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

PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£480VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):263 W

PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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 64% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

7.9

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 64% of graphics cards
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 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
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

★Better than 94%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 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 71% of models
Score components

44%

7.5

Performance

24%

8.4

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.7

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–²Better than 71%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 61%
?

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
  • powercolor-hellhound-sakura-radeon-rx-7800-xt-limited-edition
powercolor-hellhound-sakura-radeon-rx-7800-xt-limited-edition
Where to buy
    N/A~ £480
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 PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition

Based on 184 owners sharing their experience in online comments

74%positive11%mixed15%negative

Owners praise strong gaming and efficient power, while weak ray tracing and driver problems remain the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Stuck on FSR 3.1 or older with no FSR 4 upscaling; owners find FSR 3.1 grainy on details and struggle with modern UE5 games without upscaling.5
  • Some owners say recent drivers stop responding, and turning on an in-game FPS counter causes a big frame drop. Some games need driver fixes.4
  • Ray tracing is slow, around 30 to 50 FPS in this price range, so owners who want strong RT performance pick NVIDIA instead.4
  • Hotspot temperatures above about 70°C caused crashes for one owner, and fans get loud when the card reaches about 81°C.3
  • Some owners switching from NVIDIA report stutter and frame drops in certain games, sometimes with no clear cause found.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

44%

7.5

Performance

24%

8.4

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.7

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

8.1
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 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
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

7.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
19,448 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 19,448 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 63.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
10,565 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 10,565 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 57.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
24,260 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 24,260 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 55.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
28,995 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 28,995 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 93% of graphics cards and equal to 2.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
37.32 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 37.32 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 69.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% 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
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
624.1 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 624.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 65.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
19,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,500 MHz, which is faster than that of 51.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.6% 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
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% 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
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
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
263 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 263 W, which is higher than that of 66.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
263 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 263 W under peak load, which is higher than 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
263 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 263 W, which is higher than that of 61.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
263 W
Show more
Size
322x 134x 50 mm
Length
322 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 322 mm long, which is longer than 75.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Height
134 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 134 mm tall, which is taller than 68.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% 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
1,000 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,000 g, which is lighter than 50.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 20 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    60 vs 40
  • 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
  • 20 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    60 vs 40
  • 60% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (604.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    604.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 39.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,438 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,438 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (241.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    241.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 6% better value for money
    PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.86 vs 7.4).
    7.86 vs 7.41
  • 5.6% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 7.2
  • 20 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    60 vs 40
  • 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
  • 20 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    60 vs 40
  • 60% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (604.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    604.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 50% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (241.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    241.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 56 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (240 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    240 vs 184
  • 65.1% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (37.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    37.32 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 2.4x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,995 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,995 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 2.62x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (77.4 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    77.41 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2.52x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.21 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 39.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,438 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,438 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 39.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (624.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    624.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 16x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    64 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
  • 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
  • 10.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (25 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    25 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 21.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,507 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,507 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 39.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (322 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    322 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 22.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (263 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    263 W vs 215 W
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 21.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,507 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,507 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 24 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (120 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    120 vs 144
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 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 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
  • 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
  • 22.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (263 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    263 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 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
  • 19.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (263 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    263 W vs 220 W
  • 41.7% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (17 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    17 W vs 12 W
  • 39.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (322 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    322 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 9 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (134 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    134 mm vs 125 mm

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.3
pcmasters.de
✓ explicit
04/04/2024
Review · White cherry-blossom card
Verdict
The PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition is a near-silent white card for white-themed builds, though the RTX 4070 Super beats it on speed and efficiency.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition

  • Distinctive cherry blossom (Sakura) white and pink aesthetics
  • Excellent thermal performance with low operating temperatures
  • Near-silent operation even under heavy gaming loads
  • Dual BIOS switch for choosing between OC and Silent modes
  • Solid 1440p gaming performance with 16GB of VRAM
  • High-quality build with a metal-reinforced backplate
  • Physical switch to control or turn off LED lighting

What customers don't like about PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition

  • Limited edition version commands a significant price premium
  • Lack of full RGB customisation (limited to specific LED colours)
  • Significant card weight may require an additional anti-sag bracket
  • Large triple-slot design may not fit in smaller PC cases
  • Limited ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA competitors
  • High power consumption (750W PSU recommended)

Verdict

The PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition is a high-performance graphics card featuring 16GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 3,840 stream processors and a boost clock speed up to 2520 MHz. Defined by its unique cherry blossom-themed aesthetic, it boasts an all-white PCB, heatsink, and triple-fan shroud with pink accents and a physical LED switch to toggle between pink and white lighting. Main pros include its exceptional 1440p gaming performance, advanced cooling with five 6mm heatpipes, and a dual BIOS for choosing between overclocked or silent operation. Notable cons include its large 322mm triple-slot footprint which may not fit in smaller cases, a high 750W recommended power supply, and lighting options limited to specific preset colors rather than full RGB.

Compare PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition 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 PowerColor Hellhound Sakura Radeon RX 7800 XT Limited Edition and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found