Gigabyte Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G. If RTX 4090 is too costly…

Battlefield V with DXR

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX is built on the full version of the Navi 31 GPU with six MCD chipsets and represents the pinnacle of the current generation of RDNA 3 gaming graphics cards. The memory size (24 GB) and bus width (384 bits) are the same as the GeForce RTX 4090, but the bandwidth is slightly lower on the RX 7900 XTX. This is because it doesn’t use GDDR6X memory (like the RTX 4090), but “only” GDDR6. Price-wise, RX 7900 XT graphics cards compete more with GeForce RTX 4080, which they beat in some ways, in others they lose. We’ll break everything down in detail so that you have a clear idea of what is a more acceptable choice for you in what situation.

Gigabyte Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G in detail

This is the most feature-packed of the three RX 7900 XTX variants Gigabyte has on offer. This is coupled with the highest GPU clock speeds (officially up to 2680 MHz) and the largest dimensions. There are certainly slimmer RX 7900 XTXs on the market.

Larger dimensions, on the other hand, mean a very robust cooler. Three fans are common, but with 69 mm of thickness the Aorus Elite 24G design already stands out. Still, Gigabyte was making virtually 4-slot graphics cards before they became the unwritten standard for the RTX 4090. Think of the Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G, for example. Gigabyte also adapts the layout of its motherboards to such thick graphics cards, where under the first PCI Express slot there are M.2 slots for installing SSDs, and the second PCIe slot is at a sufficient distance to allow it to be used even next to the largest graphics cards.

This Radeon also stretches up to RTX 4090 in terms of length. At 335mm, it’s already a good idea to make sure the graphics card will be compatible with your case. This may even be doubly true in some cases due to the extra width of 137 mm. The cooler extends up to 30 mm beyond the PCIe slot’s latch.

Gigabyte makes good use of the larger width by using larger fans in the 100mm format, among other things. The blades traditionally have more curved leading edges, but still maintain above-average stiffness. But despite the greater width and thickness, this design could do with stiffening the tips of the blades with the often-used circular frame, which suppresses vibration. In fact, sound spectrograms show more pronounced peaks at lower frequencies (around 210 Hz), which means that the fan acoustic response is on the rumblier side. Not downright boomy, which would sting your ears, but there’s definitely room for improvement in that regard. However, Gigabyte avoided the rim, probably also because of the possible clash with the ARGB LED lighting around the rotor, which would have been overshadowed by this element.

The weight of the graphics card (1911g) is close to two kilos and it’s a really hefty piece of hardware. A backplate is used to stiffen the structure, while also protecting the PCB. This is quite long on Radeons, leaving only a relatively small area in the back for the “cooling window”.

The cooler is characterized by the use of a vapor chamber, which, unlike full blocks, contains condensate that provides a more even distribution of heat through the base. This should then result in more efficient cooling. We’ll cover this issue (and how the Vapor Chamber behaves and that it may not always be all rosy) later in a thematic test.

On the side, in an easily accessible location, a two-position BIOS switch is located on the card. In both cases (“OC” and “Silent”) the GPU clock speeds are set to the same (2679 MHz in boost) and the difference is in the fan control. These are about 400 rpm slower in Silent mode under high sustained load (with about 1600 rpm), and the measured noise compared to our results (with OC profile) in the charts is 4–5 dBA lower depending on the load, with the GPU temperatures rising by about 4 °C. These are also linked to slightly lower achieved (GPU) clock speeds, but this is in the order of single MHz units, so the main thing you will notice by changing the BIOS from the default (OC) to Silent will be mainly lower noise.

The external power supply is provided by three 6+2-pins, which are recessed deeper into the body, behind the cover. This means that the attached connector does not increase the space requirements too much, just by the thickness of the dangling cable bundle.

Due to the fact that it is a heavy card, as we have already written, the accessories include a bracket that lightens the load on the PCIe slot while keeping the card level across its entire length, which can also be considered as an aesthetic feature.

The nice visuals of the RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G are played up by the two backlit Aorus logos (side and back, on the backplate) and the fans. The light around them is mainly visible when the graphics card is mounted vertically, but from certain angles it shines through the fins of the cooler even horizontally. Colours, effects and brightness can be adjusted from RGB Fusion (2.0), which can also be installed in the Gigabyte Control Center.
Note: The article continues in the following chapters.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Gaming tests

The largest sample of tests is from games. This is quite natural given that GeForce and Radeons, i.e. cards primarily intended for gaming use, will mostly be tested.

