• 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.

Any news on 7800 xt?

FoxEye said:
Everything mid-range was pretty terrible value, last time out. Low/mid-range at £400 for the second successive generation, when many of us were used to paying £250 for that tier, didn't help any.

Esp when you consider that some cards being sold as 1440p, now can't even handle 1080p. Tho that affects one company's products more than the other :p
Click to expand...
Seems every gen they (Nvidia/AMD) increase pricing. Mid range will cost £1000 next gen. :cool:
 
They may well do what with there still being people who seemingly defend paying more for less (or at the very least more for the same).

Don't get me wrong as i understand inflation makes things seem like they're more expensive, however i also understand that the reason people buy new technology (outside of something broke) is because the new technology has more performance for the same/similar price. Break that trend and GPUs/CPUs become nothing more than utility goods, things you replace when the old one breaks instead of being replaced because the new one performs better and doesn't cost more than you're willing to spend.

I.e I may well end up buying a 7800 XT (attempting to get it back OT here) but the only reason I'll end up buying that is not because it offers more performance (from what i can tell it may even be a tiny bit slower) than the previous model at that price point, the 6800 XT, but because i need to replace something that was only ever intended as a temporary replacement for a broken graphics card. I won't be buying it because i desire it, I'll be buying it because i need to.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
They may well do what with there still being people who seemingly defend paying more for less (or at the very least more for the same).

Don't get me wrong as i understand inflation makes things seem like they're more expensive, however i also understand that the reason people buy new technology (outside of something broke) is because the new technology has more performance for the same/similar price. Break that trend and GPUs/CPUs become nothing more than utility goods, things you replace when the old one breaks instead of being replaced because the new one performs better and doesn't cost more than you're willing to spend.

I.e I may well end up buying a 7800 XT (attempting to get it back OT here) but the only reason I'll end up buying that is not because it offers more performance (from what i can tell it may even be a tiny bit slower) than the previous modle at that price point, the 6800 XT, but because i need to replace something that was only ever intended as a temporary replacement for a broken graphics card.
Click to expand...
I see your point. We don’t want gpus and in-game graphics to become stagnant with quality and performance.

Paying £150 less (than the 6800xt msrp) for a 7800xt with 6800xt like performance (still a very capable card at 1440p and light 4K gaming) is still a benefit price wise.
 
Last edited:
The thing is the 6800 XT hasn't been at MSRP for a long time and IMO that MSRP in itself was to high, so it would be unfair to compare MSRP from 3 years ago to MSRP today. (if anything, due to inflation, you'd expect MSRP to tick upwards slightly)

The proper comparison (IMO) would be what i can buy X product for today vs what i can buy the soon to be launched product, on that front they're the same (perhaps intentionally so on AMD's behalf) so if you had bought a 6800 XT in the last year or so there's absolutely no reason to buy this new model because you won't be getting anything much that you've not already got.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
They may well do what with there still being people who seemingly defend paying more for less (or at the very least more for the same).

Don't get me wrong as i understand inflation makes things seem like they're more expensive, however i also understand that the reason people buy new technology (outside of something broke) is because the new technology has more performance for the same/similar price. Break that trend and GPUs/CPUs become nothing more than utility goods, things you replace when the old one breaks instead of being replaced because the new one performs better and doesn't cost more than you're willing to spend.

I.e I may well end up buying a 7800 XT (attempting to get it back OT here) but the only reason I'll end up buying that is not because it offers more performance (from what i can tell it may even be a tiny bit slower) than the previous model at that price point, the 6800 XT, but because i need to replace something that was only ever intended as a temporary replacement for a broken graphics card. I won't be buying it because i desire it, I'll be buying it because i need to.
Click to expand...

I realize that we have yet to see third party benchmarks, but do we not expect $500 this gen to outperform what $500 got you last gen by a decent amount, and also outperform what two gens ago cost $1200? Although, the $1200 price point two gens ago was a terrible value and should have arguably been more like $700,..but still.

I think the name AMD chose to scribble on the box is causing this "lack of value" perception in this case. Looking at the money and the performance alone, this seems to be decent generational improvement.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
The thing is the 6800 XT hasn't been at MSRP for a long time and IMO that MSRP in itself was to high, so it would be unfair to compare MSRP from 3 years ago to MSRP today. (if anything, due to inflation, you'd expect MSRP to tick upwards slightly)

The proper comparison (IMO) would be what i can buy X product for today vs what i can buy the soon to be launched product, on that front they're the same (perhaps intentionally so on AMD's behalf) so if you had bought a 6800 XT in the last year or so there's absolutely no reason to buy this new model because you won't be getting anything much that you've not already got.
Click to expand...
While the 7800XT is late to the party, "this gen" started last year. Manufacturers had too much last gen stock, so they lowered prices. The net-effect was more performance for less money.

The market basically turned the 6800XT into a place holder for this gen's offering at the $500 price point. Last gen did not offer 6800XT performance at $500.
 
Last edited:
Twinz said:
I realize that we have yet to see third party benchmarks, but do we not expect $500 this gen to outperform what $500 got you last gen by a decent amount, and also outperform what two gens ago cost $1200? Although, the $1200 price point two gens ago was a terrible value and should have arguably been more like $700,..but still.

I think the name AMD chose to scribble on the box is causing this "lack of value" perception in this case. Looking at the money and the performance alone, this seems to be decent generational improvement.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. Had AMD called this a 7700XT then it would have looked much better, +40% over a 6700XT for a $20 price increase albeit the 6700XT launched during the mining boom with an inflated MSRP. because they went with 7800XT it now looks like all you're getting is a 23% price cut on a almost 3 year old card.
 
Twinz said:
I realize that we have yet to see third party benchmarks, but do we not expect $500 this gen to outperform what $500 got you last gen by a decent amount, and also outperform what two gens ago cost $1200? Although, the $1200 price point two gens ago was a terrible value and should have arguably been more like $700,..but still.

I think the name AMD chose to scribble on the box is causing this "lack of value" perception in this case. Looking at the money and the performance alone, this seems to be decent generational improvement.
Click to expand...
Going on estimated performance figures not really, AMD have a history of managing to get benchmark results that no third party reviewers manage to get and when asked about it the just shrug their shoulders.

I'm always hesitant to call it based on first party data and estimates so I'm reserving judgment but it's not looking good. It's not looking like we'll be getting the previous generations next model up the stack increase in performance for a similar price to the model under it (we won't be getting 6900 XT performance for the price of a 6800 XT)
Twinz said:
While the 7800XT is late to the party, "this gen" started last year. Manufacturers had too much last gen stock, so they lowered prices. The net-effect was more performance for less money.

The market basically turned the 6800XT into a place holder for this gen's offering at the $500 price point. Last gen did not offer 6800XT performance at $500.
Click to expand...
Only because they didn't bother releasing anything higher up than the $400 5700 XT.
Joxeon said:
I think you are right. Had AMD called this a 7700XT then it would have looked much better, +40% over a 6700XT for a $20 price increase albeit the 6700XT launched during the mining boom with an inflated MSRP. because they went with 7800XT it now looks like all you're getting is a 23% price cut on a almost 3 year old card.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And it's not even a price cut IMO as like i said you can pick up a 6800 XT for near enough the same price.

The 7800 XT should, historically speaking, be called a 7700 XT.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
The thing is the 6800 XT hasn't been at MSRP for a long time and IMO that MSRP in itself was to high, so it would be unfair to compare MSRP from 3 years ago to MSRP today. (if anything, due to inflation, you'd expect MSRP to tick upwards slightly)

The proper comparison (IMO) would be what i can buy X product for today vs what i can buy the soon to be launched product, on that front they're the same (perhaps intentionally so on AMD's behalf) so if you had bought a 6800 XT in the last year or so there's absolutely no reason to buy this new model because you won't be getting anything much that you've not already got.
Click to expand...
You will be getting better RT performance and AV1 encode though…
 
Honestly, I'm just happy to be getting affordable cards again, what with the prices of the 7700XT, 7800XT and the price cuts of the 7900XT and 7900XTX, although the latter is still a little too high for my liking.

I'm at a stage right now where I'm not sure which card to get, because three of those four cards above are affordable compared to how ridiculous things were during the cryptocurrency craze that turned prices bloomin MENTAL, and that fourth card is doable for me next year if I save up a bit.
 
Affordable is very subjective, the 6800 XT should always have been in the £500 price bracket.

AMD have done exactly the same as Nvidia this generation and, when compared to previous generation releases, have pushed up the naming and prices of all their cards. The 7900 XTX should be called the 7900 XT, the 7900 XT should be the 6800 XT, the 7800 XT should be the 7700 XT, and the 7700 should be called the 7600 XT.
 
Murphy said:
Going on estimated performance figures not really, AMD have a history of managing to get benchmark results that no third party reviewers manage to get and when asked about it the just shrug their shoulders.

I'm always hesitant to call it based on first party data and estimates so I'm reserving judgment but it's not looking good. It's not looking like we'll be getting the previous generations next model up the stack increase in performance for a similar price to the model under it (we won't be getting 6900 XT performance for the price of a 6800 XT)

Only because they didn't bother releasing anything higher up than the $400 5700 XT.

Exactly. And it's not even a price cut IMO as like i said you can pick up a 6800 XT for near enough the same price.

The 7800 XT should, historically speaking, be called a 7700 XT.
Click to expand...

I think you are trying to double dip on generational improvement.

Yes, AMD basically shifted the old stuff down a "tier" in price because they had too many and why would anyone buy a $650 6800XT when new stuff that performs just as well is going to sell for $500?

Dropping the 6800XT's price by as much as they did is effectively generational improvement in performance per dollar.

Complaining that the 7800XT is only offering performance that "has been available at that price for a while..." is basically complaining that they didn't double-up on value improvement this gen.

$500 buys more performance now than it did last gen.

Two years from now, I want $500 to be able to buy another 20-30% improvement. I don't care if they sell left over 7900XTX's for $500 or if they offer something with a new number on the box that gives the performance increase. And I certainly won't complain if they do both.

I expect manufacturers to make my money go faster, I don't care about the names they scribble on the box or the status of "next gen" vs "oh that's old stuff".

Does X amount of money buy more performance now than before. If so, how much more?

For me, 30% seems like good progress. 20% is okay-ish.
 
Last edited:
Twinz said:
Dropping the 6800XT's price by as much as they did is effectively generational improvement in performance per dollar.
Click to expand...
I don't think performance level going from $650 to $500 in 3 years is a generational improvement, maybe more like a half generation refresh like when a 2070 super at $500 performed similarly to a $700 2080.
 
Twinz said:
I think you are trying to double dip on generational improvement.

Yes, AMD basically shifted the old stuff down a "tier" in price because they had too many and why would anyone buy a $650 6800XT when new stuff that performs just as well is going to sell for $500?

Dropping the 6800XT's price by as much as they did is effectively generational improvement in performance per dollar.

Complaining that the 7800XT is only offering performance that "has been available at that price for a while..." is basically complaining that they didn't double-up on value improvement this gen.

$500 buys more performance now than it did last gen.

Two years from now, I want $500 to be able to buy another 20-30% improvement. I don't care if they sell left over 7900XTX's for $500 or if they offer something with a new number on the box that gives the performance increase. And I certainly won't complain if they do both.

I expect manufacturers to make my money go faster, I don't care about the names they scribble on the box or the status of "next gen" vs "oh that's old stuff".

Does X amount of money buy more performance now than before. If so, how much more?

For me, 30% seems like good progress. 20% is okay-ish.
Click to expand...
I personally cannot be be bothered paying 600 again and only get 30ish% improved performance. Just doesn't seem like good value to me. But to each their own :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom