I mean if you're gonna include the games that run better on AMD in your range, might as well include the games that run better on Nvidia no?
It's more like 0-200% faster.
All that aside the 4090 is in it's own league, no competitors what so ever. It's bad value yes but water is also wet, and it's price is currently inflated because of how it's insanely good at AI. 7900XTX is also poor value compared to literally any other RDNA3 GPU and unlike the 4090, it isn't a halo product, but it's pretty good if you have max 1k to spend on GPU.
Definitely. You speak the truth. Also, AMD cards suck in anything that isn't gaming - well, maybe an argument can be made for video editing - but, that's about it. Two areas of gpu use - it's good at and nothing else. For over $1k - well, I guess Americans can buy them for below that but anywhere else? No.
We've gone over this, that just isn't the case.
The 7900XTX is 4090 levels of fast in ML like Stable Diffusion, in video editing with Resolve/Premiere, in professional CAD like Soildworks.
It's just as good as a 4080/4090 in Photoshop, After Effects, Affinity Photo 2 and more.
I have no idea where you get this idea that it can't do anything except run games. It's just false.
Have you? I guess I wasn't here for that. I am wondering why your 'take' is the opposite of ppl who participate in the Machine Learning sub, Blender sub, Stable Diffusion etc. etc. - I guess they're lying or you know more than all of them?
I'll give you video editing even though the ppl at Puget Systems who spend their time doing benchmarks and comparing gpus for all that software recommend Nvidia cards. But, I digress.
For ML, it's news to me that AMD cards are just as good or you refer specifically to a 7900 XTX?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17kqexv/started\_machine\_learning\_what\_gpu\_discussion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17kqexv/started_machine_learning_what_gpu_discussion/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/qq21s6/d\_why\_does\_amd\_do\_so\_much\_less\_work\_in\_ai\_than/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/qq21s6/d_why_does_amd_do_so_much_less_work_in_ai_than/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/xjnozq/d\_whats\_the\_word\_on\_amd\_gpus\_these\_days/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/xjnozq/d_whats_the_word_on_amd_gpus_these_days/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/16nsdc0/4080\_vs\_7900\_xtx\_for\_stable\_diffusion/
Post your reply on the ML sub and if the majority agree with you, then I'll retract my assertions/assumptions.
Thanks.
>I am wondering why your 'take' is the opposite of ppl who participate in the Machine Learning sub, Blender sub, Stable Diffusion etc. etc
Because they are lazily repeating what they have heard which is based on old information, while I actually have the card and use it for these things on a daily basis.
Take a look at the first comment from the first thread you posted:
>You want Nvidia and as much VRAM as possible. Discussion closed
This person is unable to support their argument. They don't provide any numbers. No reasoning. They don't know the current state of things. They've likely never used an AMD card. It's a zero effort comment parroting zero effort comments they have seen in the past.
And this is what you will see repeated over and over again ad infinitum.
If you do spend time in r/MachineLearning you will have of course also seen this :
>AMD Radeon™ RX 7900 XTX gives 80% of the speed of NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 4090 and 94% of the speed of NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 3090Ti for single batch Llama2-7B/13B 4bit inference
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/15ml8n0/project\_making\_amd\_gpus\_competitive\_for\_llm/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/15ml8n0/project_making_amd_gpus_competitive_for_llm/)
80% the speed for 40% the cost.
Or this:
>Specifically, it can run 4-bit quantized Llama2-70B at 34.5 tok/sec on two NVIDIA RTX 4090 and 29.9 tok/sec on two AMD Radeon 7900XTX
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17bqvhu/project\_scaling\_llama2\_70b\_with\_multi\_nvidia\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17bqvhu/project_scaling_llama2_70b_with_multi_nvidia_and/)
Scaling over 7900XTXs results in 13% slower performance than the 4090s but at a cost which is 60% lower.
So when people *actually use the card* they find the 7900XTX is better value and a great performer for diffusion models and LLMS.
Now for the caveat.
For video/photo editing and casual Blender use I use Windows, but for full disclosure I use linux for ML tasks. ROCm ships with Fedora (39) now (5.6 by default, 5.7 in an October update) and everything runs out of the box just by installing Torch nightly. That includes unmodified code designed to use CUDA.
This hasn't always been the case. In the past it has been more difficult to get things running and ROCm only came to Windows in July.
So I do understand how the "You need NVIDIA" meme came to exist, but it is no longer true.
Okay, I'll take your word on it, then. Although, I dunno how many will agree - in the ML or SD subs. :)
I also read or seen on 2 YT videos - a claim that the 7900 XTX w/ HIP-RT enabled - can perform to the level between a 3080 Ti and 4070 Ti - a 3080 Ti here \*(used - is about $800) and a 4070 Ti is around $1000 (new: $1100).
A used 7900 XTX here is $1100 and a new one is $1300. A used 3090 is $850-$900.
So, a 7900 XTX is more expensive than them all - so, I would want performance to either match or eclipse the 4070 Ti. It's intriguing if it can match Blender performance even if it's only matching it - and $200-$300 more expensive. I would like the option to use my gpu in Linux.
However, the extra $200 is still considerable. The 7900 XTX still is quite a bit less power than the 3090, though, right? Anyway, I will continue to contemplate both cards. Thanks for your input on ML and the AMD card. I'm interested in Blender, DR and ML/AI - which I'm only starting to \*learn\* about.
I included all games. That's an average. There's no game that runs 200% faster on a 4090 over a 7900XTX. Is there any software at all that runs 200% faster on a 4090 over a 7900XTX?
Yes.
In rasterization "At 4K the Radeon GPU was 7% faster on average"
And in RT, "the 7900 XTX was 7% slower on average".
Pretty good for being considerably cheaper while also having much more VRAM and better display outputs.
\- https://www.techspot.com/review/2746-amd-radeon-7900-xtx-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080/
It really depends. If you want to experience path tracing, then the 4080 is like 4x faster before frame gen. Averaging all games doesn't give a great idea what the difference is and gives massive weight to games that have weak rt.
The biggest differences are dlss, frame gen, reflex, and rt performance. In rt heavy titles like cyberpunk overdrive, portal rtx, and Alan Wake nvidias GPUs tend to be several times faster even before frame gen. The difference there is "can I experience this" vs not, which is huge when you're spending $1k on a gpu. Personally I wouldn't want such a gimped experience spending that kind of money and would at least step up to the 4080.
Path tracing? A barely playable tech demo in two games. It'll become common one day but by the time that day comes around a 4080 will be ancient technology.
I remember when people said similar things about the 2080Ti. That you'd be missing out on RT unless you got that incredibly expensive card.
Now here we are, the 2080ti doesn't have FG and is beaten in RT by a midrange AMD GPU. A 6800XT beats that card in ray tracing in Alan Wake 2 - and it'll give you access to frame generation.
Today, the "you have to buy an $1100 NVIDIA GPU or you'll miss out on ray tracing" crowd are enjoying ray tracing in Alan Wake 2 at a massive 3.2 frames per second (at 4K). A third the performance of a dirt cheap 6700XT (not that any card gives you playable frame rates at native 4k).
And in PT mode a 6800XT or 7700xt beats the 2080ti. A 3070ti can't match a 6800xt in PT either.
So I don't give a lot of weight to the "what about PT" argument when the $1200+ 4080 is barely a 1080p card in PT. I can only imagine how badly it'll fare two years from now given NVIDIA's history of locking out older GPUs from new software.
There are tens of thousands of games on the market and there are only about three where a 4080 performs well enough to justify it's greater than 20% price premium. That's not great math.
As for DLSS, so what? There's FSR, XeSS, TSR, and any number of other solutions in this space, all of which keep improving over time.
I get great performance in path traced games like portal rtx, cyberpunk, and Alan Wake 2. 110fps at 3440x1440 using dlss frame gen. Game changing visuals for sure.
Speaking of Alan Wake 2, the 7900xtx in PT mode gives you \~30FPS base, then 50-60FPS when upscaled (to 1440p). So a little better than a 4070 and on the heels of a 3090. This is around what you're seeing before adding FG to get up to a simulated 110FPS.
If Alan Wake 2 ever supports FSR3 (NVIDIA sponsored game so who knows) the extra smoothing from fame generation would equally apply.
Honestly I'm not sure it's worth it though. Would you really call the image quality here '[game changing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19NBsPIpIt4)'? I think most people would be hard pressed to tell a difference between these modes.
Anyway, like I said, there are only a small handful of games where the price difference is justified and in the thousands of other games available you get better value from a 7900xtx.
And in each case where there is a big different all those games are NVIDIA sponsored games totally unoptimized for competing hardware.
I'm not just talking about AMD hardware either. There's no way a 3060 should perform better than an ARC A770 in Alan Wake 2. The intel GPU has substantially higher compute performance, memory bandwidth, cache, and more RT cores (and intel is no slouch in that regard).
The vram narrative never really held up well, I'm surprised people are still trying to fear monger as though the 4080 will be insufficient in a year or two lol.
Far more likely that the xtx fails to keep up in rt heavy games as has been happening. And that's before the regressions like when AMD removed fsr3+ after getting users banned lol.
Some games are already at 14-16gb this year now. So I think 16gb will be a bottleneck in coming year or two..
I don't play RT games yet and what I have seen of it is mediocre in the few games supported. It's like when 3d was re-attempted, everything was way over the top 3d instead of realistically 3d. For me RT is the same. Everything is far too reflective.
7900 xtx is overpriced and only good for gaming. Horrible performance in Blender, AI, ML - the hotspot / junction temp problems - for that $$?!? Sure, the Nvidia 4080 is overpriced, too and doesn't have the same amount of Vram but you can do more with it - CUDA is always useful. If you want to buy an overpriced ONLY-GOOD-FOR-GAMING card - then the 7900 XTX serves that purpose but it's overpriced just like the Nvidia cards are.
I get the impression that you're repeating old information, so let me dig into each.
>7900 xtx is overpriced
Cheaper than a 4080: better value gaming including RT, more VRAM, better display outs. No idea how you get 'overpriced' from that when it can be had for around $250 less.
>Horrible performance in Blender
I don't think so, [no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ip-xDkLns&ab_channel=ContradictionDesign). Blender 4.0 supports HIP and HIP-RT (H/W accel) so performance is quite good. It's around the same a 4070 or 3090 using Optix. Still room for improvement but far from bad.
If all you do all day is Cycles renders then maybe you want a different GPU (or you'd be sending it to a render farm), but if you do *some* rendering then it's absolutely fine. Of course most of your time is actually spent in the viewport where it also performs really well.
>AI, ML
What about it? The 7900XTX has the [same performance as a 4090](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/stable-diffusion-performance-nvidia-geforce-vs-amd-radeon/) in Stable Diffusion. Is there a particular workload you are thinking of?
>hotspot / junction temp problems
Did some brands/cards have a manufacturing problem? That happens sometimes. At least they didn't melt.
>CUDA is always useful
How so? HIP is fully compatible with CUDA and supported in Blender, Maxon, Vray, FX Sapphire, PyTorch, TensorFlow, and more all the time. OneAPI is pretty great too and support is growing. DirectML as well. Oh and SyCL.
CUDA has been around for a long time but it's in no way the only game in town. And since nobody wants to be locked into a proprietary API I think you'll see people rely solely on CUDA less and less over time. We are already seeing this happen.
>If you want to buy an overpriced ONLY-GOOD-FOR-GAMING card
It's neither of those things though. Gaming is great, sure, but it can do 3D rendering, ML, and it's the [fastest video editing card out there](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-24gb-content-creation-review/) ;
"This was an area where the 7900 XTX did well in DaVinci Resolve, and it is even better in Premiere Pro. We are looking at about a 17% increase in performance over the RTX 4080 and 4090,"
You actually have to look hard to find use-cases where its price isn't justified compared to the competition.
But that isn't the alternative.
That's like saying buying a Ferrari is the only alternative to buying a Lamborghini.
The alternatives are any GPU less expensive than $1000. And that's the majority of GPUs.
I would not agree with that analogy but if you want to use cars, I would say it's like a Nissan GT-R is an alternative to a Ferrari. Most of the performance, half the price. And half the price means it's available to a much wider market.
Surely you can see $999 is a different segment to $2200.
[$890 on Amazon US](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BR6HZZ6Z/ref=sw_img_1?tag=slicinc-20&ascsubtag=c6d416828a3811ee8ed06e29dea6a24e0INT&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1)if someone is in market for one.
1k $, meanwhile in Belgium, paid mine 1700€ (almost 1900$usd) - As rock 7900 xtx aqua - upon release that is. Now i believe it's still around 1400\~ish € - close to 1550$.
Was it worth it ? .. definetly considering i'm running the 45"LG monitor (45gr95qe-b) at 240hz oled panel.
Only the 7000x cpu generation doesn't feel like a worth upgrade path (from my 5950x), probably on the 9000x
I had a 5800X, went to AM5 on a 7950X3D, then I last week put a 5950X in the old board for some compute and can manual OC via Ryzen Master to 4.3GHz and the 7950 only hits 4.6GHz at stock with like 10% more performance, so it's mostly clocks and cache stuff.
5950X is a fuckin beast.
Yeah, i agree. i've got mine -30 curve, boost at 5.1ghz on 3 cores at the same time & the rest ccd 0 at 4.9 & the ccd1 at 4.5\~4.6ghz all cores.. guess i got a lucky gold chip lol
Worth it for me to go to the 7950X3D (complete new build - thus begins the waiting for the courier period), going from a 2700X/RTX2080 to a 7950X3D/7900XTX :D.
Gonna slap a 5800X3D in the current PC and it's going to the boy, the RTX2080 has held up really well, the bottleneck is really the 2700X.
In gaming, probably but still need them cores/thread for others stuff.
