• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Mid range?

Legendary Gamer

Legendary Gamer

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
2,342
I suspected AMD was up to it's old tricks again. All their commentary about targeting the mid-range was only in the realm of what cards they were manufacturing this go around. Not the actual mid range.

They have only themselves to blame for their complete incompetence. No wonder they didn't say anything about their launch prices. They had to completely realign the product stack and issue refunds to retailers.

https://wccftech.com/amd-planned-radeon-rx-9070-xt-899-rx-9070-749-us-retailer/
 
Last edited:
If true it could be that when they talked mid-range, they meant not where the latest xx80-xx90 tier of price has been, the class of card that stop below the 5080 expected price.

While we had the 6700xt-7800xt-6800 range in mind, they could have included 4070ti super in the upper end group of mid-range card.
radeon-rx-9070-9060-series.jpg


I was looking at that release marketing material heavily influenced by their talk about pushing price down, focus on the mid-range and what people buy, etc... thinking they were talking about the performance of the card, not their price range/market place. according to benchmark leak their performance could be higher than that, the 9070xt closer to the xtx, i.e. they could have been talking about the brand range (i.e. their price)

But if you take the 9700-and 9700xt gray bar literally at the right of the box, and do not consider today 7900xt street price on a good deal but the $900 msrp launch price and $800 4070ti launch price...

The middle of the 9070 gray bar is just above the 7900gre and the 4070s, $600 cards. the middle of the 9070xt bar is near the top of the $800 4070 ti card...
 
As currently constructed, their GPU unit is mind bogglingly inept. They're now at a point where they're squeezed in the gaming GPU market, because Intel is now "competent" (air quotes) on the low-end, and Nvidia obviously dominates the high end. So now they get to watch their margins vanish this generation. It does however make sense why they're not dedicating any time to large-dies. It would have been absolute suicide for them.

UDNA better be a transformative uArch for them.
 
AMD's Radeon division if they want a seat back at the table needs to be truly disruptive in both price and performance. They have to stop basing their prices off what Nvidia does. They aren't the same, one has over 80% market share and dominates the industry and has class leading performance. If they really want to make any dent in the user base and upset the balance the 9000 series needs to launch at sub $500 and offer 5070 Ti levels of performance. Even if the RX 9070 XT launches at $599 I don't think that's going to be enough to change the minds of potential buyers. This needs to be priced at $499 and be the successor to the 7800XT. AMD needs to clearly undercut the competition and offer a compelling product and make the potential buyers question the value of what Nvidia is offering.

I've seen that rumor and while it does make sense in a certain light to price it that way if it's offering 7900XT level of performance as their graphs would suggest, it doesn't make any sense if they want this 9000 series to be disruptive in any way.
 
Also, mid-range is pretty subjective. It can be either mid-ranged in price, or mid-ranged in performance. For performance, I tend to think 4K capable as high-end, 2K capable at mid-range, and 1080P only at the low-end. But then again, does that mean 30FPS, 60FPS, or 120FPS, etc? Does it also factor in just native, or DLSS, or FSR?
 
Barring all industry analysts opinions I already have an idea of what I'm willing to pay for one these cards at the purported performance levels. I'll decide if it's worth upgrading my older gpu based on actual performance reviews and appropriate pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rufio
like this
$899 would imply name ending with at least 80 if not 90 and not 70
7900 XT was launched at $899 and this is very much high end card (for AMD at least 🫣)
I would say it will be $499 and not more for 9070XT
AMD has to regain some market share and something with similar specs as 5070 Ti with also 16GB VRAM but much better price and battery of interesting technologies should be what gamers ordered.
 
If we assume the 5070ti will be mostly at $800+, go undersell your competition for the same performance by ~40% if you want to succeed, that seem too negative on AMD brand.
 
learners permit said:
Barring all industry analysts opinions I already have an idea of what I'm willing to pay for one these cards at the purported performance levels. I'll decide if it's worth upgrading my older gpu based on actual performance reviews and appropriate pricing.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, not all PC gamers are as sophisticated as an [H]'er
 
LukeTbk said:
If we assume the 5070ti will be mostly at $800+, go undersell your competition for the same performance by ~40% if you want to succeed, that seem too negative on AMD brand.
Click to expand...
Yes but with Nvidia you get battery of good technologies like DLSS SR, RR, MFG technologies, RTX Video Super Resolution and RTX HDR.
And generally most people if they hear something about AMD card is that their drivers suck. If that is the case or not doesn't even matter. I didn't experience much issues with 6900XT but general sentiment is that drivers are terrible.

AMD had chance to innovate in this space but all they fed us is crappy FSR2 which looks like... literally why TAA was not made in to upscaler despite it was possible to do.
Even Intel who is new to GPUs and has actual driver issues when launching GPU did provide good quality temporal upscaler. Intel failed at communicating that XeSS on Intel cards looks much better than on non-Intel cards but even on AMD cards like 6900XT card XeSS was the only viable upscaler solution and performant enough to show that AMD could if they really wanted to make something comparable and maybe more optimized for this architecture.

And this is even more ridiculous if you consider that RDNA3 GPUs like 7900 XTX are actually very fast at all this whole AI stuff. Not as fast as Ada Lovelace but comparable to high end Ampere cards.
We should get something at least comparable to DLSS SR CNN on these cards and with RDNA4 we should be hearing about improvements on the scale of DLSS Transformer.
Maybe it will be how it will play out: AMD will make FSR4 in to DLSS Transformer competitor for image quality. It is hard to say and I think devs at AMD are working tirelessly improving FSR4.

Anyways, AMD totally blew it on software side and RT and why they need to sell their cards much cheaper.
They can always improve - but the issue is that even if they do and have everything Nvidia have they still need to win back users.
Especially if they want to attack high end with UDNA it would make sense for them to sell RNDA4 cards as cheap as they can.
 
XoR_ said:
Yes but with Nvidia you get battery of good technologies like DLSS SR, RR, MFG technologies, RTX Video Super Resolution and RTX HDR.
And generally most people if they hear something about AMD card is that their drivers suck. If that is the case or not doesn't even matter. I didn't experience much issues with 6900XT but general sentiment is that drivers are terrible.

AMD had chance to innovate in this space but all they fed us is crappy FSR2 which looks like... literally why TAA was not made in to upscaler despite it was possible to do.
Even Intel who is new to GPUs and has actual driver issues when launching GPU did provide good quality temporal upscaler. Intel failed at communicating that XeSS on Intel cards looks much better than on non-Intel cards but even on AMD cards like 6900XT card XeSS was the only viable upscaler solution and performant enough to show that AMD could if they really wanted to make something comparable and maybe more optimized for this architecture.

And this is even more ridiculous if you consider that RDNA3 GPUs like 7900 XTX are actually very fast at all this whole AI stuff. Not as fast as Ada Lovelace but comparable to high end Ampere cards.
We should get something at least comparable to DLSS SR CNN on these cards and with RDNA4 we should be hearing about improvements on the scale of DLSS Transformer.
Maybe it will be how it will play out: AMD will make FSR4 in to DLSS Transformer competitor for image quality. It is hard to say and I think devs at AMD are working tirelessly improving FSR4.

Anyways, AMD totally blew it on software side and RT and why they need to sell their cards much cheaper.
They can always improve - but the issue is that even if they do and have everything Nvidia have they still need to win back users.
Especially if they want to attack high end with UDNA it would make sense for them to sell RNDA4 cards as cheap as they can.
Click to expand...
I agree but the thing is RTG is tiny compared to Nvidias juggernaut and they do whats possible for them at the time. The underdog theme comes to mind. They commit the resources available and rely on open source devs a lot. AFAIK they have 3 or 4 engineers committed to helping the open source devs with issues and maybe 4 or 5 times that (unsure of this haven't check in awhile) many working on windoze driver teams so they're always gonna lag behind Nvidia when it comes to software development. All I'm saying is they get there eventually but most people these days are too impatient to wait.
 
if they are indeed $200-$250, that nice, 145w of tsmc 4N, if it is 50% of a 5070 that would be around the 7600xt/B580

wandplus said:
Is it going to be a problem if it doesn't have 32 bit support?
Click to expand...
If you have legacy 32bits openCL/Cuda code from ~2010 or before, yes, but not more than others card (rest of blackwell for openCL and all non-nvidia card ever for cuda32).
 
Depends on your definition of midrange.

The 9070 and 9070 XT hit the $549 and $599 pricepoint and do a real good job bang for the buck wise especially compared to the alternatives.

If you wait a bit the 9060 and 9060XT will offer performance at a different tier and a lower price.
 
9060 XT will be interesting. RDNA 4's performance seems to scale with its clocks well past 3 GHz, even if power efficiency goes out the window. With a tiny die, you can have terrible efficiency and still not pull more than 250-300 W. I bet you can get clocks up to 3.4 GHz or even higher on some models.

Now that the 9070 cards are out and tested, we can figure out how much faster RDNA 4 is compared to 3 with equal cores and clocks, and estimate the 9060 XT's performance.
Code: 
7800 XT: 2420 * 3840  = 9,292,800
9070 non-XT (23% faster): 2520 * 3584  = 9,031,680
x / 1.23 = 9031680 / 9292800  =  0.972 * 1.23  = 1.196
9070 non-XT 19.6% faster with equal cores and clocks than 7800 XT

9060 XT (stock clocks): 2790 * 2048  = 5,713,920
5713920 * 1.196  = 6,833,848.32
vs 7800 XT: 6833848 / 9292800  = 0.735
73.5% as fast as 7800 XT (compare to 7700 XT, which is 82% as fast per TPU database)

9060 XT (3.4 GHz): 3400 * 2048  = 6,963,200
6963200 * 1.196  = 8,327,987.2
vs 7800 XT: 8327987 / 9292800  = 0.896
89.6% as fast as 7800 XT, ~6% faster than 7700 XT
So the performance is not scintillating, even at high clocks, but at least it would be an improvement over the 7600 XT at $350 or less with 16 GB. That's assuming the 128-bit memory bus or other limitations don't choke performance, of course. 9060 non-XT is not looking too hot, especially with 8 GB, but could be a value improvement at 1080p if it's available at $250 or less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top