AMD has lastly finished it. For years it's tried to undercut NVIDIA with barely cheaper, however much less succesful, video playing cards just like the Radeon 6700 XT and 7900 XT. And positive, it's nonetheless following that very same technique with the brand new Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT. This time round, although, AMD has produced way more succesful {hardware}, particularly on the subject of 4K and ray tracing efficiency. And there's hope that it might lastly catch as much as NVIDIA's DLSS AI upscaling with its new FidelityFX Tremendous Decision 4 (FSR4) expertise.
These aren't excellent video playing cards, to be clear. However for $549 and $599, the Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT are way more compelling than AMD's earlier lineup. That's significantly true for the reason that 9070 XT is $150 lower than NVIDIA's RTX 5070 Ti, and in our testing it's typically quicker than that card.
AMD nonetheless has to show that it may possibly catch as much as NVIDIA's DLSS, which has had a number of years to steadily enhance its AI upscaling capabilities. Specifically, AMD must match the efficiency of NVIDIA's multi-frame technology in DLSS 4, which has led to some surprisingly excessive fps figures whereas testing the RTX 50-series GPUs. AMD's Fluid Movement Frames expertise is a begin, nevertheless it's not almost sufficient at this level.
{Hardware}
The Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT are AMD's first RDNA 4 GPUs, a brand new platform sporting extra highly effective and environment friendly compute items, third-generation ray tracing accelerators and second-generation AI accelerators. There isn't an enormous technical distinction between the 2 playing cards: The RX 9070 options 56 compute items, 56 ray accelerators and 112 AI accelerators, whereas the 9070 XT has eight extra compute accelerators and 16 further AI processors. The XT mannequin is clocked barely greater, as you'd anticipate, and it additionally attracts extra energy (304W vs 220W). Notably, each playing cards additionally ship with 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM, whereas NVIDIA skimped a bit and solely put 12GB of RAM within the $549 RTX 5070.
As I used to be evaluating our XFX-built evaluate items, although, it was virtually inconceivable to inform the RX 9070 and 9070 XT aside with out studying the high-quality print on their labels. That is pretty typical for AMD playing cards with XT variants, and it is sensible since they're technically so related. The XFX Swift GPUs I examined got here in a chic frost white case, with three giant followers and surprisingly huge heatsinks. They're each 3.5-slot playing cards, so additionally they take up extra room than the RTX 5090, which is a dense two-slot beast.
Because of AMD's environment friendly RDNA design, you additionally don't have to depend on advanced energy dongles to drive these playing cards. They each take two PSU connections immediately, and XFX recommends 800-watt energy provides at a minimal. That's considerably greater than AMD's minimal 650W spec although, so it could possibly be that XFX is simply attempting to play it protected with its huge cooling setup. (When you're planning to overclock these playing cards, although, you'll probably need greater than a mere 650W PSU.)
In use: An enormous step up for AMD
I knew AMD was onto one thing particular after I discovered the Radeon RX 9070 averaged 60 fps in Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K Ray Tracing Overdrive mode. Positive, it wanted FSR 3 upscaling to get there, nevertheless it was nonetheless higher than the 50 fps I noticed on the Radeon 7900XT just a few years in the past. The sport often dipped under 60 fps, nevertheless it was nonetheless very playable. 1440p was a lot smoother general, averaging 117 fps. The Radeon 9070 XT, in the meantime, averaged 68 fps in 4K and 130 fps in 1440p.
Positive, these numbers are far behind the uncooked figures from NVIDIA's RTX 5070, which used the magic of multi-frame technology to ship 115 fps in 4K with ray tracing and maxed out graphics. That card additionally hit 205 fps in 1440p. However as impressed as I used to be by the 5070, most of these frames had been simply meant to ship the phantasm of smoothness. Throughout precise gameplay, I had a tough time seeing a lot slowdown with both Radeon card in 4K, and the distinction between the NVIDIA card was virtually erased in 1440p. Bear in mind, fps figures aren't the whole story, although NVIDIA needs you to imagine in any other case.
I stored that concept in thoughts as I examined FSR 4, which shocked me when it averaged round 20 fps lower than FSR 3 in Name of Obligation: Warzone on each GPUs. The Radeon 9070 XT reached 250 fps in 4K with FSR 3, cranked up graphics and body technology, whereas it hit 229 fps in FSR 4. AMD tells me that’s no error, it’s to be anticipated since FSR 4’s AI upscaling is extra targeted on delivering greater high quality graphics moderately than a pure body increase. I couldn’t actually see an enormous distinction whereas dodging bullets in CoD, however I did discover that finer textures like chain-link fences seemed a bit clearer in FSR 4. (I additionally noticed just a few random glitched textures, one thing that was frequent in DLSS upscaled video games early on. They weren’t a serious drawback, however AMD clearly has to refine its upscaling mannequin additional.)
In the intervening time, enabling FSR 4 is a bit counter-intuitive as effectively. It’s important to flip it on in AMD’s driver software program, after which flip on FSR 3.1 in a suitable sport. Warzone additionally required a reboot to completely allow the characteristic, however the sport didn’t immediate me to take action. And if you’d like body technology, that’s another choice that must be toggled on outdoors of the sport. Hopefully this course of might be smoothed out over time, together with wider availability for FSR 4. Along with Black Ops 6, it’s supported within the newly launched FragPunk, Civilization 7, Marvel Rivals and a handful of PlayStation 5 ports just like the Spider-Man video games. Nevertheless it’s nowhere to be present in Avowed or Dragon Age: The Veilguard, the place you’ll be caught with FSR 3.
For video games that don’t work with FSR in any respect, AMD’s Adrenaline software program additionally has a “HYPR-RX” mode that allows options like Radeon Tremendous Decision upscaling (a separate driver-level expertise) and AMD’s Fluid Movement Frames technology. Altogether, they led to me seeing 200 fps in Forza Horizon 5 utilizing the RX 9070 XT in 4K with maxed out graphics settings, up from 85 fps natively. However once more, these are simply fps figures – AMD factors out Radeon Tremendous Decision could not look as clear as FSR alternate options. (I didn’t discover any weirdness in Forza, however I’ll have been distracted by the attractive racing vistas in Mexico.)
|
GPU |
3DMark TimeSpy Excessive |
Geekbench 6 GPU |
Cyberpunk (4K RT Overdrive DLSS) |
Port Royal ray tracing |
|
AMD Radeon 9070 |
10,997 |
113,012 |
60 fps (DLSS 3 w/ body gen) |
15,888 |
|
AMD Radeon 9070 XT |
13,060 |
130,474 |
68fps (DLSS 3 w/ body gen) |
17,959 |
|
NVIDIA RTX 5070 |
10,343 |
178,795 |
115 fps (4x body gen) |
13,920 |
|
NVIDIA RTX 5070 Ti |
12,675 |
238,417 |
153 fps (4X body gen) |
19,309 |
|
AMD Radeon 7900XTX |
12,969 |
N/A |
55 fps (DLSS 3) |
14,696 |
Relating to benchmarks, the Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT maintain their very own in opposition to NVIDIA’s 5070 and 5070 Ti in most of 3DMark’s exams. Within the Metal Nomad benchmark, the 9070 scored 1,100 factors greater than the 5070, and the 9070 XT beat out the costlier 5070 Ti by nearly 3,000 factors in Timespy Excessive. I used to be additionally shocked to see the RX 9070 scoring nearly 2,000 factors greater than the RTX 5070 within the Port Royal ray tracing benchmark. Beforehand, ray tracing of any type was AMD’s Achilles heel.
Each of our XFX playing cards additionally stayed surprisingly cool throughout benchmarks and prolonged gaming classes. They by no means went past 65C underneath load, and so they sometimes idled under 40C. And since they by no means obtained extremely popular, I might barely hear their followers spinning up.
Must you purchase the Radeon RX 9070 or RX 9070 XT?
On paper, each of AMD’s new GPUs are compelling alternate options to NVIDIA’s midrange playing cards for 1440p avid gamers who often dabble in 4K. The RX 9070 XT is especially fascinating, because it’s noticeably quicker and nonetheless is available in $150 lower than the RTX 5070 Ti. However we’re additionally coping with a chaotic time within the PC gaming world, the place GPU inventory can disappear shortly and costs can rocket up shortly.
When you can nab both Radeon card at their listed costs, they’ll be good offers. Nevertheless it’s not value overpaying by an excessive amount of for now. It additionally stays to be seen how the Trump administration’s combative tariffs will have an effect on pricing for PC {hardware} and electronics. Costs might simply soar by 20 p.c or extra to cowl these prices.
Whereas NVIDIA’s DLSS 4 expertise is extra mature and results in greater interpolated body charges, there’s additionally an excellent argument for going with AMD’s playing cards since they’ve 16GB of VRAM. They’ll be higher suited to dealing with bigger textures in video games down the road, and there’s additionally the potential for FSR 4 to enhance as effectively.
Wrap-up
It’s clear now why AMD was targeted on upgrading its mid-range Radeon playing cards first. There’s not a lot level competing with NVIDIA on the excessive excessive finish, prefer it did with Radeon RX 7900 XT and XTX. It makes extra sense to concentrate on playing cards individuals can really purchase. The Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT additionally clear up most of the issues I’ve had with AMD’s GPUs prior to now. They will go toe-to-toe with NVIDIA's playing cards, they’ve higher ray tracing assist and eventually, they’ve AI upscaling. It stays to be seen if AMD will really construct on the promise of these options, however these playing cards are a hopeful begin.
This text initially appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/laptop/amd-radeon-rx-9070-and-9070-xt-review-hitting-nvidia-where-it-hurts-140014376.html?src=rss
