Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure: The fastest for around 500 euros

Ľubomír Samák

12 months ago

Methodology: noise and sound measurement

The cheaper of the pair of Radeons with the Navi 32 GPU is priced closest to the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti. Although the RX 7700XT is a bit pricier, it often has a significant performance edge, even attacking the RTX 4070. In this comparison, the RX 7700 XT with ray-tracing is already noticeably behind, and its efficiency is a notch weaker, but the price-performance ratio is often still better. And this is also true for the Sapphire Pure version in white.

Like the RTX 4070, the RX 7700 XT has 12GB of memory, which is also connected to a 192-bit bus. The difference is that the RX 7700 XTs use “only” GDDRR6 memory, while the RTX 4070’s GDDR6X is faster, so the Radeons’ bandwidth is a bit lower. However, the RX 7700 XT is a significantly cheaper alternative that, when made with a comparable cooler, costs at least a hundred euros less (than the RTX 4070). It is thus more of a direct competition to the slightly cheaper RTX 4060 Ti. Although the RX 7700 XT sits rather somewhere in the middle between the aforementioned GeForce graphics cards. It all depends on what is taken into account in the evaluation. Traditionally, we’ll go over all aspects in the tests and conclude with a comprehensive evaluation. But for now, let’s pause for a moment at the details of the tested RX 7700 XT model in the Sapphire Pure version.

Detaily Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure

The Pure model line is new from Sapphire and it categorically places it between Pulse and Nitro. This is reflected in the design mix of elements from both lines, with one unique feature being the white finish. For the latter too, the RX 7700 XT may appeal specifically to users whose vision is in a more brightly coloured build or with contrasting components.

The feature from the Nitro series is the use of three fans and thus a large cooler overall. However, it is a bit smaller, or a centimeter shorter, which naturally results in weaker cooling performance per unit of noise. In height, the RX 7700 XT Pure is 51.3mm and Sapphire is talking about a 2.5-slot card. On motherboards, however, it will safely make installing an expansion card in the third slot impossible.

Compatibility with cases is about average. However, beware in smaller ones, especially when combined with the installation of a liquid cooler with a radiator behind the front panel. At 320mm, it’s not the longest card, but it definitely ranks among the longer ones.

In width, the RX 7700 XT Pure is 128.6mm, with which it outgrows the PCIe slot latch by 23mm. In specific cases (for cases with a longitudinally divided interior into two chambers), there could eventually be a collision (with the side panel) in this axis as well.

The larger width allows the use of larger fans, which in this case have a diameter of 95 mm. Judging by the basic characteristics of the rotor, it’s obvious that Sapphire has really tried to achieve the highest possible efficiency. With regard to even load (i.e. also towards the hub), the blades bend in the middle. This also increases their strength, which is finally supported by a hoop to stiffen the blade tips. This is mainly to eliminate vibration and avoid high tonal peaks. But also for suppressing secondary noise that could arise, for example, from vibration transmission to the heatsink.

For maintenance purposes, the fans can be separated from the frame into which they are screwed, but complete replacement is more difficult than in the Nitro range. This is because the connector is not in the frame (as with the Nitro) and the connection is by cable, following the pattern of the Pulse cards.

The backplate is metal, but without thermally conductive contact with the PCB, so it mainly has a protective and reinforcing function.

At the end, where the cooler extends beyond the PCB, there are cooling cutouts in the backplate to more efficiently dissipate heated air.

The RX 7700 XT Pulse is externally powered by two 6+2-pins and the claimed TGP is 5W lower (240W) than the reference one (245W). This graphics card doesn’t have two BIOSes, there’s only one, and the switch at the back, on the shorter side of the PCB, is for LED activity. You can safely turn this off to change the default setting with active lighting.

The lighting colour is fixed. Red LEDs are used to light up the Sapphire logo from the side.

The accessories also include an aluminium support bracket. The weight of the RX 7700 XT Pure, which is around 1139 grams, is indeed handled by the current PCIe ×16 slots thanks to their reinforcement, but this bracket is also a solution to keep the graphics card level, which is a matter of appearance. The latter, however, is important for many users. Especially when you can see into most cases because of the side panel made of glass.

Note: The article continues in the following chapters


Parameters		Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure

Architecture		RDNA 3
Die		Navi 32 XL (215-180000076)
Manufacturing node		5 nm + 6 nm
Die size		200 mm² + 3× 37 mm²
Transistor count		28,1 bn.
Compute units		54
Shaders/CUDA cores		3456
Base Clock		1700 MHz
Game Clock (AMD)		2226 MHz
Boost Clock		2584 MHz
RT units		54
AI/tensor cores		–
ROPs		96
TMUs		216
L2 Cache		4 MB
Infinity Cache		48 MB
Interface		PCIe 4.0 ×16
Multi-GPU interconnect		–
Memory		12 GB GDDR6
Memory clock (effective)		18.0 GHz
Memory bus		192 bit
Memory bandwidth		432.0 GB/s
Pixel fillrate		244.2 Gpx/s
Texture fillrate		549.5 Gtx/s
FLOPS (FP32)		35.17 TFLOPS
FLOPS (FP64)		1099 GFLOPS
FLOPS (FP16)		70.34 TFLOPS
AI/tensor TOPS (INT8)		–
AI/tensor FLOPS (FP16)		–
TDP		240 W
Power connectors		2× 8-pin
Card lenght		320 mm
Card slots used		53 mm
Shader Model		6.7
DirectX/Feature Level		DX 12 Ultimate (12_2)
OpenGL		4.6
Vulkan		1.3
OpenCL		2.2
CUDA		–
Video encoder engine		VCN 4.0
Encoding formats		HEVC, H.264, AV1
Encoding resolution		8K
Video decoder engine		VCN 4.0
Decoding formats		HEVC, H.264,VP9, AV1
Decoding resolution		8K
Max. Monitor resolution		7680 × 4320 px
HDMI		2× v2.1a
DisplayPort		2× v2.1 (UHBR 13.5)
USB-C		–
MSRP		499EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2717" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2717 { ... } #supsystic-table-2717 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2717 tbody tr { ... } */

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 cheaper of the pair of Radeons with the Navi 32 GPU is priced closest to the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti. Although the RX 7700XT is a bit pricier, it often has a significant performance edge, even attacking the RTX 4070. In this comparison, the RX 7700 XT with ray-tracing is already noticeably behind, and its efficiency is a notch weaker, but the price-performance ratio is often still better. And this is also true for the Sapphire Pure version in white.

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 measure power consumption on the card between the graphics card and the PCI Express slot. Rado Kopera took care of the design and implementation (thank you!)

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 cheaper of the pair of Radeons with the Navi 32 GPU is priced closest to the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti. Although the RX 7700XT is a bit pricier, it often has a significant performance edge, even attacking the RTX 4070. In this comparison, the RX 7700 XT with ray-tracing is already noticeably behind, and its efficiency is a notch weaker, but the price-performance ratio is often still better. And this is also true for the Sapphire Pure version in white.

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).

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.

Test setup

Patriot Blackout memory (4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18)

2× Patriot Viper VPN100 SSD (512 GB + 2 TB)

BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 PSU w/ 1200 W


Test configuration
Processor	AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
CPU Cooler	Noctua NH-U14S@12 V s NT-H2
Motherboard	MSI MEG X570 Ace
Memory (RAM)	Patriot Blackout, 4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18
SSD	2× Patriot Viper VPN100 (512 GB + 2 TB)
PSU	BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 (1200 W)

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-979" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-979 { ... } #supsystic-table-979 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-979 tbody tr { ... } */

Note: At the time of testing, graphics drivers are AMD Adrenalin 23.9.2 and the OS Windows 10 Enterprise build is 19043.

The cheaper of the pair of Radeons with the Navi 32 GPU is priced closest to the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti. Although you’ll pay a bit more for the RX 7700 XT, these graphics cards often have a significant performance edge, even attacking the RTX 4070. In this comparison, the RX 7700 XT with ray-tracing is already noticeably behind, and the Radeon’s efficiency is a notch weaker, but the price-performance ratio is often still better. And this is also true for the Sapphire Pure version in white.

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).

Age of Empires II: DE

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

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

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

Battlefield V

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

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.

Borderlands 3

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

Control

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

Control with DXR

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

DXR (native)

Counter-Strike: GO

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

Cyberpunk 2077

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

Cyberpunk 2077 with DXR

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

DXR

DOOM Eternal

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

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.

FIFA 21

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

Forza Horizon 4

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

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.

Metro Exodus

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

Metro Exodus with DXR

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

DXR (native)

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.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan)

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

Why is the result missing for some graphics cards? At some point, both AMD and Nvidia stopped supporting Vulkan for Red Dead Redemption 2. Because of this, it is not possible to test under this API, although it is still in the game’s settings. But don’t turn it on, you won’t be able to launch the game afterwards and you’ll need to manually override Vulkan to Dx12 in the system.xml file.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Dx12)

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

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

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

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.

Total War Saga: Troy

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

Wasteland 3

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

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.

Disclaimer: The charts below present averages from games with settings where only the graphics generated by rasterization appear. This selection was originally intended to allow the inclusion of graphics cards without ray-tracing support. However, it is also reasonable to consider speed with ray-tracing graphics as well. Therefore, prospectively, we will incorporate additional sets of charts into the tests, where one will also take into account graphics details with ray tracing and the other will be exclusively for gaming setups under DXR with RT.

Výkon za euro

Disclaimer: To calculate the coefficient, we use the suggested prices that the graphics cards had at the time of launch. Thus, given the current situation, the ratios may not always be accurate, on the contrary, they will often be quite inaccurate (not reflecting the current situation), because the market value of older models naturally decreases over time until they eventually stop selling. In order to make the design of these charts sustainable (also in terms of the passage of time), we have decided to always start from an initial price that we no longer change according to later developments in stores.

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

SPECviewperf 2020

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

SPECworkstation 3

FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed tests

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Why are results missing for some GeForce graphics cards? Nvidia’s newer 5xx.xx gaming and studio drivers no longer support Hashcat. Although it can be run via the command line and a test for a specific cipher can be entered, but no action, calculation, comes after confirmation. We will investigate the reasons and possible solutions in more detail over time, but it probably can’t be done without a fix at the graphics driver level.

GPU clock speed

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.

Net graphics card power draw

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

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 microphone we use to analyze the sound of coolers and coils


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in F1 2020@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure, ReBAR on		50,4	-80,0	213,6	-69,3	6450,8	-82,1
Gigabyte RTX 4060 Windforce OC 8G, ReBAR on		41,8	-75,3	1140,4	-64,0	2031,9	-67,4
Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-81,6	213,6	-80,0	6834,4	-81,4
Asus Dual RTX 4070 12G (P), ReBAR on		106,8	-80,7	1107,9	-68,3	17221,6	-82,9
Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-69,0	1076,3	-61,1	5747,0	-75,2
Sapphire RX 7600 Pulse, ReBAR on		195,8	-80,9	1173,8	-73,7	5583,4	-83,0
MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G, ReBAR on		106,8	-80,9	213,6	-81,3	5424,5	-76,0
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-69,4	1045,7	-62,1	5270,0	-83,9
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-75,1	213,6	-70,9	6450,8	-82,4
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		71,3	-77,2	1076,3	-69,3	11830,8	-75,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-78,8	1107,9	-78,6	2031,9	-84,8
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		123,4	-81,2	1107,9	-80,0	18245,6	-83,7
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-83,3	1107,9	-72,4	7240,8	-82,5
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		184,9	-82,3	1107,9	-71,4	6834,4	-82,2
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-71,8	1356,1	-72,7	6088,7	-80,9
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,8	219,8	-74,5	6088,7	-81,0
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		50,4	-77,0	1076,3	-56,5	2031,9	-69,4
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		50,4	-75,9	1076,3	-56,7	2031,9	-69,6
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-62,4	1107,9	-56,6	11166,8	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-61,9	1107,9	-55,6	5747,0	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1076,3	-71,2	7034,6	-76,5
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,2	1076,3	-73,5	7034,6	-76,5
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-70,6	1107,9	-82,8	7034,6	-83,7
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,6	213,6	-64,3	2031,9	-74,2
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,3	1076,3	-76,0	4561,4	-81,2
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,9	1076,3	-79,7	6267,2	-85,1
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,0	1076,3	-66,5	9665,3	-81,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,8	1107,9	-67,4	2091,4	-75,3
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-76,0	1107,9	-77,9	7034,6	-74,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,6	1107,9	-74,7	10848,9	-76,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	1107,9	-74,7	10848,9	-76,5

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2703" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2703 { ... } #supsystic-table-2703 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2703 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in SOTTR@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure, ReBAR on		28,3	-77,6	1107,9	-78,8	6639,8	-81,9
Gigabyte RTX 4060 Windforce OC 8G, ReBAR on		38,9	-76,8	1173,8	-65,6	2091,4	-68,4
Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-81,1	1076,3	-80,6	6834,4	-81,2
Asus Dual RTX 4070 12G (P), ReBAR on		195,8	-82,6	1107,9	-71,8	17221,6	-82,3
Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-68,3	1076,5	-59,3	5747,0	-74,8
Sapphire RX 7600 Pulse, ReBAR on		195,8	-80,6	1173,8	-74,3	5915,4	-82,8
MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G, ReBAR on		106,8	-80,5	213,6	-80,4	5424,5	-78,5
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-72,7	1045,7	-64,7	8365,6	-83,1
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-74,4	213,6	-70,8	5915,4	-79,7
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-77,9	1076,3	-77,9	5583,4	-82,2
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		190,3	-78,4	1045,7	-74,4	11830,8	-75,3
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-78,4	1140,4	-78,5	2031,9	-84,7
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		138,5	-78,3	1107,9	-78,4	2031,9	-84,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-80,1	1107,9	-76,5	6834,4	-84,3
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		47,6	-84,3	1107,9	-75,9	6834,4	-82,8
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-68,8	1356,1	-75,7	6088,7	-82,6
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-69,5	1356,1	-74,8	5915,4	-83,1
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		44,9	-73,0	1045,7	-50,3	2031,9	-60,5
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		41,8	-72,6	1076,3	-51,4	2031,9	-60,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-63,1	1140,4	-57,9	5747,0	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	134,5	-61,7	1107,9	-58,6	5747,0	-74,2
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,9	1140,4	-75,4	5915,4	-77,2
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,1	1107,9	-75,2	5915,4	-76,5
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-70,8	1076,3	-83,6	7034,6	-81,9
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,9	213,6	-64,5	2031,9	-73,8
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-74,5	213,6	-71,3	4561,4	-79,3
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	213,6	-72,3	6267,2	-84,9
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,8	1140,4	-66,1	9948,5	-81,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,6	1140,4	-67,8	9665,3	-80,6
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-75,4	1076,3	-72,3	7240,8	-74,2
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1107,9	-73,9	10848,9	-76,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,2	1107,9	-75,3	10848,9	-75,4

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2704" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2704 { ... } #supsystic-table-2704 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2704 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in CS:GO@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [-dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [-dBu]
Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure, ReBAR on		50,4	-79,3	1107,9	-73,9	6639,8	-80,8
Gigabyte RTX 4060 Windforce OC 8G, ReBAR on		50,4	-76,2	1140,4	-65,6	2091,4	-68,8
Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-81,3	1076,3	-80,6	6834,4	-80,7
Asus Dual RTX 4070 12G (P), ReBAR on		106,8	-83,9	1076,3	-74,8	17221,6	-82,8
Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-68,7	1107,9	-58,9	5747,0	-69,5
Sapphire RX 7600 Pulse, ReBAR on		195,8	-82,2	1173,8	-74,0	7240,8	-80,1
MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G, ReBAR on		106,8	-80,7	213,6	-80,8	5424,5	-77,5
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,7	1045,7	-73,3	5747,0	-85,8
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	73,7	213,6	-71,4	5747,0	-76,3
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-77,9	207,5	-81,6	4305,4	-83,5
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-79,0	1076,3	-72,2	11830,8	-76,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-79,8	1107,9	-77,6	2031,9	-83,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		123,4	-81,0	1107,9	-77,8	2031,9	-83,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-79,6	1107,9	-74,2	7240,8	-80,8
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		49,0	-84,3	1107,9	-80,0	6834,4	-80,2
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-68,7	1356,1	-74,7	6088,7	-80,8
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-69,3	1356,1	-75,1	6088,7	-79,2
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		47,6	-67,1	1045,7	-49,6	2031,9	-60,1
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		47,6	-70,3	1140,4	-50,8	2031,9	-60,2
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-64,1	1107,9	-60,1	8610,8	-70,9
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	134,5	-71,6	1107,9	-66,4	8365,6	-72,1
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-72,6	1173,8	-74,9	5915,4	-74,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,0	1107,9	-73,8	5747,0	-74,2
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,4	1107,9	-83,1	6267,2	-82,5
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,6	213,6	-64,8	2031,9	-73,8
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-75,7	213,6	-73,4	4695,1	-77,6
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-75,7	213,6	-73,4	6267,2	-82,7
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,2	1107,9	-66,2	9948,5	-77,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,1	1076,3	-77,3	9665,3	-77,7
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-74,2	1076,3	-70,9	7240,8	-74,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,0	1107,9	-74,3	7671,3	-72,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,3	1107,9	-73,7	10848,9	-72,5

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2705" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2705 { ... } #supsystic-table-2705 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2705 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card	Dominant sound freq. and noise level in Blender (Cycles), Classroom	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
	Low range		Mid range		High range
	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure, ReBAR on	50,4	-76,0	1140,4	-89,4	6639,8	-86,8
Gigabyte RTX 4060 Windforce OC 8G, ReBAR on	50,4	-76,6	1173,8	-69,2	2091,4	-73,3
Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on	50,4	-79,0	106,8	-86,9	6834,4	-85,4
Asus Dual RTX 4070 12G (P)	106,8	-82,0	1107,9	-73,3	17221,6	-83,9
Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G (OC), ReBAR on	195,8	-78,4	1107,9	-72,8	5747,0	-78,8
Sapphire RX 7600 Pulse, ReBAR on	50,4	-85,4	1140,4	-79,2	5915,4	-85,9
MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G, ReBAR on	106,8	-80,3	213,6	-81,2	5424,5	-87,6
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on	195,8	-73,7	1045,7	-69,6	16731,3	-87,4
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-73,8	207,5	-74,1	7034,6	-85,2
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on	100,8	-77,8	207,5	-82,3	5747,0	-89,5
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on	100,8	-80,3	1140,4	-86,7	11830,8	-89,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off	123,4	-79,3	213,6	-81,4	18245,6	-85,5
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on	123,4	-79,5	213,6	-81,5	18245,6	-85,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on	50,4	-77,9	1107,9	-83,5	7240,8	-87,3
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off	50,4	-79,1	1107,9	-83,9	7240,8	-87,5
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-70,1	1356,1	-73,4	5583,4	-86,1
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	100,8	-69,8	1356,1	-73,7	5915,4	-86,0
Asus GT 1030 SL 2G BRK, ReBAR off	50,397	-71,7	1107,9	-94,9	19330,5	-90,5
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on	50,4	-76,4	1107,9	-57,9	2031,9	-69,7
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off	50,4	-78,7	1076,3	-60,9	5424,5	-74,0
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	116,5	-65,0	1107,9	-68,5	5120,0	-77,3
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	116,5	-65,1	1107,9	-68,4	5120,0	-77,1
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on	100,8	-72,6	1173,8	-86,6	5915,4	-82,4
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off	100,8	-75,8	1076,3	-87,2	5915,4	-82,1
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-70,4	987,0	-89,5	6450,8	-89,0
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off	100,8	-72,6	213,6	-70,0	2031,9	-79,1
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,2	1076,3	-85,3	5915,4	-92,0
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,2	1076,3	-85,3	18245,6	-90,8
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on	100,8	-71,9	987,0	-89,2	7452,9	-88,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,1	987,0	-89,0	7452,9	-88,2
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off	106,8	-81,5	1660,0	-80,6	6834,4	-78,0
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on	97,9	-79,8	1208,2	-89,6	7671,3	-85,2
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off	100,8	-73,0	1243,6	-95,2	7671,3	-85,0

