![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
It should be at least a bit faster than the 7700xt as a minimum as a maximum a bit lower than the 7800xt, with the clock announced and the benchmark AMD did show:
Newegg and MicroCenter both had lots of 9070XTs at launch, so I'm guessing those two are probably your best bets. MSRP 9070XT and 9070 cards sold out right away at Newegg, but above MSRP cards were available for a while, maybe 20-30 minutes. MicroCenter stores typically took a few hours to get everyone through the line.
9060XT 16GB is the one I would go for. The extra memory makes it way better than any 8GB version of the 5060, Especially if you run 1440p.
Sure, sell cards at a massive loss... what a strategy. I am sure the board partners would be overjoyed.
Yeah, I'm Not sure what he's on about. That doesn't even make sense 8-10 years ago. Much less now.
I don't care about either company, and they're making billions either way. The 5060 and 9060 XT are the lowest-end cards priced at $300 for 8GB. They priced the MSRP for the 5600 XT at $279, 6600 XT $379, and the 7600 XT at $329. Pricing the 9060 XT at $239 would have been gigantic. If they were looking to gain back market share from NVIDIA, $299 and $349 isn't going to do it, because no one's going to be tempted to buy it. No one with a 3070 or 6700 XT is going to downgrade to it, and they're only enticing 4060 and 7600 XT users, who are already doing fine playing at 1080P with those cards. The only ones probably considering a 5060 or 9060 XT are those with RTX 3060's or 6600 XT's, and they can find used 3070's at least for much lower (but not 6700 XT's, because AMD GPU's always resell much higher for some dumb reason).
Once again, what a terrible business strategy you have come up with. Nobody is going to sell a new product at a massive loss because you can get a used product for cheaper. How on God's green earth do you suggest that AMD tell their board partners that are already selling cards on razor thin margins to now take a couple hundred dollar haircut on their sales because some guy on a forum thinks it's a great idea.
Because some other guy on a forum thinks they'll operate at a loss, even when the 5600 XT in 2020 sold for $279 in 2020, and they made $9.7 Billion that year, with a market share of 17% at the end of the year (and that's with AIB, mobile, and dGPU's). Some other guy on a forum thinks the only way to make revenue is to increase prices on a low amount of products that don't get purchased. While some other guy on a forum thinks lowering prices so said products get purchased, thus increasing demand and market share.
You do realize that you are comparing the economy from 5 years ago to today, correct? The price of everything has increased so the comparison is not going to line up at all.
What? 2020 was 5 years ago? You don't say...
What is your point? That they should sell cards at a loss because a $499 MSRP card from 2020 has the same performance? Please tell me what multi-billion dollar company you are the CFO for so I can make sure I don't invest in it.
The point is a $299 and $349 low-end card won't sell well (indicated by how the 7600 XT didn't do so well at $329 in 2024, but neither did the RTX 4060 in 2023). Maybe re-read my above quoted posts and you'll understand why.
Let's at least be honest here. Nvidia hasn't given a rats ass what AMD does with Radeon since RTX has released. Not a single ounce of consideration as they have been fully aware that AMD can no longer compete.
Around 4.5% of steam hardware survey, even if we assume all card are in a steam machine right now that, if steam active accounts estimate are about right:
Maybe it is not mostly in response to AMD, but there is a reason they cut down pricing to their super line up and a reason they used that new price for the blackwell launch announcement. They do tend to time announcement/review embargo/etc... with quite the suspicious timing with AMD one, too much to be random.
They can compete, they just choose not to. There's a reason this saying about AMD is so popular: "AMD, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity". They'd rather follow NVIDIA's footsteps and are okay grabbing NVIDIA's leftovers. You are right though, NVIDIA doesn't care what AMD does, they don't lower their prices based on AMD's releases and prices, since they know AMD will price theirs according to NVIDIA's.
Yet, the sale numbers of RTX 4060's weren't very high. My guess is that the low end cards are bundled with low-end CPU's in cheaper prebuilt gaming systems, and more people buy those.
Do we have those, the best-buy, newegg, amazon one, not the enthusiast boutique ? yes pre-built could be a big market for those, and I imagine China is by far the biggest gpu market and I am not sure how much we known about it, all that to say not sure on what basis we can say the 3060-4060 did not sales well (being the 2 best seller with a large margin), outside the general absolutely nothing do which can be fair.
First, why are they (and you) comparing it at 1440P, when they're the lowest end cards where they will primarily be used to play at 1080P? With the RX 9060 XT 16GB averaging 95.8 FPS vs the RTX 5060 8GB averaging 94 FPS, with a difference of 1.9%. At 1080P, the RX 9060 XT 16GB at $350 will cost $3.65 per frame, and the RTX 5060 8GB at $300 will cost $3.19 per frame. In a 1080P scenario, the RTX 5060 8GB would be the better buy, at $0.46 less per frame.
That completely depends on the selection of game and game section chosen to benchmark, few game appear in both series of benchmark, when they do:
The lowest end card tend to be older models (used or from store), apu, laptops, upcoming 9060 gre or 9050, than a new 9060xt 16GB at $350 plus, a 2025 xx60 in 2025 is more a low-mid than lowest end card, when we look at the steam survey all the cards in the top 10 are about the same or slower.
Imagine if AMD not only made them free, but also paid people to take them.
