Question 7900 XT vs 4070 Ti ?

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
I'm about to pull the trigger on buying a new GPU and I'm having the hardest time deciding between the two. For my uses I'm leaning more towards 4070TI, but the benchmarks say that the 7900XT fares better in real world tests and has more VRAM which should stand up to newer titles. My budget is about $800.

This is my configuration:

Case: Lian Li A4-H20 Dan SFF
PSU: EVGA Supernova 850W GM
Motherboard; MSI Z790 Edge ITX
CPU: Intel Core i7-13700K
Cooler: Corsair H100i Elite Capillex
RAM: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5-6200 MHz
SSD1: SK Hynix P41 Platinum 2TB
SSD2: WD Black SN770X 2TB
GPU: TBD

And this will be hooked to an LG QNED 55" 4K 120Hz TV.
 
Last edited:

Aeacus

Titan
Ambassador
but the benchmarks say that the 7900XT fares better in real world tests

While 7900 XT is ~10% better on 4K than RTX 4070 Ti;
link: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-gaming-oc/32.html

But as soon as you turn on Ray Tracing, 7900 XT performance tanks compared to 4070 Ti,
link: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-gaming-oc/34.html

So, if you can answer:"Are you going to use Ray Tracing?", then you'll also know which GPU to go for.

Of course, with Nvidia you'll get DLSS while with Radeon, you have FSR.
Consensus is, that DLSS is better than FSR.
Found this article: https://analyticsindiamag.com/dlss-vs-fsr-3-0-is-ai-enough-to-give-nvidia-the-edge/

and has more VRAM which should stand up to newer titles

Should, could, would... None of us see the future. (Would be neat though.)

Also, have you upgraded GPUs because you ran out of VRAM, or because GPU performance as a whole got slow? :unsure:
 
Keep in mind that amd should be releasing fsr 3 at some point. For what it’s worth a friend of mine recently upgraded to a 7900xtx from a 3090 and seems to be happy as a lark.

I think I read somewhere that ray tracing on the 7000 series is closer to the nvidia 3000 series. That said, with the vram I think I’d choose the 7900xt with more vram. That said I’m not in that situation so I can’t make the call for you.
 
There are a lot of factors at play to consider because there are definite reasons for each. DLSS is definitely better than FSR for the most part (it's never worse, but sometimes they're the same). Ray Tracing performance will be better on the 4070ti so long as you're not playing something where that causes a VRAM issue. 4k is more likely to run into a VRAM problem than any lower resolution, but generally this can be mitigated by turning down textures a single setting. I'm assuming you'll be sitting away from the screen so that will be less of a concern than if you were sitting monitor distance.

Personally I'd go with the 7900XT simply because you will want to be playing 4k resolution all the time and this will give you the best performance in most titles with native rendering. It'll also last longer if more games increase VRAM requirements (nobody knows what the future holds). This of course depends on how long you're trying to keep your card for as well.
 
I would take the RX 7900 XT over the RTX 4070 Ti because a card with the amount of graphics horsepower that these cards have should have WAY more than 12GB of VRAM. The fact that nVidia put only 12GB on the RTX 4070 Ti was basically a slap in the face that few people truly understood. It was nVidia saying "people will buy our cards no matter what" and for a lot of people, that's true.

On the other hand, REAL tech enthusiasts like us know how to read the numbers and we know what they mean. I remember when the GTX 1080 came out with only 10GB of VRAM, I was like "WTH"???

The RX 7900 XT has 20GB of VRAM while the RTX 4070 Ti has only 12GB of VRAM despite being 21% faster than the RX 6800 XT. That's a massive 8GB (66%) difference! Hell, my RX 6800 XT has 16GB of VRAM even though it's 18% slower than the RTX 4070 Ti. A card as fast as the RTX 4070 Ti should have at least 16GB, but nVidia reserved that "huge" amount of VRAM only for those who are willing to pay over $1,000USD for a goddamn video card!

As things stand right now, nVidia charges you extra for included planned obsolescence while Radeons come with free extra longevity. There's no question that I would definitely take the RX 7900 XT over the RTX 4070 Ti, even if I had to pay $50 more for it.
 

punkncat

Champion
Ambassador
One of the factors that I would consider strongly is what type sync the TV you are connecting to offers. Loads of current monitors are FreeSync/AMD compatible. Far less are actual G Sync with slightly more listed as "compatible". Otherwise, you are at the mercy of V Sync which often tanks performance.

Good luck with your choice.
 

punkncat

Champion
Ambassador
Also, have you upgraded GPUs because you ran out of VRAM, or because GPU performance as a whole got slow? :unsure:

My own traditional experience was that I got the card I could afford and used it as long as possible while slowly reducing settings until the day came that I purchased a game that the card wasn't capable of. I wouldn't so much call it a 'slow card' issue so much as just not being capable of a newer standard, DX12 for example. For a really long time I was only using a 1080/60 monitor and that has been readily achievable for so long that it sort of masked the shortcomings of some older graphics cards. When I finally updated to a 1440 high refresh rate monitor it very quickly showed my need for a more modern bit of hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MEMOFLEX

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
One of the factors that I would consider strongly is what type sync the TV you are connecting to offers. Loads of current monitors are FreeSync/AMD compatible. Far less are actual G Sync with slightly more listed as "compatible". Otherwise, you are at the mercy of V Sync which often tanks performance.

Good luck with your choice.

Yeah that was another thing that I had considered was Freesync compatibility. I chose the 4070TI. The ray tracing issue was ultimately the deciding factor. I'll definitely be testing it with some games once I get my system built, which should be tomorrow.

If I could have fit the Merc 310 in my system, I would have absolutely gone with that. I could only find reference 7900XTs that would fit my case. But I ultimately decided to go with the Zotac 4070TI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aeacus

Aeacus

Titan
Ambassador
I wouldn't so much call it a 'slow card' issue so much as just not being capable of a newer standard, DX12 for example.
Yeah, that's the thing with GPUs. You can lower in-game graphics to keep the GPU relevant for longer but eventually, GPU won't live up to the task. And of course, there are the new standards as well, which old GPU won't meet.

Still, i have yet to see someone who upgrades their GPU since they ran out of VRAM. Due to this, getting higher VRAM GPU for "future proofing", IMO, is a moot idea.
I used to have GTX 1060 with 3GB VRAM, which, even back then, was frowned upon. Still, GPU worked fine and i didn't have issues due to the lack of VRAM. Did upgrade my GPU not because the small VRAM amount but because the performance of the GPU itself (GTX 1060 struggled to match my new 144 Hz monitor). Now i'm running GTX 1660 Ti with 6GB of VRAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: punkncat

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
Yeah, that's the thing with GPUs. You can lower in-game graphics to keep the GPU relevant for longer but eventually, GPU won't live up to the task. And of course, there are the new standards as well, which old GPU won't meet.

Still, i have yet to see someone who upgrades their GPU since they ran out of VRAM. Due to this, getting higher VRAM GPU for "future proofing", IMO, is a moot idea.
I used to have GTX 1060 with 3GB VRAM, which, even back then, was frowned upon. Still, GPU worked fine and i didn't have issues due to the lack of VRAM. Did upgrade my GPU not because the small VRAM amount but because the performance of the GPU itself (GTX 1060 struggled to match my new 144 Hz monitor). Now i'm running GTX 1660 Ti with 6GB of VRAM.

Yeah I try to keep GPUs for at least 3 years. After that, that's when I start looking at replacing them. Hopefully by the time that comes, GPUs come back down in price and they don't cost an arm and a leg.
 
Yeah I try to keep GPUs for at least 3 years. After that, that's when I start looking at replacing them. Hopefully by the time that comes, GPUs come back down in price and they don't cost an arm and a leg.

Wouldn’t count on that. Right now is actually a pretty decent time to buy depending what you want to spend. However nvidia seems pretty set on higher prices. Could be interesting to see what Intel comes out with.
 

Aeacus

Titan
Ambassador
Hopefully by the time that comes, GPUs come back down in price and they don't cost an arm and a leg.
This is actually quite complex. Especially the part of seeing latest gen GPUs (which will be expensive) and then looking at older gen GPUs (albeit cheaper), whereby most people have hard time buying older GPU, when better GPU is available.

Then, there is the scope of GPUs that suit your needs. E.g if you use 4K, selection of GPUs for you is considerably smaller, compared to when you'd be using 1080p. On 1080p, you can basically get any GPU from the lineup, while with 4K, only the top 2-3 GPUs within the lineup would suffice.
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
Wouldn’t count on that. Right now is actually a pretty decent time to buy depending what you want to spend. However nvidia seems pretty set on higher prices. Could be interesting to see what Intel comes out with.

Yeah the Arc A750 is an interesting product, but I've only heard mixed reviews. Hopefully they get all the bugs ironed out in the next version.