Hacker News Reader

Comment by whalesalad | Hacker News Reader

I’ve been very impressed by the 7900 XTX. For pure gaming performance I think it’s a better option than the 4090 considering how close it is in performance for way less money. My experience running Starfield at 4K has been pretty positive.

View on HN

I have a 7900 XTX too but Starfield is a bit of an outlier. On average the 7900 XTX is usually a bit above a 4080 and well behind a 4090. Still great value since its cheaper than a 4080.

I have a 7900 XT, and while I like it I really wish I'd sprung for the extra X. Oh well. Next time! (Unless AMD really does ignore the high end next gen, in which case I guess I'm SOL).

Is it a stable experience? I've bought the 5700xt and the 6900xt and both cards were/still are unstable messes with countless ignored bugs.

I run on an ultra-wide with an 7900 XTX. And there was a specific bug (that was acknowledged in the AMD driver release notes) that causes crashes if dynamic resolution is turned on (dynamic resolution is turned on by default) so I had several crashes on the first night of early release prior to discovering the "fix" (turn off dynamic resolution). I've had one hard crash to the desktop since then and a couple of hangs where I basically had to force quit. I only have about 15 hours logged.

I've encountered a ton of bugs though. Nothing game breaking so far.

I had a 6750xt before this. I’ve had nothing but stable experiences on both cards.

Are you sure your power supply was large enough? I had similar stability issues with the 6900xt until I upgraded my PSU.

Yeah it is. My issues are mostly very weird situations that aren't high power. Watching yt on Firefox while playing league of legends for example, that's a gpu load of 10% at most. For some reason Firefox turns insanely laggy and full of green blocky artefacts. Or the good old cursor duplication glitch(which existed on the 5700xt for a year and a half and was eventually fixed)

The only reason is amd partnership, not overall performance gain. Things may smooth out in upcoming months/years as they patch it.

AMD seems to have moved to a “gameworks” style business model where all their sponsored titles run like crap, but they run more like crap on the competition (and increasingly lock out intel entirely etc, as Bethesda has refused to support these etc).

And this goes beyond just starfield. Ok, Bethesda sucks. Jedi Survivor ran like crap too.. does respawn suck? TLOU ran like crap too, does naughty dog suck too? Harry potter ran like shit too.

And TLOU is not even a new game!

I’m very curious what exactly is going on with the devrel side of AMD’s sponsorship of these titles. What assistance is AMD providing with their sponsorship, and what is the nature of what they are willing to do and not do in terms of the optimizations etc?

Maybe this pipeline bubble stuff is the result of something AMD is pushing for consoles, and they just don’t care about the effect it has on PCs (even their own) or they actively encourage it.

And best part is, it means you can ditch windows comfortably in case they piss you off enough.

My main reason for going AMD was Linux support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com