We look back at six years of $500-tier Radeon cards to see where the new RX 9070 lands - and whether it finally delivers the leap AMD's midrange has needed.
Six Years of $500 Radeon GPUs Tested: The RX 9070 Comes Out on Top
Six Years of $500 Radeon GPUs Tested: The RX 9070 Comes Out on Top
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Biggest factor in these 6 years is FSR 4 which is only supported on RDNA 4 and Radeon 9000 series.
Improved RT perf matters as well, as more and more games have RT elements. Part of why Radeon 6000 series aged badly, even with "enough VRAM", sadly VRAM don't matter much when GPU is not capable (bad RT perf, no good upscaling support, etc.)
People that only look at rasterization performance in 2025, are making a mistake and don't know where the industry is heading really.
FSR Redstone event tomorrow. RDNA 4 / Radeon 9000 exclusive. Sadly.
Improved RT perf matters as well, as more and more games have RT elements. Part of why Radeon 6000 series aged badly, even with "enough VRAM", sadly VRAM don't matter much when GPU is not capable (bad RT perf, no good upscaling support, etc.)
People that only look at rasterization performance in 2025, are making a mistake and don't know where the industry is heading really.
FSR Redstone event tomorrow. RDNA 4 / Radeon 9000 exclusive. Sadly.
darkzelda
Posts: 441 +308
The RX 9000 series from AMD is a step in the right direction, it's a shame that gpu prices will soon increase. As for me, going from a 6700 XT to a 9070 XT, has been a huge leap in performance.
torvuswalds
Posts: 100 +231
That 5700XT is going the route of the RX 580, good lord it is still chugging along. Good job AMD, that silicon definitely was worth the R&D.
ChipBoundary
Posts: 156 +79
I say this as someone that is poor as hell: Price per performance is the single dumbest and most useless metric that has ever been invented. It tells you absolutely nothing. There's so many factors that go into FPS and it isn't even a static metric. A game update or driver update can totally throw the numbers off. There are SO many other factors that matter exponentially more. Prices change too, frequently, and pretty much always go up. That's how PC tech is now. They don't reiterate and reiterate on stuff anymore to refine it. They make something and then they're on to something completely different almost immediately, chasing new tech and such. Prices are going to be what they're going to be, either upgrade or don't, it's that simple.
CapNemo72
Posts: 112 +176
First of all thank you for a great review.
Yes, the naming and "product class" seems to be moving target with many manufacturers.
It would be the easy thing to just compare x700 XT cards and be done with it, but there are several things spoiling all this with the pricing being as crazy as it is now.
We know 5700 XT used to be flagship, then 6700 XT and 7700 XT weren't. 9070 XT is flagship in 9000 series and naturally it would be the one that compares to 5700 XT, and I think seeing the prices on market ( there are at least 5 models of 9070 XT below MSRP, closer in price to 9070, at least here in Switzerland), it would be nice if it was part of this article.
Prices will change (probably going up very soon), but the results between them will not. So having the 9070 XT would've added a lot to this.
AMD basically tripled performance from 5700XT to 9070 XT which is awesome for users.
They also added many features and improved on software.
They are still missing from the very top end, where RTX 5090 seats alone, maybe they will try more in 2026? Like 10090 XT?
Yes, the naming and "product class" seems to be moving target with many manufacturers.
It would be the easy thing to just compare x700 XT cards and be done with it, but there are several things spoiling all this with the pricing being as crazy as it is now.
We know 5700 XT used to be flagship, then 6700 XT and 7700 XT weren't. 9070 XT is flagship in 9000 series and naturally it would be the one that compares to 5700 XT, and I think seeing the prices on market ( there are at least 5 models of 9070 XT below MSRP, closer in price to 9070, at least here in Switzerland), it would be nice if it was part of this article.
Prices will change (probably going up very soon), but the results between them will not. So having the 9070 XT would've added a lot to this.
AMD basically tripled performance from 5700XT to 9070 XT which is awesome for users.
They also added many features and improved on software.
They are still missing from the very top end, where RTX 5090 seats alone, maybe they will try more in 2026? Like 10090 XT?
Yppah
Posts: 149 +70
FSR 4 has absolutely zero to do with just anything mentioned here other than its a new feature that applies to new hardware only. Its not a point of concern so no testing was done with it. Also RT performance = NOT something anyone is really comparing or talking about. Raw performance to price ratio and value is the name of the game here. Did you miss the article? The 9000 series is the latest, hence it carries the newest features and is the most powerful.
