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

[Dahita]

No, you don't. What's driving demand in the GPU market? Nobody really "needs" a new GPU for gaming anymore because a lot of these new games that require them are either not worth playing or unplayable, and I'd argue most people don't care about raytracing, either. The 2000 series from NVIDIA was also trash pricewise so it's a poor comparison.

And for all that talk about not ignoring the competition, you really ignored the competition on this one. The 9070 XT at $690 is a bad price because the 5070 Ti at $750 exists. It's also a bad price because it won't meet AMD's stated objectives this generation, which is "increase market share". Which necessitates lower pricing.

And yet, prices are listed this morning at Microcenter for the XT models between $700 and $1100. I guess you need to hit the books again on basic sales concepts

 

[Krit]

And yet, prices are listed this morning at Microcenter for the XT models between $700 and $1100. I guess you need to hit the books again on basic sales concepts

No thanks! I'm fine with my Radeon RX 7800 XT

nvidia are exiting gaming gpu market and amd is doing the same thing (But with way worse consequences) It will shoot out from the gpu market share like a champagne cork!

 

[Dr. Dro]

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.

You're blowing things out of proportion. The games will still run, the exact same as they have all these years, and I'll go a step beyond, looking the same as they always have on Radeon hardware. What was retired was 32-bit CUDA support. Not PhysX. PhysX relies on CUDA, hence, removing CUDA also removes PhysX. But I just can't help but notice, no one ever cared or paid this middleware any mind until it was suddenly disabled, really makes you wonder if there's an agenda behind it.

I'd argue this loss doesn't even begin to compare to the loss that Microsoft imposed on Windows users when they retired DirectSound 3D and direct audio hardware addressing and replaced it with software-based WASAPI, this was done with the launch of Windows Vista, and hasn't changed or improved to this day.

 

[Vayra86]

nvidia are exiting gaming gpu market and amd is doing the same thing (But with way worse consequences) It will shoot out from the gpu market share like a champagne cork!

The attention is simply focused elsewhere. Exiting? Nah. The AI boom will not keep booming. At some point, things will stabilize and both companies will want every market they can push GPUs on... like they historically always have. AI, crypto, gaming, supercomputers, servers... There's just one new kid on the block, the others, gaming has survived just fine.

It baffles me how people seem to have the perspective of 'near future' and nothing else. Do we really think AI is going to keep gobbling up all the chips? Come on. I mean look at AMD. They've had long term planning going on. That's why they have such trouble to adjust to a new reality, too. But really, these companies just sell chips and they make the chips the market wants. Its that simple. Gaming ain't going nowhere. The demand will remain. The supply will be there. If you haven't noticed yet... gaming is too big to fail. We want it. More of it. Year over year - irrespective of the economical trends.

Another good example: look at Intel. They're forging ahead on GPU and releasing gaming GPUs to do so. They don't do that just to make AI powerhouses, heck we're seeing that appear alongside their CPU business more so than being a pure GPU development. The technology is simply becoming impossible not to have, and gaming will always remain one of the things to do with it.

 

[redeye]

Ooh exciting, except you could already get the 7900xt for 650ish for most of the last year+ and the 9070xt doesn't look like it'll be any better, except in RT performance where you need upscaling anyway to get playable frame rates. My suspicion is also that the top end 9070xts won't have any OC headroom at all, but a 7900xt does have at least 10% or even more for some of them.

Just AMD releasing a card to market reality, the price performance combination already been available for a year. Similar to the 5070Ti being identical to the 4080/s in price performance.

Progress this is not.

really it says 9070 SERIES, which includes the 9070XT… so the 9070xt, will be 700… and the 9070 might be 500 depending on a performance against an RTX 5070.

if AMD prices at higher, then it really will be show me the performance… and Nvidia being slower will still eat your lunch because everybody is in “love” with Nvidia… they can do any “abusive“ behaviour with regards to pricing and performance… because they are the 80% market leader…
(by the way, my belief is the $900 rumour is because the 9070 XT is faster than a 7900 XT, the original price of the 7900 XT was 900…)

The best Nvidia card that I bought, because it seemed to punch above its weight, was the 1660ti, compared to the 2080, it felt faster. even though it was ever so slightly slower than a 2080… but in GTA five it felt like it gave you the same speed. the 2080’s problem when I tested it was that it did not have 18000 gddr6, the 2080 really needed fast ram, I got it to overclock to 17000… and got a glimpse of what could it do, but it wasn’t stable. Therefore it was (IMO) garbage!

Point is the 1660 TI was 330 Canadian, or 250us, that 2080 was 900can (amazon used) (if I remember correctly) those days are gone, Nvidia will never sell another card that is useful for 250 US.

 

[Dahita]

The attention is simply focused elsewhere. Exiting? Nah. The AI boom will not keep booming. At some point, things will stabilize and both companies will want every market they can push GPUs on... like they historically always have. AI, crypto, gaming, supercomputers, servers... There's just one new kid on the block, the others, gaming has survived just fine.

