Review: AMD’s Radeon RX 7700 XT and 7800 XT are almost great

249

Nearly a year ago, Nvidia kicked off this GPU generation with its GeForce RTX 4090. The 4090 offers unparalleled performance but at an unparalleled price of $1,600 (prices have not fallen). It's not for everybody, but it's a nice halo card that shows what the Ada Lovelace architecture is capable of. Fine, I guess.

The RTX 4080 soon followed, along with AMD's Radeon RX 7900 XTX and XT. These cards also generally offered better performance than anything you could get from a previous-generation GPU, but at still-too-high-for-most-people prices that ranged from between $900 and $1,200 (though all of those prices have fallen by a bit). Fine, I guess.

By the time we got the 4070 Ti launch in May, we were getting down to the level of performance that had been available from previous-generation cards. These GPUs offered a decent generational jump over their predecessors (the 4070 Ti performs kind of like a 3090, and the 4070 performs kind of like a 3080). But those cards also got big price bumps that took them closer to the pricing levels of the last-gen cards they performed like. Fine, I guess.

And then we get to the true midrange cards that most people can actually afford. In this price range, AMD and Nvidia offer minor updates for around the same money as the last generation's products, in the form of the 8GB 4060 Ti, the regular 4060, and the RX 7600. It was nice to have affordable-ish midrange GPUs again after years of inflated prices and shortages, but the generation-over-generation improvements were a lot less than people had come to expect from previous refreshes. Fine, I guess!

(Let's also lump Intel's Arc GPUs in with this group for the sake of completeness; they're competitive, but they had buggy drivers at launch and enduring performance issues in some older games. Fine, I guess.)

And now we get to the Radeon RX 7700 XT and 7800 XT, likely the last major launches of this GPU generation. Both take an approach we've seen from these other cards; the 7800 XT offers roughly the performance of the last-gen 6800 XT at roughly the same price, and the 7700 XT delivers a nice generational performance bump while bumping the price up to roughly what you would have paid for a last-gen card with the same performance. Fine! I guess!

That's not to say either is a bad GPU. The new Radeons outperform comparable Nvidia cards while either matching or undercutting their prices. And though they're marketed primarily as 1440p GPUs, both can stretch to 4K with the right graphics settings. But the continued presence of older, often-competitive Radeon cards on the market makes it tougher to recommend them in the short term, and features like ray tracing and DLSS remain unique to Nvidia cards. The two AMD GPUs are also priced too close together, with just a $50 gap between the 7700 XT and the substantially more performant 7800 XT.

Meet the RX 7700 XT and 7800 XT

	RX 7900 XT	RX 7800 XT	RX 6800 XT	RX 6800	RX 7700 XT	RX 6700 XT	RX 6750 XT	RX 7600
Compute units (Stream processors)	84 (5,376)	60 (3,840)	72 (4,608)	60 (3,840)	54 (3,456)	40 (2,560)	40 (2,560)	32 (2,048)
Boost Clock	2,400 MHz	2,430 MHz	2,250 MHz	2,105 MHz	2,544 MHz	2,581 MHz	2,600 MHz	2,600 MHz
Memory Bus Width	320-bit	256-bit	256-bit	256-bit	192-bit	192-bit	192-bit	128-bit
Memory Clock	2,500 MHz	2,438 MHz	2,000 MHz	2,000 MHz	2,250 MHz	2,000 MHz	2,250 MHz	2,250 MHz
Memory size	20GB GDDR6	16GB GDDR6	16GB GDDR6	16GB GDDR6	12GB GDDR6	12GB GDDR6	12GB GDDR6	8GB GDDR6
Total board power (TBP)	315 W	263 W	300 W	250 W	245 W	230 W	250 W	165 W

Like other 7000-series cards, the 7700 XT and 7800 XT are based on AMD’s RDNA 3 graphics architecture, and they include the same features as other GPUs in the lineup. This includes hardware acceleration for the AV1 video codec, which promises better video quality for game streaming without increasing file sizes. Both cards also support the higher resolutions and refresh rates that come with DisplayPort 2.1; the 7900-series cards also supported DisplayPort 2.1, but it was an optional feature in the RX 7600.

Both cards are based on the same GPU die, a smaller version of the RX 7900 silicon called Navi 32. Like the larger Navi 31, these GPUs house most of the graphics hardware in a large silicon die built on a 5 nm TSMC manufacturing process but stick memory controllers and Infinity Cache in a series of small 6 nm memory controller dies (MCDs). AMD uses a similar chiplet-based approach in its Ryzen processors, building the CPU cores on a more advanced process so they can benefit from lowered power consumption and improved performance while sticking I/O capabilities on a separate silicon die built on an older (and cheaper) process.

Each MCD adds 64 bits to the GPU's memory bus width. The 7700 XT includes three MCDs, for a total of 192 bits. The RX 7800 XT includes four, bringing the total to 256 bits. Unlike some of Nvidia's cards, AMD has kept the memory bus widths and memory sizes consistent from generation to generation, which ought to help the cards' performance when playing at higher resolutions. Compared to Nvidia's cards, though, the RDNA 3 GPUs haven't come with a huge leap in power efficiency. The RX 7800 XT consumes less power than a 6800 XT, but the 7700 XT consumes about the same amount as the RX 6750 XT (which it replaces) and the RX 6800 (which it performs similarly to).

Most of the fancy software features supported by the RX 7000 cards, like FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) upscaling and the upcoming FSR 3, will also work perfectly fine on older RX 6000-series GPUs. But AMD's HYPR-RX Fluid Motion Frames—a mouthful of a feature that brings a rudimentary version of FSR 3's frame generation to all games whether they support FSR or not—will be exclusive to the 7000 series, at least for now. I probably wouldn't make a purchasing decision based solely on that feature, but it's worth considering.

AMD positions the 7700 XT against Nvidia's 16GB RTX 4060 Ti, which was recently given a price cut to match the Radeon at $449. Also, keep in mind that the $399 8GB version of the 4060 Ti performs almost identically in most games. The $499 7800 XT is meant to compete with Nvidia's $599 RTX 4070.

But GPU buyers should also consider looking at AMD's last-gen GPUs, at least at launch, when the old cards are still available at retail and the new cards haven't had time to let their MSRPs settle. The RX 6800 currently starts at around $430 before you consider used or refurbished models, while the RX 6800 XT starts at or a smidge under $500. It's worth watching for sales as GPU makers try to clear old inventory and make room for the new cards. The RX 6750 XT, while a sizable step down in performance, is also a big step down in price, starting at around $360 as of this writing.

The 7700 XT is $30 cheaper than the launch MSRP of the original 6700 XT, and the 7800 XT is $150 cheaper than the 6800 XT was at launch (and $80 cheaper than the regular 6800, the card it arguably should be compared to instead). It's tough to compare MSRPs between cards launching today and cards that launched in the middle of the last big GPU shortage (the 6750 XT launched at $549, for example), but we're including them along with current street prices for the sake of consistency.

Testing notes

	Gaming testbed
CPU	AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D (provided by AMD)
Motherboard	ASRock X670E Taichi (provided by AMD)
RAM	32GB (2x16GB) G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (provided by AMD), running at DDR5-6000
SSD	Western Digital Black SN850 1TB (provided by Western Digital)
Power supply	EVGA Supernova 850 P6 (provided by EVGA)
CPU cooler	280 mm Corsair iCure H115i Elite Capellix AIO
Case	Lian Li O11 Air Mini
OS	Windows 11 22H2 with Core Isolation on, Memory Integrity off
Drivers	Nvidia cards: 536.99 (8/8/2023) AMD RX 7700 XT/7800 XT: Pre-release driver 23.20.01.05 Other AMD cards: Adrenalin 23.8.1

We've given our GPU testbed an overhaul since our last GPU review, mainly jumping up from a Ryzen 5800X3D with DDR4 to a Ryzen 7800X3D with DDR5. We've retested many GPUs in this new system and generally found that it doesn't make a significant difference, at least at higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K. But it reduces the chances that high-end cards will run into CPU-related performance bottlenecks, throwing off our results. GPUs that have only been tested in our previous 5800X3D testbed will have an asterisk next to them on our charts.

Also, a quick note on the games we've tested with. We've used three different kinds of games to get an idea of how the cards should perform in a variety of titles that people actually play. Grand Theft Auto V and Assassin's Creed Odyssey represent the DirectX 11 API, still widely used in multiplayer shooters like Overwatch 2 or Valorant. Borderlands 3, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, and Cyberpunk 2077 with ray-tracing effects turned off all test DirectX 12 performance in games without ray-tracing effects enabled. These benchmarks are the ones to pay attention to if you don't care about ray tracing or mostly play games without ray-tracing effects.

Cyberpunk 2077, Returnal, Hitman 3, and Forza Horizon 5 are all DirectX 12 games with ray tracing enabled. Of these, Cyberpunk's lighting effects tend to be the most punishing, Forza's are the lightest, and Hitman and Returnal are somewhere in between. These are also the games and settings we use to test games with DLSS and FSR enabled since many people will use those features when available to bump up their resolutions or frame rates, especially on midrange cards.

Performance

Starting with the RX 7700 XT, its gains over the RX 6750 XT are usually quite pronounced. The card is also almost always an improvement over the non-XT RX 6800 at this resolution, by around 7 or 8 percent (Grand Theft Auto V being the one exception, and a place where both new cards seem to perform a bit worse than I'd expect). At 4K, the 6800's 256-bit memory interface and 4GB of extra RAM help it run closer to even with the 7700 XT, but the 7700 still does reasonably well here, and it's a respectable 4K card for people who are OK with lowering settings or leaning on FSR to make things playable.

The 7700 XT also far outstrips Nvidia's RTX 4060 Ti—we've only tested the $399 8GB version, which is a bit cheaper than the $449 7700 XT, but the 16GB version will perform similarly in most tests. It's between 15 and 38 percent faster in most non-ray-traced games (GTA V again being an exception), and its performance is so much better than the 4060 Ti's that AMD usually breaks even or even comes out a tiny bit ahead in ray-tracing performance. That hasn't been remotely close to true for any other Radeon card this generation, or possibly in any generation.

That all sounds great, right? It is, until you consider the 7800 XT, which is only 11 percent more expensive but performs between 13 and 20 percent faster most of the time and also gives you 4GB of extra RAM to boot.

The 7800 XT is just barely faster than last generation's 6800 XT, and the difference between the two is especially minimal at 4K—it demonstrates why AMD focused on two-generation-old cards and Nvidia's cards rather than gen-over-gen improvements in its announcement. The difference is slightly more pronounced in ray-traced games, which run between 8 and 15 percent faster on the newer GPU in our tests. But overall, as we originally supposed, the 7800 XT only performs like a true generational upgrade compared to the regular RX 6800, not the 6800 XT.

The 7800 XT fares pretty well against the 4070, especially given that it's $100 cheaper. But the dynamic is more similar to what we've seen from other AMD-vs-Nvidia matchups: generally better in non-ray-traced games, but it falls behind when ray tracing is on. It doesn't fundamentally alter the calculus for a new GPU buyer—yesterday, AMD would sell you a cheaper card with better rasterization performance, worse ray-tracing performance, and higher power consumption. Today, AMD is still doing that.

Our software-based power testing also confirms what AMD's listed specs suggested—that the Radeon 7000 series is more efficient than the 6000 series, but not dramatically. The RTX 40-series' lower power consumption is a big enough deal that I would count it as a selling point for the cards, compared to last-gen 30-series cards. For the Radeons, the improvement is more incremental.

And for both cards, but especially for the 7700 XT, you need to live with increased power consumption relative to Nvidia's cards if you want better performance. What's even more surprising is that the 7700 XT we tested and the 7800 XT actually consumed about the same power, despite the fact that the 7800 XT is quite a bit faster. This could come down to the specific configuration decisions XFX made—it's got another fan and is generally just a gigantic card—but it's worth noting since the design is probably representative of what you'll find from most of AMD's partners.

Almost great, but the status quo remains intact

7900 XT, 7800 XT, and 7600. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

These cards are awkwardly positioned. The RX 7800 XT essentially matches the performance of the 6800 XT for around the same money as that card is currently selling for. The RX 7700 XT is a big step up from the 6700 and 6750 XT, and it even manages to match or beat the old non-XT 6800 (though it's better at this at 1440p than 4K, due to either reduced memory bandwidth, less RAM, or both). It's a plausible option for 60 FPS 4K at reasonable quality settings (especially with FSR enabled), but it's only $50 cheaper than the 7800 XT, and it's actually a bit more expensive than the cheapest 6800s that are still hanging around. I hope that the 7700 XT's price drifts closer to $400 over time because it would be close to a slam dunk at that price.

But as of this writing, with all AMD and Nvidia cards at their current prices, I'd say the 7800 XT is the one that's worth the closest look, especially if you don't care about ray tracing, DLSS, or any of the other AI or GPU compute workloads where the tools offer better support for Nvidia cards. AMD markets it as a 1440p card, but respectable 4K performance at reasonably high settings is within reach, something that really isn't true of any GeForce card south of the $600 RTX 4070.

What remains frustrating is that AMD seems content to undercut Nvidia by a little rather than a lot, and the overall effect is that the performance you can get for your money this graphics card generation is pretty close to what you could get for your money last generation (at least if you don't count the two years where it was impossible to buy anything better than an RTX 3060 for $500, and it's getting harder to feel grateful for that the farther we get from the GPU shortage). And while AMD is more than competitive with Nvidia on the basic rendering of polygons, there's still a long list of features you need to decide you don't care about before you buy a Radeon card.

If you're in the market for a graphics card and you want to look beyond 1080p, your options today are a little better than they were yesterday. That's not exciting. But it's fine, I guess.

The good

Both cards are strong options for a 1440p or entry-level 4K gaming system.
7700 XT is a big generational improvement over the 6750 XT and beats the 4060 Ti at nearly everything, including ray-traced games.
7800 XT costs less than the 4070 and often performs better.
Consume less power than 6000-series cards at similar performance levels.
AV1 encoding support and DisplayPort 2.1 are nice features.
Technically cheaper than last-gen equivalents, but the last-gen equivalents launched once the GPU shortage was already underway.

The bad

7800 XT is barely faster than the 6800 XT.
7700 XT is barely cheaper than the 7800 XT.
DLSS still has a performance and quality edge over FSR, and DLSS Frame Generation is already in games while FSR 3 support is still taking shape.
RX 6800 and 6800 XT cards are still worth considering, at least until they disappear from shelves.

The ugly

The general water-treading trend among all sub-$600 GPUs this generation.

Listing image: Andrew Cunningham

Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

249

View Comments