• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

It looks like the 'real' /affordable RDNA3 + next gen NV desktop launch won't launch until September. Thoughts?

The 'RX 7800 XT' looks to in theory, be similar in performance to an RTX 4070 TI:

www.techpowerup.com

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Specs

AMD Navi 32, 2430 MHz, 3840 Cores, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 2438 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com
www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Specs

NVIDIA AD104, 2610 MHz, 7680 Cores, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 12288 MB GDDR6X, 1313 MHz, 192 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Similar Texture and floating point processing ability. Likely similar bandwidth too, especially if Navi32 has a 256bit memory bus. The pixel rate is reportedly higher on the navi chip.

How similar, depends on the clock rate of the navi chip.

If it is similar in performance, I think AMD would price it high (e.g £700).
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
The 'RX 7800 XT' looks to in theory, be similar in performance to an RTX 4070 TI:

www.techpowerup.com

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Specs

AMD Navi 32, 2430 MHz, 3840 Cores, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 2438 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com
www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Specs

NVIDIA AD104, 2610 MHz, 7680 Cores, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 12288 MB GDDR6X, 1313 MHz, 192 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Similar Texture and floating point processing ability. Likely similar bandwidth too, especially if Navi32 has a 256bit memory bus. The pixel rate is reportedly higher on the navi chip.

How similar, depends on the clock rate of the navi chip.

If it is similar in performance, I think AMD would price it high (e.g £700).
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see the relative performance of the RX7800 series against the RX7900 series,and whether the lower than expected performance is a uarch issue or a problem restricted to Navi 31. AFAIK,Navi32 uses a different Compute chiplet but the same Memory Controller chiplets.
 
I wonder if Nvidia's decision to use lots of L2 cache in Ampere 'Next' might end up giving them a small performance advantage over RDNA3 (at the mid/high end), which has lots of L3 /infinity cache instead?

In theory, the L2 cache would have a lower latency than L3 (or is it L4?).

L2 is generally more expensive though...
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
Not really. The RX 7900 series cards use the top teir Navi31 dies, so I'd say the naming scheme makes sense.

There was never a big distinction between x800 and x900 series cards anyway. It's all just marketing.
Click to expand...

7900XT should have been the 7800XT - AMD pulled "a Nvidia" and tweaked the tiers to suit their marketing...which is pushing others into getting the XTX version and spend that bit more money on the XTX instead.
 
There's just no reason for them to do that. They can't produce enough for that anyway, judging by the stock levels on many websites.

Prices should fall a bit when they get more in stock.

Navi32 is the bulk chip, these should be reasonably competitive with Nvidia on pricing.
 
Last edited:
subbytna said:
7900XT should have been the 7800XT - AMD pulled "a Nvidia" and tweaked the tiers to suit their marketing...which is pushing others into getting the XTX version and spend that bit more money on the XTX instead.
Click to expand...
Traditionally the 2nd highest cards from AMD has always been the best bang for bucks (i.e. 7950, 290, 390, Vega 56, etc) which offer amazing balance between performance and cost/price, while people paying for the top AMD cards would generally have less return in performance as people pay more for it (£100-£150 more for 5-10% more performance). However this gen they have made the 7900XT and the 7900XTX with the almost same price to performance ratio, making the 7900XT doesn't exactly stand-out in terms of value.

They really should have either made the 7900XT being within 10% or less of the 7900XTX performance at current pricing, or price it at least £100-£150 lower at current performance level.
 
Prices are mostly controlled by fairly simple algorithms these days anyway, on most (maybe all) major retail websites these days.

If people stop buying the latest cards for a while, the stock levels should improve, and hopefully prices too.
 
Last edited:
subbytna said:
7900XT should have been the 7800XT - AMD pulled "a Nvidia" and tweaked the tiers to suit their marketing...which is pushing others into getting the XTX version and spend that bit more money on the XTX instead.
Click to expand...

No they did not, what's happened is that the 7900 missed its launch performance targets (in some scenarios) and now we have a bit of a fudge going on where there's also probably too many Navi31 class chips making the binning grade. Did AMD also expect this to happen? I doubt it. The 7900XT sounds like a great idea if the yields were expected to be poor but its a bad idea if the majority of the chips don't fail the binning criteria.

The problem now is, AMD don't want to sell you a 7900XTX class chip, forcefully downgraded, at x070 price levels. The card is not designed to be a big-volume seller at low prices.

The answer (again, probably) is to wait for long enough for the 7900XT inventory to build and then cut the price but how long that's going to take, probably AMD don't even know. That makes the 7900XT a bit of a product management mis-fire, if the current situation continues.

As for the 7800XT, I just want them to launch the laptop versions of the chip so we can have some actual competition in that space rather than, Nvidia being the default and sometimes, the only option. On laptop, it does not matter too much if the 7800XT is a 6800/6900/6950XT with better thermals, they just need to get it (7800) out of the door, into laptops and at a good price. The news coming out of CES 2023 about AMD's mobile parts was again, a bit depressing and Nvidia seem to be again, 6 months ahead of AMD in that market.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
Traditionally the 2nd highest cards from AMD has always been the best bang for bucks (i.e. 7950, 290, 390, Vega 56, etc) which offer amazing balance between performance and cost/price, while people paying for the top AMD cards would generally have less return in performance as people pay more for it (£100-£150 more for 5-10% more performance). However this gen they have made the 7900XT and the 7900XTX with the almost same price to performance ratio, making the 7900XT doesn't exactly stand-out in terms of value.

They really should have either made the 7900XT being within 10% or less of the 7900XTX performance at current pricing, or price it at least £100-£150 lower at current performance level.
Click to expand...
fair
 
g67575 said:
The 'RX 7800 XT' looks to in theory, be similar in performance to an RTX 4070 TI:

www.techpowerup.com

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Specs

AMD Navi 32, 2430 MHz, 3840 Cores, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 2438 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com
www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Specs

NVIDIA AD104, 2610 MHz, 7680 Cores, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 12288 MB GDDR6X, 1313 MHz, 192 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Similar Texture and floating point processing ability. Likely similar bandwidth too, especially if Navi32 has a 256bit memory bus. The pixel rate is reportedly higher on the navi chip.

How similar, depends on the clock rate of the navi chip.

If it is similar in performance, I think AMD would price it high (e.g £700).
Click to expand...

No, not a chance.

The 7900XT has 40% more shaders and is according to your link 36% faster, that seems about right to me.

TPU have it:

RX 6800: 92%
RX 7800XT: 100%
RX 6800XT: 106%

RX 7900XT: 136%

Unless AMD can do something with the drivers to push the performance up the 7800XT will be slower than its name sake replacement. Its a $550 GPU given the 6800XT was $650.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
No, not a chance.

The 7900XT has 40% more shaders and is according to your link 36% faster, that seems about right to me.

TPU have it:

RX 6800: 92%
RX 7800XT: 100%
RX 6800XT: 106%

RX 7900XT: 136%

Unless AMD can do something with the drivers to push the performance up the 7800XT will be slower than its name sake replacement. Its a $500 to $550 GPU given the 6800XT was $650.
Click to expand...

There's no way the 7800XT is going to be slower than the 6800XT.

And let's say it was, and they released it at 500-550 dollars, it'd be an absolute stinker
 
Martini1991 said:
There's no way the 7800XT is going to be slower than the 6800XT.

And let's say it was, and they released it at 500-550 dollars, it'd be an absolute stinker
Click to expand...

Oh it will.

RX 6800, 3840 Shaders @ 2105Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 100%
RX 7800XT, 3840 Shaders @ 2500Mhz, 192Bit, 12GB: 106%
RX 6800XT, 4608 Shaders @ 2250Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 115%
RX 6900XT, 5120 Shaders @ 2250Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 125%
RX 7900XT, 5376 Shaders @ 2400Mhz, 320Bit, 20GB: 146%

For 5% more Shaders @ 6% higher clocks (11% Total) and a 25% wider bus the 7900XT gains 9% performance over the 6900XT.
The 6800XT has 20% more Shaders, a 33% wider bus than the 7800XT while it has 11% higher clocks.
To put it another way the 7900XT has 40% more Shaders, a 66% wider bus than the 7800XT and its only 27% faster than the 6800XT.

It will be slower unless AMD can do something about those drivers.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Oh it will.

RX 6800, 3840 Shaders @ 2105Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 100%
RX 7800XT, 3840 Shaders @ 2500Mhz, 192Bit, 12GB: 106%
RX 6800XT, 4608 Shaders @ 2250Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 115%
RX 6900XT, 5120 Shaders @ 2250Mhz, 256Bit, 16GB: 125%
RX 7900XT, 5376 Shaders @ 2400Mhz, 320Bit, 20GB: 146%

For 5% more Shaders @ 6% higher clocks (11% Total) and a 25% wider bus the 7900XT gains 9% performance over the 6900XT.
The 6800XT has 20% more Shaders, a 33% wider bus than the 7800XT while it has 11% higher clocks.
To put it another way the 7900XT has 40% more Shaders, a 66% wider bus than the 7800XT and its only 27% faster than the 6800XT.

It will be slower unless AMD can do something about those drivers.
Click to expand...

If it's honestly that bad then AMD and Nvidia may as well just become one company.

At least Nvidia have the most powerful GPU.

Everytime I contemplate upgrading my 6800 to the 7900XT it just snacks of bad value in comparison to the 7900XTX and I'd rather fist myself than spend £1200 on a GPU
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
If it's honestly that bad then AMD and Nvidia may as well just become one company.

At least Nvidia have the most powerful GPU.

Everytime I contemplate upgrading my 6800 to the 7900XT it just snacks of bad value in comparison to the 7900XTX and I'd rather fist myself than spend £1200 on a GPU
Click to expand...

RDND3 Shaders have more in common with GCN than the do with RDNA2, they are dual execute, like GCN, and its not working all the time, or even most of the time. RDNA3 (7900XTX) does shine very occasionally where it can match or even beat the RTX 4090, my guess is that's when its working well, other occasions its slower than the 6950XT, that's when its really not working at all.

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

Don't get me wrong, i do think its a good GPU, but it is slower than AMD said it would be, by quite a chunk, about 20% overall, i don't think AMD 'deliberately' lied, they have over estimated what they thought the performance would be once they had the drivers finalised.
The price of the 7900XTX is not all that bad, it is faster than the 6950XT and the same price as the 6900XT, the 7900XT should be $750 and AMD have a serious problem when it comes to the 7800XT and everything below it, had the drivers provided about 20% more performance the 7800XT actually would sit ok, but unless they can fix it it wont which means they can't price it as a replacment for the 6800XT.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom