• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** The AMD RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***

RavenXXX2 said:
With DLSS at 4k or 2k it should be fine. 9070 still with shot, just need to see if they make msrp and if FSR4 is a close enough to DLSS.
Click to expand...

I was obviously being sarcastic. I have been fine with it. Only times I run out were in two games when enabling FG. But I hear FG uses less vram now so who knows that may have solved that.

But still, getting a new card in 2025 does one really want 12GB? 16GB should be the minimum now.

All that said I am sitting here all chuffed as I got my 4070Ti brand new in 2023 for £575. Will be serving me well until next gen cards are out :D
 
Last edited:
I said a few days ago that $599 was the max for a win in the 9070XT and I stand by that. It is a good price if performance is right around where AMD claims it is. Especially if it is close to MSRP and in good supply.

That 9070 is a miss at $550. It needs to be beating the 5070 by at least 20% price/perf and it just isn’t. Its only saving grace is the fact its power requirements are excellent. Essentially a $150 cheaper 7900XT with 30% lower power used and better RT and upscaling. Erm… actually now I’ve typed that it doesn’t seem so bad :D

Really if these were even $550 and $450 it would have been an absolute massive win for AMD. Are they already so close to making zero profit that 10% - 17% lower margins are a loss maker?

A very mixed bag from AMD but mostly positive overall. B+
 
Last edited:
TNA said:
The 9070 on the other hand should have been $499 at most for this to be considered a big win for AMD. Not sure what they were thinking there.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're using defective 9070 XT chips, and AMD don't expect to have a large volume of those? So they priced it high to keep demand low. If pricing was realistic, it would be perpetually out of stock. Or AMD would start having to produce that card with chips that aren't defective.

I'm disappointed. It was the 9070 that I had my eye on. But I might cave in and buy an XT yet...
 
ICDP said:
I said a few days ago that $599 was the max for a win in the 9070XT and I stand by that. It is a good price if performance is right around where AMD claims it is. Especially if it is close to MSRP and in good supply.

That 9070 is a miss at $550. It needs to be beating the 5070 by at least 20% price/perf and it just isn’t. Its only saving grace is the fact its power requirements are excellent. Essentially a $150 cheaper 7900XT with 30% lower power used and better RT and upscaling. Erm… actually now I’ve typed that it doesn’t seem so bad :D

Really if these were even $550 and $450 it would have been an absolute massive win for AMD. Are they already so close to making zero profit that 10% lower margins are a loss maker?

A very mixed bag
Click to expand...
I think we're seeing AMD join the trend of 'price something close to the better version and tempt the buyer' - aka, the Apple strategy.

Why get an iPad with 64GB of storage when an iPad air is just 79 dollars more? Oh, you were going to spend 79 more? Well the Air + with a super retina display is just another 60 more - and if you were going to spend that, the Pro isn't far off either! If it's only $50 between the two models, why bother getting the non-XT? Just get a cheaper motherboard and save yourself $50 there.

The XT is priced well, the 9070 I think should have been 500 so there was a clear difference - although there are rumblings online that yields are a lot better this generation so we're seeing more XT's produced, meaning it costs almost as much to make the 9070 as it does the XT!
 
[timko] said:
You answered your own question right here. There are always going to be end users that don't mind spending that extra £25 to £75 to get the PCB, shroud, lighting in their preferred colours.
Click to expand...

Yeh, but instead of a decently faster card?

...and you could get that decently faster card with the right colour/lights etc anyway for only about £40-£50 more?

When you are spending so much, such a tiny price difference (ie 10%) really doesnt make much difference.

If I am spending £550 on something, i wouldn’t hesitate to get the objectively better/faster version for only £50 more.
 
McPhee said:
Maybe they're using defective 9070 XT chips, and AMD don't expect to have a large volume of those? So they priced it high to keep demand low. If pricing was realistic, it would be perpetually out of stock. Or AMD would start having to produce that card with chips that aren't defective.

I'm disappointed. It was the 9070 that I had my eye on. But I might cave in and buy an XT yet...
Click to expand...

I think this is the only logical explanation… but then AMD are rarely logical when it comes to GPU launches :D

Nah, they are upselling people to an XT and only an idiot would fall for it… oops, sorry!

