4090 worth it over 7900 XTX?

Dutt1113

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
1,601
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
 
Worth is relative. Had I been able to get a 7900XTX for $999 before a 4090 at $1599 (I managed to get a 4090 FE right before Christmas), I'd have been happy. Some folks want the absolute best and wouldn't have been happy.
 
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
Like arestavo said, worth is relative. I think it depends on your use case and what you want your graphics card to do and how much you really want to invest on a GPU. Are you really into production tasks that heavily leverage Nvidia features? Then 4090. Do you insist on turning on all the Ray Tracing at 4k, then the extra on the 4090 is very likely worth it. If you are indifferent to Ray Tracing, then 7900 XTX.

Last generation I had a similar decision, I picked up a 6900XT and 3090FE. I do not use my GPU for much more than just playing games. So, I ended up selling the 3090 and kept the 6900XT because the performance in the games I played was very, very close between the two and Ray Tracing did not (and still largely does not) impress me and DLSS is only slightly better than FSR2, so in my use case the 3090 was not worth the extra $$.
 
Last edited:
If you want the absolute fastest card, you don't care about cost, then the 4090 is it.

If you care about value, have any issues with nVidia's politics, etc, then stick with your current card.

The 4090 is faster than the 7900XTX by a fairly wide margin, when playing with "Ultra" settings, HDR (edit: I mean to say RT here not HDR), etc. Although there is some talk that there is "perhaps a bit more performance to unlock with better drivers" on the AMD card, there is no way it's ever going to close that 30% or more gap (depending on title). There is no "right answer for everyone" here.
 
Last edited:
If you want the absolute fastest card, you don't care about cost, then the 4090 is it.

If you care about value, have any issues with nVidia's politics, etc, then stick with your current card.

The 4090 is faster than the 7900XTX by a fairly wide margin, when playing with "Ultra" settings, HDR, etc. Although there is some talk that there is "perhaps a bit more performance to unlock with better drivers" on the AMD card, there is no way it's ever going to close that 30% or more gap (depending on title). There is no "right answer for everyone" here.

I have had both 4090 is a beast and if you want the absolute best sure. But just as you said it depends on the game you can also say depends on the game 7900xtx can tie or beat the 4090 lmao. On average its around 15-20% faster thats all that matters. if you care about ray tracing at 4k etc then go for it. To me it doesn't matter.

In cyberpunk as an example with 15% more power the reference card it matches the 4090 and many other games.

I would say go 4090 if you need absolute best ray tracing performance other than that 7900xtx does the job.

But then again I always tell people go buy where their heart settles. If you gonna spend the money and not be happy with it its not worth that.
 
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
like jhatfie mentioned above, it really depends on the game you play.
If it involve ray tracing a lot and you have the budget then just go for 4090.
If raster is still dominant on your game list, then 7900xtx is the best value card at the moment.
 
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
I know someone looking for that red devil card if you should decide to go with the 4090 let me know. He's been trying to get one since launch day and would be very happy to give it a new home.
 
I know someone looking for that red devil card if you should decide to go with the 4090 let me know. He's been trying to get one since launch day and would be very happy to give it a new home.
I will definitely let you. The way things are going, I may have to find the red devil xtx a new home.
 
If you have to ask someone else this question then the answer is no.

It sounds like you're hoping someone comes up with a reason to get something you already know you don't need.
 
If you have to ask someone else this question then the answer is no.

It sounds like you're hoping someone comes up with a reason to get something you already know you don't need.
you could be my shrink with that comment any day lmao.
 
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
I don't think you can nab one at MSRP? How could you?
 
Msi 4090 gaming x trio were in stock for a split second at Newegg today for $1699.
 
If you are going to spend over 1000 bucks and have a cpu that can push the 4090 then go ahead and get it. If not cpu limited you are looking at 30% better raster and up to double the ray tracing performance plus DLSS is just better than FSR at this point.
 
If you are going to spend over 1000 bucks and have a cpu that can push the 4090 then go ahead and get it. If not cpu limited you are looking at 30% better raster and up to double the ray tracing performance plus DLSS is just better than FSR at this point.
I think its more like around 20% raster Not sure where the 30% comes from. But yea agree with everything else. if one wants ray tracing and cares enough go for it.
 
If you want 120 fps 4K gaming then you need a 4090. Also if you like graphics then RTX is a must have in games (imo). To achieve the said FPS you also need DLSS. So 4090 is the only real gaming card for graphic whores.
Totally agreed.
 
I think its more like around 20% raster Not sure where the 30% comes from. But yea agree with everything else. if one wants ray tracing and cares enough go for it.
I saw 22% difference on techpowerup and assumed they were still using the 5800x but I now see their test setup has 13900k. Overall looking at most reviews there are like two games where the 7900 xtx does VERY good and throws off the overall difference.
 
I saw 22% difference on techpowerup and assumed they were still using the 5800x but I now see their test setup has 13900k. Overall looking at most reviews there are like two games where the 7900 xtx does VERY good and throws off the overall difference.
It could also be said the same with games with Nvidia, the variance between the two can be over 30% in the same game between the two. I attribute that to the more direct to the hardware the modern api's are and how much time , effort, resources available to the developer to optimize for the hardware.

To the original poster, 4090 is a tier above the 7900XTX. If you want an upgrade, have a system that supports it well, desire/need whatever, go for it.
 
During the previous gen of the 6900 XT Vs RTX 3090 where the latter was not even 10% faster on average and ray tracing had yet to be a major selling point in games, spending the extra $500 to upgrade wouldn't have been worth it. I would say this time around the story is different in that the 4090 is clearly a tier above the 7900 XTX in performance and ray tracing is now a decent selling point for games so the upgrade is worth it in my book.
 
I'm in the same boat, I'm the OP's brother.

If anyone wants a 7900xtx red devil, send me a PM.

It really came down to being able to find a water block. The 7900xtx is a great card but the 4090 is just a tad better with better ray tracing and several water blocks already available.
 
I have my 6900xt sitting on my spare PC right now and a 4090 on my main computer. I was hoping to nab a 7900xtx at launch but was not able to. I was able to snag a 4090 for $100 over retail at a local computer store here in the St. Petersburg metro area. I jumped on it when I saw that it was the last one left. My only complaint is the visual of the Nvidia drivers have not changed over the years where as the AMD drivers with their visual layout is amazing with a ton of options. Other than that, Nvidia this round for me. Straight up 4k/120fps performance for me out of the box.
 
I was able to grab a 7900 XTX Red Devil at launch for $1100 and have enjoyed it for the short time that I've had it. I'm currently just using the stock cooler and it cools well, but waiting for a water block to come out for it could take a while. However, if I was able to nab a 4090 at MSRP of $1600-1700 would you do it and why?
What are you upgrading from? How often do you upgrade?

If you are running 3080 or better, probably could wait a generation, or maybe wait for the 4090ti. If you upgrade less often and are coming from 2xxx or older, I would just get the best and get a 4090. I think 4090s will have a lot of longevity.. next gen cards after these will not likely see as big of a perf jump as the 4090 is over the 3xxx. These things are great cards.

For the AMD card you have, it was $1100 and you were planning to put a waterblock on it? How much more does that add to the cost? That makes the jump up to a 4090 an easier decision, just a few hundred more. Nice thing about 4090's, they got overengineered heatsinks... no need to watercool. Does take a larger case, so make sure you can fit 14" maybe 14.5" and you will have room for pretty much any version of a 4090. The 4090FE is actually a few mm shorter than a 3090FE but thicker. 304mm = 12" almost exactly. So the easiest of the 4090's to fit into your case.

You will not have any problems finding a home for the 7900xtx, so upgrade to the 4090 if you can, have enough case space, and have a sufficient PSU.
 
Depends on the case. I have a friend that only plays Warzone literally just Warzone 2.0 and for him was no brainer.
 
Perhaps it's just me, but it's unaffordable vs. unaffordable. There's a "level" where I'm like, "I could spend what I can't afford..." and as you go up from there, it's just, "ok".... etc...

I guess if I'm going to shed a kidney, I'd want the very best, so I'd go 4090.
 
Depends on how much you value ray tracing speed and DLSS IMHO. If you're not really going to bother with RT and you mostly play at native it's a waste of money. I'd want a 4090 because having both of those things at the max for 4k would be excellent. A lot of people just play competitive stuff, I'm only really interested in single player games these days for the most part. My friends force me to play Warzone when they're not watching their kids occasionally, but they're on Xbox or whatever anyway.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the case. I have a friend that only plays Warzone literally just Warzone 2.0 and for him was no brainer.

Have a friend in the same boat; the only demanding game he plays is Warzone 2.0, other than that it's just MOBA's and similarly non-GPU intensive games.

A used 6900XT at ~$500'ish would be perfect for him because it'll max out a 165hz 1440p or 120hz 4K monitor when running Warzone.
 
I have the Red Devil 7900 XTX LE (7900X) and also a 4090 STRIX (7950X), 4080 STRIX (5800X3D), and a 4090 FE (5800X3D).

The 7900 XTX LE is a favorite. But it's hot and the AMD drivers and software are wonky as hell. Still has a soft spot for me.

All things equal though - the RTX 4090 blows it away and it is worth the $500 more.
 
I'd say right now best bang for the buck performance GPUs are a used 3080 and 3090 or for new the 7900XTX. There is a cost difference of damn near 50% between the 7900XTX and the RTX4090
 
I have the Red Devil 7900 XTX LE (7900X) and also a 4090 STRIX (7950X), 4080 STRIX (5800X3D), and a 4090 FE (5800X3D).

The 7900 XTX LE is a favorite. But it's hot and the AMD drivers and software are wonky as hell. Still has a soft spot for me.

All things equal though - the RTX 4090 blows it away and it is worth the $500 more.
Meanwhile here I am trying to get a single 4090FE LOL. Amazing setups.
 
I'd say right now best bang for the buck performance GPUs are a used 3080 and 3090 or for new the 7900XTX. There is a cost difference of damn near 50% between the 7900XTX and the RTX4090
Oh yeah if I had my choice, 4090 all the way, but in terms of price / perf. 6800 XT new for around 530 is excellent (what i got), used 3080, 3080 ti, 3090 or a new 7900 XTX seems reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMCM
like this
I have the Red Devil 7900 XTX LE (7900X) and also a 4090 STRIX (7950X), 4080 STRIX (5800X3D), and a 4090 FE (5800X3D).

The 7900 XTX LE is a favorite. But it's hot and the AMD drivers and software are wonky as hell. Still has a soft spot for me.

All things equal though - the RTX 4090 blows it away and it is worth the $500 more.
But it's hot and
That's a lie; that card doesn't even turn the fans ON in some games (and it's inside of an ITX Case)... maybe you live in 100+ weather or something...

AMD drivers and software are wonky as hell
I have been playing with them and doing overclocks. 0 issues...
 
That's a lie; that card doesn't even turn the fans ON in some games (and it's inside of an ITX Case)... maybe you live in 100+ weather or something...


I have been playing with them and doing overclocks. 0 issues...
Lol. If you want hot spot temps into the 100 C range, sure. Dude come feel the heat it dumps into my case. Man AMD fanboys are too much.

https://hardforum.com/threads/hot-spot-on-red-devil-7900-xtx-le.2024861/

I had to DDU my drivers on a clean Windows install due to settings not saving, profiles causing issues, etc - all good now but never have to deal with that crap with NVIDIA.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the extra money spent wouldn't get in the way of paying more important bills...

If you plan on doing anything VR-related? Yes, without question. I traded my 7900 XTX for an RTX 4080, and the Babel Tech Reviews results weren't kidding in showing how much better the NVIDIA cards are. Now consider how much better a 4090 is over the 4080, and the gap widens even more...

If you're targeting pancake gaming in 4K 120-144 Hz/FPS? It's a bit trickier then, as the 7900 XTX is more than capable there for many games as long as you leave RT off, and I presume that anyone spending so damn much on a GPU isn't inclined to fake the resolution with FSR or DLSS.
 
DLSS or DLDSR produce fantastic results in most games. That fake resolution argument is really not valid when we are talking about 4K gaming.
Agreed, at least at the quality settings (DLSS and FSR2) upscaling at 4k looks excellent 99% of the time. Balanced settings are pretty meh on occasion though (FSR more so than DLSS). Although I have not tried DLSS3 yet, almost want to pick up a 4090 just to play with it and see what I think.
 
Agreed, at least at the quality settings (DLSS and FSR2) upscaling at 4k looks excellent 99% of the time. Balanced settings are pretty meh on occasion though (FSR more so than DLSS). Although I have not tried DLSS3 yet, almost want to pick up a 4090 just to play with it and see what I think.
Yeah I'm completely with you on this, anything outside 4K FSR Quality mode is a bad use case for FSR. But when it's upscaling to 4K it really does look excellent and not really much different from native. DLSS is a better technology for the overwhelming majority of players still (at 4k quality mode its a wash IMO).
 
I have the Red Devil XTX. It's a superb card, and for now, it pushes all games way beyond what I want/need in games. Moreover, the cooling is excellent, it overclocks very well (flirting with stock 4090 in rasterization), and runs cool. I've also owned a 4080, and the experience is largely equivalent, but the XTX takes a non-trivial edge when overclocked (except in RT, of course). It's not a huge lead for the XTX, but noticeable in taxing games. Drivers and stability are effectively equivalent between the two cards in my experience.

As for whether a 4090 is worth the extra ~40% in cost over the 7900 XTX (if you can find them for those relative prices).... sort of, and it depends. If you plan on holding onto the card for 2-3 years, I'd say go for it. The longer you hold onto a card, the better the investment, and in 2-3 years you'll likely want the extra horsepower the 4090 provides. However, if you want a great card now for the next 1-2 years and plan on upgrading with the next gen or refreshes e.g. I tend to trade up when there's a refresh (likely the 4080 ti, when it becomes avaialble), go with the XTX. The 4080 is a hard sell since it's largely equivalent to the 7090 XTX in my view, but it costs ~$200 more.

One caveat, if you are ok running DLSS, nV has the obvious example. For me, I refuse to run with DLSS or FSR: it's one of those thing's that is very obvious when you know what it looks like -- and it's an unnoticiable distraction. I'd rather run "clean" and turn down settings a bit.

Edit: the other stance, which is entirely valid, is the prices are abhorrent and predatory across the board, and you should not buy anything (or stick with your RDNA2 or Ampere card).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top