News AMD estimates of Radeon RX 9070 XT performance leaked: 42% – 66% faster than Radeon RX 7900 GRE

[-Fran-]

The drumbeat of leaked pricing for 9070XT gets louder. This, from Microcenter pricelist:

https://reddit.com/r/Microcenter/comments/1iypfli/amd_9070_xt_pricing_legit

Poster is https://www.reddit.com/user/SlickWilly44 whom from posting history doesn't look to be a fly-by-night operator. But take it however you like. It's only two days until the big reveal.

Cheapest card is $699.99, so this looks to be the base SKU, which will likely get scalping love and disappear soonish. But from overall pricing in the snapshot, vendors are preempting scalpers with their own price bump, and $900 does look to be the median price.

Again, all this may be a bunch of nothing, and AMD would surprise everyone with $550 cards, and every AIB will only sell MSRP stuff.

Then again, maybe not.

I was reading this and I have to say. I won't be surprised if AMD thinks they can get away with this when absolutely from every corner of the techworld, people is telling them to not chase nVidia pricing; artificial or not.

If they release a single cent above $650 for the 9070XT, it'll be a catastrophe, AGAIN. They have to release at or under $600, where even $600 I'm starting to think may be too high after reading the room a bit more.

Let's see how AMD fumbles the ball this time.

Regards.

 

[palladin9479]

People be nice and respectful.

 

[King_V]

The drumbeat of leaked pricing for 9070XT gets louder. This, from Microcenter pricelist:

https://reddit.com/r/Microcenter/comments/1iypfli/amd_9070_xt_pricing_legit

Poster is https://www.reddit.com/user/SlickWilly44 whom from posting history doesn't look to be a fly-by-night operator. But take it however you like. It's only two days until the big reveal.

Cheapest card is $699.99, so this looks to be the base SKU, which will likely get scalping love and disappear soonish. But from overall pricing in the snapshot, vendors are preempting scalpers with their own price bump, and $900 does look to be the median price.

Again, all this may be a bunch of nothing, and AMD would surprise everyone with $550 cards, and every AIB will only sell MSRP stuff.

Then again, maybe not.

Could be, or could be a pre-release placeholder, and has since been taken down.

No point jumping to conclusions from data that's, at best, uncertain.

 

[bit_user]

Single GPU halo card from Nvidia.

2011 - GTX 480 - 529mm2 - $499
2016 - Titan X (Pascal) - 471mm2 - $1199

That's flat? Are you trying to be funny?

The proper Pascal-era equivalent for the GTX 480 would be the GTX 1080 Ti, which listed for $699. The Titan cards were inordinately expensive for only a little bit extra performance. They were just a way to milk rich gamers and should not be used to characterize the state of the GPU market.

Yeah, not a direct comparison, other than fastest card available. Granted the launch price of the GTX 1080 was a little high at $699,

Only the Founders Edition of the GTX 1080 cost $699. The MSRP for 3rd party cards was $599.

 

[spongiemaster]

Yeah, not a direct comparison, other than fastest card available. Granted the launch price of the GTX 1080 was a little high at $699, but the follow up 1080 Ti, same die as the Titan X, was also $699 a year later.

Oh, and Ryzen 2000 was Zen+, Zen 2 was 3000 series.

Unbelievable. Message boards like this have one have carpet bombed for years with people like you complaining that Nvidia is selling a 5060 as a 5080 or the 4070 is really a 4050. This is where that all started. Titan wasn't a mystical new GPU. All they did was take the x80 GPU and rename it while jacking up the price. With the original Titan, it did have less handicapped compute performance, but that handicap was back in place within a couple generations and it was all irrelevant to gamers anyway. As I pointed out but you conveniently ignored, the GTX480 was a LARGER die than the Titan X and yet it was less than half the cost.

The largest per core price increase was from the 3000 series to the 5000 series. That's Zen 2 to Zen 3. Why are you telling us what Zen+ is? Try following along better.

 

[spongiemaster]

So, your defense is to use the crypto-craze pricing and MSRP, neither of which I was referencing?

No.

It's that Nvidia KEPT the pricing elevated. Not crypto-elevated, obviously. And I wasn't arguing 3050 vs 6500XT, I was talking about 3050 vs 6600 non-XT, because the 3050's prices remained above the 6600's price despite performing below it.

And that's not even getting into the insult to the customers known as the 3050 6GB.

No, the RTX 3050 was priced below the 6500XT. Those were intended to compete with each other. You don't just skip over the AMD card to a higher priced and higher tier card because it better fits your made up agenda.

 

[bit_user]

As I pointed out but you conveniently ignored, the GTX480 was a LARGER die than the Titan X and yet it was less than half the cost.

If you want to talk about Nvidia inflating prices for Titan models, you should just compare within the same generation. The GTX 1080 Ti had a list price of $699, while the Titan Xp sold for $1199. Same exact silicon, but with 12 GB instead of 11 GB, and a few more SMs enabled.

That's not even the most egregious example, which would probably be where the Titan RTX launched at $2499 vs. the RTX 2080 Ti at $1199. More than double the price, yet the main difference was 11 GB vs. 24 GB of memory and a few more SMs. This time, also a little higher boost clocks.

That situation doesn't really have a parallel today, because the RTX 5090 is different silicon than anything below it.

 

[bit_user]

No, the RTX 3050 was priced below the 6500XT. Those were intended to compete with each other.

You're reading too much into the model numbers. People don't decide between cards based on that. They look primarily at price, then performance, memory, and finally power.

The RX 6500XT and RX 6400 were laptop GPUs that AMD mainly launched as PCIe cards to try and address the ridiculous situation with crypto-miners buying up everything else. These were cards that weren't very attractive for cryopto and could be made cheaply enough (i.e. small dies) that AMD could churn them fast enough to satisfy entry-level demand and hopefully provide a little relief further up the product stack.

 

[Eximo]

Unbelievable. Message boards like this have one have carpet bombed for years with people like you complaining that Nvidia is selling a 5060 as a 5080 or the 4070 is really a 4050. This is where that all started. Titan wasn't a mystical new GPU. All they did was take the x80 GPU and rename it while jacking up the price. With the original Titan, it did have less handicapped compute performance, but that handicap was back in place within a couple generations and it was all irrelevant to gamers anyway. As I pointed out but you conveniently ignored, the GTX480 was a LARGER die than the Titan X and yet it was less than half the cost.

The largest per core price increase was from the 3000 series to the 5000 series. That's Zen 2 to Zen 3. Why are you telling us what Zen+ is? Try following along better.

Yes, silicon tends to get smaller as the node shrinks, and if you do that while maintaining the same design philosophy it is the natural consequence. New nodes are generally more expensive and they pass those costs on to us.

Agree to disagree. Performance per dollar is the key metric. We could also look at the number of transistors and other things, but I doubt that would change your viewpoint.

You listed the 2600X in your list of price increases. I talked about them having to switch from GloFo to TSMC to justify it in part.

 

[jeremyj_83]

They have to release at or under $600, where even $600 I'm starting to think may be too high after reading the room a bit more.

9070XT will come in at $599 starting price. Looks like they read your mind.

 

[-Fran-]

9070XT will come in at $599 starting price. Looks like they read your mind.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

The price seems alright, at least for the XT, so now its performance will do or break the initial optimism.

We can deduce AMD is willing to eat margin so they can move the card. I hope their efforts don't go wasted, since convincing the board to "not chase the inflated market prices and nVidia" is a tough act to follow if you fumble it.

Regards.

 

[helper800]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

The price seems alright, at least for the XT, so now its performance will do or break the initial optimism.

We can deduce AMD is willing to eat margin so they can move the card. I hope their efforts don't go wasted, since convincing the board to "not chase the inflated market prices and nVidia" is a tough act to follow if you fumble it.

Regards.

Hopefully AMD can satisfy a large demand at that price, assuming such a large demand exists.

 

[-Fran-]

Hopefully AMD can satisfy a large demand at that price, assuming such a large demand exists.

Let's all hope it's a 9800X3D situation. Backstage reporting says they do have plenty cards, but nVidia has always commanded 3x the volume (being conservative) of AMD in any given segment, so... Let's see how it plays out.

Regards.

 

[King_V]

No, the RTX 3050 was priced below the 6500XT. Those were intended to compete with each other. You don't just skip over the AMD card to a higher priced and higher tier card because it better fits your made up agenda.

• WHEN was the RTX 3050 was consistently priced below the 6500 XT?
• WHEN was the RTX 3050 priced consistently below the RX 6600?

Exclude any short term blips (a week or less).

Because, having just checked a few different models on PC Part Picker, looking at a 2 year history, we're looking at the RX 6600 being, for the great majority of the time, cheaper than the RX 3050 despite performing significantly better than that RTX 3050.

Just one example: the Gigabyte EAGLE RX 6600
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/G9...e-video-card-gv-r66eagle-8gd?history_days=730

EDIT: grammar/clarity