Anybody plan on grabbing one of the new RX7xxx Navi cards on launch?

[GotNoRice]

I have to admit, my excitement about the new AMD cards is building while I'm becoming increasingly jaded about Nvidia's new cards (especially not being able to buy a FE).

The tipping point for me is going to be how the 7900XTX compares against the 4080, especially in games that I actually care about. I'm not going to spend a thousand dollars just to get a card that can only beat a hypothetical 4070 or 4070 Ti. If the 7900XTX can't even beat the 4080, then I'll either continue to hold out for a 4090 or wait to get something like a 3090 Ti used at a very good price. I've already decided that whatever card I end up getting, it's going to have 24GB of VRam. I've already played the "X amount of RAM should be good enough" game for two upgrade cycles and ended up running low on VRam in both cases long before the cards were actually obsolete. I want "a lot" of VRam this time.

 

[arestavo]

I have to admit, my excitement about the new AMD cards is building while I'm becoming increasingly jaded about Nvidia's new cards (especially not being able to buy a FE).

The tipping point for me is going to be how the 7900XTX compares against the 4080, especially in games that I actually care about. I'm not going to spend a thousand dollars just to get a card that can only beat a hypothetical 4070 or 4070 Ti. If the 7900XTX can't even beat the 4080, then I'll either continue to hold out for a 4090 or wait to get something like a 3090 Ti used at a very good price. I've already decided that whatever card I end up getting, it's going to have 24GB of VRam. I've already played the "X amount of RAM should be good enough" game for two upgrade cycles and ended up running low on VRam in both cases long before the cards were actually obsolete. I want "a lot" of VRam this time.

Your games crashed out with a low memory error? Or You get massive, and consistent FPS drops when the game has to hit the windows page file?

If not, you're not running out of VRAM for games - it's just the games that you play happen to cache data on the VRAM, just making it look like you might be running out. IMO, better programmed games do this - and I've seen 23GB of my 24GB of VRAM used in games that absolutely run fine at the same 4K settings on a 10GB card.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/vram-in-2020-2024-why-10gb-is-enough.280976/ has a decent write up and shows you how to check the actual in use amount. EDIT - I believe newer Afterburner versions call it "Memory usage / process" and you can bump that against the "Memory" readout.

 

[XoR_]

I've already decided that whatever card I end up getting, it's going to have 24GB of VRam. I've already played the "X amount of RAM should be good enough" game for two upgrade cycles and ended up running low on VRam in both cases long before the cards were actually obsolete. I want "a lot" of VRam this time.

For something like RTX 2080 the used about of ram 8GB was right from the start known to be too little. Still ok-ish for up to 1440p but for 4K not enough. Then again this card is better suited for 1440p anyways.

16GB for now seems to be more than enough. 4080 having 16GB is not a big issue by itself. Its price is an issue, especially since it only has 16GB so there is even less justification for the price.
If I upgraded GPU I would want at least 20GB, best 24GB

 

[LukeTbk]

For something like RTX 2080 the used about of ram 8GB was right from the start known to be too little. Still ok-ish for up to 1440p but for 4K not enough. Then again this card is better suited for 1440p anyways.

Which have made the thought hat 8GB was too little simply wrong no ? Is there a single game/settings where a 2080 would play well at 70 fps would it have had 11gig but does not because it has 8 ? By now it can be judged.

 

[Mchart]

16GB is a solid bump, i'm glad they didn't screw us over with only 12GB on the 4080. The 10GB on the 3080 when it launched completely killed that card if you were gaming at 4K. It was lame as well if you were on a 2080ti because anything less than a 3080ti was a downgrade due to the VRAM. I would generally say 12GB is sufficient for most 4K titles at the moment, but the headroom of 16GB is nice to have.

 

[DPI]

XFX Merc 7900XT / 7900XTX briefly flashed on Amazon. Merc = lower end of XFX line.

 

[LukeTbk]

The 10GB on the 3080 when it launched completely killed that card if you were gaming at 4K.

Yet on game being release it still sometime beat the 6900xt 16gb:

Spoiler: callisto Protocol 4K

Spoiler: Plague tale 4K

In uncharted:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/uncharted-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/5.html

3080 does 89% of a 6800xt at 1440p, 89% at 4K

Maybe the scenario exist, but is there many case of a 3080 would have played nicely comfortably above 60 fps but does not because it has only 10 gig of vram ? Seem to me that kind of VRAM is when even a 3090 get below 70-75 fps anyway.

 

[XoR_]

Which have made the thought hat 8GB was too little simply wrong no ? Is there a single game/settings where a 2080 would play well at 70 fps would it have had 11gig but does not because it has 8 ? By now it can be judged.

I had RTX 2070 and it also had 8GB
The only game where I ran in to vram issues was Doom Ethernal with RTX at 4K. DLSS didn't help here and actually made matters worse. It was on the edge of being playable and generally ran great (especially with DLSS) until it ran out of VRAM at which point game become completely unplayable, very choppy, 1fps-choppy... as it pretty much always when graphics card runs out of memory and has to push too much data through its external bus.

Long story short once GPU runs out of VRAM performance becomes completely ruined to the point it cannot be mistaken for anything else.
In the past I experienced it at times when trying to run game at high resolution like 4K. Game would run at something like 100fps at 1080p so at 4K it should be around 25fps but in reality due to limited VRAM it was more like 1fps. This kind of thing.

8GB for 2080 is an ok amount as long as card is used for 1440p. For 4K an ok amount for that generation was 12GB
Of course ok amount is not great amount.

 

[GotNoRice]

Your games crashed out with a low memory error?

No, thankfully I'm not running Windows 98.

Or You get massive, and consistent FPS drops when the game has to hit the windows page file?

Pretty sure that System RAM is used to supplant VRam when VRam runs low, not the Windows pagefile...

If not, you're not running out of VRAM for games - it's just the games that you play happen to cache data on the VRAM, just making it look like you might be running out. IMO, better programmed games do this - and I've seen 23GB of my 24GB of VRAM used in games that absolutely run fine at the same 4K settings on a 10GB card.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/vram-in-2020-2024-why-10gb-is-enough.280976/ has a decent write up and shows you how to check the actual in use amount. EDIT - I believe newer Afterburner versions call it "Memory usage / process" and you can bump that against the "Memory" readout.

Using that MSI Afterburner setting, I'm usually between 6GB-7GB, which is still uncomfortably close to 8GB. Every time I see/feel a little hitch in-game I look over to Afterburner on my 2nd monitor and there is always a corresponding dip in VRam usage where I'm guessing it swapped some out to System Ram.

And really, even if the ONLY thing that the extra VRam gets used for is caching, I'm totally fine with that. Caching is a GOOD thing.

On my backup computer i'm still using 3x GTX680 in 3-way SLI. Thankfully the games that I care about still support DX11 SLI. The three cards combined give GPU power equivalent to that of a 980Ti or a 1070, which is enough for the backup computer. BUT, those cards came with 6-8GB VRam. The GTX680s only have 2GB VRam. I have to really micro-manage certain settings to stay within that limit, limiting view distance heavily, not using any real Anti-Aliasing, etc. Back when I got my first GTX680 I had to choice of going with a 2GB version or a 4GB version. It might not have made much difference back then but it certainly would now.

 

[arestavo]

No, thankfully I'm not running Windows 98.



Pretty sure that System RAM is used to supplant VRam when VRam runs low, not the Windows pagefile...



Using that MSI Afterburner setting, I'm usually between 6GB-7GB, which is still uncomfortably close to 8GB. Every time I see/feel a little hitch in-game I look over to Afterburner on my 2nd monitor and there is always a corresponding dip in VRam usage where I'm guessing it swapped some out to System Ram.

And really, even if the ONLY thing that the extra VRam gets used for is caching, I'm totally fine with that. Caching is a GOOD thing.

On my backup computer i'm still using 3x GTX680 in 3-way SLI. Thankfully the games that I care about still support DX11 SLI. The three cards combined give GPU power equivalent to that of a 980Ti or a 1070, which is enough for the backup computer. BUT, those cards came with 6-8GB VRam. The GTX680s only have 2GB VRam. I have to really micro-manage certain settings to stay within that limit, limiting view distance heavily, not using any real Anti-Aliasing, etc. Back when I got my first GTX680 I had to choice of going with a 2GB version or a 4GB version. It might not have made much difference back then but it certainly would now.

Well, those errors do still happen. I've seen it for Star Citizen in the game's crash log (granted, it's an alpha).

Good luck to you! If you always buy the best, you can expect only the best (or be extremely pissed when you still get FPS drops when shaders compile in new titles (and don't stop after ~10 minutes of gameplay) - like I did with the Callisto Protocol).

 

[XoR_]

Pretty sure that System RAM is used to supplant VRam when VRam runs low, not the Windows pagefile...

True
You would have to run out of VRAM and RAM to get the so called page faults on GPU running out of VRAM 🙃

Even with normal VRAM to RAM scenario running out of VRAM might look like when memory has to be dumped on to disk if game is not designed to use main memory (not sure if any/many games are) and video memory is paged to system RAM. It is actually very similar mechanism and its purpose is to prevent application/system completely crashing.

 

[Mr Evil]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/vram-in-2020-2024-why-10gb-is-enough.280976/ has a decent write up and shows you how to check the actual in use amount. EDIT - I believe newer Afterburner versions call it "Memory usage / process" and you can bump that against the "Memory" readout.

I've always favoured cards with more VRAM because higher texture resolution gives significantly improved visual quality with virtually no performance impact... as long as you don't run out of VRAM. I've also always been frustrated that I couldn't actually measure real VRAM usage to tell if I was getting my money's worth, so thanks for providing this link.

I fired up a couple of my favourite games and looked at "Memory usage / process" in MSI Afterburner.

1. Starting with Skyrim, which is interesting because it's an old game (2011), but it's possible keep piling on mods until your GPU begs for mercy. With the mods I actually use: 13.2GB peak was recorded.
2. And then X4 Foundations (no mods this time): 9.9GB peak.

After seeing that, I'm glad I bought a card with 16GB last time, and I'm glad the card I'm likely to buy next has 24GB.

 

[Elf_Boy]

It all depends on the game.

I havnt played it in a while but lets use WOW for example has more then 24gb of textures and other data for the gpu.

Sure resizable BAR allows a chunk (not all) of main system ram to be used for storing even more assets. It takes more time to access the data in system ram vs gpu ram.

So lets say I am in Orgrimmar on my Frost Mage and she wants to go home to the undercity for a nice nap in her coffin. I use teleport and away I go - suddenly the gpu needs a ton of textures that were in system ram, or still on the HD. Ya waiting for 5-10 seconds isnt horrible, I'd rather wait 1-2 seconds though.

Elder Scrolls Online, Black Desert, I could go on, all have a lot of high quality assets and as time goes on more and more games will provide 4k textures and even 8k textures taking up more and more space.

My 1080 ti 11gb would hit the vram wall from time to time, so far my 6900xt has been fine but I have been playing a lot of older dx9 games lately.

 

[Arkanian]

Tomorrow we will all get to see the reviews …..unless the 4090 is just crazy faster I will be ordering 7900xtx on Tuesday. I don’t see the 4090 FE being in stock in a long time and realistically would I even tell the difference in performance at 1440p ultra wide.

 

[Mchart]

Tomorrow we will all get to see the reviews …..unless the 4090 is just crazy faster I will be ordering 7900xtx on Tuesday. I don’t see the 4090 FE being in stock in a long time and realistically would I even tell the difference in performance at 1440p ultra wide.

Good luck. I have the feeling the $1000 models will be very hard to come by, and most will be paying $1200-$1300.

 

[ng4ever]

Good luck. I have the feeling the $1000 models will be very hard to come by, and most will be paying $1200-$1300.

Sadly yes.

 

[harmattan]

Good luck. I have the feeling the $1000 models will be very hard to come by, and most will be paying $1200-$1300.

MSRP will not be likely on any models: pricing will be moving up towards 4080 MSPR, and not down towards 7900, I'm afraid. They're going to test the market to see, if they raise prices towards nV, will consumers just give in and buy one or the other. If, and only if, sales are abyssmal until end of year will prices be lowered.

 

[flooberjobby]

Well, the performance was more disappointing than expected.

 

[Gideon]

Well, the performance was more disappointing than expected.

Like most things it depends on the game you want to play. Some games perform better or worse based on optimization for each company. Seems to me it does pretty well and comes in pretty much where I expected it. If you wanted it to beat a 4090 then you were over expecting.

 

[flooberjobby]

Like most things it depends on the game you want to play. Some games perform better or worse based on optimization for each company. Seems to me it does pretty well and comes in pretty much where I expected it. If you wanted it to beat a 4090 then you were over expecting.

I wasn't expecting it to beat 4090, just be within like 15-20% in none Ray tracing. But it rarely comes close to that.

 

[jfreund]

https://www.techspot.com/review/2588-amd-radeon-7900-xtx/
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/

 

[TheHig]

It looks to be landing right about where people thought it would. RT is still behind, raster is improved over last gen. Maybe drivers mature here and there but its faster than AMD last gen by about a 'normal' generational uplift and they kept prices the same as last gen. So OK I guess? At $7-800 the 7900xtx would see more praise as an alternative to the $1200 4080 and more of a war shot vs Nvidia pricing but right now its kind of meh. Of course anyone a couple of generations back would be super pleased with the 4080 or the 7900xt but the pay to play is here to stay it seems. I love the size and look of the AMD reference models and may be interested if the price gets to 800 or less new but not rushing out to get one on launch that's for sure.

 

[Astral Abyss]

Alright, so now that the reviews are coming out, what time can I actually buy it?

 

[TheHig]

Retail launch is tomorrow. People on Reddit say the AMD store launch time is 9AM EST December 13th.

I'm interested to see how many are available at Microcenter here on launch day.

 

[Astral Abyss]

Retail launch is tomorrow. People on Reddit say the AMD store launch time is 9AM EST December 13th.

I'm interested to see how many are available at Microcenter here on launch day.

Ok, 9am EST. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Makeroflostsouls]

Hangs with a 4080 for 200 less pretty much. I had hoped it would be a little better. I’m still looking at the 4090 now. It crushes 4k. I want to built this new rig and not touch it for a good 2-3 years. Rocking a 3080 right now. So I’ll sit on it till I can get a 4090 reference at some point.

 

[pututu]

I wouldn't get it at launch. Just wait and see. According to a twitter post by Kyle, there will be OVER 200K AMD cards available in Q4. Not sure how many will be on the retail shelves this month.

Wonder if scalpers will grab them all early at launch and repeat the 4080 scenario...

 

[Arkanian]

I have decided to get the 7900xtx. I might swtich back to Nvidia with 4090ti or 5000 series but I think going from 2070super to 7900xtx will get me what I need.

 

[madpistol]

I have decided to get the 7900xtx. I might swtich back to Nvidia with 4090ti or 5000 series but I think going from 2070super to 7900xtx will get me what I need.

A 2070 Super -> 7900 XTX is around a 3-3.5x jump in performance. You should be quite pleased with the upgrade. I just hope AMD's drivers are solid this generation.

 

[Decko87]

Glad I got a 6800 XT for 519, value proposition of the 7900 XTX and 4080 is horrible, really the 7900 XT and 4080 seem like equally shit value, the XT might be a worse value. Maybe I'll get one next year around this time at a steep discount.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Okay, now that I'm seeing actual benchmarks, disregard the RX 7900 XTX plans - this is getting ridiculous with how both AMD and NVIDIA are eschewing price-to-performance when used last-gen graphics cards are proving to be better buys for anyone who doesn't need 4090 levels of performance.

I guess AMD gets my money anyway, albeit more indirectly by way of Steam Deck and PS5.

 

[Kabouter plop]

Expect driver issues if you aren't having it already without ability to downgrade all the issues with drivers that been going on for the past half year or longer probably all unavoidable i hope their next driver is finally stable again else i fear the worst, might have to buy an Nvidia gpu, i don't wanna buy an Nvidia gpu if been in 3 years driver hell before but no where near as bad as past half year.

 

[zehoo]

I was going to get a 7900xtx, but instead bought a bunch of music gear to play with. I definitely need to upgrade in 2 years though, and the GPU chiplets should be more mature by then.

 

[somebrains]

If I still was into playing COD I’d seriously look at switching.
300fps at 1440p is a hell yes

Otherwise no, unless Blackout comes back or the next Treyarc title isn’t a MW reskin I don’t need a gpus right now.

 

[flooberjobby]

Anyone get one? Sold out already everywhere. Only the XT is still available.

 

[Arkanian]

Anyone get one? Sold out already everywhere. Only the XT is still available.

I was ready at 9:00:00EST, newegg went live. I tried to buy but everything was sold out in 20 seconds. Same on Best Buy as well. I was in queue with AMD, but it was also sold out. This was worse than 4090 launch. Just nuts and we already see scalpers selling them for 1749 on ebay and people are buying them. WTH

 

[Mr Evil]

Anyone get one? Sold out already everywhere. Only the XT is still available.

I managed to place an order, but I'm not sure if it was quick enough for me to get one from stock, or if I'll have to wait a couple more weeks for it to be delivered. I was surprised that it only took 20mins for them to sell out over here in the UK, despite reportedly decent numbers available.

 

[TheHig]

Microcenter here , Sharonville OH store, was showing only PowerColor reference 7900xtx and xt cards available on the site. The xtx lasted less than an hour after the store opened and as of now at +1hr and 15 mins the xt is still showing available. I’m not interested yet but I’m wondering how many people will cave and just get the xt despite its widely accepted terrible pricing compared to the xtx.

 

[KickAssCop]

Anyone buying a 7900XT must need a mental health check up.

 

[THUMPer]

Got lucky!