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

BIOSTAR Radeon RX 7700 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£430VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):245 W

BIOSTAR Radeon RX 7700 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

40%

7.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

7.4

Sentiment score

â–²Better 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

â–²Better than 75%
7.4

Technical score

Technical score
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 59% of models
Score components

44%

7.1

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–²Better than 59%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £430
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the BIOSTAR 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 BIOSTAR Radeon RX 7700 XT

Technical score
Technical score
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 59% of models
Score components:

44%

7.1

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

7.4
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.3

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
18,620 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 18,620 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 64.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
12,958 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 12,958 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 52.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
35.18 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 35.18 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 65.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
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
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% 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
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
52.22 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 52.22 Gbps, which is faster than on 78.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% 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
Size
282x 150x 50 mm
Length
282 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 282 mm long, which is shorter than 50.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% 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 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

BIOSTAR 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
  • 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 (549.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    549.7 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
  • 55.7% 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.
    35.18 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 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 (549.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    549.7 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
  • 55.7% 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.
    35.18 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.
    70.34 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 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
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 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.
  • 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 RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • 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
  • 17.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (18,620 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    18,620 points vs 22,638 points
  • 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 (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • 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 (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 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
  • 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
  • 17 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (84 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    84 °C vs 67 °C
  • 4.1 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (39.5 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    39.5 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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

Shop video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about BIOSTAR Radeon RX 7700 XT

  • Excellent performance for 1440p and high-refresh 1080p gaming
  • Competitive rasterisation performance, often beating the RTX 4060 Ti
  • Solid 12GB VRAM buffer with a 192-bit bus, suitable for modern titles
  • Good thermal and noise performance in most custom models
  • Effective upscaling support via FSR and RSR technologies
  • Solid build quality often featuring robust backplates

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

  • Poor value proposition compared to the RX 7800 XT (often only $50 price difference)
  • Higher power consumption compared to Nvidia's mid-range competitors
  • Ray tracing performance noticeably lags behind Nvidia cards
  • Limited 4K capability without significant settings adjustments or upscaling
  • Software and driver stability occasionally noted as needing more refinement

Verdict

The Biostar Radeon RX 7700 XT is a mid-range graphics card built on the RDNA 3 architecture, featuring 3,456 shading units, 54 Compute Units, and 54 Ray Accelerators. It is equipped with 12GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 192-bit memory interface, delivering a boost clock speed of up to 2544 MHz and a memory bandwidth of 432 GB/s. Key advantages include strong 1440p gaming performance, support for DisplayPort 2.1 and AV1 encoding, and 48MB of 2nd generation AMD Infinity Cache for improved efficiency. However, it faces criticism for its relatively high 245W power consumption and ray tracing performance that trails behind competitors, often being viewed as a less compelling value compared to the slightly more expensive but significantly faster RX 7800 XT.

Compare BIOSTAR 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 BIOSTAR Radeon RX 7700 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found