We chose the test games primarily to ensure the balance between the titles better optimized for the GPU of one manufacturer (AMD) or the other one (Nvidia). But we also took into account the popularity of the titles so that you could find your own results in the charts. Emphasis was also placed on genre diversity. Games such as RTS, FPS, TPS, car racing as well as a flight simulator, traditional RPG and sports games are represented by the most played football game. You can find a list of test games in the library of chapters (9–32), with each game having its own chapter, sometimes even two (chapters) for the best possible clarity, but this has its good reason, which we will share with you in the following text.

Before we start the gaming tests, each graphics card will pass the tests in 3D Mark to warm up to operating temperature. That’s good synthetics to start with.

We’re testing performance in games across three resolutions with an aspect ratio of 16:9 – FHD (1920 × 1080 px), QHD (2560 × 1440 px) and UHD (3840 × 2160 px) and always with the highest graphic settings, which can be set the same on all current GeForce and Radeon graphics cards. We turned off proprietary settings for the objectivity of the conclusions, and the settings with ray-tracing graphics are tested separately, as lower class GPUs do not support them. You will find their results in the complementary chapters. In addition to native ray-tracing, also after deploying Nvidia DLSS (2.0) and AMD FidelityFX CAS.

If the game has a built-in benchmark, we use that one (the only exception is Forza Horizon 4, where due to its instability – it used to crash here and there – we drive on our track), in other cases the measurements take place on the games’ own scenes. From those we capture the times of consecutive frames in tables (CSV) via OCAT, which FLAT interprets into intelligible fps speech. Both of these applications are from the workshop of colleagues from the gpureport.cz magazine. In addition to the average frame rate, we also write the minimum in the graphs. That contributes significantly to the overall gaming experience. For the highest possible accuracy, all measurements are repeated three times and the final results form their average value.

Computational tests

Testing the graphics card comprehensively, even in terms of computing power, is more difficult than drawing conclusions from the gaming environment. Just because such tests are usually associated with expensive software that you don’t just buy for the editorial office. On the other hand, we’ve found ways to bring the available computing performance to you. On the one hand, thanks to well-built benchmarks, on the other hand, there are also some freely available and at the same time relevant applications, and thirdly, we have invested something in the paid ones.

The tests begin with ComputeBench, which computes various simulations (including game graphics). Then we move on to the popular SPECviewperf benchmark (2020), which integrates partial operations from popular 2D and 3D applications, including 3Ds max and SolidWorks. Details on this test package can be found at spec.org. From the same team also comes SPECworkstation 3, where GPU acceleration is in the Caffe and Folding@Home tests. You can also find the results of the LuxMark 3.1 3D render in the graphs, and the remarkable GPGPU theoretical test also includes AIDA64 with FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed measurements.

For obvious reasons, 3D rendering makes the largest portion of the tests. This is also the case, for example, in the Blender practical tests (2.91). In addition to Cycles, we will also test the cards in Eevee and radeon ProRender renderers (let AMD have a related test, as most are optimized for Nvidia cards with proprietary CUDA and OptiX frameworks). Of course, an add-on for V-ray would also be interesting, but at the moment the editorial office can’t afford it, we may manage to get a “press” license in time, though, we’ll see. We want to expand application tests in the future. Definitely with some advanced AI testing (we haven’t come up with a reasonable way yet), including noise reduction (there would be some ideas already, but we haven’t incorporated those due to time constraints).

Graphics cards can also be tested well in photo editing. To get an idea of the performance in the popular Photoshop, we’re using a script in PugetBench, which simulates real work with various filters. Among them are those that use GPU acceleration. A comprehensive benchmark suggesting the performance of raster and vector graphics is then also used in alternative Affinity Photo. In Lightroom, there are remarkable color corrections (Enhance Details) of raw uncompressed photos. We apply these in batches to a 1 GB archive. All of these tasks can be accelerated by both GeForce and Radeon.

From another perspective, there are decryption tests in Hashcat with a selection of AES, MD5, NTLMv2, SHA1, SHA2-256/512 and WPA-EAPOL-PBKDF2 ciphers. Finally, in the OBS and XSplit broadcast applications, we measure how much the game performance will be reduced while recording. It is no longer provided by shaders, but by coders (AMD VCE and Nvidia Nvenc). These tests show how much spare performance each card has for typical online streaming.

There are, of course, more hardware acceleration options, typically for video editing and conversion. However, this is purely in the hands of encoders, which are always the same within one generation of cards from one manufacturer, so there is no point in testing them on every graphics card. It is different across generations and tests of this type will sooner or later appear. Just fine-tuning the metric is left, where the output will always have the same bitrate and pixel match. This is important for objective comparisons, because the encoder of one company/card may be faster in a particular profile with the same settings, but at the expense of the lower quality that another encoder has (but may not have, it’s just an example).

Update: As of November 18, 2022, we are testing all graphics cards only in Resizable BAR active mode. There are three reasons why we will not continue with measurements without ReBAR.

The main reason is that new motherboards starting with Intel Z790 and AMD X670(E) chipset models already have it enabled, which wasn’t the case before, and the PCIe settings required ReBAR to be enabled manually. So those who don’t turn it off will be running with ReBAR active, which is a good thing from a gaming perspective where it adds performance. This is perhaps to some extent because Intel graphics cards without ReBAR don’t seem to behave correctly, and there will probably be more and more graphics cards that count on it in the future. You already know the number two reason for ReBAR-only tests.

Finally, it is also true that testing all tests twice (with and without ReBAR) with triple repeatability is extremely time consuming. However, it is still true what we have argued many times – a platform with ReBAR is less stable when it comes to measurement results. Over time, some things may change in the debugging process (from driver to driver) and may not “make sense” when compared to each other. So when you see somewhere that in other tests a slower card outperforms a more powerful one in some particular case, remember these words.
The disadvantage of measurements with active ReBAR is, in short, that all comparison tests may not always be perfectly consistent. And it is possible that there will continue to be cases where ReBAR reduces performance rather than adding to it. These are things to be reckoned with when studying results. This applies not only to our tests, but to the tests of all the others who do not retest all the older models in comparison with every new graphics card tested.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Methodology: how we measure power draw

We have been tuning the method of measuring power draw for quite a long time and we will also be tuning it for some time. But we already have gimmicks that we can work with happily.

To get the exact value of the total power draw of the graphics card, it is necessary to map the internal power draw on the PCI Express slot and the external one on the additional power supply. For the analysis of the PCIe slot, it was necessary to construct an in-between card on which the power draw measurement takes place. Its basis is resistors calibrated to the exact value (0.1 Ω) and according to the amount of their voltage drop we can calculate the current. We then substitute it into the formula for the corresponding value of the output voltage ~ 12 V and ~ 3.3 V. The voltage drop is so low that it doesn’t make the VRM of the graphics card unstable and the output is still more than 12/3.3 V.

We are also working on a similar device for external power supply. However, significantly higher currents are achieved there, longer cabling and more passages between connectors are necessary, which means that the voltage drop will have to be read on an even smaller resistance of 0.01 Ω, the current state (with 0.1 Ω) is unstable for now. Until we fine-tune it, we will use Prova 15 current clamp for cable measurements, which also measures with good accuracy, they just have a range of up to 30 A. But that is also enough for the OC version of the RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio. If a card is over the range, it is always possible to split the consumption measurement (first into one half and then into the other half of the 12 V conductors).

And why bother with such devices at all when Nvidia has a PCAT power draw analyzer? For complete control over the measurements. While our devices are transparent, the Nvidia’s tool uses the processor that can (but of course does not have to) affect the measurements. After testing the AMD graphics card on the Nvidia’s tool, we probably wouldn’t sleep well.

To read and record measurements, we use a properly calibrated multimeter Keysight U1231A, which exports samples to XLS. From it we obtain the average value and by substituting into the formula with the exact value of the subcircuit output voltages we obtain the data for the graphs.

