Place your bets.
- 9070XT -> U$ 599-649, perf. >/= 5070ti
- 9070 -> U$ 499, 15-20% faster than the 5070.

I am guessing a $699 MSRP for this card. AMD knows they can't compete with DLSS4 multi frame gen of the 5070 ti. Even if FSR4 is a slam dunk, only a handful of games will support it properly, where as DLSS4 launched with 75 games and dozens added every week or two.

I'm not buying either, pretty happy with my current sig rig, so eh.

DenverPlace your bets.
- 9070XT -> U$ 599-649, perf. >/= 5070ti
- 9070 -> U$ 499, 15-20% faster than the 5070.

Wafers at TSMC are much more expensive then they used to be, add in to that all the other inflation of costs of shipping chips around the world, etc. I don't see anything less than $699 really.

If they price this 9070XT above 599, I don't think they'll be moving units any more than a 7800XT. If they do price it at 599, and its actually available in good stock... they'll probably have a good gen and might even force Nvidia to move around in their pricing a bit.

By the by I still think this card will end up just at or under 7900XT performance. But I'm open for surprises.

I did see the ratchet and clank video with FSR4, and FSR4 is very promising. I will check back in 2-4 years and decide which path I want to upgrade to.

Space LynxI did see the ratchet and clank video with FSR4, and FSR4 is very promising. I will check back in 2-4 years and decide which path I want to upgrade to.

FSR4 does look promising indeed, the card will also have much better raytracing performance, apparently, with 7900XTX rasterization. If all these "rumours" are true, it will be great for AMD, but they will have to price the card very aggressively to claw back market share, $600 or so.

Legacy-ZAFSR4 does look promising indeed, the card will also have much better raytracing performance, apparently, with 7900XTX rasterization. If all these "rumours" are true, it will be great for AMD, but they will have to price the card very aggressively to claw back market share, $600 or so.

if its 600 and does all of what you said, honestly i might get one and try to sell my 7900 xt for 350-400. i don't see that happening though, wafers are just too expensive these days, plus tariffs have increased recently, they have to make some kind of profit

Space LynxI did see the ratchet and clank video with FSR4, and FSR4 is very promising. I will check back in 2-4 years and decide which path I want to upgrade to.

We've seen it before and FSR is today a shadow of what it should be. But yeah, promising.

Legacy-ZAFSR4 does look promising indeed, the card will also have much better raytracing performance, apparently, with 7900XTX rasterization. If all these "rumours" are true, it will be great for AMD, but they will have to price the card very aggressively to claw back market share, $600 or so.

Pretty sure rasterization is going to be max 7900XT not XTX.

I'm guessing that AMD will compare and want to beat the 4070S and 4070TiS by good margins:

9070 - $449 - 20% faster than 4070S = 7900XT
9070XT - $599 - 20% faster than 4070TiS = 7900XTX

DenverPlace your bets.
- 9070XT -> U$ 599-649, perf. >/= 5070ti
- 9070 -> U$ 499, 15-20% faster than the 5070.

9070XT $699 and roughly same performance as 5070Ti.
9070 $599 and smack in the middle of 5070 and 5070Ti.

DavenI'm guessing that AMD will compare and want to beat the 4070S and 4070TiS by good margins:

9070 - $449 - 20% faster than 4070S = 7900XT
9070XT - $599 - 20% faster than 4070TiS = 7900XTX

Yes, this is also how I think the performance will play out, as for the prices, we can hope. :)

At the end of the day, these are the key factors:

1. 1440p native non-rt performance, (including upscaling to 4k).
2. 1080pRT and upscaling 960p->1440p and 1080->4k. Native 1080p for 9070, 1440p upscaled for 9070xt, the third on a higher-end sku (if it exists). And yes..I judge by absolute (overclocking) performance.
3. FSR4 image quality and performance hit.
4. If there is a 'xtx', and if it's priced at $550 or $600.


First point should already make any of them a good relative value, but upscaling a key factor if (higher-end?) models really can replace the 7900xt (in games that require less than 16GB). Lots of peeps going 4k.
Second important bc that's what people want to get the most out of their experience; it is the new paradigm. While games in the future might cross-over the capability of N48, this is a key factor for right now.
The third is obvious. Not only to have a true DLSS competitor, but because 1440p->4k and ~1080p->1440/4k RT upscaling are important metrics now. Those absolutely need to look 'not bad' and perform 'ok'.
There is a world where I can imagine FSR4 has performance hit of ~10% (<FSR3; >DLSS3 less than 4). There is also a world where it could be closer to 20%. I am curious to see what AMD decided to do.
The last part is obviously the Mystery Science Theater 3000 of it all. If it can clock high/they make a 24gbps sku; if AMD is willing to price it vs 5070. I think AMD is probably watching sentiment on this closely...

I hope reviewers hit above tests hard (even if requires a lot of work/deviation from their original suites). While I don't question (mid-tier) value, it would interesting to see what's truly needed in those scenarios.
N48 might surprise in some (especially after OCing), it may falter in others. I have no horse, the question is if AMD can capitalize on instances of >12GB/45TF and if it's good-enough vs ~60TF/16-20GB.
One is a key factor in performance capability/value vs the 12GB nV cards (and 7800xt). The other is if it's 'good-enough' versus higher-priced cards (7900xt/4080/5070ti/5080).
These are the important questions.

Space LynxI am guessing a $699 MSRP for this card. AMD knows they can't compete with DLSS4 multi frame gen of the 5070 ti. Even if FSR4 is a slam dunk, only a handful of games will support it properly, where as DLSS4 launched with 75 games and dozens added every week or two.

I'm not buying either, pretty happy with my current sig rig, so eh.



Wafers at TSMC are much more expensive then they used to be, add in to that all the other inflation of costs of shipping chips around the world, etc. I don't see anything less than $699 really.

About 166 chips per wafer result in a $102.40 gross cost, excluding R&D, support, etc.

I calculated that AMD would need to sell approximately 10 million chips at a profit of $90-100 each to start making a profit. It would be much simpler if they eliminated AIBs and retailers, and sold directly to consumers. However, this would require significant investment from AMD in infrastructure, support, etc. It's not feasible in practice.

On the bright side, unlike GDDR7, GDDR6 is widely available at a lower price, with 16GB costing about $60-70. Additionally, TSMC has released a cheaper 4nm process (N4C) that maintains compatibility with current 4nm designs.

www.anandtech.com/show/21371/tsmc-preps-lower-cost-4nm-n4c-process-for-2025

Hope they price this one right, they really need to regain some market share.

Space LynxI am guessing a $699 MSRP for this card. AMD knows they can't compete with DLSS4 multi frame gen of the 5070 ti. Even if FSR4 is a slam dunk, only a handful of games will support it properly, where as DLSS4 launched with 75 games and dozens added every week or two.

I'm not buying either, pretty happy with my current sig rig, so eh.



Wafers at TSMC are much more expensive then they used to be, add in to that all the other inflation of costs of shipping chips around the world, etc. I don't see anything less than $699 really.

TSMC's wafers are expensive, but they aren't the sole reason for increased GPU pricing. After all, Intel is selling the B580, a GPU three quarters the size of a 5080 in die area, for about a quarter of the price.

DenverPlace your bets.

I don't usually bet on corpses but since 5070 Ti is to be launched in the two weeks' notice the 9070 XT is super dead by the definition.
5070 is to be launched... some day during March which means if 9070 non-XT is released before it might have someone but AMD diehards and people with severe allergy to second hand video cards buying it... Otherwise, it doesn't matter, it's also super dead.

As per the prices... they will be as sweet and amazing as the NVIDIA ones. Like always.

Space LynxWafers at TSMC are much more expensive then they used to be, add in to that all the other inflation of costs of shipping chips around the world, etc. I don't see anything less than $699 really.

It is pretty clear both N48 and Blackwell 103 are aimed at 100 good chips per wafer. Look at a wafer calculator. This is a theme I expect to continue moving forward into 'other' products... :)
(absolutely not a PS6 SOC on 3nm with 12-core Zen6 C and ~60TF of performance based on a 3nm 7900xtx UDNA replacement shrink with similar clocks to N31 at stock)

This is why your prices are WAYYY off, guys. ~$180 (max) chip + ~$160 (max price) of GDDR6 + ~40% margin = ?

24gbps might be closer to ~$200 (max); potentially binned chips worth slightly more (20%?)...do the math on that.
Simiarly, a cut-down chip might be closer to $150-160, coupled with ~150-160 of GDDR6 + ~40% margin = ?

I honestly have no idea on the value/numberation of cut-down chips nor their pricing of GDDR6 (which is likely cheaper than spot-pricing), so that's how it *could* be $400.

Yes, I know it's more complicated than that. I'm just giving you a rough way to figure it out.

Another way to look at it is the cheapest price available for 7900xt, which this card will not exceed (but may come close) and lacks 4GB of ram comparatively. That ram costs ~$40 (to us).

That price (according to camecamelcamel) was $620, for both XFX and Powercolor, so it wasn't a one-off. IOW, the most one of these cards (even a XTX) is worth is $600.
I would say $550...but that's comparing the limitations of the potential die versus the capabilities of 20/24Gbpsgbps RAM. AMD might try to segment them more with stock clock.

Like I say, if anything people should really be rooting for a $550 XTX where AMD likely really wants/wanted to price it at $600 (or more).

I don't have high hopes for this half gen, AMD will price them the usual $50-100 below their nvidia counterpart, so $650 for the XT and $499 for the non-XT (especially since there will be less difference in RT performance this time)

I think AMD is preparing a full-court press with UDNA next year, and with this lackluster RTX50xx series, they do have a chance to catch-up nvidia in 2026 (even with the expected release of Super cards)

k0vaszI think AMD is preparing a full-court press with UDNA next year, and with this lackluster RTX50xx series, they do have a chance to catch-up nvidia in 2026 (even with the expected release of Super cards)

No doubt. As I've said, AMD's spot to hit is a cheaper-than-80-series-Rubin 4090-performance card.

That approximate performance (4090) at consumer-friendly pricing and availability is THE spot to hit. Not even a question. If they can do it (at a better price than nVIDIA)...That is the question.

I stand by 4090 (or a cheaper alternative on 3nm) is the Xbox One/PS4 generation wrt GPUs. 4k native or 1440p->4k RT for a very very very very very long time. Ain't nobody upgrading after that.

I know there are people that will lust after 32/36GB cards, maybe even up to 48GB for native 4k....but are most people going buy them? I don't think so.

DenverPlace your bets.
- 9070XT -> U$ 599-649, perf. >/= 5070ti
- 9070 -> U$ 499, 15-20% faster than the 5070.

Probably safe and accurate.

alwaysstsIt is pretty clear both N48 and Blackwell 103 are aimed at 100 good chips per wafer. Look at a wafer calculator. This is a theme I expect to continue moving forward into 'other' products... :)
(absolutely not a PS6 SOC on 3nm with 12-core Zen6 C and ~60TF of performance based on a 3nm 7900xtx UDNA replacement shrink with similar clocks to N31 at stock)

This is why your prices are WAYYY off, guys. ~$180 (max) chip + ~$160 (max price) of GDDR6 + ~40% margin = ?

24gbps might be closer to ~$200 (max); potentially binned chips worth slightly more (20%?)...do the math on that.
Simiarly, a cut-down chip might be closer to $150-160, coupled with ~150-160 of GDDR6 + ~40% margin = ?

I honestly have no idea on the value/numberation of cut-down chips nor their pricing of GDDR6 (which is likely cheaper than spot-pricing), so that's how it *could* be $400.

Yes, I know it's more complicated than that. I'm just giving you a rough way to figure it out.

Another way to look at it is the cheapest price available for 7900xt, which this card will not exceed (but may come close) and lacks 4GB of ram comparatively. That ram costs ~$40 (to us).

That price (according to camecamelcamel) was $620, for both XFX and Powercolor, so it wasn't a one-off. IOW, the most one of these cards (even a XTX) is worth is $600.
I would say $550...but that's comparing the limitations of the potential die potential versus the capabilities of 20/24Gbpsgbps RAM. AMD might try to segment them more with stock clock.

Like I say, if anything people should really be rooting for a $550 XTX where AMD likely really wants/wanted to price it at $600 (or more).

Considering the 5080 chip: 370mm²
Approximate dies per wafer (ignoring defects) = 181 dies x 0.85 (85% yield rate) = 153 chips

Original N4P = $17,000, $111/chip.
N4C = $15,555 = $101/chip

AMD should use 20Gbps (cheap, and in good supply), Samsung never put 24Gbps chips into mass production... AMD only sells chips, so its profit margin must be calculated per unit. While the percentage margin may be high, the absolute profit per chip is relatively small. For example, a 100% margin on a $100 chip still results in just $100 of profit. However, AMD has hundreds of millions to billions in R&D, manufacturing, and operational costs that must be recouped through these sales. Then, $600 is possible, but AMD needs to convince everyone in the chain to tighten margins for this to work.

On Nvidia’s side, they weren’t satisfied with just selling chips. Now, they’ve secured massive quantities of GDDR7 to bundle with their GPUs, ensuring AIBs buy the complete set—further increasing their profits. :p

They should make a special edition 32gb 9070xt. They can call it the 9070AI and price it at $1000. Would be an instant hit with local LLM's machines.

Macro DeviceI don't usually bet on corpses but since 5070 Ti is to be launched in the two weeks' notice the 9070 XT is super dead by the definition.
5070 is to be launched... some day during March which means if 9070 non-XT is released before it might have someone but AMD diehards and people with severe allergy to second hand video cards buying it... Otherwise, it doesn't matter, it's also super dead.

As per the prices... they will be as sweet and amazing as the NVIDIA ones. Like always.

I don't understand this theology at all. Will the 5070ti be faster than the 9070xt? Yes. Will the playable settings be much (if any) different? No. Is the price likely 50% more for one of those companies? Yes.
9070 is probably ~$400, guy. The 7800xt (at $480) is the card to beat right now (comp to 4070ti/5070), and AMD may in-fact beat themselves by essentially lowering the 7800xt/9070 price to ~$400.
Because they have to compete with 5060ti in price at the low-end bc many people are literally ignorant. "$400 16GB nVIDIA card? Good". No, 16GB nVIDIA card actually quite shit, but that's what people do.
They are conceivably replacing 7800xt at the same price with something 'better' (for 1440p +- upscaling to 4k/960p->1440p upscaled RT) for the same price. Yes, it is essentially a refresh w/ higher clocks.

I literally don't understand how this is not a fair-to-excellent value outside of buying a $250 2080 ti (or used 6800xt/7800xt for between $250 and less than $400)?

I think that's correct placement and excellent value for new even considering the used market (especially considering addition of 8-bit/'tensor' ops for FSR4)?
These things are going to hulk smash the 5070 in any instance needing greater than 45TF or 12GB...which is the defining line of how a lot of instances of gaming are built.
Are people really going to be tricked bc nVIDIA may clock 5070 absurdly high (conceivably 3150-3165mhz stock with overclocking up to ~3500 [-3700 maybe, if nvidia lets it]?
BC that is literally what they have to do, and they will. Also the die size of 5070 tells us it will clock high (like N48), and the quoted performance metrics on nvidia's own site, but shh.
In the end, just look at the OC clock settings of 7168/7680 16GB vs 6144 and 12GB. It's pretty clear 5070 will have a STOCK clock above 9070 and maybe XT (for comp RT at low-rez), but that's why OC/XTX.
Are people blind to these things (actual performance) versus gimmicks like a high stock clock? I ask bc I don't know. Probably yes. This is why I think AMD is in-part waiting to see how 5070 clocks (stock/oc).
I think they want to know if they can clock it at something like ~3.2-3.3 or need to go all-out and clock it at something higher at stock bc they want to look similar/better compared to nVIDIA in that regard.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Sound_CardThey should make a special edition 32gb 9070xt. They can call it the 9070AI and price it at $1000. Would be an instant hit with local LLM's machines.

Not this time around. There might be Radeon Pros w/ 2x VRAM but, we won't get to see the real fun stuff until after this generation.
www.techpowerup.com/329003/amd-to-skip-rdna-5-udna-takes-the-spotlight-after-rdna-4

Gotta love these "say something without saying anything" social media posts. :rolleyes: