News AMD Announces Radeon RX 7800 XT at $499, RX 7700 XT at $449

[Admin]

AMD announced the Radeon RX 7800 XT and Radeon RX 7700 XT at its Gamescom session today, powered by the Navi 32 GPU. The cards will be available on September 6.

AMD Announces Radeon RX 7800 XT at $499, RX 7700 XT at $449 : Read more

 

[Order 66]

Does anyone notice how when the prices are being compared on the AMD chart the 7700xt is listed at $499 and the 7800xt is listed at $449? That 7800xt is looking like a pretty tempting upgrade from my 6800.

 

[Giroro]

Does anyone notice how when the prices are being compared on the AMD chart the 7700xt is listed at $499 and the 7800xt is listed at $449? That 7800xt is looking like a pretty tempting upgrade from my 6800.

I noticed that.
Also in the last slide deck, both prices are listed as $XXX

 

[MooseMuffin]

Odd product positioning. These seem like they should be specced and priced further apart. Looks closer to a 7800/7800xt than a 7700xt/7800xt.

 

[Giroro]

Its's a little weird that the prices of these cards are so close together. For a 10% lower price dropping down to the 7700 XT, on paper you lose 10% of the GPU ... But also you lose 4GB of memory and probably lose more than 10% of the performance.

I think this is supposed to make it look like a small step up in price to the 7800XT is a good value, but for me it makes the 7700 XT look overpriced... Which flips around and makes the 7800 XT also look overpriced, since the prices are so close.

 

[bit_user]

Shader count is pretty disappointing, and a big step back from the 6800 XT. Memory speed is a bigger improvement than rumored, but is a 22% improvement enough to compensate for having only half as much Infinity Cache?

And while the TFLOPS rate looks a lot better on paper, I think what we saw with the 7900 XTX is that real-world performance didn't improve over the 6950 XT nearly as much as the TFLOPS increase would've suggested.

I believe their original intention was to sell the 7900 GRE as the 7800 XT, but they felt the market wouldn't support a high enough price for it to have adequate margins. What they're now selling as the 7800 XT and 7700 XT was probably designed to hit slightly lower tiers, like 7600 XT, 7700, and 7700 XT.

 

[Order 66]

I noticed that.
Also in the last slide deck, both prices are listed as $XXX

lol, can't wait for reviews of these cards. Might be worth upgrading to a 7800 xt from my rx 6800 but I probably won't because the 6800 already runs all the games I play at 1080p ultra.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

lol, can't wait for reviews of these cards. Might be worth upgrading to a 7800 xt from my rx 6800 but I probably won't because the 6800 already runs all the games I play at 1080p ultra.

Sorry, that was my bad and I'll correct. AMD put $XXX in the slide deck, and I put in $499 and $449 when that was revealed. Except I normally think of the higher card being on the left and the lower card being on the right, so my pricing order has them switched. I've updated the article now.

 

[Order 66]

Sorry, that was my bad and I'll correct. AMD put $XXX in the slide deck, and I put in $499 and $449 when that was revealed. Except I normally think of the higher card being on the right and the lower card being on the left, so my pricing order has them switched.

understandable, since we usually read from left to right, I have also gotten used to the higher tier card being on the right.

 

[qwertymac93]

Hmm, I wonder if the chiplet packaging is just really expensive on its own and dropping a memory controller doesn't actually save AMD much money. Both the 7700xt and 7900xt have launch prices too close to the next step up. Hard to imagine AMD made the same mistake twice after so much backlash for the 7900xt. Makes me think it isn't a mistake and the actual manufacturing costs is just really, really close between the products.

Either way, the 7800xt is a bit too much, and the 7700xt is way too much. Very weak launch if performance goes as expected. A $399 7700xt would've been a different story.

 

[Order 66]

Hmm, I wonder if the chiplet packaging is just really expensive on its own and dropping a memory controller doesn't actually save AMD much money. Both the 7700xt and 7900xt have launch prices too close to the next step up. Hard to imagine AMD made the same mistake twice after so much backlash for the 7900xt. Makes me think it isn't a mistake and the actual manufacturing costs is just really, really close between the products.

Either way, the 7800xt is a bit too much, and the 7700xt is way too much. Very weak launch if performance goes as expected. A $399 7700xt would've been a different story.

maybe AMD will drop the prices hours before launch like they did with 7600xt.

 

[bit_user]

That 7800xt is looking like a pretty tempting upgrade from my 6800.

LOL, wut?? Once the benches are out, I doubt you'll still feel that way.

 

[sauve.richard]

Agree the pricing does seem a bit wonky. I mean, who's going to buy the 7700 xt when the 7800 xt is only $50 more? I know which one I'd pick 😛

 

[bit_user]

Hmm, I wonder if the chiplet packaging is just really expensive on its own and dropping a memory controller doesn't actually save AMD much money. Both the 7700xt and 7900xt have launch prices too close to the next step up.

What that suggests is that the bulk of the cost resides in the GCD, which makes sense.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Agree the pricing does seem a bit wonky. I mean, who's going to buy the 7700 xt when the 7800 xt is only $50 more? I know which one I'd pick 😛

If my performance estimates end up being close, this is very disappointing yet again. RX 6800 XT has fallen to $499 several times over the past two months. RX 6950 XT has dropped below $599, though it's back up again (and supplies are probably drying up finally). RX 6800 is at $449 already, and RX 6750 XT is at $349.

The traditional launch would have seen RX 7700 XT offering significantly better performance than the previous gen model for roughly the same price, around $349. And the same for the 7800 XT. If you already have a 6000-series, I see little to no reason to upgrade based on these early numbers. Comparing against the RX 5700 XT and RTX 2070 Super on the one slide (number 7) was a bit of a marketing joke.

 

[bit_user]

keep in mind that each shader is now able to do twice as many FP32 (or FP16) operations per clock, which results in a substantial boost to theoretical performance. The RX 7800 XT has 37 teraflops of graphics compute, 80% more than the previous generation RX 6800 XT. Similarly, the RX 7700 XT offers 35 teraflops of FP32 compute, an even larger 167% increase over the RX 6700 XT.

@JarredWaltonGPU , when you say something like this, you should also point out how little that helped the RX 7900 XTX.

Average (non-RT) 4k performance of the RX 7900 XTX improved by only 36.1% over the RX 6950 XT, yet it has a whopping 2.60x (boost; 2.41x non-boost) as many fp32 TFLOPS:

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-and-xt-review-shooting-for-the-top/4
​

If performance scales as poorly for the RX 7800 XT, it could actually be slower than the RX 6800 XT!!!

What I think we're seeing is that AMD increased the theoretical fp32 throughput of its shaders, yet the actual throughput improved far less. It's like deja vu from the GCN days - high throughput; low occupancy.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

@JarredWaltonGPU , when you say something like this, you should also point out how little that helped the RX 7900 XTX.

Average (non-RT) 4k performance of the RX 7900 XTX improved by only 36.1% over the RX 6950 XT, yet it has a whopping 2.60x (boost; 2.41x non-boost) as many fp32 TFLOPS:

​

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-and-xt-review-shooting-for-the-top/4​

​

If performance scales as poorly for the RX 7800 XT, it could actually be slower than the RX 6800 XT!!!

What I think we're seeing is that AMD increased the theoretical fp32 throughput of its shaders, yet the actual throughput improved far less. It's like deja vu from the GCN days - high throughput; low occupancy.

Yeah, the RDNA 3 compute improvements have really only benefited stuff like Stable Diffusion as far as I can tell in my testing. I've tweaked that paragraph as well, to include the 7900 XTX vs. 6950 XT comparison — mostly I left that out initially as I was trying to get the writeup finished before the NDA embargo (which I still missed by 15 minutes).

 

[bit_user]

Yeah, the RDNA 3 compute improvements have really only benefited stuff like Stable Diffusion as far as I can tell in my testing.

And that might've been mostly thanks to the matrix cores that are new to RDNA3?

I've tweaked that paragraph as well, to include the 7900 XTX vs. 6950 XT comparison — mostly I left that out initially as I was trying to get the writeup finished before the NDA embargo (which I still missed by 15 minutes).

Ah, my sympathies!
; )

As much as I hate working against a deadline, my focus is rarely better than when I am.

 

[thisisaname]

Poor when you have to ignore the last generation to make the new cards look an upgrade.

 

[salgado18]

I think only the pricing, and maybe the names, are off. Improved performance/watt and some new features are what makes a new generation. But at these prices, why upgrade if the last gen is as good as, or even better, for the money?

And I insist: RT performance is what gives Nvidia the lead in sales. It's the shiny new trend, the average customer doesn't want to compromise, and AMD failed to impress with the 7000 cards.

Between overpriced Nvidia, unimpressive AMD and still new to the game Intel, let's just hope game developers don't go crazy on specs for the next games and let us wait for better times to upgrade.

 

[bit_user]

And I insist: RT performance is what gives Nvidia the lead in sales. It's the shiny new trend, the average customer doesn't want to compromise, and AMD failed to impress with the 7000 cards.

For RDNA3, I think AMD was torn between making substantial improvement to RT performance vs. improving deep learning performance. But, they didn't want to devote enough additional die area to do both. So, in the end, what we got was some of each.

 

[danielcoles1989]

"Sure, they're going up against Nvidia's $499 and $399 parts, but Nvidia's GPUs are overpriced. Also, Nvidia has more features and is the market leader, so AMD can't hope to gain market share merely by attempting to match Nvidia's pricing."

Sorry Jarrod are you suggesting both AMD cards are competing with the 4060tis? Because surely by the slide's they'll be competing with the 4070 and 4060ti, which are $600 and $500. And if they beat those they will be good value?

Or am i missing something here?

EDIT: And are you suggesting AMD should price to compete with Nvidia if Nvidia price their cards purely on what people want them to be priced at?

 

[colossusrage]

Looks like my 6950XT will remain near the top of the AMD lineup for six years.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Regardless of whom you want to blame, the bottom line is that the value proposition for most of the latest-generation GPUs isn't all that great.

It hasn't been great for the last 5 years and it's not going to be great, good, or even decent again until AMD and nVidia aren't making money hand over fist in the enterprise market, and Intel isn't going to be able to put enough pressure on them to make them change anything.

And with nVidia and AMD pushing hard into artificial frame generation and IQ manipulation techniques, it's also not likely we will see great leaps in performance anytime soon either.

As for cards like the 7700XT 12GB, they just exist for the same reason phones like the Galaxy S23+ does, to fill a gap and to up promote the higher end card, because there's no way anyone in their right mind would say "Yeah, save $50 and get a weaker card with 25% less VRAM".

 

[thestryker]

This certainly leaves no room for a 7800. I can't help but wonder what is up with AMD's naming and pricing scheme this generation. Longevity wise the extra VRAM would be worth the ~11% cost increase, but the 7800 XT is faster as well which just makes it a no brainer.

I know AMD hasn't really cared to compete using price to improve volume of sales for the last few generations, but at this point it seems cynical. The only time the prices have gotten low enough to say undercut was the july sales.