Tuesday, December 24th 2024
AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT Alleged Benchmark Leaks, Underwhelming Performance
Recent benchmark leaks have revealed that AMD's upcoming Radeon RX 9070 XT graphics card may not deliver the groundbreaking performance initially hoped for by enthusiasts. According to leaked 3DMark Time Spy results shared by hardware leaker @All_The_Watts, the RDNA 4-based GPU achieved a graphics score of 22,894 points. The benchmark results indicate that the RX 9070 XT performs only marginally better than AMD's current RX 7900 GRE, showing a mere 2% improvement. It falls significantly behind the RX 7900 XT, which maintains almost a 17% performance advantage over the new card. These findings contradict earlier speculation that suggested the RX 9070 XT would compete directly with NVIDIA's RTX 4080.
However, synthetic benchmarks tell only part of the story. The GPU's real-world gaming performance remains to be seen, and rumors indicate that the RX 9070 XT may offer significantly improved ray tracing capabilities compared to its RX 7000 series predecessors. This could be crucial for market competitiveness, particularly given the strong ray tracing performance of NVIDIA's RTX 40 and the upcoming RTX 50 series cards. The success of the RX 9070 XT depends on how well it can differentiate itself through features like ray tracing while maintaining an attractive price-to-performance ratio in an increasingly competitive GPU market. We expect these scores not to be the final tale in the AMD RDNA 4 story, as we must wait and see what AMD delivers during CES. Third-party reviews and benchmarks will give the final verdict in the RDNA 4 market launch.
Sources:
@All_The_Watts, @GawroskiT
However, synthetic benchmarks tell only part of the story. The GPU's real-world gaming performance remains to be seen, and rumors indicate that the RX 9070 XT may offer significantly improved ray tracing capabilities compared to its RX 7000 series predecessors. This could be crucial for market competitiveness, particularly given the strong ray tracing performance of NVIDIA's RTX 40 and the upcoming RTX 50 series cards. The success of the RX 9070 XT depends on how well it can differentiate itself through features like ray tracing while maintaining an attractive price-to-performance ratio in an increasingly competitive GPU market. We expect these scores not to be the final tale in the AMD RDNA 4 story, as we must wait and see what AMD delivers during CES. Third-party reviews and benchmarks will give the final verdict in the RDNA 4 market launch.
143 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT Alleged Benchmark Leaks, Underwhelming Performance
www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-hd-5870-matrix/
W1zz's suite those 14 years ago was mostly DirectX 9 and 10 games too, which helped mask the fact that its tessellation performance was just terrible in that review.
www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/5
If you owned the HD 5970 as I did, CF could not be disabled in the driver, so there were negative scaling issues in many games back then. They only added the ability to disable CF through the driver without registry editing (which at the time I did not know how to do) years on. I had both at the time (5970 and 3 480s), I remember it well. While speaking of Heaven and Metro 2033, which is what you would be playing with that setup back in 2010, oh god I just got my PTSD flashbacks from the stuttering that 5970 had. Dear God Dear Lord save our damned souls.
AMD also cut off TeraScale completely in 2015, while Fermi was supported until 2018. So there is also that little detail, it was much better supported if you happened to be running one of those with Windows 10. Of course, that also implies that the performance delta between them only grew over time as NV implemented many features that AMD never did, but this many years later, I do not think it is relevant any longer.
Regardless, AMD needs to stop playing pretend to avoid specifically the scenario outlined above, if not something actually worse than that. The 5090 is looking like it will be almost twice as powerful as the RTX 4090, and that is already untouchable by pretty much anything else in the market today. Time to regroup, rethink, develop, and then place another horse in this race.
So instead of releasing products that provide generational leaps for the same money, they started to focus on bringing trendy new features and retaining more or less the same level of performance, with a lower production cost which is then NOT passed onto the customer but pocketed by the corporation instead.
This means that Nvidia's pricing is ok, while AMD's is not ok. No one in their right mind would buy AMD product with the same as RTX 4070 Super performance for the same money.
AMD is obliged to offer more for less. And considerably so, otherwise, the market share will tend to 0 for AMD.
This is thanks to 3 companies making products in the same territory that are NOT competing with one another.
So now we're all stuck in this really stupid MX standoff waiting for one of them to break rank. The outcome is projected in two possibilities:
- The market leader (nVidia) dozing off at the steering wheel the same way Intel does whenever charged with the task of FILLING A FAB
- One of the market underdogs pours major $$$$$ into R&D and produces a competing product at a competing price SOMEWHERE in the upper-mid range GPU market
The amount of "within sight/reach" going on is already serious with no change or worsening product gaps before prices and future products come completely unglued from reality.
Here's what I believe will happen:
The amount of AI goldrush going on in each company has nVidia racing to create the next major product at whatever price because it romances the "unbeatable performance" customers while AMD overtakes with hardware but falls face first with software. The lack of "full stack" product is going to have AMD racing to poach as many engineers, QAs and partners as possible. The introduction of complete OOB solutions will keep AMD competing in a mid-range market without any real chance of meeting nVidia at the bleeding edge. Intel is off to a very slow start while facing numerous emergencies without their precious Gelsinger. Not only are they unable to stir up competition, their software stacks are full of enough bugs and major problems that they will have to grow the most before having any serious position anywhere in the market, at the moment they will continue encroaching on nVidia's lowest tier product sales and possibly AMD's low end if they ever get a handle on improved packaging where AMD eats their sales. None of this is slowing down for ANY reason.
AMD currently has a few really amazing products that appeal to me and that's probably where I'll be next month unless nVidia or Intel pull off a mass miracle.
I run PT :laugh:. It's not like this is Counterstrike lol
GTX480 was better at tessellating, true, in benchmarks, where you put 100s of polygons into every pixel. This is completely useless in real world usage because polygons so small will not get rendered on screen, so it's just a waste of computing power. It's why AMD added tessellation settings into their drivers.
Fermi may have had official support for longer, but how much of that was just the same driver, recompressed with the latest runtime components? I didn't follow the changelogs, did any of them mention specific Fermi-related optimizations for modern games? Genuine question here, I don't know this.
Well guys, they are going for low end and mainstream buyers, they literally sell 5% of the high end segment, meaning Nvidia sells 95% of $800+ segment with AMD only selling 5%. Why would they bother with it?
If the 9070XT is 5% faster than the 7900GRE in games and costs $500 that would be an amazing deal. Plus if it came with better RT which I don't think is worthwhile still, that would also be a plus.
Then if the 9070 is 15% slower than the 9070XT or about 10% faster than the 7800XT at $400 that would be great as well. Remember the 7800XT goes for $450 on average, so if we get a 10% faster card in games with better RT performance at a lower price that would be great.
Anything better than that pricing and we are in amazing territory, a slightly faster and better 7900GRE for $400 would obviously be amazing, but its also quite difficult as that would mean they are probably slightly losing money on that card.
Again would it be amazing if AMD sold the 9070XT for $200? Hell yeah! But we don't live in lala land, we don't live in a fairytale, they have to sell it at best for us consumers AT COST! So that means they would be giving it away for free on their end, you pay for it of course, but they don't profit anything.
So to me a realistic price for these are: 9070XT=$500, 9070=$400, 9060XT=$300, 9060=$250, 9050=$200
Like they sell any bigger peace of the pie in the lower segments! and will do so it if they don't sell for the high end. What kind of argument is that?
The only thing they will get is less exposure in the media, not sure that's a positive.
www.techspot.com/review/2812-amd-radeon-7900-gre-retest/$300 or $319 would be fine!
People will buy what's available, it's like changing a couple of lines on the design of a car and calling it a new model, allows them to sell the same old shit for a premium as new.
