News AMD RDNA 4 GPUs will allegedly be rebranded RX 9000 — A mixture of new RDNA 3/RDNA 4 mobile GPUs and an RX 7000 refresh is expected to arrive at CES

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Hum... usually when a brand switch it's naming scheme to something else out of tradition signals a high chance that the actual product competitivness is in danger... not a good look
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTWrenn
YSCCC said:
Hum... usually when a brand switch it's naming scheme to something else out of tradition signals a high chance that the actual product competitivness is in danger... not a good look
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: With AMD graphics, it feels like it can go either way?

Going from Radeon HD to R7/R9, the R9 290 hot and power hungry but turned in pretty good performance if I recall... but everything down the stack was rebranded GCN and kinda stale. Then they went from R7/R9 to RX, and the RX 480 and RX 580 went down as legendary midrange cards. Then they stuck "RX Vega" on top, which struggled... before pivoting away from the 3-digit naming and instead of RX 600 going with RX 5000, which was pretty solid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heiro78, artk2219 and King_V
I mean it (naming) could be worse, remember when:

R.a4dd61b7a1655121dc9138cc753ca64b
 
  • Like
Reactions: P.Amini, Flayed, usertests and 2 others
My guess is they didn't want to have an awkward moment with the RX 9700 XT's poor price/performance when compared to the legendary ATi 9700 Pro. (Although you can argue the 9700 non-pro was a better deal if you got the software locked version)
 
Notton said:
My guess is they didn't want to have an awkward moment with the RX 9700 XT's poor price/performance when compared to the legendary ATi 9700 Pro. (Although you can argue the 9700 non-pro was a better deal if you got the software locked version)
Click to expand...
That is a bit of a call back, but I don't think that's the main reason. I think it's mainly to help consolidate all the different efforts into one "new" naming scheme where they aren't hamstrung with the baggage that came from the previous scheme. It also means they can either start at 1 or 10 when they release "udna" based chips in the future. Making it like a fresh start for the unified architecture after cdna and rdna.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P.Amini, scottsoapbox and usertests
bourgeoisdude said:
I get switching to 9000 series to match with Ryzen...but why switch to 90x0 for models instead of 9x00? Makes no sense, especially when naming has to change next cycle anyway due to numbering running out.
Click to expand...
seems a bit silly Unless Nvidia has the naming rights upto the 80x0 ..

That said im not sure what AMDs play is on this red gaming tech is reporting though there leaks they will do 9040 9050 9060 and 9070 ..

So is it to trick customers into buying AMD ( doesnt seem likely for anyone switched on )

Does it mean the best card in the new AMD line up will match with the 5070 ??

because if you want to go down that numbering scheme people by default ( myself included ) will be asking so if Nvidia do the 5070 is AMDs 9070 going to be its direct competition ???

I mean if i was going to start taking Nvidia's naming scheme i would name my competition to directly compete with the last digits so my high end ( obviously AMD is not doing high end ) but 9090 9080 9070 and so it would line up with Nvidia's stuff !!
 
RX x0x0 is too close to RTX x0x0.

I guess if AMD make the first gen of this naming scheme 90x0 they will be hoping for bigger number better number relative to Nvidia in the minds of potential customers.

To validate a comparison they AMD need to maintain their generational improvements in raster and they need to effectively jump 2 generations from the RX 7x00 series to gain some degree of parity with Nvidia, one gen to catch up, the second gen to be able to try to fight with whatever Nvidia release with the 50x0 parts.

A 9070 is going to have to be close to a 5070 otherwise people will buy, read the test results on line and there will be a huge backlash if the parts are not comparable.

If this is accurate it could be AMD’s worst marketing mistake, period.
 
stuff and nonesense said:
RX x0x0 is too close to RTX x0x0.

I guess if AMD make the first gen of this naming scheme 90x0 they will be hoping for bigger number better number relative to Nvidia in the minds of potential customers.

To validate a comparison they AMD need to maintain their generational improvements in raster and they need to effectively jump 2 generations from the RX 7x00 series to gain some degree of parity with Nvidia, one gen to catch up, the second gen to be able to try to fight with whatever Nvidia release with the 50x0 parts.

A 9070 is going to have to be close to a 5070 otherwise people will buy, read the test results on line and there will be a huge backlash if the parts are not comparable.

If this is accurate it could be AMD’s worst marketing mistake, period.
Click to expand...
silly though at least AMD NEEDS to come close to the 5080

Nvidia can have their 5090 overpriced destroy everything card ..

But AMD needs still needs that 4080 competitor !!
 
ilukey77 said:
silly though at least AMD NEEDS to come close to the 5080

Nvidia can have their 5090 overpriced destroy everything card ..

But AMD needs still needs that 4080 competitor !!
Click to expand...

I agree. I was simply suggesting that an AMD 9070 has to jump a long way from a 7800/7700 to get a degree of parity with a 5070 in ray tracing. It’s not just a single generation leap, that would give near parity with the 4070.
 
AMD were burned badly by their RDNA3 naming scheme. Every card was given name 1 tier higher than what was the reality, other than 7900XTX which should have just been called 7900XT anyway.

7600 is 6500XT replacement, 7700XT is 6650XT replacement, 7800XT is 6700XT replacement, 7900XT is 6800XT/6900XT replacement, 7900XTX is new flagship that replaces nothing.

If the range had of been called 7500, 7600XT, 7700XT, 7800XT and 7900XT with prices commensurate to the performance, AMD would have gotten a lot better press and done a lot better sales wise. AMD tactics which have not changed despite being burned, is to launch high, wait for negative reviews, panic, slash prices, piss off early adopters and finally get it right after the damage is well and truly done. This applies to cpu and gpu.

For the record, Nvidia did exactly the same, but the media is beholden to them in general and did not call it out, and the Nvidiots couldn't care less as they would never consider AMD as an alternative anyway. Nvidia can do what they like and get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heiro78
artk2219 said:
That is a bit of a call back, but I don't think that's the main reason. I think it's mainly to help consolidate all the different efforts into one "new" naming scheme where they aren't hamstrung with the baggage that came from the previous scheme. It also means they can either start at 1 or 10 when they release "udna" based chips in the future. Making it like a fresh start for the unified architecture after cdna and rdna.
Click to expand...
The switch to UDNA is what I would expect them to completely revamp the naming scheme, a brand new and supposedly superior architecture with more competitive performance.

But RDNA4 being given up the high end, and then change to x0x0 name while skipping the 8xxx gen sounded really akward in timing for me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista, artk2219 and usertests
stuff and nonesense said:
I agree. I was simply suggesting that an AMD 9070 has to jump a long way from a 7800/7700 to get a degree of parity with a 5070 in ray tracing. It’s not just a single generation leap, that would give near parity with the 4070.
Click to expand...
I think we've already seen the raytracing boost we can expect with the PS5 Pro. The "9070" could catch up to the 4070/4080 (someone else can run those numbers until actual reviews), but I don't think anyone should expect RDNA4 raytracing to contend with Blackwell. And that's ok, it can still be a good product line if priced correctly.

Mama Changa said:
7600 is 6500XT replacement
Click to expand...
The 7600 is slightly faster than a 6650 XT, hugely faster than a 6500 XT. We could have gotten a 7500 (identical to the Radeon Pro W7500 with 28 CUs) that performs like an RX 6600 non-XT or better, but it didn't happen (so far).

It's this RDNA4 generation that I would hope to see the 60-class card (8600 XT or 9060) get close to a 7700 XT, and some good options below that.

If the "9040" is real and based on Navi 44, it could be the first real replacement for the 6500 XT. They could cut it down to 96-bit 6 GB, and it would still be better than the 6500 XT, which I'll remind everyone was 64-bit 4 GB with the rare 8 GB model. The 6500 XT is a bad card that can't even be used where a 3050 6 GB can since it uses more than 75 Watts.
 
likeacactus said:
Dumb move, but i guess is because next gen will be UDNA and it'll have a new name scheme. More confusing, more meaningless and it will be something AI and will start with 500.

Or radeon AI 9 590 AI XTX AI
Click to expand...
They can call it what they want but if they don’t compete with Nvidia ( well atleast there 2nd tier cards 4080 5080 ) they will be struggling to keep up

intel fighting and fighting well for that mid to low tier place with solid cheaper cards AMD will be left in limbo with its GPUs soon

Not at high end and getting beaten in the low to mid on price !!

I’ve been using AMD cards and cpus for 7 years of building and I’m still waiting for that Nvidia beating flagship GPU ..

Now I’m looking at what’s intel’s celestial going to bring or am I going to bite the bullet after the initial hype of the 5090 dies down and invest in Nvidia ?!?

For the first time in a long time I’m seriously considering buying into Nvidia’s crap

I’m not happy with 16gb on there 5080 if that’s the case

But if they offer 20gb on the 5080 I’ll seriously consider it..

5090 is ludicrous prices and pointless to spend THAT much!!
 
Last edited:
jlake3 said:
Then they went from R7/R9 to RX, and the RX 480 and RX 580 went down as legendary midrange cards.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be funny? In what world were either the 480 or 580 legendary cards? Certainly not in gaming circles. The only reason anyone bought these cards was for Bitcoin mining. 480 had a pretty mediocre reception at launch based on performance, and in classic AMD fashion they screwed up by having the card draw too much power from the PCI-e slot. Go look at the Anandtech review. Literally the 1st user comment is:

What a massive F-up by AMD.
Click to expand...

480 is no where to be found on the Steam hardware survey which tells you how popular it was. If you want to bring up how old it is. The GTX 1060 that was released less than a month later is still ranked #11 in the survey. 1050Ti from the same generation is 2 slots lower. The 580 that replaced 480 was pretty universally trashed by gamers because it was basically a rebrand with almost no performance improvement and much worse power draw. On Steam, the 580 is still the 2nd highest ranked dgpu from AMD while only a year younger than 480 that is MIA on Steam. Legend? No, not really, as I said earlier the only reason anyone bought the card was because it was better at bitcoin mining than Nvidia. When bitcoin crashed, the 580 went on absolute fire sale to offload all the cards nobody wanted any more. I remember them being sold new from retailers for under $100, which was less than half their MSRP. Add that to the even lower prices on the used market from miner dumps, and that's why there are so many of those cards still floating around.
 
bourgeoisdude said:
I get switching to 9000 series to match with Ryzen...but why switch to 90x0 for models instead of 9x00? Makes no sense, especially when naming has to change next cycle anyway due to numbering running out.
Click to expand...
I think they are chasing similarity to Nvidia's own stack.
They did the same crap with motherboard chipsets against intel once.
Same stye of numbering, but higher., aka Getting a higher number to appear "better".
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista
My prediction is that something is also happening at the desktop high-end. It could be a 7950 xtx or just a renaming, 7090 xtx.

Of course I base this only on the fact that Asrock stated the Taichi 7900 xtx is EOL and the current limited stock of 7900 xtx's
 
bourgeoisdude said:
I get switching to 9000 series to match with Ryzen...but why switch to 90x0 for models instead of 9x00? Makes no sense, especially when naming has to change next cycle anyway due to numbering running out.
Click to expand...
Didn't you kind of answer both of your questions already? :)

I.e. 9800 next to a 9800 might be confusing. And next cycle it can be for the GPUs simply 180, with many customers already knowing what the "80" implies, simplified.

Additionally, one can (soon) just be like: "My rig is a 9880.", you know? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom