Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
The 1080p medium results, like the 4K ultra results on the next page, are more academic than meaningful. Some people might prefer the higher framerates over image fidelity, but in pursuit of those framerates, CPU bottlenecks become much more of a factor. We're only providing limited commentary here.
The overall margin between the 7700 XT and 4060 Ti shrinks to 2% at 1080p medium in favor of AMD. Ray tracing games still favor Nvidia, while rasterization games tend to favor AMD's chip. Across our full test suite, the difference ranges from -34% (Minecraft) to +26% (A Plague Tale: Requiem). About half of the games show less than a 10% gap.
All of the rasterization games now easily clear 60 fps and even 100 fps, with four games even pushing past 200 fps. The ray tracing games are a different matter, with three games — Bright Memory Infinite benchmark, Cyberpunk 2077, and Minecraft — still coming up shy of the 60 fps mark. Turning off ray tracing can, of course, get any of those games well above 60 fps at 1080p.
You can peruse the charts below, and if you see anything particularly interesting, let us know in the comments. Otherwise, let's head to the opposite end of the spectrum and punish the GPUs with 4K ultra settings.
- MORE: Best Graphics Cards
- MORE: GPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy
- MORE: All Graphics Content
Current page: Radeon RX 7700 XT: 1080p Medium Gaming Performance
Prev Page Radeon RX 7700 XT: 1080p Ultra Gaming Performance Next Page Radeon RX 7700 XT: 4K Ultra Gaming PerformanceJarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.
The RTX 5090's GB202 GPU will reportedly be the largest desktop chip from Nvidia since 2018 coming in at 744mm-squared — 22% larger than AD102 on the RTX 4090
Top-end and mid-range RTX 50-series cards are rumored to launch in early 2025, and entry-level cards to follow later — RTX 5090, 5080, 5070 Ti and 5070 up first
-
cknobman This card will be a winner when the price is reduced to $400.Reply
Between this card and its bigger brother, the 7800XT, Nvidia's 4060 series of cards (and maybe even the 4070) are completely irrelevant now. -
oofdragon cknobman said:This card will be a winner when the price is reduced to $400.
Between this card and its bigger brother, the 7800XT, Nvidia's 4060 series of cards (and maybe even the 4070) are completely irrelevant now.
I'd say the 7800XT will be a winner in a year or two when it's discounted at $400. The 7700XT at 12GB is more like.. $300. -
Colif Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.Reply
5TGHvXKkhao
The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
7800xt in Australia is about $1000
7700xt in Australia is about 860
7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places. -
JarredWaltonGPU
Does it, though?Colif said:Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.
The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
7800xt in Australia is about $1000
7700xt in Australia is about 860
7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places.
272
So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.
7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost. -
P1nky
Can't believe you're actually defending the 4060 Ti, a GPU with just 8GB for a massive $400 price. No wonder you gave the 7700 XT a meh rating.JarredWaltonGPU said:So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.
7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost.
You must watch HU's investigation of how bad the textures look on just 8GB, even if the framerates are unaffected. There are plenty of games that won't be bottlenecked by 8GB by 30 second benchmark runs. Cards might performs similarly sometimes, but the texture experience and frame drops on on 4060 Ti are a joke on long benchmark runs. -
luissantos JarredWaltonGPU said:So 20% faster in rasterization, 8–10 percent slower in DXR, uses 60W more power, costs 12.5% more. The 128-bit and 8GB is a concern, sure, but it's absolutely not the end of the world. Turn down settings to high and it's fine, even at 1440p.
7800 XT makes for a bigger gap, and that's definitely the better card of the 4060 Ti/7700 XT/7800 XT class. But the 7700 XT isn't a clear-cut winner in every situation: Higher power, worse RT, worse AI hardware, higher cost.
Your only valid point is power consumption.
DXR performance is mostly irrelevant: neither card is sufficiently capable in that regard. Until DXR comes with a 5-10% penalty in performance it will remain a gimmick. In fact, games that have had a "modern render release" like Quake 2 look far better using said new render than DXR. For CP2077 I'm sure I could find plenty of scenes where I could take a screenshot with RT on and off and trick you into guessing incorrectly. Moreover, UE 5's Lumi produces reasonably similar results with RT on and off, and that engine will have the most coverage of any other in the game market for the years to come.
As for AI, just a few weeks ago AMD announced huge strides in that field as well, but again, that's irrelevant. What percentage of the market is buying a consumer mid-range GPU to focus primarily (or at all) on AI? -
JarredWaltonGPU
The texture stuff is mostly game specific. Some games (Gollum, Star Wars, and basically a lot of Unreal Engine stuff) do a poor job at managing VRAM and so when the game exceeds 8GB, they load minimum res on some surfaces and not others. Then you get "texture popping" and stuttering. It's frankly a bad game engine design. Lots of other games exist that look very good and don't have the same problem, so it's pretty much a matter of coding quality and effort.P1nky said:Can't believe you're actually defending the 4060 Ti, a GPU with just 8GB for a massive $400 price. No wonder you gave the 7700 XT a meh rating.
You must watch HU's investigation of how bad the textures look on just 8GB, even if the framerates are unaffected. There are plenty of games that won't be bottlenecked by 8GB by 30 second benchmark runs. Cards might performs similarly sometimes, but the texture experience and frame drops on on 4060 Ti are a joke on long benchmark runs.
The solution is to turn texture and shadow resolution down a notch, which usually drops VRAM use from <12GB to <8GB and rarely has a noticeable impact on visuals. Except some games (again, UE especially) don't even seem to do this very well. Software optimizations, particularly with low-level APIs (DX12/Vulkan) can easily deliver a 50% boost in performance, sometimes more. It's just a matter of how much effort the developers / publishers want to expend.
I’m not saying 4060 Ti is great. I’m just pointing out that it’s not universally inferior to the 7700 XT / 7800 XT. 192-bit and 12GB or 256-bit and 16GB is inherently a superior configuration to 128-bit and 8GB/16GB. There's no question about that. But VRAM capacity and bandwidth aren't the only factor that matters. -
shady28 Agree this isn't all that impressive, but neither was the 4060 Ti. I bought a 6700XT last year, and after seeing the 4060 Ti I really have no regrets.Reply
This 7700XT doesn't really seem to change any of that. If it were say $399 instead of $450, it might be ok. It's kind of a trade off with the 4060 Ti, generally better on performance (but not always) while losing on gaming power draw, but costs $50 more, which is frankly not good enough for an AMD GPU.
Best deal on your comparison is still the 6700 XT. -
Ilijas Ramic
In my country the price diff is around 140usd 7700xt vs 7800xt. I ordered 7700xt for 680usd while the 7800xt is 820usd. Its almost 3x more price diff what most people pay. Also most people buy from newegg since they are from US. But us EU people are getting a hefty pay up on these card. Heck the newegg price is 450usd for 7700xt while i have to pay 230usd more. I havent upgraded my gpu for like 8 years now. Heck i got r9 380 on release date. And i paid back than msrp US price here wich was shocking 200usd. But after that we got price diffs soo large i just couldnt afford to upgrade.Colif said:Both cards released make the 4060 TI even more of a joke than it was already.
5TGHvXKkhao
The price difference is bigger in other countries, it makes more sense there.
7800xt in Australia is about $1000
7700xt in Australia is about 860
7800xt selling out fast so 7700xt might be only choice for a few weeks in some places.