AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Review: Stuck in the Middle

The RX 7700 XT struggles to justify its positioning.

XFX AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT card photos
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

AMD's RX 7700 XT gets stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. The performance and features aren't bad, but it's priced far too close to the 7800 XT right now, not to mention competition from the previous generation RX 6800.

Pros

  • +

    Good 1080p and decent 1440p performance

  • +

    12GB VRAM and a 192-bit interface

  • +

    Competitive rasterization performance

  • +

    DP2.1, AV1, and other architectural improvements

Cons

  • -

    Too expensive for what you get

  • -

    Can't clearly trump the RX 6800

  • -

    Weaker than alternatives in ray tracing performance and AI

  • -

    Not particularly power efficient

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

The AMD AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT and Radeon RX 7800 XT cards officially launched today, priced at $449 and $499, respectively. It's the usual story of a trimmed-down variant of the same core GPU — Navi 32 in this case — coming in at a lower price point. Unfortunately, some of the trimmings went too far, while the price remains too high for what you get. As the final chip in the AMD RDNA 3 architecture lineup, Navi 32 fills the middle of the product stack and looks to compete with the best graphics cards.

But if you're looking at Navi 32, you'll generally be far better served by the Radeon RX 7800 XT, at least at current prices. We have a separate review of that card, and we suggest you start there as we'll cover more of the Navi 32 details there.

The short summary: the 7700 XT comes up short and costs too much. Here's a rundown of the specifications, including the previous generation Navi 21/22 parts and the current Nvidia competitors. 

Swipe to scroll horizontally
AMD RX 7800/7700 XT and Competing GPUs Specifications
Graphics CardRX 7700 XTRX 7800 XTRX 6800 XTRX 6700 XTRTX 4070RTX 4060 Ti 8GB / 16GB
ArchitectureNavi 32Navi 32Navi 21Navi 22AD104AD106
Process TechnologyTSMC N5 + N6TSMC N5 + N6TSMC N7TSMC N7TSMC 4NTSMC 4N
Transistors (Billion)28.1 + 3x 2.0528.1 + 4x 2.0526.817.23222.9
Die size (mm^2)200 + 113 (150)200 + 150519336294.5187.8
CUs / SMs546072404634
GPU Cores (Shaders)345638404608256058884352
AI / Tensor Cores108120N/AN/A184136
Ray Tracing "Cores"546072404634
Boost Clock (MHz)254424302250258124752535
VRAM Speed (Gbps)1819.516162118
VRAM (GB)12161612128 / 16
VRAM Bus Width192256256192192128
Infinity / L2 Cache4864128963632
ROPs9696128646448
TMUs216240288160184136
TFLOPS FP32 (Boost)35.237.320.713.229.122.1
TFLOPS FP16 (FP8)70.474.641.426.4233 (466)177 (353)
Bandwidth / Effective (GBps)432 / 1995624 / 2708512 / 1664384 / 1278504 / ?288 / 554
TBP/TGP (Watts)245263300230200160
Launch DateSep 2023Sep 2023Nov 2020Mar 2021Apr 2023May / July 2023
Launch Price$449$499$649$479$599$399 / $499
Online Price$450$500$500$320$590$374

The RX 7700 XT looks quite good compared to the previous-gen RX 6700 XT. You get substantially more compute, which is the key selling point. Theoretically, the RX 7700 XT offers 167% more number-crunching prowess than the 6700 XT. Even though we've pointed out in other RDNA 3 reviews that performance doesn't match that lofty figure, it's a good step up from the 6700 XT.

The problem is that it's also a big step up in price relative to the existing cards, where online pricing has dropped to $329 for the RX 6700 XT and $349 for the RX 6750 XT, and even the RX 6800 costs less than the 7700 XT at a current price of $429. The RX 6800 also has more memory and a wider interface, and as we'll see later, it provides stiff competition for the newcomer.

The other problem is the RX 7800 XT that uses the full Navi 32 implementation. On paper, the RX 7800 XT offers 6% more GPU compute, but 44% more memory bandwidth and 33% more memory capacity. And you get all that for an 11% increase in price. Spoiler alert: Generally, the RX 7800 XT is up to 20% faster. Short of a price cut, it's the better buy. Maybe that's why AMD is leaving all the RX 7700 XT production to its AIB (add-in board) partners.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Founders Edition photos and unboxing

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

If you don't want to step up to the $500 RX 7800 XT, then you have to look at other cards like Nvidia's competing RTX 4060 Ti, which costs $50 less — or the same price if you get the 16GB variant. You can go lower than that as well, with the RX 6700 XT and RTX 4060. AMD's 6700 XT and 7700 XT at least provide 12GB of VRAM with a 192-bit bus, so they should be good for most games for quite some time, but if you're not dead set on maxing out all the settings in games, you can still get by with an 8GB card.

Of course, you also get the new features of RDNA 3, like AV1 encoding and decoding support, DisplayPort 2.1 (UHBR13.5) outputs, and improved AI processing hardware. Those are fine to have, though, for most people, they're not going to matter enough to sway your purchasing decision. If you care about AV1 encoding, Nvidia does it better on RTX 40-series parts; if you care about DP2.1 outputs, then you'll also need a non-existent DP2.1 monitor... or else just stick to 4K and 240 Hz or lower displays, which can work on all the previous generation parts as well.

