I wanted to say that Radeon Boost isn't quite what you were describing. What is actually does is when you move your mouse, it reduces rendering resolution of certain parts of the screen in DX12 (based on the percentage on the slider), increasing your frame rate slightly. When you stop moving, image will return to whatever native/upscaler resolution you have set up. Power reporting has changed from RDNA2 to RDNA3. RDNA3 reports the entire power draw of the card, while RDNA2 only reports TBP (total board power). That's where the difference on screen comes from. Total Board Power = power draw of the GPU chip alone. Confusing term, to be sure.
Following are all the titles that support Anti-Lag+: Apex Legends Overwatch 2 Borderlands 3 Dying Light 2 Shadow of the Tomb Raider Rise of the Tomb Raider Resident Evil 4 Ghostwire: Tokyo Fortnite The Last of Us: Part 1 Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Forspoken
We say we need competition, but this shows what the competition brings if one of the competitors is f-ing amd. They had a great window in the market that they could have filled but it just fell on its face and stayed there
@inqizzo1294 just look at the high end gpus, wasn't that good of an upgrade, at least prices should go down because we know the generation in performance is crap lol
It isn’t a compelling upgrade coming from a 6800XT, but if you’ve got an older card it’s a solid upgrade for a decent price. Should have been named 7800 though
I wanted replace 1070 with rx 6800 or 6800 xt. Then I found out that AMD gonna release new 7700 and 7800 XT. I waited for those cards. And now what? I'm confused.
It's $100 cheaper than the 4070 and matches it in rasterization. It's the same price as a 4060 Ti 16gb and kills it in both rasterization and ray tracing. The 7800 XT is surprisingly a good purchase *in today's GPU market*
@@jaronmarles941 the 7800 does more while taking slightly less power. it is the better card to buy. I'm not one to say AMD's drivers are worth a shit but IF they manage to make fluid motion frames work it is locked off to 7000 GPUs so there really is no reason to buy a 6800 over a 7800 at the same (or slightly lower) price.
I would still call 7800XT a win regardless due to pricing. Unlike Nvidia with 10% improvement but $100-200 more, AMD is going 10% improvement but $150 less. Pretty sure this is a clear winner.
The 6800xt was $649 at lunch while the 7800xt is $500 for slightly better performance and higher efficiency. Not as bad as NGREEDia that gives you worse performance than last gen at a higher MSRP.
There has also been much higher than normal inflation over the past three years, and that's at least mostly not AMD's fault, not unless Lisa Su is secretely controlling the global economy as the leader of some secret global government XD The 7800 XT is around 43% faster than the 6700 XT, with 33% more Vram, and 500 USD today is equivalent to around 440 USD in early 2021, when the 6700 XT launched at 480 USD. The 7800 XT is around 80-90% faster than the 5700 XT, with double the Vram of the 5700 XT, and 500 USD today is equivalent to around 418 USD in 2019, when the 5700 XT launched at 400 USD, and was considered an excellent value at the time.
@@syncmonism So, you're telling us that the 7800 XT is roughly 80% faster than the 5700 XT and is launching at roughly the same price...FOUR YEARS LATER. That is not impressive in the least! This is genuinely disappointing. Mediocre at best. Absolutely no one should be celebrating this card launching at this price. This is not a good deal.
@@selohcin Accounting for inflation, the current global economy and the actual graphic card market, at the 500$/550 euro pricepoint, the 7800xt is a pretty good deal for anyone looking to upgrade from a 4-5 year old card. If you want to upgrade from a card of a similar price from 3-5 years ago, maybe it's not worth your money, but on average I don't think most people who will buy a 7800xt had a 6800xt or a 3070Ti already.
@@selohcinFirst, no, 7800 XT is roughly twice as fast as 5700 XT. Not sure where you got the numbers. Second, that's literally the same situation as it was between GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 3080 (78% performance uplift, 3.5 years difference, same MSRP) and I'm pretty sure I didn't hear anyone complaining. Third, if you can tell me a better deal on the market at the moment, I'm listening very intently.
looks like the current generation GPUs (both Nvidia 4000 and AMD 7000) are more about "optimizing" performance, bigger cooler hence running cooler and uses less power. Would be interesting to check out how low can it go with undervolting... potential content for next video?
That seems to be only true for Nvidia and not AMD. Not sure who is worse because Nvidia is clearly lying to people by selling silicon that don't match the product names (selling 4050 as 4060, selling 4070 as 4080 12gb then 4070ti, etc), while AMD is doing kind of the same crap yet the gains in wattage is low meaning they're technologically behind Nvidia.
You need to see what Nvidia is offering for the price, the 7800XT is for sure the best card and the Hellhound looks pretty impressive, great cooling, clean design...
@@makunouchiippo816 there is a difference between having a preferred brand and obviously putting down a specific brand whenever you can, also called "hating"
Sapphire form what I understand has just as much of an overbuilt heating system as well and performs just as well, the non-reference cards have seriously stepped up on the design for this thing and it's paying off
Well the 7800xt does have an RRP $150 less than the 6800xt had on launch. It would've been nice if it had a larger performance improvement, but it's looking pretty decent for the money even when compared with current 6800xt pricing.
The 7800xt is also a true 7700xt in disguise. So a lower msrp is the bare minimum, yet you’re impressed by that. You have been conditioned exactly how they hoped you would be.
@@SweatyFeetGirl True.. but why label it then the 7800xt? Should have been the 7800 then. Doesn't matter, PC gaming is dead to me for the time being. Either crap cards ore crap games.. or both. losing all the way in 2023
Pricing is key here. The MSRP's for the new AMD cards are incredibly competitive. Matching 6xxx series cards on discount offers. But yeah, performance buff would be nice, though we shall see if drivers improve it.
On what planet is $500 for 6800XT performance when you can buy a 6800XT for $480 competitive? And many people are more than willing to spend $100 more for better features and better driver support, especially when RDNA3 has been so plagued by issues vs RDNA2 and Nvidia cards. So who is this for? Tbf, if we were talking purely RDNA3 vs Ada then yeah, sure, its $100 cheaper for the same raster performance as a 4070 and 4 gb more vram. even though you make trade off for that lower price, true. Some people dont care about RT, better upscaling, better streaming encoding. And idk some people think driver and bug wise theyre the same fine whatever sure. For them the 7800XT would be a great deal.. but you can buy a new 6800XT thats time tested and proven to be reliable architecture and has the same raster performance and we just established this is the same buyer that wont care about the slight improvements to RT and probably wouldnt care about AV1 encoding anyway. So again, who is the 7800XT for so long as 6800XT stock is still around, and it will be for a while since even now theyre still sitting on shelves and have lost value because of it. Mind you im saying theyre cheap because people arent buying them, not because theyre bad cards by any means. If anything the 6800XT has been probably the best but you could get since crypto crashed GPU wise and till the 4070 came out it wasnt even close. Even now the 6800XT vs 4070 vs 6950XT is a pretty even fight for different reasons across a $150 price range. The problem with the 7800XT is it adds literally and brings nothing to the table besides an AV1 encoder which is great and all but you already got that from the 4070 and while its at a cheaper price, its not even an encoder you can use on twitch, the biggest streaming platform so.. wtf does it matter? This isnt an Anti-AMD thing even though i wont lie, ive fallen out of favor with them since the Zen 3 price increases. Hell its not even really about Nvidia, they compete vs Nvidia at the price range than they do against themselves. But thats the issue, RDNA2 > RDNA3 and its just a clear win for RDNA at every reasonable GPU price range till you get to a price point where you may as well just buy a 4090 instead
Vex, in only a few months, you've gone from NEVER having used a Radeon to now having used three. You're growing as a channel because of that experience you now have.
GPU reviews generally focus on 3 things: - how this product compares to competition in the same price range - how this product compares to its previous generation - is this product appropriately priced The 7800 XT does really well on the 1st and 3rd topics, especially when comparing current gen offerings. The 2nd one largely depends on how the product was named, making this analysis a lot more subjective, and since AMD decided to add "XT" to the name of what's clearly a RDNA3 version of the 6800 non-XT, people found reason to be disappointed with what is actually a pretty decent product. Instead of having a 19% generational uplift to show (which is not great, but it's something), they're wondering what's the point of this card, since it performs roughly the same as the 6800 XT. Had they named it the 7700 XT, the performance increase would be of 48%. In the end, it's just marketing, but it sets people's expectations, and seeing little to no improvement sets people to disappointment
The comparisons to the 6800 are bogus though because they aren't comparing it to the 6800 with it's original drivers. When drivers get better and the upgrades they have planned for the card get pushed out THEN it would be a viable thing to compare to. But comparing the 7800 to the 6800 when it doesn't have the tons of drivers it's predecessor has is underhanded and an inaccurate test
Hey OP, for RDNA3 you have to lower voltage (undervolt) to get a significant boost while OC'ing. Raising power limit helps, but undervolting is the biggest increase you'll get from these cards.
@@UshaKurosaki He's right although I dont blame Vex testing out of the box settings but these cards can overclock relatively well, you can gain 5 or 10% maybe sometimes. I have a Nitro 7900XTX I do all that you gain a bit extra performance.
It aint just the 7800xt all the 7000 cards went off on the cooling. I was expecting my new Pulse 7900xtx to set my room on fire but instead it runs significantly cooler than the Pulse 6800xt it replaced! Honestly an underrated aspect of these cards that they can run cooler AND (from what ive seen) quieter than the Nvidia counterparts for similar performance.
Hi @Vex, to overclock you need to lower voltage. Try -100mV at least, some reviewers have gotten -200 (950mV) and it does really well, closing in on 4070 Ti.
is the performance gain actually that big?. if yes i might actually consider picking one up and doing an oc myself. also what are the thermals/ power consumption like with the oc?
@@bal7ha2ar it’s not a huge difference but you get about 5-10 fps fps increase depending on settings. amd overclocks weird if you don’t degrease voltage and just up the clocks it’ll actually get worse performance
This is why they compared with previous-previous gen in their press release (2000 and 5000 series) - its not a good option for previous gen owners, but its a good choice for those that skipped the previous - personally I am waiting for the 7900's to both drop 100 more dollars
Yeah I still think it's ridiculous that the 7900 XT is still around $800. You can literally find 6950 XT's for almost $200 less and at roughly the same performance. The pricing this gen makes absolutely no sense to me (unless you get the 7900 XTX or the 7600).
i doubt the 7900xt will get any more significant price cuts, its kinda settled where it is now, and AMD doesn't really have a reason to drop it even more. Although a $600-650 7900xt would be killer
the 7800xt was a better choice for me over the 6800xt, as I have a 700w psu, the added efficiency meant I didn't get close to the limit, being I have a 5800x3d
As an upgrade from the 6800xt the 7800xt won't make much sense,but as an upgrade from say a 5700xt,6600,it's a decent upgrade,also the AV1 encoding,the very improved RT performance just make it more attractive than Nvidia offerings at the current price point
@@AdvaithVenkateswaluDepends on what you want out of your PC. If you want 1440p at a reasonable price then yeah 7800xt is probably the best choice. Unless something is discounted.