Yes it has. Upscaling is here to stay and a massive improvement in all newer games overall, all things considered; Providing better performance, built in top tier AA with sharpening applied beating any 3rd party AA solution like crappy TAA which most new games defaults too, when DLSS/FSR/XeSS is not used. NoAA looks bad, regardless of resolution.
Good upscaling is magic for longevity. Ask any RTX 2000/3000 owners who happily run DLSS 4 which is the best upscaler today with massive game support (beating FSR like 10 times) and DLSS 4 can be forced in pretty much all DLSS 2+ games with ease.
RDNA 3 and older don't support FSR 4 and is stuck with FSR 3.1 and older which is crap even compared to DLSS 2 from 6 years ago.
People that look at rasterization performance and nothing else in 2025+ knows nothing about where the industry is heading and can't have any experience with newer games and hardware.
AMD GPU users hated upscaling, and never wanted to hear about it, till they got FSR 4. Now they praise it too. Sadly for RDNA 1, 2 and 3 owners, no FSR 4 for you.
RDNA 1, 2 and 3 owners still don't want to hear about upscaling and "enjoys" native... on their slow and dated GPUs that performs extremely bad when RT elements are present. Sadly many new games has RT elements now.
Meanwhile DLSS 4 is supported even on RTX 2000 from 2018.
Outriders' DLSS does a lot more than just improve performance
Outriders' DLSS options don't just improve your graphics card's performance; it also adds in extra details that are missing when playing at native resolution.
www.rockpapershotgun.com
No game support? No problem. DLDSR exist. Downscale instead to improve visuals massively while not getting hit with the actual 4K performance penalty.
Got a HDR monitor? RTX HDR makes SDR games look incredible on HDR displays.
You see, tools are good to have. Options are good. Regular raster performance alone, means less today. Unless you play old games only.
People are sleeping way too much on all these new features. Tells me, you have no experience at all with newer hardware, in newer games, which is why you live in denial and claim that rasterization performance is the only thing that matters.
Imagine looking at rasterization performance only in 2025, playing games at native with a sloppy AA solution on top, in SDR... Ewwww. Glad it is not me.
Most new games are made with upscaling in mind. It is even enabled as default in most demanding ones. Most new games has RT elements. These two things was AMDs prime focus with RDNA 4 and Radeon 9000 series. For good reason, as RDNA 1, 2 and 3 all sucked here. RT killed the performance and FSR 3.1 and older is bad upscaling.
RT performance matter even if you don't enable RT manually these days. Forced RT elements.
This is the reason 9070 XT beats 7900 XTX in many new games. Among others. Now enable FSR 4, and it is game over for 7900 XTX. Massively better experience/performance at much lower watts/heat. This is why 9070 XT made 7900 XTX and 7900 XT go EOL, even tho it is a much smaller chip, with lower bus and 8/4GB VRAM less. The chip itself, improved alot.
If AMD had neglected RT performance and quality upscaling, they would be out of the gaming GPU business in a few years. Rasterization performance still matter but it is far from the only thing I look at, when buying a new GPU and this was true 5 years ago as well. I already knew where the industry was heading back then.
Last edited:
PierreJG
Posts: 106 +33
You are correct but you missed the point of the article. They did not compare feature set, they compared pure performance. If they tested features then obviously the older hardware have no chance. This was a test to compare performance vs performance with no added features. Another point is, AMD are not using raytracing as a selling point. Nvidia even wanted to ban Hardware Unboxed because they did *not* test raytracing correctly when they also missed the point that it was not a raytracing benchmark and Steve did a benchmark afterwards.Yes it has. Upscaling is here to stay and a massive improvement in all newer games overall, all things considered; Providing better performance, built in top tier AA with sharpening applied beating any 3rd party AA solution like crappy TAA which most new games defaults too, when DLSS/FSR/XeSS is not used. NoAA looks bad, regardless of resolution.
Good upscaling is magic for longevity. Ask any RTX 2000/3000 owners who happily run DLSS 4 which is the best upscaler today with massive game support (beating FSR like 10 times) and DLSS 4 can be forced in pretty much all DLSS 2+ games with ease.
