AMD Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT Official Performance Metrics Leaked, +42% 4K Performance Over Radeon RX 7900 GRE

[bug]

They probably didn't test against anything Nvidia to keep it professional. Testing against their own outgoing product is the right thing to do, this is what Nvidia does as well, by the way (even if with MFG skewed data, but that's besides the point here).

Who cares? In a few days it will be tested against everything and the kitchen sink.

For everyone reading this thread, leaks (no matter where they come from) are not meant to give you an idea. They're meant create emotion, engagement. So that more people will buy around launch time. Don't fall for that, there's nothing for us to gain there.

 

[Sir Beregond]

That's an 18% higher price for 38% higher 1440p and 42% higher 4K performance. Model numbers are irrelevant.

Oh I know. Nvidia loves selling at best mid-range tier products using what they historically used as high end branding "80" back in the day (but definitely didn't lower the price!).

I'm just saying that AMD's stated goal was to gain back marketshare in the mainstream, so they should do that. I don't think $649 is that and my read is that the market won't see that as very compelling either once Nvidia stock actually shows up and the ROPs issue is fixed.

They probably didn't test against anything Nvidia to keep it professional. Testing against their own outgoing product is the right thing to do, this is what Nvidia does as well, by the way (even if with MFG skewed data, but that's besides the point here).

It's probably not tested against the 5070 Ti because they don't have one. When they announced RDNA2, they had the 6900 XT right up there with the RTX 3090 on their comparison slides and I believe the 6800 XT with the RTX 3080. I think Blackwell supply is so bad not even AMD snagged one to test with.

 

[AusWolf]

Oh I know. Nvidia loves selling at best mid-range tier products using what they historically used as high end branding "80" back in the day (but definitely didn't lower the price!).

I'm just saying that AMD's stated goal was to gain back marketshare in the mainstream, so they should do that. I don't think $649 is that and my read is that the market won't see that as very compelling either once Nvidia stock actually shows up and the ROPs issue is fixed.

They probably set that pricing to differentiate from the 9070 non-XT and 9060 series. They probably learned that the 7900 XT and 7700 XT were pointless products because they were priced too close to the 7900 XTX and 7800 XT which were much better-rounded cards overall. So if you find the 9070 XT a bit too steep for $650, you'll still have the non-XT for $500 offering a fairly decent performance bump over the 7800 XT (a similarly priced card from last gen), and the 9060 series at even lower prices coming later (hopefully).

 

[Sir Beregond]

They probably set that pricing to differentiate from the 9070 non-XT and 9060 series. They probably learned that the 7900 XT and 7700 XT were pointless products because they were priced too close to the 7900 XTX and 7800 XT which were much better-rounded cards overall. So if you find the 9070 XT a bit too steep for $650, you'll still have the non-XT for $500 offering a fairly decent performance bump over the 7800 XT (a similarly priced card from last gen), and the 9060 series at even lower prices coming later (hopefully).

It's not too steep for me. I just don't think it's the right price for what their stated goal with RDNA4 is. $600+ is not the mainstream market imo. It's why I think cards like the 5070 Ti are way overpriced. Same with the 5070 for that matter. Sure there's buyer's in the $600+ market, but I'm just going back to what their stated goal here is and I don't think $649 aligns with that.

 

[Hecate91]

$649 for what they are comparing to the 7900 GRE from last gen...a $549 MSRP card would not be accepted well by the market imo. They gotta price it better than that. The 7800 XT was a $499 card and they chose "70" branding for this new one. I think $649 would just be seen as more "slotting into Nvidia bracket, just not as high" as opposed to the market disruption they really need to do if they want to really make a statement and maybe start gaining back some marketshare. I'm afraid all $649 will appeal to are those already inclined to buy AMD in the first place. I really don't think that will be aggressive enough. Sure there's MSRP and then real price of the 5070 Ti, so I kind of get it, but if the idea is to disrupt and reset what the mainstream is, I don't think $649 is gonna wow anyone.

