• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

RX 7900XTX and 7900XT review thread

I

iQuasarLV

Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
If you are willing to pay $1200 why not save a little more and spend $1600
Click to expand...
IKR. At least this is what Nvidia has spent the last 5 years programming people to do. Why spend $700 when you can spend $1200 and get RTX. Why spend $1200 when you can spend $1999. Sorry that was for miners we'll throw you a bone and charge $1600.

People sure do show their lack of principles when confronted with the actual prospect of spending over $1k for a video card.

Typical thread responses
If the competition doesn't blow my favorite brand out of the water, then I am not switching. If the competition does not force my favorite brand to drop prices, I am not switching. If the competition doesn't revolutionize in the face of my favorite brand, then I am not switching.

I mean shit just admit you were never a neutral buyer and have brand preference at least most here wouldn't look at these responses as the jokes they are.

Look at all the goal post moving going on in here.

The card is blowing away last gen by over 40%. Yea but it sucks in ray tracing as it can only match last gen
--As like last gen suddenly became a goddamn joke overnight and the 3090 / Ti were not good enough to begin with in raytracing

The card's value is beating anything Nvidia is selling. Yea but when you spend $1000 might as well save $200-$600 more to pay for X or Y or Z.
--Unless AMD or any other competition copies and beats Nviidia at their own game they will never switch brands. Its only rationalization of overspending to avoid buyer's remorse. Because lets be honest why spend $700 for a flagship of yesteryear when you can just save a little more and spend $1000 for a flagship. See how idiotic that thinking is?

The card offers better raw fps at the same wattage, 51% improved raytracing performance over RDNA2, is 30% cheaper value per frame than the competion. Yea but, it doesn't have Nvidia driver, DLSS butt plugs, streaming encoders, tensor cores, and IS NOT Nvidia.


So there I summed up this thread for anyone coming in. AMD made a 4080 competitor. They have improved over last gen by 40%+ in every metric. All this while keeping things in the same power envelope and at the same value per FPS as current day offerings ($8 / fps). If that is not good enough to make it a consideration picking up the card in the next 2+ gen upgrade (GTX 1080/RTX 2xxx or RX580/5700). Look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you bought into the branding, have brand bias that borders on the same level as console fanbois.

The "yea buts" and goalpost movers just present themselves as jokes when they respond as they do. It was never going to be good enough, you were deluding youself in hopes AMD would Jebait Nvidia into dropping prices into something more palattable to you, and were just plain never going to buy any of these products to begin with. We all sit on our $400-600 gpus video cards typing like we speak of experiences we wish we had. Its funny how everyone never speaks of the RTX 2xxx series and just thanks their lucky stars they had a 1080Ti to last them 5 years to get by on that they didn't have to (silently mouths vomiting) move to AMD for a replacement. Now that AMD is out all that shit talking about $1200-$1600 disappears and it suddenly is an option and isn't so bad an Idea. Get the F*** of your high horse.
 
analog_future

analog_future

Member
Buggy Loop said:
performance-per-dollar_2560-1440.png


This is not even considering the deep discounts we can see for the RDNA 2 series. Seriously, at this point in time, if you're thinking of buying a card and don't care about RT (as this argument keeps coming up), a deep discount 6800-6800 XT is almost an unbeatable value right now. Ampere hasn't dropped as drastically in price. At least in Canada.
Click to expand...

The thing is, for me at least, if I'm dipping into 6800 territory I might as well buy a Series X or whatever because you're going to get similar performance at a way cheaper price than the cost of a 6800.

As someone trying to decide on a PC build, there's no "sweet spot" for me to land on where it's a significant jump over the consoles but still a good value for price. I suppose the 7900 XTX would still be the way to go, at least for me.
 
GHG

GHG

Member
iQuasarLV said:
IKR. At least this is what Nvidia has spent the last 5 years programming people to do. Why spend $700 when you can spend $1200 and get RTX. Why spend $1200 when you can spend $1999. Sorry that was for miners we'll throw you a bone and charge $1600.

People sure do show their lack of principles when confronted with the actual prospect of spending over $1k for a video card.

Typical thread responses
If the competition doesn't blow my favorite brand out of the water, then I am not switching. If the competition does not force my favorite brand to drop prices, I am not switching. If the competition doesn't revolutionize in the face of my favorite brand, then I am not switching.

I mean shit just admit you were never a neutral buyer and have brand preference at least most here wouldn't look at these responses as the jokes they are.

Look at all the goal post moving going on in here.

The card is blowing away last gen by over 40%. Yea but it sucks in ray tracing as it can only match last gen
--As like last gen suddenly became a goddamn joke overnight and the 3090 / Ti were not good enough to begin with in raytracing

The card's value is beating anything Nvidia is selling. Yea but when you spend $1000 might as well save $200-$600 more to pay for X or Y or Z.
--Unless AMD or any other competition copies and beats Nviidia at their own game they will never switch brands. Its only rationalization of overspending to avoid buyer's remorse. Because lets be honest why spend $700 for a flagship of yesteryear when you can just save a little more and spend $1000 for a flagship. See how idiotic that thinking is?

The card offers better raw fps at the same wattage, 51% improved raytracing performance over RDNA2, is 30% cheaper value per frame than the competion. Yea but, it doesn't have Nvidia driver, DLSS butt plugs, streaming encoders, tensor cores, and IS NOT Nvidia.


So there I summed up this thread for anyone coming in. AMD made a 4080 competitor. They have improved over last gen by 40%+ in every metric. All this while keeping things in the same power envelope and at the same value per FPS as current day offerings ($8 / fps). If that is not good enough to make it a consideration picking up the card in the next 2+ gen upgrade (GTX 1080/RTX 2xxx or RX580/5700). Look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you bought into the branding, have brand bias that borders on the same level as console fanbois.

The "yea buts" and goalpost movers just present themselves as jokes when they respond as they do. It was never going to be good enough, you were deluding youself in hopes AMD would Jebait Nvidia into dropping prices into something more palattable to you, and were just plain never going to buy any of these products to begin with. We all sit on our $400-600 gpus video cards typing like we speak of experiences we wish we had. Its funny how everyone never speaks of the RTX 2xxx series and just thanks their lucky stars they had a 1080Ti to last them 5 years to get by on that they didn't have to (silently mouths vomiting) move to AMD for a replacement. Now that AMD is out all that shit talking about $1200-$1600 disappears and it suddenly is an option and isn't so bad an Idea. Get the F*** of your high horse.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought that it might be as simple as "$200 more for better RT performance and/or any Nvidia features that are available" might be worth it for some people?

It's not that deep man.
 
HeisenbergFX4

HeisenbergFX4

Member
iQuasarLV said:
IKR. At least this is what Nvidia has spent the last 5 years programming people to do. Why spend $700 when you can spend $1200 and get RTX. Why spend $1200 when you can spend $1999. Sorry that was for miners we'll throw you a bone and charge $1600.

People sure do show their lack of principles when confronted with the actual prospect of spending over $1k for a video card.

Typical thread responses
If the competition doesn't blow my favorite brand out of the water, then I am not switching. If the competition does not force my favorite brand to drop prices, I am not switching. If the competition doesn't revolutionize in the face of my favorite brand, then I am not switching.

I mean shit just admit you were never a neutral buyer and have brand preference at least most here wouldn't look at these responses as the jokes they are.

Look at all the goal post moving going on in here.

The card is blowing away last gen by over 40%. Yea but it sucks in ray tracing as it can only match last gen
--As like last gen suddenly became a goddamn joke overnight and the 3090 / Ti were not good enough to begin with in raytracing

The card's value is beating anything Nvidia is selling. Yea but when you spend $1000 might as well save $200-$600 more to pay for X or Y or Z.
--Unless AMD or any other competition copies and beats Nviidia at their own game they will never switch brands. Its only rationalization of overspending to avoid buyer's remorse. Because lets be honest why spend $700 for a flagship of yesteryear when you can just save a little more and spend $1000 for a flagship. See how idiotic that thinking is?

The card offers better raw fps at the same wattage, 51% improved raytracing performance over RDNA2, is 30% cheaper value per frame than the competion. Yea but, it doesn't have Nvidia driver, DLSS butt plugs, streaming encoders, tensor cores, and IS NOT Nvidia.


So there I summed up this thread for anyone coming in. AMD made a 4080 competitor. They have improved over last gen by 40%+ in every metric. All this while keeping things in the same power envelope and at the same value per FPS as current day offerings ($8 / fps). If that is not good enough to make it a consideration picking up the card in the next 2+ gen upgrade (GTX 1080/RTX 2xxx or RX580/5700). Look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you bought into the branding, have brand bias that borders on the same level as console fanbois.

The "yea buts" and goalpost movers just present themselves as jokes when they respond as they do. It was never going to be good enough, you were deluding youself in hopes AMD would Jebait Nvidia into dropping prices into something more palattable to you, and were just plain never going to buy any of these products to begin with. We all sit on our $400-600 gpus video cards typing like we speak of experiences we wish we had. Its funny how everyone never speaks of the RTX 2xxx series and just thanks their lucky stars they had a 1080Ti to last them 5 years to get by on that they didn't have to (silently mouths vomiting) move to AMD for a replacement. Now that AMD is out all that shit talking about $1200-$1600 disappears and it suddenly is an option and isn't so bad an Idea. Get the F*** of your high horse.
Click to expand...
My question was kind of rhetorical

I still think if someone has a pretty set budget in mind and simply can't or wont splurge on a 4090 then this 7900 XTX makes a viable option.
 
Buggy Loop

Buggy Loop

Member
analog_future said:
The thing is, for me at least, if I'm dipping into 6800 territory I might as well buy a Series X or whatever because you're going to get similar performance at a way cheaper price than the cost of a 6800.

As someone trying to decide on a PC build, there's no "sweet spot" for me to land on where it's a significant jump over the consoles but still a good value for price. I suppose the 7900 XTX would still be the way to go, at least for me.
Click to expand...

No not really

See this post from Black_Stride Black_Stride

Digital Foundry even found the intel arc A770 to be a match to xbox series X performances by giving equivalent settings. A 6800 XT is another league. You could find a deep discount 6700 or 6700 XT and be totally fine if the result is going to consoles anyway. Pair that with a respectable CPU like digital foundry did and you have a cheap system, no online fees, cheaper prices for games out of the gate.
 
O

OZ9000

Member
Disappointing benchmarks. I expected this card to do better than the 4080.

I would only consider buying this if it were on a 25% discount.
 
bentanchorbolt

bentanchorbolt

Member
analog_future said:
The thing is, for me at least, if I'm dipping into 6800 territory I might as well buy a Series X or whatever because you're going to get similar performance at a way cheaper price than the cost of a 6800.

As someone trying to decide on a PC build, there's no "sweet spot" for me to land on where it's a significant jump over the consoles but still a good value for price. I suppose the 7900 XTX would still be the way to go, at least for me.
Click to expand...
You could build a system around a 6750XT for about $1000 and it would be a major step up over a Series X and then its still a PC so you can do PC stuff with it.
 
DonkeyPunchJr

DonkeyPunchJr

World’s Biggest Weeb
ioqNwbq.jpg

Sapphire’s design looks better than any of the 4000 series designs, so that’s something in AMD’s favor at least
 
I

iQuasarLV

Member
GHG said:
Have you ever thought that it might be as simple as "$200 more for better RT performance and/or any Nvidia features that are available" might be worth it for some people?

It's not that deep man.
Click to expand...
And you just literally re-mouthed my second theoretical verbatim as your own opinion.

The card's value is beating anything Nvidia is selling. Yea but when you spend $1000 might as well save $200-$600 more to pay for X or Y or Z.
--Unless AMD or any other competition copies and beats Nviidia at their own game they will never switch brands. Its only rationalization of overspending to avoid buyer's remorse. Because lets be honest why spend $700 for a flagship of yesteryear when you can just save a little more and spend $1000 for a flagship. See how idiotic that thinking is?
Click to expand...

I mean it was NEVER about value for you. Talking like value is/was of interest to you gets completely blown out the water when you espouse lines such as this.
 
I

iQuasarLV

Member
Buggy Loop said:
No not really

See this post from Black_Stride Black_Stride

Digital Foundry even found the intel arc A770 to be a match to xbox series X performances by giving equivalent settings. A 6800 XT is another league. You could find a deep discount 6700 or 6700 XT and be totally fine if the result is going to consoles anyway. Pair that with a respectable CPU like digital foundry did and you have a cheap system, no online fees, cheaper prices for games out of the gate.
Click to expand...
Yea, found an article that going from blank canvas to full system online was done for $1200 which is system + OS + KB/M/HP & monitor. Which is hilarious given the price of just a single RTX 4080.
 
GHG

GHG

Member
iQuasarLV said:
And you just literally re-mouthed my second theoretical verbatim as your own opinion.



I mean it was NEVER about value for you. Talking like value is/was of interest to you gets completely blown out the water when you espouse lines such as this.
Click to expand...

Yes but you're claiming it's "idiotic" when it's something completely subjective dependant on an individuals use case. Believe it or not, but "value" is subjective, all the way up to the top end of any market.

I don't get the angst, you can still get a last gen card (anything at or above 6700XT or 3070 levels) and be set for the remainder of this console generation, even at near enough 4k if you're willing to compromise and use console equivalent settings.

Options for more budget focused system builders still and will continue to exist (even more so now than ever before due to FSR and DLSS). If anything, sitting here arguing about pricing for what are essentially the halo products from these GPU manufacters is what is idiotic. When it comes to all of these new generation cards that have just released, people will simply buy what they want.
 
Last edited:
Kataploom

Kataploom

Member
DonkeyPunchJr said:
I find this somewhat hard to believe considering 4080 sales have been disappointing while 4090 is still sold out. Is there really that big of a market of gamers for whom $1200 is too much but $1000 (with lower RT performance) is attractive?
Click to expand...
Yet you see many people on internet crying for 7900 cards not being in the same ball park than 4090, they were literally waiting for something similar but cheaper.

Also they've sold like what? 300k 4090? That's a totally different demography, people that not only want the best performance but with the money to spend no matter the price, those people won't wait until they "save money" lol, they'll rush and pick their cards, you won't see many 4090 selling at the same speed for much longer.

The people wanting the best possible and are saving money for it are in all ranges between mid to high end.
 
AGRacing

AGRacing

Member
This card is excellent for $999. I'd take it over a 4080 at their MSRP. MIGHT pull the trigger on one if available... But it's probably worth seeing what happens with the 4080 price in the next 3 months.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
Buggy Loop said:
Nvidia in trouble because the card hits 4GHz?
oh i don't know, a monster?
3% away from 4090?

Funny how we went from Nvidia killer, to within spitting distance of 4090, to oh shit wait, they're aiming for 4080, to now basically a 4080 equivalent card in rasterization with 4080 at STOCK clocks and better power consumptions. This atrociously priced butchered AD103 die that is an assault to anything good, ending up actually priced reasonably well against AMD's flagship.

We went from $999 6900XT competing against $1499 3090 last gen, trading blows, to this? RDNA 2 was better. I guess the saving grave for that gen was that Nvidia was stuck on Samsung.

There's no way internally that they started RDNA 3 with the intention of only competing with the AD103.

379 mm² - 315W
vs
531 mm² - 350W

2% difference in rasterization, -16% in RT (avg with many light ray tracing titles, -35% for Cyberpunk 2077, and that's before overdrive patch..)

What the hell?

Good for you i guess. I mean it seems the expectations of AMD being good here is that AMD is simply not Nvidia lol.

This card is making a case to sell 4080s, the ridiculously priced 4080 that is meant to sell 4090s and reduce ampere stock, it's making a case to sell the fucking thing because some peoples will see the price difference and say fuck it, RT's worth it, DLSS's worth it.

It's making a case that both are terrible values. If 4080 should be priced in as per 3080, then this is should also be at 6800XT price.

Hurray i guess. Man, we need intel to step it up if this is the state of things..
Click to expand...
Looking at those comparative chip sizes and power draw you listed I'm wondering if the card doesn't look like great competition(yet) because it is awaiting a next-gen software paradigm shift in the benchmarked games, or needing different benchmark use cases that (eg) use the cards with esports settings - that stress caches - or is actually not about winning any real ground against a 4080/3080ti, but is actually about the knock-on effect of fabricating far more chips per wafer further down the stack (eg 7500/7600/7700) to be competitive on price/performance against the 3050/3060 (and coming 4050/4060) for the would be esports kid players that just want the lowest latency/highest fps on games with 2005 graphics, so that they can break the cycle of losing to nvidia on sales because of price/performance because of the sheer volume Nvidia sell in comparison.


The whole competition in the graphics card market seems like a non-starter at the moment unless Intel can eat billions in costs to get good market share or AMD can get a profitable RDNA3 card at $100-200 that fits a big market segment that Nvidia can't match up or better with use of DLSS/RT at the same TDP and price.
 
Last edited:
MikeM

MikeM

Member
analog_future said:
The thing is, for me at least, if I'm dipping into 6800 territory I might as well buy a Series X or whatever because you're going to get similar performance at a way cheaper price than the cost of a 6800.

As someone trying to decide on a PC build, there's no "sweet spot" for me to land on where it's a significant jump over the consoles but still a good value for price. I suppose the 7900 XTX would still be the way to go, at least for me.
Click to expand...
As a former Series X and current PS5 and 6700xt owner- no. My PC does far better than PS5 in the games I play. Add in better back compat (running far cry 5 at 4k with high settings vs 900p on Series X for 60fps). MW2 also looks far and away better at 100-120fps on my PC than 120fps on PS5 (play on both).
 
Last edited:
DaGwaphics

DaGwaphics

Member
DonkeyPunchJr said:
I find this somewhat hard to believe considering 4080 sales have been disappointing while 4090 is still sold out. Is there really that big of a market of gamers for whom $1200 is too much but $1000 (with lower RT performance) is attractive?
Click to expand...
More likely the issue would be there is a core group of buyers that can't mentally justify spending more than $1k (or $700, $500, $350, etc.) for a GPU. Those buyers will just get whatever is the best thing they can get. Nvidia's brand power is super strong, so this group might just wait for a price drop or buy a 4070ti even if it's $900. But certainly there are people committed to the different price tiers.
 
IllegalLemon

IllegalLemon

Member
CrustyBritches said:
If you expected 7900XTX at $1000 to compete with 4090 at $1600, you were smoking crack. AMD was clear that this was a 4080 competitor a month ago…

videocardz.com

AMD compares its Radeon RX 7900 series to GeForce RTX 4080 - VideoCardz.com

AMD Radeon RX 7900 vs. GeForce RTX 4080 The company is convincing fans Radeon RX 7900 series is a better choice than NVIDIA’s upcoming RTX 40 GPU. Just 2 days ahead of the RTX 4080 launch AMD decided to steal some attention from NVIDIA by sharing more details on their new RX 7900 series. These […]
videocardz.com videocardz.com

​



[Radeon RX 7900 XTX] is designed to go against 4080 and we don’t have benchmarks numbers on 4080. That’s the primary reason why you didnt see any NVIDIA compares. […] $999 card is not a 4090 competitor, which costs 60% more, this is a 4080 competitor.

— Frank Azor to PCWorld
Click to expand...
And they achieved that very well. There's an inevitable 7950xtx on the way i'd presume, and that might be Amd's answer to the 4090. Amd made it an open topic that the 7900xtx's main competition was the 4080 and those paying attention to amd's own words have gotten the memo already.
 
DaGwaphics

DaGwaphics

Member
PaintTinJr said:
The whole competition in the graphics card market seems like a non-starter at the moment unless Intel can eat billions in costs to get good market share or AMD can get a profitable RDNA3 card at $100-200 that fits a big market segment that Nvidia can't match up or better with use of DLSS/RT at the same TDP and price.
Click to expand...

Agreed. AMD or Intel basically needs to create the next 1060, that card that has the price/performance that just makes it a no brainer for the largest bracket of buyers. Like you mention the trick would be that they would need to do it in a way that is profitable for them and the AIBs while still hitting the price point.
 
M1chl

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
bentanchorbolt said:
Because the hardware is fundamentally broken OR the drivers aren't ready for primetime?
Click to expand...


My theory is that AMD simply wanted to flex on nVidia, how nimble their card looks and that you don't need another PSU, etc. Seems like there is a huge potential for overclocking.
 
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt

bentanchorbolt

Member
M1chl said:


My theory is that AMD simply wanted to flex on nVidia, how nimble their card looks and that you don't need another PSU, etc. Seems like there is a huge potential for overclocking.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty fucking stupid if you ask me and I wonder if AIB partners will be able to unlock that "missing" performance. Stupid of them, not your theory.
 
TTOOLL

TTOOLL

Member
You know what I find crazy? People complaining about cards that take you comfortably well above 60 fps. Since when that's not enough anymore?

Shadow of tomb raider 187 fps good x 157 fps bad. That's nonsense.

I know companies must sell "THE NEXT THING" but if we accept everything we just can't complain about price.

Be reasonable, people.
 
Leonidas

Leonidas

Member
Sad to see its probably not good enough to have much of an effect on the 4080 pricing.

Oh well, here's hoping 2023 will see a new GPU for me worth upgrading too that isn't 2x the cost of what I paid last gen...
 
bentanchorbolt

bentanchorbolt

Member
TTOOLL said:
You know what I find crazy? People complaining about cards that take you comfortably well above 60 fps. Since when that's not enough anymore?

Shadow of tomb raider 187 fps good x 157 fps bad. That's nonsense.

I know companies must sell "THE NEXT THING" but if we accept everything we just can't complain about price.

Be reasonable, people.
Click to expand...
FOMO
 
SolidQ

SolidQ

Member
Reviewers used 22.9.1.
Adrenaline 23.1.1 improve RDNA3 perform & efficiency in game.
It include RDNA2+ APU perform improve for legacy API & media encode improve for all.
 
Buggy Loop

Buggy Loop

Member
SolidQ said:
Reviewers used 22.9.1.
Adrenaline 23.1.1 improve RDNA3 perform & efficiency in game.
It include RDNA2+ APU perform improve for legacy API & media encode improve for all.
Click to expand...

Techpowerup used 22.40.00.58 press drivers and I assume everyone did.

Thinking that AMD is dumb enough to send to press drivers without the improvements by review embargo date.. lol
 
Last edited:
G

Gaiff

Member
bentanchorbolt said:
Yeah maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. Would rather wait and see what the AIB partners do than speculate, but you are probably right.
Click to expand...
If they do, it's a major hardware defect which would require a retape. That would be a silicon fault so that's pretty damn problematic, assuming that it's true.
 
//DEVIL//

//DEVIL//

Member
DonkeyPunchJr said:
ioqNwbq.jpg

Sapphire’s design looks better than any of the 4000 series designs, so that’s something in AMD’s favor at least
Click to expand...
The look is a matter of perspective opinion. to me, it was always the FE cards. whatever the unique fan design or the fact you do not see a single fin when mounting the card is an ACE to me.

I also do not trust the shape and the number of blades in this fan design. it will surely be loud.

Foilz said:
I got a 6900xt for 570 during BF sales and at 1440pm I'm getting 180+ frames on ultra in codmw2. I'm happy with that. F the new cards
Click to expand...

Honestly, that was my plan if I didn't get lucky enough for an FE 4090. I really did not want any other card due to price. so it was either that for me or buy a cheap 3090/3090ti EVGA FTW3 card
 
Last edited:
I

iQuasarLV

Member
//DEVIL// said:
The look is a matter of perspective opinion. to me, it was always the FE cards. whatever the unique fan design or the fact you do not see a single fin when mounting the card is an ACE to me.

I also do not trust the shape and the number of blades in this fan design. it will surely be loud.



Honestly, that was my plan if I didn't get lucky enough for an FE 4090. I really did not want any other card due to price. so it was either that for me or buy a cheap 3090/3090ti EVGA FTW3 card
Click to expand...
Yea, Gamers Nexus said the coil whine was bad, very bad. I got a taste of that on a RX470 4GB. God, coil whine is like the Devil's nails on a chalkboard.
 
DaGwaphics

DaGwaphics

Member
M1chl said:


My theory is that AMD simply wanted to flex on nVidia, how nimble their card looks and that you don't need another PSU, etc. Seems like there is a huge potential for overclocking.
Click to expand...


Is that what is being hinted at in the tweet? Reads more like the Kepler dude is saying the n31 chip itself is designed in a way that caused the voltage/frequency curve to be poor, meaning even a wild overclock would just leave them in a bad power draw and heat situation (making it harder for AMD and the AIBs to undersell Nvidia) while still falling short. If that's the case, accepting the fact that they couldn't compete with 4090 and positioning around the 4080 was probably the smartest option, at least it gives them the most points of competition (price, card size, and better case and PSU compatibility).
 
Last edited:
Crayon

Crayon

Member
Despite all the interesting technology and process differences going on this gen, this is a repeat of ampere versus RDNA 2. We'll have to see how the rest of the cards shake out, but I if it goes the same way, The AMD cards will price drop first and start looking better. Just like how now people are recommending rdna2 a lot more.

How about all that f****** hype though lol. Wow what an anti-climax this is. The cards are fine but that was just a legendary ride of rumors and overhype for what seem like a whole year.

Ahhh. See you guys at the next one.
 
Crayon

Crayon

Member
Buggy Loop said:
This is hurting AMD

Honestly, the stupid tech youtubers are doing more harm to AMD by hyping AMD. It's cancer.
Click to expand...

It ain't helping, that's for sure. I don't know if it was my YouTube curation but what you say rings true with endless techtubers making wildly optimistic projections for RDNA 3 all year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom