The GeForce RTX 4090 became the most powerful graphics card in the general consumer market at the time of its release, with the Radeon RX 7900 XTX being the second most powerful , although in truth it is so close to the GeForce. RTX 4080 that we could almost speak of a tie.
In terms of consumption, there is a substantial difference between the two graphics cards, and this has been one of the arguments that has been used the most to try to position the Radeon RX 7900 XTX as a “superior” solution to the GeForce RTX 4090, because the first it has a 355 watt TBP and the second a 450 watt TGP.
The truth is that, in terms of efficiency, the value of a graphics card is not defined solely by consumption, but by the concept of performance per watt consumed , and in this sense the difference between the two is minimal, since a Radeon RX 7900 XTX performs 22% less than a GeForce RTX 4090, and the latter has a 26% higher TGP.
Despite what we just said, there are people who still think that the Radeon RX 7900 XTX is less powerful than the GeForce RTX 4090 because it consumes less. It is an argument that seems to make sense, but is it really so? A new performance test carried out with said graphics card with increased frequencies, and with an extreme liquid cooling system, confirms that in the end consumption is not everything, and that architecture is key.
An overclocker with advanced knowledge, and with the necessary tools, has taken a Radeon RX 7900 XTX up to a frequency of 3.467 GHz , although the average he obtained in different tests was 3.33 GHz . That increase in speed allowed it to achieve a score of 38,725 points in 3DMark Time Spy, 19,137 points in 3DMark Time Spy Extreme, 20,492 points in 3DMark Port Royal and 7,690 points in 3DMark Speedway.
Those results are, in general, at a level very similar to what we could achieve with a slightly overclocked GeForce RTX 4090, whose consumption is around 450 watts. However, that Radeon RX 7900 XTX that has been around has a consumption of 696 watts , that is, it is close to 700 watts. Its working temperatures are kept under control because, as I told you before, a customized cooling system with low-temperature coolant has been used.
With these results on the table, we see that the argument that it performs worse because it consumes less is no longer valid, and that in the end Ada Lovelace is an architecture superior to RDNA3 . However, it must be recognized that AMD has made significant strides with this architecture, and that it has taken a giant leap in performance with ray tracing.