I wish AMD could focus on improvements internally at the performace and optimization level across all departments to challenge Nvidia. But instead, AMD is playing with naming/rebranding things which no one has asked for.

KritThat 3.5gb vram on GTX 970 was not big issue. In my gpu history i would say GTX 970 is one of the best gpus i ever had p/p was simply amazing 145w tdp and silent operation. In today's gpu market nothing comes even close!

To me 8800 sounds better than 9700 but whatever.... AMD always has some strange marketing problems.

Not a big issue but a blatant lie nonetheless, and settled in court. So it was certainly big enough, and either way, that point isn't relevant anymore. Nvidia lied to you. Simple. You got a 'lot of GPU' but it got the x60 bus treatment that we knew Nvidia for since Fermi. The 970 crossed the limits of what was acceptable with asymmetric bus management.

olymind1So basicly it will be a 8800 XT 16GB GDDR6 card renamed to 9700 XT renamed to 9070 XT 16GB sold at x800 XT card level prices while has half the bandwidth as GDDR7 which will be on nvidia cards, and they wonder why people don't buy rebrandeon.

A little retrospect:

2002 - Radeon 9700 256bit 128MB DDR -250$
2016 - Radeon RX480 256bit 8GB GDDR5 -250$ (14 years later same price 64x !!! vram)
2024 - Radeon 7800XT 256bit 16GB GDDR6 - 450-500$ (8 years later, 1.75-2x price, 2x vram)
2025 - Radeon 9070 XT 256bit 16GB GDDR6 - 500-650$ ?

Again, no wonder they did and will loose marketshare.

Though I'm curious about GDDR7 on cheaper Nv products, but probably won't buy them either.

A little retrospect for the other camp to give some perspective here.

GTX 1080: 8GB (2016) - MSRP: 599,-
4080: 16GB (2023) - MSRP: 1199,- (a solid 2x price, 2x VRAM, 2x the price of AMD's 16GB)
5080: 16GB (2025) - MSRP: >1k (hey look, its virtually the same thing you posted above!)

What does 500,- get you on Nvidia?
12GB.
Or 16GB on a 4060ti without bandwidth.

AMD losing the marketshare it has, realistically makes no sense, but that only shows if you can disconnect from the endless stream of DLSS/RT marketing. Do you really have something in your hands with DLSS, or is this just a fancy way to keep selling you Nvidia GPUs just like Gsync? And RT? Is this tech really making your gaming better, or is it one step forward, two steps back? At the end of the day you're playing a blurfest with lots of artifacts just to 'pay' for slightly better lighting. More often than not barely of notable impact.

AMD did nothing special here, they just released solid GPUs, although I do agree RDNA3 was priced over the top at the beginning.

Really because Nvidia had a 8800 GPU. And numbers of a product might be “trademarked” in the same industry…
OTOH, can not see how someone could confuse an Nvidia 8800 from 20 years ago for an AMD 8800 … but trademarks, and not worth fighting Nvidia / “leather jacket” (ooh, sounds like a slasher film, lol) over a model number…

AusWolfIt's simple and clear.

HAHAHAHA....sure

>and XTXXTX bullshit suffixes only help create sensory overdose

ill take no xt, xt, or xtx much easier to understand then intel. its not AT ALL easy to understand. do I need some aliexpress decoder to understand the abc/123 of intel cards?

anyone looks at nvidia or amd can easily understand the ranks. the added abs is their feck up.

anyways, I do hope intel and amd push harder. productivity and RT is pronto.

Hmm. I really hope AMD will make a good APU with x3D tech in the next 2 years. Would really like to get rid of the dGPU altogether.

BabaMarketing dept doesn't want you to compare the 8800XT to 7800XT. This naming makes so little sense. They could have waited until their UDNA architecture is out to make a completely new naming scheme. Start with 1xxx again.

Apple is keeping it simple for consumers. They start with 1 and add 1. Is this rocket science AMD?

Nah, they mainly don't want to repeat the failure of the 7000 series. All their models were much worse than their "corresponding" Nvidia parts. In AMD's position, to sell you need a combination of "a bit faster and a bit cheaper". More VRAM won't hurt either.

Vayra86What does 500,- get you on Nvidia?
12GB.
Or 16GB on a 4060ti without bandwidth.

AMD losing the marketshare it has, realistically makes no sense, but that only shows if you can disconnect from the endless stream of DLSS/RT marketing.

If VRAM were the only thing that matters in GPUs, Intel Alchemist would be the bestseller. Nvidia is the ultimate choice for everyone with low knowledge or high expectations and the current market share shows that people are willing to pay a premium for that hassle-free experience.

BabaI'm going with less impressive. AMD most likely spend minimal R&D for this outgoing architecture. Could end up a rebadge. Currently, AMD only cares about compute-based architectures.

If it doesn't have DDR7 or cost pennies it will flop... unless Nvidia ramps up the entry and midrange prices again.

TaishoIf it doesn't have DDR7 or cost pennies it will flop... unless Nvidia ramps up the entry and midrange prices again.

It does not have GDDR7. This much is certain. If it flops it wont be because the lack of G7, but because AMD's bizarre naming changes and likely too high of a initial price.

It will also not cost pennies. The only card that even claim to cost pennies these days is B580.
Everything else is overpriced for what they offer.

inquisitor1HAHAHAHA....sure

>and XTXXTX bullshit suffixes only help create sensory overdose

ill take no xt, xt, or xtx much easier to understand then intel. its not AT ALL easy to understand. do I need some aliexpress decoder to understand the abc/123 of intel cards?

anyone looks at nvidia or amd can easily understand the ranks. the added abs is their feck up.

anyways, I do hope intel and amd push harder. productivity and RT is pronto.

It would be very refreshing to see a GPU line up named like this

'Slow AF but your CPU has no IGP'
'Poor man's mid range'
'Mid range but low end before you know it'
'Mid range card, but wants to look high end'
'High end, but you could spend a bit more'
'Very high end, like 420 high, this is the shit baby'
'Enthusiast, where fools and money part'

TaishoIf VRAM were the only thing that matters in GPUs, Intel Alchemist would be the bestseller. Nvidia is the ultimate choice for everyone with low knowledge or high expectations and the current market share shows that people are willing to pay a premium for that hassle-free experience.

Absolutely, we agree on that. That's why I don't buy Nvidia anymore, at least, for now.

Vayra86Absolutely, we agree on that. That's why I don't buy Nvidia anymore, at least, for now.

I see, but the best is to buy... errr... nothing.
If AMD were about market share, they would call this thingie an RX 8500 XT, sell it for $200, and pray for TSMC wafer allocation, so that they can meet the demand, those will sell like hot cakes.

3valatzyI see, but the best is to buy... errr... nothing.
If AMD were about market share, they would call this thingie an RX 8500 XT, sell it for $200, and pray for TSMC wafer allocation, so that they can meet the demand, those will sell like hot cakes,

I know, but after the 1080 for 6,5 years I figured it was about time ;) I'm not the guy that gets everything that gets released :) I do that with games :D

First AMD needs to choose a model naming scheme and then stick to it. AMD's marketing team is horrible.

Next, the only way these cards succeed and I define succeeding as gaining market share back! And to do that they need to be priced in the $300 to $350 price range.

Think about it...These cards will be competing with current Gen 4070's / 4070ti's / 7900GRE's / 7900xt's which will flood the market once NVIDIA's new generation releases.
AMD has to convince gamers to buy this card over keeping their current gen card, a new gen card, or picking up a used one.

So it will have to be priced competitively or have some mind blowing features that draw gamers to purchase it. Or both actually.

I have a feeling though... we're going to see this generation fail.

For me I'm a little disappointed. I have a 7900xt card, and I was hoping for at least a 9800xt with slightly increased rasterization and much improved ray tracing for 7800xt prices. If this is what AMD is bringing to the market... they missed the ball big time.

Vayra86'Slow AF but your CPU has no IGP'
'Poor man's mid range'
'Mid range but low end before you know it'
'Mid range card, but wants to look high end'
'High end, but you could spend a bit more'
'Very high end, like 420 high, this is the shit baby'
'Enthusiast, where fools and money part'

LMAO! I love it!! you dont need to analyze the numbers. its perfect and speaks to all languages

Bad news! Hopefully not true. At this performance level it shold not cost more than 449$! Only ~ 14% faster than RX 7800 XT. After more than 4 years and still can not beat RX 6800 XT in raster it's just laughable. :kookoo:

Now that i think about it, regarding starting from 9 instead of 8 it makes sense if you take account Strix Halo and RDNA generations:
7XXX RDNA 3.0
8XXX RDNA 3.5
9XXX RDNA 4.0
Edit:
The Time Spy test revealed that the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scored 22,894 points in graphics and was on par with the RX 7900 GRE but significantly slower than the RX 7900 XT.

btarunrIt turns out that the Radeon RX 8800 XT, the top SKU in AMD's next generation gaming GPU series, is actually named the Radeon RX 9070 XT.

This seems very dubious. I'll believe it when AMD announces it. Not holding my breath... :rolleyes:

The RX 8700 XT is the RX 9070 XT that should be between the 7900GRE and 7900XT in performance while the RX 9080 XT should be near the RX 7900 XTX as originally rumored to be months ago.

Though I'm not very happy with the naming scheme. They should have stuck with the 8700, 8800, or 9700, 9800. Anyhow if the price is right these GPUs will sell very well. But AMD needs to give an incentive for people to buy them. That's where the price comes into the fold. Price it well and don't repeat the nonsense pricing as you did with the 7800 and 7900 series. Or else these things aren't going to sell.

