News AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT launches on June 5, starting at $299

[beyondlogic]

A lot of folks are saying that the 9060 XT is equal to the RTX 4070 in performance, including TechPowerUp. If that's the case, then it absolutely crushes the 5060 Ti. The 16gb version will also sell for a lower price than the 4070, assuming you can even still find any 4070's at retail, and deliver better power consumption.

So what you're really saying, is that you wouldn't pay an extra $20 over 7600 XT pricing, to get RTX 4070 level performance, which is just insane.

It's not just performance it's about product stack if you keep bumping prices higher then there won't be anything in that segment

 

[Joseph_138]

This card is going to be a hit for AMD, assuming they can push enough to retail on launch. If they launch with insufficient stock, the scalpers are going to get them all, and the rest of us will have to wait until they start shipping in big enough quantities where the scalpers can't absorb them all.

 

[Joseph_138]

I am expecting 7700xt like performance making the 9600 xt 16 gb very interesting assuming it can hit the MSRP. The 8 gb, like the 5060 and 5060 ti 8gb, is dead on arrive.

For some people, $50 is a lot of money. You can buy another game with that money. Not everyone needs high refresh rates, high resolutions, or all the eye candy turned on. Those are luxuries, not necessities. I can guarantee you that those 8gb cards, from either brand, will not be collecting dust on store shelves, especially now that AMD finally has an effective competitor to Nvidia's cards at that tier. All the benchmarks I have seen so far, usually show when the same card comes in two memory configurations, the one with most memory shows the biggest performance gains in the 1% and 0.1% lows, while the average fps remains more or less the same. You'll hardly notice the difference at all.

AMD has always struggled to compete against Nvidia at every rung on the product ladder, and the 9060 XT shows a lot of promise against the 5060 Ti. The 9060 XT, in either memory configuration, is going to draw a lot of owners of older Nvidia cards to AMD. I plan to replace my 3070 with one as soon as I can.

 

[thestryker]

For some people, $50 is a lot of money.

Yes, but you know what else is true? Both companies could have simply only sold 16GB models at the price of the 8GB ones and not sold 8GB ones period.

I can guarantee you that those 8gb cards, from either brand, will not be collecting dust on store shelves

All evidence is pointing towards mediocre sales on both nvidia 8GB cards, but we'll see by July for AMD's. These cards are meant to be the cheapest card for OEMs while the 16GB cards sell better retail and have higher margins. It's a very cynical and peak capitalist game they're both playing.

All the benchmarks I have seen so far, usually show when the same card comes in two memory configurations, the one with most memory shows the biggest performance gains in the 1% and 0.1% lows, while the average fps remains more or less the same. You'll hardly notice the difference at all.

You'll notice when textures get unloaded and when stutters happen when purging VRAM. When games start running worse the longer they're played it gets pretty obvious too.

Perhaps you think it's okay for people spending $300+ on a video card to get an experience solely compromised by a lack of VRAM which was decided by corporate greed but I'm not.

 

[ak47jar3d]

For some people, $50 is a lot of money. You can buy another game with that money. Not everyone needs high refresh rates, high resolutions, or all the eye candy turned on. Those are luxuries, not necessities. I can guarantee you that those 8gb cards, from either brand, will not be collecting dust on store shelves, especially now that AMD finally has an effective competitor to Nvidia's cards at that tier. All the benchmarks I have seen so far, usually show when the same card comes in two memory configurations, the one with most memory shows the biggest performance gains in the 1% and 0.1% lows, while the average fps remains more or less the same. You'll hardly notice the difference at all.

AMD has always struggled to compete against Nvidia at every rung on the product ladder, and the 9060 XT shows a lot of promise against the 5060 Ti. The 9060 XT, in either memory configuration, is going to draw a lot of owners of older Nvidia cards to AMD. I plan to replace my 3070 with one as soon as I can.

I understand that $50 is big difference at that price. It still doesnt really matter. When we are using 2016 levels of vram, clearly its gone waaay too far. 8 gb is having issues in multiple different games now. The 8 gb card will have no longevity or resale value. I do expect them to just sit in selves (already happening to 5060 ti 8 gb) as DIY market knows its obsolete. It will likely do well in prebuilts as Nvidia has always exploited that market since they would be the least suspecting that the card has insufficient memory or know that its a bad product. 3070 basically has the same performance as the 5060. Unless your getting a 16 gb model, it wouldn't improve your performance.

 

[Joseph_138]

Yes, but you know what else is true? Both companies could have simply only sold 16GB models at the price of the 8GB ones and not sold 8GB ones period.

All evidence is pointing towards mediocre sales on both nvidia 8GB cards, but we'll see by July for AMD's. These cards are meant to be the cheapest card for OEMs while the 16GB cards sell better retail and have higher margins. It's a very cynical and peak capitalist game they're both playing.

You'll notice when textures get unloaded and when stutters happen when purging VRAM. When games start running worse the longer they're played it gets pretty obvious too.

Perhaps you think it's okay for people spending $300+ on a video card to get an experience solely compromised by a lack of VRAM which was decided by corporate greed but I'm not.

No, they could not have sold 16gb cards for the same price as 8gb ones. More memory costs more money. They are not in the business of giving things away for free, just because you think they should.

You're also missing who the market is for the 8gb cards. At 1080p60, and in eSports games, you don't need 16gb of VRAM, and that's who those cards are marketed at. If you're going to be playing AAA games at 4k, or at 240hz refresh, then you're not going to be in the market for a 5060 Ti or 9060 XT, anyway. You're going to be looking further up the product stack for something that can handle that resolution or refresh a lot better. If that's your demographic, that's great, bully for you, but don't automatically assume that everyone else is, too. 8gb is still fine for some people, and that's why those cards exist. So you're argument that more than 8gb is needed by power gamers, because they run higher resolutions and refreshes, and need more than 8gb is irrelevant, because anyone who considers themselves to be a power gamer, will be buying a 5080 or 5090, or whatever the AMD equivalent of those cards is, and not a low tier card.

 

[thestryker]

No, they could not have sold 16gb cards for the same price as 8gb ones. More memory costs more money. They are not in the business of giving things away for free, just because you think they should.

All the prices are made up anyways rather than being some reflection of actual costs. It doesn't cost $50 for an extra 8GB VRAM including installation in the first place. Somehow this point is flying right over your head just like everyone else defending the ridiculous pricing on 8GB cards.

I'm not going to waste my time addressing the second half of your post because it's just a ridiculous tirade that has nothing to do with anything I posted.