1440p, difference is 5% which is in the range of the statistical error, and fluctuates from a system to another system. That said - your system with RX 7800 XT could be faster than someone else's with RX 7900 GRE!
No gain for the same msrp just wasted time! Look at Unreal Engine 5 which degrades fps at a tremendous rate way faster than slow new gen gpus just can't keep up.
If you look at the latest data from techpowerup, which they just did a rebenching with their new 9800x3d test setup the GRE is 10% faster than the 7800XT. And again it also depends which model you are using, the card is 10% to 15% faster than the 7800XT.
So if the 9070XT is 5-10% faster in games than the GRE, that means it is anywhere from 15% to 20% faster over the 7800XT. So 20% faster for just $50 more I'd take that deal.
Again the 7900XT is about 30% faster than the 7800XT and it costs even with the latest Christmas and New Years cuts around $670, realistically its $700+ without all of the temporary deals.
So a $500 GPU that is 20% faster, up to 2.5x faster in RT and is more power efficient on top of that, that is a win in my eyes!
I mean I get it that people want AMD to literally give out free GPU's so they can still buy Nvidia ones, but just at a slightly lower cost. People would still buy a 5060TI 8GB TURD for $400 over a FREE RX 9070XT. They just hope AMD giving away free cards will reduce the 5060TI price from $500 to $400 so they can rush out and buy it.
AMD should just ignore all of those purchasers, they are long gone, too brainwahsed to think otherwise and focus on new buyers, focus on value buyers, focus on prebuilt computers, focus on deals with their CPU's, focus on deals with their motherboards, etc... You want a 9800x3d, it comes $40 cheaper paired in a bundle with RX 9070XT, you want a 9700X it comes $50 cheaper paired with a RX 9070, etc...
You buy an AMD mobo it comes $30-60 cheaper when bought in a bundle/combo with a RX 9000 series GPU, etc...
Those are the type of deals, promos, and people AMD should focus on. They are never going to get the likes of you, you are too far gone, if they were giving away free gpu's you'd still buy Nvidia, so the focus shouldn't be you, it should be new buyers, value buyers, developing countries buyers, emerging economies buyers, system builders, combo buyers, deals buyers, bundle buyers, etc...
20% or faster performance across the board, plus up to 2.5x RT performance, better energy efficiency at $500? That seems like a good deal to me. Would I want it to cost $400? Who wouldn't? Would I want AMD to give them out for free? Hell yeah! Considering Nvidia's RTX 5070 is going to cost over $700 for what is likely going to be a 10% performance increase over the 4070 super and it also comes with a measly 12GB of Vram, then I think we are getting a great deal with AMD.
I mean Intel is offering a RTX 4060 type performance, 7600 type performance at just $50 less, everyone thinks its a great deal. the B580 is 5% faster on average than these GPU's for $30 to $50 less and its gotten positive reviews and positive reception.
I would think 20% or more performance at $50 more cost would be a good deal.
If these end up being higher than $500 then I would have an issue with it, if it came at $550 or if it was only 10% faster than the 7800XT and even if it cost $450 with that performance it would be bad.
I think 20% performance gain or maybe even slightly more is a good uplift over the 7800XT for what was until yesterday the same price. Remember just 3 months ago these were still selling at $500, apart from temporary deals and promotions they've been selling for $500 for the longest time! Its only recently that they've been selling for $450 average price and there are still models that go for $500.
I know this forum is about enthusiasts that like their DIY stuff, but I don't think most buyers out there actually mind such thing at all.
It's not a forum problem.
Most people don't like tinkering around with computer parts, hence why I say this is a "forum problem", given this is actually the hobby of many users here.
I could very well be wrong tho. My point will only stand if Strix Halo ever gets sold in a mini-PC format, and if this product gets enough traction.
....If 9060xt =$300
9060=$200
9050=$100 because will be right on the floor with performance around iGPU level.