It baffles me how people seem to have the perspective of 'near future' and nothing else. Do we really think AI is going to keep gobbling up all the chips?

Yes, I do.

It would be like saying "Come on, do you really think people will keep upgrading their computers?" 40 years ago. Ai will keep evolving, needing more, better power, just like computers did, and there are more people and devices (cars, houses, facilities) that will use AI in the world than PC gamers.

No, the gamers market won't die, but it seems inevitable that it will drift into a niche market (it's already happened actually), for the benefit of consoles and remote gaming. It's all about datacenters.

If you need more convincing, follow the money. How many announcements about hundreds of BILLIONS spend towards AI in the past 6 months? I know of four just off the top of my head (facebook/Tesla/Gvmnt/Apple) totaling over $1500 billions. What does the PC gaming industry weigh? 80.27 billion U.S. dollars in 2023.

No wonder manufacturers don't care about graphic cards for PCs anymore.

 

[Dawora]

as always, AMD never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
i know all the prices now in my country, little better Vs Nvidia but need to be much more to get that marketshare

 

[Random_User]

That's assuming there is stock.

Let's be clear... rising the prices, neither by stores/sellers, or even the GPU makers/AIBs themselves, when the demand overshadows the supply, and the product stack is scarse, this doesn't make the supply any better. If the sellers gouge the customers with ridiculous prices, the stock doesn't magically increase, and the gain/benefit is only by themselves, and nobody else.

The same goes In case, if the GPU makers raise MSRP, or the sell price, by AIB prox. It still doesn't make the supply any better, because the foundries (TSMC in this case) has only that much waffer allocation, as it has. I doubt even nVidia could allow themslves, to make even a bit more waffers, then they already have.

So even, if this lets the GPU vendors/sellers to gain more from the fewer buyers, it will hurt them in the long run, by increasing the amount of the frustrated customers. Which definitely will overweight the bunch of people willing to buy the cards at whatever price.

But this's just another point of view!

 

[Rover4444]

I did some calculations... Die Sizes:

• 9070XT: 359 mm²
• RTX 5080: 379 mm²

Assuming $400-450 million R&D per 4nm chip (standalone development), plus

• Masks: $25 million per chip design.
• Tooling: $15 million per chip.
• Total fixed cost per chip = $25M + $15M = $40 million.

Production Volume, is used as amortization(the numbers are theoretical),

• 9070XT: 5M units
• RTX 5080/5070ti: 10M units

The estimated cost per unit is,

• 9070XT: $459
• RTX 5080: $429

This is crazy talk. $400 million for R&D? $40 million for masks and tooling? How are these numbers even grounded in reality?

And yet, prices are listed this morning at Microcenter for the XT models between $700 and $1100. I guess you need to hit the books again on basic sales concepts

Damn, guess I d-

Wow, would you look at that. Says here if they want to increase market share and move volume they've gotta price it lower. Amazing!

Can you guess who's NOT getting market share this generation?

 

[Dahita]

This is crazy talk. $400 million for R&D? $40 million for masks and tooling? How are these numbers even grounded in reality?

Damn, guess I d-
View attachment 386839
Wow, would you look at that. Says here if they want to increase market share and move volume they've gotta price it lower. Amazing!

Can you guess who's NOT getting market share this generation?

And that's what they did, cards at rougly $50 lower than direct competitor. You're learning, good!

 

[Rover4444]

And that's what they did, cards at rougly $50 lower than direct competitor. You're learning, good!

Yeah, and the direct competitor is more than $50 dollars more valuable, your point?

 

[Dahita]

Yeah, and the direct competitor is more than $50 dollars more valuable, your point?

If it was more valuable, it wouldn't be the direct competitor. That's only your opinion since we don't have the reviews out yet.

 

[Rover4444]

If it was more valuable, it wouldn't be the direct competitor. That's only your opinion since we don't have the reviews out yet.

It being a direct competitor is only your opinion since we don't have the reviews or pricing out yet. If it's close to this price the 5070 Ti is more valuable to anybody who will ever want to use it for anything other than gaming and even then just going off the spec sheet says it's the more valuable card if the gaming performance is the same.

 

[Dahita]

It being a direct competitor is only your opinion since we don't have the reviews or pricing out yet. If it's close to this price the 5070 Ti is more valuable to anybody who will ever want to use it for anything other than gaming and even then just going off the spec sheet says it's the more valuable card if the gaming performance is the same.

Oh, man. You just said "the direct competitor is more than $50 more valuable". You don't know that, since no reviews. We do have pricing already from Microcenter.

As far as my point, AMD priced it $50 less than supposed direct competitor, as discussed, and against your point which was:

"And for all that talk about not ignoring the competition, you really ignored the competition on this one. The 9070 XT at $690 is a bad price because the 5070 Ti at $750 exists. It's also a bad price because it won't meet AMD's stated objectives this generation, which is "increase market share". Which necessitates lower pricing. "

AMD confirmed what I pointed out about competition, with prices between $700 and $1100, which is in line with demand and supply. If you don't understand it, there's nothing I can do for you.

