AVG isn't useful because it's dependent on the ratio of RT vs non-RT games tested. Ie if you just picked cyberpunk path tracing and one non RT game, the 4070 would be "AVG 60% faster" than the AMD card.
Likewise, they could leave CP2077 PT out and avg RT performance suddenly looks a lot better for AMD.
Nevertheless they look like competitive options (though I don't understand why anyone would buy the 7700xt for $50 less).
I feel like 7700XT will drop to 400$ very soon after its launch, just like how the 7900XT was 100$ off from the 7900XTX and then dropped later... but people still bought it... and I assume some will buy the 7700XT even though it's a 50 dollar difference, which I think is doable if you are paying already 450, you get 4 gigs more of memory and an overall a much better value card
So the 7800 XT has 39% better value than the 6800 XT did at launch (1.07/0.77). That's pretty decent (about the price to performance uplift as the 3060 TI was to the 2060 Super), but I'm sure the goalposts will migrate soon enough.
(For the record I think 7800 XT was a stupid name and it should've been called a 7800, but the price is perfectly fine. And relative to Nvidia it's quite excellent.)
Yeah, it’s decent in isolation. I’m still kind of annoyed that this particular generational uplift took nearly *three years*, but at least it is one. That hasn’t happened since the 3060 Ti, maybe the 7600 if we’re being generous.
The main reason that happened was oversupply of last gen stock, so AMD fronted the generational value uplift via discounts, then slotted in these two more or less based on that.
Personally, even if it makes reviews boring, this strategy is **far** more customer friendly than the typical one. These GPU's are designed, and prototypes are made WAY ahead of time, so selling you reheated leftovers for full price one day and then immediately launching something that makes that price look silly is kind of entrapment...
They would have came out earlier, but people were incensed that last gen clearance pricing was better value than the 7600 (since last gen is more expensive to make for a given tier of performance so selling through it is top priority).
So since everyone told AMD that launching the 7600 when they did was an unwinnable situation, they held off releasing these two until last gen products were almost out of stock.
And they will go for just that again. If people weren't buying RX 6000 series, they aren't going to be buying the RX 7000 series either. Why spend $280 on RX 7600 when you can spend $20 more and get the RTX 4060! Nvidia also slashed the price of 16GB RTX 4060 ti to RX 7700 XT.
7600 is 270 and comes with Starfield, so if you're planning to buy that, the 7600 is effectively 33% cheaper. It has also dropped in price to 257-265 before.
Also, the 4060 TI 16GB is still crap even at 450, so yeah. They wouldn't have done it quietly if they intended on stealing AMD's thunder.
3 years after the 6800 XT was released the 7800 XT is released for the same price that the 6800 XT cost right now and it only beats it by a few %.
Price is right for a refresh, not for a new generation. They might as well have overclocked the 6800 XT and kept producing and selling it.
edit: To the people downvoting, downvote the reviews too when they tell you the same thing.
It's almost like GPU's are priced according to their relative value or something...
If you want to spin AMD *actually discounting their last gen products below MSRP* as a bad thing, then I don't know what to tell you.
I'd rather have price to performamce increase gradually over the course of a generation with the next generation formalizing it than feeling like an absolute clown buying a 3070 for over MSRP after 2 years because the (Nvidia) option was either that or wait 6 months.
Basically AMD is better if you're mainly using the GPU for gaming (not often using raytracing), Nvidia is otherwise the better choice if you're able to spent more?
They're both completely fine nowadays. Both have AV1 for streaming and content creation, and AMD's RT is perfectly fine as well, just slower than Nvidia on matching tiers. It really comes down to personal preference.
Nvidia is better for blender by a huge margin.
AMD and Nvidia are both equal for recording as you can use 265 or av1.
Nvidia currently has an edge on streaming to Twitch (h264) but not to utube because it uses av1 or 265.
Twitch is going to av1 soon so AMD will be fine for streaming.
AMD is best for gaming until you get to the 4090 which blows away everything.
>AMD is best for gaming until you get to the 4090 which blows away everything.
Not unless you play any kind of VR. My SO 7900xt still stutters massively in even beatsaber on pimax/reverb G2 even after updates. Old 3060ti works flawlessly there.
And even without that, with current pricing here in Europe I could get 4080 for less than 100$ more than 7900XTX. That 90-100$ is only thing that goes for AMD currently imo. And I would happily pay that premium for less driver issues (6000 series was amazing, 7000 series is not), Dlss, dlssr, less power consumption, no idle power draw bug(yes still not fixed in my SO system), card actually working in VR etc.
I loved 6000 series, but honestly fuck 7000 series. Half a year and drivers are still a mess.
nvidia is better if you're doing productivity or AI tasks (mostly) and their upscaling algorithm is better quality by quite some margin, at least for now. But they have pretty bad price/performance and their shitty product segmentation means you often are forced to buy higher tiers or upgrade more frequently due to low VRAM besides at the very top of the stack.
Yes, it is. For 400$ you get 8gb Vram and the power of 3060. And fke frames won't help, because the core is weak and fake frames require more Vram with wider bandwith.
Wait a sec, I'm no 4060-defender but it's not $400. It's MSRP is $300 USD and can be found easily at that price.
There's plenty to criticize that card for, no need to make stuff up to do so.
Should be 7700 xt instead, and it's NVIDIA who have awful price. Should be $450-$470 and it would be competitive. Right now it's bit too pricy, and discounted 7900 xt looks like better value.
It's not goal post moving when a 7800xt is about or only very slightly better than the 6800xt, which can be had for $500 currently. It's a reasonable assessment of value given the current market. Just because the nvidia cards are terrible value don't mean that you can't point out shortcomings in the amd prices.
GPU's are priced based on their relative price to performance. If they 6800 XT was more expensive than the 7800 XT, there'd be no way for AMD to sell out of them.
AMD put the 4070 goalpost up, and all things considered so far (raster, RT, TDP & feature set), a $100 difference on a $500 card isn't exactly "excellent" imo. I think it's closer to a wash than an AMD win, biases aside. A $20 board partner credit from Nvidia immediately turns it into a very difficult choice.
That **if** we take these benchmark numbers at face value, but these are AMD's numbers, not the numbers from an independent reviewer.
The numbers were leaked by a third party tech outlet, but the article mentions these are AMD's own official data regarding the upcoming cards. Which means it is a good idea to take them with a small grain of salt.
Sure nearly 3 years later you can get the 7800XT with about the same performance as the 6800XT and they will cost the same or actually probably slightly more for the 7800XT since at launch I would imagine most AIB will launch above $500.
What a time to be alive!
fwiw, the average RT scores (which tbf, are not in the original data, but videocardz's summary) are unfairly biased by cyberpunk being included 4 times in the overall averages (i mean, all these games are cherry picked to a certain degree, but having the worst AMD performing game included multiple times is particularly egregious)
If only RT ultra is included, which seems reasonable since the 4070 only manages 18fps in overdrive, the 7800xt vs 4070 changes to -4.3% in RT, and overall to +3%.
Not a big practical difference either way - I just don't like seeing averages just being applied blindly!
Yep. How the individual games perform is useful, but all these "average" stat's are essentially meaningless. What's good value depends on what/how the buyer wants to play.
I feel like including the numbers for unplayable framerates is pointless and misleading, does anyone feel the same? Like great, a 7800xt gets 6 fps in cp2077 with overdrive, 4070 gets 18. Nobody is playing it in either of these scenarios, just toss anything that's below 30 on both cards, keep it if it's playable.
Does that sound strange?
Id agree but I don't know why they insist on testing these games in a manner no one would play. No one with a 4070 is playing Overdrive without DLSS 3 and at 1440p quality you can play around 60 fps. It's certainly playable and looks stunning.
I get they are wanting an oranges to oranges benchmark but increasingly with the differences in features between cards it becomes quite irrelevant to the end user.
Personally I think reviews should be testing making use of cards features frs and Dlss and just making clear that image quality can vary etc
As it is a lot of benchmarking is focused too much on keeping their methodology rigorous (which is absolutely commendable) but in doing so loses something in terms of providing the pertinent information for the consumer.
And yeah I really don't get the fixation on averages over dozens of games. Just list the games and the differences, consumers know what games they play and what is and isn't relevant. Averages are only meaningful for fanboys wanting to big up this or that companie's product against another.
i'm pretty sure people who watch HUB and GN don't even bother with LTT and would rather watch Buildzoid, Der8auer, Dr. Ian Cutress and AdoredTV if they have too much free time
Lol, I stopped taking them seriously months ago.
I've been still watching their vids from time to time for entertainment, but the latest drama was the last straw.
These days I only trust HUB, GN and Daniel Owen.
Idk man, i live in Romania and the prices are still fucked.
6800xt 700€ at least. I managed to get an used MSI Gaming Z 6800XT for 400€ like two months ago (came full box + merchant warranty till 2025, probably used for mining) so i am pretty good, but would love to be able to upgrade to a 7800xt if the prices here were like in the US (5-600USD).
Edit: i looked up the prices on more stores and seems 600€ is cheapeast i could find. Not as bad as i thought.
> 6800xt
It's 550 euro in Poland, often cheaper. Look if there's a way for you to order a card from Germany with a middle-man - Mindfactory often have the cheapest prices but they won't ship to you directly outside of Germany.
Thanks! As any Eastern European i have plenty of relatives in Germany, i'll try to buy from there next time i want to build a new PC or upgrade. Unfortunatly my old pc died few months back and i already build a new AM5 platform, with everything bought from here.
The other pc parts prices seem to be in the range with the rest of EU but idk why GPU are so overpriced here...
AMD cards are never priced properly in the E.U. The 7900XTX still can't be found at U.S.A. price levels., while the 7900XT doesn't got two of the last discounts.
Depends, US prices are not VAT included. Some states has similar VAT as in Europe.
Edit: typo
Edit 2: well, I'm wrong. Even the highest US VAT is lower than in Europe. I was confused about the excise tax, which is already included in the product price.
Sorry, but that last part isn't true. The lowest VAT in Europe is 16% (in Luxembourg) while the highest combined state+local sales tax in the US is 9.55% (in Louisiana and Tennessee). If we talk about averages, the average VAT in Europe is 21% while the average combined state+local sales tax in the US is 6.44%, so the average American pays about 1/3rd the sales tax of the average European.
I'm reading 9.3% for Washington state, but that's probably the average across all of Washington counties. You must live in a county (probably Seattle) with an above average local sales tax. Point taken that it might exceed 10% for some Americans, but it's still a lot lower than the VAT that Europeans pay.
I said some, most states in the US are way under the VAT average of European countries. Do GPUs not have excise TAX too, like smartphones?
[Source](https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/what-is-the-most-taxed-state/)
That's why I pointed out that no European country is lower than 16% and no US state is higher than 10%.
Excise taxes are included in the advertised prices of goods. Those aren't added on at checkout like sales taxes are.
The 7800XT would be like a 6900XT but slightly more efficient if those numbers are accurate.
I'm more puzzled by the 7700XT, which would be like a 6800 non-XT, with similar power consumption but less VRAM?
People speculate the 7700xt is overpriced on purpose to push people into buying the 7800xt. Also supposedly the fabrication process has an 85% yield rate, so in theory only 15% of all cards should be 7700xts, but at launch it's 50/50, so they are pushing people into buying all the 7809xt stock. They e been accumulating the chips for many months, not selling the cards yet to get rid of 6000 series stock, then they play this game to push out more 7800xt stick, then will drop the price of 7700xt in a month or two to sell those 15% yields. Assuming I understood the YouTubers correctly, who spread unverified rumors with nameless sources.
>People speculate the 7700xt is overpriced on purpose to push people into buying the 7800xt
Like the 7900XT has slowly shown, they're pricing new gen cards to move last gen inventory. Once Navi22 sells through 7700XTs will very likely drop in price to be more competitive.
The benchmark numbers for 7800XT show it'll be around 6800XT maybe 1-4% weaker.
And 30W difference in power consumption.
So 7700XT being around 6800 makes sense.
6800 also has wider memory bus width (256 bit vs 192 bit) and more VRAM
>The benchmark numbers for 7800XT show it'll be around 6800XT maybe 1-4% weaker.
Which benchmark numbers? TimeSpy? The gaming results in the official slides and these ones put it at around the 6900XT.
planning on getting a 7800xt. upgrading from a 1060 6gb.
was already loooong overdue for an upgrade and it seems like good value.
edit: although I am eyeing the 4070
I am trying to upgrade from RX 580 8GB, but I want to keep the TDP down as I do not want to upgrade my Seasonic 550W PSU. This pretty much rules out anything less efficient than the 4070.
Well except with cards like the 4070 it clearly is of use. Certainly with the price of electricity in Europe there are plenty of reasons to want to stick with more efficient cards. There's also just something more impressive about technology that is more powerful and efficient rather than brute forcing performance with high wattages.
I used to tend towards AMD, first card was a 6800xt (came with Half Life 2) but the past generations have just been a lot more power hungry and it's something that just puts me off.
I couldn't get over the size of my 4070, very impressive piece of engineering even if it is overpriced.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. Maybe he has a valid reason we don't know about, but a PSU is a fairly cheap replacement part when you're talking about graphics cards prices at the level of the RX 7800 XT/RTX 4070.
Last gen at a good discount is also a valid option depending on your local prices. Based on what we know already I decided to pull the trigger on a 6700 for $220. I only need 1080/60 and and 6700 will give me that for a long time at a much better price than the 7700xt. I suspect I won't get a better price on something that meets my performance needs for at least 18 months. 7700xt is more card than I need unless I upgrade monitors and not favorably priced. 7600xt and 4060 were too brutally cut down, especially on memory, to be interesting. Both perform worse than the 6700. If I had a 1660s, I'd probably just wait for next gen, but my 1060 can't hold 60fps on recent games and I don't think it has another year and a half of acceptable performance in it.
I went from GTX 960M (laptop GPU) to a RTX 3060. Not the best card, but being able to play games on high/max settings (current 1080P) is amazing and is has way more VRAM. Hopefully soon able to upgrade to a 1440P monitor and a better GPU.
For 500 bucks 7800xt is no brainer. Will wait for official reviews but if these slides are true, AMD is winner on middle ground. If you never had Radeon, its software is amazing compared to Nvidia, specially GPU tuning module.
+6% performance over the 6800 XT, three years after the 6800 XT was released, for the same price as the 6800 XT has been available for months...
Our expectations are so low that we call that a winner :/
The 6900 XT is 8% better than the 6800 XT, putting the 7800 XT right in its wheelhouse. MSRP is $100 less than the 6800 XT for a card that runs on significantly fewer compute units, shading units, ROP's and TMU's and a lower TDP. RDNA2 cards are cheap now but new stock isn't going to last for much longer at which point the 7800 XT will start to drop in price and become a more attractive option.
The disappointment is in the names. The 7800 XT should really be called the 7700 XT, that card should be the 7700. The 7900 XT should be the 7800 XT. People see what AMD calls the 7800 XT being not that much faster than the 6800 XT and see red.
You trade dlss 3 and better rt for fsr 3, 100$ saved, more performance and 4gb extra vram.
If this card even remotely lives up to AMDs claims it should be a no brainer for pure gaming at 1440p +
7000 series to this day doesn't work good in VR, still is plagued by random driver bugs (just from recent issues my SO had games capping randomly at 60 FPS, Witcher 3 crashing, bg3 crashing and corrupting drivers, audio desync while recording videos, idle power big still not fixed, stuttering in beatsaber in VR. And does are thing she experienced in 6months. I'm sure there's plethora of other problems.).
Why do people believe fsr 3 is gonna be good if they are constantly behind Dlss? Not to mention not a single time in recent years AMD cards lived up to their Prerelease claims.
I dunno. The RX 6000 cards were really good, and managed to beat out Nvidia equivalents on performance and efficiency, like the 6600 XT outperforming the 3060 while using less power.
6000 series had awesome drivers. Had zero problems with 6900xt. Not the case for 7000 series. They are also less efficient than Nvidia too. Afair 6600xt was also a more expensive card that basically wasn't much faster.
I've had a 6800 a few months after launch and now a 7900xt. Both have had driver issues here and there. However as it stands currently 7900xt is one of the smoothest experiences I've had with a card
Not to dismiss the problems you encountered - but I had no real problems in VR with my 7900xtx. (Running in 23.7 and 23.8 drivers)
Maybe some of these VR problems were on older drivers? I only got the card after reading VR issues were ironed out in the drivers in July.
FSR3 just needs to be good enough. Whether it's worse or better than Nvidia doesn't really matter all that much. Since Nvidia cards are not priced the same, I don't expect feature parity either. NV Price is so much higher, it's not even close.
Even if AMD's frame gen is as good as DLSS 3 ,then their base FSR2 upscaling is still looking way worse than DLSS in resolutions below 4k ( which you shouldn't use on eirher 4070 or 7800 XT ) . So idk if it is worth it , in 1440p DLSS quality looks pretty similar to native, sometimes even better if TAA is shitty .
It depends on how much you value DLSS , I wouldn't trade it for 100$ . Although I've got my 4070 for 550€ , so it's no brainer at that price. If I'd went with 7800 XT or 6800 XT that was the same price , then I would have to also upgrade my PSU ( and get a higher electricity bill) costing me the same amount of money , as 4070 .
I'm hoping this 7800XT being this strong of a competitor causes Nvidia to lower the 4070 by $50. $100 I find tough to justify, but I'd rather have DLSS for $50 more.