Just my read, but I could be wrong. I have a 3080 Ti and game on 4k. My biggest gripe right now is VRAM. I realize the 9070 XT isn't "high end", but it should still be an improvement in 4k over my card, and gets me 16GB. If priced right, I'd get it to tide me over till next gen. I would have considered a 5080 if it was 24GB, and the 5070 Ti at $900 can go fly a kite. If the RT has improved as much as they claim and the rumors suggest and if FSR4 end up being good, then I don't see why not.

$649 for a card faster than the 5070 with 12GB of VRAM, and I doubt the 5070 MSRP of $549 is going to be real. The XT for $649 is $50 too much though I could see AMD wanting to place the XT as being better than the 5070 if it performs better in RT.
A $549 MSRP for the XT and $449 for the 9070 non-XT would be better I agree, but if the 5070 isn't going to sell at MSRP, AMD would want to increase the price if they can. And I think if someone is set on buying from Nvidia, not even $549 for a 9070XT with more VRAM would wow them enough to consider anything from AMD, no different than the 7900XT vs 4070Ti 12GB even when the 7900XT prices dropped.
I think a mid range card should be 4k capable, however Nvidia has complete control over the 4k market, anyone interested in 4k are the people spending $2000+ on a 5080.

 

[AusWolf]

It's not too steep for me. I just don't think it's the right price for what their stated goal with RDNA4 is. $600+ is not the mainstream market imo. It's why I think cards like the 5070 Ti are way overpriced. Same with the 5070 for that matter. Sure there's buyer's in the $600+ market, but I'm just going back to what their stated goal here is and I don't think $649 aligns with that.

Whether we like it or not (I don't, either), $5-700 is the new midrange / performance segment. All we can do is vote with our wallets.

On the other hand, generational differences are getting smaller and smaller, so it's not like we have to spend this money on every new card anyway. Personally, I'm planning on getting a 9070 XT (if the promises are true), and I'll call it quits on upgrading for the next 2-3 gens if not longer.

 

[bug]

It's not too steep for me. I just don't think it's the right price for what their stated goal with RDNA4 is. $600+ is not the mainstream market imo. It's why I think cards like the 5070 Ti are way overpriced. Same with the 5070 for that matter. Sure there's buyer's in the $600+ market, but I'm just going back to what their stated goal here is and I don't think $649 aligns with that.

Agreed. But it doesn't hurt to have something a bit pricier to sell (sort of a halo product, but not really).
If they can build a card that will play everything you throw at it and sell it for $500 or less, that's market share right there. If, like @AusWolf says the midrange moves and stays in the $500-700 range, PC gaming dies. Everything is getting increasingly pricier, jobs are going to China... there's no sense in paying the price of game console for a midrange card. I've looked it up before, less than half the countries in this world pay more than $500/mo on average. What kind of addressable market is that?

 

[Dawora]

Based on the performance leaks and estimates for the hypothetical RTX 9070 XT, it would likely have an FPS value around 100. This estimate is based on the assumption that the RTX 9070 XT would outperform the RTX 4080 Super 16 GB (85.5 FPS) and be close to the RTX 5080 16 GB (96.7 FPS). Therefore, the estimated FPS for the RTX 9070 XT would be approximately 100 FPS

who need leaks?
Amd just told the numbers.

+ 37% over 7900GRE = slower than 4080 in 4K

U can hype what u want but numbers are numbers..

I didn't think this snarky comment in the 5070 Ti reviews would age so poorly. I hope real review data will confirm.

+37% over 7900GRE
= Slower than 4080, so its also slower than 5070Ti

That's an 18% higher price for 38% higher 1440p and 42% higher 4K performance. Model numbers are irrelevant.