We will analyze the line graphs with the waveforms for each part of the power supply separately. Although the 3.3 V value is usually negligible, it needs to be monitored. It is difficult to say what exactly this subcircuit powers, but usually the consumption on it is constant and when it changes only with regard to whether a static or dynamic image is rendered. We measure consumption in two sort of demanding games (F1 2020 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider) and one less demanding one (CS:GO) with the highest graphic details preset and UHD resolution (3840 × 2560 px). Then in 3D rendering in Blender using the Cycles renderer on the famous Classroom scene. However, in addition to high-load tests, it’s important to know your web browser consumption (which, in our case, is accelerated Google Chrome), where we also spend a lot of time watching videos or browsing the web. The usual average load of this type is represented by the FishIE Tank (HTML5) website with 20 fish and the web video in our power draw tests is represented by a sample with the VP9 codec, data rate of 17.4 mb/s and 60 fps. In contrast, we also test offline video consumption, in VLC player on a 45 HEVC sample (45.7 mb/s, 50 fps). Finally, we also record the power consumption of the graphics card on the desktop of idle Windows 10 with one or two active UHD@60 Hz monitors.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Noise measurement…

Noise, as well as other operating characteristics, which we will focus on, we’re measuring in the same modes as consumption, so that the individual values overlap nicely. In addition to the level of noise produced, we also record the frequency response of the sound, the course of the GPU clock speed and its temperature.

In this part of the methodology description, we will present something about the method of noise measurement. We use a Reed R8080 sound level meter, which we continuously calibrate with a calibrated Voltcraft SLC-100 digital sound level meter. A small addition to the sound level meter is a parabola-shaped collar, which has two functions. Increases the sensitivity to distinguish the sound produced even at very low speeds. It is thus possible to better compare even very quiet cards with the largest possible ratio difference. Otherwise (without this adjustment) it could simply happen that we measured the same noise level across several graphics cards, even though it would actually be a little different. This parabolic shield also makes sense because, from the outer convex side (from the back), it reflects all the parasitic sounds that everyone who really aims for accuracy of the measurements struggles with during the test. These are various cracks of the body or objects in the room during normal human activity.

To ensure the same conditions when measuring the noise level (and later also the sound), we use acoustic panels with a foam surface around the bench-wall. This is so that the sound is always reflected to the sound level meter sensor in the same way, regardless of the current situation of the objects in the test room. These panels are from three sides (top, right and left) and their purpose is to soundproof the space in which we measure the noise of graphics cards. Soundproofing means preventing different reflections of sound and oscillations of waves between flat walls. Don’t confuse it with sound-absorbing, we’ve had that solved well in the test lab for a long time.

During the measurements, the sound level meter sensor is always placed on a tripod at the same angle and at the same distance (35 cm) from the PCI Express slot in which the graphics card is installed. Of course, it’s always closer to the card itself, depending on its depth. The indicated reference point and the sensor angles are fixed. In addition to the “aerodynamic noise” of the coolers, we also measure the noise level of whining coils. Then we stop the fans for a moment. And for the sake of completeness, it should be added that during sound measurements, we also switch off the power supply fan as well as the CPU cooler fan. Thus, purely the graphics card is always measured without any distortion by other components.

…and the sound frequency response

From the same place, we also measure the frequency of the sound produced. One thing is the noise level (or sound pressure level in decibels) and the other thing is its frequency response.

According to the data on the noise level, you can quickly find out whether the graphics card is quieter or noisier, or where it is on the scale, but it is still a mix of different frequencies. Thus, it does not say whether the sound produced is more booming (with a lower frequency) or squeaking (with a high frequency). The same 35 dBA can be pleasant but also unpleasant for you under certain circumstances – it depends on each individual how they perceive different frequencies. For this reason, we will also measure the frequency response of the sound graphics card in addition to the noise level, via the TrueRTA application. The results will be interpreted in the form of a spectrograph with a resolution of 1/24 octave and for better comparison with other graphics cards we will include the dominant frequency of lower (20–200 Hz), medium (201–2,000 Hz) and higher (2,001–20,000 Hz) sound spectrum into standard bar graphs. For measurements, we’re using a calibrated miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone, which accurately copies the position of the sound level meter, but also has a collar, even with the same focal length.

At the end of this chapter, it should be noted that measurements of noise and frequency response of sound will be performed on most cards only in load tests, as out of load and at lower load (including video decoding) operation is usually passive with fans turned off. On the other hand, we must also be prepared for exceptions with active operation in idle or graphics cards with dual BIOS setup, from which the more powerful one never turns off the fans and they run at least at minimum speed. Finally, as with measuring the noise level in one of the tests, we also record the frequency response of whining coils. But don’t expect any dramatic differences here. It will usually be one frequency, and the goal is rather to detect any potential anomalies. The sound of the whining coils is of course variable, depending on the scene, but we always measure in the same scene (in CS:GO@1080p).

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Methodology: temperature tests

We’re also bringing you temperature tests. You are at HWCooling after all. However, in order to make it sensible at all to monitor temperatures on critical components not only of the graphics card, but anything in the computer, it is important to simulate a real computer case environment with healthy air circulation. The overall behavior of the graphics card as such then follows from this. In many cases, an open bench-table is inappropriate and results can be distorted. Therefore, during all, not only heat tests, but also measurement of consumption or course of graphics core frequencies, we use a wind tunnel with equilibrium flow.

Two Noctua NF-S12A fans are at the inlet and the same number is on the exhaust.When testing various system cooling configurations, this proved to be the most effective solution. The fans are always set to 5 V and the speed corresponds to approx. 550 rpm. The stability of the inlet air is properly controlled during the tests, the temperature being between 21 and 21.3 °C at a humidity of ±40 %.

We read the temperature from the internal sensors via GPU-Z. This small, single-purpose application also allows you to record samples from sensors in a table. From the table, it is then easy to create line graphs with waveforms or the average value into bar graphs. We will not use the thermal camera very much here, as most graphics cards have a backplate, which makes it impossible to measure the PCB heating. The key for the heating graphs will be the temperature reading by internal sensors, according to which, after all, the GPU frequency control also takes place. It will always be the heating of the graphics core, and if the sensors are also on VRAM and VRM, we will extract these values into the article as well.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Test setup

Note: At the time of testing, graphics drivers are AMD Adrenalin 23.5.2 and the OS Windows 10 Enterprise build is 19043.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

3DMark

For the tests we’re using 3DMark Professional and the Night Raid (DirectX12) is suitable for comparing weaker GPUs, for more powerful ones there is Fire Strike (DirectX11) and Time Spy (DirectX12).

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Age of Empires II: DE

Test platform benchmark, API DirectX 11; graphics setting preset Ultra; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12; graphics setting preset Ultra High; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Battlefield V

Test platform custom scene (War stories/Under no flag); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; TAA high; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Battlefield V with DXR

Test platform custom scene (War stories/Under no flag); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; TAA high; extra settings DXR.

Note: The game also supports DLSS, but as it’s an older title and there are many tests, we will not address it in standard tests. However, measurements on request are possible if you ask for it.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Borderlands 3

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; TAA; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Control

Test platform custom scene (Polaris chapter); API DirectX 11, graphics setting preset High; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Control with DXR

Test platform custom scene (Polaris chapter); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset High; extra settings DXR.

DXR (native)

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Counter-Strike: GO

Test platform benchmark (Dust 2 map tour); API DirectX 9, graphics setting preset High; 4× MSAA; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Cyberpunk 2077

Test platform custom scene (Little China); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Cyberpunk 2077 with DXR

Test platform custom scene (Little China); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; extra settings Ray Tracing on (Ultra).

DXR

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

DOOM Eternal

Test platform custom scene; API Vulkan, graphics setting preset Ultra Nightmare; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

F1 2020

Test platform benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra High; TAA; extra settings Skidmarks blending off*.

*on GeForce graphics cards, the Skidmarks blending option is disabled. This option is missing on AMD graphics cards. However, the overall quality of Skidmarks is otherwise set to High on both GeForce and AMD.

Note: The game also supports DLSS 2.0 and FidelityFX for upscaling and sharpening, but due to the relatively low hardware requirements in the native settings, we will not address them in standard tests. However, measurements on request are possible if you ask for it.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

FIFA 21

Test platform custom scene (Autumn/Fall, Overcast, 9pm, Old Trafford); API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Forza Horizon 4

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; 2× MSAA; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Mafia: DE

Test platform custom scene (from the Salieri’s Bar parking lot to the elevated railway gate); API DirectX 11, graphics setting preset High; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Metro Exodus

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Extreme; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Metro Exodus with DXR

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Ultra; extra settings DXR.

DXR (native)

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Disclaimer: We do not use the results from this game to calculate average game performance. This is because updates often change the game’s performance and when they do, we start building the results database from scratch. To check the consistency of the MFS results, we run a test scene with the MSI RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio before testing each new graphics card.