End of story.

 

[Rover4444]

Oh, man. You just said "the direct competitor is more than $50 more valuable". You don't know that, since no reviews. We do have pricing already from Microcenter.

As far as my point, AMD priced it $50 less than supposed direct competitor, as discussed, and against your point which was:

"And for all that talk about not ignoring the competition, you really ignored the competition on this one. The 9070 XT at $690 is a bad price because the 5070 Ti at $750 exists. It's also a bad price because it won't meet AMD's stated objectives this generation, which is "increase market share". Which necessitates lower pricing. "

AMD confirmed what I pointed out about competition, with prices between $700 and $1100, which is in line with demand and supply. If you don't understand it, there's nothing I can do for you.

What? You understand that they're not going to meet their stated goal of increasing (key word: increasing) market share this generation by giving a less than 10% discount on the premium brand, right?

And yes, I am saying it's at least $50 more valuable because you asserted the gaming performance should be similar. GDDR7 and CUDA more than makes up the difference, even pre-release.

End of story.

LMAO. Read a history book.

 

[Random_User]

Maybe this “leak” is intentional so they can judge the reaction to the proposed price.

Testing the water... how warm/hot it will become, after the public seeing this sh*t, and how much they (AMD and nVidia) can get away with.

The attention is simply focused elsewhere. Exiting? Nah. The AI boom will not keep booming. At some point, things will stabilize and both companies will want every market they can push GPUs on... like they historically always have. AI, crypto, gaming, supercomputers, servers... There's just one new kid on the block, the others, gaming has survived just fine.

It baffles me how people seem to have the perspective of 'near future' and nothing else. Do we really think AI is going to keep gobbling up all the chips? Come on. I mean look at AMD. They've had long term planning going on. That's why they have such trouble to adjust to a new reality, too. But really, these companies just sell chips and they make the chips the market wants. Its that simple. Gaming ain't going nowhere. The demand will remain. The supply will be there. If you haven't noticed yet... gaming is too big to fail. We want it. More of it. Year over year - irrespective of the economical trends.

Another good example: look at Intel. They're forging ahead on GPU and releasing gaming GPUs to do so. They don't do that just to make AI powerhouses, heck we're seeing that appear alongside their CPU business more so than being a pure GPU development. The technology is simply becoming impossible not to have, and gaming will always remain one of the things to do with it.

Doubt they will go away from the Gaming market. At least AMD is about to make UDNA, to do the same as they did with EPYC/Ryzen, but this time with Enterpize/Radeon. They both need to "Gamer" GPU division, to substitute/sell the AI stuff with inferior silicon, which otherwise wouldn't sell as the Enterprize/Datacenter HW. And also, to cover the wider (the entire spectre of) AI audience, targeting thise, who aren't going to buy loads/bulk of multi-thousand-bucks Quadro/Tesla WS/ML of business/professional GPUs.

Something tells me, the GPU makers themselves, or via AIB proxy, are going to milk as much as they can, and will tryto keep the real/street prices, as high as possible, for as long possible. Simultaneously, trying to "pursuade", "talk" people into the narratives, of "these prices are actually this great", through YT, and "journaists"

It would be incredibly great, if intel would finally manage to sort their sh*t out, and start to flood the market with affordable, reliable GPUs, on both HW and SW levels. Of they'll manage to get their own foundries work for their GPU silicon, with good yields, it would further bring down the prices, or at least will keep them nice. It would be also great, if Intel this time will keep things humble, and sane, thus undercutting it's both duopolist GPU rivals. But this is still Intel we are talking about. So I don't hold my breath. At this point the market need not only third, but fourth and fifths GPU rivals. The more the better.

 

[Dr. Dro]

$699, it's joever

MicroCenter lists Radeon RX 9070 series: RX 9070 XT starting at $699, RX 9070 at $649 - VideoCardz.com

AMD Radeon RX 9070 pricing on MicroCetner Are we getting closer to final pricing for the AMD Radeon RX 9070 series? Perhaps, perhaps we are looking at placeholders that have not been confirmed by AMD or any board partner. There’s no doubt that some of these prices are not final. There’s no way...

videocardz.com

 

[theouto]

$699, it's joever

MicroCenter lists Radeon RX 9070 series: RX 9070 XT starting at $699, RX 9070 at $649 - VideoCardz.com

AMD Radeon RX 9070 pricing on MicroCetner Are we getting closer to final pricing for the AMD Radeon RX 9070 series? Perhaps, perhaps we are looking at placeholders that have not been confirmed by AMD or any board partner. There’s no doubt that some of these prices are not final. There’s no way...

videocardz.com

Not just that, but a 9070 at 649? Did they learn nothing from the 7700XT and the 7800XT? (no)