AMD Announces Radeon RX 7900 XT (20 GB, $899) and Radeon RX 7900 XTX (24 GB, $999) RDNA 3 Graphics Cards with DisplayPort 2.1, 2x 8-Pin Power Conne...

Brian_B said:
I don't think so. It is less performance (if all those numbers hold up). It's also $500 less cost, which is significant. They aren't pricing it to line up against the 4090, but if it's still coming anywhere close in performance, at significantly less power and cost, that's still a win I think.
Click to expand...
NVIDIA is holding back a fully unlocked chip which should bring ~10% more performance

I'm not saying that AMD has a bad product - far from it. Just that NVIDIA has no competition on the 'gaming crown'. That is why I'm disappointed.

The 6900XT and 6950XT were competitive with the 3090/TI and traded blows and was much cheaper.

The 7900XT/X appears to be just straight up slower.

Price/performance AMD wins but it's been like that for a while.
 
Brian_B said:
6000 release was a disaster, but really only made so because of their own crowing about how they were going to be so much better at availability, and you just needed to learn to mash F5 better. In your case, you either got lucky or were very persistent, but don't mistake that for any kind of general availability.
Click to expand...

I had been looking for a 6700XT for a long time and only managed to buy one when it was already the 6750XT.
 
Stoly said:
As always, there are no bad products, only bad prices :p ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...
Brian_B said:
That is an interesting way of looking at it. I do not disagree.
Click to expand...

From a consumer perspective certainly.

If you also consider the value to the manufacturer, a product that you are forced to sell at a lower margin than intended (or even at a loss) because it doesn't measure upmight be considered a bad product.
 
That's what I don't get. It doesn't have to "measure up" as the vast majority of gamers aren't gaming at 4K. 1080P is still king of the castle when it comes to the majority of gamers, with 1440P a close second. The 4090 is just stupid for anyone gaming at 1080P, it's pointless. Even the 7900XTX probably is. At 1440P I doubt that a few FPS edge for the 4090 justifies $500-800 more in cost. Maybe more if you need a new PSU and case to fit it.

Which is why I said, if the performance is there, even a few % slower than a 4090, the 7900XTX is a bargain at $1000.
 
Riccochet said:
That's what I don't get. It doesn't have to "measure up" as the vast majority of gamers aren't gaming at 4K. 1080P is still king of the castle when it comes to the majority of gamers, with 1440P a close second. The 4090 is just stupid for anyone gaming at 1080P, it's pointless. Even the 7900XTX probably is. At 1440P I doubt that a few FPS edge for the 4090 justifies $500-800 more in cost. Maybe more if you need a new PSU and case to fit it.

Which is why I said, if the performance is there, even a few % slower than a 4090, the 7900XTX is a bargain at $1000.
Click to expand...

It's because of perception.

Very few BMW buyers buy M cars.

The M cars - however - set the performance branding for the entire BMW brand, and draw fanboys to buy their products.

They may only buy base models (and trust me, I've driven a 2014 BMW 528i, they are nothing to write home about. They both handle and accelerate like ****) but it was the existence of the M cars that brought them there in the first place, and gave them the perception that BMW is "better engineered".

Same for GPU's.

"Top end Nvvidia GPU's perform better, especially in RT, thus Nvidia must know what they are doing, and it is a higher quality product, so that is what I am going to buy."

It's stupid, but we as a species contrary to how we portray ourselves, are decidedly not rational.
 
Riccochet said:
That's what I don't get. It doesn't have to "measure up" as the vast majority of gamers aren't gaming at 4K. 1080P is still king of the castle when it comes to the majority of gamers, with 1440P a close second. The 4090 is just stupid for anyone gaming at 1080P, it's pointless. Even the 7900XTX probably is. At 1440P I doubt that a few FPS edge for the 4090 justifies $500-800 more in cost. Maybe more if you need a new PSU and case to fit it.

Which is why I said, if the performance is there, even a few % slower than a 4090, the 7900XTX is a bargain at $1000.
Click to expand...
Yeah it would be a blowout in relative value if its biting the heels of the 4090, but really they are obviously positioning themselves vs 4080 and the pretend 4080.
 
Uvilla said:
Yeah it would be a blowout in relative value if its biting the heels of the 4090, but really they are obviously positioning themselves vs 4080 and the pretend 4080.
Click to expand...
That's good enough for me, should be a decent improvement at 3440*1440 for me, and as my main games are Wow and Borderlands 3 atm, I my see some even bigger gains and BL3 supposedly runs a lot better on AMD
 
Uvilla said:
Yeah it would be a blowout in relative value if its biting the heels of the 4090, but really they are obviously positioning themselves vs 4080 and the pretend 4080.
Click to expand...
Should the benchmarks pan out - that's exactly the same situation as the 6900XT and 3090 were on release. 6900 nipped on the heels of the 3090, and was about $500 less at MSRP.

Just - pandemic/scalpers/miners - no one could find anything of anything to see how it would play out. But, I guess to the manufacturer's benefit, they were able to sell absolutely everything they could make as fast as they could make it for a solid year, maybe more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top