Radeon RX 9070 XT Sample Reportedly Scores 7931 Points in FurMark 2, Close to RX 7900 XTX Performance

[Sir Beregond]

I guess Nvidia's brain washing is doing wonders. Nvidia comes out with fake MSRPs, with real prices being even twice the MSRP price in some rare occasions, no availability, missing hardware(ROPs) and features(PhysX), bad drivers(black screens, games crushing, cards bricked), design problems that can lead to fire(on the cable, on the PSU, or the PCB) and people's minds are still stuck in the narrative
"If AMD doesn't put low prices, their products, no matter performance and features, will be DOA".

In CPUs when Intel messed up, people quickly decided to give a chance to AM5. The X3D chips helped, even considering that the 7000 X3D chips are not the best for productivity and 9800X3D is more or less only for gaming. But people didn't rushed to say "9800X3D for $399 or 9800X3D DOA". No, they gone and bought the CPU.

In GPUs Nvidia messed up even worst in hardware than Intel, shows no respect to consumers by making fun of them in their faces and people demand from AMD to give them the perfect product at the lowest price to not call it DOA and in the end rush to pay Nvidia.

I have to give credit to Nvidia's marketing department. They have the whole market hypnotized.

You have a completely wrong read here.

So let's talk about CPUs. Intel was giving you lackluster increases for years where the same quad core i7 got 5% IPC increase year over year. They still sold better, why? Because AMD was still in the Bulldozer era and those were worse.

When Zen and Zen+ came out, it was a step in the right direction, but still needed work. Intel started floundering at 14nm here which helped a lot. Zen 2 came out and was a hit, but still not quite as good as Intel. So what did AMD do? They priced aggressively. The market noticed and started to buy in.

Zen 3 comes and now you are beating Intel entirely (until they launched 12th gen), the price reflected that as Zen 3 was priced higher than Zen 2. But the market was already switching to AMD's side massively.

Intel managed to stay somewhat in the game with 12th-14th gen, but definitely at the cost of massive power draw and other issues. Zen 4 priced slightly better than Zen 3 and same with Zen 5. X3D comes out and for gaming massively stomps Intel. AMD can confidently claim performance leadership here.

So where does that leave GPU? Well AMD has 10% marketshare. If they want to capture more of it then they have to do what they did with early Zen. The market doesn't want "just slot into whatever Nvidia dictates the prices should be". The market wants AMD to stomp Nvidia's 70 class, potentially come within their 80 class, and completely reset the pricing dynamic of what mainstream segment is. If they do it right where it would look incredibly stupid to buy a 5070 Ti at +$300 or more over the 9070 XT and AMD can turn the sales into a volume game, then it's a win win. You capture more market, you make more money on volume, and you've successfully given your competitor who has market domination an obvious black eye in the eyes of the consumer, and perhaps the mindshare starts changing.

 

[Hecate91]

Sorry but no the puppy eyed poor AMD card aint working on me. Thats all you really said, and its ridiculous. Mindshare only goes so far and yes, it takes time to build and is also easy to lose, but if you've been consistent for a long time, it takes longer to lose. Intel aint popular anymore, for all the right reasons and yes it took a while for people to get the memo. I can imagine the same thing counts wrt Nvidia. AMD? Never consistent EXCEPT with Zen. Gen on gen of solid product and here too it took 3-4 generations for people to figure it out. As a consequence, even the reasonably improved latest Intel gen didn't really get the popularity it might have deserved; the damage was done, and the issues linger in people's heads. And important as well: its not faster or fastest anymore, only situationally. See where Intel is at now? In that same low-reward for high effort zone as AMD used to be. The product's better than 14th gen... and yet I still wouldn't buy it just because the trust in Intel has taken a major blow. I'm not gonna reward that.

So unlike you I can truly identify all of this going both ways. There is no anti AMD conspiracy. At best there is successful marketing, but hey... isn't that something that ties right into having matching product lines too? And on that front, we can make an exhaustive list of AMD's marketing failures, heck, we're literally in one as we speak. AMD's problems are all AMD's problems, not anyone else's and certainly not mine or yours. I'm just here to buy something, right?

No it isn't a matter of poor puppy eyed AMD, thinking AMD needs to take a loss is rediculous. The mindshare with AMD doesn't go far at all, and no the same wouldn't count with Nvidia, there are people always giving them a free pass, still arguing over an objectively bad power connector, don't care that Nvidia removed PhysX support making hundreds of games unplayable, and go to such lengths grabbing at straws to defend the leather jacket man for selling defective GPU's with missing ROPs. The mindshare for Nvidia is so strong, not even consistency would save AMD, because even when AMD does have a decent product, people still buy Nvidia.
And no, the vapor chamber issue is nothing even remotely close to the Blackwell issues, all you had to do is not buy an AMD MBA card and you were fine, while the numerous issues with Blackwell could affect any Blackwell card.
Intel is still plenty popular with the average consumer, they don't care if Intel products are worse because Intel is a known brand, even in corporate business many in charge still insist on buying Intel.
The reasons Intel has become unpopular with enthusiats is because they decided to stagnate for years then rushed to improve with 8th gen, then made massive mistakes after 12th gen pushing power too high.
I'm getting tired of repeating it, but AMD can't just pull a Ryzen like comeback with GPU's to compete with Nvidia, Nvidia has feature lock in, the mindshare who will blindly buy Nvidia, the AAA game publishers taking piles of money from Nvidia to only implement their features,and the tech press cheering for them with every release while recommending against AMD because it doesn't have DLSS.
Only a part of the problem is AMD's, the rest of it is with the market and consumers, it won't change unless people vote with their wallets.

I'd price it at 599,-, and if I were AMD, I'd make sure the cards are actually getting sold at that price too.

But you and I both know that ain't happening. AMD isn't pushing that line, even though it would benefit 'gamers'. Gotta give the sellers their margin options.

A price of $599 would be fair enough, but I'm expecting $649 for the XT, but even at $599 I expect lots of criticism despite Nvidia's MSRPs being fake.

 

[JustBenching]

don't care that Nvidia removed PhysX support making hundreds of games unplayable

Doesn't that mean that hundreds of games are unplayable on amd since they don't have physx support? Then why do you act like it's a mindshare that led to 90% marketshare, clearly it's the fact that hundreds of games could only be played on nvidia. Why would someone buy amd if that''s the case?

You have a completely wrong read here.

So let's talk about CPUs. Intel was giving you lackluster increases for years where the same quad core i7 got 5% IPC increase year over year. They still sold better, why? Because AMD was still in the Bulldozer era and those were worse.

When Zen and Zen+ came out, it was a step in the right direction, but still needed work. Intel started floundering at 14nm here which helped a lot. Zen 2 came out and was a hit, but still not quite as good as Intel. So what did AMD do? They priced aggressively. The market noticed and started to buy in.

Zen 3 comes and now you are beating Intel entirely (until they launched 12th gen), the price reflected that as Zen 3 was priced higher than Zen 2. But the market was already switching to AMD's side massively.

Intel managed to stay somewhat in the game with 12th-14th gen, but definitely at the cost of massive power draw and other issues. Zen 4 priced slightly better than Zen 3 and same with Zen 5. X3D comes out and for gaming massively stomps Intel. AMD can confidently claim performance leadership here.

So where does that leave GPU? Well AMD has 10% marketshare. If they want to capture more of it then they have to do what they did with early Zen. The market doesn't want "just slot into whatever Nvidia dictates the prices should be". The market wants AMD to stomp Nvidia's 70 class, potentially come within their 80 class, and completely reset the pricing dynamic of what mainstream segment is. If they do it right where it would look incredibly stupid to buy a 5070 Ti at +$300 or more over the 9070 XT and AMD can turn the sales into a volume game, then it's a win win. You capture more market, you make more money on volume, and you've successfully given your competitor who has market domination a black eye.

In the CPU space they offered 300% extra threads for lower price. R5 1600 @ 199$ msrp vs 7600k at 249$ msrp. It was clear as day that anyone who wanted MT performance amd was the only option bar none. They don't offer anything similar in the gpu space

 

[bug]

Sorry but no the puppy eyed poor AMD card aint working on me. Thats all you really said, and its ridiculous. Mindshare only goes so far and yes, it takes time to build and is also easy to lose, but if you've been consistent for a long time, it takes longer to lose. Intel aint popular anymore, for all the right reasons and yes it took a while for people to get the memo. I can imagine the same thing counts wrt Nvidia. AMD? Never consistent EXCEPT with Zen. Gen on gen of solid product and here too it took 3-4 generations for people to figure it out. As a consequence, even the reasonably improved latest Intel gen didn't really get the popularity it might have deserved; the damage was done, and the issues linger in people's heads. And important as well: its not faster or fastest anymore, only situationally. See where Intel is at now? In that same low-reward for high effort zone as AMD used to be. The product's better than 14th gen... and yet I still wouldn't buy it just because the trust in Intel has taken a major blow. I'm not gonna reward that.

So unlike you I can truly identify all of this going both ways. There is no anti AMD conspiracy. At best there is successful marketing, but hey... isn't that something that ties right into having matching product lines too? And on that front, we can make an exhaustive list of AMD's marketing failures, heck, we're literally in one as we speak. AMD's problems are all AMD's problems, not anyone else's and certainly not mine or yours. I'm just here to buy something, right?


I'd price it at 599,-, and if I were AMD, I'd make sure the cards are actually getting sold at that price too.

But you and I both know that ain't happening. AMD isn't pushing that line, even though it would benefit 'gamers'. Gotta give the sellers their margin options.

This is going to sound mean, but even with Zen, AMD dropped the ball hard on memory compatibility. It took Zen4/DDR5 for them to come up with EXPO. But they improved gradually and got where they needed to be, so credit where credit is due.

 

[Hecate91]

Doesn't that mean that hundreds of games are unplayable on amd since they don't have physx support? Then why do you act like it's a mindshare that led to 90% marketshare, clearly it's the fact that hundreds of games could only be played on nvidia. Why would someone buy amd if that''s the case?

Turning off PhysX makes some games much worse, like Borderlands 2 or Mirror's Edge for example, some are unplayable not all of them, though it is still the loss of hardware accelerated effects.
And because the mindshare is what led them to have nearly 90% marketshare. With the removal of PhysX support, Nvidia pulled an Apple with backwards compatibility its as simple as that.
I don't see a reason why someone should buy an Nvidia card if I can just turn off a feature to play games, the logic of just turn off the feature is a flawed argument.

In the CPU space they offered 300% extra threads for lower price. R5 1600 @ 199$ msrp vs 7600k at 249$ msrp. It was clear as day that anyone who wanted MT performance amd was the only option bar none. They don't offer anything similar in the gpu space

Because there isn't a way for AMD to manufacture an RTX 5090 beating GPU while selling it for $500, the R&D for RDNA3 must've been expensive and probably didn't achieve ROI given they decided to target the mid range instead.

 

[JustBenching]

Turning off PhysX makes some games much worse, like Borderlands 2 or Mirror's Edge for example, some are unplayable not all of them, though it is still the loss of hardware accelerated effects.

You literally said hundreds of games are now unplayable cause they removed Physx. So there you go, that's why nvidia was out selling amd 9 to 1. Cause hundreds of games in the last 20 years have been unplayable on amd cards.

 

[Nostras]

I guess Nvidia's brain washing is doing wonders. Nvidia comes out with fake MSRPs, with real prices being even twice the MSRP price in some rare occasions, no availability, missing hardware(ROPs) and features(PhysX), bad drivers(black screens, games crushing, cards bricked), design problems that can lead to fire(on the cable, on the PSU, or the PCB) and people's minds are still stuck in the narrative
"If AMD doesn't put low prices, their products, no matter performance and features, will be DOA".

In CPUs when Intel messed up, people quickly decided to give a chance to AM5. The X3D chips helped, even considering that the 7000 X3D chips are not the best for productivity and 9800X3D is more or less only for gaming. But people didn't rushed to say "9800X3D for $399 or 9800X3D DOA". No, they gone and bought the CPU.

In GPUs Nvidia messed up even worst in hardware than Intel, shows no respect to consumers by making fun of them in their faces and people demand from AMD to give them the perfect product at the lowest price to not call it DOA and in the end rush to pay Nvidia.

I have to give credit to Nvidia's marketing department. They have the whole market hypnotized.

My guy, I explicitly state in another comment that there's no point in comparing against Nvidia right now because I (we) can't get a read on whatever the market is going to do at this time.
I'm only comparing it against the 7900XT, which is the GPU most relevant as the XTX is getting inflated because of rumours that the 9070XT won't beat it.
The only one talking about Nvidia here is YOU.

 

[john_]

(boring part about the past) About PhysX. Nvidia locked PhysX 15+ years ago and then $convinced$ developers to drop physics effects on CPUs to make games running on GeForce look complete and same games running on Radeons looking like missing important features. You couldn't even have a secondary Nvidia card. If the driver was identifying a primary card that wasn't Nvidia, both PhysX and CUDA were disabled. People managed to pass Nvidia locks with patches that proved that PhysX could work without any problems with a Radeon primary card and a GeForce secondary just for PhysX. So two cards where necessary when using anything else than an Nvidia graphics card as primary. The software PhysX was also crippled and using a CPU for PhysX effects was a no go. First versions of CPU PhysX wasn't even using SSE extensions, just MMX and was single threaded.
Around 2014 I think, Nvidia dropped the locks and using an AMD as primary card and an Nvidia as a secondary card for PhysX was now possible, without any patches.

(present) A couple months ago I turned CPU PhysX to compare the performance I was getting against my old GT 710. It seems that a Ryzen R5 7600 can achieve framerates a little higher in software than what a GT 710 can achieve with hardware PhysX in Batman Arkham City. So, running older games with PhysX at High and only a CPU, is possible. Of course anyone wanting triple digit framerates needs probably a secondary Nvidia card anyway, much stronger than my GT 710, or probably something much faster than my 7600. I am also not absolutely sure that software PhysX produces the same optical result as hardware PhysX. I thought, while running the benchmark in Batman Arkham City, that the hardware version of PhysX had somewhat better effects, but I could be wrong there.
Anyway this is what I was getting in Batman Arkham City at 4K with every option at maximum settings. Main GPU, RX 6600.