 7900XT is just a terrible value at $900+. At $750 it would've been a no-brainer, but then the XTX would've looked bad.

[xAcid9]

17 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Idk why you need to "estimate" when there are benchmarks with these GPUs. 

I "estimated" because I want to use TPU more reliable data. MultiTechnopark have known for years for either they took benchmark from other website or just made up numbers. IIRC that's why they changed the channel name because they gained bad reputation on Reddit. 

 

17 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

The 7900XT ranges from 15%-20% faster at best to even slower than the 6950XT at worst. The 7900XTX is a giant a 20% assured jump from the XT in basically all cases. That's why everyone goes for the XTX or drops down to the 6950XT. The 7900XT is just a terrible value at $900+. At $750 it would've been a no-brainer, but then the XTX would've looked bad.

3 games that known to regressed on RDNA3 compare to RNDA2, maybe it's architecture problem or maybe it's just need driver optimization. 
- Horizon Zero Dawn

- Forza Horizon 5

- CS:GO

And also VR performance.  

 

Let's recap this thread. 

OP want to know if it worth it to take 7900XT over 6950XT @1440p. He mentioned the card is $650 vs $800 not $900. 

 

I mentioned

1) AV1 - Mind you RDNA2 have AV1 too but only for encoding iirc.

2) RT@1440p - Which I "estimated" 6950XT is over 20% slower in my previous post

 

TomsHW review also show similar result.

Spoiler

 

OP failed to mention his PC spec, no point buying these 2 GPU for high FPS gaming if he's still on old gen system. 

OP also failed to mention the card model. If it's a 6950XT Nitro+ or another high end variant vs reference 7900XT, the 6950XT is a better buy imo. 

If it an aftermarket 7900XT for $150 extra, I'd take the 7900XT. 

 

 

Wendell tested 7900XT Pulse few days ago, and at 1440p the card perform really close to a reference 7900XTX in Borderland3 and DeusEX.

 

[Kobathor]

On 3/27/2023 at 8:45 AM, xAcid9 said:

I just realised nobody asked you this. What is your system spec? 

Haha it seems a fight has broken out under my post. Anyways my current system specs on my profile are correct but I'll list them here, I recently upgraded everything other than my GPU:

 

• R5 7600x stock speeds, Noctua NH-D14S which keeps it cool enough to boost pretty well
• Gigabyte B650M AORUS Elite
• 32GB 5600MT/s memory (2x16)
• Sapphire NITRO+ RX 5700 XT stock speeds (won't hold an overclock at all even though temps are great )
• Boot drive Samsung 970 EVO+ 1TB
• Games usually load off an old 2TB Toshiba HDD but my faves are on the boot drive

[xAcid9]

8 hours ago, Kobathor said:

Haha it seems a fight has broken out under my post. Anyways my current system specs on my profile are correct but I'll list them here, I recently upgraded everything other than my GPU:

 

• R5 7600x stock speeds, Noctua NH-D14S which keeps it cool enough to boost pretty well
• Gigabyte B650M AORUS Elite
• 32GB 5600MT/s memory (2x16)
• Sapphire NITRO+ RX 5700 XT stock speeds (won't hold an overclock at all even though temps are great )
• Boot drive Samsung 970 EVO+ 1TB
• Games usually load off an old 2TB Toshiba HDD but my faves are on the boot drive

Looks good.

What about the card model?

Nitro+ 6950XT? Reference 7900 XT?

[Kobathor]

19 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

Looks good.

What about the card model?

Nitro+ 6950XT? Reference 7900 XT?

Sadly Nitro+ seems a bit too expensive for both options right now - The 6950 is "only" $700, but the 7900 is over $1,000 which is kinda hilarious (though it's probably just cause it's out of stock everywhere). I have had Sapphire for three cards now - HD 7970 GHz, R9 FURY Nitro+, and 5700 XT Nitro+, but I'm not beholden to them haha.

 

I am mostly looking for the cheapest option for either tbh. The XFX Merc 319/310 models for both cards is just a bit more than the bottom of the barrel - $665 for the 6950, $820 for the 7900. They seem to have good reviews.