;)
 
t2na said:
599 for a card that potentially matches and beats a 5070Ti is a really good look from AMD.
Click to expand...
Does it match and beat a 5070 Ti though, even based on AMD's first party benchmarks it only just about matches the 5070 Ti in raster performance and looses out in RT.

There's certainly a possibility that they've under-represented those benchmarks, instead of the usual cherry-picking, and when third parties get to testing we'll discover it's on average 10% faster in raster than a 5070 Ti and only 10% slower in RT however i have my doubts.

But even then the 9070 XT should've cost $550 for it to have been what i would consider really good, as it stand at a price of $599 to me it's simply a situation of; it's alright.
jtredux said:
If you overlook the reviews, missing ROPs, flaming power connectors, yeah, 50x0 is great!
Click to expand...
Who said anything about it being great.

Can people please stop with the strawman arguments.
 
ICDP said:
Really if these were even $550 and $450 it would have been an absolute massive win for AMD. Are they already so close to making zero profit that 10% - 17% lower margins are a loss maker?
Click to expand...
They are making bank on these cards, the hardware specs are not to dissimilar to Intels $250 B580 and AMD will be getting much better wafer prices than Intel due to their ongoing relationship and especially after Pat insulted TSMCs big boss.
 
Might well get the Sapphire Pure (due to me having a white themed rig) if they come in at around RRP (might be a little bit above the base models as the PURE tends to be £20 more on the 7800xt and 7700xt).
 
Last edited:
Alexrose1uk said:
@Gibbo - now the prices have been unveiled, and they're lower than you were anticipating yesterday, somewhat substantially in the case of the 9070XT (IIRC you said $649-749 expected), where does that leave real world UK pricing looking?

Are you able to advise how stock is looking for launch day in a week, given the rumours these have been stockpiling for a month or so?
Click to expand...

We have a few thousand cards. :)

We still don’t have our cost yet which won’t be until Monday from AiBs and I’m back Tuesday as having a long weekend away in Scotland. :)

If our cost from AIB allows us to hit MSRP and make a profit we will list and sell at MSRP but we need at least 8% markup to allow that, the business cost 6% to run so that would clear us 2%

So I do hope AMD have set an MSRP that is achievable for volume and not just say 10 units because otherwise if you ask me it’s not an MSRP it’s just a pipe dream.

Once I know my landed cost from Tuesday I’ll confirm if we can do it but with good supply and hopefully AMD setting an MSRP that allows both AIB and reseller to make a profit then yep we will hit it and I’m only after 8% to do so.

:)
 
Joxeon said:
They are making bank on these cards, the hardware specs are not to dissimilar to Intels $250 B580 and AMD will be getting much better wafer prices than Intel due to their ongoing relationship and especially after Pat insulted TSMCs big boss.
Click to expand...

But what if they are preempting Nvidia eventually normalising stock and prices, or even doing a price drop. These prices AMD announced gives them some room to reduce prices $50 - $75 in the not so distant future as a counter to any Nvidia moves.

Right now AMD avoided missing the open goal, it went in off a post but it’s a goal. Even the most negative pro Nvidia of tech sites have said good… not great. So AMD have avoided the “let’s point and laugh” that Nvidia have had over the 5000 series. That is already a big win for AMD.
 
Tinek said:
"Blurghbargbum!" - could just as well say that and it would have exactly same power in explaining their constant high growth in enterprise - financial reports don't lie. :) Unlike Nvidia, AMD provides majority of CPUs for the enterprise now too, GPUs aren't their main thing. Even if AI vanished today, they would be just fine (Nvidia wouldn't). But if you missed it, there are free solutions (e.g. ZLUDA) allowing running CUDA code on AMD GPUs, often faster than native. Also, they already said they have plenty of orders for over million of AI GPUs in summary and growing.
Click to expand...
Don't waste so much energy, I wasn't even talking about the wider market, just what concerns the CUDA monopoly. I'm aware of ZLUDA and the recent AMD freakout over the legal ramifications for their funding which led to a not so insignificant kink in the project. But no institution, including my own, would risk depending on an open source solution when they can overpay slightly to have commercial support for any issues. It's cool if ZLUDA can run code even faster than native, but that's only in the cases where it actually runs in the first place :D I have no teams in this race, just whatever best suits my given use cases, and I'd rather run the code and generate the numbers without spending hours to troubleshoot random issues beyond my control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom