AMD RDNA 4 and Radeon RX 9000-series GPUs: Specifications, release date, pricing, and more revealed

[williamjeremiah]

What should the 9070XT compare with the Nvidia 5 Series cards? I'm still looking at the 5080 but I will consider AMD as well. I'm just waiting for the release of the 9900X3D CPU's.

I'm going to wait for the "RX 9070 XTX", before even considering replacing my RTX 3090.

 

[YSCCC]

I'm going to wait for the "RX 9070 XTX", before even considering replacing my RTX 3090.

I doubt they will release it anytime soon, for 1080P and 1440P the 9070 XT seems very reasonable for me to replace the 3070Ti.

But for 3090, yea, you likely should hold on for quite a while more

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Powercolour Reaper is the only card that fit comfortably in the Fractal North with a front 360mm AIO. XFX is at the boarder of fitting also, actually will depend on the price and availablility of them in my region, I really liked the power colour hellhound look,
Sapphire is nice but the 12V 2x6 connector is a tad too much for my liking... using the adapter looks like it will put some stress on the card also

I see, if size is the biggest factor then that makes it quite a different story. Hellhound and the Red Devil line look fantastic but they are usually bulky.

 

[YSCCC]

I see, if size is the biggest factor then that makes it quite a different story. Hellhound and the Red Devil line look fantastic but they are usually bulky.

exactly, now I am eyeing on the Gigabyte gaming OC, ASUS prime OC, Power colour reaper or the lowest XFX (twist?), so basically the supposedly basic MSRP models, in my region the "exchange rate" between USD and local currency is usually around 10% up by the dealer, so.. hope for the best. And what's interesting is that along with the Nvidia cards, most are marketing to be using thermal putty and PTM7950 as the TIM, so supposedly the old days where crap paste drying out should be a non-issue.

And FWIW, the 9070XTs are likely cooler than the 5080, which the asus prime is basically using the same cooler and in theory, should be overkill already.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

exactly, now I am eyeing on the Gigabyte gaming OC, ASUS prime OC, Power colour reaper or the lowest XFX (twist?), so basically the supposedly basic MSRP models, in my region the "exchange rate" between USD and local currency is usually around 10% up by the dealer, so.. hope for the best. And what's interesting is that along with the Nvidia cards, most are marketing to be using thermal putty and PTM7950 as the TIM, so supposedly the old days where crap paste drying out should be a non-issue.

And FWIW, the 9070XTs are likely cooler than the 5080, which the asus prime is basically using the same cooler and in theory, should be overkill already.

Swift is usually their basic model followed by Quick, I have read rumours they might even release a dual fan version too.

 

[Giroro]

I'm glad to see that AMD has committed to improving their junk h.264 encoders and mediocre HEVC encoders.

I take issue with AMD's claim that 85% of "gamers" buy GPUs that are <$700. They should clarify what that they probably meant to say: 85% of PC exclusive/primary gamers (small minority of gamers) who by dedicated desktop GPUs (small niche within a small niche) are <$700.

I bet most the hierarchy of what gamers are actually buying/playing is more like phone >Portable/ Switch > Home Console > Integrated GPU > Laptop built-in dGPU of undefined price > dGPU.
Sure PC gaming is a pretty big deal, but when the highest number of concurrent steam players of all time is 40 Million... That's a pretty small market compared to ~4 billion casual phone gamers.

Let alone things like how old those cards are, or over what period of time, or in which regions ... It's just a bad marketing claim overall.
In the very least they should define what they think a gamer is, instead of using that space to cite meaningless "AMD internal data".

I don't even disagree with the idea that most PC gamers are not spending insane amounts of money on their GPUs (and not just under $700, but WAY under $700). Maybe that's the real point of this weirdly misleading claim. They want to make absurdly expensive GPUs look popular, when really they super-aren't. They want to make it sound like $600 is a perfectly normal, reasonable, expected and even cheap price for a GPU - but here for us humans on planet Earth the magic number for popular/successful GPUs has always been $200... right up until recently when Nvidia realized they could just cancel all $200 GPUs and force that number up by 50% to $300 - because absolutely nobody on earth is able/willing to stop them.

