toms hardware AMD cuts pricing for 7900 XT

[UltraMega]

Quote

AMD has announced that buyers can find the RX 7900 XT for $749 and the RX 7900 GRE in China for $549, which seems to be a response to Nvidia's RTX 40 Super series launch. AMD isn't cutting MSRP for the 7900 XT, but rather implementing a "special promotional pricing program for select etailers and retailers this quarter." We can already see prices for individual 7900 XT models falling by a considerable amount.
 

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX - $999

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT - $749

AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE - $549

AMD unveils promo pricing in wake of Nvidia's Super launch — cuts pricing for RX 7900 XT and 7900 GRE | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

 

Good start. If the 4000 Super cards get close to MSRP, AMD is going to have to cut prices some more if they want to stay competitive. 

[bonami2]

If 7900xtx drop am getting one. Waiting to see their version of frame gen. Am not getting a 16gb vram gpu.

[pio]

2 hours ago, bonami2 said:

If 7900xtx drop am getting one. Waiting to see their version of frame gen. Am not getting a 16gb vram gpu.

Been very very pleased with mine.

[Slaughtahouse]

13 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

Been very very pleased with mine.

 

Same but I wouldn’t buy one for framegen.

 

Even in Avatar, where it’s been reported to be the best implementation yet, it’s not worth committing to. Maybe if you have 80-90fps baseline in your preferred game but there are not enough games that support FSR3 where the 7900XTX can blast it at 4K.

 

Their driver level implementation is not good. Too much judder when you move around. 

[Sir Beregond]

Makes sense and telling they didn't drop to $699. It's telling on Nvidia's end that there probably won't be a lot of MSRP models 4070 Supers so that $599 will probably be more like $650, and same for the 4070 Ti Super at $799, bet it will be more like $849. So AMD clearly thinks $749 is sufficient and all the naysayers online in places like Reddit saying they needed deep cuts, probably not true. AMD doesn't seem overly worried and this is just more or less confirming street pricing of the 7900 XT as the new MSRP.

Edited January 18 by Sir Beregond

[GanjaSMK]

This is my predicament... I have a 6800XT and primarily game at 1440p with occasional TV hookup for 4K (RDR2, etc). 

 

So while I don't actually need an upgrade... because this card blasts all I need for 1440p and don't really see RT as overly important... 

 

But that 4070Ti Super is looking MIGHTY fine at MSRP from Zotac. 

 

[bonami2]

22 minutes ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

Same but I wouldn’t buy one for framegen.

 

Even in Avatar, where it’s been reported to be the best implementation yet, it’s not worth committing to. Maybe if you have 80-90fps baseline in your preferred game but there are not enough games that support FSR3 where the 7900XTX can blast it at 4K.

 

Their driver level implementation is not good. Too much judder when you move around. 

Yea am 90% wanting nvidia with all my past issue.

 

4070 super from gigabyte with high tdp is almost on par with the 4070ti.

 

If we get high clock/tdp 4070ti super i may take the plunge but i know 16gb will be an issue sooner or later in vr.

[pio]

2 hours ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

Same but I wouldn’t buy one for framegen.

 

Even in Avatar, where it’s been reported to be the best implementation yet, it’s not worth committing to. Maybe if you have 80-90fps baseline in your preferred game but there are not enough games that support FSR3 where the 7900XTX can blast it at 4K.

 

Their driver level implementation is not good. Too much judder when you move around. 

I've had pretty good luck with AFMF so far, and the frame gen on FSR3 too.  I view these as ADDED features though to monkey with, not so much as a "game play necessity" to turn on every title.

It's definitely not a set it and forget it setting.  It's a setting to use on a per game basis.  Avatar the framegen seems to work very well and smoothly (with my setup at my resolution).  I use it on Void Crew as well, and it works great there (AFMF).  Other games, I think I tried Cyberpunk and it was a jittery mess.  It's getting better at least.  Still installing my gaming titles though, so I can't speak for my whole library yet.

And yes, you DEFINITELY want to turn on AFMF with a high framerate to start with.  I try to keep at 60+ (with AFMF off), so I stay within my freesync range at ALL times including the dips.  It does feel a LOT smoother in some titles with it on.  First person games I've noticed tend to be a LOT worse and jittery.  I don't much use it on first person titles (yet).

But that's also why I feel like these AI generated frames really aren't that great anyway.  I'm always pro raster camp, get the fastest GPU you can afford and power through it.  I didn't buy a 7900XTX for the framegen, I bought it because it was the fastest card I could afford, that would push my resolution.

Edited January 18 by pioneerisloud

[Sir Beregond]

42 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

But that's also why I feel like these AI generated frames really aren't that great anyway.  I'm always pro raster camp, get the fastest GPU you can afford and power through it.  I didn't buy a 7900XTX for the framegen, I bought it because it was the fastest card I could afford, that would push my resolution.

Makes sense. As far as raster goes, you basically on average have the 2nd fastest gaming card in the world. Its faster than the more expensive 4080 for raster.

[Slaughtahouse]

1 hour ago, Sir Beregond said:

Makes sense. As far as raster goes, you basically on average have the 2nd fastest gaming card in the world. Its faster than the more expensive 4080 for raster.

Exactly, that's why I bought it too. 

 

2 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

I've had pretty good luck with AFMF so far, and the frame gen on FSR3 too.  I view these as ADDED features though to monkey with, not so much as a "game play necessity" to turn on every title.

It's definitely not a set it and forget it setting.  It's a setting to use on a per game basis.  Avatar the framegen seems to work very well and smoothly (with my setup at my resolution).  I use it on Void Crew as well, and it works great there (AFMF).  Other games, I think I tried Cyberpunk and it was a jittery mess.  It's getting better at least.  Still installing my gaming titles though, so I can't speak for my whole library yet.

And yes, you DEFINITELY want to turn on AFMF with a high framerate to start with.  I try to keep at 60+ (with AFMF off), so I stay within my freesync range at ALL times including the dips.  It does feel a LOT smoother in some titles with it on.  First person games I've noticed tend to be a LOT worse and jittery.  I don't much use it on first person titles (yet).

But that's also why I feel like these AI generated frames really aren't that great anyway.  I'm always pro raster camp, get the fastest GPU you can afford and power through it.  I didn't buy a 7900XTX for the framegen, I bought it because it was the fastest card I could afford, that would push my resolution.

 

Look, some may tolerate frame gen more than others and I won't argue that. I just didn't like, even in the game that has really good implementation but isn't that popular (Avatar). Ultimately, it's a feature as you described and I love my 7900 XTX.

 

It's the least amount you can pay today for the absolute most amount of raster performance. I didn't want to wait 3 years for Blackwell so I jumped in immediately (day 1 purchase) and I am glad I did because, time has value too, ya know  So I will ride this card out, as long as I can until Blackwell approaches and then sell it for as much as I can to reinvest into being a day 1 buyer on the next gen. 

[UltraMega]

Price dropped again for the 7900XT, now $699. 

 

https://www.techspot.com/products/graphics-cards/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt.263405/

 

 

 

[Kaz]

$700 for a 7900xt is not bad.  I had a 7900xt, it had an intermittent display port so I sent it back and picked up the XTX instead.

 

I can honestly say the 7900xt was enough card for me, and I overspent upgrading to the xtx.

 

They are both really nice graphics cards.

[Fluxmaven]

$700 sounds pretty decent. I finally got around to redoing my bedroom gaming rig this weekend and I tossed in the 6950XT. I picked it up for $600 and thought I got a good deal. Which it was at the time. However, outside of using it in one of my product reviews, it's just sat on a shelf the past year. If I knew I'd put it off this long I could have just got the 7900XT 

 

That said, I love the build. First all AMD system in probably a decade or more. I have it paired with a 7800X3D and it's a beast 1440p machine. I set a mild undervolt and an FPS cap to just under monitor refresh rate. With those changes it is a pretty power efficient system. 

 

If AMD GPUs were even remotely comparable to Nvidia for Folding@Home, I'd buy a bunch of their cards. 

[pio]

57 minutes ago, Fluxmaven said:

$700 sounds pretty decent. I finally got around to redoing my bedroom gaming rig this weekend and I tossed in the 6950XT. I picked it up for $600 and thought I got a good deal. Which it was at the time. However, outside of using it in one of my product reviews, it's just sat on a shelf the past year. If I knew I'd put it off this long I could have just got the 7900XT 

 

That said, I love the build. First all AMD system in probably a decade or more. I have it paired with a 7800X3D and it's a beast 1440p machine. I set a mild undervolt and an FPS cap to just under monitor refresh rate. With those changes it is a pretty power efficient system. 

 

If AMD GPUs were even remotely comparable to Nvidia for Folding@Home, I'd buy a bunch of their cards. 

I've got my 6900XT on 4k duty on my TV, with the 5800x.  Does a fantastic job on a TV.  For the harder to run titles, I just dump the resolution down a little and its fine.  Literally can't even tell a difference from the couch lol.

To be fair, you've already got RTX 3000 series cards and 4000 series.  The RX 6000 series are honestly a more "interesting" card than the 7900 is anyway.  7900 is faster yes, does RT waaay better, yes.  The 6000 was a weird gen though, seems like Nvidia and RT took AMD off guard or something that gen.

[Sir Beregond]

17 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

I've got my 6900XT on 4k duty on my TV, with the 5800x.  Does a fantastic job on a TV.  For the harder to run titles, I just dump the resolution down a little and its fine.  Literally can't even tell a difference from the couch lol.

To be fair, you've already got RTX 3000 series cards and 4000 series.  The RX 6000 series are honestly a more "interesting" card than the 7900 is anyway.  7900 is faster yes, does RT waaay better, yes.  The 6000 was a weird gen though, seems like Nvidia and RT took AMD off guard or something that gen.

It was more that that was AMD's first go at RT and it showed then anything else. That was Nvidia's 2nd gen RT so maybe it improved more than they thought it would but I don't think there was otherwise anything there to really take AMD off guard.

[UltraMega]

3 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

It was more that that was AMD's first go at RT and it showed then anything else. That was Nvidia's 2nd gen RT so maybe it improved more than they thought it would but I don't think there was otherwise anything there to really take AMD off guard.

 

You don't think Nvidia being in their third gen of NPU capable GPUs while AMD has no NPUs in any of their GPUs is something that caught AMD off guard? I'd say it definitely did. 

 

I don't think even Nvidia knew how effectively they would be able to leverage the NPUs for gaming at first. I think DLSS 1.0 was Nvidia's attempt to justify the existence of NPUs on their GPUs to customers after the fact, and over time I think DLSS turned out way better than Nvidia expected. Now with DLSS 3 and 3.5, I'm sure AMD feels pretty far behind. 

 

I think Sony and Microsoft also feel like they messed up with current gen consoles. If they had put NPUs in the current gen consoles with no other real changes, it would have been a game changer. Hardware wise, they just barely missed the boat on that. Had the consoles launched a year later, they might have had some NPUs. 

 

I think everyone selling hardware for graphic that hasn't embedded NPUs yet feels like they're missing out. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by UltraMega

[Sir Beregond]

2 hours ago, UltraMega said:

 

You don't think Nvidia being in their third gen of NPU capable GPUs while AMD has no NPUs in any of their GPUs is something that caught AMD off guard? I'd say it definitely did. 

 

I don't think even Nvidia knew how effectively they would be able to leverage the NPUs for gaming at first. I think DLSS 1.0 was Nvidia's attempt to justify the existence of NPUs on their GPUs to customers after the fact, and over time I think DLSS turned out way better than Nvidia expected. Now with DLSS 3 and 3.5, I'm sure AMD feels pretty far behind. 

 

I think Sony and Microsoft also feel like they messed up with current gen consoles. If they had put NPUs in the current gen consoles with no other real changes, it would have been a game changer. Hardware wise, they just barely missed the boat on that. Had the consoles launched a year later, they might have had some NPUs. 

 

I think everyone selling hardware for graphic that hasn't embedded NPUs yet feels like they're missing out. 

 

 

 

 

Oh if we are going back to Turing and RDNA1, sure absolutely everyone was caught off guard by how that developed. I was more replying to Pio's comment with RDNA2.

 

Not sure what was to be caught off guard with on Ampere's launch. It was literally a continuation of RT with 2nd gen RT (3rd gen Tensor) and was still DLSS 2.0. The only weird thing about RDNA2 was how tacked on features like RT were exposing the "playing catchup" game AMD is playing.