Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 9070 XT review: midrange maestro

Following the less-than-enthusiastic launch of Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, the market is AMD’s to gain with Radeon RX 9070 XT and its sibling. Thankfully, this is one opportunity the company won’t miss. In fact, the base $599 / £569 RX 9070 XT is nothing short of a bullseye. Putting its competition and sibling to shame, you won’t find better value elsewhere.

Radeon RX 9070 XT marks the arrival of AMD’s RDNA 4 GPU architecture in productised form, promising serious uplifts in ray tracing and rasterised rendering. FidelityFX Super Resolution 4 (FSR 4) debuts alongside the graphics card, one of two models supporting the feature. Staring from $600, it’s but $50 more than RX 9070 and GeForce RTX 5070 at MSRP. Plenty to discuss then, so let’s crack on.

Specifications

As is tradition, I summon the Club386 Table of Doom to illustrate the generational shifts AMD has made over the past four-and-a-half years.

Comparing Radeon RX 9070 XT to prior generations isn’t straightforward since AMD has adjusted naming conventions. However, I believe RX 7900 GRE and RX 6800 make the most appropriate points of comparison given their similar launch price.

Radeon	RX 9070 XT	RX 7900 GRE	RX 6800
Released	March 2025	Jul 2023*	Nov 2020
Codename	RDNA 4	RDNA 3	RDNA 2
GPU	Navi 48	Navi 31	Navi 21
Process	TSMC N4P (4nm)	TSMC N5/6 (5/6nm)	TSMC N7 (7nm)
Transistors	53.9bn	57.7bn	26.8bn
Die size	357mm2	522mm²	520mm²
Stream processors	4,096	5,120	3,840
Game clock	2,400MHz	1,880MHz	1,815MHz
Boost clock	2,970MHz	2,245MHz	2,105MHz
Compute units	64 of 64	80 of 96	60 of 80
RT accelerators	64 (3rd Gen)	80 (2nd Gen)	60 (1st Gen)
AI accelerators	128 (2nd Gen)	160 (1st Gen)	–
Peak FP32 TFLOPS	49	46	16
Peak FP16 TFLOPS	97	92	32
ROPS	128	192	96
Memory	16GB	16GB	16GB
Mem. type	GDDR6	GDDR6	GDDR6
Mem. clock	20Gb/s	18Gb/s	16Gb/s
Mem. interface	256-bit (PCIe Gen 5)	256-bit (PCIe Gen 4)	256-bit (PCIe Gen 4)
Mem. bandwidth	640GB/s	576GB/s	512GB/s
Board power	304W	260W	250W
Launch MSRP	$599	$549	$579

Unlike its closest forebears in cost, Radeon RX 9070 XT doesn’t feature a cutdown die. The Navi 48 GPU at its heart is the full package with all 64 RDNA 4 compute units intact. Diving deeper, this leaves the chip with 4,096 stream processors as well plenty of hardware accelerators for ray tracing and AI at 64 and 128 apiece, respectively.

All three subcomponents are markedly fewer in number than they are in Radeon RX 7900 GRE’s Navi 31 GPU and are less than 10% above RX 6800’s Navi 21 die. However, this ignores the far superior transistor density of Navi 48 relative to its forebears. So, while the quantity of individual compute units is down, the punch they each pack is far more powerful.

Clock-for-clock, Radeon RX 9070 XT offers a sizeable generational leap. A 2,400MHz game clock and 2,970MHz boost clock translates to a 28-32% increase compared to RX 7900 GRE. This is just reference specification, of course, and partners often push frequencies higher out of the box.

In terms of memory configuration, Radeon RX 9070 XT refines what came before it. 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM runs at 20Gb/s across a 256-bit interface, providing a healthy bandwidth of 640GB/s. This combination is plenty fast and spacious for the price, the latter quality giving the card a noticeable leg up against similarly-priced rivals at higher resolutions.

To power all this performance, Radeon RX 9070 XT calls for at least 304W from the wall. This is a deal more than the 250-260W of its predecessors but nothing remotely untoward. However, power consumption can rise to 340W on some partner designs, turning a base increase of 44W to 80W.

Briefly, a word on connectivity. AMD equips Radeon RX 9070 XT with DisplayPort 2.1a and HDMI 2.1b headers. The bandwidth of the former format is far greater than the other (80Gb/s vs. 48Gb/s) but consult your monitor’s manual for the most appropriate connector type for your use cases.

	RX 9070 XT	RX 9070	Ratio
Released	March 2025	March 2025	–
Codename	RDNA 4	RDNA 4	–
GPU	Navi 48	Navi 48	–
Process	TSMC N4P (4nm)	TSMC N4P (4nm)	–
Transistors	53.9bn	53.9bn	1.00
Die size	357mm2	357mm2	1.00
Stream processors	4,096	3,584	1.14
Game clock	2,400MHz	2,070MHz	1.16
Boost clock	2,970MHz	2,520MHz	1.18
Compute units	64 of 64	56 of 64	1.14
RT accelerators	64 (3rd Gen)	56 (3rd Gen)	1.14
AI accelerators	128 (2nd Gen)	112 (2nd Gen)	1.14
Peak FP32 TFLOPS	48.7	36.1	1.35
Peak FP16 TFLOPS	97.3	72.3	1.35
ROPS	128	128	1.00
Memory	16GB	16GB	1.00
Mem. type	GDDR6	GDDR6	–
Mem. clock	20Gb/s	20Gb/s	1.00
Mem. interface	256-bit (PCIe Gen 5)	256-bit (PCIe Gen 5)	1.00
Mem. bandwidth	640GB/s	640GB/s	1.00
Board power	304W	220W	1.38
Launch MSRP	$599	$549	1.09

As a final word on Radeon RX 9070 XT specifications, I feel it’s important to highlight how they differ from RX 9070 given how similar the two are. Doing so highlights how the more-expensive model actually offers better value-per-dollar.

At MSRP, Radeon RX 9070 XT is 9% more expensive than its sibling asking for $599 vs. $549. For that extra 50 bucks, you gain 14% more compute units, complete with parallel increases in streaming processors as well as RT and AI accelerators. Clock speeds are 14-16% higher to boot, but it’s FP16 and FP32 performance that sees the biggest leap at 35%.

These gains do come part and parcel with a 38-55% higher board power. This isn’t a deal-breaker in my eyes, but it is worth noting whether your power supply is up to the task of satiating the graphic card’s appetite for watts. On that note, AMD recommends a 750W PSU for Radeon RX 9070 XT.

If raw percentiles aren’t convincing enough, performance differences between the two should do the trick. Before diving into benchmark results, though, allow me to properly introduce Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 9070 XT.

Design

Sapphire is well-known for crafting eye-catching graphics cards and Nitro+ Radeon RX 9070 XT is no exception. This is a big and beautiful pixel pusher that’s full of features that delight and surprise.

Measuring in 330.8mm (L) x 128.5mm (W) x 65.68mm (H), it demands plenty of space but isn’t egregiously large in any respect. In fact, it’s not as wide nor tall as the company’s Nitro+ Radeon RX 7900 XTX Vapor-X, but it is slightly longer. All the same, you will need to free up three slots so it’ll fit.

Weighing 1.89kg, it’s got heft to match its dimensions. Sapphire welcomingly includes a sturdy support bracket in the box for those anxious to prevent sagging. Should you need to remove Nitro+ from your PC, the support also charmingly features a rubber tip to help unlatch those difficult to reach retention clips. Speaking from experience, this is a godsend in lieu of built-in release mechanisms.

Much of Sapphire’s choice of materials for Nitro+ account for this weight. A steel frame surrounds the PCB and gives the card a reassuringly rigid feel. Closer to the surface, Sapphire pairs plastic with metal to construct the shroud. There’s no faulting build quality here as it all comes together beautifully.

For this iteration of Nitro+, Sapphire adopts a boxier and sharper design language compared to its cooler from last generation. The brand hasn’t abandoned curves entirely but they’re far more acute and fewer in number.

Along its side, you’ll find a grate of grey triangles protecting the heatsink and ARGB light bar, interrupted only by colour-matched Radeon and Sapphire Nitro+ logos. It’s a striking choice if perhaps an acquired taste. I hold similar feelings towards the perforated frontplate but this could be my enduring adoration for the clean brushed metal stylings of Nitro+ coolers on Radeon RX 7000 Series models talking.

Curiously, Sapphire pairs its sharp design with smooth fan blades. This is likely in service of function rather than form as the brand claims its new dual ball bearing ‘AeroCurve’ fans boast improved airflow and cooling efficiency. They’re user-replaceable too, saving you the fuss of sending your card halfway across the country or the world for such repairs.

Now it’s time to talk about the most unusual characteristic of Nitro+. The eagle-eyed will have noticed that there are no eight-pin headers on the side of this Radeon RX 9070 XT. Instead, Sapphire uses a 12V-2×6 connector, which you’ll find in the ventilation cut-out on the rear of the shroud.

For those without a native cable, the company includes a dongle that takes three eight-pin PCIe cables. Sapphire has painted the 16-pin connector blue to serve as a visual aid to assist installation.

The idea behind this is to hide your power cables underneath the removable, magnetised backplate. It sounds unusual but in practice holds up well. I’d much rather pair Nitro+ to an ATX 3.1 power supply and forgo the dongle entirely for the cleanest finish, particularly one with thin cables to assist with clearance. Marrying it with eight-pin cables via the dongle is doable but harder to cable manage.

Wrapping things up, let’s talk clocks and power. Boost and game clock on Nitro+ rise to 2,520MHz and 3,060MHz, respectively. TBP rises in service of this, at 330W. Considering how close the company is to the 340W maximum it’s a shame it leaves 10W on the table. This is Sapphire’s flagship design and it seems only fitting that it push the performance envelope.

All of these qualities come at significant cost. Sapphire sets pricing for Nitro+ at £699, £130 above MSRP. Such a markup unavoidably hampers the card’s value, of course, but this is the company’s most-premium cooler design. If you’re after something less flash and more affordable, consider its Pulse model.

Performance

Radeon RX 9070 XT joins RX 9070 in becoming the latest entries to the parade of graphics cards that have shown their worth in the proving grounds that are the Club386 test benches. As a reminder, these rigs feature Ryzen 9 7950X3D CPUs which packs plenty of processing power to keep GPU bottlenecks at bay.

AMD advertises its Radeon RX 9070 Series as “built for 4K gaming” so I’ll be putting that claim to the test in the benchmarks below. Of course, you’ll also find frame rates for other resolutions, namely FHD (1080p) and QHD (1440p) alongside other performance tests.

Application & AI

I never thought I’d see the day that AMD trumped Nvidia in 3DMark Speed Way. Scoring 6,352 points, Radeon RX 9070 XT claims victory over GeForce RTX 5070 in this realm of ray tracing, clipping past RTX 4070 Ti Super to boot.

Meanwhile, 3DMark Steel Nomad provides another strong showing for AMD’s midrange champion. Confidently clearing Radeon RX 7900 XTX, its score of 7,194 firmly establishes it as a powerful rasterised rendering force.

Awesome as these results are, synthetic tests like these don’t translate neatly into real-world performance. However, they’re worth keeping in mind as a rough estimation ahead of diving into gaming benchmarks.

Radeon RX 9070 XT flexes its FP16 muscles in Geekbench AI, pulling ahead of GeForce RTX 5070 albeit by 2%. Meanwhile, its theoretical advantage of 14% over RX 9070 is closer to 7% in this benchmark.

It’s a welcome surprise to see AMD trade blows with Nvidia in workloads concerning artificial intelligence.

Despite boasting larger buffer sizes, AMD falls woefully behind Nvidia in Llama 3.1. VRAM capacity is important for LLMs (Large Language Models) but isn’t paramount above all. If it were, the 12GB GeForce cards wouldn’t be so comfortably ahead of Radeon RX 9070 XT.

Gaming

Punching well above its weight, Radeon RX 9070 XT makes short work of Assassin’s Creed Mirage. Across FHD, QHD, and UHD, it keeps RX 7900 XTX on its toes and steals GeForce RTX 4080 Super’s place on the podium. Bolstering the impressiveness of this showing, it’s a mere 9fps behind RTX 5080 at most.

Pitting Radeon RX 9070 XT against RX 9070, there’s an 8-12% gap between the two. Averaging out to an 11% bump indicates a linear relationship between price and performance. The step up from GeForce RTX 5070 is much larger at 27-32%, also outpacing 5070 Ti by 4-7%.

Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail tempers excitement for Radeon RX 9070 XT but doesn’t come close to spoiling proceedings. Rendering the MMORPG, it largely mirrors the performance profile of GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super. At FHD and QHD it’s able to outperform the Lovelace GPU but can’t muster the same feat at UHD.

Once again, a similar 8-11% difference in frame rates manifests between Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT. Meanwhile the flagship’s lead over GeForce RTX 5070 narrows to 5-10% and AMD finds itself 6-15% behind RTX 5070 Ti.

Ray tracing has previously proven a sore spot for AMD but not with Radeon RX 9070 XT. It closely mirrors GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super, keeping ahead of it across all resolutions and boasting superior frame rate consistency.

If Forza Motorsport is anything to go by, AMD has the best value ray tracing graphics card on the market for less than $700. It’s 10-16% ahead of GeForce RTX 5070 and only 11-12% behind RTX 5070 Ti, more than justifying its base $599 price point in this respect. Compared to Radeon RX 9070, it’s 15-20% faster, further boosting its status as the better buy.

Mount & Blade II initially sees Radeon RX 9070 XT do battle with the best, sandwiched between GeForce RTX 5080 and 4080 Super at FHD, outputting just shy of 360fps on average. However, as resolution increases, it falls lower down the pecking order until it sits behind RTX 5070 Ti at UHD.

To be clear, its frame rates are still fantastically high across all resolutions to the point that it stays ahead of the once-$900 Radeon RX 7900 XT. It continues to retain high value relative to RX 9070 and GeForce RTX 5070 too, with respective advantages of 8-17% and 17-24%.

Every frame counts in competitive shooters and in this Rainbow Six: Extraction shootout. Radeon RX 9070 XT manages the unthinkable, sitting ahead of GeForce RTX 5080 by a whisker at FHD. Exempt from the graphs above for the sake of readability, it’s only 3fps behind RTX 5090.

QHD and UHD see 80-class graphics cards and Radeon RX 7900 XTX occupy podium positions above RX 9070 XT, but it does maintain a lead over GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. As you can imagine with that feat in mind, it’s confidently ahead of RTX 5070 and RX 9070.

	Average QHD performance
RX 7800 XT to RX 9070 XT	+40%
RTX 3090 to RX 9070 XT	+29%
RTX 4070 Super to RX 9070 XT	+25%
RTX 5070 to RX 9070 XT	+21%
RTX 4070 Ti Super to RX 9070 XT	+13%
RX 9070 to RX 9070 XT	+14%
RX 7900 XT to RX 9070 XT	+7%
RTX 5070 Ti to RX 9070 XT	-1%
RX 7900 XTX to RX 9070 XT	-3%
RTX 4080 Super to RX 9070 XT	-6%
RTX 5080 to RX 9070 XT	-12%

Averaging out differences in frame rate at QHD makes for inspiring reading. The value of Radeon RX 9070 XT cannot be denied, performing an of average 21% better than GeForce RTX 5070, 14% ahead of RX 9070, and a mere 1% behind RTX 5070 Ti.

Seeing Radeon RX 9070 XT fall behind Radeon RX 7900 XTX by 3% does make me wonder what AMD could’ve accomplished had it targeted the high-end with RDNA 4. Alas, we’ll never know but I am hopeful the company will make a return to the space come its next generation of GPUs, with monolithic dies or otherwise.

It’s worth keeping in mind that these percentages are raster-heavy without any frame generation. Even with this caveat in mind, AMD has certainly caught Nvidia off guard with its improved ray tracing accelerators and value-conscious pricing.

Frame Generation

AMD hasn’t made any changes to its frame-generation pipeline, instead focussing on improving the quality of its upscaler. Cyberpunk 2077 sadly doesn’t support FSR 4, falling short of the FSR 3.1 implementation necessary for an upgrade. I’ll discuss the quality uplifts of the new version shortly but first, here’s a path-traced showdown between FSR 3.0 and DLSS 4.

Radeon RX 9070 XT and GeForce RTX 5070 are at each other’s throats at native FHD and QHD, with a small advantage to Team Green’s champion. Bumping up to UHD, though, sees Team Red confidently pull ahead albeit with unplayable frame rates. RX 9070 isn’t far behind either across the board.

Running DLSS and FSR upscaling at their highest quality presets keeps the competition close in terms of performance. Mustering 73fps on average at FHD, Radeon RX 9070 XT now has a suitably high frame rate to engage frame generation without running into uncomfortably high latency. Likewise, GeForce RTX 5070 and RX 9070 exceed the threshold too.

Higher resolutions are off the table for all three cards, unless we forgo some fidelity via a lower base resolution. This is an easier trade-off to stomach on GeForce RTX 5070 than either of the Radeons, highlighting the difference in quality between DLSS 4 and FSR 3 upscaling. In Cyberpunk 2077, Nvidia’s advantage is all the more obvious thanks to its new Transformer model.

In the race of single-frame generation, Radeon RX 9070 XT emerges the victor enjoying a 17fps lead over GeForce RTX 5070. However, it has no answer to its rival’s Multi Frame Generation (MFG) feature and concedes its lead once it enters the fray. As a reminder, MFG greatly boosts motion clarity but can’t replicate the feel of native frame rates owing to latency.

FSR 4

In addition to architectural improvements, RDNA 4 has another feather in its cap in the form of FSR 4. AMD has finally joined Intel and Nvidia by incorporating machine learning into the upscaling process. It’s broadly similar to how Nvidia DLSS works, leveraging hardware AI accelerators on the graphics card to run an algorithm trained on image models to provide higher-fidelity upscaling.

AMD claims that FSR 4 is capable of delivering “near-native” 4K results using a 1080p base resolution. My initial impressions of the technology happily line up with these findings. The uplift in quality from FSR 3.1 is plain to see, particularly at lower quality presets. It’s so much better, in fact, that it’s finally a worthy competitor to Nvidia DLSS.

I aim to take a deeper look at FSR 4 in the future but, for now, I’ll use Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart as my testing ground. Note that this isn’t a native implementation of the technology as none were available ahead of release. Instead, I’ve injected the newer version into the game.

AMD makes it easy to enable FSR 4 in games that can support it via a global ‘FidelityFX Super Resolution 4’ toggle in the ‘Graphics’ menu of its software suite. It’s possible to use it on a per-game basis if you’d prefer too. You’ll know if it’s working as soon as you boot up your game via a notification pop-up in the top-right of your screen.

The process is simple but finding compatible games is more difficult. FSR 3.1 has only been around less than a year, naturally making the library of games that support it on the smaller side. It sadly isn’t possible to upgrade the great many more games that use FSR 3.0 or prior versions, as highlighted with Cyberpunk 2077. This limitation sticks out like a sore thumb compared to Nvidia’s DLSS override which is usable across all titles, regardless of how old their native implementation is. I hope AMD or the community can find a way to match this but there’s no sign of such a future for now.

Now, let’s focus on the quality of FSR 4. AMD proudly shares that the upscaler boasts improved ghosting, anti-aliasing, fabrics, as well as better particle and transparency effects. The company also boldly claims that it delivers “near-native image quality at four times lower resolutions,” but this is the least exciting of all the improvements here due to it only applying to 4K (upscaling from 1080p).

Running FSR 4 in Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart maxed out at 4K in performance mode, the difference in visual quality side-by-side with FSR 3.1 is plain to see. The game’s opening sequence is notoriously difficult for the older version of AMD’s upscaler to the point that it’s difficult to recommend. However, this latest iteration deftly rises to the challenge.

The most immediately noticeable improvement in this scene is FSR 4’s superior handling of particle effects. The confetti raining down on Ratchet creates a headache for FSR 3.1, leading to obvious ghosting and disfigured assets. Both of these problems disappear with the newer version, giving the sky a more consistently plentiful and detailed coating of confetti that’s truer to native rendering.

FSR 4 also retains more detail, particularly benefitting objects with fine lines. More deftly differentiating blades of grass, the upscaler rescues the patch of lawn from the flat sludge-like stylings FSR 3.1 inflicts it with. The hexagonal patterns on the giant balloons also appear sharper alongside plenty of other distant objects.

FSR 3.1 remains infamous for its tendency to produce noticeably aliased images. This is another area in which FSR 4 addresses prior shortfalls. Looking at the fire elements underneath the platforms in front of Ratchet, in addition to their surrounding rings, they resolve far more cleanly with the new upscaler. The fireworks in the top-left of the screen, though not identical, also showcase superior anti-aliasing. This addresses one of the most obvious drawbacks of previous versions of the upscaler, providing a more uniform state of quality for all in-game assets.

Impressive as FSR 4 is in its current form there remains room for improvement. For instance, it’s still prone to noticeable instances of ghosting resulting in a smearing effect. If you look closely at Ratchet’s left hand or the confetti passing Clank’s head, you’ll see what I mean. It is far less distracting than in FSR 3.1, but it remains an issue.

Settings	FSR 4 (Avg.)	FSR 3.1 (Avg.)
4K Quality	72fps	74fps
4K Quality + FG	137fps	138fps
4K Performance	93fps	98fps
4K Performance + FG	179fps	182fps

In terms of performance impact, FSR 4 is heavier but negligibly so. In isolation it incurs a mere 5fps penalty at most versus FSR 3.1. This minor depreciation in frame rates is easy to stomach given how much better these frames are. Of course, there figures relate solely to Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart but I intend to explore its footprint in other titles soon.

FSR 4 welcomingly addresses a longstanding gap between Radeon and GeForce, as well as Arc to an extent. Try as AMD did to avoid it, it’s impossible to deny the superiority of AI-based upscaling. Based on my experience thus far I heartily recommend using it, particularly at higher resolutions. Of course, you’ll need a Radeon RX 9000 Series graphics card to enable it which is a shame for prior generation pixel pushers but is no bad thing if you’re considering upgrading anyway.

Conclusion

There’s a new midrange marvel in town and its name is Radeon RX 9070 XT. This is the competition that consumers have craved over the past several years. Serendipitously capitalising on Nvidia’s tepid generational improvements, AMD is now practically on par with its rival in terms of ray tracing and still holds the crown for rasterised rendering. These improvements in tandem with FSR 4 have the air of a watershed moment for Team Red and the midrange market.

If you can find Radeon RX 9070 XT at its $600 MSRP, there’s simply no reason to opt for anything else for a gaming system. Saving $50 on RX 9070 or GeForce RTX 5070 may look attractive for short-term finances but won’t return a better bang for your buck in the long run. After all, this is card capable of 4K gaming without any concern for memory leaks thanks to its 16GB of VRAM. The short of it is, if you can stretch your budget for AMD’s new flagship, you’ll feel far more satisfied with your purchase.

Even with its larger price tag of £699, Pulse Nitro+ is worth considering for those hungering for a properly premium pixel pusher. Sapphire boots its value through build quality and welcome bumps in clock speeds as well as TBP. The end result is a card that’s not far behind GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and good luck finding one of those at their £729 MSRP.

AMD doesn’t have answers to Multi Frame Generation among other GeForce features like RTX HDR for now, but these are nicer to have than crucial competitive features. I’m hopeful that its first foray into machine learning via FSR 4 ushers in further additions for greater parity with Nvidia. In the meantime, though, I’m more than content with the package available now and I’ve little doubt that the majority of the midrange market will feel similarly.