There's also the broader ecosystem to consider. Nvidia has been pushing ray tracing for five years now, and there are certainly games that make decent use of the new API. Alongside ray tracing, you have AI and deep learning, as well as DLSS — which now has upscaling, frame generation, and soon ray reconstruction. 

Jarred Walton

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.

  • cknobman
    This card will be a winner when the price is reduced to $400.

    Between this card and its bigger brother, the 7800XT, Nvidia's 4060 series of cards (and maybe even the 4070) are completely irrelevant now.
    Reply
  • oofdragon
    cknobman said:
    This card will be a winner when the price is reduced to $400.

    Between this card and its bigger brother, the 7800XT, Nvidia's 4060 series of cards (and maybe even the 4070) are completely irrelevant now.

    I'd say the 7800XT will be a winner in a year or two when it's discounted at $400. The 7700XT at 12GB is more like.. $300.
    Reply
  • Colif
    Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.

    5TGHvXKkhao
    The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
    7800xt in Australia is about $1000
    7700xt in Australia is about 860

    7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Colif said:
    Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.

    The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
    7800xt in Australia is about $1000
    7700xt in Australia is about 860

    7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places.
    Does it, though?

    272
    So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.

    7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost.
    Reply
  • P1nky
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.

    7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost.
    Can't believe you're actually defending the 4060 Ti, a GPU with just 8GB for a massive $400 price. No wonder you gave the 7700 XT a meh rating.

    You must watch HU's investigation of how bad the textures look on just 8GB, even if the framerates are unaffected. There are plenty of games that won't be bottlenecked by 8GB by 30 second benchmark runs. Cards might performs similarly sometimes, but the texture experience and frame drops on on 4060 Ti are a joke on long benchmark runs.
    Reply
  • luissantos
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.

    7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost.

    Your only valid point is power consumption.

    DXR performance is mostly irrelevant: neither card is sufficiently capable in that regard. Until DXR comes with a 5-10% penalty in performance it will remain a gimmick. In fact, games that have had a "modern render release" like Quake 2 look far better using said new render than DXR. For CP2077 I'm sure I could find plenty of scenes where I could take a screenshot with RT on and off and trick you into guessing incorrectly. Moreover, UE 5's Lumi produces reasonably similar results with RT on and off, and that engine will have the most coverage of any other in the game market for the years to come.

    As for AI, just a few weeks ago AMD announced huge strides in that field as well, but again, that's irrelevant. What percentage of the market is buying a consumer mid-range GPU to focus primarily (or at all) on AI?
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    P1nky said:
    Can't believe you're actually defending the 4060 Ti, a GPU with just 8GB for a massive $400 price. No wonder you gave the 7700 XT a meh rating.

    You must watch HU's investigation of how bad the textures look on just 8GB, even if the framerates are unaffected. There are plenty of games that won't be bottlenecked by 8GB by 30 second benchmark runs. Cards might performs similarly sometimes, but the texture experience and frame drops on on 4060 Ti are a joke on long benchmark runs.
    The texture stuff is mostly game specific. Some games (Gollum, Star Wars, and basically a lot of Unreal Engine stuff) do a poor job at managing VRAM and so when the game exceeds 8GB, they load minimum res on some surfaces and not others. Then you get "texture popping" and stuttering. It's frankly a bad game engine design. Lots of other games exist that look very good and don't have the same problem, so it's pretty much a matter of coding quality and effort.

    The solution is to turn texture and shadow resolution down a notch, which usually drops VRAM use from <12GB to <8GB and rarely has a noticeable impact on visuals. Except some games (again, UE especially) don't even seem to do this very well. Software optimizations, particularly with low-level APIs (DX12/Vulkan) can easily deliver a 50% boost in performance, sometimes more. It's just a matter of how much effort the developers / publishers want to expend.

    I’m not saying 4060 Ti is great. I’m just pointing out that it’s not universally inferior to the 7700 XT / 7800 XT. 192-bit and 12GB or 256-bit and 16GB is inherently a superior configuration to 128-bit and 8GB/16GB. There's no question about that. But VRAM capacity and bandwidth aren't the only factor that matters.
    Reply
  • shady28
    Agree this isn't all that impressive, but neither was the 4060 Ti. I bought a 6700XT last year, and after seeing the 4060 Ti I really have no regrets.

    This 7700XT doesn't really seem to change any of that. If it were say $399 instead of $450, it might be ok. It's kind of a trade off with the 4060 Ti, generally better on performance (but not always) while losing on gaming power draw, but costs $50 more, which is frankly not good enough for an AMD GPU.

    Best deal on your comparison is still the 6700 XT.
    Reply
  • Colif
    its a replacement card, in a year or so the 6700xt may not be so easy to find.
    Reply
  • Ilijas Ramic
    Colif said:
    Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.

    5TGHvXKkhao
    The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
    7800xt in Australia is about $1000
    7700xt in Australia is about 860

    7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places.
    In my country the price diff is around 140usd 7700xt vs 7800xt. I ordered 7700xt for 680usd while the 7800xt is 820usd. Its almost 3x more price diff what most people pay. Also most people buy from newegg since they are from US. But us EU people are getting a hefty pay up on these card. Heck the newegg price is 450usd for 7700xt while i have to pay 230usd more. I havent upgraded my gpu for like 8 years now. Heck i got r9 380 on release date. And i paid back than msrp US price here wich was shocking 200usd. But after that we got price diffs soo large i just couldnt afford to upgrade.
    Reply