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

ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,000VRAM:24 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):355 W

ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 12 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX
8.4/10

Overall score

Score
8.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

40%

8.9

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.5

Sentiment score

★Better than 91% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

▼Worse than 54%
8.9

Technical score

Technical score
8.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components

44%

9.5

Performance

24%

9.2

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

4.2

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

▲Better than 81%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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
▲ Better than 77% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (12)
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 2 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.
▲Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-tuf-gaming-radeon-rx-7900-xtx
asus-tuf-gaming-radeon-rx-7900-xtx
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,000
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 ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX

Based on 10 · 2

Reviewers praise its cool, quiet running and strong raster performance, but almost all find it huge and power hungry.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX

Based on 281 owners sharing their experience in online comments

73%positive15%mixed12%negative

Owners praise fast high-resolution gaming and ample memory, while power draw, heat, and weaker ray tracing cause complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners report driver crashes, DirectX 12 errors, and screen corruption, and found older driver versions more stable.5
  • Some cards hit 110°C and throttle right away, and high GPU hotspot temperatures sometimes needed the thermal paste reapplied.3
  • Ray tracing costs a lot of frame rate, with some owners seeing drops from 120 fps to 20 to 30 fps in Diablo 4 on medium RT.3
  • Under load the card often pulls 350 to 465 watts, with spikes near 600 watts, so owners may need a 1000-watt power supply.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Graphics cards model ranking

Ranked #1444 of 2,260 models in Graphics cards (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX

Technical score
Technical score
8.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

44%

9.5

Performance

24%

9.2

Memory

12%

7.5

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

4.2

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

8.9
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

8.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
27,934 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 27,934 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 82.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
25,619 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 25,619 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 92.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
31,296 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 31,296 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 74.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
17,771 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 17,771 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
61.39 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 61.39 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 92.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
24 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 24 GB of VRAM, which is more than 91.2% of graphics cards and equal to 5.5% 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
384 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 384 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
960 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 960 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 88.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.7% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
20,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 20,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 53.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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)
355 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 355 W, which is higher than that of 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
377 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 377 W under peak load, which is higher than 90.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
850 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 850 W PSU, which is higher than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
375 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 375 W, which is higher than that of 88.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
355 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
352.9x 158.2x 72.6 mm
Length
353 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 353 mm long, which is longer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
158.2 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 158.2 mm tall, which is taller than 98.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3.63 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3.63 slot/s, which is wider than 96.2% of graphics cards and equal in width to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Weight
2,135 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 2,135 g, which is heavier than 92.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 56 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (96 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    96 vs 40
  • 56 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (96 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    96 vs 40
  • 128 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (192 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    192 vs 64
  • 12 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (24 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    24 GB vs 12 GB
  • 2.14x higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (960 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    960 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2.54x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (959.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    959.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 200 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (384 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    384 vs 184
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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
    ▲ Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 56 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (96 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    96 vs 40
  • 56 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (96 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    96 vs 40
  • 128 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (192 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    192 vs 64
  • 2.54x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (959.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    959.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 200 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (384 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    384 vs 184
  • 2.97x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (479.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    479.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 24.7% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,395 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,395 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 2.72x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (61.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    61.39 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 2.4% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2.8x higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (25,619 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    25,619 points vs 9,148 points
  • 89% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (27,934 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    27,934 points vs 14,779 points
  • 38.2% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (31,296 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    31,296 points vs 22,638 points
  • 48 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (192 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    192 vs 144
  • 4x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.92 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4.17x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (123 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    123 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 7,936 more FP32 units
    This graphics card has more FP32 units than the average graphics card (12,288 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    12,288 vs 4,352
  • 3.47x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (123 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    123 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS
  • 12 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (24 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    24 GB vs 12 GB
  • 2.14x higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (960 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    960 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 42.9% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 2.53x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (58,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    58,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • 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
  • 7 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    60 °C vs 67 °C
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 65.1% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (355 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    355 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • 70.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (353 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    353 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 33.2 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (158.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    158.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 W
  • 1.13 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.6 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.63 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 92.3% more expensive
    ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,000 vs £520).
    £1,000 vs £520
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    December 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 75% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (6 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    6 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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
  • 79.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (529 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    529 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 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
  • 65.1% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (355 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    355 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 W
  • 70.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (375 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    375 W vs 220 W
  • 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
  • 71.4% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (377 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    377 W vs 220 W
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • 70.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (353 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    353 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 33.2 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (158.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    158.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1.13 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.6 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.63 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2.11x heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (2,135 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    2,135 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

8.0
TheTanelChannel
✓ explicit
06/03/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling and software tests
Verdict
ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX is a strong card and faster than the RTX 4080, but AMD's software holds it back.
5.0
TastyPC
≈ estimated
14/12/2022
Hands-on review · 12 games and power tests
Verdict
ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX is not a clear bargain against the RTX 4080, and it falls short, especially in ray tracing.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
13/12/2022
Overclock review · Quad-slot cooler
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX suits buyers who want a faster factory overclock and a strong cooler, but its four-slot body needs a large case.
8.2
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
10/02/2023
Cooling and noise test · Silent card
Verdict
The ASUS TUF RX 7900 XTX OC is a very quiet, cool-running card for gamers who value silence, but its ray tracing trails NVIDIA's RTX 40 cards.
8.0
cgmagonline.com
✓ explicit
23/02/2023
Benchmark review · Factory overclock
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7900 XTX OC beats AMD's reference card in every test and often matches the RTX 4080, though its triple-fan body is large.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
07/08/2023
Hands-on review · Overclocked 4K card
Verdict
The ASUS TUF RX 7900 XTX Gaming OC is a faster 4K card with a strong cooler, but its quad-slot body and three 8-pin plugs suit only roomy cases.
8.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
13/12/2022
Lab test · Silent-mode overclock
Verdict
The ASUS TUF OC is quiet and cool with strong Ultra HD performance, but its 2–3% overclock gain is small, so the standard card makes more sense.
8.0
en.gamegpu.com
≈ estimated
09/05/2023
Benchmark review · Game tests
Verdict
The ASUS TUF RX 7900 XTX Gaming OC beats RTX 4080 cards in several 4K game tests, but it needs three 8-pin plugs and draws about 377 W.
8.0
tvmovie.de
≈ estimated
20/05/2023
Hands-on test · Gaming benchmarks
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Radeon RX 7900 XTX OC Edition runs cool and quiet and beats the RTX 4080 in standard gaming, but its size is a real drawback.
9.0
de.gamegpu.com
≈ estimated
09/05/2023
Lab test · Heat and power
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Radeon RX 7900 XTX Gaming-OC peaks at 57°C in games with a quiet BIOS mode, but it draws about 378W and takes 3.5 slots.
9.8
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
27/01/2023
Hands-on review · Design and connectivity
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Gaming RX 7900 XTX OC Edition is a 24GB card with strong display outputs, but at nearly four slots wide, it is hard to fit.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
19/01/2023
Lab test · 4K performance
Verdict
The ASUS TUF Radeon RX 7900 XTX is fast and cool in games without ray tracing, but it is huge and trails Nvidia's cards in ray tracing.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX

  • Exceptional 4K and 1440p gaming performance, especially in rasterization
  • High-end build quality featuring a sturdy metal chassis and durable components
  • Excellent cooling system that maintains low temperatures, often staying below 60°C
  • Relatively quiet operation under load with effective axial-tech fan design
  • Large 24GB VRAM buffer provides significant future-proofing for heavy textures
  • Offers better value for money compared to similarly performing NVIDIA cards

What customers don't like about ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX

  • Massive physical size (quad-slot design) that may not fit in many standard cases
  • Subpar ray tracing performance compared to competitors like the RTX 4080
  • High power consumption, requiring a minimum 850W power supply and three 8-pin connectors
  • Lacks a USB-C port on the rear I/O, which is present on the AMD reference model
  • Occasional driver issues and limited support for professional 3D rendering software
  • Higher price point than the AMD reference card without significant performance gains

Verdict

The ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX is a high-end graphics card built on the AMD RDNA 3 architecture, featuring 6,144 stream processors and a massive 24GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 384-bit memory interface. This OC edition boasts a boost clock of up to 2,615 MHz and a 355W total board power, requiring three 8-pin PCIe power connectors and a recommended 850W PSU. Its main characteristics include a robust 3.63-slot metal exoskeleton, a vented backplate, and three Axial-tech fans designed for 14% more airflow to ensure efficient cooling. Key pros include exceptional 4K rasterization performance, high durability with military-grade capacitors, and excellent value for high-resolution gaming compared to competitors. However, main cons include its massive physical size that requires significant case space, high power consumption, and ray tracing performance that generally trails behind equivalent NVIDIA hardware.

Compare ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX 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 ASUS TUF Gaming Radeon RX 7900 XTX and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found