AMD 7900 XTX, a great GPU for flight simming?

[LuftManu]

Dear friends,

As I found out, many people would not recommend an AMD for DCS / Il-2 or some serious flightsimming. It's not a surprise since 6000 series (for me) and 7000 series at launch underperformed by a lot (fixed now). Also, Nvidia has always had the next step in VR (and now with DLSS and RT).

I had a 4080 and I decided to give the 7900 XTX a chance. The results surprised me. I did this review for Sheriff's Discord, so I will paste below. My specs are:

Mobo Asus ROG Maximus Hero Z790

CPU Intel Core I9 13900K @ 6.2 paired with a Asus Ryuo 360

Ram Corsair 64Gb @ 6000

PSU Corsair Hxi1500

Game on a NVME

Good case with good ventilation (Corsair 7000D with Arctic 140 Fans)

 

Summary tl dr -> The 7900 XTX is a beast of a card. It should fear nothing against the 4080. In rasterization, it's a bit faster in DCS and Il-2. The first part of the efficience curve is really good and I may say even better than the 4080 with a slight undervolt?. Even in RT, the games that are plus 60fps in the Nvidia one will mostly reach 60fps too or get near it. No issue. If I were interested only in RT games and using DLSS, then I would need to see if the Price increase (From 1000€ to 1300€) is justified.

 

Okay my brothers and sisters, here is a quick review. Tested various games, tested VR with Quest 3 a few moments ago and our beloved sims. The rest was yesterday all night long: The model is the Sapphire Nitro +, one of the best air cooled XTX on the market. Sapphire is not EVGA, but it's one of the best AIBs around for AMD. I've watched several videos these past few weeks and I think they don't do much justice or there are not many units availible.

First of all, I had NO issues with Drivers. Could record and do a mini stream no problem. I don't use more productivity programs besides Adobe, Vegas, MemoQ. For a normal content creator it works flawlesly. Even I could work with Discord (had trouble with streaming on my old 6700 XT Back in the day). Tried two monitors too and no shenanigans. Let me remind myself the moto: Don't buy tech too early. It has the newer HDMI and DP ports. For productivity tho, Nvidia is still the king. I am just making some YouTube videos. Take this into account!

It's not 100% slower in RT as others claimed. Probably 20 and 30% in some games. (https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/images/relative-performance-rt_3840-2160.png)I didn't have enough RT to try, but with Cyberpunk I was able to do RT + FSR at 4k and enjoy 60 fps.

The worst thing is the consumption. 400W on this Custom Nitro model is the norm and can be pushed up to 500W with a OC. And this is important. The OC gives an uplift up to 10% in some cases (per some reviewers).

 

(Read Dead Redemption 2)

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/399864768908886021/1197308086235451492/IMG_0819.jpg

 

3440x1440 MSAA x2 DX12

TechPowerUp benchamark with 4k: https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/images/red-dead-redemption-2-3840-2160.png

 

Both cards maxed like Watts, as the 4080 will pull north of 320W mark too. The worst case scenario for performance is with full Ray tracing where it takes a hit for the worst, but it's not that off from a lower 4000 series model.

Of course, using upscaling methods like FSR or Intel Xess or FG is mandatory with RT. The final results are probably between a 4070 and 4070ti with better 99% lows and tons of RAM to use. Enough for 60 fps gaming in RT and AMD CAN do RT. Even lower models I guess with FSR and this new FG with Unreal could be really cool.

FSR on the other part works good but it’s not as good as Nvidia’s DLSS. Also, this changes as soon as we go up in resolution. At 4k FSR performs good enough to be a good contender, whereas at 1080p and even 2k the differences in edges, lines etc are worse. (Noticed this in RDR2) The differences at 4k are noticeable only if we focus on a single object. I tested both DCS, CyberPunk and DCS for this. From the online reviews, looks like FSR was like aids on your vision. I was surprised that at 4k works "good enough" and in many generations of GPUs. Good enough. I like it.

The metal construction of this model and the PCB seems of a really good quality. The backplate and "joint" in the back part prevent sagging and does a huge better job than the Gigabyte 4000 models. I think it's on the same way as the TUF and Asus ROG. Great! and great build quality.

It is shorter tan Gigabytes 4080 and weights 1kg less. I hope this also helps in sagging. It also comes with a support in the way of a lower part to attach. I have now two supports: this lower part and a pillar on the end of the GPU. The software is not needed and only helps you to change the RGB. You have 3 settings for BIOS. 1 OC 2 PW limited and 3 Software controlled.

I didn’t “fidget” with OC a lot with, but it has room to more OC. The temperature allows it: Temperature wise it’s good! Really good! 60 ºC average at máximum 400W so the cooler it’s doing a great job and has margin to OC. As expected, the efficiency drops soon at the last part. Until 80% of usage we are not reaching 200W, let alone 180W. it’s cool and good for that. Flying sims with a capped 80 or 100 fps result in less Wattage than in my old 4080 which did over 200W.

Let’s go to our beloved sims and FPS: I fly with 100 or 80 fps, depending on the sim. I was using 80 in DCS an 100 in Il-2. After DCS got the MT upgrade I switched back to 100 in both. For DCS in native, the card has NO issues with a 13900K. The fps reached 160 uncapped in the air and more than 100 in the ground. With the 4080 I was able to get 130-140 in the Hornet free flight mission. I had the best improvement in Marianas with tons of objects, specially with the Apache and all screens doing PIP. (VRAM was also going up and up, the 384 bits of bandwith help I guess?)

 

In this screenshot of Ah-64D Hot start on Syria I am using 3440x1400, MSAAx2, all maxed out, 1024 screens every frame (NO upscaling):

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1056134833723674644/1197988848609792070/IMG_0831.png?ex=65bd450f&is=65aad00f&hm=6d84ba8b9b943f145514b319ba66bf847ef9b97d17a74bd6cdac132c8f7a70aa&

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1056134833723674644/1197988882545918062/IMG_0833.png?ex=65bd4517&is=65aad017&hm=159bd6a5728f3ebecad4800bcb0adae89596020d333aa8f07534cd08772d340e&

 

As you can see, I am hitting 75 fps with both screens showing content. I was not able to do this with my 4080 where I was barely hitting 60 fps withouth upscaling.

 

In Il-2 I also had an improvement, maybe smaller. Could reach 144 in 344x1440 with MSAAx4 and all maxed out. I didnt get 144 in the 4080. More like 120-130. With OC both sims showed a Little welcomed uplift, giving more % to the AMD one. Nvidia OC was boring AF and didn’t get me out much.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/399864768908886021/1197302594738073630/IMG_0812.jpg?ex=65bac5ef&is=65a850ef&hm=3798f4bcbf51cecf8a3164d87e338dede71a6abf4f16631b94168bf4c8932d9f&

 

 

Both sims at 100 fps gave me a board power slightly higher than the 4080, but have more headroom.

 

What in VR? How does it perform? I WAS surprised. I tested this card (other model) after launch here. In VR the 4080 was like 30% faster. I was surprised this was not the case anymore, will it be in the future? In Il-2 I could fly with almost everything maxed out sans shadows and MSAA with the Quest 3. 90 fps no trobule dropping down with 16 planes in the air and a high cloud cover. I also had dips on my 4080 when planes were blocking the sky. I am not sure how much of a decrease is in VR, but the performance was really similar between the two, so similar I could guess RAM and CPU OC matter more.

In DCS and using FSR also gave me headroom to play. Using the Viper refuel mission I was able to have the exact same settings albeit a little reduction on resolution (I found out later that it was the same, FSR was on, did a retest and didn't need to change settings from the 4080). The 7900 XTX can do VR similar (maybe 5% less?) to a 4080 to this day in Il-2. THIS is realy important. I don't do VR so I can get you all of the juice, but some squad mamebers use it and they are happy. Would be great to have more people testing this.

 

All in all, I didn’t have time to test more an the VR was a quick test. I didn’t have any issues neither on the setup with Virtual Desktop. Just plug in, adjust resolution and get the same as before and nothing more. For a Price point of 999€ I think it’s a great card, considering it uses old-style connectors and non propietary Nvidia tech. The biggest downside I can see is conmsumption and RT, but being worse than a 4080 in RT doesn’t mean it can’t beat a normal 4070 in it. What about OC? I applied it and I feel like the dips were lower. There is much to explore. As I said earlier, some OC test gave me some good uplift, I guess I can pull more.

I guess it had issues in special places, programs etc, because this thing is awesome. The 4080 cost me 1300€, this one 1050€. You can get other XTX for as Little as 999€ (Hellhound) and perform similar.

The best card in the world RN is the 4090, there is no doubts. Better raster and RT than anything else and special tech. Going down… the 4080 seems like a bad deal at the moment with 256 bus and 16 gb for a future proof. (20 gb would have killed this AMD card)

Super cards probably might cause a lower Price here. Taking into accountscalpers and other factors, the 4070 TI Super may end in this same region whereas the 4080 Super (that probably will have head again in raster) in 1400 or more, whereas this might drop to 799 / 900€ in some models.

I need more time with it but this thing is interesting.

 

The 4080 Super with 20gb could just kill this thing for 1300 but I guess we are forced to pay 2000€ and more for the 4090.

It suprises me there are not many reviews of these GPUs out there. They are trully something great and I expected it to be full of problems and underperforming in flight sims.

Kind regards,