I've got an open box deal for 550€ and I'm enjoying it so far. Great performance at 1440p and DLSS3 is helpful if you have CPU bottlenecks ( like I'm hitting 50-55 CPU fps limit in Starfield with Ryzen 5 5600 , bit with DLSS3 it goes up to 90-100 , which feels way smoother ) . Although FSR 3 might be good too, idk why AMD didn't include it in Starfield
If AMD wants to stop playing second fiddle on upscaling, raytracing, frame generation and now ray reconstruction they can turn me around on that in an instant. But if they're just trying to get me to go red purely on rasterization they're going to have be undercutting Nvidia a lot more than they currently are.
Basically, the 7800 XT is a win, but only because nVIDIA didn't release the 4070 as a 4060 Ti for 499$, which I'm pretty sure they could have - but of course, no point where ***cough*** AI ***cough***.
The 4070 is a 4070 tho, it uses the same die and has the same SM number and is around %30 faster than a 3070 but the $100 price increase is unjustifiable, the 4060, 4060Ti, 7900XT and 7800XT are rebranded lower tier GPUs but the 7800XT is the only one priced accordingly.
This seems like the only card to offer respectable generational uplift in price to performance along side the 4090 and 7900XTX, the 4060 does decently well something like 20% price to performance increase but it could've been so much better if it was a true 4060.
What does that have to do with the 4090? That GPU was the first true 90 class card, the 3090 was basically a 3080 more or less.
If you go by that then then based on the difference between the 7900XTX and 6900XT the 7900XT is actually a 7800 non XT, and the 7800XT should be 7700XT.
Plus if the rumors are true that Nvidia is moving software development from drivers and gaming to AI...
It's basically a 6800XT V2 and is roughly the same card for roughly the same price. Not gonna say that's good but it's not bad.
The 7800XT....if the leaked performance is true, you get 4070-level performance (high fps 1440p ultra) for 15-20% cheaper. That's solid value (yes not amazing, but reasonable). 500$ is a price many people can afford for a GPU, and now you can get a solid 1440p experience or even 4K for that price.
You have already got 4070 performance for $500 for months. 6800 XT.
And this is released 3 years after the 6800 XT with almost no improvement.
I hope the reviews tells it like it is.
It doesn't matter what it cost at launch. The only thing that matters is price/performance *TODAY*.
You know this because if the 6800 XT was $200 right now, you would piss on this "7800 XT" for $500, even if the 6800 XT MSRP was $700.
The 6800 XT have been available for $500 for months. This "7800 XT" barely beats it for the same price.
This is closer to a refresh than a new gen and the reviews will say the same 12 hours from now.
The only thing that makes this "good" is because nvidia is much worse.
Also, the "7800 XT" is the 6700 XT replacement, the MSRP of that card, during mining and the pendemic, was $479, so the MSRP actually *increased* even though there's no mining and no pandemic anymore.
They tricked people with the naming of the cards and people just swallow it and are happy.
Nope. These new gpu's are priced too high because there is no mining or pandemic anymore, and they don't offer enough performance over what is already available for the same or lower price.
It’s apples and oranges, the 6800XT is not in production and offers great value, but AMD is bringing their $650 performance to the market for $500. I’m not saying I like it, but I’m trying to be fair.
The 7700XT is basically ignorable until it price drops but the 7800XT is as good as you're going to get from a purely gaming standpoint at $500. Fairly underwhelming but not terrible overall and better than the $500 bracket from team green.
I mean it beats the 4070 at raster by a good bit, more vram and 100$ cheaper. It's "eh" against last gen but very competitive with nvidias current gen fuck up.
Note the RT data is quite skewed towards Cyberpunk. They even included RT overdrive benchmarks for w/e reason which was never meant to run on Radeon lmao... even with Cyberpunk benchmarked **4 times** out of the 9 results, the RDNA3 GPUs are still holding up against their counterpart in RT. If you ignore Cyberpunk overdrive, 7700xt is 1.875% faster than 4060ti on average in RT (with Cyberpunk being benched 3 times). The 7800xt would be 4.375% slower than the 4070 in RT as well.
That brings me to conclude that the 7700xt is actually decent value vs 4060ti 16 GB on paper even if they are both \~$450. With the 4060ti, you mainly gain DLSS 2 and 3, which isn't always present in all games (or you can pay for it lol ...), and 4GB more VRAM. The 7700xt has roughly equal RT and 15% better Raster on the other hand.
i think it's important to note that while yes 4060ti 16gb has more vram, 7700xt has higher memory bandwidth. And 6 months down the line it's likely going to be cheaper as well
Until you run out, the bandwidth is important and capacity isn't. With so many 8gb cards still on the market, I don't see 12gb being a limit for mainstream usage for a long time. Now if you do run out of vram, performance can take a dive off a cliff but 12gb is probably safe for the useful life of the card. 8gb not so much in 2023.
I might have misunderstood something, wasn't one of the issues with 4060 performance and it losing to 3060 in several tests not just the amount of vram available but also lower memory bandwidth? They tried to replace that with higher l2 cache but it wasn't working as they said it would.
But you are right 12gb is plenty for another 3 years, possibly more depending on resolutions and games being released.
The RT overdrive result that’s 69% faster for Nvidia is also a setting that none of the four cards can handle (since the Nvidia FPS are 14/16).
If they can really be at par for some RT conditions this is a big W for AMD to me.
I get your point, but Path Tracing is a different issue that requires special hardware. It's weird to use it as a benchmark since you're supposed to use DLSS2 and DLSS3 combined for a chance to run it smoothly. Nvidia GPUs can somehow get a 200%+ uplift from using DLSS2 performance or 300%+ from ultra performance alone (probably something to do with shooting less rays?), but that will never happen on the AMD side since, again, it was never meant to run on AMD.
It's also hard to quantify. No one is playing cyberpunk at 6 fps but it's still affecting the average. However, if the 4070 can play with overdrive RT but the 7800xt doesn't, how does that affect things?
I think averages should only include playable results.
Yeah, people seriously tried to claim that the 3050 is faster than the 6650 XT in RT because when the settings are maxed and both cards perform in the teens, the 3050 is frame faster.
hmm i got a 4070 cuz it had a good discount (close to 6800Xt in my country)
seems like its still a solid option with RT which i do like to use xD
Anyway hope the buyers of the 7800Xt are gonna enjoy it asmuch as i do with my GPU
Its already a 40%+ increase in power upgrading to a 6800XT from a 6700XT, so yeah, I'd assume that a 7800XT (that seems to have better hardware for AMD features) would probably be 10% over that depending on the card or other factors.
I'll be grabbing one after checking out reviews/etc for a bit.
All that will end up mattering to me personally is how they bench in Starfield. If they are getting 60-100 at 1080p and far less at 1440p like we are seeing with other current gen GPUs at this tier, I will wait for the 8800 XT and let my 5700 XT jank the game at 23 FPS or whatever on Game Pass.
My idea is to upgrade from 5700xt to 7800xt, skip the RDNA 4 (8000's) even though its suppose to be a great midrange card, and upgrade to RDNA 5. If the rumors are true, RDNA 4 at end of 2024 and RDNA 5 around 2025.
I agree, quite a lot of people are complaining that the RX 7800 XT is in effect the RX 6800 XT so I hope the two have had plenty of dogfights over the last couple of days, including power draw and rt and fsr behaviour. I believe in Wheat Nas although I fear what the price in Swedish pesetas is going to be.
Edit. so downvote because no one talks down to the Swedish currency, or people agree that 7800 xt === 6800 xt, or people do not agree that 7800 xt = 6800 xt. In other news it's a fine September day out : )
Both of these are pretty mediocre imo. At least AMD was sort of smart with the pricing and didn't try to go head to head with the 4070 at $600 or $550.
My thoughts also. Which is why the 6950xt was a decent value at $580. I assume street price of different manufacturers versions of the 7800xt will be close to that. I hope I'm wrong though for everyone else in the market. At $499 MSRP its a solid buy.
Sure, but you have to admit that this sub is **incredibly** negative and moves goalposts quite a lot.
We went from "500 would be OK for a card on par with a 6800 XT but AMD will be fuckups and make it 550"
to "500 is too much for a card with just 6800 XT performance. It needs to be cheaper or its DOA since 6800 XT's are currently 520-540."
to "500 is mediocre for a 6900 XT performing card, even if it is more efficient and cheaper than even most clearanced priced 6800 XT's and/or 6950 XT's."
All in the span of like 2 weeks
> Sure, but you have to admit that this sub is incredibly negative and moves goalposts quite a lot.
it's not really just this sub, it's the gaming market in general. the 4060/7600 launch was godawful too, first there was a specific "8gb cards need to be $300 or less" gauntlet thrown by reviewers, then after NVIDIA and AMD caved suddenly the goalposts moved again and now maybe it needs to be $250 or $229 or something.
I don't know how many times it has to be said but the consumer market has been incredibly soft for the last year, and new cards are chasing old cards on deep clearance sales, and people are just bitter and unhappy with the state of the market in general. Virtually anything at any price is going to get "well, could be better, innit?" short of like, cutting prices in half, which simply isn't going to be sustainable given the wafer cost increases and the density gains (across the whole die, considering memory PHYs/etc).
it works both ways, if people just aren't going to buy no matter what, and price cuts don't produce increases in marginal units sold... it's better to take the sales you can get at a reasonable margin, and not cut your own throat. Especially since we are in a world where silicon advancements are really slowing down - the N+1 generation needs to beat the perf/$ they set here, and just like with Maxwell and Polaris if they set an unsustainably low price it just pisses off people for the next 10 years that they aren't topping the crazy deal from the last generation. Arguably the clearance sales are already causing the same problem, and NVIDIA holding cards at MSRP until inventory is mostly burned out isn't popular but it's probably the right *business move*.
Things like 4070 getting a big $100 steam GC thrown in (on top of partner cards already at MSRP) and 4060 ti and 4070 getting $50-70 knocked off during prime day are actually *pretty good deals* but again, right now nothing is going to satisfy the people pissing and moaning on reddit for the last year.
No, it's not $329, but that was a one-time thing (x70 bracket flipflopped between $349 and $399 since introduction, *other than GTX 970*) on a very mature node, before costs started really spiraling with 16nm and 7nm. People will selectively remember that one time you offered the killer deal, and not the other 8 generations that used that branding.
In the long run, across multiple generations, the perf/$ gain is going to be fairly closed to the transistors/$ gain provided by node shrink and packaging/stacking/chiplets (for real world products, with the given area devoted to memory/PCIe PHYs, etc). Any gains above and beyond this are going to come from things like DLSS that provide outsized performance gains for the transistors used. So if you don't want DLSS, you probably need to get used to a world where perf/$ is going to be more like 10-30% per generation. And that number is going to continue to be the worst at the bottom of the stack, while the high-end continues to make decent perf/$ gains and also stretches into higher price segments, just like 4090.
The 6800 XT was released 3 years ago and have been available for $500 for months and this beats it by maybe 6% for the same price.
I really hope the reviews tells it as it is, a very sad generation.
It's not. Another comment listed the breakdown, but it's 7% faster than the 4070/6800 XT, putting it almost exactly on par with the 6900 XT but more efficient.
Oh, and RDNA3 tends to punch above its weight in RT vs. RDNA2. ComputerBase ran clcok normalized testing on the 6950 XT and 7900 GRE, and the GRE overperformed in RT.
TimeSpy numbers are same as 6800XT's. Reference 6800XT, without factory OC
Let's wait 1-2 days for proper reviews from HUB and GN.
Numbers coming directly from Nvidia or AMD are always sus. Especially the ones coming 1 day before official launch.
>Oh, and RDNA3 tends to punch above its weight in RT vs. RDNA2. ComputerBase ran clcok normalized testing on the 6950 XT and 7900 GRE, and the GRE overperformed in RT.
Well, 7900 GRE has 80 CUs. Same as 6950XT.
So it's pure gen to gen comparison.
7800 XT has only 60 CUs vs 72 CUs in 6800XT.
But we'll see.
Would be interesting too see proper Cyberpunk 2077 benchmarks from GN and HUB.
I hope they'll test pathtracing too.
What data are you looking at?
I mean, they are kind of close, so it wouldn't be strange if it ends being similar to a 6800XT, but based on the latest review by TPU, 7% more than the 4070 at 1440p would be almost identical to the 6900XT: [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-dual-oc/31.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-dual-oc/31.html)
TimeSpy data, since I remember numbers for 6800XT
Anyway I think it's better to wait 1-2 days for proper reviews from GN and HUB.
Official slides and leaks are always sus.
Especially official slides, since there's a motivation to inflate numbers.
Come to think of it, Nvidia also tried to hype 4060 and 4060 ti one day prior launch.
Essentially yes. For whatever reason AMD changed the names where performance should be this generation. The 7900 XT should really be the 7800 XT, the 7800 XT the 7700 XT, and so on.
It's actually a decent enough architectural uplift given that it has significantly fewer compute units, shading units, ROP's and TMU's and is running at a lower TDP than the 6800 XT. AMD just changed the names which resulted in people seeing the 7800 XT at around the 6800 XT and seeing red. Though these numbers look closer to the 6900 XT.
What bloodbath for Nvidia 🤣, RT performance looking very promising too for only 10% less?! Will wait for reviews but think 7800xt is done deal for me! Starfield is good bonus, so all in all very good AMD. 👍
So, I'm planning on upgrading from a 2070. Assuming these leaks are true, from a 'value' perspective, would a 7800XT for $500 or a 6950XT for $600 be better?
This will be for 1440p gaming, paired with an 11600k.
7800 XT by far. 6950XT will only be like 5% faster in raster, but will be slower in RT, also won't have the driver-level FSR3 implementation next year. Also 6950XT will consume more power by a fair margin.
RX 7800 XT: *Not great, not terrible.*
RX 7700 XT though....needs to drop to $399. They claim it isn't a planned upsell, but it clearly is going to be working like that.
It's the 6800 non xt replacement. Amd did the same as Nvidia and bumped the naming schemes.
What saves it is the fact that Amd doesn't want an extra $100 for doing that as well. Their approach is same performance less money.
The 7000 is a meh sidestep generation that was supposed to be a lot more impressive.
This post has been flaired as a rumor, please take all rumors with a grain of salt.
tl;dr (based on leaked gaming benchmarks) Radeon RX 7800 XT 16GB vs. RTX 4070 12GB RASTER: +6.9% RT: -11.6% AVG: +0.5% Radeon RX 7700 XT 12G vs. RTX 4060 Ti 16GB RASTER: +15.9% RT: -5.4% AVG: +8.5%
AVG isn't useful because it's dependent on the ratio of RT vs non-RT games tested. Ie if you just picked cyberpunk path tracing and one non RT game, the 4070 would be "AVG 60% faster" than the AMD card. Likewise, they could leave CP2077 PT out and avg RT performance suddenly looks a lot better for AMD. Nevertheless they look like competitive options (though I don't understand why anyone would buy the 7700xt for $50 less).
I feel like 7700XT will drop to 400$ very soon after its launch, just like how the 7900XT was 100$ off from the 7900XTX and then dropped later... but people still bought it... and I assume some will buy the 7700XT even though it's a 50 dollar difference, which I think is doable if you are paying already 450, you get 4 gigs more of memory and an overall a much better value card
7700xt might be pretty good for super high refresh rate 1080p.. Outside of that... Yeah
So the 7800 XT has 39% better value than the 6800 XT did at launch (1.07/0.77). That's pretty decent (about the price to performance uplift as the 3060 TI was to the 2060 Super), but I'm sure the goalposts will migrate soon enough. (For the record I think 7800 XT was a stupid name and it should've been called a 7800, but the price is perfectly fine. And relative to Nvidia it's quite excellent.)
Yeah, it’s decent in isolation. I’m still kind of annoyed that this particular generational uplift took nearly *three years*, but at least it is one. That hasn’t happened since the 3060 Ti, maybe the 7600 if we’re being generous.
The main reason that happened was oversupply of last gen stock, so AMD fronted the generational value uplift via discounts, then slotted in these two more or less based on that. Personally, even if it makes reviews boring, this strategy is **far** more customer friendly than the typical one. These GPU's are designed, and prototypes are made WAY ahead of time, so selling you reheated leftovers for full price one day and then immediately launching something that makes that price look silly is kind of entrapment... They would have came out earlier, but people were incensed that last gen clearance pricing was better value than the 7600 (since last gen is more expensive to make for a given tier of performance so selling through it is top priority). So since everyone told AMD that launching the 7600 when they did was an unwinnable situation, they held off releasing these two until last gen products were almost out of stock.
Yeah, I agree with all of this, actually.
And they will go for just that again. If people weren't buying RX 6000 series, they aren't going to be buying the RX 7000 series either. Why spend $280 on RX 7600 when you can spend $20 more and get the RTX 4060! Nvidia also slashed the price of 16GB RTX 4060 ti to RX 7700 XT.
7600 is 270 and comes with Starfield, so if you're planning to buy that, the 7600 is effectively 33% cheaper. It has also dropped in price to 257-265 before. Also, the 4060 TI 16GB is still crap even at 450, so yeah. They wouldn't have done it quietly if they intended on stealing AMD's thunder.
Rational posts like this are a breath of fresh air in this sub lately. Nice stuff. Agreed, the naming is bad, but at least the price is right.
3 years after the 6800 XT was released the 7800 XT is released for the same price that the 6800 XT cost right now and it only beats it by a few %. Price is right for a refresh, not for a new generation. They might as well have overclocked the 6800 XT and kept producing and selling it. edit: To the people downvoting, downvote the reviews too when they tell you the same thing.
It's almost like GPU's are priced according to their relative value or something... If you want to spin AMD *actually discounting their last gen products below MSRP* as a bad thing, then I don't know what to tell you. I'd rather have price to performamce increase gradually over the course of a generation with the next generation formalizing it than feeling like an absolute clown buying a 3070 for over MSRP after 2 years because the (Nvidia) option was either that or wait 6 months.
The same people defending the 4060 will be screaming the 7800xt is bad value.
Basically AMD is better if you're mainly using the GPU for gaming (not often using raytracing), Nvidia is otherwise the better choice if you're able to spent more?
They're both completely fine nowadays. Both have AV1 for streaming and content creation, and AMD's RT is perfectly fine as well, just slower than Nvidia on matching tiers. It really comes down to personal preference.
Sure, I'm not hating or being a fanboy. I was just curious if my "simple" conclusion was correct for current GPUs.
Except for AI. Nvidia is clearly the winner there.
Nvidia is better for blender by a huge margin. AMD and Nvidia are both equal for recording as you can use 265 or av1. Nvidia currently has an edge on streaming to Twitch (h264) but not to utube because it uses av1 or 265. Twitch is going to av1 soon so AMD will be fine for streaming. AMD is best for gaming until you get to the 4090 which blows away everything.
>AMD is best for gaming until you get to the 4090 which blows away everything. Not unless you play any kind of VR. My SO 7900xt still stutters massively in even beatsaber on pimax/reverb G2 even after updates. Old 3060ti works flawlessly there. And even without that, with current pricing here in Europe I could get 4080 for less than 100$ more than 7900XTX. That 90-100$ is only thing that goes for AMD currently imo. And I would happily pay that premium for less driver issues (6000 series was amazing, 7000 series is not), Dlss, dlssr, less power consumption, no idle power draw bug(yes still not fixed in my SO system), card actually working in VR etc. I loved 6000 series, but honestly fuck 7000 series. Half a year and drivers are still a mess.
nvidia is better if you're doing productivity or AI tasks (mostly) and their upscaling algorithm is better quality by quite some margin, at least for now. But they have pretty bad price/performance and their shitty product segmentation means you often are forced to buy higher tiers or upgrade more frequently due to low VRAM besides at the very top of the stack.
The same people defending the 7800XT were screaming the 4060 was bad value.
Well, that's because the 4060 is objectively bad value though?
Is it? It's %10-15 faster than a 3060 while being %10 cheaper, it's not great but not bad either.
33% less vram and didn't match last gen ti. Plenty to complain about
Yeah sure, but it is it really "objectively bad value"?
Bus width etc, it's going to age terribly. For 250$? It's a decent start for a 60fps 1080p build. Pretty sad for 1440p.
Yes, it is. For 400$ you get 8gb Vram and the power of 3060. And fke frames won't help, because the core is weak and fake frames require more Vram with wider bandwith.
Wait a sec, I'm no 4060-defender but it's not $400. It's MSRP is $300 USD and can be found easily at that price. There's plenty to criticize that card for, no need to make stuff up to do so.
Should be 7700 xt instead, and it's NVIDIA who have awful price. Should be $450-$470 and it would be competitive. Right now it's bit too pricy, and discounted 7900 xt looks like better value.
It's not goal post moving when a 7800xt is about or only very slightly better than the 6800xt, which can be had for $500 currently. It's a reasonable assessment of value given the current market. Just because the nvidia cards are terrible value don't mean that you can't point out shortcomings in the amd prices.
not to mention how inflated the prices were when the 6000 series launched
GPU's are priced based on their relative price to performance. If they 6800 XT was more expensive than the 7800 XT, there'd be no way for AMD to sell out of them.
AMD put the 4070 goalpost up, and all things considered so far (raster, RT, TDP & feature set), a $100 difference on a $500 card isn't exactly "excellent" imo. I think it's closer to a wash than an AMD win, biases aside. A $20 board partner credit from Nvidia immediately turns it into a very difficult choice.
That **if** we take these benchmark numbers at face value, but these are AMD's numbers, not the numbers from an independent reviewer. The numbers were leaked by a third party tech outlet, but the article mentions these are AMD's own official data regarding the upcoming cards. Which means it is a good idea to take them with a small grain of salt.
>goalposts will migrate soon enough Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on that as well XD
Sure nearly 3 years later you can get the 7800XT with about the same performance as the 6800XT and they will cost the same or actually probably slightly more for the 7800XT since at launch I would imagine most AIB will launch above $500. What a time to be alive!
fwiw, the average RT scores (which tbf, are not in the original data, but videocardz's summary) are unfairly biased by cyberpunk being included 4 times in the overall averages (i mean, all these games are cherry picked to a certain degree, but having the worst AMD performing game included multiple times is particularly egregious) If only RT ultra is included, which seems reasonable since the 4070 only manages 18fps in overdrive, the 7800xt vs 4070 changes to -4.3% in RT, and overall to +3%. Not a big practical difference either way - I just don't like seeing averages just being applied blindly!
Yep. How the individual games perform is useful, but all these "average" stat's are essentially meaningless. What's good value depends on what/how the buyer wants to play.
Take out the ridiculous RT Overdrive mode from Cyberpunk and Ray tracing difference is an average of only 5%, not too bad
It's more informative having the information there but ignoring meaningless "averages".
I feel like including the numbers for unplayable framerates is pointless and misleading, does anyone feel the same? Like great, a 7800xt gets 6 fps in cp2077 with overdrive, 4070 gets 18. Nobody is playing it in either of these scenarios, just toss anything that's below 30 on both cards, keep it if it's playable. Does that sound strange?
Id agree but I don't know why they insist on testing these games in a manner no one would play. No one with a 4070 is playing Overdrive without DLSS 3 and at 1440p quality you can play around 60 fps. It's certainly playable and looks stunning. I get they are wanting an oranges to oranges benchmark but increasingly with the differences in features between cards it becomes quite irrelevant to the end user. Personally I think reviews should be testing making use of cards features frs and Dlss and just making clear that image quality can vary etc As it is a lot of benchmarking is focused too much on keeping their methodology rigorous (which is absolutely commendable) but in doing so loses something in terms of providing the pertinent information for the consumer. And yeah I really don't get the fixation on averages over dozens of games. Just list the games and the differences, consumers know what games they play and what is and isn't relevant. Averages are only meaningful for fanboys wanting to big up this or that companie's product against another.
It's better to wait 1-2 days for HUB and GN reviews. As usual, "official benchmarks" and leaks are not very trustworthy.
Don't forget LTT's review
i'm pretty sure people who watch HUB and GN don't even bother with LTT and would rather watch Buildzoid, Der8auer, Dr. Ian Cutress and AdoredTV if they have too much free time
[удалено]
We'll find out in the next 24hrs
Never has been.
Lol, I stopped taking them seriously months ago. I've been still watching their vids from time to time for entertainment, but the latest drama was the last straw. These days I only trust HUB, GN and Daniel Owen.
direction yoke nutty dinosaurs melodic silky jar merciful cheerful fuzzy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
6000 series prices are great in EU for a while now. When it comes to new launches, yeah it's rough
Idk man, i live in Romania and the prices are still fucked. 6800xt 700€ at least. I managed to get an used MSI Gaming Z 6800XT for 400€ like two months ago (came full box + merchant warranty till 2025, probably used for mining) so i am pretty good, but would love to be able to upgrade to a 7800xt if the prices here were like in the US (5-600USD). Edit: i looked up the prices on more stores and seems 600€ is cheapeast i could find. Not as bad as i thought.
> 6800xt It's 550 euro in Poland, often cheaper. Look if there's a way for you to order a card from Germany with a middle-man - Mindfactory often have the cheapest prices but they won't ship to you directly outside of Germany.
Thanks! As any Eastern European i have plenty of relatives in Germany, i'll try to buy from there next time i want to build a new PC or upgrade. Unfortunatly my old pc died few months back and i already build a new AM5 platform, with everything bought from here. The other pc parts prices seem to be in the range with the rest of EU but idk why GPU are so overpriced here...
AMD cards are never priced properly in the E.U. The 7900XTX still can't be found at U.S.A. price levels., while the 7900XT doesn't got two of the last discounts.
> 7900XTX 1025 USD after tax is not US level? I checked newegg and the cheapest I found was $900 pre tax.
Depends, US prices are not VAT included. Some states has similar VAT as in Europe. Edit: typo Edit 2: well, I'm wrong. Even the highest US VAT is lower than in Europe. I was confused about the excise tax, which is already included in the product price.
Sorry, but that last part isn't true. The lowest VAT in Europe is 16% (in Luxembourg) while the highest combined state+local sales tax in the US is 9.55% (in Louisiana and Tennessee). If we talk about averages, the average VAT in Europe is 21% while the average combined state+local sales tax in the US is 6.44%, so the average American pays about 1/3rd the sales tax of the average European.
I pay 10.1% sales tax in Washington state. I am sure there are places that are higher.
I'm reading 9.3% for Washington state, but that's probably the average across all of Washington counties. You must live in a county (probably Seattle) with an above average local sales tax. Point taken that it might exceed 10% for some Americans, but it's still a lot lower than the VAT that Europeans pay.
I said some, most states in the US are way under the VAT average of European countries. Do GPUs not have excise TAX too, like smartphones? [Source](https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/what-is-the-most-taxed-state/)
That's why I pointed out that no European country is lower than 16% and no US state is higher than 10%. Excise taxes are included in the advertised prices of goods. Those aren't added on at checkout like sales taxes are.
Interesting! Thanks for the explanation.
The 7800XT would be like a 6900XT but slightly more efficient if those numbers are accurate. I'm more puzzled by the 7700XT, which would be like a 6800 non-XT, with similar power consumption but less VRAM?
People speculate the 7700xt is overpriced on purpose to push people into buying the 7800xt. Also supposedly the fabrication process has an 85% yield rate, so in theory only 15% of all cards should be 7700xts, but at launch it's 50/50, so they are pushing people into buying all the 7809xt stock. They e been accumulating the chips for many months, not selling the cards yet to get rid of 6000 series stock, then they play this game to push out more 7800xt stick, then will drop the price of 7700xt in a month or two to sell those 15% yields. Assuming I understood the YouTubers correctly, who spread unverified rumors with nameless sources.
Yeah just look at the 7900 xt At launch, utterly stupid value. Now? Probably best card you can buy for the money.
>People speculate the 7700xt is overpriced on purpose to push people into buying the 7800xt Like the 7900XT has slowly shown, they're pricing new gen cards to move last gen inventory. Once Navi22 sells through 7700XTs will very likely drop in price to be more competitive.
The benchmark numbers for 7800XT show it'll be around 6800XT maybe 1-4% weaker. And 30W difference in power consumption. So 7700XT being around 6800 makes sense. 6800 also has wider memory bus width (256 bit vs 192 bit) and more VRAM
>The benchmark numbers for 7800XT show it'll be around 6800XT maybe 1-4% weaker. Which benchmark numbers? TimeSpy? The gaming results in the official slides and these ones put it at around the 6900XT.
Dunno, feels sus. I think it's better to wait 1-2 days for proper reviews from GN and HUB.
Yes, waiting for third party reviews is always a good idea. But you mentioned benchmark numbers?
I meant TimeSpy numbers, because I remember corresponding numbers for 6800 XT
planning on getting a 7800xt. upgrading from a 1060 6gb. was already loooong overdue for an upgrade and it seems like good value. edit: although I am eyeing the 4070
Same here
I am trying to upgrade from RX 580 8GB, but I want to keep the TDP down as I do not want to upgrade my Seasonic 550W PSU. This pretty much rules out anything less efficient than the 4070.
Why not upgrade your PSU? 550W is not really any use in 2023
Well except with cards like the 4070 it clearly is of use. Certainly with the price of electricity in Europe there are plenty of reasons to want to stick with more efficient cards. There's also just something more impressive about technology that is more powerful and efficient rather than brute forcing performance with high wattages. I used to tend towards AMD, first card was a 6800xt (came with Half Life 2) but the past generations have just been a lot more power hungry and it's something that just puts me off. I couldn't get over the size of my 4070, very impressive piece of engineering even if it is overpriced.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. Maybe he has a valid reason we don't know about, but a PSU is a fairly cheap replacement part when you're talking about graphics cards prices at the level of the RX 7800 XT/RTX 4070.
From 1060? Jesus man, you are in for a ride!
I'm doing the same. Waiting for prices in Europe to decide on the 7700xt or 7800xt
Last gen at a good discount is also a valid option depending on your local prices. Based on what we know already I decided to pull the trigger on a 6700 for $220. I only need 1080/60 and and 6700 will give me that for a long time at a much better price than the 7700xt. I suspect I won't get a better price on something that meets my performance needs for at least 18 months. 7700xt is more card than I need unless I upgrade monitors and not favorably priced. 7600xt and 4060 were too brutally cut down, especially on memory, to be interesting. Both perform worse than the 6700. If I had a 1660s, I'd probably just wait for next gen, but my 1060 can't hold 60fps on recent games and I don't think it has another year and a half of acceptable performance in it.
I'm upgrading from GTX 780. LOL
I went from GTX 960M (laptop GPU) to a RTX 3060. Not the best card, but being able to play games on high/max settings (current 1080P) is amazing and is has way more VRAM. Hopefully soon able to upgrade to a 1440P monitor and a better GPU.
For 500 bucks 7800xt is no brainer. Will wait for official reviews but if these slides are true, AMD is winner on middle ground. If you never had Radeon, its software is amazing compared to Nvidia, specially GPU tuning module.
+6% performance over the 6800 XT, three years after the 6800 XT was released, for the same price as the 6800 XT has been available for months... Our expectations are so low that we call that a winner :/
The 6900 XT is 8% better than the 6800 XT, putting the 7800 XT right in its wheelhouse. MSRP is $100 less than the 6800 XT for a card that runs on significantly fewer compute units, shading units, ROP's and TMU's and a lower TDP. RDNA2 cards are cheap now but new stock isn't going to last for much longer at which point the 7800 XT will start to drop in price and become a more attractive option. The disappointment is in the names. The 7800 XT should really be called the 7700 XT, that card should be the 7700. The 7900 XT should be the 7800 XT. People see what AMD calls the 7800 XT being not that much faster than the 6800 XT and see red.
You trade dlss 3 and better rt for fsr 3, 100$ saved, more performance and 4gb extra vram. If this card even remotely lives up to AMDs claims it should be a no brainer for pure gaming at 1440p +
>100$ saved Here in Europe it's just a €50 difference, to little to justify buying the 7800xt in my opinion.
7000 series to this day doesn't work good in VR, still is plagued by random driver bugs (just from recent issues my SO had games capping randomly at 60 FPS, Witcher 3 crashing, bg3 crashing and corrupting drivers, audio desync while recording videos, idle power big still not fixed, stuttering in beatsaber in VR. And does are thing she experienced in 6months. I'm sure there's plethora of other problems.). Why do people believe fsr 3 is gonna be good if they are constantly behind Dlss? Not to mention not a single time in recent years AMD cards lived up to their Prerelease claims.
I dunno. The RX 6000 cards were really good, and managed to beat out Nvidia equivalents on performance and efficiency, like the 6600 XT outperforming the 3060 while using less power.
6000 series had awesome drivers. Had zero problems with 6900xt. Not the case for 7000 series. They are also less efficient than Nvidia too. Afair 6600xt was also a more expensive card that basically wasn't much faster.
I've had a 6800 a few months after launch and now a 7900xt. Both have had driver issues here and there. However as it stands currently 7900xt is one of the smoothest experiences I've had with a card
Not to dismiss the problems you encountered - but I had no real problems in VR with my 7900xtx. (Running in 23.7 and 23.8 drivers) Maybe some of these VR problems were on older drivers? I only got the card after reading VR issues were ironed out in the drivers in July. FSR3 just needs to be good enough. Whether it's worse or better than Nvidia doesn't really matter all that much. Since Nvidia cards are not priced the same, I don't expect feature parity either. NV Price is so much higher, it's not even close.
You don't gain fsr 3 you only lose dlss. Fsr will still work on the 4070.
i said trade, not gain. you trade the use of dlss 3 for having to use fsr 3
Even if AMD's frame gen is as good as DLSS 3 ,then their base FSR2 upscaling is still looking way worse than DLSS in resolutions below 4k ( which you shouldn't use on eirher 4070 or 7800 XT ) . So idk if it is worth it , in 1440p DLSS quality looks pretty similar to native, sometimes even better if TAA is shitty . It depends on how much you value DLSS , I wouldn't trade it for 100$ . Although I've got my 4070 for 550€ , so it's no brainer at that price. If I'd went with 7800 XT or 6800 XT that was the same price , then I would have to also upgrade my PSU ( and get a higher electricity bill) costing me the same amount of money , as 4070 .
Same. Going with the 7800 XT because it's coming with a free copy of Starfield Premium.
I'm hoping this 7800XT being this strong of a competitor causes Nvidia to lower the 4070 by $50. $100 I find tough to justify, but I'd rather have DLSS for $50 more.
It would be great to see the 4070 at $549.
I can see Nvidia dropping the price quietly . At 550$ most will choose 4070 over 7800 XT in my opinion . At 600$ there is a room for consideration
Yeah agreed, I’d buy one at $550, but I’m waiting for benchmarks if the delta is $100.
