AMD Radeon 9070 XT Rumored to Outpace RTX 5070 Ti by Almost 15%

[mb194dc]

Cyberpunk 4k with RT will be unplayable regardless.

Likely confirms AMD need to heavily cherry pick benchmarks to show anything.

Look at the card specs, the 9070xt will trade with 7900gre in raster...

 

[AusWolf]

Cyberpunk 4k with RT will be unplayable regardless.

Likely confirms AMD need to heavily cherry pick benchmarks to show anything.

Look at the card specs, the 9070xt will trade with 7900gre in raster...

AMD didn't cherry pick anything here. This is a leak / rumour.

By the way, 7900 GRE performance is fine, imo, as long as the price is right.

 

[mb194dc]

AMD didn't cherry pick anything here. This is a leak / rumour.

By the way, 7900 GRE performance is fine, imo, as long as the price is right.

It's a hype leak, they're picking something to show gains in scenario that means nothing to any reasonable use case.

9070xt will have much better RT performance... But like 4070/5070 RT will be largely unusable anyway at 1440p+

Without using upscaling which negates any benefit. Image quality will be worse.

Likely most depressing gpu generation for a long time...

 

[AusWolf]

It's a hype leak, they're picking something to show gains in scenario that means nothing to any reasonable use case.

Leak - as such, it should be taken with a pinch (or truckload) of salt, especially since it's MLID.

9070xt will have much better RT performance... But like 4070/5070 RT will be largely unusable anyway at 1440p+

Source?

Image quality will be worse.

Again, source?

 

[Krit]

If the RT gap is closed and FSR 4 is good, then what prevents AMD from asking the same price as Nvidia?

They could try but knowing people most likely they will not buy it at almost the same price. Only 7% price difference.

Look at the card specs, the 9070xt will trade with 7900gre in raster...

That's already debunked by AMD weeks ago.

Worst case scenario RX 7900 XT and RTX 4070S RT.

 

[AnotherReader]

AMD didn't cherry pick anything here. This is a leak / rumour.

By the way, 7900 GRE performance is fine, imo, as long as the price is right.

7900 GRE performance would be very disappointing. I expect them to match the 7900 XT at least.

 

[Luminescent]

AMD cannot launch a GPU, Nvidia cannot deliver newly launched GPUs, otherwise, everything is fine.

 

[Super XP]

I hope it doesn't outpace it in price too!

AMD can't hike the price because they need to be cheaper than the GTX 5070Ti and non Ti. Hopefully AMD doesn't screw up this opportunity to have a fast product for a reasonable price tag. Hence they need to gain Market Share.

AMD cannot launch a GPU, Nvidia cannot deliver newly launched GPUs, otherwise, everything is fine.

AMD is stuffing the Channels with 9070 and 9070xts since December 2024. So when they are ready, they will have loads of quantities available.

7900 GRE performance would be very disappointing. I expect them to match the 7900 XT at least.

Looks to be faster than the 7900xt. It was meant to compete with the 5070-5080.

 

[Tek-Check]

... I'm just thinking that 500 is the top price people would consider "good" for the 9070XT, at least assuming prices don't go to hell due to tariffs and crap

Nonsense. The chart suggests that 9070XT will be only ~10% slower than 5080. Why would AMD ever sell such card for twice as little money?
9070 ~$500, ~10% faster faster than 5070 and 16GB of VRAM. A deal of the year for mid-range gamers.
9070XT $650/690, ~10% faster than 5070Ti

Doesn't help AMD anything at all on having 15% more performance here when AMD lacks all of the great features the NVIDIA GPU have. I would gladly have 10-15% lower performance in trade for the awesome features the NVIDIA GPUs comes with.

The awesome feature set is one of the reasons why NVIDIA sells like hot cakes.

Brainwashing customers also sells products, since the beginning of time...

$699 it is, then? And after that all depends on AIB markups. If they're just as bad for 70ti as they are for 80 on Nvidia's side but AMD's are more normal in the traditional $50-100 range, they might have a competitor, though not a world-beater "consumer jackpot!" deal.

9070 for $499 and 9070XT for $699 would actually be a jackpot.

9070xt would still be a good card for $549, same price as the 5070 with 30%+ more raster, similar if not better raytracing and more vram. (ofc with inferior fsr compared to dlss, and no cuda. )

9070XT is NOT going to cost $549. Forget about it. 9070 non-XT will be ~$500.
It will be only 10/15% slower than 5080.

Wow. This is very close to the 5080... With AIBs pushing a 330W TDP, it'd comes even closer; yet people still insist it should be priced at $500?

People are completely brainwashed and don't pay attention to details. They just throw random numbers around.

 

[Bomby569]

numbers or x's in the name mean noting to me, i want to see real performance and price, that's what will make the cards stack against each other
i know i'm going to make a lot of people mad, but i hope the amd cards are amazing and cheap so nvidia drops the prices on their cards so i can buy one considerable cheaper

as long as any price difference for similar performing cards falls under 100eur i will never consider buying a amd card, if it's larger then i guess i'll have to consider the black screen simulator again, oh boy!

 

[Hecate91]

9070 for $499 and 9070XT for $699 would actually be a jackpot.

I would rather see $449 on the 9070 and $549 on the 9070XT, everyone criticized Nvidia for undercutting them by $50.
Even if the card is 10-15% slower than a 5080, it will get bashed on not having proprietary Nvidia features.

but i hope the amd cards are amazing and cheap so nvidia drops the prices on their cards so i can buy one considerable cheaper

Nvidia doesn't lower their prices, they're too busy only caring about the AI/datacenter market, and they have been giving gamers the finger for years yet people are still loyal.

 

[ThomasK]

black screen simulator again, oh boy!

Get in line with the others who think like that, you won't be missed, trust me.

 

[freeagent]

Get in line with the others who think like that, you won't be missed, trust me.

People still have this issue, on 7000 series too.

 

[ThomasK]

People still have this issue, on 7000 series too.

People tend to generalize and think it all boils down to amd having bad drivers, and they keep repeating the same one-liners, like parrots.

Intel has had recent driver issues, as well as nividia, whilst switching from its ancient control panel.

NVIDIA App Allegedly Degrades Gaming Performance by Up to 15%, But There Is a Fix | TechPowerUp

 

[Hecate91]

People tend to generalize and think it all boils down to amd having bad drivers, and they keep repeating the same one-liners, like parrots.

Intel has had recent driver issues, as well as nividia, whilst switching from its ancient control panel.

NVIDIA App Allegedly Degrades Gaming Performance by Up to 15%, But There Is a Fix | TechPowerUp

AMD also discloses their known driver issues, Nvidia doesn't so a lot of generalizations happen on thinking only AMD has any issues.

 

[freeagent]

People tend to generalize and think it all boils down to amd having bad drivers, and they keep repeating the same one-liners, like parrots.

Intel has had recent driver issues, as well as nividia, whilst switching from its ancient control panel.

NVIDIA App Allegedly Degrades Gaming Performance by Up to 15%, But There Is a Fix | TechPowerUp

I dunno, just see it on other forums.

I don't use the Nvidia app, I am one of those guys who has never installed it.

Nvidia doesn't

I would say 98% of people Nvidia driver problems are related to unstable system settings, incompatible hardware ie memory causing their problems.

 

[Hecate91]

I would say 98% of people Nvidia driver problems are related to unstable system settings, incompatible hardware ie memory causing their problems.

I think this applies no matter what brand of GPU you have, game crashing or related errors is likely ram or unstable oc's.

 

[freeagent]

I think this applies no matter what brand of GPU you have, game crashing or related errors is likely ram or unstable oc's.

I couldn't say, I have been running Nvidia GPU's for the last 20 years

 

[AnotherReader]

I couldn't say, I have been running Nvidia GPU's for the last 20 years

The only time I had an issue with an AMD GPU, it turned out to be a bad motherboard.

 

[freeagent]

The only time I had an issue with an AMD GPU, it turned out to be a bad motherboard.

Lol..

 

[alwayssts]

Here's the article if you're interested.

IMHO that is one of the best articles ever written in the space, and reference it regularly. THAT is why I enjoy the hobby. THAT RIGHT THERE. Take notice, AMD. That is what your customers want.
Because we're nerds. We're the people that supported ATi/AMD in the face of ever-increasing nVIDIA marketing and Intel's dominance in the space since forever. Because their choices were logical.
We bought the mobile T-birds and the T-breds instead of Intel and put them in a desktop socket.
We bought the A64 multi-core Opterons instead of Intel. We did pin-mods for cores, ran high-voltage Winbond BH-5 and DFI toaster boxes instead of Sammy TCCD on Intel.
We bought 9700 Pros. Actually we bought 9500 Pros and flashed them to 9700pros. We bought RV770s (and v-modded them). We flashed first-run lower-end models for more shaders. That is your audience.
We notice RAM stutter, and applaud when our cards allocate enough so it doesn't do it. We appreciate when you don't make cards like 3GB-on-one-bus-1GB-on-another-bus 970. 12GB 4070Ti. 16GB 5080.
The REAL ones.

We are the nerds that understand how this shit works and want the actual best common-sense technology and don't give a shit about what's popular. AMD needs to understand that, and they largely did until the last couple generations in which they started clock-gating, power-gating, locking stuff down like nVIDIA...and now shooting for higher and higher margins. That, unfortunately for some, is not the company that gets our vocal support. They need to return to their roots. I don't care if a part uses a little more power for higher clocks...Is it a cool design that leverages ground-breaking technology (that competition may capitalize on later)? Does it have a small die size (or rather smaller transistor count) so cheap? Does it have the amount of RAM needed for intended markets (they haven't lost that one yet, thankfully). Is a design choice good for both their business/consumers? That's what 'their' people want...not artificial limitations. They are different than most regular people, or even *some* tech enthusiasts.

The philosophy (adding a power connector for higher clocks) was very smart thinking. The efficiency of the low-end using low clocks (but keeping all shaders enabled) for yield smart.
Makes me wonder about N48...is it RV790 (read last paragraph) in disguise? Maybe, maybe not. I guess I'm the only person that will surprised if it isn't...and have been saying it's likely for a long time.

I miss Anand's writing; his defection to Apple really hurt our scene. He kept it real.
In some respects so did Dave (originally Beyond3D - read 'The missing MUL' by Rys, Noodle will never be forgotten), Scott, Ryan, Alan, Kyle, and etc. IMO not enough people have stepped up to replace them.
It wasn't just Intel/AMD that poached 'our' guys, it was also Asus/eVGA etc. I honestly don't know if they all got hired for their potential usefulness, or rather to keep them from exposing everything.
Steves' do a good job for the most part, but also a minority (also kind of at the whim of the algorithm, and it shows sometimes). I largely look to Roman these days, and glad when he does a video.
There is more interesting (clock/v) information in that video (that help understand process/power curve; potential improvements) than there are in some huge review chains (unboxing/features/review/oc/etc).

Large credit goes to Anand; he had a touch for getting those interviews and making sure the engineering information was both shared OTR and shared coherently. That article wasn't the only one (even about ATi/AMD GPG) over the years. It would be nice not only if someone would take his place, but if the companies were willing to share those people and that information again, rather than be so guarded. I think more people would be more-invested in both the hobby and be more knowledgeable how stuff works, which could lead to greater innovation in the space. Both in testing (like frametimes etc) and features.

Just so we are on the same page, that 4080 12gb / 4070ti was still better in both raster / $ and RT / $ than it's competitor, the 7900xt.

Case in point...

Son, the absolute performance of a typical 7900xt (~2800mhz bc bw limitation at 2700/'21600' tight timings) is similar to that of a 4080...and has always cost less money. Sometimes a LOT less money.
...with more ram. Does it need it? Well, the 4080 needs 16GB. The 5080 needs more than 16GB.
The absolute performance of 7900xt is 60TF, which I would consider the cut-off for 16GB. So does AMD, apparently, because I don't expect most N48 chips to be running >3663mhz, but maybe some close!
Most 4080(s) can't do that...so I guess it's okay. What's the typical clock on a 40 series...~2855 Oc? 2855*9728 or 10240 = 55-58.5TF? For reference, the 4090 is 24GB/90TF.
Did AMD also clock that GPU way too low at stock? Yes they did. Was it stupid as fuck given MSRP? Yes it was. Was it so they could replace it later? Probably yes. Should you replace it? No you shouldn't.
You should laugh at people with a 4070Ti when you don't run out of RAM and have 50% more compute.

The 4080 12GB was $800 for 40TF w/ 12GB of ram. Eight Hundred Fucking Dollars and you can't play some games with high settings at 1440p comfortably.
They wanted it to be nine hundred apeshit fucking dollars.
The $250 B580 has 12GB of ram. That's some hard cope there guy.
I would take a 7800XT every day of the week bc of the value. OC it (58.4 on this test at stock, which I assume W1zard uses in tests) and you have the same playable settings a 4070 Ti.
Overclock a 4070ti and you have a slightly faster 4070 Ti that makes no discernable difference. Stilll 12GB. Like a B580.
I guess also a 5070 if you want to go that route, also still only $550. I get some some people have a preference for whatever reason.

Not $800 fucking dolllars for a 12GB 40TF card. No. $500 for a 40TF card. Probably soon $400. With 16GB...because it's over 40TF (when overclocked). Almost like there's general boundries.

Heavy heavy cope...or again, just a sign of the times.

5080 is/will be the same way. N48 from below, next-gen 192-bit/18GB from the side, 256-bit/24GB from above...and those 192-bit cards will be better! N48 good-enough but cheaper.

I haven't even caught up to this thread yet...but my God. This...this is why I'm sad. I shouldn't have to say this. AMD SHOULD BE SAYING THIS.

On one hand AMD makes cheap/OCable cards, and I appreciate that they're cheap bc priced for low-clock yields and better power consumption.
I appreciate they leave generally-decent power limits and room to overclock them to the next tier. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THEY DO. ON PURPOSE. BUT IT USES MORE POWER.

On the other hand some people are very not with the program, and that's a bummer. Can't fix...um...'not understanding.'

 

[AnotherReader]

Lol..

Yeah and I cursed AMD for a long time until I realized it was the motherboard; this was during COVID so I didn't want to buy an overpriced replacement from either company.

 

[Rabit]

Any info/ leak for clam shell design for RX 9070XT to have 32GB ?
GDDR6 market spot prices last time I check was below $40 for 16GB.
In my opinion if priced right will awesome for local LLM.
I doubt will be much difference for games in 2025 but as past teach as more vram better on example of Rx 470 4Gb vs 8GB.

 

[freeagent]

Yeah and I cursed AMD for a long time until I realized it was the motherboard; this was during COVID so I didn't want to buy an overpriced replacement from either company.

I never really had any problems with AMD when I ran them, they ran fine. I just.. defected

But.. I have been running AMD CPU and mobo for the last 4 years, shit almost 5 now dammit.. maybe 5.. to me its awesome.

Benchmarks say otherwise

 

[ModEl4]

So he claims that RX 9070XT is going to be only -2% slower than 7900XTX in 4K raster?
0% chance.
I prefer the previous rumour that the Red Devil flagship (3060MHz turbo) is showing performance within 5% of RX 4080S, at least is more believable.
To be at 5% distance from RX 4080S it will need 10% actual performance increase per CU at 3060MHz vs RDNA3 which is a stress (in my original calculation i had 4080S performing +10% vs 9070XT with a 3025MHz boost and a 6% actual performance increase per CU/clock)
AMD despite claiming 17.4% performance increase clock for clock with RDNA3 per CU pair in reality it achieved only around 6% in average vs RDNA2 despite doubling/per clock the FP throughput because it was very game dependent (in some games there was also regression despite having 2X the shading throughput) , so this time i didn't want to calculate with more than 6% average performance increase per CU/clock vs RDNA3

One of the problems of RTX 5000 is the low clocks, for example 2660MHz median for 5080 reference vs 2790MHz for 4080 reference, i didn't expected that.The other problem is that in some games the architectural change of the SM vs Ada doesn't bring uniform performance increase for older games, it's very game dependent (but logically it will get a little better in the future when developers start exploring Blackwell architecture)
Depending on actual median clock achieved in games RTX 5070Ti is going to be around -6% vs RTX 4080S (+18% performance/$ vs 4070Ti Super) in my calculations and RTX 5070 only 1% faster than RTX 4070S (+10% performance/$ vs 4070 Super).