Top AMD RDNA4 Part Could Offer RX 7900 XTX Performance at Half its Price and Lower Power

[Dr. Dro]

A fact is that intel didn't allow AMD to sell, either at all, or in the needed quantities, even when AMD's CPUs were either at least on par, or even superior to the Pentium line.
That's why intel got the fines, because of all its illegal activities, some of which continue to this day.

View attachment 332972

All of these CPUs predate the Phenom by a decade, at that point you can't really say that the market dynamics or situation would lead to anything that's been debated on this thread thus far. AMD had been ahead at that time, and remained so while Intel struggled with NetBurst. They even won out the 64-bit race, and AMD64 was adopted instead of Itanium. Bringing this up is about as much of a wild tangent as it'd been if I had any malicious intent here and claimed that AMD CPUs were bad because Palomino burned while Pentium III throttled (I presume you know of the Toms hardware video? lol), I just don't see the connection here.

By the time AMD was struggling with Phenom and then the biblical failure of the Heavy Equipment lineup, Intel would have been far, far ahead regardless simply because they had a far superior product to offer. Often I think that people don't quite realize how blessed the CPU market is today. Across all tiers and segments, Intel and AMD have equivalent processors who win over each other in an equal number of scenarios, this brings prices down and is great news to us, the consumers.

 

[3valatzy]

All of these CPUs predate the Phenom by a decade, at that point you can't really say that the market dynamics or situation would lead to anything that's been debated on this thread thus far. AMD had been ahead at that time, and remained so while Intel struggled with NetBurst. They even won out the 64-bit race, and AMD64 was adopted instead of Itanium. Bringing this up is about as much of a wild tangent as it'd been if I had any malicious intent here and claimed that AMD CPUs were bad because Palomino burned while Pentium III throttled (I presume you know of the Toms hardware video? lol), I just don't see the connection here.

Answer the following - how do you expect AMD to invest money for good architectures/designs when it has no money for this?
Why did AMD design Bulldozer? Because no money.
Why doesn't AMD compete in the high-end with Navi 31 and Navi 41? Because no money.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Answer the following - how do you expect AMD to invest money for good architectures/designs when it has no money for this?
Why did AMD design Bulldozer? Because no money.
Why doesn't AMD compete in the high-end with Navi 31 and Navi 41? Because no money.

I must disagree, this is an overly simplistic view of things. I'm afraid you're forgoing the critical point: AMD's reckless acquisition of ATI in the meantime. They massively overpaid for ATI, which cost them more than twice ATI's 2005 gross revenue, taking on a massive debt to complete the merger and acquisition.

AMD to buy graphics vendor ATI for $5.4B

AMD officials see the merger with the graphics chip maker as a way to offer integrated products for mobile computing and in the consumer electronics market.

www.computerworld.com

AMD Reports Fourth Quarter and Annual Results

Browse AMD’s company-wide and financial press releases.

ir.amd.com

Ironically, this move may very well have saved both companies in the very long term (which is where we are today), but only because Ryzen was actually a commercially successful product. Everything is owed to it.

As for Bulldozer: nothing of the sort. AMD saw how Nehalem worked and decided to bet big on multithreading, which is where the world was headed... but made significant compromises to keep cost down and for the useful lifetime of that generation, it didn't happen. It was both ahead of its time, and also a really poor design overall from an engineering standpoint. So, what happened happened.

 

[3valatzy]

I must disagree, this is an overly simplistic view of things. I'm afraid you're forgoing the critical point: AMD's reckless acquisition of ATI in the meantime. They massively overpaid for ATI, which cost them more than twice ATI's 2005 gross revenue, taking on a massive debt to complete the merger and acquisition.

AMD to buy graphics vendor ATI for $5.4B

AMD officials see the merger with the graphics chip maker as a way to offer integrated products for mobile computing and in the consumer electronics market.

www.computerworld.com

AMD Reports Fourth Quarter and Annual Results

Browse AMD’s company-wide and financial press releases.

ir.amd.com

Ironically, this move may very well have saved both companies in the very long term (which is where we are today), but only because Ryzen was actually a commercially successful product. Everything is owed to it.

I don't think ATi Technologies is better under AMD with its own strange priorities which say that ATi is somewhere third-forth priority and is not important.
The best for us, the customers, is if AMD sells the Radeon IP to another company, let it be someone very rich whose only priority is to develop consumer graphics cards.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I don't think ATi Technologies is better under AMD with its own strange priorities which say that ATi is somewhere third-forth priority and is not important.
The best for us, the customers, is if AMD sells the Radeon IP to another company, let it be someone very rich whose only priority is to develop consumer graphics cards.

Extremely unlikely to happen at this point, if ever. They're completely integrated at this point.

 

[Super XP]

I desperately hope they don't abandon the high-end. At least one other company needs to compete with nVidia there, don't care if it's Intel or AMD. Just, some kind of pressure...

What I am reading is RDNA5 is AMDs priority (Not RDNA4) that will cater to all segments including the enthusiast segment. Which explains their decision with RDNA4. A 7900XTX type RDNA4 performance GPU at $400 would sell like hot cakes if true.

But it does mean AMD does not go forward for another 2 or so years. Is that good in your book? AMD will be 3 generations behind nGreedia, which puts immense pressure on AMD to claw back that vast perf gap. If AMD aren't careful, Intel will catch up and maybe overtake them, then AMD/Radeon is finished. I would be very worried if I were Sony/Microsoft...

I would assume that unless nGreedia is going to separate their AI and Consumer GPU designs, then we should expect at least another 40-60% perf from Blackwell. But at what cost, well, that's only limited by Jensen's greed and arrogance.

How many people spend $2000 on a nGreedia GPU? That is an obvious ripoff? The mainstream mid range is where the sales matter. Having an enthusiast graphics card is bragging rights. But they must launch a enthusiast high end with RDNA5 or else as you say Intel can catch up, they are sneaky.

 

[Mine18]

But it does mean AMD does not go forward for another 2 or so years. Is that good in your book? AMD will be 3 generations behind nGreedia, which puts immense pressure on AMD to claw back that vast perf gap. If AMD aren't careful, Intel will catch up and maybe overtake them, then AMD/Radeon is finished. I would be very worried if I were Sony/Microsoft...

I would assume that unless nGreedia is going to separate their AI and Consumer GPU designs, then we should expect at least another 40-60% perf from Blackwell. But at what cost, well, that's only limited by Jensen's greed and arrogance.

RDNA 5 is rumored to release near the end of 2025, one year after RDNA 4, sorta like RDNA 1 and RDNA 2

 

[3valatzy]

What I am reading is RDNA5 is AMDs priority (Not RDNA4) that will cater to all segments including the enthusiast segment. Which explains their decision with RDNA4.

The large RDNA 4 Navi 41 failed to meet the defined performance targets, hence it got cancelled.
There are no indications so far about RDNA 5 and we can't guarantee that Navi 51 will exist, either.

A 7900XTX type RDNA4 performance GPU at $400 would sell like hot cakes if true.

Except that there are no signs that the "top RDNA 4" will ever reach the 7900 XTX performance.
It will have only 4096 shaders, while the RX 7900 XTX has as many as 6144 shaders.

How many people spend $2000 on a nGreedia GPU?

Many!

Mindfactory alone has sold over 8,000 RTX 4090 so far!

https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Grafikkarten+(VGA)/GeForce+RTX+fuer+Gaming/RTX+4090.html

 

[AusWolf]

Except that there are no signs that the "top RDNA 4" will ever reach the 7900 XTX performance.
It will have only 4096 shaders, while the RX 7900 XTX has as many as 6144 shaders.

Do you have a source on this?

 

[3valatzy]

Do you have a source on this?

I think it was already shared in at least two threads. Check them.

Let's assume the big Navi 48 will have a 192-bit memory interface with 32 Gbps GDDR7 chips.
That will be enough for only 512 GB/s overall memory throughput, while the RX 7900 XTX has 960 GB/s.

AMD's next-gen RDNA 4 'Navi 44' and 'Navi 48' from Radeon RX 8000 series GPUs appear in Linux

AMD Radeon RX 8000 series GPUs are still a while away, but the next-gen RDNA 4-based Navi 44 and Navi 48 GPUs now have support in Linux LLVM patches.

www.tweaktown.com

[AMDGPU] Define new targets gfx1200 and gfx1201 by jayfoad · Pull Request #73133 · llvm/llvm-project

Define target names and ELF numbers for new GFX12 targets gfx1200 and gfx1201. For now they behave identically to GFX11.

github.com

AMD discrete RDNA4 "GFX1200/GFX1201" GPUs spotted in LLVM patches - VideoCardz.com

AMD RDNA4 in LLVM project The next-generation gaming graphics architecture known as GFX12 or RDNA4 is being prepared by AMD. It appears that AMD has now decided which GPUs from the RDNA4 series will be the first to deploy. The GFX1200 and GFX1201 are two unnamed graphics processors which have...

videocardz.com

 

[R0H1T]

All of these CPUs predate the Phenom by a decade,

That's wrong by at least half a decade! The OEM bribing part was around 2003(02?) till 06-07 maybe or a few years either side, basically P4 era IIRC.

By the time AMD was struggling with Phenom and then the biblical failure of the Heavy Equipment lineup

The timeline of events was something like ~ AMD wins the Itanic wars, AMD prices FX chips to the moon. AMD sits back on their next node shrink, Intel does a KO with Conroe & just keeps executing enormously for almost a decade non stop till 22nm when they really falter like never before! The 2-4 year period when they "discouraged" OEM's, to do much of AMD, could've helped their revenues & R&D half a decade later. But again it's played out relatively well for Intel & AMD too, so all's good for now

Haven't heard a word about AMD being greedy scammers trying to ripoff people with their overpriced wares, but oh well.

Intel's 6950x topped out over $1700 ~ it was 10 core, the MSDT 4790k just before that was around $350 or so IIRC. So 2.5x more cores for 5x higher price? AMD's 7950x3d is 16 cores, what's the most expensive TR core config right now?

 

[Dr. Dro]

That's wrong by at least half a decade! The OEM bribing part was around 2003(02?) till 06-07 maybe or a few years either side, basically P4 era IIRC.

The timeline of events was something like ~ AMD wins the Itanic wars, AMD prices FX chips to the moon. AMD sits back on their next node shrink, Intel does a KO with Conroe & just keeps executing enormously for almost a decade non stop till 22nm when they really falter like never before! The 2-4 year period when they "discouraged" OEM's to do much of AMD could've helped their revues & R&D half a decade later. But again it's played out relatively well for Intel & AMD too, so all's good for now

Intel's 6950x topped out over $1700 ~ it was 10 core, the MSDT 4790k just before that was around $350 or so IIRC. So 2.5x more cores for 5x higher price? AMD's 7950x3d is 16 cores, what's the most expensive TR core config right now?

I was referring to the K6 and early Athlons And yeah, that was how things went.

Regarding HEDT: Yeah it was $1700... but now the cheapest non-Pro TR for TRX50 is $1499 and the most expensive is $4999

AMD Unveils Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Family: 96 Core Zen 4 for Workstations and HEDT

www.anandtech.com

 

[evernessince]

Those are the opposite to the rumours I've read. High end RDNA 4 was having trouble with chiplets because it was going to be 20 chiplets vs RDNA3's 7 chiplets IIRC. They were having huge problems getting it to work at the power and performance levels they wanted, and decided to drop it and release lower end monolithic RDNA4. This would allow RDNA5 more money, people and time to achieve it's goals while staying with a chiplet design. Getting high-end RDNA4 to work would have greatly eaten into RDNA5's time-line. Given that Blackwell for desktop won't be out probably until Q2 2025 and RDNA5 is Q4 (maybe) 2025, AMD won't be too far behind Blackwell. But I still don't see how AMD can offer a 7900 class mid-tier RDNA4 product for half the price and not make the 7900's look like a stupid investment in H2 2024.

This would be the most plausible rumor of the one's presented, assuming of course they continue to use chiplets for enterprise. That said AMD has started to move away from monolithic even for it's laptop chips where it makes more sense. They would really need to be in a pinch to have to resort to going back to monolithic for a portion of the market.

 

[AusWolf]

I still don't see how AMD can offer a 7900 class mid-tier RDNA4 product for half the price and not make the 7900's look like a stupid investment in H2 2024.

Flagship products are never an investment. Just look at the 6900 XT which launched for $999 MSRP, and now you have the 7800 XT nipping at its heels for half the price and with a much lower power consumption. It's just the evolution of PC hardware.

 

[3valatzy]

Flagship products are never an investment.

They are. People pay the premium in order to be the first to use the given features.

Just look at the 6900 XT which launched for $999 MSRP, and now you have the 7800 XT

Except that RX 6950 XT retails for 690 bucks, while RX 7800 XT retails for 530 bucks.
I wouldn't be so sure which one is the better.

More or less, the 6950 is 30% faster.

 

[AusWolf]

They are. People pay the premium in order to be the first to use the given features.

Exactly... To use the features! Not no look at the resale value. So that's not an investment, is it?

Ecept that RX 6950 XT retails for 690 bucks, while RX 7800 XT retails for 530 bucks.
I wouldn't be so sure which one is the better.

More or less, the 6950 is 30% faster.

View attachment 333252

1. That's an isolated example, and you're talking about more than 300 FPS with any GPU mentioned, so the difference is irrelevant. The 7800 XT is pulling ahead more and more in the latest AAA games.

2. I was talking about MSRP and investment, not about current sale price. You don't buy a high-end GPU with the expectation to retain more than half of its value in the next 1-1.5 years, do you?

Edit: If the 6950 XT currently retails for 690 bucks, while the 6900 XT started at 999 at its release, then what does it tell you about value retention and investment?

 

[Tech Ninja]

If you can afford to spend more than $500 you buy Nvidia anyway. Smart move by AMD. You are the discount brand.

 

[3valatzy]

1. That's an isolated example, and you're talking about more than 300 FPS with any GPU mentioned, so the difference is irrelevant. The 7800 XT is pulling ahead more and more in the latest AAA games.

It is not an isolated example. This is an example out of many, many. The modern reviews include only handful of games which are biased towards the RDNA 3 architecture, while there are dozens of old games which do behave better on RDNA 2, GCN, VLIW, etc.

TBH, I would avoid RX 7800 XT. It is in general a poor value card.

Exactly... To use the features! Not no look at the resale value. So that's not an investment, is it?

2. I was talking about MSRP and investment, not about current sale price. You don't buy a high-end GPU with the expectation to retain more than half of its value in the next 1-1.5 years, do you?

I actually don't think about it.
In absolute terms, maybe the value loss looks large (from 1000 bucks to 690 bucks is 310 bucks), but in a percentage amount all cards tend (or should) to lose the same value over time.

 

[AusWolf]

It is not an isolated example. This is an example out of many, many. The modern reviews include only handful of games which are biased towards the RDNA 3 architecture, while there are dozens of old games which do behave better on RDNA 2, GCN, VLIW, etc.

TBH, I would avoid RX 7800 XT. It is in general a poor value card.

You would avoid the 7800 XT in favour of the 40% more expensive and much more power-hungry 6950 XT that performs within 10% in the newest games, only because it gives you 380 instead of 300 FPS in old ones? Are you serious?

I actually don't think about it.
In absolute terms, maybe the value loss looks large (from 1000 bucks to 690 bucks is 310 bucks), but in a percentage amount all cards tend (or should) to lose the same value over time.

Exactly. You just proved that a GPU (especially a high-end one) is not an investment, unless you work on it and the extra work done within a given time justifies the price and devaluation over time.

Personally, I'd rather lose 30% of 500 bucks than 30% of 1000 if the $500 card is within my performance target, but each to their own.

 

[Makaveli]

They are. People pay the premium in order to be the first to use the given features.



Except that RX 6950 XT retails for 690 bucks, while RX 7800 XT retails for 530 bucks.
I wouldn't be so sure which one is the better.

More or less, the 6950 is 30% faster.

View attachment 333252

A 6950XT is about 15% faster than a 6800XT and a 7800XT is about similar performance to the latter.

Where are you getting 30% from?

TPU's Relative performance chart has it at 11% faster.

 

[3valatzy]

Where are you getting 30% from?

From the quite impressive and yet "isolated" CS 2 (43%) and CS GO (75%, vs RX 6800 XT).

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT and 7700 XT review: a nudge into the 1440p era

Nvidia could feel the pricing pressure here.

www.theverge.com

ASRock Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White Review

ASRock's Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White is an overclocked custom design variant with a white color theme. Pricing is reasonable, just +$20 over the regular card and noise levels are fantastic, the card is whisper quiet, even when heavily loaded.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Makaveli]

From the quite impressive and yet "isolated" CS 2 (43%) and CS GO (75%, vs RX 6800 XT).

View attachment 333286

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT and 7700 XT review: a nudge into the 1440p era

Nvidia could feel the pricing pressure here.

www.theverge.com

View attachment 333285

ASRock Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White Review

ASRock's Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White is an overclocked custom design variant with a white color theme. Pricing is reasonable, just +$20 over the regular card and noise levels are fantastic, the card is whisper quiet, even when heavily loaded.

www.techpowerup.com

You have one game as an example.

The TPU relative performance charts are many games.

Cherry-picking one game isn't going to make your point any less incorrect.

 

[AusWolf]

From the quite impressive and yet "isolated" CS 2 (43%) and CS GO (75%, vs RX 6800 XT).

View attachment 333286

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT and 7700 XT review: a nudge into the 1440p era

Nvidia could feel the pricing pressure here.

www.theverge.com

View attachment 333285

ASRock Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White Review

ASRock's Radeon RX 7900 XT Phantom Gaming White is an overclocked custom design variant with a white color theme. Pricing is reasonable, just +$20 over the regular card and noise levels are fantastic, the card is whisper quiet, even when heavily loaded.

www.techpowerup.com

So the fact that the 7800 XT wins or equals in basically every other game, not to mention in performance ranges where it actually matters (below 100 FPS) is nothing? Having a bazillion FPS instead of just a million in CS:GO is more important? Do you actually think about what you're saying?

 

[3valatzy]

So the fact that the 7800 XT wins or equals in basically every other game, not to mention in performance ranges where it actually matters (below 100 FPS) is nothing? Having a bazillion FPS instead of just a million in CS:GO is more important? Do you actually think about what you're saying?

What strikes me is when people like you defend the utter dishonest rebranding. RX 6800 XT -> RX 7800 XT is worth 0% performance difference, and yet it comes 2 (or maybe 3?) years later at the same price.
This is disgusting. That's why I will never accept RX 7800 XT. It's a DOA turd.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You have one game as an example.

The TPU relative performance charts are many games.

Cherry-picking one game isn't going to make your point any less incorrect.

This is the same argument when AMD fans start to run on that the 7900 XTX WINS because it's 1% faster in raster against the 4080 Super and 4% faster than the 4080, all while omitting that it's 20% slower in RT. I must confess I often argue with these types for entertainment

What strikes me is when people like you defend the utter dishonest rebranding. RX 6800 XT -> RX 7800 XT is worth 0% performance difference, and yet it comes 2 (or maybe 3?) years later at the same price.
This is disgusting. That's why I will never accept RX 7800 XT. It's a DOA turd.

The 7800 XT is the 6700 XT's successor. AMD just bumped SKU tiers, but if you look at it objectively, it's really Navi 32 (and succeeds Navi 22). That it is approaching Navi 21 level of performance, even if not quite beating it, is indeed rather unremarkable, but it remains the 7800 XT is probably the most balanced product that AMD has on offer this generation. Navi 31 scales extremely poorly and the fact AMD can shift it at lower prices is its sole redemption after failing to compete with AD102 and being barely on the level of the much leaner AD103 chip.

(product) (silicon tier)
7900 XTX > 6900 XT (1)
7900 XT > 6800 XT (1)
7900 GRE > 6800 (1)
7800 XT > 6700 XT (2)
7700 XT > 6700 (2)
7600 > 6600 XT (3)
6500 XT, no RDNA 3 replacement yet (4)

I don't count 7600 XT because it's just a 16 GB 7600 and that's about it