AMD Mentions Sub-$700 Pricing for Radeon RX 9070 GPU Series, Looks Like NV Minus $50 Again

[chstamos]

I would have never expected such a disappointing GPU year if you asked me back in the summer.

Everything has been a complete letdown, and even some degree of my initial enthusiasm over intel's B580 (probably the best release this far) is evaporating courtesy of the driver overhead and the nowhere-to-be-found official pricetag.

All that's missing is the round of complete and utter garbage that I'm absolutely positive nvidia (and pretty sure AMD, too) will serve us come summer time on the 200-300 price range, to complete the pretty picture.

I have a 3070 mobile on my laptop and an RX580 on my desktop pc. I'll probably upgrade the desktop to intel's B570 for a ... relatively reasonably priced card, even with all the overpricing around. Absolutely no trust that either nvidia or AMD will release anything other than complete and utter overpriced trash, like 3050 and RX6400-level trash, for this generation's "entry level", whenever they do. I can't see them offering anything worth a syphilitic rat's ass at that pricerange.

 

[Dawora]

I fixed that ridiculously big "why" for you. We are not blind, thank you.

Minus 50 is not necessarily minus 50, as MSRP of 750 is practically a bogus number. Real retail prices of 5070Ti go around $900, and several models above $1,000. Wait for the prices to be announced on Friday and you will find out more. Simple.

750 + Vat + AIB

Why it is still so hard to understand we need to pay VAT and AIB in some models asking extra.

We have here 5070Ti 940e including 25% Vat

750 +25% = 937.5

MSRP + VAT + AIB

 

[wolf]

Didn‘t you get the memo? It’s never AMD’s fault. They get credit for good outcomes, but anything negative is Intel’s or Nvidia’s or stupid consumers fault. AMD’s planning, products and execution are impeccable and held in the highest regard at all times.

All these companies aren't perfect and the whole GPU market is a mess right now, but this blind devotion to any of them is daft.

The one that can make this launch a success for AMD, is AMD. Control what you can control, complaining about the rest doesn't fix it.

This launch is dripping in possibilities for AMD/Radeon (despite the miss-steps so far), Nvidia have all but handed them an open goal with all the negative 50 series press.

 

[Dawora]

If the X is at the $599 price range it will effing sell. IMHO Nvidia won't drop its pricing that much to affect it.

IF it X is at the $649 range, it will still sell UNTIL Nvidia moves their pricing down.

And I think they will.

649 + Vat + AIB

U cant get 9070XT 649

649 + 25% Vat in here = 811 + AIB extra for better models, so we will see many +900 models.

Make a research before made choose comments! This is a misinformation at the highest level. RTX 5090 shold cost ~ 1200$ not 3000$ only typical nvidia user can not see this. It's a robbery in a clear mid day. So where these 1800$ are evaporating ?

View attachment 386717

Or it should be free so all the whining stops..
And ppls should get everything else also for free right?

5090 can cost even +5000$ and ppls still buying it.

Wait a minute.

Assuming the 9070XT is in the same performance range as the 5070 ti, I said assuming (according to the leaks), and given that the 5070 ti goes for a minimum of $750 while being unavailable anywhere, why on EARTH would people not buy the 9070XT at $690?

Are you aware that there are NO stocks available anywhere of RTX 50x0?

Gpus are long term sales..
There will be stock available later

 

[Dahita]

Gpus are long term sales..
There will be stock available later

Well, sure, but we're talking about the MSRP right now, in the current market. By the same token, the MSRP will most likely change down the road...

 

[Hecate91]

Who's saying all the blame? there's certainly some of it though.

AMD need conversions, they need to make a potential GeForce buyer not buy a GeForce because their product is such an attractive price to performance. They did it before with Ryzen and previous Radeon generations.

I tire of this narrative where AMD is seen like some blameless child who did nothing wrong and is being oppressed/persecuted and couldn't succeed if they tried, they're a damn multi billion dollar company and they're not trying hard enough.

The blame comes from the same people denying issues with the power cable, saying missing ROPs isn't an issue, not all the blame but people act like the screwed up GPU market is AMD's fault because they aren't making a $2000 gpu those people won't buy regardless.