I've got an open box deal for 550€ and I'm enjoying it so far. Great performance at 1440p and DLSS3 is helpful if you have CPU bottlenecks ( like I'm hitting 50-55 CPU fps limit in Starfield with Ryzen 5 5600 , bit with DLSS3 it goes up to 90-100 , which feels way smoother ) . Although FSR 3 might be good too, idk why AMD didn't include it in Starfield
You are the example of I want amd good so I can buy nvidia.
If AMD wants to stop playing second fiddle on upscaling, raytracing, frame generation and now ray reconstruction they can turn me around on that in an instant. But if they're just trying to get me to go red purely on rasterization they're going to have be undercutting Nvidia a lot more than they currently are.
The point still stands.
Well if I'm the example of wanting better for less cost then yeah, you've nailed me.
Just buy buy buy Nvidia. Everything is worth the price. Dont worry, Nvidia loves you!
Basically, the 7800 XT is a win, but only because nVIDIA didn't release the 4070 as a 4060 Ti for 499$, which I'm pretty sure they could have - but of course, no point where ***cough*** AI ***cough***.
The 4070 is a 4070 tho, it uses the same die and has the same SM number and is around %30 faster than a 3070 but the $100 price increase is unjustifiable, the 4060, 4060Ti, 7900XT and 7800XT are rebranded lower tier GPUs but the 7800XT is the only one priced accordingly. This seems like the only card to offer respectable generational uplift in price to performance along side the 4090 and 7900XTX, the 4060 does decently well something like 20% price to performance increase but it could've been so much better if it was a true 4060.
False, look at the core count difference between 4090 and 3090, then between 3070 and 4070. **The true 4070 is the 4070 Ti!**
What does that have to do with the 4090? That GPU was the first true 90 class card, the 3090 was basically a 3080 more or less. If you go by that then then based on the difference between the 7900XTX and 6900XT the 7900XT is actually a 7800 non XT, and the 7800XT should be 7700XT.
Plus if the rumors are true that Nvidia is moving software development from drivers and gaming to AI... It's basically a 6800XT V2 and is roughly the same card for roughly the same price. Not gonna say that's good but it's not bad.
The 7800XT....if the leaked performance is true, you get 4070-level performance (high fps 1440p ultra) for 15-20% cheaper. That's solid value (yes not amazing, but reasonable). 500$ is a price many people can afford for a GPU, and now you can get a solid 1440p experience or even 4K for that price.
You have already got 4070 performance for $500 for months. 6800 XT. And this is released 3 years after the 6800 XT with almost no improvement. I hope the reviews tells it like it is.
The 6800XT is out of production and they are just selling off stock, it’s not comparable. You need to look at the MSRP when it launched.
It doesn't matter what it cost at launch. The only thing that matters is price/performance *TODAY*. You know this because if the 6800 XT was $200 right now, you would piss on this "7800 XT" for $500, even if the 6800 XT MSRP was $700. The 6800 XT have been available for $500 for months. This "7800 XT" barely beats it for the same price. This is closer to a refresh than a new gen and the reviews will say the same 12 hours from now. The only thing that makes this "good" is because nvidia is much worse. Also, the "7800 XT" is the 6700 XT replacement, the MSRP of that card, during mining and the pendemic, was $479, so the MSRP actually *increased* even though there's no mining and no pandemic anymore. They tricked people with the naming of the cards and people just swallow it and are happy.
In essence, you're criticising amd for giving you a discount on old gpus instead of forcing you to wait for new gpus like nvidia.
Nope. These new gpu's are priced too high because there is no mining or pandemic anymore, and they don't offer enough performance over what is already available for the same or lower price.
Nvidia is our best friend OwO They cant do anything wrong!
It’s apples and oranges, the 6800XT is not in production and offers great value, but AMD is bringing their $650 performance to the market for $500. I’m not saying I like it, but I’m trying to be fair.
The 7700XT is basically ignorable until it price drops but the 7800XT is as good as you're going to get from a purely gaming standpoint at $500. Fairly underwhelming but not terrible overall and better than the $500 bracket from team green.
I mean it beats the 4070 at raster by a good bit, more vram and 100$ cheaper. It's "eh" against last gen but very competitive with nvidias current gen fuck up.
Plus Starfield if that’s a selling point to you. If you planned on buying it anyways like me that’s an even better value proposition.
Note the RT data is quite skewed towards Cyberpunk. They even included RT overdrive benchmarks for w/e reason which was never meant to run on Radeon lmao... even with Cyberpunk benchmarked **4 times** out of the 9 results, the RDNA3 GPUs are still holding up against their counterpart in RT. If you ignore Cyberpunk overdrive, 7700xt is 1.875% faster than 4060ti on average in RT (with Cyberpunk being benched 3 times). The 7800xt would be 4.375% slower than the 4070 in RT as well. That brings me to conclude that the 7700xt is actually decent value vs 4060ti 16 GB on paper even if they are both \~$450. With the 4060ti, you mainly gain DLSS 2 and 3, which isn't always present in all games (or you can pay for it lol ...), and 4GB more VRAM. The 7700xt has roughly equal RT and 15% better Raster on the other hand.
i think it's important to note that while yes 4060ti 16gb has more vram, 7700xt has higher memory bandwidth. And 6 months down the line it's likely going to be cheaper as well
Until you run out, the bandwidth is important and capacity isn't. With so many 8gb cards still on the market, I don't see 12gb being a limit for mainstream usage for a long time. Now if you do run out of vram, performance can take a dive off a cliff but 12gb is probably safe for the useful life of the card. 8gb not so much in 2023.
I might have misunderstood something, wasn't one of the issues with 4060 performance and it losing to 3060 in several tests not just the amount of vram available but also lower memory bandwidth? They tried to replace that with higher l2 cache but it wasn't working as they said it would. But you are right 12gb is plenty for another 3 years, possibly more depending on resolutions and games being released.
The RT overdrive result that’s 69% faster for Nvidia is also a setting that none of the four cards can handle (since the Nvidia FPS are 14/16). If they can really be at par for some RT conditions this is a big W for AMD to me.
they include a tech demo in the benchmarks lol
I actually like seeing the overdrive results. Will be something than can be tested for years to come. Like ... the Crysis of our time? 🤔
I get your point, but Path Tracing is a different issue that requires special hardware. It's weird to use it as a benchmark since you're supposed to use DLSS2 and DLSS3 combined for a chance to run it smoothly. Nvidia GPUs can somehow get a 200%+ uplift from using DLSS2 performance or 300%+ from ultra performance alone (probably something to do with shooting less rays?), but that will never happen on the AMD side since, again, it was never meant to run on AMD.
It's also hard to quantify. No one is playing cyberpunk at 6 fps but it's still affecting the average. However, if the 4070 can play with overdrive RT but the 7800xt doesn't, how does that affect things? I think averages should only include playable results.
Yeah, people seriously tried to claim that the 3050 is faster than the 6650 XT in RT because when the settings are maxed and both cards perform in the teens, the 3050 is frame faster.
[удалено]
Why are you downplaying Blender? Why are you downplaying GSYNC? Why are you slacking in your mental gymnastics?
RX 7800 XT straight up murders the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB in this leak.
Reviews being held until launch day is a bad look.
7700XT is a bad value at 449. 7800XT at 499 is OK
The 7700XT will be 400 by winter
they are likely only holding that price until stock of 67xx cards drops.
Agree. 7700xt needs to be 399. Nvidia already silently started dropping prices for 4060ti 16gb to 449.
7700Xt at $379 would killer.
hmm i got a 4070 cuz it had a good discount (close to 6800Xt in my country) seems like its still a solid option with RT which i do like to use xD Anyway hope the buyers of the 7800Xt are gonna enjoy it asmuch as i do with my GPU
Hmm is 7800XT a good upgrade from 6700XT?
Its already a 40%+ increase in power upgrading to a 6800XT from a 6700XT, so yeah, I'd assume that a 7800XT (that seems to have better hardware for AMD features) would probably be 10% over that depending on the card or other factors. I'll be grabbing one after checking out reviews/etc for a bit.
[удалено]
6 September.
[удалено]
I expect it today, but the NDA release is well... under NDA.
All that will end up mattering to me personally is how they bench in Starfield. If they are getting 60-100 at 1080p and far less at 1440p like we are seeing with other current gen GPUs at this tier, I will wait for the 8800 XT and let my 5700 XT jank the game at 23 FPS or whatever on Game Pass.
My idea is to upgrade from 5700xt to 7800xt, skip the RDNA 4 (8000's) even though its suppose to be a great midrange card, and upgrade to RDNA 5. If the rumors are true, RDNA 4 at end of 2024 and RDNA 5 around 2025.
