Radeon RX 7700S vs RX 5700 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5700 XT with Radeon RX 7700S, including specs and performance data.
RX 5700 XT outperforms RX 7700S by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 96 | 113 |
| Place by popularity | 41 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 45.95 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.04 | 27.35 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Navi 33 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1605 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1905 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 13,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 304.8 | 320.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.754 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 272 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 129
+13.2%
| 114
−13.2%
|
| 1440p | 78
+36.8%
| 57
−36.8%
|
| 4K | 49
+16.7%
| 42
−16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.09 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.12 | no data |
| 4K | 8.14 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 175
+59.1%
|
110−120
−59.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 93
+5.7%
|
88
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 133
+20.9%
|
110−120
−20.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 119
−7.6%
|
120−130
+7.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 138
+6.2%
|
130
−6.2%
|
| Fortnite | 223
+38.5%
|
160−170
−38.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 155
+9.2%
|
140−150
−9.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130
+19.3%
|
100−110
−19.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 177
+21.2%
|
140−150
−21.2%
|
| Valorant | 313
+43.6%
|
210−220
−43.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 78
−41%
|
110−120
+41%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110
−16.4%
|
120−130
+16.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 64
−6.3%
|
68
+6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
−13.3%
|
85−90
+13.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−55.4%
|
140−150
+55.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+5.7%
|
123
−5.7%
|
| Fortnite | 179
+11.2%
|
160−170
−11.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 154
+8.5%
|
140−150
−8.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110
+0.9%
|
100−110
−0.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 145
+9%
|
133
−9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 97
+11.5%
|
85−90
−11.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 166
+13.7%
|
140−150
−13.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+4.8%
|
147
−4.8%
|
| Valorant | 294
+34.9%
|
210−220
−34.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 105
−21.9%
|
120−130
+21.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 57
+11.8%
|
51
−11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67
−26.9%
|
85−90
+26.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 103
−38.8%
|
140−150
+38.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 111
−5.4%
|
117
+5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 148
+4.2%
|
140−150
−4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 104
−4.8%
|
100−110
+4.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
−5%
|
140−150
+5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 93
+10.7%
|
84
−10.7%
|
| Valorant | 159
−37.1%
|
210−220
+37.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 143
−12.6%
|
160−170
+12.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+14.8%
|
27−30
−14.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+7.5%
|
250−260
−7.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+17.9%
|
67
−17.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+7.5%
|
50−55
−7.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 286
+13.9%
|
250−260
−13.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+19.8%
|
81
−19.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 119
+14.4%
|
100−110
−14.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 72
+10.8%
|
65−70
−10.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+8.7%
|
65−70
−8.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 93
−3.2%
|
95−100
+3.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+16.2%
|
68
−16.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+25.6%
|
43
−25.6%
|
| Valorant | 242
+8%
|
220−230
−8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+3.4%
|
55−60
−3.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 93
−15.1%
|
100−110
+15.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+35.9%
|
39
−35.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+14.5%
|
65−70
−14.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+10.4%
|
45−50
−10.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
−4.4%
|
45−50
+4.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
This is how RX 5700 XT and RX 7700S compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT is 13% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT is 37% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT is 17% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 5700 XT is 59% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7700S is 125% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT is ahead in 39 tests (58%)
- RX 7700S is ahead in 24 tests (36%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 42.28 | 39.40 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 4 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 100 Watt |
RX 5700 XT has a 7.3% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 7700S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 125% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 7700S.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5700 XT is a desktop card while Radeon RX 7700S is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