AMD won't get those conversions from Geforce buyers because of the proprietary feature lock-in, it isn't as easy as AMD pulling a Ryzen come back.
And I'm tired of the narrative of Nvidia can do no wrong with issues being downplayed, the fictional prices cited as if they exist like anyone can buy a GPU for MSRP, while the rhetoric on AMD is always negative, just look at the thread title as an example. Compared to a multi-trillion dollar company, AMD even still being in the dedicated GPU market is a feat within itself, especially since Nvidia does things like handing game devs piles of money to make their feature set exclusive and no one calls them out for it. There is little reason for AMD to keep Radeon going with dedicated cards, since people vote with their wallets despite how scummy Nvidia is towards consumers.

 

[Visible Noise]

How many people that keep bringing up PhysX (in an AMD thread) were this upset when AMD dropped the 3Dnow! Instructions?

Yeah, I know. Weird isn’t it, the same people that are complaining about Nvidia don’t have a problem when AMD does it.

 

[wolf]

The blame comes from the same people denying issues with the power cable, saying missing ROPs isn't an issue, not all the blame but people act like the screwed up GPU market is AMD's fault because they aren't making a $2000 gpu those people won't buy regardless.

Those people are also not the smartest. There are issues, they're undeniable, and it has put a serious damper on the 50 series launch. I mean it was already underwhelming uplifts, but scalpers, availability, ROP's missing and melting cables have gone next level.

AMD won't get those conversions from Geforce buyers because of the proprietary feature lock-in, it isn't as easy as AMD pulling a Ryzen come back.

There is no feature lock in, Radeon are broadly speaking at feature level parity already, those features just lack polish. Sure, it's not as easy I'll agree there, but it's far from impossible. Price and mass availability with good 'traditional' performance, with the features they already have (or have promised) can absolutely be enough for the 9070 series to be an absolute banger. They could at least stand to gain from positive press around the launch. We've seen before when when prices fall hard and fast post launch, some real and lasting damage is already done.

And I'm tired of the narrative of Nvidia can do no wrong

So am I, and I don't think that at all. I like to act on the best info I have at the time, so when new information surfaces, my opinion changes commensurately. Anyone who thinks any tech company can do no wrong is an absolute fool. I also place particularly low value on those who are compelled to engage in constant name calling - it boggles my mind they don't understand that it makes their arguments less compelling (to those who don't already completely agree it would seem), not more.

 

[phanbuey]

Honestly a $4090 at $1800 2 years ago seemed stupid and excessive is now sounding like a good deal…

these are some of the worst released I’ve seen

 

[evernessince]

How many people that keep bringing up PhysX (in an AMD thread) were this upset when AMD dropped the 3Dnow! Instructions?

Yeah, I know. Weird isn’t it, the same people that are complaining about Nvidia don’t have a problem when AMD does it.

Lol, I can see those eager to distract from Nvidia's numerous issues nowadays will reach for anything including something that happened all the way back with bulldozer.

The reason people didn't care about AMD dropping 3Dnow is because it didn't result in a loss of any feature or performance. 3Dnow only accelerated game specific floating point operations but modern CPUs have newer instruction sets and better optimizations to handle that instead. You can go back and play games that support the 3DNow Instruction set, they run very well on modern hardware.

Nvidia's dropping of 32-bit PhysX support for the 5000 series completely disables GPU Physics acceleration in the respective titles, falling back to running on the CPU. It's not running on the GPU at all anymore, which is a massive distinction.

Hence why a 980 Ti now beats a 5090 performance wise with 32-bit PhysX enabled.


With that out of the way, actually on topic:

I disagree with the sentiment of comparing AMD pricing to Nvidia's MSRP. Until Nvidia's MSRP actually materializes for a significant number of cards it's disingenuous to compare to it. It's making Nvidia's pricing look significantly better than it really is.

That said, I also agree with the sentiment that pricing these cards at $699 would be a mistake. It's the same 4080 trap they feel into last generation. Using Nvidia's pricing as the basis for their pricing is not a good strategy. it not only helps justify Nvidia's pricing but doesn't take into consideration what consumers would actually like to buy at. Consumers are essentially being forced into paying higher prices thanks to AMD and Nvidia setting prices high.

Really AMD should follow the Ryzen strategy. Give buyers a full tier up performance wise for the price of the tier below. I think HWUB's figures were pretty good, $450 - $550 for the 9070 XT.

 

[Quicks]

That's exactly why I didn't bother waiting for AMD again. They never miss an opportunity to screw up price and performance.

 

[Dahita]

I disagree with the sentiment of comparing AMD pricing to Nvidia's MSRP. Until Nvidia's MSRP actually materializes for a significant number of cards it's disingenuous to compare to it. It's making Nvidia's pricing look significantly better than it really is.

That said, I also agree with the sentiment that pricing these cards at $699 would be a mistake. It's the same 4080 trap they feel into last generation. Using Nvidia's pricing as the basis for their pricing is not a good strategy. it not only helps justify Nvidia's pricing but doesn't take into consideration what consumers would actually like to buy at. Consumers are essentially being forced into paying higher prices thanks to AMD and Nvidia setting prices high.

1- How do you know that AMD will materialize a significant number of cards at launch? You think they aren't trying to get into the AI market just like Nvidia?
2- I don't know what line of business you're in (I'm in wine), personally I have NEVER heard of a merchant that ignores competition's prices. Adjust your prices to what you're aiming at (market shares, cash flow, see BCG matrix)

Consumers would actually like to buy at $20. Doesn't make sense. You price it at what will sell depending on your goal. In this case, if they want to win market shares, they price it for slightly lower that the equivalent from the competition. If equivalent to 5070 ti with MSRP at $750, then set your MSRP at $690. AIB and retailers will adjust the price depending on demand and stocks available.

Because believe it or not, retailers hate what's going on right now. They are adjusting prices to make a little more because they don't have ANY stocks to sell. So if AMD comes in with tones of stocks, which I highly doubt unfortunately, they will keep it closer to MSRP for economy of scale and make up for Nvidia's shortage.

And this comes from the proud owner of a 2070SUPER that would love to finally change it to something where he doesn't feel he's being raped by either a green or a red giant dildo.

 

[evernessince]

1- How do you know that AMD will materialize a significant number of cards at launch? You think they aren't trying to get into the AI market just like Nvidia?

I don't really see how this relates to anything I said. I made no claims in regards to AMD launch quantity.

2- I don't know what line of business you're in (I'm in wine), personally I have NEVER heard of a merchant that ignores competition's prices. Adjust your prices to what you're aiming at (market shares, cash flow, see BCG matrix)

I never said AMD should ignore Nvidia's pricing, I said it was a bad idea to base their pricing off Nvidia's bad pricing. What you propose, as in Adjust your prices according to what they want to achieve, is exactly what I said. In this case their own stated goal is marketshare, which means aggressive pricing.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I said they should ignore Nvidia's pricing but you are only two sentences in and both of them are incorrect assumptions. You may want to go back and re-read my post, I did not use ambiguous language.

Consumers would actually like to buy at $20. Doesn't make sense. You price it at what will sell depending on your goal.

This example is simply hyperbolic to the point of being insulting, gamers aren't looking for unreasonably cheap GPUs. They are looking for sanity to return to GPU pricing when they've done nothing but sky-rocket and that increase has vastly outpaced any cost incured by the manufacturer (as Nvidia's profits show).

In this case, if they want to win market shares, they price it for slightly lower that the equivalent from the competition. If equivalent to 5070 ti with MSRP at $750, then set your MSRP at $690. AIB and retailers will adjust the price depending on demand and stocks available.

We already know this doesn't work. AMD tried this with the 6000 series. If Nvidia selects a bad price for a product (like they did with the 4080) and it hardly sells, what good does it do AMD to only slightly undercut that pricing? It doesn't, in fact it helps customers justify spending that bit more to get the premium brand.

In addition, because there are only two players in the GPU market above the entry level there's no guarantee that customers actually want to be paying these high prices. In essence, keeping around Nvidia's pricing make short term monitary sense because some customers are in fact forced to buy a GPU for one reason or another and some will buy AMD because they are the cheaper of the two but it's essentially keeping customer hostage with higher prices than they'd actually want to pay. That doesn't earn you loyal customers, mindshare, or encourage sales and in fact many people will cut down how frequently they upgrade their GPU to compensate. It's just holding a gun to customers head and giving them an option that's questionably better when you could encourage people to upgrade more often and actually want to buy and like their product by making pricing reasonable. It should go without saying that the GPU market is nothing like the wine market you claim to be in. There are far more competitors in the wine market and a portion of professions require a GPU (CGI artist, AI researcher, Medical imaging, streamer, etc). Wine is completely optional and the bar to entry into the market isn't remotely comparable to GPUs.