It's a small thing... but it's actually not that small of a thing. It's a trick where AMD is essentially starting the conversation by telling us "We are trying to trick you out of your money, do not trust us". They are not the heroes we are looking for. They are not on our side. They are not our friends. We should not give them the benefit of the doubt. We are mere dehumanized consumers to them. They are not the scrappy underdogs.
Maybe they are a kind of dog, but the kind of dog who just loyally continue to price their products at the high prices dictated by their master, Nvidia. And that's why games aren't going to get better this generation, kids... again. If you can even call it a generation.

My point is I'm pretty sure if AMD had decided to release an $800 card, they would have changed that slide say something like "95% of all gamers buy <$1000 GPUs" so the messaging would have remained exactly the same. And also that cheap old GPUs play the same games as the new cards, usually at good enough framerates, and medium settings don't actually look that different from Ultra - so don't waste money on an upgrade if what you have is still working to help burn away the hours remaining in your finite life.
$600 can buy you a pretty decent welder. Maybe you could spend that time learning how to weld, instead. It would save on your electric bill.

 

[-Fran-]

Well, well, well. Colour me surprised as AMD actually read the room... At least on one card, LOL.

I think this is a "fair" trade off between wanting to price them closer to nVidia and just convincing the board they're not just giving stuff for free to consumers (i.e: making them lose money). The 9070 non-XT is a tough pill* to swallow for now, but let's see how it stacks up against the 5070 when it releases.

Also, I wonder what nVidia will do next. This is aggressive from AMD, so I'm expecting nVidia to not stay "quiet" about this.

My bingo card on "nVidia's counter" has:
1- Editorial "alignment" for reviews.
2- Unreasonable expectations on FSR4 vs DLSS4.
3- The maligned "Framegen is performance" narrative.
4- The "Super" generation the next quarter to correct pricing and expectations.
5- AI money to come save GeForce from this bad press.

Come on, you all know those can happen.

Regards.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1896638819367350374

View: https://x.com/reaktor_field/status/1896638819367350374

https://twitter.com/x/status/1896704680501383465

View: https://x.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1896704680501383465


And nVidia saying "it's not us". I mean... "Yes, we're paying them to write those articles before official embargo so we can screw with AMD". Like they'd say that. They never disclosed they had paid people in forums posting hyping their products either.

Regards.

 

[palladin9479]

I take issue with AMD's claim that 85% of "gamers" buy GPUs that are <$700.

They are using Valve's Steam Survey, which shows that over 85% of those using Steam, which by definitions is gamers, are using cheaper cards. Nobody is shoping for a video card for their console.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam?platform=pc

Only a small minority has the 80/90 class cards or their AMD counterparts, instead most have 60/50/70 class cards. The $700 is around where the 4070 / 4070 Super AIB cards landed and represent the upper range of what most people are willing to spend on a gaming GPU.

 

[helper800]

They are using Valve's Steam Survey, which shows that over 85% of those using Steam, which by definitions is gamers, are using cheaper cards. Nobody is shoping for a video card for their console.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam?platform=pc

Only a small minority has the 80/90 class cards or their AMD counterparts, instead most have 60/50/70 class cards. The $700 is around where the 4070 / 4070 Super AIB cards landed and represent the upper range of what most people are willing to spend on a gaming GPU.

I agree with you in what they were saying, however, using data like this does not paint the whole picture. Most people on the steam survey dont even have cards on the last ~2 generations of cards so they have yet to have to spend the new egregious prices of graphics cards from either company.

 

[palladin9479]

I agree with you in what they were saying, however, using data like this does not paint the whole picture. Most people on the steam survey dont even have cards on the last ~2 generations of cards so they have yet to have to spend the new egregious prices of graphics cards from either company.

it does paint it if we stop and think about what they are trying to say, instead of what we want them to say.

AMD is explaining why they chose to not make cards over $800 and $1000 this generation, the 80 and 90 class cards. Their reasoning for not making a 9080 or 9090 is that so few consumers buy those cards anyway, they would have a greater market impact by spending 100% of their GPU effort making a product for the $700 and under market. The 9070 XT has a MSRP of $600, so after AIB upcharge we are looking at ... wait for it ... $650 to $700 street price. Then there is the 9070 and later they'll be releasing a 9060 line for even less.

Something like 80~85% of the dGPU market is owned by nVidia right now. What AMD needs is market share and customers, not halo products. The insanity of the past few generations has demonstrated that only a small segment of the customer base is chasing those high priced halo products for showing off, the rest are trying to buy mid range based on value. Nvidia has priced their midrange to upsell to their halo products leaving an opening for AMD to out complete with pure value.

 

[helper800]

it does paint it if we stop and think about what they are trying to say, instead of what we want them to say.

AMD is explaining why they chose to not make cards over $800 and $1000 this generation, the 80 and 90 class cards. Their reasoning for not making a 9080 or 9090 is that so few consumers buy those cards anyway, they would have a greater market impact by spending 100% of their GPU effort making a product for the $700 and under market. The 9070 XT has a MSRP of $600, so after AIB upcharge we are looking at ... wait for it ... $650 to $700 street price. Then there is the 9070 and later they'll be releasing a 9060 line for even less.

Something like 80~85% of the dGPU market is owned by nVidia right now. What AMD needs is market share and customers, not halo products. The insanity of the past few generations has demonstrated that only a small segment of the customer base is chasing those high priced halo products for showing off, the rest are trying to buy mid range based on value. Nvidia has priced their midrange to upsell to their halo products leaving an opening for AMD to out complete with pure value.

I complete agree with all of the above.

I was not arguing there is more market share to be had above 700 dollar price point cards, just that if everyone on old graphics cards had to get new ones the data of above 700 dollar cards would very likely increase from 15% of the market. Say the cut off for the data was actually 500 dollars. In such a scenario 70 % of gamers on steam dont have cards at 501 dollars and above card. Is AMD making the point that someone who has 450 dollars but wants a 5070 ti will get a 9070? Because they cannot afford either card with 450... It seems to me that the point AMD was trying to make what that instead of spending 700+ (15% of gamers) we are targeting people that spend 550+(30% of gamers). REALLY an everyman's gaming card at 550-600 huh AMD? Just because AMD's pricing on these cards is better than Nvidia does not mean that 550-600 dollar cards are within the reach of the majority of gamers like they seem to want us o believe. From what I can tell, most people are on older gen cards for one of three reasons;

1. They have no reason to upgrade from their current card's performance level.
2. They want to upgrade but cant because of availability of cards or they are too expensive.
3. They want to upgrade but are holding out for a better perceived value in the cost of an upgrade.

Whether or not AMDs 9070 and 9070 XT is going to capture a meaningful share of sub 700 dollar gamers is to be seen. I doubt either card will have a meaningfully higher market share than cards of their price point in the past.

 

[palladin9479]

I was not arguing there is more market share to be had above 700 dollar price point cards, just that if everyone on old graphics cards had to get new ones the data of above 700 dollar cards would very likely increase from 15% of the market

The $700 is accurate, it represents all the 4070's that were purchased. Remember they said under $700, not "only $700". That means everyone from $200 to $700, which includes both the low end budget tier and the mid range tier. There obviously will be different products produced, such products are generally introduced in reverse order with the most expensive going first. We get the 9070 XT, then the 9070, then the 9060 XT, then the 9060. May or may not be a 9050 in there somewhere.

You are seeing the $700 number and doing a "WTFBBQJESUS!!!!" reaction. Instead take a moment, breath, and realize that is the highest number they are including, followed by a series of lowering numbers.

 

[helper800]

You are seeing the $700 number and doing a "WTFBBQJESUS!!!!" reaction. Instead take a moment, breath, and realize that is the highest number they are including, followed by a series of lowering numbers.

You must have an active imagination. Those were definitely not my reactions. I am not sure you even read my reply considering the content your reply message, or I did not write it well enough for my point to be understood.

 

[thestryker]

Whether or not AMDs 9070 and 9070 XT is going to capture a meaningful share of sub 700 dollar gamers is to be seen. I doubt either card will have a meaningfully higher market share than cards of their price point in the past.

I don't think AMD's goal with these cards is to get people to spend more money than they otherwise would (though I'm certain they would love that), but rather capture more of that market. While the 9070 seems like a bad deal (because of the 9070 XT pricing) it should be a bit faster than the 5070. To me that just says this price point is bad, but the 9070 XT on the other hand seems like it will be a decent deal at MSRP.

I agree it's likely the sub $500 market where the majority of sales will still come from. If AMD were to scale pricing down off the 9070 XT MSRP I think they'd get some decent market share gains (assuming FSR 4 and the better RT deliver close to nvidia).

 

[helper800]

I don't think AMD's goal with these cards is to get people to spend more money than they otherwise would (though I'm certain they would love that), but rather capture more of that market. While the 9070 seems like a bad deal (because of the 9070 XT pricing) it should be a bit faster than the 5070. To me that just says this price point is bad, but the 9070 XT on the other hand seems like it will be a decent deal at MSRP.

I agree it's likely the sub $500 market where the majority of sales will still come from. If AMD were to scale pricing down off the 9070 XT MSRP I think they'd get some decent market share gains (assuming FSR 4 and the better RT deliver close to nvidia).

I completely agree.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Something like 80~85% of the dGPU market is owned by nVidia right now. What AMD needs is market share and customers, not halo products. The insanity of the past few generations has demonstrated that only a small segment of the customer base is chasing those high priced halo products for showing off, the rest are trying to buy mid range based on value. Nvidia has priced their midrange to upsell to their halo products leaving an opening for AMD to out complete with pure value.

I would argue that one of the major reasons Nvidia is capturing so much of the market is because it has the undisputed halo card. And not just for gaming, but it's the halo professional and AI company as well. It's not that tons of people buy the halo parts, but they're a status symbol and it implies that all the other Nvidia cards are better as well. Obviously, that's not true, but that's the way mindshare works.

Companies create halo parts all the time that don't even sell that many units, but it elevates the company brand by being able to show the "best at any price" product. Asus is another perfect example of this. It's parts aren't really all that different from MSI and Gigabyte and others, but the ROG branding, especially ROG Strix (and now ROG Astral for whatever reason) has worked well for them. Lots of people no longer refer to the company as "Asus" but instead say, "Oh yeah, I've got an ROG card / mobo / monitor / laptop / etc..."

AMD has been the "value brand" far too many times. That doesn't win mindshare for the most part. If you have an incredible value, and people perceive your brand as "a great value choice where you don't compromise on other features," that can work. But if you're just perceived as "the cheap brand that isn't as good but costs less," that's a losing marketing strategy.

 

[palladin9479]

I would argue that one of the major reasons Nvidia is capturing so much of the market is because it has the undisputed halo card. And not just for gaming, but it's the halo professional and AI company as well. It's not that tons of people buy the halo parts, but they're a status symbol and it implies that all the other Nvidia cards are better as well. Obviously, that's not true, but that's the way mindshare works.

I wouldn't say that, it was all neck and neck back in the day. Ultimately nVidia had products that worked while ATI suffered nonstop from driver compatibility issues. That reputation continued when AMD purchased them and only really cleaned up in the past few years, by then Nvidia has taken such a commanding lead that AMD/ATI would have to do something amazing to unseat them, and they never did.

We're enthusiasts, we do lots of research and get into the nitty gritty of products, casual users don't do that. Instead when it's time to buy a new prebuilt or even build their own, they just go with the age old advice of "buy something from nvidia's latest generation". That's where all those 70 and 80 models cards go with the Titan / 90's heading to the dudes that want to show off.

That is why right now is such a big opportunity for AMD. People who have been trained to follow that advice suddenly can't, there are no nvidia products on the shelves and suddenly those second string choices become attractive. By all measurements the RDNA 4 9000 series is pretty good and if AMD can just put products on store shelves, then those nvidia buyers will be motivated to try them out rather then waiting an unknown amount of time for nvidia to release more product. If those buyers have a good experience with AMD then AMD might of just got another loyal customer.

It's kind of like cars, people who have a good experience with Ford, Toyota, BMW, Jeep and so forth tend to stick with that manufacturer's products until a bad experience makes them try another.

 

[Gururu]

AMD tried to have superior products in CPU and GPU. Was a longshot but frankly too much I think. Now they are barely maintaining a tech lead in CPU (albeit sig less market share) and came short in GPU in both tech and market share. They are doing the right thing with GPU now and can focus on server and AI.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I wouldn't say that, it was all neck and neck back in the day. Ultimately nVidia had products that worked while ATI suffered nonstop from driver compatibility issues. That reputation continued when AMD purchased them and only really cleaned up in the past few years, by then Nvidia has taken such a commanding lead that AMD/ATI would have to do something amazing to unseat them, and they never did.

We're enthusiasts, we do lots of research and get into the nitty gritty of products, casual users don't do that. Instead when it's time to buy a new prebuilt or even build their own, they just go with the age old advice of "buy something from nvidia's latest generation". That's where all those 70 and 80 models cards go with the Titan / 90's heading to the dudes that want to show off.

That is why right now is such a big opportunity for AMD. People who have been trained to follow that advice suddenly can't, there are no nvidia products on the shelves and suddenly those second string choices become attractive. By all measurements the RDNA 4 9000 series is pretty good and if AMD can just put products on store shelves, then those nvidia buyers will be motivated to try them out rather then waiting an unknown amount of time for nvidia to release more product. If those buyers have a good experience with AMD then AMD might of just got another loyal customer.

It's kind of like cars, people who have a good experience with Ford, Toyota, BMW, Jeep and so forth tend to stick with that manufacturer's products until a bad experience makes them try another.

I feel like you're making my point for me. Enthusiasts that research everything care about the nuances. The average people, just looking for the default recommendation? "I've heard Nvidia is the best... guess that's what I'll buy." Or alternatively: "Just buy a console."

For the PC market, having the fastest solution, even if it's stupidly expensive, matters. The halo effect is real. I suspect most people buying Nvidia aren't even following advice as such. They're just doing what seems to be the normal thing. "All the YouTubers playing games use Nvidia... I should too!" "All the esports people use Nvidia... I should too!"

This is definitely an opportunity for AMD, but it's not all that different from Nvidia. It still needs to choose between using wafers for GPUs or CPUs, and if GPUs, between MI300/MI325/MI350 or RDNA 4. What was AMD's profit breakdown last fiscal year? Pretty sure gaming / GPU revenue (minus consoles) would be very small. But it doesn't actually break out Radeon income:

Even AMD made about 4X as much on data center as on gaming, and client was over twice as much as gaming. But these breakdowns very much hide how well dedicated GPUs are doing as a whole. I'd really like to know how much of the data center came from EPYC vs Instinct, and how much of the client revenue is Ryzen desktops vs laptop designs, and how much of gaming is Radeon vs PS5/Xbox. And how many laptops get sold because integrated Radeon graphics is better vs just because the laptop price as a whole looked good.

 

[palladin9479]

I feel like you're making my point for me. Enthusiasts that research everything care about the nuances. The average people, just looking for the default recommendation? "I've heard Nvidia is the best... guess that's what I'll buy." Or alternatively: "Just buy a console."

I think there is a difference between "fastest product" and "best product".

Car purchasing is a very good analogy, just because Porche / Lamborghini or Ferrari makes the "fastest car", doesn't mean everyone is wanting to drive one around. Price points and budgets matter a lot more then halo products. It's just that before the 40 series and nVidia becoming an AI company, they would release value products in the 60 and 70 model bands and people would buy those because they were both affordable and just worked. The reason I brought up ATI is that their brand's graphics reputation goes back that far and involves very sketchy drivers and often their card just won't work. Nvidia's RIVA brand ended up becoming the "go to" for everyone because it worked in everything, then later nvidia made GeForce and pretty much set the standard for compatibility across the market.

Heck why is x86 the dominate uArch in for PC computing? So dominate that people mistakenly confuse "OP" for x86 + Windows. It was neither the fastest nor the "best", but it was affordable and just worked (compared to everyone else that is). You didn't have to worry if game A supported graphics card B, or that if that game would continue working if you upgraded to card C.

To sum it all up (previously), someone could never go wrong buying a nvidia product. It might not be the fastest or the best, but it was affordable and would always work. Now it's no longer affordable or even available, so AMD has a chance to scoop up market share and build a bigger brand following as long as it's affordable and "just works".

 

[palladin9479]

Even AMD make about 4X as much on data center as on gaming, and client was over twice as much as gaming. But these breakdowns very much hide how well dedicated GPUs are doing as a whole. I'd really like to know how much of the data center came from EPYC vs Instinct, and how much of the client revenue is Ryzen desktops vs laptop designs, and how much of gaming is Radeon vs PS5/Xbox.

AMD CPU's have become extremely popular in the datacenter market, nobody is seriously buying their GPU's. You can blame the failures of the past several Intel releases for this happening. For the first time ever they are out selling Intel and not by a small amount. EPYC lets you do some seriously high levels of compute density, which is ideal whenever you are either hosting services or wanting to scale down your own physical presence.

 

[King_V]

I think there is a difference between "fastest product" and "best product".

Car purchasing is a very good analogy, just because Porche / Lamborghini or Ferrari makes the "fastest car", doesn't mean everyone is wanting to drive one around.

You do make good points, but, eh, the car analogy isn't the best. It's probably not quite the same anymore, but vehicle commercials do seem to often depict rather aggressive driving.

And, in the old days, there was this:

What does race on Sunday sell on Monday mean?

Proverb. what wins on Sunday sells on Monday. (chiefly US, marketing, motor sports) A brand of automobile that performs well in racing competitions will be popular with retail purchasers.

This was more prevalent in the muscle-car era of yore, but does demonstrate the halo effect, I think.

Personally, I kind of assumed that the halo effect wouldn't have much of an effect with regard to the GPU market, but look how many times, just in these forums alone, we'll see people claim that AMD is a complete failure, simply because AMD couldn't match or beat Nvidia's top tier card?

It's absolutely insane, in my opinion, and some of it certainly is fanboyism, but it seems very real.

 

[-Fran-]

You do make good points, but, eh, the car analogy isn't the best. It's probably not quite the same anymore, but vehicle commercials do seem to often depict rather aggressive driving.

And, in the old days, there was this:


This was more prevalent in the muscle-car era of yore, but does demonstrate the halo effect, I think.

Personally, I kind of assumed that the halo effect wouldn't have much of an effect with regard to the GPU market, but look how many times, just in these forums alone, we'll see people claim that AMD is a complete failure, simply because AMD couldn't match or beat Nvidia's top tier card?

It's absolutely insane, in my opinion, and some of it certainly is fanboyism, but it seems very real.

The better car analogy is simpler, I'd say. You see 2 Corollas: the souped up version in hatch flavour (I can't remember the name) and the regular all-included hatch. The souped up version is 2x the price. Does this make the souped up version a "bad" car? Does the souped up version's performance or whatever bells and whistles is has a better purchase for you? Can you live with the "normal" Corolla and still enjoy it?

You can apply this same logic to a lot of things. Rational buyers without specific needs will always look for the "best deal" and not the "halo".

This is very easy to check in the early years of the Subaru WRX and the "lower end" siblings. Most people would just buy the RX instead and enjoy it the same way because the differences to the WRX were minimal. Then Subaru realized it's more profitable to just offer the WRX and then re-brand it to STI. Same-ish with the EVO's in the MR and FQ varians/trims.

For me, the 5090 is not a card any "reasonable" gamer needs (coming back to the Corolla example). To enjoy a game you don't need to have a 4K 240Hz panel, just like moving from place to place you don't need the souped up version of any car. I hope we can agree there? If you think you need that, well, I'm glad I'm not like that. Dual 1440p panels for me is plenty. Plus the VR headset. The 7900GRE is plenty for that. Simulator peeps are the type of hobbists that definitely need the grunt, for instance, I'd say. They're always an interesting special case.

EDIT: One additional thought to the analogy: nVidia is transitioning from being a "Toyota" or "Honda" to a "Ferrari" or "Lambo". At least, that's the feeling I'm getting.

Regards.

 

[palladin9479]

You do make good points, but, eh, the car analogy isn't the best. It's probably not quite the same anymore, but vehicle commercials do seem to often depict rather aggressive driving.

And gaming commercials depict rather aggressive gaming

I used that analogy because while having access to a computer is a necessity in todays society, "gaming" is not. Just like having access to transportation is a necessity but having flashy luxury cars is not. It's a needs vs wants situation and only a miniscule part of the population have the mindset of "price doesn't matter". Everyone else has a budget and has to "buy what they can" instead of "buy what they want".,

Personally, I kind of assumed that the halo effect wouldn't have much of an effect with regard to the GPU market, but look how many times, just in these forums alone, we'll see people claim that AMD is a complete failure, simply because AMD couldn't match or beat Nvidia's top tier card?

That is due to the loud minority effect, where only a small subset of people are overly active in public spaces. We are informed enthusiasts with our own brand loyalties and strong beliefs. We like to see drama, tension, a fight between two champions in a ring, that fight is a form of entertainment and people treat it like watching a local sports match. The silent majority is on a budget, they don't really care about fighting and just want a product that is affordable and that just works. For a very long time this was nvidia 60/70 models, I mean how popular was the 1060, 2060, 1650 and so forth? Now those just aren't available and AMD has a chance to sweep in and market their own 60/70 replacements.

AMD absolutely knows this, it's why they changed their naming scheme to match nVidia's and abandoned the high end. It means no entertaining heavy weight champion boxing match for us to watch, no beat down moments with two large contenders in a ring trading blows with each other. AMD does miss out on a chance to win "Heavy weight GPU champion of the world", but they would of likely lost out anyway to the 5090. Instead they are trying to make their products available, affordable and to just work.

 

[palladin9479]

EDIT: One additional thought to the analogy: nVidia is transitioning from being a "Toyota" or "Honda" to a "Ferrari" or "Lambo". At least, that's the feeling I'm getting.

The Titan / 90 series has always been a Lambo.

GeForce GTX TITAN (700 series) was $999 MSRP at launch in early 2013.
GeForce GTX TITAN Z (2x 700 series) was $2999 MSRP at launch in 2014.
GeForce GTX TITAN X (900 series) was $999 MSRP at launch in early 2015.
Nvidia Titan X (1000 series) was $1200 MSRP in middle of 2016.
Nvidia Titan V (Volta) was $2999 at launch, in late 2017, the Quadro variant was something like $8999.
Nvidia Titan RTX (2000 series) was $2499

Then Nvidia changed to the 90 model to represent this card

GeForce RTX 3090 Ti was $1999 MSRP
GeForce RTX 4090 was $1599 MSRP
GeForce RTX 5090 was $1999 MSRP


NVidia's been making these ridiculously powerful, ridiculously expensive monster cards for over two decades now. We all used to laugh at them and agree they were for people with "more money then sense" because typically the 80 model had very high performance for a far more reasonable price. The 60/70 models had even better value and is what most people bought. For the past two generations nvidia has structured their product offerings in such a way to upsell people to that ridiculously expensive Titan model by removing that better price / performance incentive.