-
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.
AMD Radeon 9080 XT and 9090 XT
- Thread starter darkrage
- Start date
There is a rumour that they could be toying with a 9070 extreme edition according to some tech news sites.
How much of that is wishful thinking I don't know, but I'd certainly be interested.
How much of that is wishful thinking I don't know, but I'd certainly be interested.
Only the 90 is high end this generation with it being over 50% faster than the 5080. I’m sure if AMD went for a 500mm2 die they could easily beat a 5080 as an overclocked 9070XT with a 357mm2 die isn’t that far off.
Limited options, though. The 9070 XT uses the full chip. It has enough memory. It terms of clock speeds, the GPU is already clocked above its efficient range (as can be seen by how little performance is lost by fairly severe power limiting) so there's not much scope for increased performance through higher clock speeds. Faster memory, maybe.
And there's still the issue of their other products having much bigger profit margins per wafer and the manufacturing capacity being limited.
The best we can probably hope for is either a double VRAM option or a higher-binned chip.
As far as I know, GDDR7 is not electrically compatible with GDDR6 controllers due to its use of different signaling, lower voltages, and likely different pin configurations.
In short, no, they don't plan on releasing such cards.
AMD hasn't competed at the high end since 2013 (290x), and even that was short lived (780 Ti bested it a few weeks later). It's unclear if they ever will again (though if you don't want to spend >$2000 on a GPU it's not a big deal).
AMD hasn't competed at the high end since 2013 (290x), and even that was short lived (780 Ti bested it a few weeks later). It's unclear if they ever will again (though if you don't want to spend >$2000 on a GPU it's not a big deal).
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with that really. The 6950 and the 7900 XTX both were competitive at the high end in certain scenarios. They certainly weren’t mid range cards.
The 6950 in raster was faster in some games than the 3090ti, so not sure where he's getting this from.
24 Gbps vram and higher power targets and clocks perhaps.
The 6900 XT is the closest, but in reality it still doesn't qualify because it got walloped in the most demanding scenarios (RT), in fact you were lucky to even get close to 2080 Ti for a long time, said features were late to arrive (I would know, I've had RDNA 2 since launch and experienced it first hand), and also simply had inferior image quality (FSR 2, which was missing for almost the entire RDNA 2 gen, vs DLSS 2), not to mention a whole bunch of other missing things. High end means high end, not "well if you exclude all these scenarios where it's half perf. then they're kinda similar"; if it were actually competitive (perf & features) then it wouldn't have sold for $500 less to begin with. I mean, again, refer back to 290x vs 780 Ti, that's very clearly a closer match-up and no consistently crazy outlier results, plus far fewer features missing. By comparison 3090 vs 6900 XT is a landslide victory for Nvidia.
As for the 7900 XTX it is so pathetic compared to the 4090 (or even as a new gen) I can't believe you would even bring it up. Worst arch in Radeon history. Gonna leave it there, because there's no end to the badmouthing it deserves.
Yeah but the 7900xtx wasn't really a "4090 killer' it was priced the same as a 4080 super?
$200 less at launch.
Yes, but I was talking about the high end, and that's x90 only given the specs. The price doesn't factor into it if you can't reach it in the first place.
Since when was a 4080 Super not high end.
I think Poneros means the absolute top end as in the best either Nvidia or AMD have/had available. In that respect Nvidia had the better performing card and have done for quite some time.
That's not to say AMD haven't had tohighwhateveryouwanttocallit end cards.
That's not to say AMD haven't had tohighwhateveryouwanttocallit end cards.
Since the 4090 had too many 40%+ leads and the 16 GB became an issue, can't be high end if you have to slum it like the peasants and drop down textures/pool to not have the game stall. It was also closer to the 4070 Ti than to the 4090, and the difference was made worse with the Supers. With the 50 series the x80 is even further below the x90. The issue is the x90 lead keeps growing and the other models just stagnate, it used to be only the case for the budget range (started with the GTX 950) but it has now migrated to everything that's not the literal best. It's easy to be confused by the pricing, but unfortunately the 5080 is now just upper mid-range (hence even AMD, the eternal mid-rangers, can get close with the 9070 XT). Again - how can a card with half the cores, half the memory, half the bandwidth be in the same tier as the full fat version?
Last edited: