Saturday, February 15th 2025
Despite Frank Azor's Dismissal, Whispers of a 32 GB Radeon RX 9070 XTX Resurface
Recent rumors hinted at a 32 GB variant of the Radeon RX 9070 XT being in the works, which were quickly dismissed as false information by AMD's Frank Azor. However, reliable sources seem to point to the contrary, stating that a 32 GB variant of the RX 9070 XT, likely dubbed the RX 9070 XTX, is under active development indeed. The source, as pointed out by Wccftech, has a decent track record with AMD-related claims, which sure does add weight to the assertion. Unlike previous XTX-class cards from AMD, which boasted higher clock speeds and core counts, the 9070 XTX is almost certain to feature the same core count as the XT, since the latter already utilizes the full Navi 48 chip - unless, of course, there is an even higher-end chip under wraps.
The VRAM amount seems to indicate that the card will likely be positioned to appease AI enthusiasts. There is also the possibility that the rumored card will be launched under a different branding entirely, although that is not what the post at Chiphell states. Interestingly, Frank Azor did specifically mention that a 32 GB "RX 9070 XT" card is not on the horizon - he did not state that a higher-end XTX card isn't either, which sure does leave room for us to speculate. Benchlife has also chimed in on the matter, claiming that they are aware of AIB partners working on a 32 GB RDNA 4 card with the Navi 48 GPU, which in some ways, confirms the information that came out of Chiphell. The RDNA 4 cards are set to see the light of day soon enough, it seems the wait won't be much longer. However, if the 32 GB card is indeed in the pipeline, it's likely still further down the road.
Source:
Wccftech
The VRAM amount seems to indicate that the card will likely be positioned to appease AI enthusiasts. There is also the possibility that the rumored card will be launched under a different branding entirely, although that is not what the post at Chiphell states. Interestingly, Frank Azor did specifically mention that a 32 GB "RX 9070 XT" card is not on the horizon - he did not state that a higher-end XTX card isn't either, which sure does leave room for us to speculate. Benchlife has also chimed in on the matter, claiming that they are aware of AIB partners working on a 32 GB RDNA 4 card with the Navi 48 GPU, which in some ways, confirms the information that came out of Chiphell. The RDNA 4 cards are set to see the light of day soon enough, it seems the wait won't be much longer. However, if the 32 GB card is indeed in the pipeline, it's likely still further down the road.
84 Comments on Despite Frank Azor's Dismissal, Whispers of a 32 GB Radeon RX 9070 XTX Resurface
6600 is for over two years at around $200. Even if someone hatted the MSRP price, should at least acknowledge that it is the card that was offering the best value until Intel's B570 arrival.You and ALL those AMD fanboys that you know and you represent, should do it. Please burn your PC too. No need to buy another one.
Frankly I already said a 3050 was a bad card. You apparently ignored that.
I also said yeah the 7700 is a much stronger card. But the MSRP difference wasn't enough to sway the market to AMD.
AMD is the lowest market share they've ever had and they lost that market share during the two gens your example cards are from. So if your question is "why should they"? There's your answer. Are you telling me the margins in gaming hasn't been inflating to stupid levels, especially from Nvidia and there isn't a chance to majorly disrupt and reset that? There is. But so far AMD hasn't been willing to do so, so either they should completely ditch Radeon discrete gaming GPUs altogether and stick to console and APU offerings, or get serious about trying a new strategy to win back market if they actually care about that.
In CPUs AMD managed to win the market because Intel failed miserably. If Intel's manufacturing nodes where working, AMD would be facing the same criticism in CPUs and they would have NEVER have the market share they have today. Because Intel would have been much more competitive. AMD also got lucky with the X3D chips. Without those, AM5 and even AM4 would be looking as much worst options.
Now imagine Nvidia still using Samsung's 8nm process and people being completely against upscaling and Frame Generation. Imagine Nvidia in Intel's position, in other words. AMD's cards would have been much more competitive and AMD's market share in GPUs could be double or even more. With the same cards at the same prices.No, you used the DLSS argument there, to cover up for the performance dissadvantage of the 4060.They are enjoying much higher market share, success and positive comments in other markets. When you have - let's say - 5 markets where you are competing and in 4 of them you are succesful and in the 5th consumers blindly buying the competitor's products, no matter what you do, you might double your efforts to win that market also. That what you expect them to do. But when you have restrictions from how many wafers you can secure from TSMC, you just focus on those 4 markets and I think that's what they chose to do. AMD knows that in the future APUs could secure them higher income while still keeping them in the game of making GPUs. Of course if they start thinking that only iGPUs is enough, they might end up like Intel. Insignifficent and miles behind the competition.
Now, if you don't like reality and you only look at MSRPs when convenient, then Nvidia's fake MSRPs for the 5000 series are made especially for people like you.I think you are addicted in being with the monopoly, honestly. Offers the feeling of personal security, the feeling of being with the top class.You can follow the narrative and what the press tells you to believe, or just chose what suits you. You think that memory bandwidth and raw power is less important than better upscaling? OK. I don't.
Yes, Radeon needs to be cheaper and better than Nvidia in every category to win back market share. If they keep doing what they have been doing for the last decade you can expect Nvidia to have 95% market share in a couple of years.
As for market share, it isn't everything, all AMD needs to do is not follow nvidia and stupidly price their cards, although no matter what AMD prices their cards at I expect reviewers to say it's still too expensive because it doesn't have DLSS, while Nvidia has gotten a pass for fake MSRP's and nearly no improvement over last gen on the 50 series cards.
AMD was competitive with the RX6000 and 7000 series cards, everyone still paid more for the Nvidia card, even though the Nvidia cards below xx80 are obvious planned obsolescence with just enough VRAM until the next card gets launched.
I think it would make sense for AMD to drop dGPU's and go all in on APU's and SOC's, if they can scale up on an SOC like Strix Halo and provide midrange GPU performance on desktop that would gain them some marketshare.Too many people are addicted to blindly supporting a near monopoly, I think a lot of it is a superiority complex, and the halo product effect of someone only being able to afford an xx60 card thinking they're getting a better card because their favorite content creator has an xx90 card.
Compared to a multi-trillion dollar corporation, AMD is a small indie company that has to punch upwards while Nvidia keeps punching them in the gut.