AMD's Radeon RX 7900 XT is a slightly slimmed-down version of the Navi 31 GPU and the company's top-of-the-line graphics card, the RX 7900 XTX. Priced starting at $899, it offers a slightly cheaper transition to the RDNA 3 generation, but you could be forgiven for thinking it's not that much cheaper than the best of the best; the RX 7900 XTX is surprisingly close, at $999. So why choose the cheaper of the two chips?" that's a good question, but I can't find a good answer.

For a second-tier graphics card in AMD's RX 7000 series stable of RDNA 3 architectures, the RX 7900 XT is more expensive than I would have expected. However, as seen with both AMD and Nvidia this generation, there is no escaping the high price point if you want to ensure the best or next best 4K performance.

Let's start with the performance of this card, as there is no doubt that it is very capable at 4K.

Within reason, it is safe to assume that if you install this card in your machine, you will be able to maximize the output of your 4K 60Hz gaming monitor. Leaving ray-traced aesthetics to one corner, we were able to safely exceed the average 4K frame rate of 60 fps on the RX 7900 XT. The minimum fps is slightly below this value, so it is not a perfectly smooth 60 fps, but it is generally close to it.

With ray tracing enabled, my mileage may vary; AMD has significantly improved ray tracing performance with the RDNA 3 architecture in this GPUa, and the card performed great in Far Cry 6, a game that is very favorable to AMD performance. In Cyberpunk 2077, however, the RX 7900 XT fell far short of the RX 7900 XTX's performance; it seemed to be overwhelmed by the more demanding benchmarks than the XTX.

4K Performance

However, at 1440p, one can expect performance close to the all-important 144fps.

The RX 7900 XT outperforms AMD's previous top card, the RX 6950 XT, in every benchmark I tested, and by a considerable margin, too, given that the RX 6950 XT launched at over $1,000 and now costs around $800 or even less. Given that, this is something to be proud of for the RX 7900 XT.

1440p performance

1080p performance

But where the XT really excels is in thermal performance. Although the card is clocked lower than the XTX and is still a much thirstier graphics card power-wise, it ran three runs of the same Metro Exodus benchmark at significantly cooler temperatures than the XTX.

Overall, we can say that the RX 7900 XT does well in several ways. For starters, even the RX 6950 XT appears to be a good upgrade, and considering the price difference between the two at launch, this is a good sign of AMD's progress in the RDNA 3 architecture. The reference cooler also runs at relatively low temperatures considering its performance, and appears to be quite capable for the price.

Thermal and power performance

That said, the RX 7900 XT has other very good points: compared to the RX 7900 XTX, the RX 7900 XTX looks much more affordable. [For another $100 (11% more than the RX 7900 XT), you can get 14% more cores, 4GB more memory, and a generally faster card in the RX 7900 XTX. This is quite a bargain, especially considering AMD's history of launching these kinds of high-end GPUs.

Take, for example, the RX 6900 XT and the RX 6800 XT, which only has 11% more cores than the RX 6800 XT and cost $350 more at launch (where prices are generally much lower now). The RX 6900 XT, other than core count, is almost identical specs to the RX 6800 XT. Basically, depending on which way you look at it, either the RX 6800 XT is a bargain or the RX 6900 XT is not. Probably both.

The RX7000 series seems too good a bargain to replicate this. Returning to the RX 7900 series, one pays a small premium for the top card, the XTX, which is much better than the XT in many ways.

In a few cases, the difference between XT and XTX is minimal and the performance difference is virtually nonexistent. Also, XT is more efficient and runs cooler. In general, however, you get what you pay for with a high-end XTX card, if not a bit more.

Despite the launch of four graphics cards between the two major graphics card players, we are now at a loss for a current generation GPU that is actually affordable from anyone. However, it seems to me that the recent surge in GPU prices and demand has hit this generation of GPUs hard; the launch of near top-end graphics cards like the RX 6800 XT for $649 now seems like a distant memory.

What about the RX 7900 XT? Certainly not bad; it falls about 10% short of the XTX's performance, but it is 10% less expensive. [The RX 7900 XT is well worth the price difference from the XTX. Also, the frame rate displayed in the game seems to vary almost linearly with the amount of money spent.

I can't say for sure with this review, but my fear is that the price of this card is likely to rise quickly to near XTX's $999 MSRP, and to make the RX 7900 XT a slightly better buy, the MSRP of $899 or even untenable price, it would have to be unbearably close to the MSRP.

Is it better than the RX 6950 XT? Yes. Is it cheaper than the RX 6950 XT at launch? Yes, a competitor to the RTX 4080. No. Is it worth saving money for this instead of the XTX? It's a good 4K graphics card if you look at frame rates on their own, but since there are generally much better cards right out there, you better believe I'll be tempted to find an extra $100 somewhere in my build and get the XTX instead.