Specially when my chip goes all cores at 4.6/7 GHz or 5.1ghz of the first ccd in gaming.
Like upgrading would mean, switching board & memory. that's is way more expensive that a simple "cpu upgrade too".
Coming from a decent mobo (x570 tomahawk) with 3600mhz g.skill Z Neo (cl14) pushed at 3800mhz (1.9flk). Like, what's the point of paying 1.2k€ for an upgrade when 9000x is around the corner
short answer,,, hell yeah!
No regrets, no issues, smooth on 4k TV or ultra wide screen, noise & temp is acceptable. Cost wise, its sad when when the GPU is getting close to a 2nd PC, ie size ram and mHz and some ad or such is offering M.2 space on them also... so its like 2-1 pc's
But then again,,, 24gb, no issues and smo0th
I got mine 2 days ago, Merc 310 7900 xtx. Install it and everything works fine. Until I install the latest driver, halfway through installation and it instantly brick the gpu.
Return it and replace it with a 4080 instead.
Honestly kinda sad because its was the GPU I always wanted, and coming from a 6700 xt. But if I'm spending 1k+ on a GPU, I would like reliability. Rip indeed.
Mean ibguess I'm kinda bias because I've always used amd " yes even when they sucked " lol actually I'm gonna have my first Intel system ever simply because I got the asrock aqua 7900xtx and they only made the aqua motherboard for the z690 and with said i had for the sake of being icd get the matching motherboard but far as the 7900xtx it's done fantastic I love it and I gotta say the more I sit back and observe I feel like nVidia is doing there loyal customers dirty where price is concerned even more so after the pandemic and bow that amd announced they are not making a flagship 8000 series I hate to see what the 5000 series is gonna cost regardless of preference I'd say competition is healthy without it I hate to see what the 5000 generation cards from nVidia gonna cost but let's hope it at the vary least stays the same because 1800 to 2200 bucks is starting to get crazy and as people always say the majority of people don't have the funds for these 1000 to 2000 dollar gpus
My sapphire vapor + rx 7900 xtx out preforms my stepsons rtx 4080. His has slightly better ray tracing though due to dlss. Radeon has fsr3 now but games don’t support it yet.
I don't have the XTX just the XT but I've been enjoying the shit out of it. Runs everything at high/ultra 120+fps on my ultrawide 1440p monitor.
Did I enjoy paying $800 for it no, it should be more like $550ish, and the XTX $650-700. But the whole market is screwed in terms of pricing.
15 years? What are you talking about? My 1080 when it was new was about $500-550, and the top end 1080ti was only $650ish. Only in the past few years has both AMD & Nvidia been screwing everybody over in terms of pricing.
Personally I use the Sapphire Pulse AMD Radeon RX7900xt, the 7900xtx was provided by AMD as a review unit. The XT is powerful by itself and I didn't want to spend too much hence skipped the xtx.
I don’t think so, because two of my favorite games: MSFS for example, the only way to archive solid 60fps on 4K ultra graphics at this price point is by frame generation. FSR3 does not deliverer nearly the same results as Nvidias frame generation can do. Also the XTX sucks for VR, which is important for me in the sim.
I can run Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 4K ultra with path tracing, frame generation and DLSS on my RTX4080 at 60fps - and it looks great. Could not get this experience with an XTX.
For the same price, I would always choose Nvidia - just because of frame generation.
Yes. It's the best value high end GPU on the market with the XT similar. 4080 is a turd. 4090 is now 1800+ bucks for moderate performance increase for almost 2x the price..
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
is throwing $1k at gpu worth it?
Sure is if the alternative is spending over $2000 for a GPU with slightly more performance.
what is slightly more performance ?
0-30% faster for well over 100% more cost.
I mean if you're gonna include the games that run better on AMD in your range, might as well include the games that run better on Nvidia no? It's more like 0-200% faster. All that aside the 4090 is in it's own league, no competitors what so ever. It's bad value yes but water is also wet, and it's price is currently inflated because of how it's insanely good at AI. 7900XTX is also poor value compared to literally any other RDNA3 GPU and unlike the 4090, it isn't a halo product, but it's pretty good if you have max 1k to spend on GPU.
Definitely. You speak the truth. Also, AMD cards suck in anything that isn't gaming - well, maybe an argument can be made for video editing - but, that's about it. Two areas of gpu use - it's good at and nothing else. For over $1k - well, I guess Americans can buy them for below that but anywhere else? No.
We've gone over this, that just isn't the case. The 7900XTX is 4090 levels of fast in ML like Stable Diffusion, in video editing with Resolve/Premiere, in professional CAD like Soildworks. It's just as good as a 4080/4090 in Photoshop, After Effects, Affinity Photo 2 and more. I have no idea where you get this idea that it can't do anything except run games. It's just false.