I am really tired of AMD changing naming conventions of their stuff within a few generations. It just makes it confusing for the consumer.

Really? Every few gens? There are always going to be a bunch of screeching weirdos but you're literally the only ones that see anything.

inquisitor1HAHAHAHA....sure

>and XTXXTX bullshit suffixes only help create sensory overdose

ill take no xt, xt, or xtx much easier to understand then intel. its not AT ALL easy to understand. do I need some aliexpress decoder to understand the abc/123 of intel cards?

B is the product generation. 5 is their mid-size chip, 80 is the fully unlocked variant. How is this hard to understand?

inquisitor1anyone looks at nvidia or amd can easily understand the ranks. the added abs is their feck up.

So which one is the fully unlocked chip? The Ti or the Super? Or maybe the Ti Super? You never know.

AMD is a lot clearer of course. The 6700 XT comes after the 5700 XT, then the 7800 XT comes after the 6700 XT. Wait, what? 800 succeeds the 700? And now comes the 9070 XT because they have to change the naming scheme every few generations for no reason at all.

DaemonForceReally? Every few gens? There are always going to be a bunch of screeching weirdos but you're literally the only ones that see anything.

What you attached literally shows AMD/Radeon changing every naming every few generations...

ratirtI'm looking at the comments, posts and it is just surprising at this point, when people look at what the product is called, what would people want it to be called, instead of what it actually offers for the price. Power usage to some extent is also important. Performance balanced with ram memory it has is basically crucial here. Maybe at some point RT performance if we get there.
What it is called, how it looks despite good thermal performance, is the least important thing for me.

This is a thread about what the product is called. Of course it's not very important. But since it's a topic to talk about, why not? :)

AusWolfB is the product generation. 5 is their mid-size chip, 80 is the fully unlocked variant. How is this hard to understand?

because with nvidia and amd theres only 2 sets of numbers and theres only ti and xt (now xtx) and easy to know. 10 20 30 40 series, like amd 50 60 70 the product generation is a waste to have its 3 things to remember. instead of letters just make the number. its far easier with amd and nvidia.

ratirtI'm looking at the comments, posts and it is just surprising at this point, when people look at what the product is called, what would people want it to be called, instead of what it actually offers for the price. Power usage to some extent is also important. Performance balanced with ram memory it has is basically crucial here. Maybe at some point RT performance if we get there.
What it is called, how it looks despite good thermal performance, is the least important thing for me.

I am not going to buy it exactly because of the name.
1. I don't like the new name - it feels unpleasant;
2. A "9" in the name suggests that the next thing will have a new name, and will most probably offer something better. You know this here is the last RDNA product, so the new series will feature a better microarchitecture. And probably a much better TSMC process node.

capdauntlessWhat you attached literally shows AMD/Radeon changing every naming every few generations...

What from the early era? Yeah they experimented with different products.
Okay. We can play that too.



I started off in the RIVA camp and went very early GeForce very late in this game but have seen a lot.
So no you're not going to get "wtf is a RIVA" from me. "Unified Shaders and X" had a great run from both.
This RT+Tensor noise is a new direction as Radeon slowly crawls its way to UDNA after the next set.
As GeForce 50 quickly approaches, there will be successors of 60 and 70 series before finally retiring the fake frame gen.

I don't care how you look at Radeon HD or RX series, they're lines in the sand between naming products as they have a lot of them.
Same goes for GeForce 800/900 and the jump to 1000/2000/3000. Those are all name changes to set product lines apart.
Do you have any idea how long this game has been going? I'm surprised there haven't been way more names from either camp.

inquisitor1because with nvidia and amd theres only 2 sets of numbers and theres only ti and xt (now xtx) and easy to know. 10 20 30 40 series, like amd 50 60 70 the product generation is a waste to have its 3 things to remember. instead of letters just make the number. its far easier with amd and nvidia.

Ti and XT have no meaning at all, they're completely unnecessary and a lot of times confusing.

Nvidia wants us to believe that Super and Ti are refreshes when they're not. They're the same damn chip on the same damn architecture just with more enabled parts, reserved to be sold later for extra profit without spending a penny on innovation. Artificial product segmentation.

As for AMD, where's the 7800 non-XT and the 7700 non-XT? Why have the XT suffix at all when it doesn't mean anything? And why is the 6700 XT succeeded by the 7800 XT? And then the 9070 XT with a completely new naming system? 700 followed by 800, then by 70. It doesn't make sense.

At least with Intel, every letter and number means something, and it's consistent across generations (I know there's only 2 so far, but I hope they'll keep it up).

I think you side with Nvidia's and AMD's naming because you're used to it, not because it's better.

3valatzyI am not going to buy it exactly because of the name.

I don't like the new name, either, but I think you're taking it too far. You're buying a product, not a name.