OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£450VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):245 W

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications, 38 expert and video reviews and 4 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT
7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components

40%

7.3

Technical score

25%

7.3

Reviews score

25%

8.2

List score

10%

7.3

Sentiment score

▲Better than 54% of graphics cards
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 75% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.1

Price

▲Better than 75%
7.3

Technical score

Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components

44%

7.2

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.5

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

▲Better than 54%
7.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 68% of models

7.3

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

9.4

Popularity

Grades by review (38)
21 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 68%
8.2

List score

List score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (4)
List score: in 4 of 94 lists (4%)
★Better than 99%
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
  • amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
amd-radeon-rx-7700-xt
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

Based on 21 · 19

Reviewers praise solid gaming performance and cool, quiet running, but criticise power draw and weak ray tracing; value opinions are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

Based on 201 owners sharing their experience in online comments

66%positive13%mixed21%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance, while driver instability and uneven frame rates are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners see sudden fps drops and stutter in certain games, such as sharp swings in PUBG, dips in Doom 2016 and stutter at 1440p.13
  • Owners report driver crashes, Wattman errors and crashes that required reinstalling drivers, plus software crashes and missing day-one drivers for new games.12

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

Technical score
Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components:

44%

7.2

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.5

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

7.3
Reviews score
7.3
List score
8.2
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.1

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
17,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 17,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 55.3% of graphics cards and equal to 1.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
9,166 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 9,166 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 50.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
22,659 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 22,659 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
14,946 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 14,946 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 60.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
35.17 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 35.17 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
432 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 432 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 58.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.7% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is more advanced than on 66.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
54 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 54 Gbps, which is faster than on 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
245 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 245 W, which is higher than that of 57.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
245 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 245 W under peak load, which is higher than 56% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
700 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 700 W PSU, which is higher than that of 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
245 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 245 W, which is higher than that of 54.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
245 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 135x 50 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
135 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 135 mm tall, which is taller than 70.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 51.4% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (244.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    244.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 14 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (54 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    54 vs 40
  • 45.4% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (549.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    549.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 14 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (54 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    54 vs 40
  • 55.6% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (35.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    35.17 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7.9% higher list score
    List score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (4)
    List score: in 4 of 94 lists (4%)
    8.2 vs 7.6
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • 51.4% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (244.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    244.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 14 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (54 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    54 vs 40
  • 45.4% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (549.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    549.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 14 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (54 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    54 vs 40
  • 55.6% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (35.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    35.17 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 1.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,544 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,544 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 32 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (216 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    216 vs 184
  • 2.29x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 2.38x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (70.3 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    70.3 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 12x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    48 MB vs 4 MB
  • 1 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    1 vs 0
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • 2.5x higher DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 25.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,435 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,435 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 6.4% lower sentiment score
    7.3 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 25.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,435 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,435 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 36 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (108 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    108 vs 144
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 3.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 14% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (245 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    245 W vs 215 W
  • 7.7% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (700 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    700 W vs 650 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (135 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    135 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
ThisBytesForYou
≈ estimated
14/10/2024
Hands-on review · six-game test with upscaling and frame generation
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is an excellent card, as frame generation and FSR 3 make demanding games run smoothly.
9.0
Matt Miller
≈ estimated
22/06/2024
Hands-on review · 1440p game benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT delivers strong 1440p performance for its price, with ray tracing and some CPU-heavy games as weak spots.
6.0
TechArc
≈ estimated
26/10/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and value
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a solid mid-range card, but poor value and efficiency hold it back against Nvidia rivals.
4.0
Techtesters
≈ estimated
18/09/2023
Full review · 33 games, power draw and price value
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is not worth it at current prices and only makes sense if it drops about 100 euros.
9.0
ThisBytesForYou
≈ estimated
11/09/2023
Hands-on review · 1080p, 2K and ray tracing benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a bargain right now and excellent for what it offers.
7.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
07/09/2023
Full review · benchmarks, power and thermals
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT offers good value for strict budgets, but the RX 7800 XT is the better pick if you can spend a little more.
5.0
PC Centric
≈ estimated
07/09/2023
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and value verdict
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a capable card, but its price is too high, so the RX 7800 XT is the better buy.
7.0
Tech Critter
≈ estimated
06/09/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and power draw
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a good card but priced a bit too high right now, and whether to buy depends on game support.
7.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
06/09/2023
Comparison review · 12-game benchmarks and ray tracing
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT offers strong value against Nvidia's 4060 Ti, but it needs to be cheaper to make sense against the RX 7800 XT.
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Lab test · Mid-range 1080p card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a solid 1080p card with decent 1440p results, but it trails the RX 7800 XT and can't clearly beat the RX 6800.
7.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
12/09/2023
Benchmark review · Temperatures and noise
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT runs cool and quiet and should beat the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB, but the RX 7800 XT is the better buy.
7.0
pcgamesn.com
✓ explicit
07/09/2023
Benchmark review · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a strong 1440p card for games without ray tracing, but the RX 7800 XT is the more capable choice.
7.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
06/09/2023
Review · Mid-range GPU comparison
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a good 1440p card that beats comparable Nvidia cards on performance, though Nvidia still leads on ray tracing and DLSS.
6.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
03/11/2023
Lab test · 1440p benchmarks
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is a capable 1440p card that beats the RTX 4060 Ti, but the RX 7800 XT's bigger lead makes it the better pick.
7.0
hardwaretimes.com
≈ estimated
03/10/2023
Benchmark review · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is a decent 1440p card that beats the RTX 4060 Ti by 20-30% in most games, but it lags behind in ray tracing.
7.0
cnet.com
≈ estimated
07/09/2023
Hands-on review · 1440p gaming
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is excellent at 1440p without ray tracing, but the RX 7800 XT lasts longer and handles 4K better.
7.0
xda-developers.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Hands-on review · 1440p and 4K
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is a strong 1440p card that handles 4K with FSR, though its 12GB memory may limit it there.
7.0
pcguide.com
✓ explicit
29/04/2024
Buying guide · Mid-range review
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT reliably hits 60fps at max 1440p settings, but won't suit players chasing higher frame rates.
7.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
06/10/2023
Lab test · 1440p and 4K games
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 7700 XT beats the 16GB RTX 4060 Ti in most tested games at 1440p, making it a strong pick for that resolution.
8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Lab test · 1440p gaming
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT keeps pace with the RTX 4070 at 1440p in most games, though Nvidia's card pulls ahead once ray tracing is on.
8.0
geekawhat.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Benchmark review · Mid-range 1440p
Verdict
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is a capable 1440p card, averaging 145fps in Warzone 2 at 1080p, though Starfield's 74fps at 1440p is more modest.
9.2
pcmasters.de
✓ explicit
Not Dated
Lab test · Custom Nitro+ model
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 7700 XT Nitro+ is built for 1440p gaming above 60fps, with a dual BIOS, RGB lighting and room to overclock.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
20/09/2023
Lab test · Mid-range graphics card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a quiet card that averages 99fps at 1440p, but ray tracing and upscaling still trail Nvidia.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
07/09/2023
Lab test · Sapphire Pulse model
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Sapphire Pulse is a cool, quiet 1440p card, but its power draw and missing FSR 3 hold it back.
7.0
clubic.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Launch test · RDNA 3 mid-range
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT fills a gap in AMD's lineup with strong 1440p performance and clear gains over the older RX 6700 XT.
8.6
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Lab test · Custom mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a solid 1440p card between the RTX 4060 Ti and RTX 4070, but it trails Nvidia in DLSS games.
8.7
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Launch analysis · 1440p mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is aimed at 1440p gamers who skip 4K and can hold around 60fps with ray tracing on.
9.3
nosoygamer.com
✓ explicit
06/09/2023
Hands-on test · Game benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT suits 1440p gamers at max settings, and FSR upscaling makes 4K playable, though demanding games fall well short of 60fps.
6.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
06/09/2023
Lab test · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is nearly as fast as an RTX 4070 in games without ray tracing, but ray tracing lags and it draws more power than rivals.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

  • Excellent 1080p and 1440p rasterization performance, often outperforming the RTX 4060 Ti in non-ray-traced games.
  • Solid 12GB VRAM buffer with a 192-bit bus, which is superior to the 8GB found on some NVIDIA competitors for demanding textures.
  • Good thermal and acoustic performance, with many models remaining quiet even under load.
  • Strong support for modern features like AV1 encoding and FSR 3.0 upscaling.
  • Capable of entry-level 4K gaming, especially when utilizing FSR technology.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

  • Weak price-to-performance value compared to the RX 7800 XT, which often offers significantly more power for a small price increase.
  • Ray tracing and AI performance lag behind NVIDIA's equivalent 40-series cards.
  • Lower power efficiency compared to competitors like the RTX 4060 Ti, resulting in higher system power draw.
  • Occasional reports of coil whine in certain custom models.
  • Faces stiff competition from previous-generation cards like the RX 6800, which can sometimes offer better value.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is a mid-range graphics card based on the RDNA 3 architecture, specifically designed to deliver high-performance 1440p gaming. Built on a 5nm process with 28.1 billion transistors, it features 3,456 stream processors, 54 Ray Accelerators, 108 AI Accelerators, and 48MB of second-generation Infinity Cache. Key hardware includes 12GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 192-bit interface with an 18 Gbps clock, providing 432 GB/s of memory bandwidth and supporting a typical board power of 245W. Its main pros include strong native rasterization performance that often outperforms its direct competition at 1440p, generous VRAM for its class, and support for modern features like AV1 encoding and DisplayPort 2.1. However, some cons include a relatively high power consumption compared to rival NVIDIA cards, less effective ray tracing performance, and a launch price that many reviewers felt was too close to the more capable RX 7800 XT.

Compare AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found