AMD to Launch Mid-range SKUs of the Radeon RX 9000 Series in March

[AusWolf]

Yeah, RDNA2 and RDNA3 really only had a few well-priced GPUs, IMO:

6600
6800
7800XT

Other cards were good, but priced too high to be appealing for most people, and more importantly they were priced far too high at launch when the review coverage had the most impact on people. 7700XT is a great card, but it wasn't appealing at $450, and the $900 7900XT made no sense whatsoever until last summer when it dropped to a more appealing $650-700.

Decent products ruined by greed and abysmal marketing. I'd like to hope AMD have learned from this, but they've had so many opportunities to learn from this same poor pricing at launch and yet they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot like they have for at least the 6 years since the 5700-series.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's greed. Personally, I think making a chiplet-based GPU (not even one, two of them) cost them too much, and they couldn't make it up with the better yields, not to mention it didn't result in better performance, either. That's why they're back to monolithic with RDNA 4. It's just my opinion, though, and I do agree that their marketing is bad. Changing the naming scheme every few generations is not good.

 

[Random_User]

Yeah, RDNA2 and RDNA3 really only had a few well-priced GPUs, IMO:

6600
6800
7800XT

Other cards were good, but priced too high to be appealing for most people, and more importantly they were priced far too high at launch when the review coverage had the most impact on people. 7700XT is a great card, but it wasn't appealing at $450, and the $900 7900XT made no sense whatsoever until last summer when it dropped to a more appealing $650-700.

Decent products ruined by greed and abysmal marketing. I'd like to hope AMD have learned from this, but they've had so many opportunities to learn from this same poor pricing at launch and yet they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot like they have for at least the 6 years since the 5700-series.

I'd argue about 7800XT (real 7700XT), at almost $600 initial MSRP, being a good value. It, along with 7700XT (basically 7600XT), stayed north of $580-650 in many places of the world. And only when the 7900GRE (real 7800, nonXT) went on sale globally, these two got some tiny silly price bits shaven off. And even then, 7800XT, looked a bit shaby option, compared to GRE, considering such a small price difference.
At $350-$370, 7800XT is an amazing product. But it would never happen, at least outside the US. 7700XT is max $280 SKU, not a penny more.
Just because, AMD decided to overinflate SKU naming numbers, doesn't mean the price tags should follow. But this is clear, that this is intentional, and the greed grip is deadly.

Don't get me wrong though. I don't say that AMD does not deserve to get decent margins. Or that they should stay "underdog" forever, and price their cards significantly cheaper than Nvidia/rivals, no matter what.
I just say, that, nVidia has long left the point/area of both affordability and sanity, so it's not a good example of goid marketing, and price making.
AMD has to set their prices independently, and reasonably, to be really affordable, in order to survive, and fill the market with quality products. To become "VolksGPUs". There nothing wrong, in being a best mid-end GPU brand. This thing is where the money are.

Just my opinion.

 

[Macro Device]

You do realize that if you look at both benchmarks the games used are different. So, it is not a like for like comparison in performance that you think.

Why do games from forever ago matter now? RDNA2 is worse with recent games than Ampere is. The opposite of fine wine. Not everyone plays old titles till the death makes them part. End of story.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'd argue about 7800XT (real 7700XT), at almost $600 initial MSRP, being a good value. It, along with 7700XT (basically 7600XT), stayed north of $580-650 in many places of the world. And only when the 7900GRE (real 7800, nonXT) went on sale globally, these two got some tiny silly price bits shaven off. And even then, 7800XT, looked a bit shaby option, compared to GRE, considering such a small price difference.
At $350-$370, 7800XT is an amazing product. But it would never happen, at least outside the US. 7700XT is max $280 SKU, not a penny more.
Just because, AMD decided to overinflate SKU naming numbers, doesn't mean the price tags should follow. But this is clear, that this is intentional, and the greed grip is deadly.

Don't get me wrong though. I don't say that AMD does not deserve to get decent margins. Or that they should stay "underdog" forever, and price their cards significantly cheaper than Nvidia/rivals, no matter what.
I just say, that, nVidia has long left the point/area of both affordability and sanity, so it's not a good example of goid marketing, and price making.
AMD has to set their prices independently, and reasonably, to be really affordable, in order to survive, and fill the market with quality products. To become "VolksGPUs". There nothing wrong, in being a best mid-end GPU brand. This thing is where the money are.

Just my opinion.

I picked up a Nitro+ at launch, at the list price for it (£519 here in the UK) then put in a build for someone and picked up the Pulse model at the MSRP of £479.

I'm not sure where you're getting the $600 MSRP from, IIRC it was never that expensive in any region unless you're talking about price scalping. Here in Europe there was plenty of stock at the MSRP. The odd single model went out of stock occasionally, but it was never a mad rush to get stock and you could always find a 7800XT somewhere at MSRP (or sometimes even at a slight discount).

The GRE model was poor value over here, since the availability was limited and the street price went up from the MSRP, which raised the price gap from the readily available 7800XT MSRP models to the point where it no longer made much sense.

Why do games from forever ago matter now? RDNA2 is worse with recent games than Ampere is. The opposite of fine wine. Not everyone plays old titles till the death makes them part. End of story.

The other thing about old games is that they run well, period, becuase they're old.

You don't need "fine wine" if the game is running smoothly at the detail and resolution that you want. Stop worrying about it and enjoy the game

 

[Taisho]

Long shutdown times are caused by software. Your BIOS settings or CPU speed have very little to do with it. The AMD graphics driver isn't the only software on your PC, especially if you had Nvidia before and didn't properly uninstall it (even DDU isn't perfect). Just saying.

It was a clean install on a new system. 3-second shutdown with integrated Intel graphics. 13 seconds with AMD. I tried different things to no avail. I switched to nVidia GPU from my old PC and back to 3 seconds.

 

[AusWolf]

I'd argue about 7800XT (real 7700XT), at almost $600 initial MSRP, being a good value. It, along with 7700XT (basically 7600XT), stayed north of $580-650 in many places of the world. And only when the 7900GRE (real 7800, nonXT) went on sale globally, these two got some tiny silly price bits shaven off. And even then, 7800XT, looked a bit shaby option, compared to GRE, considering such a small price difference.
At $350-$370, 7800XT is an amazing product. But it would never happen, at least outside the US. 7700XT is max $280 SKU, not a penny more.
Just because, AMD decided to overinflate SKU naming numbers, doesn't mean the price tags should follow. But this is clear, that this is intentional, and the greed grip is deadly.

Don't get me wrong though. I don't say that AMD does not deserve to get decent margins. Or that they should stay "underdog" forever, and price their cards significantly cheaper than Nvidia/rivals, no matter what.
I just say, that, nVidia has long left the point/area of both affordability and sanity, so it's not a good example of goid marketing, and price making.
AMD has to set their prices independently, and reasonably, to be really affordable, in order to survive, and fill the market with quality products. To become "VolksGPUs". There nothing wrong, in being a best mid-end GPU brand. This thing is where the money are.

Just my opinion.

Just a general note to everyone: please, don't let model names confuse you.

The 6700 XT launched for $479 with the Navi 22 chip, while the 7800 XT launched for $499 with the Navi 32. The 7800 XT is the successor of the 6700 XT (not the 6800 XT), and for that, I think it's a decent card.

It was a clean install on a new system. 3-second shutdown with integrated Intel graphics. 13 seconds with AMD. I tried different things to no avail. I switched to nVidia GPU from my old PC and back to 3 seconds.

That's weird - I've never seen an issue like it. Still, not the end of the world, imo.

 

[eidairaman1]

Just a general note to everyone: please, don't let model names confuse you.

The 6700 XT launched for $479 with the Navi 22 chip, while the 7800 XT launched for $499 with the Navi 32. The 7800 XT is the successor of the 6700 XT (not the 6800 XT), and for that, I think it's a decent card.


That's weird - I've never seen an issue like it. Still, not the end of the world, imo.

Grasping at straws at the bottom. Probably never reported it either.

 

[Pancho77]

Sorry for the quality of the writing, but I am using a translator. I always read them, and the truth is that regardless of who writes, the same comments are ALWAYS read. It doesn't seem to me that a comment based on someone who had a Vega 64, or who read a forum, or what a friend told them contributes anything... basically because that comment omits relevant information. Toothpaste and deodorants have instructions for use because some people are too stupid to even use those things... imagine video cards. To start a serious discussion about drivers, stability, boot and shutdown times, you have to give details of the system, type of disk, amount of RAM.
On the other hand, I have used the TNT2 M64, Geforce 2 GTS Pro, ATI 9200, 9600, Geforce 6800, well... And I always go looking for which board gives me the best performance for what I pay, and I rarely give too much importance to the fact that some people have something wrong with the drivers precisely because of what I mentioned above, and I NEVER had a driver problem with any board. Currently I am happy to have my 6800XT that I bought for 260 dollars (260,000 Argentine pesos).
As consumers we should always look for the best option, and competition benefits us. Remember that at one point Intel seemed unattainable, but it did everything wrong, it stagnated, it rehashed after rehashed and for me, with what I condemned them, that each generation forces you to change mothers... and if it had not been for AMD that provided a strong option, today we would continue with 4 cores 8 threads.
Hugs to everyone, from Argentina.

 

[Chrispy_]

It was a clean install on a new system. 3-second shutdown with integrated Intel graphics. 13 seconds with AMD. I tried different things to no avail. I switched to nVidia GPU from my old PC and back to 3 seconds.

That's weird - I've never seen an issue like it. Still, not the end of the world, imo.

When you're walking away from a PC you've turned off, what does it matter, exactly? It could be 30 seconds and still irrelevant.

If I had to guess, it would be that the driver is stopping services and writing to eventlogs. It's part of issue detection and tuning stability. If the services are stopped abruptly without a clean shutdown, the driver assumed your overclock or undervolt was unstable, and reverts to default values to let you recover and try again.

Since Nvidia's minimalist driver lacks any kind of tuning and monitoring functionality, it makes sense that the driver can be terminated immediately. Safely closing 0 running processes should definitely take 0 seconds.

 

[Random_User]

The 7800 XT is the successor of the 6700 XT (not the 6800 XT)

I've basically wrote the same above.

When you're walking away from a PC you've turned off, what does it matter, exactly? It could be 30 seconds and still irrelevant.

If I had to guess, it would be that the driver is stopping services and writing to eventlogs. It's part of issue detection and tuning stability. If the services are stopped abruptly without a clean shutdown, the driver assumed your overclock or undervolt was unstable, and reverts to default values to let you recover and try again.

Since Nvidia's minimalist driver lacks any kind of tuning and monitoring functionality, it makes sense that the driver can be terminated immediately. Safely closing 0 running processes should definitely take 0 seconds.

Exactly. Long shutdowns on Windows is not driver problem, it's Microsoft fart-quality updates running deep in the background. So deep, not even expert "task manager" will show that. And with W11 it will just BSOD the system and all tasks, to force the update upon the machine. Had own recent "user experience" of these "quality of life" "services".
Just for the sake of interst, gotta try some reliable linux distro, akin Arch, and look if the same driver batch would cause the same issue. But something tells me it won't.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I've basically wrote the same above.


Exactly. Long shutdowns on Windows is not driver problem, it's Microsoft fart-quality updates running deep in the background. So deep, not even expert "task manager" will show that. And with W11 it will just BSOD the system and all tasks, to force the update upon the machine. Had own recent "user experience" of these "quality of life" "services".
Just for the sake of interst, gotta try some reliable linux distro, akin Arch, and look if the same driver batch would cause the same issue. But something tells me it won't.

Hell on 11 I've had task managed, the anti malware service, or defenders malicious software service hang up a shit down more then once.

 

[Dawora]

No offence, but this movement is long overdue! So long, that AMD had to release the cards at CES. Not ramp f*ckin production, in february. AMD behaves, like they are doing regular generational change, and have selling parity with nVidia. AMD has barely any SKUs to suggest. Yet they line up their announcements/releases with nVidia.
Such an idiocy. AMD should have pushed their boundaries, and try to release their mid end GPUs before both Intel, and nVidia. But this is just rubbish.

Maybe. Would be perfect for me personally. 7900xt with better VRAM and bandwidth, and vastly improved thermal and power efficiency. The only big suspicion is, that AMD might sell these 7900xt rivals, for the 7900xt launch MSRP. Or at least sell overpriced stock to their partners.

However, 7900GRE, which seems should have been made in much greater amounts, is already EOL globally, with no inventory to be replenished. I guess the entire MCM, or at least 7900 stack is waiting the same end soon, if not already. That's obvious. Why make inferior SKUs if new ones are almost there.

It should be well under $300. There's nothing in these xx50/xx60/or even xx70 cards from nV and AMD (in particular) to be worth even $250, inflation included. They have half PCIE lines, the bus is rubbish, the chips are repurposed bins, the PCB, that has barely any phases, and coolers, that top at $20-$50 at max.

20-50$?

Go buy used Gtx770 or something.. or just stop gaming=cost 0$

Stop buying and stop crying about prices

I wouldn't necessarily say it's greed. Personally, I think making a chiplet-based GPU (not even one, two of them) cost them too much, and they couldn't make it up with the better yields, not to mention it didn't result in better performance, either. That's why they're back to monolithic with RDNA 4. It's just my opinion, though, and I do agree that their marketing is bad. Changing the naming scheme every few generations is not good.

So its only greed if Nvidia sell Gpu same price

 

[AusWolf]

So its only greed if Nvidia sell Gpu same price

Because what did Nvidia innovate since Turing? F* all. They're selling the same thing over and over again, just more expensive. AMD is at least trying (even if it doesn't work out in the end half the time).

 

[Vayra86]

They're really good at learning from Nvidia on that front, I have to admit.

Yeah that market share is really learning from Nvidia too then. I'm sure they learned things. Now they have to use that knowledge to figure out a plan of their own.

Reproducing what you learned is what, practical school level cognitive behaviour? AMD sure is well underway at this point!

I really hope AMD is just going to continue its focus on console APU and for dGPU and they need some presence to keep touch on gaming on PCs. I don't see anything more coming out of this fantastic rebrand. They're on a solid trajectory to join Intel in fighting over the midrange, and losing to them as well.

Because what did Nvidia innovate since Turing? F* all. They're selling the same thing over and over again, just more expensive. AMD is at least trying (even if it doesn't work out in the end half the time).

Excuse me, you mean there is no innovation in the space of DLSS, FG, and all that other stuff AMD just had to copy because its... such a great innovation? I don't think we can downplay what Nvidia does. We both just don't like what they're selling nor how they sell it. I think that's important nuance here. The majority does decide. The best we can fight for is preservation of options, choices; that's where AMD comes in. But they have to be more than that.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's greed. Personally, I think making a chiplet-based GPU (not even one, two of them) cost them too much, and they couldn't make it up with the better yields, not to mention it didn't result in better performance, either. That's why they're back to monolithic with RDNA 4. It's just my opinion, though, and I do agree that their marketing is bad. Changing the naming scheme every few generations is not good.

So greed is short-sightedly overpricing your product because it underperforms (=should cost LESS) according to your expectations? And then somehow, in some alternate reality, thinking you will actually sell GPUs that way?

All I see with RDNA2 as well as RDNA3 is limited availability being hidden by pricing things just on the edge or over the edge of comfort. We know RDNA2 didn't have the volume. RDNA3 didn't want the volume, if indeed the cost was too high and margins too thin.

This is how you arrive at 10% market share in a nutshell: lack of attention and focus.

 

[AusWolf]

Excuse me, you mean there is no innovation in the space of DLSS, FG, and all that other stuff AMD just had to copy because its... such a great innovation? I don't think we can downplay what Nvidia does. We both just don't like what they're selling nor how they sell it. I think that's important nuance here. The majority does decide. The best we can fight for is preservation of options, choices; that's where AMD comes in. But they have to be more than that.

They invented DLSS with Turing, and they only improved it since. FG is utter bollocks. Useless at low FPS, pointless at high. The term innovation implies that you're creating something useful. FG is not that.

I agree with your above point.

 

[Vayra86]

They invented DLSS with Turing, and they only improved it since. FG is utter bollocks. Useless at low FPS, pointless at high. The term innovation implies that you're creating something useful. FG is not that.

I agree with your above point.

Its still an innovation. We lost quite a few of these kinds of innovations along the way of GPU development in the past. I don't think it'll stick either, but it is innovation, practically it is bringing interpolation to gaming, which is a pretty cool thing, even if its not perfect or even useable everywhere. Who knows what it might lead to. It would never be something I'd pay specifically for though.

 

[AusWolf]

So greed is short-sightedly overpricing your product because it underperforms (=should cost LESS) according to your expectations? And then somehow, in some alternate reality, thinking you will actually sell GPUs that way?

Huh what? When did I say anything like that? What I said is, greed might not be the only reason RDNA 3 is priced high. Trying to recoup development costs could be a reasonable explanation. If you understand that as greed, that's fine.

Besides, I don't think they're priced that badly. The 7900 XTX came at the same price as the 6900 XT did, and the 7800 XT at the same price as the 6700 XT while both offering 50% extra performance over their predecessors.

All I see with RDNA2 as well as RDNA3 is limited availability being hidden by pricing things just on the edge or over the edge of comfort. We know RDNA2 didn't have the volume. RDNA3 didn't want the volume, if indeed the cost was too high and margins too thin.

This is how you arrive at 10% market share in a nutshell: lack of attention and focus.

Limited availability? At launch perhaps.

Its still an innovation. We lost quite a few of these kinds of innovations along the way of GPU development in the past. I don't think it'll stick either, but it is innovation, practically it is bringing interpolation to gaming, which is a pretty cool thing, even if its not perfect or even useable everywhere. Who knows what it might lead to. It would never be something I'd pay specifically for though.

It's not a cool thing and it's not usable anywhere. At least I didn't find a single case where it worked properly and put something meaningful on the table.

 

[Vayra86]

Huh what? When did I say anything like that? What I said is, greed might not be the only reason RDNA 3 is priced high. Trying to recoup development costs could be a reasonable explanation. If you understand that as greed, that's fine.

Besides, I don't think they're priced that badly. The 7900 XTX came at the same price as the 6900 XT did, and the 7800 XT at the same price as the 6700 XT while both offering 50% extra performance over their predecessors.


Limited availability? At launch perhaps.

Yeah... my bad; What I meant to say is: recoup development costs does not sound reasonable at all, it sounds very counterproductive, if you price an underperforming product too high, it just won't sell, so what did you price it high for? Not for recouping dev costs...

As for being priced bad or not relative to RDNA3... RDNA2 was FAR too expensive for the majority of its lifecycle. That is exactly it. Availability was high because people just didn't buy them until they went on hard discount or were models below the 6800XT. By pricing two consecutive generations way above what the market wanted to pay (they do pay it for Nvidia, yes...) AND having a lesser featureset, they were just a simple no go. The discounts came when RDNA3 was warming up and stock had to be cleared.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah... my bad; What I meant to say is: recoup development costs does not sound reasonable at all, it sounds very counterproductive, if you price an underperforming product too high, it just won't sell, so what did you price it high for? Not for recouping dev costs...

The other option would be selling at a loss. I don't think either are too good.

As for being priced bad or not relative to RDNA3... RDNA2 was FAR too expensive for the majority of its lifecycle. That is exactly it. Availability was high because people just didn't buy them until they went on hard discount or were models below the 6800XT. By pricing two consecutive generations way above what the market wanted to pay (they do pay it for Nvidia, yes...) AND having a lesser featureset, they were just a simple no go. The discounts came when RDNA3 was warming up and stock had to be cleared.

I don't think RDNA 2 was much more expensive than Ampere (if it was more expensive at all). I also find that argument a bit weird considering what I said above: the 7800 series and above offer 50% more performance than their predecessors at their price levels, and they're still not selling well. It's obviously not about the price anymore, is it? No, people want "features", even if said features force them to use Nvidia and nothing else indefinitely. Well, have at it guys, I will not support a closed market and monopoly just to tick the boxes on a few gimmicks.

 

[Vayra86]

The other option would be selling at a loss. I don't think either are too good.

Yeah I'm not buying that, there is no way they have no margin on a 7900XTX that would cost 800,-.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah I'm not buying that, there is no way they have no margin on a 7900XTX that would cost 800,-.

Perhaps, but we don't know that.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't think RDNA 2 was much more expensive than Ampere (if it was more expensive at all). I also find that argument a bit weird considering what I said above: the 7800 series and above offer 50% more performance than their predecessors at their price levels, and they're still not selling well. It's obviously not about the price anymore, is it? No, people want "features", even if said features force them to use Nvidia and nothing else indefinitely. Well, have at it guys, I will not support a closed market and monopoly just to tick the boxes on a few gimmicks.

But that's the thing, Ampere was priced above the comfort zone too. We've been in a streak of those kinds of GPUs generations. The 7800XT was priced 'okay'. But it came to market rather late.

Regardless, it might be correct that AMD can't sell much anyway because of the featureset gap.

 

[AusWolf]

But that's the thing, Ampere was priced above the comfort zone too. We've been in a streak of those kinds of GPUs generations. The 7800XT was priced 'okay'. But it came to market rather late.

That's why I'm optimistic about RDNA 4 opening the midrange with a bang while Nvidia focuses on the 5090 and 5080. I'm just afraid that there's going to be some mishap in pricing or marketing as usual.