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

Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£950VRAM:24 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):355 W

Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura
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 74% of models
Score components

40%

8.9

Technical score

25%

7.2

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

â–²Better than 74% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 80% of models
Score components

44%

9.3

Performance

24%

9.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

â–²Better than 80%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 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 69% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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–¼Worse than 69%
?

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
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
  • yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
yeston-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-sakura
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura

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...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura

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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 80% of models
Score components:

44%

9.3

Performance

24%

9.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.7

Connectivity

8.9
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

5.5

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
34,026 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 34,026 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 93.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
16,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 16,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 75.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
31,410 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 31,410 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 75.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
19,200 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 19,200 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 75.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
61.42 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 61.42 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 93.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
1.4
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)
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
355 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 355 W under peak load, which is higher than 85.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
1,000 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 1,000 W PSU, which is higher than that of 95.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
291 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 291 W, which is higher than that of 67.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
355 W
Show more
Size
330x 132x 58 mm
Length
330 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 330 mm long, which is longer than 82.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Height
137 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 137 mm tall, which is taller than 74.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3 slot/s, which is wider than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal in width to 16.8% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,565 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,565 g, which is heavier than 76.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura 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 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    959 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
  • 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 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    959 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 (479.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    479.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 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.
    61.42 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 2.3x higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (34,026 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    34,026 points vs 14,779 points
  • 74.9% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (16,000 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    16,000 points vs 9,148 points
  • 38.7% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (31,410 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    31,410 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
  • 3.46x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (122.8 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    122.8 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
  • 2.52x 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
  • 2.5x higher DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 53.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (1,000 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    1,000 W vs 650 W
  • 47.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (330 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    330 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 12 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (137 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    137 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 82.7% more expensive
    Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura is more expensive than the average graphics card (£950 vs £520).
    £950 vs £520
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (32 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    32 KB vs 128 KB
  • 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
  • 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 OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 vs 3
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 53.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (1,000 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    1,000 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
  • 32.3% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (291 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    291 W vs 220 W
  • 61.4% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (355 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    355 W vs 220 W
  • 47.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (330 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    330 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 12 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (137 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    137 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 54.3% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,565 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,565 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

6.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
08/03/2023
Hands-on review · thermals, noise and benchmarks
Verdict
Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura performs about like the reference model and is mainly worth buying for its looks.
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura

  • Unique 'waifu' and synthwave aesthetic featuring high-gloss shrouds and laser effects that change colors at different angles.
  • Excellent 4K rasterization performance, often competing with or outperforming the RTX 4080 in non-ray-tracing titles.
  • High-quality construction with a 14-layer PCB and a robust 20-phase VRM setup.
  • Efficient cooling system ('Sugar Cooling') with three 100mm fans that remain relatively quiet even at higher RPMs.
  • Generous 24GB of VRAM, providing superior future-proofing for memory-intensive modern games and VR.
  • Premium unboxing experience, often including extras like a themed 'manhwa' (comic book) or posters.

What customers don't like about Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura

  • Middling ray-tracing performance that trails significantly behind equivalent NVIDIA 40-series cards.
  • Limited power delivery and overclocking headroom due to the use of only two 8-pin PCIe power connectors.
  • Lack of addressable RGB (ARGB) control, featuring only a simple physical toggle for specific LED elements.
  • Relatively large physical dimensions, which may require a GPU support bracket that is not included in the box.
  • Higher idle power consumption compared to competitors, a common trait of the RDNA 3 architecture.
  • Limited availability and premium pricing outside of Asian markets, often selling above the standard MSRP.

Verdict

The Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura Sugar is a high-performance graphics card built on the AMD RDNA 3 architecture, featuring a massive 24GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus and a boost clock speed of up to 2500MHz. It is distinguished by its unique 'Sakura' anime-inspired aesthetic, which includes a triple-fan 'Sugar' cooling system with 100mm fans in pastel colors, a 14-layer PCB, and a 20-phase VRM. Main pros include exceptional 4K rasterization performance that rivals flagship competitors, a highly unique and well-built artistic shroud with laser-effect detailing, and effective thermal management through eight composite heat pipes. However, potential cons include its less-than-stellar ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA's top-tier cards, a lack of fully addressable RGB customization for the fans, and a high power requirement often necessitating a 1000W PSU.

Compare Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura 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 Yeston Radeon RX 7900 XTX Sakura and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found