RDNA 3 and older don't support FSR 4 and is stuck with FSR 3.1 and older which is crap even compared to DLSS 2 from 6 years ago.
People that look at rasterization performance and nothing else in 2025+ knows nothing about where the industry is heading and can't have any experience with newer games and hardware.
AMD GPU users hated upscaling, and never wanted to hear about it, till they got FSR 4. Now they praise it too. Sadly for RDNA 1, 2 and 3 owners, no FSR 4 for you.
RDNA 1, 2 and 3 owners still don't want to hear about upscaling and "enjoys" native... on their slow and dated GPUs that performs extremely bad when RT elements are present. Sadly many new games has RT elements now.
Meanwhile DLSS 4 is supported even on RTX 2000 from 2018.
Article from 2021 showing that even DLSS 2 provided better than native image quality while improving performance alot. 4K DLSS is much sharper than 4K native, simply look at the screenshots in the article. You have to be blind if you think native is better and DLSS has improved massively since. DLSS 4 is close to perfection and if you want to stay at native, simply use DLAA, best AA method today.Outriders' DLSS does a lot more than just improve performance
Outriders' DLSS options don't just improve your graphics card's performance; it also adds in extra details that are missing when playing at native resolution.
No game support? No problem. DLDSR exist. Downscale instead to improve visuals massively while not getting hit with the actual 4K performance penalty.
Got a HDR monitor? RTX HDR makes SDR games look incredible on HDR displays.
You see, tools are good to have. Options are good. Regular raster performance alone, means less today. Unless you play old games only.
People are sleeping way too much on all these new features. Tells me, you have no experience at all with newer hardware, in newer games, which is why you live in denial and claim that rasterization performance is the only thing that matters.
Imagine looking at rasterization performance only in 2025, playing games at native with a sloppy AA solution on top, in SDR... Ewwww. Glad it is not me.
Most new games are made with upscaling in mind. It is even enabled as default in most demanding ones. Most new games has RT elements. These two things was AMDs prime focus with RDNA 4 and Radeon 9000 series. For good reason, as RDNA 1, 2 and 3 all sucked here. RT killed the performance and FSR 3.1 and older is bad upscaling.
RT performance matter even if you don't enable RT manually these days. Forced RT elements.
This is the reason 9070 XT beats 7900 XTX in many new games. Among others. Now enable FSR 4, and it is game over for 7900 XTX. Massively better experience/performance at much lower watts/heat. This is why 9070 XT made 7900 XTX and 7900 XT go EOL, even tho it is a much smaller chip, with lower bus and 8/4GB VRAM less. The chip itself, improved alot.
If AMD had neglected RT performance and quality upscaling, they would be out of the gaming GPU business in a few years. Rasterization performance still matter but it is far from the only thing I look at, when buying a new GPU and this was true 5 years ago as well. I already knew where the industry was heading back then.
If they used upscaling for this test it would have been in accurate because of the difference in tech. It will be the mini vs ferrari scenario. Would not be a fare comparison. Myself, I don't like Raytracing. I do not have a raytracing card (RX6600XT) but I did test the quality difference with it off an on in Spider-man 2. It does not justify a 20-50k premium in my currency just for raytracing as you can get a descend second hand car for that price. The way you push out how superior DLSS is makes it sounds more like fanboytism rather than being honest.
I do a lot of blogs and does not matter if I like a product or not, I always stay neutral and point out the good and the bad. If you do not like a product that is on you. You have to give a reason and to say something like *Nvidia is the best or are the fastest* is not a value argument as there are more factors when it comes to GPU and CPUs and Nvidia will most prob never beat AMD when it comes price to performance. The 4090 here cost when new 45k the 4080 cost 28k and the AMD 7900XTX cost 19.2k. Obviously slower but it does not justify the premium on the Nvidia cards...
BrightlightJohn
Posts: 28 +19
I just recently upgraded from a AMD RADEON 6750 XT 12GB to an GIGABYTE Radeon RX 9070 XT Gaming OC 16G Graphics Card, PCIe 5.0, 16GB GDDR6, GV-R9070XTGAMING OC-16GD Video Card GPU. The price has dropped on Amazon and NewEgg. At around 700 to 740 dollars, it's still a good deal when compared to Nvidia GPU's top of the line that costs thousands.
Similar threads