@@AdvaithVenkateswalu at the current pricing,most definitely,this paired with a 5000series AMD chip Intel 10th,12th or 13th chip would be an amazing 1440p-4k gaming,work or VR PC depending on what u want to run on it
There are two 30%+ performance gaps in the current RDNA3 lineup: one is between 7600 and 7700XT, and the other is between 7800XT and 7900XT. I think AMD wants to keep those performance/price gaps wide enough so that Navi44/Navi43 can slide right in.
snagged an RX 6800 nonXT for 350€® used last month. couldnt be happier. FYI, i specifically chose the nonXT over the XT, because its FPS/watts ratio at stock is so much better. 180W vs 270W for about 15% performance. I even wetn further and reduced the max core clock another 100Mhz for around 5% perfromance loss, but i am sitting now at 120W in remnant2. in my opintion the 6800 nonXT is a much underrated card. i even think it has probably the best price/fps/watts ratio of the whole RX 6000 series
non XT owner as well here nitro+ That gpu is strong af cyberpunk modded or any game else 1440p no problem. (starfield is trash so :) ) No need to upgrade, that 7800 gpu ? Joke shit.
@@jeen0351 Not even 5 Euro. More Like 3. But used 6800xt were also like 50 more. But thats Not my concern at all. When i know a 10% Performance Boost costs 30% more Power, that Just buggs me. Fyi. I moved fromm a 5800x to a 5700g (Always buy sell used, didnt sell the 5800x for a Loss). And fromm a 1080ti to the RX 6800 nonXT. My total system Power Draw in Cyberpunk incl Monitors went fromm 470 to 290w. The most benefit of that is lower noise and especially a Not so fast overheating room. Should bei around 2°c difference in my room after 2-3h gaming
Lower your core voltage from the stock 1025mV to 1000mV (or less if yours is still stable at that point) instead of lowering your clocks. Makes *way* more sense, and mine let's me _OC better_ with less voltage (weirdly similar to how the 5800X3D performs better and boosts to max clocks (4450) at all times when undervolted by -30mV, but not when stock cause it exceeds 80C) edit: going from a 5800X to a 5700G was a dumb idea, as all the APUs have *half* the L2 cache of the regular CPUs, which massively kneecaps them. A 5700X would've been faster (at the same 65W TDP/45W TDP-down) and also supported PCIe Gen4 which the G doesn't either. The only thing the G has going for it is that it has a useless iGPU and is a monolith. that's about it.
Im going with this bad boy as my first graphics card. I really hope its just the drivers being more optimized on the 6800xt and as we go on the 7800xt will widen that gap with more refined driver updates
You came up with the title after testing the card on one poorly optimized game. Hardware Unboxed review is also out and card seems to performing well. The gap of performance between 6800xt and 7800xt is just not going to be much when there are bottlenecks. Starfield is a hot mess to conclude anything.
now we know, it's not that new game aren't optimized, it's the hardware improvement that has slowed down. Because of that they are forced to use tricks like upscaling and frame generation
For me, it's a success that the RX 7800 XT is any faster than the RX 6800 XT at all. A core reduction of even 20% and no improvement between RDNA2 and RDNA3 did not give me a little confidence. In my opinion, it's a real miracle that the card is 7-10% faster. I don't know what magic they did. Especially when looking at the RX 7900 GRE which has (80 vs 60) 33% more cores and is again only 1-10% faster... !? Nothing is clear to me, but ok.
@@TheButtercool Well, I don't really know... in some tests the RX 6800 XT is still significantly stronger (at least 30-20%). Maybe games just reflect like that. Certainly, with my RX 6700 XT, which I bought second-hand for 220 euros, it is not worth it for 2.5x more money or 150% more to take a card that is "only" 30% stronger. So I'm waiting for the RX 8000 series :)
Bro good video! I have just purchased this same card. Just purchasing parts slowly now. Just wanted to ask do you get to keep all the items you are given and also how do you approach companies for parts?
I have the RedDevil version and its pretty much the same. The thing just chills, its practically silent... while being pushed at 100%. Great cards and a great job from PowerColor.
I very recently upgraded from a 3050 to a 7800xt and from 1080p to 1440p. This card in and of itself is great. The value for the card is good, not amazing, but good. It's basically just the best option at that price point, but nothing more. It's really only enticing if you're like me and going from a much less powerful card, then it's worth it. But yeah, if you've got a 6800 xt, there is basically zero reason to upgrade.
It performs a little better and the release msrp is much less than the 6800xt’s release msrp of $650. Imo better than nvidia charging more for the same.
RDNA3 cores have double ALU. When Nvidia did the same architectural change (Ampere), they started counting cores as double. So if you're counting cores like Nvidia counts cores. 7800xt has 7680 cores. I get that the benefit isn't exactly like doubling the core count, but dual ALU cores are bigger. So it's not like you're getting less compared to the 6800xt. Also TPU got quite insane overclocking results on both the 7700xt and 7800xt.
I don't think releasing the best new price to performance card at certain price point is a disaster, honestly my expectations for large companies is so low this high key feels like a major W. I think the card did what it needed to do, it applied pressure that demanded a response from the market and honestly we need a lot more of that in general, far from a disappointment imo, even if that bar of disappointment has been skewed, it's sad, but we can't take a "decent deal" for granted these days.
Honestly all of you Tech RUclipsrs should stop with this. Lemme explain. You, @Vex, as well as me and the whole world knew that 7800 XT will have the same performance as 6800 XT in time when we all saw the first tests of 7900 XT against 6800 XT. It was obvious that with roughly 20-25% more performance for 7900 XT,... well, 7800 XT will not differ from 6800 XT in the same way 4060 TI is basically rebranded 3060 TI. Let's call that we all agree on that, right. So that being said this is not the way to start a video or title your video... What about that 7800 XT (mid range card) offers the best fps per $, what about that it supports AV1 codec as well as anti lag and of course upcoming FSR 3.0 and frame gen which btw is hardware supported by 7000 series only... altho older AMD cards will also have some driver/software support? When you take together all of this, how exactly RTX 4000 dominates over RTX 3000 series (except for RTX 4090) in the same way Radeon 7000 dominates over Radeon 6000? Isn't basically the same politic but cheaper? Jesus, when people will understand that the future of GPU market and PC games is implementation of new technology, AI, hardware accelerators etc. rather than just raw performance improvement. And 4000 and 7000 series are just the beginning of all of this. I bet that in 3 more generations of video cards, there will be games that won't even support the current top end GPUs just because they will miss some hardware accelerator that is required by the games then. So yea, you should all step on the ground and think about.
If you look at the clock speed of the 7800 XT and the 6800 XT the 7800 is clocking higher for me stock speeds me nothing it's what's the maximum achievable performance for that specific card My 6800 XT can clock just as high as the 7800 XT with a significant undervolt
Moving up from a 1070 this would be my option if I bought a new computer right now - but to be honest I want to see what battlemage will be before I finally pull the trigger. I may end up just getting the 7800xt at that point anyway if battlemage is not as good as I'm hoping it will be.
BRUH LITTERALLY ME. I’m excited for battlemage, even if it’s remotely close to what they say it’ll be around. But I’ll prob get a 7800xt since battlemage prob won’t come out for at least like 7 months and depending on battlemage get that.
I don't know if Intel will be able to keep up with the upscaling technologies and driver issues could be also problematic. Bethesda basically ignored Intel (I assume because they had such small share on the market) and Starfield launched unplayable on Intel cards.
@@markyonline1 from what I see xess is already considered better than fsr in a lot of its implementations, and I generally wait to play games until patches come out anyway, playing day1 is spending the most to get the worst experience. But I do agree intel is a riskier bet right now, thats part of why I might still end up getting a 7800 anyway.
I just want to say, you're killing it with your videos lately, my guy. While I don't come here expecting you to have the most in depth and technical knowledge(we've all got GN or HWU for that), your content is good supplemental material to have on top of all that, like the nuts and sprinkles on top of a sundae. And I think it's good to have more of a layman's take on things, rather than JUST the turbo-nerd perspective, cuz I'll be honest, I still don't know what at least 1/4 of what the guys at GN, HWU, or even Jayz or LTT are saying when they really get into the weeds lol. So having someone that is closer to my level when it comes to tech know-how parsing thru info, running benchmarks, and doling out the info they find feels a bit more relatable in that sense. Keep it up man, you're doing good👍
It's honestly, more honest a card than the the 4070. No pretending it's got super-powers, just is a more powerful rasterization output. What it does also do, however, is demonstrate the over-pricing of the 7900 XT, which is a 650usd value card these days. But tbh, the 7800 XT at 500usd, really shows up the crap pricing of every other mid to high end card. Who would buy a 4060TI 16gb for the same price, over this???
The difference is the 3060ti was $400 at launch and the 4060ti was also $400 at launch. The 6800xt launched at $650 and the 7800xt is $500 so at least price per frame is going down gen to gen. It would have been absolutely killer if they called the 7800xt the 7700xt and launched it at $400 and then had something better for the x800 sku for lack of competition in the lower price brackets obviously factors
the 7800XT is meant to be appealing to those building a entire new system for the first time, it isn't appealing to anyone who bought the 6000 Series GPUs. this generation can be compared to the 20 to 30 series, 20 series was terrible value but hey RTX, 30 series was where the 20 series matured and it offered a big jump in performance in general and especially in RTX. those on 6000 series can just wait for the 8000 series to come around, i will almost bet that those will offer a big performance step up.
The segment of the video brings up the common confusion about how the terms “lag” and “latency” get used, so let me bring up something that comes up a lot in the retro shoot-em-up community. The time it takes to render a new frame in general from the time it takes to render a frame that shows a response to a control input from the player. The time it takes to render a single frame is the display latency, typically measured in milliseconds and that was the measurement being displayed on the screen. In this context, the input lag is how long it takes from the time you input a control until that input is reflected on the screen and this can be expressed either as a number of frames or in milliseconds. In retro shmups, we are usually talking about games that are meant to display at 60 fps (or lower). In many shmups an input latency of four frames or less (so 67ms or less at 60 fps) would be considered fine for many players while an input lag of say 10-11 frames (167-183ms) like a recent port of some Cotton games by City Connection to consoles would feel pretty “laggy.” Input latency in milliseconds can normally be reduced either by decreasing the time it takes to render each frame or by decreasing the number of frames rendered before the game responds. So if you had 10 frames of input latency at 60 fps (167ms) and then increased the frame rate to 120 fps, the input latency would be reduced to 83ms, even though the input latency as a number of frames stayed the same. On the other hand, the same result could be achieved by reducing the number of frames the game renders before it responds to your input: if you keep a 60 fps frame rate but reduce the number of frames of input lag from 10 to 5, then your input lag goes from 167 to 83ms. If we measure display latency, then that technically decreases with frame generation: each frame is rendered twice as quickly. But that’s not the problem - the problem is that the input lag increases despite that because, the GPU is trying to fit in more work between each program call to check your inputs. Instead of (to oversimplify things) checking your input, then rendering a frame and then checking your input, it instead renders a frame AND creates a new frame after that based on the previous frame information and motion vectors, etc. before it checks your input again. The way that input latency reduction works in this case is by trying to reduce what the computer has to do between the time you give it an input and the time it displays a frame that responds to that. This isn’t a fixed number and different games do this at different rates normally, even when you don’t have frame generation or Anti-Lag+ involved. For a great illustration of the differences in terms of the types of latency involved, try the Forza Horizon 5 benchmark. You’ll notice that it breaks down the simulation rate, CPU rate and GPU rate separately and that simulation rate is normally higher than the other two. The simulation rate in that game defines the minimum time it takes for the game to respond in its calculations to what is happening, like your input. But you don’t see the game respond at that rate because it is slowed down by whichever other rate (CPU or GPU) is slowest. So your input lag is partially based on the interaction of those three different latencies as well as your screen’s latency on top of that. So the TLDR is: when something is measuring rendering display latency, don’t confuse that with input latency.
Too my understanding, anti-lag's purpose is to reduce the lag when you use frame generation, there was no lag to reduce here :) It would probably make sense to test it again when they officially launch FSR 3.0: it would be much better if they waited on that release, but AMD often makes some confusing decisions.
It would actually, because RDNA3 cards are limited by their power budget. At stock voltage you hit that max power budget really fast. By undervolting, you free up more power for overclocking. I have a 7900XT Taichi with a 400w power budget and that is definitely the limiting factor. Card runs at 70c hotspot temps with fans at 50% while drawing 400 watts during Furmark (much heavier than games). I managed to find a delicate balance between core clocks and VRAM (they eat into each other's power budget) and it now performs slightly better than a stock XTX, for 200 euro less. My overclock (3Ghz core, 2750Mhz VRAM and 1010Mv voltage) gave me a solid 20% performance boost over stock, which is absolutely massive for a GPU. And if it's not needed, I have an undervolted profile that only draws 250 watts max while losing almost no performance vs stock. You need a 7900XT(X) card with triple power connectors and a good cooler though. Don't fall for the double power connector models, they have low power budgets and suck for overclocking. The best 7900XTX is the ASRock 7900XTX Aqua with a power budget of 550w, 150w more than the cheap, basic XTX models like the Hellhound that cap out at 400w. Very big difference in results depending on the model you pick. I believe the top air cooled XTX cards have a max power budget of 500w. Yeah the power draw is high but it's fun. Nvidia cards don't have this tweaking potential because nvidia is super anal about what AiBs can do with custom PCBs, vBIOS, and power designs.
The 7800 XT has AI Accelators, which the 6800 XT does not have. Especially with FSR3 supposed to launch in Q4 23/Q1 24 it will be worth it to look at this card again when it releases. Edit: Someone replied and deleted their comment, so probably did realize what they said. Anyways, further clarification: There is no official release yet for FSR 3.0. We just know it supposed to come in "Fall", so Q4 23/Q1 24. Yes, basically all somewhat modern cards will have FSR3, but the 7800XT has its own dedicated AI accelator units, which the 6800XT does not have. FSR3 with FMF will be interesting, because those dedicated AI accelators units may become a significant performance boost for the 7800XT that the 6800XT can simply not utilize.
@@Herringboner I mean, you obviously should not simply upgrade for this reason alone, because we don´t know yet if and how big this will increase the performance. But I guess it´s a good way to treat yourself and your son. 😁
I'm running a RX 6700 XT at this moment, but I'm seriously thinking of upgrading to this RX 7800 XT... The power draw is barely more but it is a lot faster. Also undervolting might be the way to a few extra fps over running it stock. Maybe make a short video about that?
@@TheBirdsntheBees I know the naming of this generation of cards is all kinds of confusing. Still the 7800 XT seems like a good upgrade for the money (also it comes with Starfield for a limited time).
yeah i'm thinking of upgrading because my 6700xt is a 2 fan model and is kinda loud/hot so a quiet card plus a decent performance bump 4 this price looks good@@Keyaerts
The segment of the video brings up the common confusion about how the terms “lag” and “latency” get used, so let me bring up something that comes up a lot in the retro shoot-em-up community. (I just wrote it as a response to another comment so I’m posting it here, too). The time it takes to render a new frame in general from the time it takes to render a frame that shows a response to a control input from the player. The time it takes to render a single frame is the display latency, typically measured in milliseconds and that was the measurement being displayed on the screen. In this context, the input lag is how long it takes from the time you input a control until that input is reflected on the screen and this can be expressed either as a number of frames or in milliseconds. In retro shmups, we are usually talking about games that are meant to display at 60 fps (or lower). In many shmups an input latency of four frames or less (so 67ms or less at 60 fps) would be considered fine for many players while an input lag of say 10-11 frames (167-183ms) like a recent port of some Cotton games by City Connection to consoles would feel pretty “laggy.” Input latency in milliseconds can normally be reduced either by decreasing the time it takes to render each frame or by decreasing the number of frames rendered before the game responds. So if you had 10 frames of input latency at 60 fps (167ms) and then increased the frame rate to 120 fps, the input latency would be reduced to 83ms, even though the input latency as a number of frames stayed the same. On the other hand, the same result could be achieved by reducing the number of frames the game renders before it responds to your input: if you keep a 60 fps frame rate but reduce the number of frames of input lag from 10 to 5, then your input lag goes from 167 to 83ms. If we measure display latency, then that technically decreases with frame generation: each frame is rendered twice as quickly. But that’s not the problem - the problem is that the input lag increases despite that because, the GPU is trying to fit in more work between each program call to check your inputs. Instead of (to oversimplify things) checking your input, then rendering a frame and then checking your input, it instead renders a frame AND creates a new frame after that based on the previous frame information and motion vectors, etc. before it checks your input again. The way that input latency reduction works in this case is by trying to reduce what the computer has to do between the time you give it an input and the time it displays a frame that responds to that. This isn’t a fixed number and different games do this at different rates normally, even when you don’t have frame generation or Anti-Lag+ involved. For a great illustration of the differences in terms of the types of latency involved, try the Forza Horizon 5 benchmark. You’ll notice that it breaks down the simulation rate, CPU rate and GPU rate separately and that simulation rate is normally higher than the other two. The simulation rate in that game defines the minimum time it takes for the game to respond in its calculations to what is happening, like your input. But you don’t see the game respond at that rate because it is slowed down by whichever other rate (CPU or GPU) is slowest. So your input lag is partially based on the interaction of those three different latencies as well as your screen’s latency on top of that. So the TLDR is: when something is measuring rendering display latency, don’t confuse that with input latency. Feel free to mention other methods to reduce input latency other than increasing rendering frequency. This isn’t my area of expertise - I just saw some confusion in the video and wanted to try to help.
I feel like you would be well suited to learning shader programming and eventually some low-level graphics programming. It would really expand your understanding and content. Personally, learning compute shaders after already knowing fragment shaders was a huge jump in my understanding of GPU memory.
Is there really any money in that? Design is so intimidating to me. You can't get by purely with technical ability. The skill curve is deep in that area. At least you can learn it outside of the corporate environment. Trying to learn Intune/Autoplay (and implement it into our org) has been a nightmare. It's like SCCM all over again.
If you noticed there was no xtx models in 6000 series. Basically you had: 6950xt vs 3090/ti Now there is something like: 4090 alone at the top 7900xtx vs 4080 (even tho prices are hard to compare) 7900xt vs 4070 ti So you could easly say that amd moved numbers down compared to nvidia
Not sure I agree with some of your comments. Fortnite numbers are most likely due to immaturity of 7800XT drivers and who in their right mind wants to use RT on mid-range cards? Pretty much convinced that RT is worthless as is FSR and DLSS currently (due to all introduced visual glitches).... Would love to see these numbers revisited after a few more driver optimizations. I just purchased a Hellhound to replace my 6950 XT! May sound like a step back, but I was tired of high power and high temps and office that was pretending to be a sauna. Also wanted a copy of Starfield, so my new Hellhound effectively cost me $399....
AMD says this is the replacement for the 6800 non xt not the 6800 xt. Even though the naming scheme says other wise. But it's specs are more in line with the 6800 non xt
They should've named it the 7800 then, non-XT. Would've allowed them to release the step-up XT later on, but NOPE, of course they had to kneecap themselves by screwing up the naming scheme, or price, or both
Awesome that they sent you a card for review. As others have pointed out, we'd love to see a video with undervolting the card. How do you like it compared to your 3080?
I'm waiting on my 7800 xt to arrive. Upgrading from a 5700 xt so great uplift. 6800 xt is same price or more (most often) here in Canada, so the 7800 xt is a no brainer. I don't drink the fake frame koolaid so raster performance at native resolution is my main thing and the 16 GB is a must at this price point imo - I just couldn't bring myself to pay this cost for 12 GB! edit - the 4070 is even higher priced here too.
Okay, hearing the news of it's power draw and quietness I feel a little better about it now. Just a little though. Still disappointed it's not showing the kind of better performance than the 6800xt I would have liked to have seen. If they had cut this card down less it could have been truly beautiful. They cut it down too much. I was waiting for this card, I am disappointed. And I appreciate that you brought up the price. It is a lot to spend for a product that doesn't really excite you. And you know at some point a 6800xtx might limp out and make you wonder "Well why didn't I get to put my 500 dollars towards that thing?" I have been sitting on a r9 380 with a dead display port for years now. I would have bought a 6800xt but 2 years of crypto tyranny kept me from being able to buy one at a decent price so I said "At this point I'll wait for the 7800xt" and this is a big let down. I said I feel a little better now seeing it's higher efficiency, but honestly that also makes you think of what it could have been.
@@itinkthereforeiiz Aye. I'm thinking I might see if I can get a Christmas sale? But I've already been waiting years to upgrade. Part of me feels like "I've waited this long what's a few months more?" and part of me is like "A few months more of my life." lol. My graphics card occasionally doesn't start when my PC does but runs fine when it does. (It's been starting more consistently lately at least?) That's where I'm at so I might not even be able to wait. I'd have felt a lot better pulling the trigger if AMD hadn't decided to just walk across the finish line like this, lol.
TechPowerup got a nice 13.7% overclock on the reference 7800XT and an *amazing* 17.8% overclock on the 7700XT Pulse so both are within 5% of the 6900XT! 😎🚀🚀🤟
I think the naming for gpus from both companies is what really messes up opinions on price and performance. In this specific case the 7800 XT should have been called the 7800 and amd should have called their 7900 GRE the 7800 XT because of the way these cards are priced versus last gen.
Im satisfied because I was already planning on getting a 6800xt but really want that AV1 encoder, I dont stream or make videos but I do play VR wirelessly using my quest 2 (which requires the video stream to be compressed), the quest 3 later this year will support AV1 decoding so Ive been wanting an AV1 capable GPU
Please use RPM if you want to tell me the fan speed instead of the % of max speed. I don't know what is the max speed of the fans so it doesn't tell me anything.
It seems the big improvement was cost effectiveness. It's launching at 150 USD less- the first time in recent memory that we're getting a performance increase paired with a cost decrease. That's great. People who apparently expect a generational performance increase along with a price drop just suggests consumer entitlement.
The days of getting a real performance increase at the same price point is definitely gone. I think aside from the high end products like the rtx 4090 and rx 7900xtx nothing new is really being brought to the table. From this generation I've notice the new cards are just slightly more power efficient plus a few other hardware changes or gen exclusive features. For me I use a rx 5700 which I got for $120 and I don't care about RT at all and still get to use FSR 1 and 2 plus RSR. If I wanted a card that give twice as much performance, I'd have to get at least a RX 6800 which would be me paying 3-4x as much which isn't worth it to me.
Their product stack is just weird this time. The 7700x is about a 25% increase in performance over the 6700 xt for less money compared to the launch price. The 7800 xt isn’t that at all though
radeon super resolution sounds like a really cool feature. Other than AAA singleplayer games, it's not common at all for games have integrated upscaling. Look at the top steam games for example, most games that people play have no upscaling, it's mainly an AAA singleplayer thing. The main reason why most people still use 1080p is because 1440p is really demanding to run at high framerates and running a game at 1080p on a 1440p screen looks very bad. If radeon super resolution fixes this problem and it works well I could see a lot of people who own an AMD GPU switch to 1440p or even 4k because if you can upscale every game and it looks as good or better than 1080p on a 1080p screen, then the only drawback of higher resolutions is the cost of the monitor itself.
if they dropped the "XT" moniker and just called it a 7800, and shaved another $40 - $50 dollars off the price, the 7800XT would have been a great launch. But then they would have had to take a shave on the 7700XT too
the 7800xt is outselling the 7700xt, so the marketing trick with the prices worked. instead of selling more 7700xt at $400 = better price, they sell more 7800xt at $500, and then sell the 7700xtxt at $450. win-win.
I wonder how it stacks up to the 6800 (non-XT)...I mean, I think most of us have figured out that this wasn't originally supposed to be the 7800XT, but most likely the 7800 (which would also mean the price difference between it and the 7700XT, which actually does seem to be a decent improvement on the 6700XT)....AMD loves to shoot themselves in the foot as often as possible and they did it again. I feel like marketing insisted that "people view the "XT" as premium, so we should call this the 7800XT since it's at least a little better than the 6800XT...most of the time...sort of...oh screw it, the people will buy it because it's not absurdly overpriced and there is almost nothing else as good in that price range...aside from our own last gen cards." Yeah...fun times in the GPU market I guess...The poor 7700XT isn't getting the praise it probably should have for being an actual improvement over its last gen counterpart because AMD had that bullet ready and gun aimed at their foot yet again.
7700xt is a good card but not at 450us, 400 - 415 is probably the sweetspot for it. Right now (03-Nov-23) the cheapest model is going in my country in some stores for 420us + tax (16%), almost on target.
You are wrong about Radeon Boost. It's actually a dinamic resolution based on movement, the faster your camera turns the lower it renders the game (or shaders if the game has VRS). It has nothing to do about frames drop.
6800 card was the #1 card in the 6000-series for FPS/Watt. Looks like 7800 XT might be holding the same title in 7000-series. Super-fast and super-low power-draw at least for AMD ...
When I saw your "Overclocking" I nearly slammed my head off the desk! You don't have even the remotest shadow of a clue on how to do it. So here is a how-to guide for you. 1) Under the heading "GPU Tuning" you have to turn on "Advanced Control" (the greyed out slider) 2) Under the heading "VRAM Tuning" you have to set "Memory Tuning" to "Fast Timing" and then of course you have to turn on "Advanced Control" (the greyed out slider) Here are the individual steps to go about overclocking your GPU after you have done the above. 1) Turn the setting for the "Max Frequency (%)" down and put the "Power limit (%)" to the lowest value (should be -10) and leave the voltage at max. 2) Go to VRAM Tuning and turn the "Memory Timing" to "Fast Timing". Then increase the "Max Frequency (MHz)" until you start to see artefacting during testing, or it crashes. While you are doing this, always run a benchmark like Port Royal or Heaven to make sure that your scores are not regressing even though you are not seeing any anomalies. 3) The next step is to turn up the "Max Frequency (%)" of your GPU until it crashes, then increase the Power Limit slider until it is stable again (say from -10% to -5%) keep on doing this until you reach the point where no matter how much more power you give it, the performance doesn't really improve. 4) NOW you can start decreasing the "Voltage (mV)" - again until it crashes. This should help you and take the guesswork out of getting the best out of your AMD GPU. Another thing you should know is that every 10 degrees Celsius your card runs hotter it needs 4% more power just to keep the same clockspeed. Or, in other words, the cooler the card runs the more power you will have available for overclocking, because you will have a limit on the total board power you can use. So if you turn on the "Fan Tuning" slider, you can increase your fan speed a bit to still have it run quiet (near silent) but the extra cooling will result in higher performance. If you have any questions you can reach me on Discord under the name "michaelnager" or "Micheal Nager", don't know which one Discord searches for since they changed.
I thought it was common knowledge not to upgrade your processor in the next generation but rather wait for at least 2 generations before updating, (obviously, you can, but the performance improvement you'll likely get may not be worth what you're going to spend) and I believe this also applies to graphics cards... On my desktop I think my second-to-last processor was a Core 2 Duo, I can't remember the exact model, and I upgraded it to a Ryzen 7 2700 (I had 2 laptops, one with a Core i5 and one with an i7 during this time). A few months ago, I made an upgrade to a 5th-generation Ryzen 9, and I'm still using a GTX 1080. I'm considering buying a 7800 XT, but I'm not sure yet.
I just went from a 1080 to a 6800 XT. I too was hesitant to upgrade, as I could still achieve decent FPS if I tuned the settings properly (not maxing shadows/texture details). I got the FPS I wanted, but that's not what made me regret not doing this sooner. You are missing SO much texture detail in games with the 1080. It simply cannot fully render game worlds like Forza Horizon 5 properly. The difference was night and day before I even turned on RT or FSR. I'd share the results, but YT doesn't like non YT links in comments.
I can vouch for the temps on the 7800 xt, I have the phantom gaming edition in an NZXT H1 and it doesn't get much higher than 60C 😅 Impressive temps for a sff case with virtually no airflow
I have the Sapphire Pulse and it runs so cool and quiet with only 2 fans. It's especially nice after coming from a reference design Vega which sounds like a jet engine
People comparing it to the 6800 xt TODAY have lost the plot. Compared to the 6800 xt at launch it isnmuch cheaper and much better. RDNA2 aged like fine wine, with driver improvements, RDNA3 will do the same. Also, AV1 encoding, better RT, newer features, there is a lot more going for the 7800 xt. Maybe you don't upgrade from 6800 xt, but you don't buy it over the 7800 xt.
Btw, all cards were tested on their OC/performance bios
I wanted to say that Radeon Boost isn't quite what you were describing.
What is actually does is when you move your mouse, it reduces rendering resolution of certain parts of the screen in DX12 (based on the percentage on the slider), increasing your frame rate slightly. When you stop moving, image will return to whatever native/upscaler resolution you have set up.
Power reporting has changed from RDNA2 to RDNA3. RDNA3 reports the entire power draw of the card, while RDNA2 only reports TBP (total board power). That's where the difference on screen comes from. Total Board Power = power draw of the GPU chip alone. Confusing term, to be sure.
Following are all the titles that support Anti-Lag+:
Apex Legends
Overwatch 2
Borderlands 3
Dying Light 2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Resident Evil 4
Ghostwire: Tokyo
Fortnite
The Last of Us: Part 1
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
Forspoken
you should compare it with RX6800
@@raven80wolfx2 Only 12?
You didn’t undervolt at all which is why the oc headroom wasn’t great
Finally 6850xt 😊
Came here to say this
We say we need competition, but this shows what the competition brings if one of the competitors is f-ing amd.
They had a great window in the market that they could have filled but it just fell on its face and stayed there
@@inqizzoI bought a 6950xt a month ago for 640 euros. I’d like to think it’ll be safe from upgrading for a while yet haha
@@inqizzo AMD are making at most 25% profit with the inflated prices.
@inqizzo1294 just look at the high end gpus, wasn't that good of an upgrade, at least prices should go down because we know the generation in performance is crap lol
It isn’t a compelling upgrade coming from a 6800XT, but if you’ve got an older card it’s a solid upgrade for a decent price. Should have been named 7800 though
I wanted replace 1070 with rx 6800 or 6800 xt. Then I found out that AMD gonna release new 7700 and 7800 XT. I waited for those cards. And now what? I'm confused.
Me too bro I'm sticking with my 1070 and r5 3600 until the 7800xt and ryzen 7 5800x3d or r7 5700x prices drops
It's the card with best raytrac8ng per dollar in the market.
According to hardwareunboxed
no the cards name is 7700 xt . and it should cost 100 bucks less . period.
It's $100 cheaper than the 4070 and matches it in rasterization. It's the same price as a 4060 Ti 16gb and kills it in both rasterization and ray tracing. The 7800 XT is surprisingly a good purchase *in today's GPU market*
yeah. sadly the current gen market as a whole is a complete joke :/
No it isn't, RDNA2 inventory is still plentiful.
It actually performs better than a 4070, it's a great card+ Starfield is a nice bonus
@@jaronmarles941 the 7800 does more while taking slightly less power. it is the better card to buy. I'm not one to say AMD's drivers are worth a shit but IF they manage to make fluid motion frames work it is locked off to 7000 GPUs so there really is no reason to buy a 6800 over a 7800 at the same (or slightly lower) price.
@@Azureskies01 There are several games where it pulls a 4060ti like RE4R at 4k. That's unacceptable
I would still call 7800XT a win regardless due to pricing. Unlike Nvidia with 10% improvement but $100-200 more, AMD is going 10% improvement but $150 less. Pretty sure this is a clear winner.
agreed
No its not, 3 years for this,😅
well at least with this now we know not to keep hi acceptations. @@nikosensei1258
Im talking about a really low bar hear LOL!
pretty sure u are an pathetic amd fanboy
The 6800xt was $649 at lunch while the 7800xt is $500 for slightly better performance and higher efficiency. Not as bad as NGREEDia that gives you worse performance than last gen at a higher MSRP.
There has also been much higher than normal inflation over the past three years, and that's at least mostly not AMD's fault, not unless Lisa Su is secretely controlling the global economy as the leader of some secret global government XD
The 7800 XT is around 43% faster than the 6700 XT, with 33% more Vram, and 500 USD today is equivalent to around 440 USD in early 2021, when the 6700 XT launched at 480 USD.
The 7800 XT is around 80-90% faster than the 5700 XT, with double the Vram of the 5700 XT, and 500 USD today is equivalent to around 418 USD in 2019, when the 5700 XT launched at 400 USD, and was considered an excellent value at the time.
@@syncmonism So, you're telling us that the 7800 XT is roughly 80% faster than the 5700 XT and is launching at roughly the same price...FOUR YEARS LATER. That is not impressive in the least! This is genuinely disappointing. Mediocre at best. Absolutely no one should be celebrating this card launching at this price. This is not a good deal.
@@selohcin Accounting for inflation, the current global economy and the actual graphic card market, at the 500$/550 euro pricepoint, the 7800xt is a pretty good deal for anyone looking to upgrade from a 4-5 year old card.
If you want to upgrade from a card of a similar price from 3-5 years ago, maybe it's not worth your money, but on average I don't think most people who will buy a 7800xt had a 6800xt or a 3070Ti already.
how is that mediocre i'm generally intrested in your reasons@@selohcin
@@selohcinFirst, no, 7800 XT is roughly twice as fast as 5700 XT. Not sure where you got the numbers.
Second, that's literally the same situation as it was between GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 3080 (78% performance uplift, 3.5 years difference, same MSRP) and I'm pretty sure I didn't hear anyone complaining.
Third, if you can tell me a better deal on the market at the moment, I'm listening very intently.
looks like the current generation GPUs (both Nvidia 4000 and AMD 7000) are more about "optimizing" performance, bigger cooler hence running cooler and uses less power. Would be interesting to check out how low can it go with undervolting... potential content for next video?
TBH I cam happy with my 4070 purchase. :D
That seems to be only true for Nvidia and not AMD. Not sure who is worse because Nvidia is clearly lying to people by selling silicon that don't match the product names (selling 4050 as 4060, selling 4070 as 4080 12gb then 4070ti, etc), while AMD is doing kind of the same crap yet the gains in wattage is low meaning they're technologically behind Nvidia.
Woow that could mean you save a whopping total of $10 a year in electricity, how exciting....
it's about silent card with long life. Who care about electricity.some undevolted cards can make you use older lower watt PSU.
@@astreakaito5625There's a +40W difference between the 7800XT and 6800XT in terms of power consumption under load. That matters.
You need to see what Nvidia is offering for the price, the 7800XT is for sure the best card and the Hellhound looks pretty impressive, great cooling, clean design...
This dude is a huge nvidia fanboy, just watch ANY of his amd reviews
@@GrandMasterPsychoand you seem to be an AMD fanboy. So what, everyone has a favorit. Nothing wrong with that
@@makunouchiippo816 there is a difference between having a preferred brand and obviously putting down a specific brand whenever you can, also called "hating"
@@GrandMasterPsycho if you say so 🙆🏻♂️
Sapphire form what I understand has just as much of an overbuilt heating system as well and performs just as well, the non-reference cards have seriously stepped up on the design for this thing and it's paying off
Well the 7800xt does have an RRP $150 less than the 6800xt had on launch. It would've been nice if it had a larger performance improvement, but it's looking pretty decent for the money even when compared with current 6800xt pricing.
except that AMD said that the 7800xt is the replacement for the RX 6800 NON xt
@@SweatyFeetGirl AMD said a lot of things...
The 7800xt is also a true 7700xt in disguise. So a lower msrp is the bare minimum, yet you’re impressed by that. You have been conditioned exactly how they hoped you would be.
6800xt been around 500$ for about year now. Comparing almost 3 year old MSRP is pointless. Its same tier card, wirh 10% performance increase.
@@SweatyFeetGirl True.. but why label it then the 7800xt? Should have been the 7800 then. Doesn't matter, PC gaming is dead to me for the time being. Either crap cards ore crap games.. or both. losing all the way in 2023
Pricing is key here. The MSRP's for the new AMD cards are incredibly competitive. Matching 6xxx series cards on discount offers. But yeah, performance buff would be nice, though we shall see if drivers improve it.
For most of us globally may be availability. In some places like mine there has not been stock of high end RDNA2 for the last year and a half.
if they gave it like 64 instead of 60 cus it would be such a great card. yet they still managed to make this another "meh" launch
@@bal7ha2ar I agree with you that it's meh, but at least there are 2 fans versions and it may be available as new with warranty.
only 7800xt have good price while 7700xt have stupid shitty price of 449$ and its simply not worth over 7800xt or older 6800/xt
On what planet is $500 for 6800XT performance when you can buy a 6800XT for $480 competitive? And many people are more than willing to spend $100 more for better features and better driver support, especially when RDNA3 has been so plagued by issues vs RDNA2 and Nvidia cards. So who is this for?
Tbf, if we were talking purely RDNA3 vs Ada then yeah, sure, its $100 cheaper for the same raster performance as a 4070 and 4 gb more vram. even though you make trade off for that lower price, true. Some people dont care about RT, better upscaling, better streaming encoding. And idk some people think driver and bug wise theyre the same fine whatever sure. For them the 7800XT would be a great deal.. but you can buy a new 6800XT thats time tested and proven to be reliable architecture and has the same raster performance and we just established this is the same buyer that wont care about the slight improvements to RT and probably wouldnt care about AV1 encoding anyway. So again, who is the 7800XT for so long as 6800XT stock is still around, and it will be for a while since even now theyre still sitting on shelves and have lost value because of it. Mind you im saying theyre cheap because people arent buying them, not because theyre bad cards by any means. If anything the 6800XT has been probably the best but you could get since crypto crashed GPU wise and till the 4070 came out it wasnt even close. Even now the 6800XT vs 4070 vs 6950XT is a pretty even fight for different reasons across a $150 price range. The problem with the 7800XT is it adds literally and brings nothing to the table besides an AV1 encoder which is great and all but you already got that from the 4070 and while its at a cheaper price, its not even an encoder you can use on twitch, the biggest streaming platform so.. wtf does it matter? This isnt an Anti-AMD thing even though i wont lie, ive fallen out of favor with them since the Zen 3 price increases. Hell its not even really about Nvidia, they compete vs Nvidia at the price range than they do against themselves. But thats the issue, RDNA2 > RDNA3 and its just a clear win for RDNA at every reasonable GPU price range till you get to a price point where you may as well just buy a 4090 instead
Vex, in only a few months, you've gone from NEVER having used a Radeon to now having used three. You're growing as a channel because of that experience you now have.
This card should’ve been named the 7700XT. The feeling towards it would be way better but AMD doesn’t know how to name their cards.
Dirty marketing tricks*
or just the 7800. non-XT, giving them an option for a step-up followup XT model. but NOPE, of course not, cause AMD always kneecaps themselves
GPU reviews generally focus on 3 things:
- how this product compares to competition in the same price range
- how this product compares to its previous generation
- is this product appropriately priced
The 7800 XT does really well on the 1st and 3rd topics, especially when comparing current gen offerings. The 2nd one largely depends on how the product was named, making this analysis a lot more subjective, and since AMD decided to add "XT" to the name of what's clearly a RDNA3 version of the 6800 non-XT, people found reason to be disappointed with what is actually a pretty decent product. Instead of having a 19% generational uplift to show (which is not great, but it's something), they're wondering what's the point of this card, since it performs roughly the same as the 6800 XT. Had they named it the 7700 XT, the performance increase would be of 48%. In the end, it's just marketing, but it sets people's expectations, and seeing little to no improvement sets people to disappointment
The comparisons to the 6800 are bogus though because they aren't comparing it to the 6800 with it's original drivers. When drivers get better and the upgrades they have planned for the card get pushed out THEN it would be a viable thing to compare to.
But comparing the 7800 to the 6800 when it doesn't have the tons of drivers it's predecessor has is underhanded and an inaccurate test
Hey OP, for RDNA3 you have to lower voltage (undervolt) to get a significant boost while OC'ing. Raising power limit helps, but undervolting is the biggest increase you'll get from these cards.
***Fanboy Spotted
@@UshaKurosakihow? or i guess you're a bot
@@UshaKurosaki He's right actually. lol, why call him a fanboy?
@@UshaKurosaki He's right although I dont blame Vex testing out of the box settings but these cards can overclock relatively well, you can gain 5 or 10% maybe sometimes. I have a Nitro 7900XTX I do all that you gain a bit extra performance.
*So what? I'm a fan boy here too. Is giving good advice as a fan boy a bad thing?*@@UshaKurosaki
It aint just the 7800xt all the 7000 cards went off on the cooling. I was expecting my new Pulse 7900xtx to set my room on fire but instead it runs significantly cooler than the Pulse 6800xt it replaced! Honestly an underrated aspect of these cards that they can run cooler AND (from what ive seen) quieter than the Nvidia counterparts for similar performance.
Hi @Vex, to overclock you need to lower voltage. Try -100mV at least, some reviewers have gotten -200 (950mV) and it does really well, closing in on 4070 Ti.
I dont think he actually tests anything himself
is the performance gain actually that big?. if yes i might actually consider picking one up and doing an oc myself. also what are the thermals/ power consumption like with the oc?
@@bal7ha2ar it’s not a huge difference but you get about 5-10 fps fps increase depending on settings. amd overclocks weird if you don’t degrease voltage and just up the clocks it’ll actually get worse performance
This is why they compared with previous-previous gen in their press release (2000 and 5000 series) - its not a good option for previous gen owners, but its a good choice for those that skipped the previous - personally I am waiting for the 7900's to both drop 100 more dollars
yea if the 7900xt was $600-650 it'd be fantastic, maybe it'll happen once the 6950xt stock dries up
No they compare it with gpus 2 generations back because that Is how people upgrade gpus not generation to generation
Yeah I still think it's ridiculous that the 7900 XT is still around $800. You can literally find 6950 XT's for almost $200 less and at roughly the same performance. The pricing this gen makes absolutely no sense to me (unless you get the 7900 XTX or the 7600).
@@Dell-ol6hb probably but I feel like it'll be another year at least before that happens
i doubt the 7900xt will get any more significant price cuts, its kinda settled where it is now, and AMD doesn't really have a reason to drop it even more. Although a $600-650 7900xt would be killer
the 7800xt was a better choice for me over the 6800xt, as I have a 700w psu, the added efficiency meant I didn't get close to the limit, being I have a 5800x3d
As an upgrade from the 6800xt the 7800xt won't make much sense,but as an upgrade from say a 5700xt,6600,it's a decent upgrade,also the AV1 encoding,the very improved RT performance just make it more attractive than Nvidia offerings at the current price point
Is it recommended to buy this gpu for someone who is building a pc first time ?
@@AdvaithVenkateswaluDepends on what you want out of your PC.
If you want 1440p at a reasonable price then yeah 7800xt is probably the best choice. Unless something is discounted.
@@AdvaithVenkateswalu at the current pricing,most definitely,this paired with a 5000series AMD chip Intel 10th,12th or 13th chip would be an amazing 1440p-4k gaming,work or VR PC depending on what u want to run on it
> very improved RT performance
+5% in the video
they made a 7600 xt and called it a 7800 xt, what a joke
There are two 30%+ performance gaps in the current RDNA3 lineup: one is between 7600 and 7700XT, and the other is between 7800XT and 7900XT.
I think AMD wants to keep those performance/price gaps wide enough so that Navi44/Navi43 can slide right in.
snagged an RX 6800 nonXT for 350€® used last month. couldnt be happier. FYI, i specifically chose the nonXT over the XT, because its FPS/watts ratio at stock is so much better. 180W vs 270W for about 15% performance. I even wetn further and reduced the max core clock another 100Mhz for around 5% perfromance loss, but i am sitting now at 120W in remnant2.
in my opintion the 6800 nonXT is a much underrated card. i even think it has probably the best price/fps/watts ratio of the whole RX 6000 series
non XT owner as well here nitro+
That gpu is strong af cyberpunk modded or any game else 1440p no problem. (starfield is trash so :) )
No need to upgrade, that 7800 gpu ? Joke shit.
thats like 5 euros every 100 hours of gaming
Haven't tried Remnant but my red devil 6800xt draws 150W in RDR2 optimized setting at 1440p. locked 100 frames with no dips.
@@jeen0351 Not even 5 Euro. More Like 3. But used 6800xt were also like 50 more. But thats Not my concern at all. When i know a 10% Performance Boost costs 30% more Power, that Just buggs me.
Fyi. I moved fromm a 5800x to a 5700g (Always buy sell used, didnt sell the 5800x for a Loss). And fromm a 1080ti to the RX 6800 nonXT.
My total system Power Draw in Cyberpunk incl Monitors went fromm 470 to 290w.
The most benefit of that is lower noise and especially a Not so fast overheating room. Should bei around 2°c difference in my room after 2-3h gaming
Lower your core voltage from the stock 1025mV to 1000mV (or less if yours is still stable at that point) instead of lowering your clocks. Makes *way* more sense, and mine let's me _OC better_ with less voltage (weirdly similar to how the 5800X3D performs better and boosts to max clocks (4450) at all times when undervolted by -30mV, but not when stock cause it exceeds 80C)
edit: going from a 5800X to a 5700G was a dumb idea, as all the APUs have *half* the L2 cache of the regular CPUs, which massively kneecaps them. A 5700X would've been faster (at the same 65W TDP/45W TDP-down) and also supported PCIe Gen4 which the G doesn't either. The only thing the G has going for it is that it has a useless iGPU and is a monolith. that's about it.
This take aged like milk. He was correct with the performance, but the 7800xt was the first midrange card in this generation to sell out
keep in mind that the 6800 xt has 3 years worth of driver improvements than the 7800xt
Im going with this bad boy as my first graphics card. I really hope its just the drivers being more optimized on the 6800xt and as we go on the 7800xt will widen that gap with more refined driver updates
They already said the fluid motion frames (through drivers) requires antilag+ which requires a 7000 GPU so yes, it will be locked to only 7000 GPUs.
You came up with the title after testing the card on one poorly optimized game. Hardware Unboxed review is also out and card seems to performing well. The gap of performance between 6800xt and 7800xt is just not going to be much when there are bottlenecks. Starfield is a hot mess to conclude anything.
now we know, it's not that new game aren't optimized, it's the hardware improvement that has slowed down. Because of that they are forced to use tricks like upscaling and frame generation
How is that your takeaway lmao
His previous videos disprove you completely
other way around but you were really close ill give you that
Would have been a slam dunk if they hadn't cut so many CU's.
For me, it's a success that the RX 7800 XT is any faster than the RX 6800 XT at all. A core reduction of even 20% and no improvement between RDNA2 and RDNA3 did not give me a little confidence. In my opinion, it's a real miracle that the card is 7-10% faster. I don't know what magic they did. Especially when looking at the RX 7900 GRE which has (80 vs 60) 33% more cores and is again only 1-10% faster... !? Nothing is clear to me, but ok.
Maybe this could be RDNA 3.5 and is a glimpse of what RDNA 4 could be…
@@TheButtercool Well, I don't really know... in some tests the RX 6800 XT is still significantly stronger (at least 30-20%). Maybe games just reflect like that. Certainly, with my RX 6700 XT, which I bought second-hand for 220 euros, it is not worth it for 2.5x more money or 150% more to take a card that is "only" 30% stronger. So I'm waiting for the RX 8000 series :)
The GRE is severely bandwidth starved. Nothing AMD did makes sense with this generation.
Bro good video! I have just purchased this same card. Just purchasing parts slowly now.
Just wanted to ask do you get to keep all the items you are given and also how do you approach companies for parts?
I have the RedDevil version and its pretty much the same. The thing just chills, its practically silent... while being pushed at 100%. Great cards and a great job from PowerColor.
I very recently upgraded from a 3050 to a 7800xt and from 1080p to 1440p. This card in and of itself is great. The value for the card is good, not amazing, but good. It's basically just the best option at that price point, but nothing more. It's really only enticing if you're like me and going from a much less powerful card, then it's worth it. But yeah, if you've got a 6800 xt, there is basically zero reason to upgrade.
What nothing more??
The only thing matters is the best graphics card in low price thats only mattets and rip nvidia sh!tty gpus ever 😂😂😂
It performs a little better and the release msrp is much less than the 6800xt’s release msrp of $650.
Imo better than nvidia charging more for the same.
Boy did this age poorly…IT’s FLYING OFF SHELVES!!!
RDNA3 cores have double ALU. When Nvidia did the same architectural change (Ampere), they started counting cores as double. So if you're counting cores like Nvidia counts cores. 7800xt has 7680 cores. I get that the benefit isn't exactly like doubling the core count, but dual ALU cores are bigger. So it's not like you're getting less compared to the 6800xt. Also TPU got quite insane overclocking results on both the 7700xt and 7800xt.
I think it's a decently priced card with a terrible name in reality it should have been a 7800 non XT.
I don't think releasing the best new price to performance card at certain price point is a disaster, honestly my expectations for large companies is so low this high key feels like a major W. I think the card did what it needed to do, it applied pressure that demanded a response from the market and honestly we need a lot more of that in general, far from a disappointment imo, even if that bar of disappointment has been skewed, it's sad, but we can't take a "decent deal" for granted these days.
Honestly all of you Tech RUclipsrs should stop with this. Lemme explain. You, @Vex, as well as me and the whole world knew that 7800 XT will have the same performance as 6800 XT in time when we all saw the first tests of 7900 XT against 6800 XT. It was obvious that with roughly 20-25% more performance for 7900 XT,... well, 7800 XT will not differ from 6800 XT in the same way 4060 TI is basically rebranded 3060 TI. Let's call that we all agree on that, right. So that being said this is not the way to start a video or title your video... What about that 7800 XT (mid range card) offers the best fps per $, what about that it supports AV1 codec as well as anti lag and of course upcoming FSR 3.0 and frame gen which btw is hardware supported by 7000 series only... altho older AMD cards will also have some driver/software support? When you take together all of this, how exactly RTX 4000 dominates over RTX 3000 series (except for RTX 4090) in the same way Radeon 7000 dominates over Radeon 6000? Isn't basically the same politic but cheaper? Jesus, when people will understand that the future of GPU market and PC games is implementation of new technology, AI, hardware accelerators etc. rather than just raw performance improvement. And 4000 and 7000 series are just the beginning of all of this. I bet that in 3 more generations of video cards, there will be games that won't even support the current top end GPUs just because they will miss some hardware accelerator that is required by the games then. So yea, you should all step on the ground and think about.
If you look at the clock speed of the 7800 XT and the 6800 XT the 7800 is clocking higher for me stock speeds me nothing it's what's the maximum achievable performance for that specific card My 6800 XT can clock just as high as the 7800 XT with a significant undervolt
Moving up from a 1070 this would be my option if I bought a new computer right now - but to be honest I want to see what battlemage will be before I finally pull the trigger. I may end up just getting the 7800xt at that point anyway if battlemage is not as good as I'm hoping it will be.
BRUH LITTERALLY ME. I’m excited for battlemage, even if it’s remotely close to what they say it’ll be around. But I’ll prob get a 7800xt since battlemage prob won’t come out for at least like 7 months and depending on battlemage get that.
I don't know if Intel will be able to keep up with the upscaling technologies and driver issues could be also problematic.
Bethesda basically ignored Intel (I assume because they had such small share on the market) and Starfield launched unplayable on Intel cards.
@@markyonline1 from what I see xess is already considered better than fsr in a lot of its implementations, and I generally wait to play games until patches come out anyway, playing day1 is spending the most to get the worst experience. But I do agree intel is a riskier bet right now, thats part of why I might still end up getting a 7800 anyway.
The 7800 XT is really the 7800 non-XT
I have a feeling that AMD and Nvidia are just trolling us.
I just want to say, you're killing it with your videos lately, my guy.
While I don't come here expecting you to have the most in depth and technical knowledge(we've all got GN or HWU for that), your content is good supplemental material to have on top of all that, like the nuts and sprinkles on top of a sundae. And I think it's good to have more of a layman's take on things, rather than JUST the turbo-nerd perspective, cuz I'll be honest, I still don't know what at least 1/4 of what the guys at GN, HWU, or even Jayz or LTT are saying when they really get into the weeds lol. So having someone that is closer to my level when it comes to tech know-how parsing thru info, running benchmarks, and doling out the info they find feels a bit more relatable in that sense.
Keep it up man, you're doing good👍
The hellhound that you tested is not $500
It's honestly, more honest a card than the the 4070. No pretending it's got super-powers, just is a more powerful rasterization output. What it does also do, however, is demonstrate the over-pricing of the 7900 XT, which is a 650usd value card these days. But tbh, the 7800 XT at 500usd, really shows up the crap pricing of every other mid to high end card. Who would buy a 4060TI 16gb for the same price, over this???
The difference is the 3060ti was $400 at launch and the 4060ti was also $400 at launch. The 6800xt launched at $650 and the 7800xt is $500 so at least price per frame is going down gen to gen. It would have been absolutely killer if they called the 7800xt the 7700xt and launched it at $400 and then had something better for the x800 sku for lack of competition in the lower price brackets obviously factors
the 7800XT is meant to be appealing to those building a entire new system for the first time, it isn't appealing to anyone who bought the 6000 Series GPUs.
this generation can be compared to the 20 to 30 series, 20 series was terrible value but hey RTX, 30 series was where the 20 series matured and it offered a big jump in performance in general and especially in RTX. those on 6000 series can just wait for the 8000 series to come around, i will almost bet that those will offer a big performance step up.
Bro your reviews are soo spot on!! Thank you for doing honest real world reviews for regular/casual players!
And in some scenario, 6800 XT is faster than this.
Bruh, RDNA 3 naming scheme is a mess.
Also, bro read this totally wrong. They’re still on backorder and sold out a month later
Thank you for the total system power test as it includes CPU driver overhead and potential under-reporting in older cards!
They Released late the infamous 6850XT
At 4:17, if anti-lag was actually effective in OW2, would we expect a lower render latency? It wasn't clear to me from the video.
The segment of the video brings up the common confusion about how the terms “lag” and “latency” get used, so let me bring up something that comes up a lot in the retro shoot-em-up community.
The time it takes to render a new frame in general from the time it takes to render a frame that shows a response to a control input from the player. The time it takes to render a single frame is the display latency, typically measured in milliseconds and that was the measurement being displayed on the screen. In this context, the input lag is how long it takes from the time you input a control until that input is reflected on the screen and this can be expressed either as a number of frames or in milliseconds.
In retro shmups, we are usually talking about games that are meant to display at 60 fps (or lower). In many shmups an input latency of four frames or less (so 67ms or less at 60 fps) would be considered fine for many players while an input lag of say 10-11 frames (167-183ms) like a recent port of some Cotton games by City Connection to consoles would feel pretty “laggy.”
Input latency in milliseconds can normally be reduced either by decreasing the time it takes to render each frame or by decreasing the number of frames rendered before the game responds. So if you had 10 frames of input latency at 60 fps (167ms) and then increased the frame rate to 120 fps, the input latency would be reduced to 83ms, even though the input latency as a number of frames stayed the same. On the other hand, the same result could be achieved by reducing the number of frames the game renders before it responds to your input: if you keep a 60 fps frame rate but reduce the number of frames of input lag from 10 to 5, then your input lag goes from 167 to 83ms.
If we measure display latency, then that technically decreases with frame generation: each frame is rendered twice as quickly. But that’s not the problem - the problem is that the input lag increases despite that because, the GPU is trying to fit in more work between each program call to check your inputs. Instead of (to oversimplify things) checking your input, then rendering a frame and then checking your input, it instead renders a frame AND creates a new frame after that based on the previous frame information and motion vectors, etc. before it checks your input again.
The way that input latency reduction works in this case is by trying to reduce what the computer has to do between the time you give it an input and the time it displays a frame that responds to that. This isn’t a fixed number and different games do this at different rates normally, even when you don’t have frame generation or Anti-Lag+ involved.
For a great illustration of the differences in terms of the types of latency involved, try the Forza Horizon 5 benchmark. You’ll notice that it breaks down the simulation rate, CPU rate and GPU rate separately and that simulation rate is normally higher than the other two. The simulation rate in that game defines the minimum time it takes for the game to respond in its calculations to what is happening, like your input. But you don’t see the game respond at that rate because it is slowed down by whichever other rate (CPU or GPU) is slowest. So your input lag is partially based on the interaction of those three different latencies as well as your screen’s latency on top of that.
So the TLDR is: when something is measuring rendering display latency, don’t confuse that with input latency.
Too my understanding, anti-lag's purpose is to reduce the lag when you use frame generation, there was no lag to reduce here :)
It would probably make sense to test it again when they officially launch FSR 3.0: it would be much better if they waited on that release, but AMD often makes some confusing decisions.
No. Like reflex, anti lag works in gpu bound scenarios. Him testing in overwatch with 70% utilisation shows that he was no gpu bound
Pushing voltage to max isn't usually the best way to oc to be fair, but it's not like it would change the outcome much
It would actually, because RDNA3 cards are limited by their power budget. At stock voltage you hit that max power budget really fast. By undervolting, you free up more power for overclocking.
I have a 7900XT Taichi with a 400w power budget and that is definitely the limiting factor. Card runs at 70c hotspot temps with fans at 50% while drawing 400 watts during Furmark (much heavier than games). I managed to find a delicate balance between core clocks and VRAM (they eat into each other's power budget) and it now performs slightly better than a stock XTX, for 200 euro less. My overclock (3Ghz core, 2750Mhz VRAM and 1010Mv voltage) gave me a solid 20% performance boost over stock, which is absolutely massive for a GPU. And if it's not needed, I have an undervolted profile that only draws 250 watts max while losing almost no performance vs stock.
You need a 7900XT(X) card with triple power connectors and a good cooler though. Don't fall for the double power connector models, they have low power budgets and suck for overclocking.
The best 7900XTX is the ASRock 7900XTX Aqua with a power budget of 550w, 150w more than the cheap, basic XTX models like the Hellhound that cap out at 400w. Very big difference in results depending on the model you pick. I believe the top air cooled XTX cards have a max power budget of 500w. Yeah the power draw is high but it's fun. Nvidia cards don't have this tweaking potential because nvidia is super anal about what AiBs can do with custom PCBs, vBIOS, and power designs.
The 7800 XT has AI Accelators, which the 6800 XT does not have. Especially with FSR3 supposed to launch in Q4 23/Q1 24 it will be worth it to look at this card again when it releases.
Edit: Someone replied and deleted their comment, so probably did realize what they said. Anyways, further clarification:
There is no official release yet for FSR 3.0. We just know it supposed to come in "Fall", so Q4 23/Q1 24.
Yes, basically all somewhat modern cards will have FSR3, but the 7800XT has its own dedicated AI accelator units, which the 6800XT does not have.
FSR3 with FMF will be interesting, because those dedicated AI accelators units may become a significant performance boost for the 7800XT that the 6800XT can simply not utilize.
Interesting....Didnt realize that. I may still get one and hand down my 6800XT to my son. He jas a 3060 so that is a big boost for him.
@@Herringboner I mean, you obviously should not simply upgrade for this reason alone, because we don´t know yet if and how big this will increase the performance.
But I guess it´s a good way to treat yourself and your son. 😁
I'm running a RX 6700 XT at this moment, but I'm seriously thinking of upgrading to this RX 7800 XT... The power draw is barely more but it is a lot faster. Also undervolting might be the way to a few extra fps over running it stock. Maybe make a short video about that?
@@TheBirdsntheBees I know the naming of this generation of cards is all kinds of confusing. Still the 7800 XT seems like a good upgrade for the money (also it comes with Starfield for a limited time).
yeah i'm thinking of upgrading because my 6700xt is a 2 fan model and is kinda loud/hot so a quiet card plus a decent performance bump 4 this price looks good@@Keyaerts
The segment of the video brings up the common confusion about how the terms “lag” and “latency” get used, so let me bring up something that comes up a lot in the retro shoot-em-up community. (I just wrote it as a response to another comment so I’m posting it here, too).
The time it takes to render a new frame in general from the time it takes to render a frame that shows a response to a control input from the player. The time it takes to render a single frame is the display latency, typically measured in milliseconds and that was the measurement being displayed on the screen. In this context, the input lag is how long it takes from the time you input a control until that input is reflected on the screen and this can be expressed either as a number of frames or in milliseconds.
In retro shmups, we are usually talking about games that are meant to display at 60 fps (or lower). In many shmups an input latency of four frames or less (so 67ms or less at 60 fps) would be considered fine for many players while an input lag of say 10-11 frames (167-183ms) like a recent port of some Cotton games by City Connection to consoles would feel pretty “laggy.”
Input latency in milliseconds can normally be reduced either by decreasing the time it takes to render each frame or by decreasing the number of frames rendered before the game responds. So if you had 10 frames of input latency at 60 fps (167ms) and then increased the frame rate to 120 fps, the input latency would be reduced to 83ms, even though the input latency as a number of frames stayed the same. On the other hand, the same result could be achieved by reducing the number of frames the game renders before it responds to your input: if you keep a 60 fps frame rate but reduce the number of frames of input lag from 10 to 5, then your input lag goes from 167 to 83ms.
If we measure display latency, then that technically decreases with frame generation: each frame is rendered twice as quickly. But that’s not the problem - the problem is that the input lag increases despite that because, the GPU is trying to fit in more work between each program call to check your inputs. Instead of (to oversimplify things) checking your input, then rendering a frame and then checking your input, it instead renders a frame AND creates a new frame after that based on the previous frame information and motion vectors, etc. before it checks your input again.
The way that input latency reduction works in this case is by trying to reduce what the computer has to do between the time you give it an input and the time it displays a frame that responds to that. This isn’t a fixed number and different games do this at different rates normally, even when you don’t have frame generation or Anti-Lag+ involved.
For a great illustration of the differences in terms of the types of latency involved, try the Forza Horizon 5 benchmark. You’ll notice that it breaks down the simulation rate, CPU rate and GPU rate separately and that simulation rate is normally higher than the other two. The simulation rate in that game defines the minimum time it takes for the game to respond in its calculations to what is happening, like your input. But you don’t see the game respond at that rate because it is slowed down by whichever other rate (CPU or GPU) is slowest. So your input lag is partially based on the interaction of those three different latencies as well as your screen’s latency on top of that.
So the TLDR is: when something is measuring rendering display latency, don’t confuse that with input latency. Feel free to mention other methods to reduce input latency other than increasing rendering frequency. This isn’t my area of expertise - I just saw some confusion in the video and wanted to try to help.
Appreciate this video. Very informative as usual. Helped me just stay on my 6800xt.
Me: "Where did i get this feeling of Dejavu?"
RTX 4060 Ti: "Hello there"
4060 Ti 16GB now costs 462 euros in Germany! The cheapest 7700 XT is 490 euros and that has 12GB VRAM, not 16.
I feel like you would be well suited to learning shader programming and eventually some low-level graphics programming. It would really expand your understanding and content.
Personally, learning compute shaders after already knowing fragment shaders was a huge jump in my understanding of GPU memory.
Is there really any money in that? Design is so intimidating to me. You can't get by purely with technical ability. The skill curve is deep in that area. At least you can learn it outside of the corporate environment. Trying to learn Intune/Autoplay (and implement it into our org) has been a nightmare. It's like SCCM all over again.
If you noticed there was no xtx models in 6000 series.
Basically you had:
6950xt vs 3090/ti
Now there is something like:
4090 alone at the top
7900xtx vs 4080 (even tho prices are hard to compare)
7900xt vs 4070 ti
So you could easly say that amd moved numbers down compared to nvidia
Not sure I agree with some of your comments. Fortnite numbers are most likely due to immaturity of 7800XT drivers and who in their right mind wants to use RT on mid-range cards? Pretty much convinced that RT is worthless as is FSR and DLSS currently (due to all introduced visual glitches).... Would love to see these numbers revisited after a few more driver optimizations. I just purchased a Hellhound to replace my 6950 XT! May sound like a step back, but I was tired of high power and high temps and office that was pretending to be a sauna. Also wanted a copy of Starfield, so my new Hellhound effectively cost me $399....
AMD says this is the replacement for the 6800 non xt not the 6800 xt. Even though the naming scheme says other wise. But it's specs are more in line with the 6800 non xt
They should've named it the 7800 then, non-XT. Would've allowed them to release the step-up XT later on, but NOPE, of course they had to kneecap themselves by screwing up the naming scheme, or price, or both
Awesome that they sent you a card for review. As others have pointed out, we'd love to see a video with undervolting the card. How do you like it compared to your 3080?
Congrats on getting a review sample! Your channel is growing 👍
When nvidia pretty much did the same thing with the 4060ti people hated it. But the 7800xt get praised in the same situation.
I'm waiting on my 7800 xt to arrive. Upgrading from a 5700 xt so great uplift. 6800 xt is same price or more (most often) here in Canada, so the 7800 xt is a no brainer. I don't drink the fake frame koolaid so raster performance at native resolution is my main thing and the 16 GB is a must at this price point imo - I just couldn't bring myself to pay this cost for 12 GB! edit - the 4070 is even higher priced here too.
Okay, hearing the news of it's power draw and quietness I feel a little better about it now. Just a little though. Still disappointed it's not showing the kind of better performance than the 6800xt I would have liked to have seen. If they had cut this card down less it could have been truly beautiful. They cut it down too much. I was waiting for this card, I am disappointed. And I appreciate that you brought up the price. It is a lot to spend for a product that doesn't really excite you. And you know at some point a 6800xtx might limp out and make you wonder "Well why didn't I get to put my 500 dollars towards that thing?" I have been sitting on a r9 380 with a dead display port for years now. I would have bought a 6800xt but 2 years of crypto tyranny kept me from being able to buy one at a decent price so I said "At this point I'll wait for the 7800xt" and this is a big let down. I said I feel a little better now seeing it's higher efficiency, but honestly that also makes you think of what it could have been.
Know the feeling. I just don't know what to get, whether to pay more than 500 although I'd rather not
@@itinkthereforeiiz Aye. I'm thinking I might see if I can get a Christmas sale? But I've already been waiting years to upgrade. Part of me feels like "I've waited this long what's a few months more?" and part of me is like "A few months more of my life." lol. My graphics card occasionally doesn't start when my PC does but runs fine when it does. (It's been starting more consistently lately at least?) That's where I'm at so I might not even be able to wait. I'd have felt a lot better pulling the trigger if AMD hadn't decided to just walk across the finish line like this, lol.
TechPowerup got a nice 13.7% overclock on the reference 7800XT and an *amazing* 17.8% overclock on the 7700XT Pulse so both are within 5% of the 6900XT! 😎🚀🚀🤟
Coming from a 5700XT, the 7800XT was a no brainer.
I think the naming for gpus from both companies is what really messes up opinions on price and performance. In this specific case the 7800 XT should have been called the 7800 and amd should have called their 7900 GRE the 7800 XT because of the way these cards are priced versus last gen.
Im satisfied because I was already planning on getting a 6800xt but really want that AV1 encoder, I dont stream or make videos but I do play VR wirelessly using my quest 2 (which requires the video stream to be compressed), the quest 3 later this year will support AV1 decoding so Ive been wanting an AV1 capable GPU
Please use RPM if you want to tell me the fan speed instead of the % of max speed. I don't know what is the max speed of the fans so it doesn't tell me anything.
It seems the big improvement was cost effectiveness. It's launching at 150 USD less- the first time in recent memory that we're getting a performance increase paired with a cost decrease. That's great. People who apparently expect a generational performance increase along with a price drop just suggests consumer entitlement.
gamers have allowed themselves to be snookered with "less for more $"
AMD: C'mon! Everybody still loves Mendocino moment, don't we?
The RX 7800 XT 16gb is so much cheaper than RTX 4070 and 4070 super 12gb. I was so shocked to see happy to get from this radeon gpu market.
The days of getting a real performance increase at the same price point is definitely gone. I think aside from the high end products like the rtx 4090 and rx 7900xtx nothing new is really being brought to the table. From this generation I've notice the new cards are just slightly more power efficient plus a few other hardware changes or gen exclusive features.
For me I use a rx 5700 which I got for $120 and I don't care about RT at all and still get to use FSR 1 and 2 plus RSR. If I wanted a card that give twice as much performance, I'd have to get at least a RX 6800 which would be me paying 3-4x as much which isn't worth it to me.
Their product stack is just weird this time. The 7700x is about a 25% increase in performance over the 6700 xt for less money compared to the launch price. The 7800 xt isn’t that at all though
radeon super resolution sounds like a really cool feature. Other than AAA singleplayer games, it's not common at all for games have integrated upscaling. Look at the top steam games for example, most games that people play have no upscaling, it's mainly an AAA singleplayer thing.
The main reason why most people still use 1080p is because 1440p is really demanding to run at high framerates and running a game at 1080p on a 1440p screen looks very bad. If radeon super resolution fixes this problem and it works well I could see a lot of people who own an AMD GPU switch to 1440p or even 4k because if you can upscale every game and it looks as good or better than 1080p on a 1080p screen, then the only drawback of higher resolutions is the cost of the monitor itself.
if they dropped the "XT" moniker and just called it a 7800, and shaved another $40 - $50 dollars off the price, the 7800XT would have been a great launch.
But then they would have had to take a shave on the 7700XT too
“Nothing can go wrong!”
“Oh no it all went wrong?!”
i was at some point waiting for this, but then i decided i wasn't going to afford myself a decent gaming machine.
the 7800xt is outselling the 7700xt, so the marketing trick with the prices worked. instead of selling more 7700xt at $400 = better price, they sell more 7800xt at $500, and then sell the 7700xtxt at $450. win-win.
I wonder how it stacks up to the 6800 (non-XT)...I mean, I think most of us have figured out that this wasn't originally supposed to be the 7800XT, but most likely the 7800 (which would also mean the price difference between it and the 7700XT, which actually does seem to be a decent improvement on the 6700XT)....AMD loves to shoot themselves in the foot as often as possible and they did it again. I feel like marketing insisted that "people view the "XT" as premium, so we should call this the 7800XT since it's at least a little better than the 6800XT...most of the time...sort of...oh screw it, the people will buy it because it's not absurdly overpriced and there is almost nothing else as good in that price range...aside from our own last gen cards."
Yeah...fun times in the GPU market I guess...The poor 7700XT isn't getting the praise it probably should have for being an actual improvement over its last gen counterpart because AMD had that bullet ready and gun aimed at their foot yet again.
7700xt is a good card but not at 450us, 400 - 415 is probably the sweetspot for it. Right now (03-Nov-23) the cheapest model is going in my country in some stores for 420us + tax (16%), almost on target.
6800 xt has been out of stock in my region in Asia for a long while now. So this 7800xt actually plugs a hole in this market segment of USD$500.
They did'nt screw the 7900xt launch, they intentionally priced it higher to milk the gains from us...
You are wrong about Radeon Boost. It's actually a dinamic resolution based on movement, the faster your camera turns the lower it renders the game (or shaders if the game has VRS). It has nothing to do about frames drop.
Sounds like the 7900's have to go down in price...
6800 card was the #1 card in the 6000-series for FPS/Watt.
Looks like 7800 XT might be holding the same title in 7000-series.
Super-fast and super-low power-draw at least for AMD ...
When I saw your "Overclocking" I nearly slammed my head off the desk!
You don't have even the remotest shadow of a clue on how to do it.
So here is a how-to guide for you.
1) Under the heading "GPU Tuning" you have to turn on "Advanced Control" (the greyed out slider)
2) Under the heading "VRAM Tuning" you have to set "Memory Tuning" to "Fast Timing" and then of course you have to turn on "Advanced Control" (the greyed out slider)
Here are the individual steps to go about overclocking your GPU after you have done the above.
1) Turn the setting for the "Max Frequency (%)" down and put the "Power limit (%)" to the lowest value (should be -10) and leave the voltage at max.
2) Go to VRAM Tuning and turn the "Memory Timing" to "Fast Timing". Then increase the "Max Frequency (MHz)" until you start to see artefacting during testing, or it crashes. While you are doing this, always run a benchmark like Port Royal or Heaven to make sure that your scores are not regressing even though you are not seeing any anomalies.
3) The next step is to turn up the "Max Frequency (%)" of your GPU until it crashes, then increase the Power Limit slider until it is stable again (say from -10% to -5%) keep on doing this until you reach the point where no matter how much more power you give it, the performance doesn't really improve.
4) NOW you can start decreasing the "Voltage (mV)" - again until it crashes.
This should help you and take the guesswork out of getting the best out of your AMD GPU.
Another thing you should know is that every 10 degrees Celsius your card runs hotter it needs 4% more power just to keep the same clockspeed. Or, in other words, the cooler the card runs the more power you will have available for overclocking, because you will have a limit on the total board power you can use. So if you turn on the "Fan Tuning" slider, you can increase your fan speed a bit to still have it run quiet (near silent) but the extra cooling will result in higher performance.
If you have any questions you can reach me on Discord under the name "michaelnager" or "Micheal Nager", don't know which one Discord searches for since they changed.
I thought it was common knowledge not to upgrade your processor in the next generation but rather wait for at least 2 generations before updating, (obviously, you can, but the performance improvement you'll likely get may not be worth what you're going to spend) and I believe this also applies to graphics cards... On my desktop I think my second-to-last processor was a Core 2 Duo, I can't remember the exact model, and I upgraded it to a Ryzen 7 2700 (I had 2 laptops, one with a Core i5 and one with an i7 during this time). A few months ago, I made an upgrade to a 5th-generation Ryzen 9, and I'm still using a GTX 1080. I'm considering buying a 7800 XT, but I'm not sure yet.
I just went from a 1080 to a 6800 XT. I too was hesitant to upgrade, as I could still achieve decent FPS if I tuned the settings properly (not maxing shadows/texture details).
I got the FPS I wanted, but that's not what made me regret not doing this sooner. You are missing SO much texture detail in games with the 1080. It simply cannot fully render game worlds like Forza Horizon 5 properly. The difference was night and day before I even turned on RT or FSR. I'd share the results, but YT doesn't like non YT links in comments.
I went from a 1080 to a 6950xt, since I generally prefer raw power. And where I live the price difference between the 7800xt and the 6950xt was 15€
7800xt price starts 500€ in Sweden it cost same as 6950xt =800€ thats crazy
It seems like the consensus is people who already have a decent card are disappointed, and people building a new system are fine with it.
huge cooler is a baller move that everyone should copy
0:40 which exacly model of the 6800 XT is it?
You are caught up on the name the 7900 xtx is basically the 6800 xt of this gen
I can vouch for the temps on the 7800 xt, I have the phantom gaming edition in an NZXT H1 and it doesn't get much higher than 60C 😅 Impressive temps for a sff case with virtually no airflow
I have the Sapphire Pulse and it runs so cool and quiet with only 2 fans. It's especially nice after coming from a reference design Vega which sounds like a jet engine
@holzvvrm7718 I had a reference Vega 64 too lol it was loud but the Temps were decent iirc
People comparing it to the 6800 xt TODAY have lost the plot. Compared to the 6800 xt at launch it isnmuch cheaper and much better. RDNA2 aged like fine wine, with driver improvements, RDNA3 will do the same. Also, AV1 encoding, better RT, newer features, there is a lot more going for the 7800 xt. Maybe you don't upgrade from 6800 xt, but you don't buy it over the 7800 xt.
Who cares about the MSRP a long time ago during the crypto crisis? I am buying a GPU now, not in the past.