42% is whit RT added in calculation.
its 37% whitout RT
And slower than 4080

$649 for a card faster than the 5070 with 12GB of VRAM, and I doubt the 5070 MSRP of $549 is going to be real. The XT for $649 is $50 too much though I could see AMD wanting to place the XT as being better than the 5070 if it performs better in RT.
A $549 MSRP for the XT and $449 for the 9070 non-XT would be better I agree, but if the 5070 isn't going to sell at MSRP, AMD would want to increase the price if they can. And I think if someone is set on buying from Nvidia, not even $549 for a 9070XT with more VRAM would wow them enough to consider anything from AMD, no different than the 7900XT vs 4070Ti 12GB even when the 7900XT prices dropped.
I think a mid range card should be 4k capable, however Nvidia has complete control over the 4k market, anyone interested in 4k are the people spending $2000+ on a 5080.

"PC gaming dies" ppls are yelling this like +20y now

 

[bug]

who need leaks?
Amd just told the numbers.

+ 37% over 7900GRE = slower than 4080 in 4K

U can hype what u want but numbers are numbers..


+37% over 7900GRE
= Slower than 4080, so its also slower than 5070Ti


42% is whit RT added in calculation.
its 37% whitout RT
And slower than 4080

According to this: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-gre-pulse/32.html
The 4080 is "only" 34% faster than 7900GRE @4k (and not that much faster at 1440p). A card that matches the 4080 is a pretty powerful card.

 

[arbiter]

who need leaks?
Amd just told the numbers.

+ 37% over 7900GRE = slower than 4080 in 4K

U can hype what u want but numbers are numbers..


+37% over 7900GRE
= Slower than 4080, so its also slower than 5070Ti


42% is whit RT added in calculation.
its 37% whitout RT
And slower than 4080


"PC gaming dies" ppls are yelling this like +20y now

Also noting its independently numbers for nvidia cards vs numbers put out by AMD without independent testing. SO can't even take it fully at face value til reviewers test it to verify the % gains claimed. AMD has a longer record of inflating their gpu performance compared to nvidia. Yes 50 series was inflated using dlss and frame gen but amd has been in history used games that favored their cards for benchmarks among other things. Instead of speculating on fps since can't even 100% say what settings were used in AMD tests as who knows what was selected instead wait for independent sites that will 100% use same settings to give real results.

 

[Hecate91]

"PC gaming dies" ppls are yelling this like +20y now

I didn't say PC gaming is dead, but the mid range GPU market continuing to be more than $500-600 is just too much for a majority of people, it's the price of a console. Paying $1500 to get a midrange gaming PC doesn't make any sense, prices for mid range hardware should be going down not moving up to what high end used to be.

 

[AusWolf]

Agreed. But it doesn't hurt to have something a bit pricier to sell (sort of a halo product, but not really).
If they can build a card that will play everything you throw at it and sell it for $500 or less, that's market share right there. If, like @AusWolf says the midrange moves and stays in the $500-700 range, PC gaming dies. Everything is getting increasingly pricier, jobs are going to China... there's no sense in paying the price of game console for a midrange card. I've looked it up before, less than half the countries in this world pay more than $500/mo on average. What kind of addressable market is that?

My point is that instead of spending $2-300 every gen like you're used to, you can just spend $700 every 3 gens now. Gaming won't die as a hobby, one just has to be more conscious of their buying choices now.

who need leaks?
Amd just told the numbers.

+ 37% over 7900GRE = slower than 4080 in 4K

U can hype what u want but numbers are numbers..


+37% over 7900GRE
= Slower than 4080, so its also slower than 5070Ti


42% is whit RT added in calculation.
its 37% whitout RT
And slower than 4080


"PC gaming dies" ppls are yelling this like +20y now

+37% without RT for an 18% higher price is still better than literally everything Nvidia has on offer.

 

[Sir Beregond]

$649 for a card faster than the 5070 with 12GB of VRAM, and I doubt the 5070 MSRP of $549 is going to be real. The XT for $649 is $50 too much though I could see AMD wanting to place the XT as being better than the 5070 if it performs better in RT.
A $549 MSRP for the XT and $449 for the 9070 non-XT would be better I agree, but if the 5070 isn't going to sell at MSRP, AMD would want to increase the price if they can. And I think if someone is set on buying from Nvidia, not even $549 for a 9070XT with more VRAM would wow them enough to consider anything from AMD, no different than the 7900XT vs 4070Ti 12GB even when the 7900XT prices dropped.
I think a mid range card should be 4k capable, however Nvidia has complete control over the 4k market, anyone interested in 4k are the people spending $2000+ on a 5080.

I just think its bad optics for Radeon to not be ultra aggressive here and validate what gamers have been saying which is "yeah stuff is too expensive". I thinkm everyone agrees that even $750 if it was real is too much for a 5070 Ti. I think just undercutting it $100 is the same old Radeon that lost marketshare last gen. What they need to say is no. 5070 costs $550, but probably more...we're giving you a whole entire tier of better performance for the same price. Considering the 4070 still massively outsold the 7800 XT, I think you just have to be absolutely the most aggressive you can be here to claw back market share.

Change the paradigm, change the perception of AMD as a second rate brand just slotting in right behind Nvidia. Absolutely embarrass Nvidia for getting as big and as greedy as they got. This is the chance for AMD to say look you all bought Nvidia to the point they have a near monopoly on the market and look at how they are treating you now for it. We're going to change that.

That's how you claw back market share.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Why the hell compare them to GRE and XT or XTX ?

You'll never guess... and if that up to 42% means Call of Duty,

 

[eidairaman1]

9070 (not the XT) is faster than the 5070 and more energy efficient.
But no halo card this time so no one will buy it. AMD knows this so I wonder why they didn't bother.

Plus I always have a laugh watching poor people with $600 RTX 4070s act like $620 7900 XTs are slow. In 8/10 games you're the slowpoke.

Because people get misinformed about AMD Halo Products, so why make a super expensive part when the masses wont buy it?

Don't even waste your time with that kiddo.

View attachment 386428

He admitted on another thread he buys nvidia regardless, so he's here just to troll anyways.

The ones like that are blind and ignorant

 

[JustBenching]

$649 for what they are comparing to the 7900 GRE from last gen...a $549 MSRP card would not be accepted well by the market imo. They gotta price it better than that. The 7800 XT was a $499 card and they chose "70" branding for this new one. I think $649 would just be seen as more "slotting into Nvidia bracket, just not as high" as opposed to the market disruption they really need to do if they want to really make a statement and maybe start gaining back some marketshare. I'm afraid all $649 will appeal to are those already inclined to buy AMD in the first place. I really don't think that will be aggressive enough. Sure there's MSRP and then real price of the 5070 Ti, so I kind of get it, but if the idea is to disrupt and reset what the mainstream is, I don't think $649 is gonna wow anyone.

At 649$ their marketshare will keep shrinking. 549$ is good!

+37% without RT for an 18% higher price is still better than literally everything Nvidia has on offer.

Uhm, no it is not. The 5070ti is 30% faster than the 4070ti at 6% lower price. And more vram

 

[AusWolf]

Uhm, no it is not. The 5070ti is 30% faster than the 4070ti at 6% lower price. And more vram

Let's see how the 9070 XT stacks up against it. Neither the 4070 Ti or the Ti Super were good value by any means, so comparing to them, I'd say the 5070 Ti is a bit less shit (if you can get it for MSRP, that is). 30% is an overstatement as well.

 

[JustBenching]

Let's see how the 9070 XT stacks up against it. Neither the 4070 Ti or the Ti Super were good value by any means, so comparing to them, I'd say the 5070 Ti is a bit less shit (if you can get it for MSRP, that is).

Well that's the thing, if you go by the argument that 40xx was crap - and therefore so is 50xx since they don't offer some insane performance upgrades, that automatically means that unless the 9070xt decisively beats in performance or decisively undercuts them in price (550$ for the XT), it's also crap. You could argue slightly less crap, but slightly less crap from something that's very crap is still crap. It needs to be priced at 550$ MSRP - 650-700 in your local shop, it will make nvidia cards look like a scam. At 650$ MSRP it's just more of the same and nvidia will continue to dominate in marketshare.


Last gen the 7800xt was launched at 500$ - but it came way too late, by the time it was out you could find the 4070 for the exact same price, and for better or worse people preferred it.

 

[AusWolf]

Well that's the thing, if you go by the argument that 40xx was crap - and therefore so is 50xx since they don't offer some insane performance upgrades, that automatically means that unless the 9070xt decisively beats in performance or decisively undercuts them in price (550$ for the XT), it's also crap. You could argue slightly less crap, but slightly less crap from something that's very crap is still crap. It needs to be priced at 550$ MSRP - 650-700 in your local shop, it will make nvidia cards look like a scam. At 650$ MSRP it's just more of the same and nvidia will continue to dominate in marketshare.

If it can match the 5070 Ti for $600, I'd still call it good. $650 is acceptable, but not great. 700 and above is shit.

Last gen the 7800xt was launched at 500$ - but it came way too late, by the time it was out you could find the 4070 for the exact same price, and for better or worse people preferred it.

Here in the UK, base model 4070 cards (MSi Ventus or Asus Dual) were the price of top notch 7800 XTs (PC Red Devil). If you were fine with a base model 7800 XT, you could get it £50-100 cheaper than a 4070.

 

[JustBenching]

If this is true, oh boy here we go again, 649...

 

[AusWolf]

If this is true, oh boy here we go again, 649...
View attachment 386549

Where's the pricing on the 9070 XT? Oh, I know. It's coming this Friday.

 

[arbiter]

If it can match the 5070 Ti for $600, I'd still call it good. $650 is acceptable, but not great. 700 and above is shit.


Here in the UK, base model 4070 cards (MSi Ventus or Asus Dual) were the price of top notch 7800 XTs (PC Red Devil). If you were fine with a base model 7800 XT, you could get it £50-100 cheaper than a 4070.

i would bet 699, cause it would under cut 5070ti but still give them most profit.

 

[AusWolf]

i would bet 699, cause it would under cut 5070ti but still give them most profit.

I won't bet anything until the official announcement.

 

[Heiro78]

I don't think that there is much to argue about whether RT looks better or not (not counting the games that run RT at 1/4th the resolution because the brand that sponsors said games don't have fast enough RT cards). The usual argument against RT (which I agree with btw) is the performance penalty. But whether or not RT / PT looks better than raster is not even up for comparison, that's why CGI used it, they don't use raster.

Anyways this will be a moot point since if the XT is at 550$ it will up against the 5070 and I can't see the 5070 being faster even in RT, at least not by a lot. So both companies will offer similar RT performance.

But CGI does not equal game play. I can believe that some day it could be better but I haven't seen it yet. And definitely agree the hit to frame rate is far outweighed by any visual gain

 

[Wasteland]

Uhm, no it is not. The 5070ti is 30% faster than the 4070ti at 6% lower price. And more vram

Is that with or without its full complement of ROPS?

Either way, I'm not seeing 30%:

Spoiler: 5070 Ti Performance Chart

(100 / 85) - 1 = 17.6%

(EDIT: Ok, NVM, I see where I screwed up. I was looking at the 4070 Ti Super, not the 4070 Ti. Still, the Super is the current product in that slot, so the point basically stands.)

I'm on record--more like a broken record at this point--saying that AMD should price the 9070/XT aggressively. Sub-$600 would be best, yes, but given the current state of Blackwell, even $650 would probably do well. That is, if AMD has enough stock to hit that price in practice. And of course, assuming that the performance standard described in the OP proves accurate.

This is a grand opportunity AMD. I can almost feel your eagerness to screw it up. Try to resist the impulse.