Test platform custom scene (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot:from 1000 until hitting the terrain; API DirectX 11, graphics setting preset Ultra; TAA; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan)

Test platform custom scene; API Vulkan, graphics setting preset Favor Quality; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Dx12)

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Favor Quality; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Highest; TAA; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider with DXR

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics setting preset Highest; extra settings DXR.

Note: This game also supports DLSS and FidelityFX CAS, but since this is an older title and there are more than enough tests, we will not address this setting in standard tests. However, testing on request is possible if you ask for it.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 11, graphics setting preset Ultra; 4× AA, no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Wasteland 3

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 11, graphics setting preset Ultra; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Overall gaming performance

We calculate the average performance so that each game has an equal weight on the result. You can find out exactly how we arrive at the result in this article.

Výkon za euro

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

CompuBench 2.0 (OpenCL)

Test platform benchmark; API OpenCL; no extra settings.

Game Effects

Advanced Compute

High Quality Computer Generated Imagery and Rendering

Computer Vision

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

SPECviewperf 2020

Test platform benchmark; API OpenGL a DirectX; no extra settings.

SPECworkstation 3

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed tests

Test platform benchmark; app version 6.32.5600; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

LuxMark

Test platform benchmark; API OpenCL; no extra settings.

Blender@Cycles

Test platform render BMW and Classroom; renderer Cycles, 12 tiles; extra settings OpenCL for Radeon graphics cards and CUDA for GeForce. The way most people will use it. OpenCL with GeForce is always slow because path tracing doesn’t support GPU acceleration and is computed by the CPU. Nvidia OptiX is tested separately on supported cards (GeForce RTX) and we put the results in a separate chart.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Blender@Radeon ProRender

Test platform render BMW and Classroom; renderer Radeon ProRender, 1024 samples; no extra settings. Extra settings are OpenCL for Radeon graphics cards and CUDA for GeForce. Nvidia OptiX is tested separately on supported cards (GeForce RTX) and we put the results in a separate chart.

Blender@Eevee

Test platform animation render Ember Forest; renderer Eevee, 350 images; no extra settings, API OpenGL

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Photo editing

Adobe Photoshop: Test platform PugetBench; no extra settings.

Affinity Photo: Test platform built-in benchmark; no extra settings.

Adobe Lightroom: Test platform: custom 1-gigabyte archive of 42 RAW photos (CR2) from a DSLR; no extra settings.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Broadcasting

OBS Studio and XSplit: Test platform F1 2020 game benchmark; extra nastavenia enabled encoders AMD VCE/Nvidia Nvenc (AVC/H.264), output resolution 2560 × 1440 px (60 fps), target bitrate 19,700 kbps.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Password cracking

Test platform Hashcat; no extra settings. You can easily try the tests yourself. Just download the binary and enter the cipher you are interested in using the numeric code on the command line.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

GPU clock speed

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

GPU temperatures

VRAM temperature

Note: If the measured value is missing for a selected graphics card, it means that it cannot be detected by the internal sensor.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Net graphics card power draw

Performance per watt

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (higher load)

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (lower load)

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Analysis of 3.3 V branch power supply

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Noise level

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Frequency response of sound

Measurements are performed in the TrueRTA application, which records sound in a range of 240 frequencies in the recorded range of 20–20,000 Hz. For the possibility of comparison across articles, we export the dominant frequency from the low (20–200 Hz), medium (201–2,000 Hz) and high (2,001–20,000 Hz) range to standard bar graphs.

However, for an even more detailed analysis of the sound expression, it is important to perceive the overall shape of the graph and the intensity of all frequencies/tones. If you don’t understand something in the graphs or tables below, you’ll find the answers to all your questions in this article. This explains how to read the measured data below correctly.

*The Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE is the only tested graphics card whose spectral analysis also includes the sound of the water pump.

The most powerful Radeon (RX 7900 XTX) is both slower and less efficient compared to the GeForce RTX 4090, but it’s also roughly 700 EUR cheaper. And that’s what gives it an unprecedented price/performance ratio for a high-end graphics card. The latter is more attractive even than the lower-end RX 7900 XT, and that’s also the case with Gigabyte’s top-of-the-range Aorus Elite, which, oddly enough, only comes at a minimal premium.

Conclusion

The biggest advantage of the Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G is the excellent price-performance ratio, which is unusual for a graphics card suitable even for Ultra HD resolution. Unless you consider ray-tracing graphics, for which GeForces generally have more performance, the tested RX 7900 XTX lags behind the RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G in speed in UHD by 15%, which is fairly little given the large price difference.

In QHD, where Radeon benefits from a more nimble driver-CPU interface, it’s only 6%. For owners of high-speed monitors with this resolution, the RX 7900 XT is thus a very attractive option even with a view to the long-term. Where these graphics hit a snag already are games with overly complex RT graphics, which include Cyberpunk 2077. In it, the RX 7900 XTX won’t even move in UHD without FSR (true almost verbatim).

You won’t even reach fully comfortable gaming (stably 60 fps+) with ray-tracing on the RX 7900 XTX in something like Battlefield V. With RT, even the RTX 4080 has the edge natively (without FSR/DLSS) by quite a lot, 35– 45% in the above mentioned games. In Control it’s less, 19%, in Metro Exodus 14% and in Shadow of the Tomb Raider the RTX 4080 is already only 6% faster, but in this game in particular there is relatively little ray-tracing work. If you limit it completely, the Radeon RX 7900 XTX beats the RTX 4080 in speed by an average of 6–7%, and that’s at a currently roughly 250 EUR lower price. Even though you’ll have to sacrifice DLLS (3/Frame Generation), this will still be an irresistible offer for many.

The money saved on buying the card itself is also exchanged for weaker power efficiency, the Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G’s power draw exceeds 400W, bringing it closer to the faster RTX 4090. The difference in power draw between the Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G and the MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X is around 120 W in gaming load, which will also have some impact on operating costs. And in addition, also at a higher noise level, with the BIOS “Silent”, however, proportionally to the power draw. In “OC” mode (but at comparable power draw with comparable clock speeds, indicating that the BIOS designation used is a bit confusing) fan control is more aggressive. The temperature is always quite low and there is room for manual adjustment of the speed curve.

Noteworthy and commendable is the very low power draw in idle or under light load such as web or video acceleration. The Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G is an even more power-efficient graphics card here than the Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse. But when comparing other models, it may be different, i.e. the RX 7900 XTX will already have a higher power draw (than the RX 7900 XT) as one would expect.

The RX 7900 XTX is also an extremely attractive graphics card for computing tasks, where it often significantly beats even the RTX 4090 in select applications under OpenGL. When it comes to confronting CUDA (RTX 4090) and OpenCL (RX 7900 XTX/RTX 4090), Radeon usually lags behind. In case you work in Autodesk applications (CATIA, Creo, Maya, Medical or Siemens NX) beware – the RX 7900 XT can be a significantly faster graphics card (than the RTX 4090).

The coils of the Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G are noisier than in the Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G, which may be the result of cutting costs on a cheaper product. The peak at 5.7 kHz is quite annoying, but we’ve had weaker cards with more annoying coils.

A few details separated the Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G from the rarest of our editorial awards, but for Smart Buy!, this graphics card meets the requirements as is. The price/performance ratio will be virtually unbeatable for many. And as far as the ARGB LED elements are concerned… it’s hard to find anything more attractive.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

For cooperation in providing the tested hardware, we would like to give special thanks to the Datacomp e-shop

• Contents
• Gigabyte Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G in detail
• Table of parameters
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: noise and sound measurement
• Methodology: temperature tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Age of Empires II: DE
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Battlefield V
• Battlefield V with DXR
• Borderlands 3
• Control
• Control with DXR
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Cyberpunk 2077 with DXR
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• FIFA 21
• Forza Horizon 4
• Mafia: DE
• Metro Exodus
• Metro Exodus with DXR
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan)
• Red Dead Redemption 2 (Dx12)
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider with DXR
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Wasteland 3
• Overall gaming performance and performance per euro
• CompuBench (OpenCL)
• SPECviewperf 2020 and SPECworkstation 3
• FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed tests
• 3D rendering 1/2 (LuxMark and Blender@Cycles)
• 3D rendering 2/2 (Blender@Radeon ProRender and Eevee)
• Photo editing (Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom and Affinity Photo)
• Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
• Password cracking
• GPU clock speed
• GPU and VRAM temperatures
• Net graphics card power draw and performance per watt
• Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (higher load)
• Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (lower load)
• Analysis of 3.3 V branch power supply
• Noise level
• Frequency response of sound
• Conclusion