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2706" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2706 { ... } #supsystic-table-2706 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2706 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in CS:GO@1080p (coils only*)	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-82,7	987,0	-86,1	7034,6	-80,7
Asus Dual RTX 4070 12G (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-82,6	1076,3	-83,3	17221,6	-82,7
Aorus RX 7900 XTX Elite 24G (OC), ReBAR on		50,4	-83,8	1317,5	-81,4	5747,0	-73,9
Sapphire RX 7600 Pulse, ReBAR on		50,4	-82,5	1974,0	-87,4	7240,8	-78,4
MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G, ReBAR on		50,4	-84,9	806,3	-78,5	5583,4	-76,9
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		100,8	-74,1	1317,5	-82,3	5747,0	-85,8
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1076,3	-81,5	5747,0	-76,3
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-78,0	987,0	-78,6	5583,4	-84,3
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-80,5	1140,4	-71,8	11830,8	-74,9
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		50,4	-83,6	1317,5	-83,0	7896,1	-83,9
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		50,4	-77,7	1317,5	-87,3	10848,9	-84,5
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-81,8	1045,7	-84,2	2091,4	-77,7
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		50,4	-83,3	1974,0	-90,0	7034,6	-82,4
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-72,0	1107,9	-83,7	2215,8	-79,6
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-68,4	1917,8	-88,7	6450,8	-81,4
Asus GT 1030 SL 2G BRK, ReBAR off		50,4	-71,1	1107,9	-91,7	12534,3	-89,8
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		50,4	-80,6	1660,0	-80,3	7896,1	-80,2
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		50,4	-78,8	1660,0	-82,6	7671,3	-80,4
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	100,8	-74,9	739,4	-67,9	5915,4	-78,5
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	50,4	-81,4	739,4	-70,2	8610,8	-73,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-74,6	987,0	-84,8	5747,0	-69,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-74,7	1395,9	-88,4	5747,0	-70,3
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	1974,0	-88,1	6267,2	-83,6
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,6	1974,0	-90,2	6088,7	-83,1
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		50,4	-76,1	987,0	-84,8	5915,4	-83,3
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-74,7	1317,5	-81,4	6088,7	-84,6
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,8	987,0	-87,7	7452,9	-80,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,0	1660,0	-90,4	8863,1	-84,5
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-75,6	1140,4	-81,7	9948,5	-78,7
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,6	1660,0	-79,8	7452,9	-74,0
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,3	1660,0	-83,3	7452,9	-76,4

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2683" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2683 { ... } #supsystic-table-2683 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2683 tbody tr { ... } */

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

Conclusion

At the recommended 1440p resolution, the RX 7700 XT’s average gaming performance is up 18% ahead of the RTX 4060 Ti. That is, unless we take ray-tracing into account. With it, Radeon’s lead shrinks, and in selected games the situation even flips and the RTX 4060 Ti suddenly has the upper hand. However, this behaviour is usually rare, for example in Battlefield V. Even in Control, where price-equivalent Radeons usually lag behind GeForce cards (including the RX 7800 XT and the RTX 4070), the RX 7700 XT doesn’t represent a weaker option compared to the RTX 4060 Ti. Not even in Cypberpunk 2077 with extensive RT effects. However, the application of FSR is already necessary for smooth operation here (CP77). Shadow of the Tomb Raider and the original Metro Exodus are both playable (at 1440p) at native resolution with ray tracing and overall highest detail.

Sometimes the RX 7700 XT even beats the RTX 4070 – for example in Borderlands 3 (1440p). You won’t find many titles where (compared to the RX 7700 XT) the RTX 4060 Ti is in the lead. Sure, except for titles with exclusive DLSS 3 support, but that’s not happening at the same image quality anymore. And although the RX 7700 XT is primarily aimed at QHD (1440p), it’s a usable graphics card for UHD (2160p) as well. Somewhere triple-digit fps is achieved without the need to reduce visual detail. This is the case in, for example, v CS:GO, v DOOM Eternal, v F1 (2020), vo FIFA (21) or vo Forza Horizon 4. Even Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, Battlefield V (without RT) or Wasteland 3 don’t drop below 60 fps.

In terms of computing performance, compared to the RTX 4060 Ti, it’s like a seesaw. In applications with CUDA support, the RX 7700 XT (under OCL) is usually the slower choice, but under OpenCL or OpenGL, the Radeon often has the upper hand. Whether it’s raw performance for 3D rendering (we have test results with the Eevee renderer), for engineering applications or accelerating filters in Adobe Photoshop.

The big disadvantage of the RX 7700 XT compared to the RTX 4060 Ti/4070 is in its significantly higher power draw under load, hence the significantly lower efficiency. This has only increased by 14–16% compared to the last generation (RX 6700 XT). Compared to the only slightly faster GeForce RTX 3080 the efficiency ratio of the RX 7700 XT is significantly more favorable
, but it’s not enough for Nvidia’s (Ada Lovelace) state-of-the-art graphics cards
. Both gaming and computing performance per watt is significantly worse on the RX 7700, roughly 30% below the RTX 4070.

Relatively higher (but not high) compared to the RTX 4060 Ti (and RTX 4070) is the power draw under lighter workloads, such as video playback (HEVC, VP9) or working in a web browser with GPU acceleration enabled. However, the average power draw in idle (inactive Windows OS desktop) or for light office use (text, spreadsheets, etc.) is already lower on the RX 7700 XT. And that’s the case even in a multi-monitor or single high-speed monitor configuration. The difference in power draw here is negligible
(9,4 vs. 11,0 W).

The RX 7700 XT in the Sapphire Pure design is a little noisier compared to the RX 7800 XT Nitro+ (it’s still not a noisy card, though)
, which is partly due to the lower efficiency of the smaller cooler, but also to the more aggressive speed control. In fact, cooling tests indicate that the RX 7700 XT’s temperatures are lower and by a fairly large margin, so there’s some room for fine-tuning here. You won’t miss the coil sound, but their acoustic profile could be classified as average, with none of the more aggressive tonal peaks.

GPU clock speeds in games range between 2505–2647 MHz depending on the workload, which exceeds Sapphire’s specifications. And this can be viewed positively. Overall, the Sapphire RX 7700 XT is a very solid graphics card that combines an attractive design with an attractive price/performance ratio, for which it deserves the “Smart buy!” award.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš


Sapphire RX 7700 XT Pure
+ High performance (especially suitable for 1440p/QHD gaming)
+ Favorable price/performance ratio
+ Without ray-tracing quite a bit faster than the RTX 4060 Ti, catching up to the RTX 4070
+ Efficient cooler. Not noisy even at higher power draw...
+ ... and yet the temperature is reasonably low
+ AV1 encoding support
+ DisplayPort version 2.1, which is not supported by GeForce
+ Low power draw in idle
+ Rare, all-white design
- Weaker performance with ray-tracing graphics. Does not even reach the level of the Nvidia Ampere generation (RTX 3000)
- Significantly worse power efficiency than the competing RTX 4060 Ti/RTX 4070
Suggested retail price: 499 EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2718" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2718 { ... } #supsystic-table-2718 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2718 tbody tr { ... } */

We would like to thank the Datacomp e-shop for their cooperation in providing the tested hardware

Continue: Methodology: temperature tests