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

XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£550VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):260 W

XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air
8.1/10

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 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 73% of models
Score components

40%

8.5

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

7.8

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 73% 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%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

★Better than 94%
8.5

Technical score

Technical score
8.5/ 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 75% of models
Score components

44%

8.6

Performance

24%

8.2

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.2

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

â–²Better than 75%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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–² Better than 60% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 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.
â–²Better than 60%
?

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
  • xfx-quicksilver-radeon-rx-7900-gre-magnetic-air-arctic-white
xfx-quicksilver-radeon-rx-7900-gre-magnetic-air-arctic-white
Where to buy
    N/A~ £550
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 XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers broadly agree it delivers strong gaming performance.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air

Based on 209 owners sharing their experience in online comments

66%positive20%mixed14%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming speed and tuning gains, while unstable VRAM overclocks and occasional driver issues frustrate them.

What owners dislike

  • Memory overclocks above about 2400 MHz often cause black screens, crashes or reboots, especially with fast timings, and many cards only stay stable near 2300–2350 MHz.29
  • Overclocking gains are often small, sometimes 1–2 fps or none, and some owners see no benefit beyond stock performance.13
  • Overclock or fast-timing settings can cause crashes, freezes or restarts during gaming or on the desktop, and some owners must return the settings to default.11
  • Driver updates can reset overclocks, cause black screens or driver timeouts, and sometimes stop the system from booting into Windows.7
  • Hotspot and memory junction temperatures often reach 70–84°C under load, and some owners need higher fan speeds to keep temperatures lower.6
  • Power draw can spike above 300 W, and some owners report draw of 330–340 W under overclock, which can strain older power supplies.5
  • Ray tracing runs noticeably slower than on Nvidia cards, and owners say it is only usable at low settings in a few games.4
  • Overclock profiles can revert after a reboot or driver update, so owners must reapply their tuning settings.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air

Technical score
Technical score
8.5/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

44%

8.6

Performance

24%

8.2

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

6.2

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

8.5
Reviews score
8.1
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%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

7.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
22,333 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 22,333 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 72.8% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
11,768 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 11,768 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 60.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
41,738 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 41,738 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 99.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
18,250 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 18,250 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 70.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
49.05 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 49.05 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 83.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
576 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 576 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 62.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% 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
1.3
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
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
13.5 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 13.5 Gbps, which is slower than on 61.3% of graphics cards and equal to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
260 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 260 W, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
260 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 260 W under peak load, which is higher than 62.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% 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
260 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 260 W, which is higher than that of 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
260 W
Show more
Size
337x 132x 59 mm
Length
337 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 337 mm long, which is longer than 90.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1% of graphics cards.
Height
130 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 130 mm tall, which is taller than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.8% 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
1,140 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,140 g, which is heavier than 57.5% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 40 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    80 vs 40
  • 40 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    80 vs 40
  • 96 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (160 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    160 vs 64
  • 2.38x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (383.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    383.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 136 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (320 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    320 vs 184
  • 94.1% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (733.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    733.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 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
  • 2.17x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (49.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    49.05 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 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.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 7.1% better value for money
    XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.94 vs 7.4).
    7.94 vs 7.41
  • 40 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    80 vs 40
  • 40 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    80 vs 40
  • 96 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (160 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    160 vs 64
  • 2.38x higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (383.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    383.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 136 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (320 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    320 vs 184
  • 94.1% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (733.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    733.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 2.17x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (49.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    49.05 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 84.4% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (41,738 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    41,738 points vs 22,638 points
  • 51.1% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (22,333 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    22,333 points vs 14,779 points
  • 3.33x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (98.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    98.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.4 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.44 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 5,888 more FP32 units
    This graphics card has more FP32 units than the average graphics card (10,240 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    10,240 vs 4,352
  • 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
  • 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
  • 28.6% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (576 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    576 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
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This graphics card has more L1 cache than the average graphics card (256 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    256 KB vs 128 KB
  • 2.52x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (57,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    57,700 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 33% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,287 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,287 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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.
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 20.9% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (260 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    260 W vs 215 W
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 33% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,287 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,287 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 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
  • 20.9% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (260 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    260 W vs 215 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
  • 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
  • 18.2% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (260 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    260 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
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 5 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (130 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    130 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

8.0
VCG
≈ estimated
29/03/2024
Hands-on review · performance comparison and price positioning
Verdict
XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air is no market changer, but a potentially interesting option depending on its price.
9.5
BC Zone
✓ explicit
28/10/2024
Hands-on review · gaming performance, thermals and value
Verdict
XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air is excellent mid-range value that outperforms pricier rivals, with good thermals and room to overclock.
9.0
Daily Unboxer
≈ estimated
25/06/2024
Quick look · 1440p gaming benchmarks and cooling
Verdict
XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air is a solid 1440p card that the creator would definitely recommend, with 4K needing FSR.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air

  • Excellent 1440p and solid 4K gaming performance for the price
  • Generous 16GB of VRAM provides better future-proofing than some competitors
  • Innovative 'Magnetic Air' fan design allows for easy tool-less removal and cleaning
  • Effective triple-fan cooling system that stays relatively quiet during operation
  • Striking 'Arctic White' aesthetic with a premium metal backplate and sleek design
  • Strong rasterization performance that often beats more expensive competitors

What customers don't like about XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air

  • Large, 'chunky' physical dimensions require checking case clearance
  • Ray tracing performance still lags behind equivalent NVIDIA hardware
  • AMD FSR upscaling image quality is generally considered inferior to NVIDIA DLSS
  • Minimal overclocking potential compared to some higher-tier models
  • Higher power consumption compared to comparable NVIDIA 40-series cards

Verdict

The XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air is a high-performance RDNA 3 graphics card featuring 16GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, 5120 stream processors, and a boost clock reaching 2395 MHz. Its standout characteristic is the innovative 'Magnetic Air' cooling system, which utilizes toolless magnetic fans for easy cleaning and replacement alongside a sleek, all-white triple-fan aesthetic. Main pros include its exceptional 1440p rasterization performance that often surpasses the RTX 4070, a robust 3.5-slot thermal design with a vented aluminum backplate, and dual BIOS support for added reliability. However, its significant length of 337mm may cause clearance issues in smaller cases, and its ray tracing capabilities and AI upscaling features generally lag behind competing NVIDIA alternatives.

Compare XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air 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 XFX Quicksilver Radeon RX 7900 GRE Magnetic Air and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found