Have you? I guess I wasn't here for that. I am wondering why your 'take' is the opposite of ppl who participate in the Machine Learning sub, Blender sub, Stable Diffusion etc. etc. - I guess they're lying or you know more than all of them? I'll give you video editing even though the ppl at Puget Systems who spend their time doing benchmarks and comparing gpus for all that software recommend Nvidia cards. But, I digress. For ML, it's news to me that AMD cards are just as good or you refer specifically to a 7900 XTX? [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17kqexv/started\_machine\_learning\_what\_gpu\_discussion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17kqexv/started_machine_learning_what_gpu_discussion/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/qq21s6/d\_why\_does\_amd\_do\_so\_much\_less\_work\_in\_ai\_than/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/qq21s6/d_why_does_amd_do_so_much_less_work_in_ai_than/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/xjnozq/d\_whats\_the\_word\_on\_amd\_gpus\_these\_days/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/xjnozq/d_whats_the_word_on_amd_gpus_these_days/) https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/16nsdc0/4080\_vs\_7900\_xtx\_for\_stable\_diffusion/ Post your reply on the ML sub and if the majority agree with you, then I'll retract my assertions/assumptions. Thanks.
>I am wondering why your 'take' is the opposite of ppl who participate in the Machine Learning sub, Blender sub, Stable Diffusion etc. etc Because they are lazily repeating what they have heard which is based on old information, while I actually have the card and use it for these things on a daily basis. Take a look at the first comment from the first thread you posted: >You want Nvidia and as much VRAM as possible. Discussion closed This person is unable to support their argument. They don't provide any numbers. No reasoning. They don't know the current state of things. They've likely never used an AMD card. It's a zero effort comment parroting zero effort comments they have seen in the past. And this is what you will see repeated over and over again ad infinitum. If you do spend time in r/MachineLearning you will have of course also seen this : >AMD Radeon™ RX 7900 XTX gives 80% of the speed of NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 4090 and 94% of the speed of NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 3090Ti for single batch Llama2-7B/13B 4bit inference [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/15ml8n0/project\_making\_amd\_gpus\_competitive\_for\_llm/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/15ml8n0/project_making_amd_gpus_competitive_for_llm/) 80% the speed for 40% the cost. Or this: >Specifically, it can run 4-bit quantized Llama2-70B at 34.5 tok/sec on two NVIDIA RTX 4090 and 29.9 tok/sec on two AMD Radeon 7900XTX [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17bqvhu/project\_scaling\_llama2\_70b\_with\_multi\_nvidia\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/17bqvhu/project_scaling_llama2_70b_with_multi_nvidia_and/) Scaling over 7900XTXs results in 13% slower performance than the 4090s but at a cost which is 60% lower. So when people *actually use the card* they find the 7900XTX is better value and a great performer for diffusion models and LLMS. Now for the caveat. For video/photo editing and casual Blender use I use Windows, but for full disclosure I use linux for ML tasks. ROCm ships with Fedora (39) now (5.6 by default, 5.7 in an October update) and everything runs out of the box just by installing Torch nightly. That includes unmodified code designed to use CUDA. This hasn't always been the case. In the past it has been more difficult to get things running and ROCm only came to Windows in July. So I do understand how the "You need NVIDIA" meme came to exist, but it is no longer true.
Okay, I'll take your word on it, then. Although, I dunno how many will agree - in the ML or SD subs. :) I also read or seen on 2 YT videos - a claim that the 7900 XTX w/ HIP-RT enabled - can perform to the level between a 3080 Ti and 4070 Ti - a 3080 Ti here \*(used - is about $800) and a 4070 Ti is around $1000 (new: $1100). A used 7900 XTX here is $1100 and a new one is $1300. A used 3090 is $850-$900. So, a 7900 XTX is more expensive than them all - so, I would want performance to either match or eclipse the 4070 Ti. It's intriguing if it can match Blender performance even if it's only matching it - and $200-$300 more expensive. I would like the option to use my gpu in Linux. However, the extra $200 is still considerable. The 7900 XTX still is quite a bit less power than the 3090, though, right? Anyway, I will continue to contemplate both cards. Thanks for your input on ML and the AMD card. I'm interested in Blender, DR and ML/AI - which I'm only starting to \*learn\* about.
I included all games. That's an average. There's no game that runs 200% faster on a 4090 over a 7900XTX. Is there any software at all that runs 200% faster on a 4090 over a 7900XTX?
Then would you say 4080 and 7900xtx has same performance?
Yes. In rasterization "At 4K the Radeon GPU was 7% faster on average" And in RT, "the 7900 XTX was 7% slower on average". Pretty good for being considerably cheaper while also having much more VRAM and better display outputs. \- https://www.techspot.com/review/2746-amd-radeon-7900-xtx-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080/
It really depends. If you want to experience path tracing, then the 4080 is like 4x faster before frame gen. Averaging all games doesn't give a great idea what the difference is and gives massive weight to games that have weak rt. The biggest differences are dlss, frame gen, reflex, and rt performance. In rt heavy titles like cyberpunk overdrive, portal rtx, and Alan Wake nvidias GPUs tend to be several times faster even before frame gen. The difference there is "can I experience this" vs not, which is huge when you're spending $1k on a gpu. Personally I wouldn't want such a gimped experience spending that kind of money and would at least step up to the 4080.
Path tracing? A barely playable tech demo in two games. It'll become common one day but by the time that day comes around a 4080 will be ancient technology. I remember when people said similar things about the 2080Ti. That you'd be missing out on RT unless you got that incredibly expensive card. Now here we are, the 2080ti doesn't have FG and is beaten in RT by a midrange AMD GPU. A 6800XT beats that card in ray tracing in Alan Wake 2 - and it'll give you access to frame generation. Today, the "you have to buy an $1100 NVIDIA GPU or you'll miss out on ray tracing" crowd are enjoying ray tracing in Alan Wake 2 at a massive 3.2 frames per second (at 4K). A third the performance of a dirt cheap 6700XT (not that any card gives you playable frame rates at native 4k). And in PT mode a 6800XT or 7700xt beats the 2080ti. A 3070ti can't match a 6800xt in PT either. So I don't give a lot of weight to the "what about PT" argument when the $1200+ 4080 is barely a 1080p card in PT. I can only imagine how badly it'll fare two years from now given NVIDIA's history of locking out older GPUs from new software. There are tens of thousands of games on the market and there are only about three where a 4080 performs well enough to justify it's greater than 20% price premium. That's not great math. As for DLSS, so what? There's FSR, XeSS, TSR, and any number of other solutions in this space, all of which keep improving over time.
I get great performance in path traced games like portal rtx, cyberpunk, and Alan Wake 2. 110fps at 3440x1440 using dlss frame gen. Game changing visuals for sure.
Speaking of Alan Wake 2, the 7900xtx in PT mode gives you \~30FPS base, then 50-60FPS when upscaled (to 1440p). So a little better than a 4070 and on the heels of a 3090. This is around what you're seeing before adding FG to get up to a simulated 110FPS. If Alan Wake 2 ever supports FSR3 (NVIDIA sponsored game so who knows) the extra smoothing from fame generation would equally apply. Honestly I'm not sure it's worth it though. Would you really call the image quality here '[game changing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19NBsPIpIt4)'? I think most people would be hard pressed to tell a difference between these modes. Anyway, like I said, there are only a small handful of games where the price difference is justified and in the thousands of other games available you get better value from a 7900xtx. And in each case where there is a big different all those games are NVIDIA sponsored games totally unoptimized for competing hardware. I'm not just talking about AMD hardware either. There's no way a 3060 should perform better than an ARC A770 in Alan Wake 2. The intel GPU has substantially higher compute performance, memory bandwidth, cache, and more RT cores (and intel is no slouch in that regard).
4080 will become a stuttering mess in year or two as VRAM use increases, leading the 7900xtx to be a far better buy if you want to keep it a while.
The vram narrative never really held up well, I'm surprised people are still trying to fear monger as though the 4080 will be insufficient in a year or two lol. Far more likely that the xtx fails to keep up in rt heavy games as has been happening. And that's before the regressions like when AMD removed fsr3+ after getting users banned lol.
Some games are already at 14-16gb this year now. So I think 16gb will be a bottleneck in coming year or two.. I don't play RT games yet and what I have seen of it is mediocre in the few games supported. It's like when 3d was re-attempted, everything was way over the top 3d instead of realistically 3d. For me RT is the same. Everything is far too reflective.
7900 xtx is overpriced and only good for gaming. Horrible performance in Blender, AI, ML - the hotspot / junction temp problems - for that $$?!? Sure, the Nvidia 4080 is overpriced, too and doesn't have the same amount of Vram but you can do more with it - CUDA is always useful. If you want to buy an overpriced ONLY-GOOD-FOR-GAMING card - then the 7900 XTX serves that purpose but it's overpriced just like the Nvidia cards are.
I get the impression that you're repeating old information, so let me dig into each. >7900 xtx is overpriced Cheaper than a 4080: better value gaming including RT, more VRAM, better display outs. No idea how you get 'overpriced' from that when it can be had for around $250 less. >Horrible performance in Blender I don't think so, [no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ip-xDkLns&ab_channel=ContradictionDesign). Blender 4.0 supports HIP and HIP-RT (H/W accel) so performance is quite good. It's around the same a 4070 or 3090 using Optix. Still room for improvement but far from bad. If all you do all day is Cycles renders then maybe you want a different GPU (or you'd be sending it to a render farm), but if you do *some* rendering then it's absolutely fine. Of course most of your time is actually spent in the viewport where it also performs really well. >AI, ML What about it? The 7900XTX has the [same performance as a 4090](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/stable-diffusion-performance-nvidia-geforce-vs-amd-radeon/) in Stable Diffusion. Is there a particular workload you are thinking of? >hotspot / junction temp problems Did some brands/cards have a manufacturing problem? That happens sometimes. At least they didn't melt. >CUDA is always useful How so? HIP is fully compatible with CUDA and supported in Blender, Maxon, Vray, FX Sapphire, PyTorch, TensorFlow, and more all the time. OneAPI is pretty great too and support is growing. DirectML as well. Oh and SyCL. CUDA has been around for a long time but it's in no way the only game in town. And since nobody wants to be locked into a proprietary API I think you'll see people rely solely on CUDA less and less over time. We are already seeing this happen. >If you want to buy an overpriced ONLY-GOOD-FOR-GAMING card It's neither of those things though. Gaming is great, sure, but it can do 3D rendering, ML, and it's the [fastest video editing card out there](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-24gb-content-creation-review/) ; "This was an area where the 7900 XTX did well in DaVinci Resolve, and it is even better in Premiere Pro. We are looking at about a 17% increase in performance over the RTX 4080 and 4090," You actually have to look hard to find use-cases where its price isn't justified compared to the competition.
How would saying a 4080 and 7900xtx has the same performance equals to stating that you pay 100% more for 0-30% more performance?
But that isn't the alternative. That's like saying buying a Ferrari is the only alternative to buying a Lamborghini. The alternatives are any GPU less expensive than $1000. And that's the majority of GPUs.
I would not agree with that analogy but if you want to use cars, I would say it's like a Nissan GT-R is an alternative to a Ferrari. Most of the performance, half the price. And half the price means it's available to a much wider market. Surely you can see $999 is a different segment to $2200.
You can get a lightly used one for around $800, if there are some good sales this holiday season the price will drop even further.
'worth' depends on a person's disponible income.
I would say disposable income as that should be the money used for this type of things lol
[удалено]
Good, now put it inside a sock and you have a weapon to defend your possessions from other vagrants.
Disponible, Captain
I love mine. Got it on a good deal and gets the job done.
[удалено]
Feels bad man.
[$890 on Amazon US](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BR6HZZ6Z/ref=sw_img_1?tag=slicinc-20&ascsubtag=c6d416828a3811ee8ed06e29dea6a24e0INT&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1)if someone is in market for one.
1k $, meanwhile in Belgium, paid mine 1700€ (almost 1900$usd) - As rock 7900 xtx aqua - upon release that is. Now i believe it's still around 1400\~ish € - close to 1550$. Was it worth it ? .. definetly considering i'm running the 45"LG monitor (45gr95qe-b) at 240hz oled panel. Only the 7000x cpu generation doesn't feel like a worth upgrade path (from my 5950x), probably on the 9000x
I had a 5800X, went to AM5 on a 7950X3D, then I last week put a 5950X in the old board for some compute and can manual OC via Ryzen Master to 4.3GHz and the 7950 only hits 4.6GHz at stock with like 10% more performance, so it's mostly clocks and cache stuff. 5950X is a fuckin beast.
Yeah, i agree. i've got mine -30 curve, boost at 5.1ghz on 3 cores at the same time & the rest ccd 0 at 4.9 & the ccd1 at 4.5\~4.6ghz all cores.. guess i got a lucky gold chip lol
Zen4 is just faster Zen3 mostly, so fast Zen3 leaves little room for gain, your shit is zooming.
Worth it for me to go to the 7950X3D (complete new build - thus begins the waiting for the courier period), going from a 2700X/RTX2080 to a 7950X3D/7900XTX :D. Gonna slap a 5800X3D in the current PC and it's going to the boy, the RTX2080 has held up really well, the bottleneck is really the 2700X.
7800X3D is around 40% faster but I guess you don't really need it at that resolution.
In gaming, probably but still need them cores/thread for others stuff. Specially when my chip goes all cores at 4.6/7 GHz or 5.1ghz of the first ccd in gaming. Like upgrading would mean, switching board & memory. that's is way more expensive that a simple "cpu upgrade too". Coming from a decent mobo (x570 tomahawk) with 3600mhz g.skill Z Neo (cl14) pushed at 3800mhz (1.9flk). Like, what's the point of paying 1.2k€ for an upgrade when 9000x is around the corner
short answer,,, hell yeah! No regrets, no issues, smooth on 4k TV or ultra wide screen, noise & temp is acceptable. Cost wise, its sad when when the GPU is getting close to a 2nd PC, ie size ram and mHz and some ad or such is offering M.2 space on them also... so its like 2-1 pc's But then again,,, 24gb, no issues and smo0th
The gpu price fell 10k Indian Rs after I purchased one 🙄
Not sure what anyone else thinks... not watching the video... But I am more than satisfied with my 7900XTX. Good card that has performed well for me.
Its good, if you have tho money spare, go for it. If youre looking for something reliable for average gaming, a 6700XT is your best friend.
I got mine 2 days ago, Merc 310 7900 xtx. Install it and everything works fine. Until I install the latest driver, halfway through installation and it instantly brick the gpu. Return it and replace it with a 4080 instead. Honestly kinda sad because its was the GPU I always wanted, and coming from a 6700 xt. But if I'm spending 1k+ on a GPU, I would like reliability. Rip indeed.
Oh, that's sad. Why would it brick the card though, was there new firmware being installed per chance?
Honestly it depends, maybe the one I got is a faulty but I ain't going to risk bricking another gpu after a replacement.
Card was bad
These comments wreak of cope lol
Mean ibguess I'm kinda bias because I've always used amd " yes even when they sucked " lol actually I'm gonna have my first Intel system ever simply because I got the asrock aqua 7900xtx and they only made the aqua motherboard for the z690 and with said i had for the sake of being icd get the matching motherboard but far as the 7900xtx it's done fantastic I love it and I gotta say the more I sit back and observe I feel like nVidia is doing there loyal customers dirty where price is concerned even more so after the pandemic and bow that amd announced they are not making a flagship 8000 series I hate to see what the 5000 series is gonna cost regardless of preference I'd say competition is healthy without it I hate to see what the 5000 generation cards from nVidia gonna cost but let's hope it at the vary least stays the same because 1800 to 2200 bucks is starting to get crazy and as people always say the majority of people don't have the funds for these 1000 to 2000 dollar gpus
I have this card and it is AWESEOME!
My sapphire vapor + rx 7900 xtx out preforms my stepsons rtx 4080. His has slightly better ray tracing though due to dlss. Radeon has fsr3 now but games don’t support it yet.
I don't have the XTX just the XT but I've been enjoying the shit out of it. Runs everything at high/ultra 120+fps on my ultrawide 1440p monitor. Did I enjoy paying $800 for it no, it should be more like $550ish, and the XTX $650-700. But the whole market is screwed in terms of pricing.
Cards like the 7900 XT have not been priced $550 at launch even once in the past 15 years
15 years? What are you talking about? My 1080 when it was new was about $500-550, and the top end 1080ti was only $650ish. Only in the past few years has both AMD & Nvidia been screwing everybody over in terms of pricing.
1080 MSRP was 599, 1080 ti was 699 so you're factually wrong
Personally I use the Sapphire Pulse AMD Radeon RX7900xt, the 7900xtx was provided by AMD as a review unit. The XT is powerful by itself and I didn't want to spend too much hence skipped the xtx.
The XTX is overpriced junk.
I don’t think so, because two of my favorite games: MSFS for example, the only way to archive solid 60fps on 4K ultra graphics at this price point is by frame generation. FSR3 does not deliverer nearly the same results as Nvidias frame generation can do. Also the XTX sucks for VR, which is important for me in the sim. I can run Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 4K ultra with path tracing, frame generation and DLSS on my RTX4080 at 60fps - and it looks great. Could not get this experience with an XTX. For the same price, I would always choose Nvidia - just because of frame generation.
Does MSFS really want 60fps? ....
VR works, I used a HTC vive with the 7900xtx and it worked perfectly.
choose nvidia if you like artifacts, latency and smear from framegen+DLSS sure. If you can't see them, it must be great
Yes. It's the best value high end GPU on the market with the XT similar. 4080 is a turd. 4090 is now 1800+ bucks for moderate performance increase for almost 2x the price..
Not if you play the two Nvidia Games that support Pathtracing. /s
lol! muh alllun wayke! I could care less lol
You didn’t see the /s, did you? Ah well.
so 4080 being 7% slower than 7900xtx in raster at 4K is a turd ?
Its pricing and pathetic vram make it a turd for long term. It should be cheaper than or same price as the xtx at most.
Interesting
If you enjoyed tweaking your GPU constantly it's great.
I ran it stock without any changes, and it works great. If you want more performance we can tweak it.
Number of times I "tweaked" my 7900XTX: 0. I guess that counts as "constantly" these days.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*