AMD's Radeon RX 7900-series Highlights

It pretty much has been already. 6900xts were $650 and 6800xts were sub $600. Seems like a fair price given the reviews so far.
Part of me feels like those were the prices things should have been from the beginning, but yeah no doubt AMD drops costs on cards. Just hoping for more, and perhaps even some from team green, choices are always nice for the consumer.
 
What's the performance reason for charging four figures for it?
That's a business decision. Arguably the name is as well. For users that know the difference none of this matters. It either fits your criteria for performance and cost or it doesn't. If it doesn't, shrug and move on. The market will all decide for themselves whether or not they want to pay the price for the performance.
If not, it will correct itself. If so, it will persist.
 
That's a business decision. Arguably the name is as well. For users that know the difference none of this matters. It either fits your criteria for performance and cost or it doesn't. If it doesn't, shrug and move on. The market will all decide for themselves whether or not they want to pay the price for the performance.
If not, it will correct itself. If so, it will persist.
So really, none of us should be talking about any aspect of this it at all. Ever. For any launch of any product.
 
So really, none of us should be talking about any aspect of this it at all. Ever. For any launch of any product.
I mean, they're the same reasons given as for why Nvidia cards are priced as they are. AMD is just following the market leader example. Funny, I have zero problems not buying $1000 gpus from any brand. Others should give it a shot too.
 
So really, none of us should be talking about any aspect of this it at all. Ever. For any launch of any product.
I think there is plenty of value in having a discussion of how things are placed into the market and also to help other people have a broader understanding of technology. Hence a technology/hardware forum. Or even "value" for that matter, real or perceived.

I don't see the point in creating negativity over things I can't control. I'm recognizing more and more that clearly most people don't share that mindset. Negativity for negativities sake (as in negativity that affects zero things other than the self and perhaps anyone else within earshot) seems to be pretty popular.
I just don't place a lot of utility on that or in woulda/coulda/shoulda's or "what ifs" rather than "what is". But fair enough, I'll keep it to myself regarding you.
 
I think there is plenty of value in having a discussion of how things are placed into the market and also to help other people have a broader understanding of technology. Hence a technology/hardware forum. Or even "value" for that matter, real or perceived.

I don't see the point in creating negativity over things I can't control. I'm recognizing more and more that clearly most people don't share that mindset. Negativity for negativities sake (as in negativity that affects zero things other than the self and perhaps anyone else within earshot) seems to be pretty popular.
I just don't place a lot of utility on that or in woulda/coulda/shoulda's or "what ifs" rather than "what is". But fair enough, I'll keep it to myself regarding you.

Remember when Nvidia 'unlaunched' their 4080 12GB card because people weren't talking about it and were waiting for reviews and had no opinions on it at all?


It's almost as if public perception and the discussions therein actually have an effect on a business' decisions regarding the products that they sell and how they sell them. Healthy discussion and criticism of the market is not only beneficial, it is required for a market to function. Nothing against you as a person, as your discussion on discussion is a discussion I'm happy to discuss, but I'm really freaking tired of people using the "just don't buy it" cop-out. You bet I'm not going to buy it, but I'm also going to talk about why I'm not going to buy it: and I expect others to talk about their opinions on it.
 
Remember when Nvidia 'unlaunched' their 4080 12GB card because people weren't talking about it and were waiting for reviews and had no opinions on it at all?


It's almost as if public perception and the discussions therein actually have an effect on a business' decisions regarding the products that they sell and how they sell them. Healthy discussion and criticism of the market is not only beneficial, it is required for a market to function.
I would suggest that discussion isn't required at all. If the original 4080 sold none of itself as was predicted, then that is "all the talk" that is necessary. Viability of a product is the end all be all of the discussion. "Money talks". Lack of sales sinks all companies. Period.

More to the point, the original 4080 would've had to compete with the 7900XTX directly. It isn't nothing to say that nVidia saw the writing on the wall. Again, business. Money. Lack of sales.
Nothing against you as a person, as your discussion on discussion is a discussion I'm happy to discuss, but I'm really freaking tired of people using the "just don't buy it" cop-out. You bet I'm not going to buy it, but I'm also going to talk about why I'm not going to buy it: and I expect others to talk about their opinions on it.
That's fine. But the discussion changes nothing about what the market can and will do. We have a big group of people in this forum that takes a big shit on Apple and a big shit on Nintendo (the Nintedo Switch thread that is well over 100 pages long at this point from before it launched to present basically had a majority of people asking: what is the point of this device? Why even bother? And Apple for PC heads has long been: "OMG so overpriced"). It's funny then that Apple is the most valued company in the world and Nintendo has sold the most consoles this gen out of the 3. If discussion "changed anything", then "hate" would matter. And frankly shitting on products you don't use, like, or see a use case for, to the contrary has changed nothing.

In point of actual fact, the only decision(s) you can control are your own, purchasing or otherwise. If you buy for a company, sure you have a fiduciary requirement to buy what is necessary for that company and no more or less. You can't change at all what the broader market does regardless of your opinion. I think Backstreet Boys and Nsync make terrible music (I'm an older Millennial that lived through that stuff on heavy rotation on MTV), but again my opinion did ZERO in terms of records sold or how much I shit on them or would tell anyone else within earshot.
 
Last edited:
Performance a little better than I expected from 3 reviews, the best review was at www.thefpsreview.com.

RT was actually interesting. Older RTX titles more aligned with Nvidia shockingly did better on Nvidia. The newer, more RNDA 2 designed, console, like FarCry 6 and Spiderman did virtually on par with the 4080. Makes me wonder how newer titles using RT will perform. Really want to see Fortnite Chapter 4 RT soft/hardware RT numbers.

As for efficiency, how does the 7900XTX perform fps/watt to 4090/4080 in Call Of Duty II? I cannot conclude yet which arch is more efficient, looks heavily dependent upon the workload. Yes 4080 uses less power but it is also had less performance in Raster. To me the differences are insignificant.

Hardware Unbox reported hiccups, black screen etc but seemed to Downplay that. To me those are bigger issues I want to know about.

Price seems reasonable for the 7900XTX and less so for the XT version. Keeping the XT version higher allows the 7800 series to be higher as a afterthought.
 
What's the performance reason for charging four figures for it?
It performs better more often than not than cards costing twice as much. A 3090TI for example goes for $1800. A 4080 is 1200. So that's the reason for charging 4 figures for it.
 
Performance a little better than I expected from 3 reviews, the best review was at www.thefpsreview.com.

RT was actually interesting. Older RTX titles more aligned with Nvidia shockingly did better on Nvidia. The newer, more RNDA 2 designed, console, like FarCry 6 and Spiderman did virtually on par with the 4080. Makes me wonder how newer titles using RT will perform. Really want to see Fortnite Chapter 4 RT soft/hardware RT numbers.

As for efficiency, how does the 7900XTX perform fps/watt to 4090/4080 in Call Of Duty II? I cannot conclude yet which arch is more efficient, looks heavily dependent upon the workload. Yes 4080 uses less power but it is also had less performance in Raster. To me the differences are insignificant.

Hardware Unbox reported hiccups, black screen etc but seemed to Downplay that. To me those are bigger issues I want to know about.

Price seems reasonable for the 7900XTX and less so for the XT version. Keeping the XT version higher allows the 7800 series to be higher as a afterthought.

apparently there is a new driver coming up 23.1 whatever that address pefromance/efficiency more in games. IDK if that is going to be launch driver or sometime this month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
I would suggest that discussion isn't required at all. If the original 4080 sold none of itself as was predicted, then that is "all the talk" that is necessary. Viability of a product is the end all be all of the discussion. "Money talks". Lack of sales sinks all companies. Period.

More to the point, the original 4080 would've had to compete with the 7900XTX directly. It isn't nothing to say that nVidia saw the writing on the wall. Again, business. Money. Lack of sales.

That's fine. But the discussion changes nothing about what the market can and will do. We have a big group of people in this forum that takes a big shit on Apple and a big shit on Nintendo (the Nintedo Switch thread that is well over 100 pages long at this point from before it launched to present basically had a majority of people asking: what is the point of this device? Why even bother? And Apple for PC heads has long been: "OMG so overpriced"). It's funny then that Apple is the most valued company in the world and Nintendo has sold the most consoles this gen out of the 3. If discussion "changed anything", then "hate" would matter. And frankly shitting on products you don't use, like, or see a use case for, to the contrary has changed nothing.

In point of actual fact, the only decision(s) you can control are your own, purchasing or otherwise. If you buy for a company, sure you have a fiduciary requirement to buy what is necessary for that company and no more or less. You can't change at all what the broader market does regardless of your opinion. I think Backstreet Boys and Nsync make terrible music (I'm an older Millennial that lived through that stuff on heavy rotation on MTV), but again my opinion did ZERO in terms of records sold or how much I shit on them or would tell anyone else within earshot.

I do believe you sell your own voice short. Discussion cannot entirely control a market, but it has a non-zero effect on the market. You hypothesize that the 4080 12GB would have 'unlaunched' itself without any negative press, I say that if that were the case, it would have never been announced. Saying Nvidia 'saw the writing on the wall' is a bit rich, as the existence of any competing product in that price range was guaranteed before the 4080 was announced, as those competing products were on the market before the cards were announced in the form of the 3090 and 6950XT, both of which seemed to carry similar performance for a similar pricepoint even according to Nvidia's own publicly shown pre-launch slides.

Nvidia un-launched the 4080 12GB and will sell an almost identically spec'd product as a 4070Ti 12GB for less money.

They didn't price reduce the 4080 12GB, which would have actually cost them much less in internal recalls, rebadging, wasted marketing materials, double-handling shipping etc.

Why do you think? If public perception and the name of the product doesn't matter, why does Nvidia seem to think it does?

PS. Apple and Nintendo couldn't care less about what PC Hardware enthusiasts say about their products. However they care whole-heartedly about what their core audience says. This forum, PC gaming subreddits, youtube comments on hardware channels, all of those represent NVidia's and AMD's (or at least GeForce's and Radeon's) core audience. Discussion here matters, not earth shatteringly, but once again: it has a non-zero effect.
 
It feel to me a mix of "leaker" and AMD presentation, halo ridiculously powerful 4090, timing reduce how nice this is in reality:
No it is not 50-70% higher than a 6950xt, it is more 35% higher

https://www.techspot.com/review/2588-amd-radeon-7900-xtx/
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/32.html

If a 7900xtx is 1.0 in performance

On techspot
at 1440p
6950xt/3090ti: .80
4080 : .99
7900xtx : 1
4090 : 1.16


4K
6950xt :.74
3090ti : .80
4080 : .96
7900xtx: 1
4090 : 1.26


Cyberpunk lock at 90fps power consumption, total system
4080 : 358w
4090 : 384w
7900xtx: 443w


TechpowerUp
1440p
3090ti.: .83
7900xt.: .89
4080...: .98
7900xtx: 1
4090...: 1.17


4K
7900xt.: .84
3090TI.: .84
4080...: .96
7900xtx: 1
4090...: 1.22


power usage while gaming
4080...: 304w
7900xt.: 320w
7900xtx: 356w
4090...: 411w


Gaming at 60hz
4080...: 68w
4090...: 79w
7900xt.: 112w
7900xtx: 127w



- Lot of things that we "knew", the xt is about exactly 5/6 the strength of the xtx

- Some I was semi certain, but online talk momentum were repeating without thinking much, Lovelace is by a giant amount more energy efficient than RDNA 3, close to half the energy gaming at 60fps on a 4080 versus a xtx, why would it not be all of the chip is on a little bit of a superior node without an fabric has well to connect 6nm with 5nm, do people thought that Ampere vs RDNA 2 was not all a story about Samsung and first gen GDDR6x vs tsmc and regular ram, that AMD had some inherent advantage ? I imagine we will see a shift on the who care about energy talk and who talk a lot about it.

- Being around a 3090TI with RT on, the XT around a 3090

The surprise:
The 7900xt being a 3090TI at 4K, which would it have been a 7800xt sold at $700 MSRP, $800 in real life would have been quite a good upgrade for people that do not care about CUDA and RT, getting a 3090TI that run on regular 320watt with a new warranty nice, if it is near $1000.... a bit meh.

The 7900xtx being virtually a 4080 at the moment performance wise is the big let-down I expected a nice double-digit lead, which was maybe ridiculous, the people that knew the best about the 7900xtx were AMD, the single actual piece of information they gave us about the 7900xtx performance was the announced MSRP.

Why would they had gave their 6900xt upgrade a massive price cut if it was a 4080 beater ?

7900xtx Resident evil village up to 138 FPS with RT on at 4K max setting, was quite literary Up to I imagine.
TPU was closer to 40% but yeah. It is right at 50% faster than the 6900xt (and I know the slides said 50% faster than the 6950xt) so maybe we could see it hit that mark with some driver improvement. There are a few games where the 6950xt is just too close to make any sense.
 
I do believe you sell your own voice short. Discussion cannot entirely control a market, but it has a non-zero effect on the market. You hypothesize that the 4080 12GB would have 'unlaunched' itself without any negative press, I say that if that were the case, it would have never been announced. Saying Nvidia 'saw the writing on the wall' is a bit rich, as the existence of any competing product in that price range was guaranteed before the 4080 was announced, as those competing products were on the market before the cards were announced in the form of the 3090 and 6950XT, both of which seemed to carry similar performance for a similar pricepoint even according to Nvidia's own publicly shown pre-launch slides.

Nvidia un-launched the 4080 12GB and will sell an almost identically spec'd product as a 4070Ti 12GB for less money.

They didn't price reduce the 4080 12GB, which would have actually cost them much less in internal recalls, rebadging, wasted marketing materials, double-handling shipping etc.

Why do you think? If public perception and the name of the product doesn't matter, why does Nvidia seem to think it does?

PS. Apple and Nintendo couldn't care less about what PC Hardware enthusiasts say about their products. However they care whole-heartedly about what their core audience says. This forum, PC gaming subreddits, youtube comments on hardware channels, all of those represent NVidia's and AMD's (or at least GeForce's and Radeon's) core audience. Discussion here matters, not earth shatteringly, but once again: it has a non-zero effect.
Non-zero is an almost non-existent low bar. Think about it.
 
TPU was closer to 40% but yeah. It is right at 50% faster than the 6900xt (and I know the slides said 50% faster than the 6950xt) so maybe we could see it hit that mark with some driver improvement. There are a few games where the 6950xt is just too close to make any sense.

it seems like with new arch you are going to see may be not as much gains in older games. The newer games they seem to do much better. There is suppose to be performance/efficiency improvements in 23.1.1 driver. So I wouldn't be surprised if they started top down in optimization we may or may not see improvements with less popular titles but I tend to think the likely will as time goes on.
 
Honestly, if they called these the 7800XT and the 7800 I think there would be at least 15% less bad press.

The 7900xtx should be the 7900xt at $1100 and the 7900xt should be the 7800xt at $800. The product stack would have been better accepted while maintaining there bottom line.
 
I do believe you sell your own voice short. Discussion cannot entirely control a market, but it has a non-zero effect on the market. You hypothesize that the 4080 12GB would have 'unlaunched' itself without any negative press, I say that if that were the case, it would have never been announced. Saying Nvidia 'saw the writing on the wall' is a bit rich, as the existence of any competing product in that price range was guaranteed before the 4080 was announced, as those competing products were on the market before the cards were announced in the form of the 3090 and 6950XT, both of which seemed to carry similar performance for a similar pricepoint even according to Nvidia's own publicly shown pre-launch slides.

Nvidia un-launched the 4080 12GB and will sell an almost identically spec'd product as a 4070Ti 12GB for less money.

They didn't price reduce the 4080 12GB, which would have actually cost them much less in internal recalls, rebadging, wasted marketing materials, double-handling shipping etc.

Why do you think? If public perception and the name of the product doesn't matter, why does Nvidia seem to think it does?
Again, you're describing marketing. Marketing's purpose is to drive knowledge of the product (in terms of "it exists") and to drive perception of the product (in terms of: "look how great it is").
PS. Apple and Nintendo couldn't care less about what PC Hardware enthusiasts say about their products. However they care whole-heartedly about what their core audience says. This forum, PC gaming subreddits, youtube comments on hardware channels, all of those represent NVidia's and AMD's (or at least GeForce's and Radeon's) core audience.
Apple doesn't care what people say period. Steve Jobs famously stated: "People don't know what they want until you show it to them." after being asked why he doesn't bother with focus groups. Apple's decisions to move to ARM when most people would say: "just make a faster PC" is counter to common person thinking. In terms of if they care what normal users think? Of course they do. If they can change 5% of Android users to iOS users that would be a change in order of something like a half a billion dollars in revenue (not profit, revenue). They are currently fighting in the PC market where macOS is making gains and taking away parts of the PC market. They absolutely care that people are buying MBA's over Microsoft Surfaces, other ultra portables, or clones such as the HP Envy. While they aren't targeting the PC gaming market, they are very clearly targeting the consumer computing market as well as small business and business markets.

Nintendo is much in the same vein. Their strategy is Blue Ocean, and they would be more than happy to be everyone's "third choice" so long as you buy their product. A massive part of their success is precisely because they are different and they have recognized that competing on specs is less important than price as well as novel game play and IP.

You cannot say a company doesn't care about their bottom lines. That's now how businesses work. That's not how money works. We're not even having a discussion at this point because you believe in statements that directly counter the market, companies, and the purposes of their initiatives.
Discussion here matters, not earth shatteringly, but once again: it has a non-zero effect.
Not as much as them launching a product and making zero money. You want to see a company reverse course that is how you do it.
 
Again, you're describing marketing. Marketing's purpose is to drive knowledge of the product (in terms of "it exists") and to drive perception of the product (in terms of: "look how great it is").

Apple doesn't care what people say period. Steve Jobs famously stated: "People don't know what they want until you show it to them." after being asked why he doesn't bother with focus groups. Apple's decisions to move to ARM when most people would say: "just make a faster PC" is counter to common person thinking. In terms of if they care what normal users think? Of course they do. If they can change 5% of Android users to iOS users that would be a change in order of something like a half a billion dollars in revenue (not profit, revenue). They are currently fighting in the PC market where macOS is making gains and taking away parts of the PC market. They absolutely care that people are buying MBA's over Microsoft Surfaces, other ultra portables, or clones such as the HP Envy. While they aren't targeting the PC gaming market, they are very clearly targeting the consumer computing market as well as small business and business markets.

Nintendo is much in the same vein. Their strategy is Blue Ocean, and they would be more than happy to be everyone's "third choice" so long as you buy their product. A massive part of their success is precisely because they are different and they have recognized that competing on specs is less important than price as well as novel game play and IP.

You cannot say a company doesn't care about their bottom lines. That's now how businesses work. That's not how money works. We're not even having a discussion at this point because you believe in statements that directly counter the market, companies, and the purposes of their initiatives.

Not as much as them launching a product and making zero money. You want to see a company reverse course that is how you do it.
I don't think I said anywhere that a company does not care about its bottom line. In fact, that's WHY I say discussion is important: That's.. that's my whole damn point! If discussion around a product leads a company to believe their bottom line is affected, they'll take action. Thats the whole thing!
 
I don't think I said anywhere that a company does not care about its bottom line. In fact, that's WHY I say discussion is important: That's.. that's my whole damn point! If discussion around a product leads a company to believe their bottom line is affected, they'll take action. Thats the whole thing!
Well, this is where the rubber meets the road. Companies run by smart people are far less "emotional" about their decisions. They're usually VERY calculated. Do they make errors? Yes, we discussed the 4080 12GB at length.

However, again, they do not care at all what our opinions are. If they could force everyone on the planet to buy their product, all the while we all hate them, they are HAPPY to do it. If you want evidence of this fact, look at the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, arguably nVidia has been using their performance leading position in that exact way. They don't give a shit if we think 4090 pricing is dumb. They sold out of their entire allotment in a week. If anything they wish they sold them for an even higher price.

Whether you think AMD is a good value or a bad value this time around, it means nothing if everyone they intend to buys their product. I predict the 7900XTX will sellout. The 7900XT will likely be stuck on shelves like the 4080. I imagine both the 4080 and 7900XT will drop in price commensurate to what people are willing to pay. My feelings about any of this will not change what they do. If the 7900XT sells out, they won't care whether you, I, DF, GN, or FPS Review think it's a bad value. And even in that case more to the point, my predictions matter not at all to them or their bottom line.
 
What's the performance reason for charging four figures for it?
That its faster then a 4080. :p

Its hard to argue its named wrong. I just wish AMD would get off the match nvidia naming sillyness. Just drop the numbers completely.
AMD should have actually put Navi 3 on the box.
Name them;
Navi 3 XTX, XT, X and SE, (90/80/70/60)
Then they avoid all the expectations. One flag ship... one upper mid range. One mid range one lower end. (sure people could point and say look look your flagship is sunk... but I think more people would say look their plucky little card is 85-110% the performance of Nvidias flagship depending on title for $600 less)
When it comes time for a refresh. Just name them Navi 3.5 XTX. If you manage to squeeze one mini refresh out right at the end. Navi 3.8. LMAO
 
LOLOLOL. If you want to kill off AMD's GPU division this is the way to do it.
Well he was half right... I would say the 7900 XT probably does need to drop another $50-100 off the MSRP. Yes I know it compares actually pretty well to the 4080 at 900 bucks. Its just too close in price to the step up from AMD. No consumer wants to feel like a poor when they are dropping 900 bucks. lol At $800 (maybe even $850) they can say hey I'm spending 15-20% less price for only 10% less performance Score I'm so SMRT.
 
Well, this is where the rubber meets the road. Companies run by smart people are far less "emotional" about their decisions. They're usually VERY calculated. Do they make errors? Yes, we discussed the 4080 12GB at length.

However, again, they do not care at all what our opinions are. If they could force everyone on the planet to buy their product, all the while we all hate them, they are HAPPY to do it. If you want evidence of this fact, look at the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, arguably nVidia has been using their performance leading position in that exact way. They don't give a shit if we think 4090 pricing is dumb. They sold out of their entire allotment in a week. If anything they wish they sold them for an even higher price.

Whether you think AMD is a good value or a bad value this time around, it means nothing if everyone they intend to buys their product. I predict the 7900XTX will sellout. The 7900XT will likely be stuck on shelves like the 4080. I imagine both the 4080 and 7900XT will drop in price commensurate to what people are willing to pay. My feelings about any of this will not change what they do. If the 7900XT sells out, they won't care whether you, I, DF, GN, or FPS Review think it's a bad value. And even in that case more to the point, my predictions matter not at all to them or their bottom line.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, however most companies selling non-essential consumer goods cannot get away with having negative consumer reception, that being a net sum of their market's rapport. What I say as an individual is a drop in the ocean, but if the whole community is echoing that opinion, and AMD believes it to affect their ability to profit, it can be part of the difference. Something as petty as a name? not likely, but saying we shouldn't discuss it is defeatist. It costs me nothing to voice my opinion and only helps add to the discussion for better or for worse.
 
Well he was half right... I would say the 7900 XT probably does need to drop another $50-100 off the MSRP. Yes I know it compares actually pretty well to the 4080 at 900 bucks. Its just too close in price to the step up from AMD. No consumer wants to feel like a poor when they are dropping 900 bucks. lol At $800 (maybe even $850) they can say hey I'm spending 15-20% less price for only 10% less performance Score I'm so SMRT.
The 7900xt exists to make the 7900xtx look like a bargain. It’s the classic why buy a medium popcorn when a large is only 50 cents more move.
The xt shouldn’t exist in large numbers as it’s made from defective xtx dyes and it’s defect rate should be low, AMD doesn’t want to sell many of them as not many should exist, it’s a bad value on purpose.

That said the 4080, xtx, xt, and 4070ti all need to come down. The 4080 should MSRP for the xtx price and they should filter down from there.
 
The 7900xt exists to make the 7900xtx look like a bargain. It’s the classic why buy a medium popcorn when a large is only 50 cents more move.
The xt shouldn’t exist in large numbers as it’s made from defective xtx dyes and it’s defect rate should be low, AMD doesn’t want to sell many of them as not many should exist, it’s a bad value on purpose.

That said the 4080, xtx, xt, and 4070ti all need to come down. The 4080 should MSRP for the xtx price and they should filter down from there.
That is a good point. I imagine at $800 demand would outstrip supply.
 
Is this a 9am eastern launch? I don't want one, I just want to see if I can get it in my cart.
Here you can do it and pre order xfx merc AIB mode. I do think Kyle might have been right. AIBs might be go this month. B&H usually doesn’t let you preorder if they have some coming in or on hand for launch. This bodes well for AIBs.

7900xt merc seems to be in stock already.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1739783-REG
 
Last edited:
And I'm sure you have real, hard. data on everything you're saying and aren't just pulling things out of your ass, right?
Little bit of both. I'm going to use Steam's hardware Survey to prove my point.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

What's the most dominant GPU's on it? Going down the list we can see the majority of GPU's are under $300. Even the RTX 2060 made it to the list, and that's now under $300. There are some exceptions like the 3070, 3080, and 3070 Ti but they're few. While the RX 6900 XT is a much better buy, you see it at the very bottom at 0.20%. The 3090 is at 0.53%. You also don't even see the 6950 XT or the 3090 Ti in there. These GPU's were released in March and May, so they've had time to sell and make it onto Steam.
Going from $800 to $1600 is literally doubling the cost. That's a massive gulf. Even at $1000 its a 60% increase in price. Given Nvidia's general mind-share of being "the best" and the consumer belief of "more money=more better" you could make the argument that going from the 7900 XTX to a 4080 isn't much and people at the $1000 price-point might be willing to do that, but given how abysmal sales of the 4080 have been that might even be a stretch. It'll be interesting to see how these cards sell at slightly cheaper prices or if Nvidia will counter with a discount on the 4080.
The 4080 is just $300 more than the RX 7900 XTX and is generally faster too, even if it's slightly. It does also have to do with perceived quality of Nvidia vs AMD. AMD is intentionally increasing pricing because AMD has said they don't want to be the budget manufacturer, even though that's exactly how the world still sees them. If their 7900 XTX can't beat Nvidia then why even make a product for $1k? Mainstream aren't going to buy it because it's beyond their price range. People looking to buy the fastest won't buy it because it isn't the fastest. People who are on the fence to buying a RTX 4080 vs 7900 XTX will buy Nvidia because they perceive Nvidia as the quality GPU company as Nvidia's software and video encoding is superior to AMD.

The pro gamer move for AMD would be to price the 7900 XTX for $800 and the 7900 XT for $600, because AMD needs market share and that's how you get market share. AMD's been doing what they did with RNDA3 for as far back as the R9 290, as AMD always found a way to price themselves out of the mainstream but also not able to convince Nvidia fans to go AMD. The exception was the RX 480 which was a product that was cheap to buy and performs as fast or faster than their previous high end product. On Steam's hardware survey the RX 580 is their #1 product, which is just a slightly overclocked RX 480. Besides, Nvidia won't be selling much of their 4080's and 4090's at those prices. Even if Nvidia were to drop the prices to $800 and $1k, they still wouldn't increase sales by much. Why you think Nvidia priced them as high as they did? Why lower prices when it doesn't increase sales?
 
Cool, another piece of hardware you cant buy because of bots.

Computer gaming in 2022/23 is awesome! /s
 
Back
Top