 

[Rjc31]

Honestly a $4090 at $1800 2 years ago seemed stupid and excessive is now sounding like a good deal…

these are some of the worst released I’ve seen

You are absolutely on point! I am 100% loving my MSI 4090 Gaming X Trio that I walked into a store and paid just under $1800 (before tax) for. That was also after I started that build with a 3070 Ti and returned it for a 4070 Ti which was then returned for the 4090 as I just said screw it I'll pay. My previous build was rocking an RX 590 Fatboy so you see how often I build. I was seriously considering trying to get a 5090 but ended up saying forget it and after all the issues the 50 series has going for it I'm even happier with my 4090 than I was... What is it... six weeks ago?

 

[Dr. Dro]

Hence why a 980 Ti now beats a 5090 performance wise with 32-bit PhysX enabled.

And the newest game where that even remotely matters is 11 years old, and never ran well with PhysX enabled anyway. Borderlands Pre-Sequel will run poorly even on the GTX Titan X (Maxwell, which was the fastest card upon its release) with PhysX enabled. Heck, 70% performance regression in Mafia II at 1080p with my RTX A2000 and CPU/RAM that's more powerful than anything you could even dream of back in 2010. I personally do not see it as a deal breaker, nor do I mourn its loss too much. The coolest effects in shipped commercial games were always the capes in the Batman games, the trench coats and car crash physics in Mafia II and the debris in the Borderlands 2/TPS games. Otherwise, PhysX has always been relatively passable, far more than say, HairWorks.

I had no clue that these games were so ubiquitous these days, especially since they never mattered for a second until support was removed. And that AMD users could never run them to begin with.

 

[Rover4444]

God, I hate people anymore

I watched Vex's video about the RX 9070 XT leaked prices
Theres a comment near the end of the video

People want AMD to put X($550) price
People get mad when AMD asks "Hardware unboxed" what the price should be & says its over if AMD is asking what the price should be from a "youtube influncers"

Wait, so you're telling me Hardware Unboxed had a golden opportunity to set pricing and they FUMBLED it???

Wait a minute.

Assuming the 9070XT is in the same performance range as the 5070 ti, I said assuming (according to the leaks), and given that the 5070 ti goes for a minimum of $750 while being unavailable anywhere, why on EARTH would people not buy the 9070XT at $690?

Are you aware that there are NO stocks available anywhere of RTX 50x0?

Because NVIDIA cards have more features. If you reread the post, he already said what you're implying. If the 50 series gets stocked, the 9070 XT is dead.

Or it should be free so all the whining stops..
And ppls should get everything else also for free right?

5090 can cost even +5000$ and ppls still buying it.

It could be a million billion bajillion dollars and it'd sell! If you complain about it, you're just a whiner and want things for free!

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[evernessince]

And the newest game where that even remotely matters is 11 years old, and never ran well with PhysX enabled anyway. Borderlands Pre-Sequel will run poorly even on the GTX Titan X (Maxwell, which was the fastest card upon its release) with PhysX enabled. Heck, 70% performance regression in Mafia II at 1080p with my RTX A2000 and CPU/RAM that's more powerful than anything you could even dream of back in 2010. I personally do not see it as a deal breaker, nor do I mourn its loss too much. The coolest effects in shipped commercial games were always the capes in the Batman games, the trench coats and car crash physics in Mafia II and the debris in the Borderlands 2/TPS games. Otherwise, PhysX has always been relatively passable, far more than say, HairWorks.

I had no clue that these games were so ubiquitous these days, especially since they never mattered for a second until support was removed. And that AMD users could never run them to begin with.

Backwards compatibility is a core tenant to PC gaming. If you are fine with removing backwards compat for anything that's "old" (11 years isn't that old) or has a low user count you are pretty much fine with them eventually removing compat for every game within what is relatively a small time frame in the grand scheme of things.

It's a clear and obviously slippery slope that you are ok with enabling. Notwithstanding that Nvidia did it on the sly and didn't bother with a translation layer. I don't see the point in making excuses for Nvidia here, there are plenty of examples of gracefully retiring old tech but they were just lazy and didn't want to make the bare minimum effort.

 

[Rover4444]

1- How do you know that AMD will materialize a significant number of cards at launch? You think they aren't trying to get into the AI market just like Nvidia?
2- I don't know what line of business you're in (I'm in wine), personally I have NEVER heard of a merchant that ignores competition's prices. Adjust your prices to what you're aiming at (market shares, cash flow, see BCG matrix)

Consumers would actually like to buy at $20. Doesn't make sense. You price it at what will sell depending on your goal. In this case, if they want to win market shares, they price it for slightly lower that the equivalent from the competition. If equivalent to 5070 ti with MSRP at $750, then set your MSRP at $690. AIB and retailers will adjust the price depending on demand and stocks available.

Because believe it or not, retailers hate what's going on right now. They are adjusting prices to make a little more because they don't have ANY stocks to sell. So if AMD comes in with tones of stocks, which I highly doubt unfortunately, they will keep it closer to MSRP for economy of scale and make up for Nvidia's shortage.

And this comes from the proud owner of a 2070SUPER that would love to finally change it to something where he doesn't feel he's being raped by either a green or a red giant dildo.

1. RDNA and CDNA are different architectures and aren't even on the same node right now. RDNA cards are gaming cards from start to finish and don't compete with datacenter in any meaningful way.
2. Pricing slightly lower is exactly how they've lost market share.
3. The 5070 Ti and 9070 XT are not equivalent products and the former has a superior feature set and specs that would command a higher price even if overall performance is the same.

All these companies aren't perfect and the whole GPU market is a mess right now, but this blind devotion to any of them is daft.

It's too late, I have unfortunately already been struck blind by the glorious Intel GPU division.

 

[alwayssts]

To the peanut gallery, do we explain this grand plan for AMD to test if they can get away with nVIDIA margins instead of typical AMD margins?

I'm going to do it, fuck it.

I'm kinda amused that it's (mostly) working and most people don't even know it's working. Just sayin'.

I also think it's funny people take the exact wrong things from the *under $700* thing. They are saying most people buy 5070 and not 5070ti bc cost too much...but what if you (almost) could?
Maybe they'll do the same thing later comparing 5070ti pricing to 5080 24GB and most people don't buy $1000 GPUs...when promoting one with ~$200 extra ram slapped onto it we don't really need....
...but the memory bw/power limit/higher clocks you want. Hopefully not; hopefully just still 16GB and (if I had my way) $600. They might get away with some configuration that makes them more margin.

I don't really care that much beyond the academics; I'm waiting it out for 3nm, but I'm glad if people/AMD are both content. I just don't want it to be *obscenely* overpriced...then I will call foul.

I'm kinda okay with fighting for the middle, and will let them have it. Higher....for *these* products? Which I feel fairly confident won't hold up for the RT era of 1080p->4k (only 960->1440p)? Ehhhh......

Don't get greedy, AMD. It's a 1440p card. It'll be a good 1440p card, especially for the price, but please for the love of God do not bullshit people and try to sell it for/as something it isn't.

IYKYK.

The price spread in reality is anywhere from $480 to $700. AMD can and would typically price it at the bottom. They want you to believe they will price it at the top (relative perf to 5070ti). They will not.

Where it lands is up to...

 

[Dahita]

I don't really see how this relates to anything I said. I made no claims in regards to AMD launch quantity.

=> "I disagree with the sentiment of comparing AMD pricing to Nvidia's MSRP. Until Nvidia's MSRP actually materializes for a significant number of cards it's disingenuous to compare to it. It's making Nvidia's pricing look significantly better than it really is."

How would it be disingenuous, if AMD actually also lacks in stocks? How do you know they don't?
That's how it relates.

I never said AMD should ignore Nvidia's pricing, I said it was a bad idea to base their pricing off Nvidia's bad pricing. What you propose, as in Adjust your prices according to what they want to achieve, is exactly what I said. In this case their own stated goal is marketshare, which means aggressive pricing.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I said they should ignore Nvidia's pricing but you are only two sentences in and both of them are incorrect assumptions. You may want to go back and re-read my post, I did not use ambiguous language.

=> "Using Nvidia's pricing as the basis for their pricing is not a good strategy"

You never said Nvidia had bad pricing.
You said it not a good strategy for AMD to base their pricing off of Nvidia's = ignore them to price their cards.
Potatoe, potato. Of course it's important to base their prices according to Nvidia's. They are their straight and only competitor...

This example is simply hyperbolic to the point of being insulting, gamers aren't looking for unreasonably cheap GPUs. They are looking for sanity to return to GPU pricing when they've done nothing but sky-rocket and that increase has vastly outpaced any cost incured by the manufacturer (as Nvidia's profits show).

You're insulted by a $20 high end graphic card? My bet is you would buy it. Point is, gamers, like everyone else, are looking for a good deal. If this card performs as well as its competitor for $20 less, they will buy it. If their straight competitor was the 5070 Ti, even a $730 MSRP would make sense.

We already know this doesn't work. AMD tried this with the 6000 series. If Nvidia selects a bad price for a product (like they did with the 4080) and it hardly sells, what good does it do AMD to only slightly undercut that pricing? It doesn't, in fact it helps customers justify spending that bit more to get the premium brand.

In addition, because there are only two players in the GPU market above the entry level there's no guarantee that customers actually want to be paying these high prices. In essence, keeping around Nvidia's pricing make short term monitary sense because some customers are in fact forced to buy a GPU for one reason or another and some will buy AMD because they are the cheaper of the two but it's essentially keeping customer hostage with higher prices than they'd actually want to pay. That doesn't earn you loyal customers, mindshare, or encourage sales and in fact many people will cut down how frequently they upgrade their GPU to compensate. It's just holding a gun to customers head and giving them an option that's questionably better when you could encourage people to upgrade more often and actually want to buy and like their product by making pricing reasonable. It should go without saying that the GPU market is nothing like the wine market you claim to be in. There are far more competitors in the wine market and a portion of professions require a GPU (CGI artist, AI researcher, Medical imaging, streamer, etc). Wine is completely optional and the bar to entry into the market isn't remotely comparable to GPUs.

Then you do not understand the concept of supply and demand. A $690 "mid tier" card that actually performs like the top end tier of the previous generation is not a bad price. It's actually less expensive than the 2070SUPER that I bought for $580 5 years ago. There's nothing shocking and the consumer will only adjust to what is available. As we saw earlier, even a 7700XT is not available below $400. Your market price reference is not adjusted to today's reality.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I said they should ignore Nvidia's pricing but you are only two sentences in and both of them are incorrect assumptions. You may want to go back and re-read my post, I did not use ambiguous language.

I think it's safe to say I read your posts thoroughly

 

[Macro Device]

Dear AMD,

You are not Nvidia. You cannot demand a price premium.

Sincerely,
Joe Public

Dear Joe Public,

We genuinely do not care.

Sincerely,
AMD

 

[JustBenching]

AMD should follow the competition: use a fake MSRP to game reviews. Have 2 cards which are never in stock for $550. Sample that to reviewers as the MSRP AIB review.

They will have less favorable reviews if they don't play by the same rules as Nvidia.

That's what they did. 699 is for the MBA models (probably?) but the kicker is, there won't be a lot if any mba models.

Citation needed.

What don't you get? Nvidia holds stock back because....because...oh, because they don't want to sell cards. It's all an evil mastermind plan with the goal of....the goal of....uhm, Im not sure what the goal is, but they are doing it. Trust me.

Sure, it's not as easy I'll agree there, but it's far from impossible.

Actually it's very easy to convert 90% of the market to buy amd. AMD just doesn't want to, cause it's not a very lucrative market. They can sell half the chip that is the 9800x 3d for 500+$,why would they bother with GPUs that are twice or three times more expensive to produce? Even the mighty 9950x 3d will be cheaper to produce than a GPU like the 9070xt. There is 0 incentive to focus on producing a lot of gpus, so there is 0 incentive to lower the price, since the low amount they produce will sell regardless.

But, had they really wanted to gain marketshare, that's easy. Focus the production on gpus, make 2 million gpus a quarter (the market is around 8 to 12 if i remember correctly), price the 9070xt at 500$, it will fly off the shelves. But nah, let's just blame nvidia for the prices instead.

 

[Chomiq]

Just wait some time and they'll drop price, just like they always do.

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Don't forget retail shop markup, which usually dance around 20% of the price. So more or less, you be seing an $840 usd price tag

 

[Tek-Check]

We have here 5070Ti 940e including 25% Vat
750 +25% = 937.5
MSRP + VAT + AIB

Prices in Europe will obviously be different. Neverheless, 5070Ti will cost more on overage in Europe too.