The Radeon RX 7900 XT(X) Owners Thread.

[ICDP]

Yeah. In pure raster metrics with an undervolt, it gets very close to my RTX 4080.

Where AMD need to make improvements is in RT. At the lower end where heavy RT barely matters as it is too slow (4060 and below), then AMD are much better bang for the buck. At 7900 GRE and above you really need to ignore RT almost entirely to think AMD are a better option overall. When I got my 7900 XT for £650 last July nothing else came close from Nvidia.

 

[t2na]

Yeah. In pure raster metrics with an undervolt, it gets very close to my RTX 4080.

Where AMD need to make improvements is in RT. At the lower end where heavy RT barely matters as it is too slow (4060 and below), then AMD are much better bang for the buck. At 7900 GRE and above you really need to ignore RT almost entirely to think AMD are a better option overall. When I got my 7900 XT for £650 last July nothing else came close from Nvidia.

I'd personally argue for FSR to better match DLSS than for more improvements in RT.

I don't really care too much about RT at all, I can see that it looks nicer in certain situations but it doesn't ever wow me in the same way that having double the framerate and twice the smoothness does. I totally accept that this is an opinion though and everyone has a different view on it, I play games with a guy who loves just playing at 4k60, everything maxed out with raytracing because all he wants is the best looking game.

I think we've all been saying it for years though, if AMD isn't going to (or can't) offer feature parity with Nvidia (RT, DLSS, Reflex etc.) then the aim should be great raster performance at a better price to performance value than the Nvidia counterpart.

 

[ICDP]

For me FSR 3.1 is already close to DLSS, though yes DLSS is still the go to option if you have it.