AMD Radeon RX 7900 Series Deep Dive

AMD Radeon RX 7900 Series Deep Dive
(Image credit: AMD)

Today, AMD takes the wraps off its upcoming Radeon RX 7900 XTX and Radeon RX 7900 XT graphics cards. We had some of the details with the November 3 announcement, but AMD wanted to hold a few additional pieces of information until today — just ahead of the Nvidia RTX 4080 launch. These new AMD GPUs are set to compete against the best graphics cards, and we expect both will land near the top of the GPU benchmarks hierarchy come December 13.

We also have a deep dive into the AMD RDNA 3 architecture, a look at AMD's Gaming and ISV relations, and some details on the Software and Platform ecosystem. But for the 7900 series, let's start with the raw specs. 

Swipe to scroll horizontally
AMD RX 7900 Series Specifications
Graphics Card RX 7900 XTX RX 7900 XT RX 6950 XT
Architecture Navi 31 Navi 31 Navi 21
Process Technology TSMC N5 + N6 TSMC N5 + N6 TSMC N7
Transistors (Billion) 58 (45.7 + 6x 2.05) 56 (45.7 + 5x 2.05) 26.8
Die size (mm^2) 300 + 222 300 + 185 519
CUs / SMs 96 84 80
SPs / Cores (Shaders) 6144 (12288) 5376 (10752) 5120
Tensor / Matrix Cores ? ? ?
Ray Tracing "Cores" 96 84 80
Boost Clock (MHz) 2500 2400 2310
VRAM Speed (Gbps) 20 20 18
VRAM (GB) 24 20 16
VRAM Bus Width 384 320 256
L2 / Infinity Cache 96 80 128
ROPs 192 192 128
TMUs 384 336 320
TFLOPS FP32 (Boost) 61.4 51.6 23.7
TFLOPS FP16 (FP8) 123 103 47.4
Bandwidth (GBps) 960 800 576
TDP (watts) 355 300 335
Dimensions 287x123x49mm 276x113x49mm 267x118x49mm
Launch Date Dec 13, 2022 Dec 13, 2022 May 2022
Launch Price $999 $899 $1,099
Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • colossusrage
    The ray tracing performance is about what I expected, which is about 3090 performance for AMD's flagship. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since FSR gets you over the 60fps mark. Unless Nvidia lowers the price of the 4080 by the time the 7900XTX launches, I think this will be my upgrade from a 3080.
    Reply
  • RichardtST
    44fps at 4K with ray tracing? That would be the first thing to get turned off. 40fps is playable, but very painful. At 24 fps you just stop the game and go play with your baby sister instead. I'd say neither one gets a passing score here.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    RichardtST said:
    44fps at 4K with ray tracing? That would be the first thing to get turned off. 40fps is playable, but very painful. At 24 fps you just stop the game and go play with your baby sister instead. I'd say neither one gets a passing score here.
    Or enable DLSS or FSR2.1. We're very much getting to the point where upscaling of some form will be required for higher FPS. The point of the DXR tests is to show worst-case scenarios in some sense, because I can pretty much guarantee that whatever "way too complex and heavy" graphics scenario we can come up with right now will at some point in the future become the norm, and then it will become "easy" for even budget hardware. All the extra DXR effects in CP77 might not be worth the performance loss, but a different game and engine might do something with DXR that actually warrants the hit.
    Reply
  • alceryes
    No mention of the potential NAVI 31 PCB respin due to a hardware fault (or hardware limitation specifically put in place by AMD)?
    Basically, these cards can't get far above 2.8GHz due to a hardware limitation.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    The 7900XT is still too darn expensive. The 7900XTX can be 1K, because it has the priviledge of being a "halo" product, but the 7900XT should be the "reasonable top tier" contender and at $900 it is not. At least, not with the projected difference in performance between the two.

    Come on AMD, stop playing stupid games and get reasonable with the 7900XT.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    -Fran- said:
    The 7900XT is still too darn expensive. The 7900XTX can be 1K, because it has the priviledge of being a "halo" product, but the 7900XT should be the "reasonable top tier" contender and at $900 it is not. At least, not with the projected difference in performance between the two.

    Come on AMD, stop playing stupid games and get reasonable with the 7900XT.

    Regards.

    When the nearest competition that may even be slower is 4080 and costing only $1199 and has no need to reduce the cost of 7900XT at all...
    Nvidia has to make the move first, because AMD has no reason at all reduce prices at the current situation!
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    With these prices I will look for a 6950 cheap edition. 350 400 us
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    hannibal said:
    When the nearest competition that may even be slower is 4080 and costing only $1199 and has no need to reduce the cost of 7900XT at all...
    Nvidia has to make the move first, because AMD has no reason at all reduce prices at the current situation!
    You're not wrong and I hate that, LOL.

    We could also blame Intel while we're at it, yes?

    Regards xD
    Reply
  • RichardtST
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Or enable DLSS or FSR2.1. We're very much getting to the point where upscaling of some form will be required for higher FPS. The point of the DXR tests is to show worst-case scenarios in some sense, because I can pretty much guarantee that whatever "way too complex and heavy" graphics scenario we can come up with right now will at some point in the future become the norm, and then it will become "easy" for even budget hardware. All the extra DXR effects in CP77 might not be worth the performance loss, but a different game and engine might do something with DXR that actually warrants the hit.

    Except that those techs don't help the lag. It is the lag that kills the game. Visually it is terrible at low frame rates, but the killer is the lag. Very frustrating to move the mouse and then watch it move later on when it feels like getting around to it. 60fps (real frames, not imaginary ones) is minimum for acceptable gameplay. I'm perfectly happy with whatever tech comes along.... that does not add to the lag.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    RichardtST said:
    Except that those techs don't help the lag. It is the lag that kills the game. Visually it is terrible at low frame rates, but the killer is the lag. Very frustrating to move the mouse and then watch it move later on when it feels like getting around to it. 60fps (real frames, not imaginary ones) is minimum for acceptable gameplay. I'm perfectly happy with whatever tech comes along.... that does not add to the lag.
    DLSS2 and FSR2 absolutely help reduce latency. DLSS 3 Frame Generation and presumably the future FSR 3 are a different matter. Don't confuse the two! Higher real framerates (not "generated" or "interpolated" or "imaginary") mean lower latency. I showed latency for one game with the RTX 4090 review. Here's Native vs. Quality vs. Performance upscaling latencies compared in a single chart:

    156
    It's interesting that the 4090 with DLSS2 Quality did better than 4090 with DLSS2 Performance. Is that because it took longer at 4x upscaling versus 2x upscaling, or perhaps just variation in measured latency? I don't know for certain.
    Reply