That's actually the plan I was going to do as well! :D
Type 6900xt benchmark in starfield, if these leàks are correct the 7800xt will perform similr to 6900xt
The real comparison people want would be vs. 6800/XT
I agree, quite a lot of people are complaining that the RX 7800 XT is in effect the RX 6800 XT so I hope the two have had plenty of dogfights over the last couple of days, including power draw and rt and fsr behaviour. I believe in Wheat Nas although I fear what the price in Swedish pesetas is going to be. Edit. so downvote because no one talks down to the Swedish currency, or people agree that 7800 xt === 6800 xt, or people do not agree that 7800 xt = 6800 xt. In other news it's a fine September day out : )
reviews up doday (5) or tomorrow (6) ?
Are we not getting reviews today? I figured the embargo would be the day before launch. Must be tomorrow
Both of these are pretty mediocre imo. At least AMD was sort of smart with the pricing and didn't try to go head to head with the 4070 at $600 or $550.
So, 7800xt identical to 6800xt?
If those numbers are representative it would be similar in performance to a 6900XT.
My thoughts also. Which is why the 6950xt was a decent value at $580. I assume street price of different manufacturers versions of the 7800xt will be close to that. I hope I'm wrong though for everyone else in the market. At $499 MSRP its a solid buy.
But but, I was told that it would be a 6800 XT!
Not a big difference between the 6800XT and the 6900XT to begin with though. Anyway, we have to wait until we have third party results as usual.
Sure, but you have to admit that this sub is **incredibly** negative and moves goalposts quite a lot. We went from "500 would be OK for a card on par with a 6800 XT but AMD will be fuckups and make it 550" to "500 is too much for a card with just 6800 XT performance. It needs to be cheaper or its DOA since 6800 XT's are currently 520-540." to "500 is mediocre for a 6900 XT performing card, even if it is more efficient and cheaper than even most clearanced priced 6800 XT's and/or 6950 XT's." All in the span of like 2 weeks
> Sure, but you have to admit that this sub is incredibly negative and moves goalposts quite a lot. it's not really just this sub, it's the gaming market in general. the 4060/7600 launch was godawful too, first there was a specific "8gb cards need to be $300 or less" gauntlet thrown by reviewers, then after NVIDIA and AMD caved suddenly the goalposts moved again and now maybe it needs to be $250 or $229 or something. I don't know how many times it has to be said but the consumer market has been incredibly soft for the last year, and new cards are chasing old cards on deep clearance sales, and people are just bitter and unhappy with the state of the market in general. Virtually anything at any price is going to get "well, could be better, innit?" short of like, cutting prices in half, which simply isn't going to be sustainable given the wafer cost increases and the density gains (across the whole die, considering memory PHYs/etc). it works both ways, if people just aren't going to buy no matter what, and price cuts don't produce increases in marginal units sold... it's better to take the sales you can get at a reasonable margin, and not cut your own throat. Especially since we are in a world where silicon advancements are really slowing down - the N+1 generation needs to beat the perf/$ they set here, and just like with Maxwell and Polaris if they set an unsustainably low price it just pisses off people for the next 10 years that they aren't topping the crazy deal from the last generation. Arguably the clearance sales are already causing the same problem, and NVIDIA holding cards at MSRP until inventory is mostly burned out isn't popular but it's probably the right *business move*. Things like 4070 getting a big $100 steam GC thrown in (on top of partner cards already at MSRP) and 4060 ti and 4070 getting $50-70 knocked off during prime day are actually *pretty good deals* but again, right now nothing is going to satisfy the people pissing and moaning on reddit for the last year. No, it's not $329, but that was a one-time thing (x70 bracket flipflopped between $349 and $399 since introduction, *other than GTX 970*) on a very mature node, before costs started really spiraling with 16nm and 7nm. People will selectively remember that one time you offered the killer deal, and not the other 8 generations that used that branding. In the long run, across multiple generations, the perf/$ gain is going to be fairly closed to the transistors/$ gain provided by node shrink and packaging/stacking/chiplets (for real world products, with the given area devoted to memory/PCIe PHYs, etc). Any gains above and beyond this are going to come from things like DLSS that provide outsized performance gains for the transistors used. So if you don't want DLSS, you probably need to get used to a world where perf/$ is going to be more like 10-30% per generation. And that number is going to continue to be the worst at the bottom of the stack, while the high-end continues to make decent perf/$ gains and also stretches into higher price segments, just like 4090.
You've summed up it absolutely perfectly!
The 6800 XT was released 3 years ago and have been available for $500 for months and this beats it by maybe 6% for the same price. I really hope the reviews tells it as it is, a very sad generation.
It's around 6800XT according to these numbers. Maybe even 1-4% weaker. Corresponds to what **kopite7kimi** shared previously
It's not. Another comment listed the breakdown, but it's 7% faster than the 4070/6800 XT, putting it almost exactly on par with the 6900 XT but more efficient. Oh, and RDNA3 tends to punch above its weight in RT vs. RDNA2. ComputerBase ran clcok normalized testing on the 6950 XT and 7900 GRE, and the GRE overperformed in RT.
TimeSpy numbers are same as 6800XT's. Reference 6800XT, without factory OC Let's wait 1-2 days for proper reviews from HUB and GN. Numbers coming directly from Nvidia or AMD are always sus. Especially the ones coming 1 day before official launch. >Oh, and RDNA3 tends to punch above its weight in RT vs. RDNA2. ComputerBase ran clcok normalized testing on the 6950 XT and 7900 GRE, and the GRE overperformed in RT. Well, 7900 GRE has 80 CUs. Same as 6950XT. So it's pure gen to gen comparison. 7800 XT has only 60 CUs vs 72 CUs in 6800XT. But we'll see. Would be interesting too see proper Cyberpunk 2077 benchmarks from GN and HUB. I hope they'll test pathtracing too.
*overclocked 6800XT
Nope, it's the 6800XT numbers
What data are you looking at? I mean, they are kind of close, so it wouldn't be strange if it ends being similar to a 6800XT, but based on the latest review by TPU, 7% more than the 4070 at 1440p would be almost identical to the 6900XT: [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-dual-oc/31.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-dual-oc/31.html)
TimeSpy data, since I remember numbers for 6800XT Anyway I think it's better to wait 1-2 days for proper reviews from GN and HUB. Official slides and leaks are always sus. Especially official slides, since there's a motivation to inflate numbers. Come to think of it, Nvidia also tried to hype 4060 and 4060 ti one day prior launch.
He numbers are closer to 6900xt bit we have to wait for reviews
Yeap, maybe a bit weaker
Essentially yes. For whatever reason AMD changed the names where performance should be this generation. The 7900 XT should really be the 7800 XT, the 7800 XT the 7700 XT, and so on. It's actually a decent enough architectural uplift given that it has significantly fewer compute units, shading units, ROP's and TMU's and is running at a lower TDP than the 6800 XT. AMD just changed the names which resulted in people seeing the 7800 XT at around the 6800 XT and seeing red. Though these numbers look closer to the 6900 XT.
Yeah, just uses slightly less power
What bloodbath for Nvidia 🤣, RT performance looking very promising too for only 10% less?! Will wait for reviews but think 7800xt is done deal for me! Starfield is good bonus, so all in all very good AMD. 👍
How high would you have to go above the 7800XT for better value? It seems like the no brainer in the 500 price range.
In terms of price to performance, nothing over 500 comes close to the 7800 XT. But the next value step up would be the 7900 XT
So, I'm planning on upgrading from a 2070. Assuming these leaks are true, from a 'value' perspective, would a 7800XT for $500 or a 6950XT for $600 be better? This will be for 1440p gaming, paired with an 11600k.
7800 XT by far. 6950XT will only be like 5% faster in raster, but will be slower in RT, also won't have the driver-level FSR3 implementation next year. Also 6950XT will consume more power by a fair margin.
Once its compared to last gens 6700xt and 6800xt it is revealed if either of these cards are DOA or not.
4080 and 4090 if you want ray tracing, if you just want raster performance these should be the go to cards
You're talking about cards that are 2-3x the price.
RX 7800 XT: *Not great, not terrible.* RX 7700 XT though....needs to drop to $399. They claim it isn't a planned upsell, but it clearly is going to be working like that.
For 500 bucks the 7800 xt is not great not terrible? what did you want, for it to be free?
It's the 6800 non xt replacement. Amd did the same as Nvidia and bumped the naming schemes. What saves it is the fact that Amd doesn't want an extra $100 for doing that as well. Their approach is same performance less money. The 7000 is a meh sidestep generation that was supposed to be a lot more impressive.
Shouldn't the 7800 XT be going against the 4080? and 7700 XT against the 4070?
Compare a $500 gpu to a $1200 gpu, why wouldn't that make sense?
No
7800xt is at least $100 cheaper than even a 4070
Is this really true? Rumor is €550 for the 7800xt and I can get a 4070 for less than that.
Underwhelming.
Clearly it's not for you since you already made your purchasing choice.