AMD admits it doesn't have an RTX 4090 competitor

Status
Not open for further replies.

mongeese

Posts: 632   +123
Staff member
What just happened? As AMD was packing up after its presentation in Las Vegas yesterday, PCWorld interviewed Frank Azor, Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions, about the Radeon 7000 series and FSR3. PCWorld was also taking questions from their live audience on YouTube, and one topic that seemed to be popping up a lot was why AMD hadn't compared its new cards against the RTX 4000 series in its presentation.

"Why didn't we see Radeon 7000 up against Nvidia, what's up with that?" PCWorld asked. "Are you afraid? What's going on?" The logical answer that most commenters were suggesting turned out to be the right one: AMD doesn't have an RTX 4080 on hand to benchmark yet, and nor does it want to use Nvidia's propped-up numbers in its presentation.

"Nvidia hasn't sent me a 4080 yet, so I'm kinda waiting for that to come in before I can have the comparisons," Azor laughed. "No, two things really: this card is designed to go against the 4080. And we don't have benchmark numbers on the 4080 yet. Plus, we're not in the business of giving them free marketing and advertising. They don't exactly put our benchmarks in their charts, so I'm not going to do them any favors there," he concluded.

"With how we are performing right now, we're confident and we're comfortable that we're going to make them sweat."

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX will cost $999 when it launches on December 13. The GeForce RTX 4080 (formerly the 16 GB model, now the only model) will cost $1,200 when it lands on store shelves November 16. Azor was quick to pit the two cards against each other and discourage the rivalry between the 7900 XTX and RTX 4090, which is already available for $1,600.

"Let's be realistic, [the 7900 XTX] is a $999 card. It's not a 4090 competitor, which costs 60% more. This is a 4080 competitor. Let's be really clear about the class that we're talking about," he said.

It doesn't sound like AMD has anything faster than the 7900 XTX in the works for now either. Leaked block diagrams show that the 7900 XTX uses all the shaders that are available in the Navi 31 GCD. It also can't be clocked much higher without abandoning the power budget according to recent reports that cite discussions with board partners.

An AMD representative did tell PCWorld in an earlier interview that the GCD was designed to be clocked up to 3 GHz without power or temperature limitations, so maybe it could be pushed further with 4090-like power consumption and cooling -- but AMD seems understandably reluctant to go down that route.

However, if you'd like to find the limits of the 7900 XTX yourself, EKWB has already announced its corresponding line of water blocks, beating most of AMD's usual board partners to the punch. Both the Plexi and Acetal models will cost $250 and start shipping in early December.

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,257   +4,397
I would even take it a step further and say that even the 4080 and the 7900 XTX are also unnecessary for non-professional use: I'm fine with keeping them but consumers shouldn't consider them unless they want to do something like develop games or leverage them for compute task part time (As time savings are worth the diminishing returns of price vs performance)

But for most people? You can max out a reasonable high refresh rate (1080p at 200hz or 1440p at 144hz) with the 4070 and 7800 class cards in the near future. Specially with all the new features like DLSS 2 and 3 and FSR 2 and 3

Yes you can squeeze out more performance but you shouldn't have to increase the power limits: the true gains should be that now you can get 3090/6900 levels of performance with the 4070/7800 class of cards for less power and a better launch price. Anything else is almost always forced through with unreasonable power and cooling requirements which push the entire stack forward and the price premium becomes apparent not only on those power and cooling requirements but every single other component around the PC that would be needed to take advantage of the super high end GPU: super high end CPUs and cooling for those, super high end motherboards, super fast ram all become necessary so now we're talking 100% or worst price increases for maybe 30 to 40% performance at the best of cases and basically undiscernible levels of fidelity and refresh rates: adjust settings down a bit to get most of the way there without paying literally double once you put together the full system.

It's really an unsustainable market and these companies rarely admit the market is maintained by midrange offerings instead, otherwise they'd be out of business.
 

Marco Mint

Posts: 30   +46
I'm running a 165hz 2k ultrawide monitor, so I think one of the new AMD gpu's will be more than sufficient. I'm just waiting on independent benchmarks to confirm which I should buy in the near future. I'll be building an AM5 system first, then decide on the GPU later.
 

Jrfeimst2

Posts: 70   +87
I would even take it a step further and say that even the 4080 and the 7900 XTX are also unnecessary for non-professional use: I'm fine with keeping them but consumers shouldn't consider them unless they want to do something like develop games or leverage them for compute task part time (As time savings are worth the diminishing returns of price vs performance)

But for most people? You can max out a reasonable high refresh rate (1080p at 200hz or 1440p at 144hz) with the 4070 and 7800 class cards in the near future. Specially with all the new features like DLSS 2 and 3 and FSR 2 and 3

Yes you can squeeze out more performance but you shouldn't have to increase the power limits: the true gains should be that now you can get 3090/6900 levels of performance with the 4070/7800 class of cards for less power and a better launch price. Anything else is almost always forced through with unreasonable power and cooling requirements which push the entire stack forward and the price premium becomes apparent not only on those power and cooling requirements but every single other component around the PC that would be needed to take advantage of the super high end GPU: super high end CPUs and cooling for those, super high end motherboards, super fast ram all become necessary so now we're talking 100% or worst price increases for maybe 30 to 40% performance at the best of cases and basically undiscernible levels of fidelity and refresh rates: adjust settings down a bit to get most of the way there without paying literally double once you put together the full system.

It's really an unsustainable market and these companies rarely admit the market is maintained by midrange offerings instead, otherwise they'd be out of business.
I agree but also disagree with your statement. I’m very interested in the high end tier because I don’t want to have to upgrade my gpu for 6 years or so. When you look at new AAA games like cyberpunk the 4090 can just keep more than 60fps in ultra at 4k and that’s with dlss quality. If devs keep pushing ray tracing more and more it will just be even more demanding. When devs start using UE5 it will destroy current gpus on ultra settings. All this said most people don’t play on 4k with ultra, but they do exist like me.
 

Nobina

Posts: 4,044   +4,709
It's good advertising to have the fastest GPU on the planet. Nvidia understands that hence they have a huge cult-like following.

Most people should be satisfied with mid-range at 1440p. You don't need 200 FPS in every game, contrary to what some influencers might have you believe.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,248
It's good advertising to have the fastest GPU on the planet. Nvidia understands that hence they have a huge cult-like following.

Most people should be satisfied with mid-range at 1440p. You don't need 200 FPS in every game, contrary to what some influencers might have you believe.

If the halo gpu/product was the only reason for nvidia rabid cult members insane base numbers, AMD would release one.

The problem is, AMD doesnt bribe sites, writers and Tubers like nvidia does because even though they are a corporation, they seems to held themselves to a higher moral code, as you might want to believe (at least I do).

Those influencers have done so much damage to the hobby that now the mindless ones only demand sky high fps (with useless RT on of course) yet if you look at Steam hardware survey, they can only afford 3060’s.

Every damned video review is the same, which is with a giant RTX gpu in frame, regardless of the video subject and when doing reviews AMD is only included or mentioned to prop nvidia even more.

With this article, AMD hasnt released a gpu in the last 3 gens that ever competed with the halo nvidia gpu, yet the comparison always comes up.

Better yet, those amd gpus had ended providing and in some cases, beaten nvidia halo gpu in rasterization which is still the primary tech used in over 99% of existing games.

The issue is the gimmick called RT, which is now shoved down our throats 24/7 by the same influencers by command of their nvidia marketing team overlords.

In my opinion, RT is a useless gimmick until at least 5 more years and maybe then, we might have some real benefits for it, but at an insane hardware cost
 
Last edited:

waclark

Posts: 788   +488
That doesn't mean they don't have anything faster than a 7900XTX all it means is this card is a competitor for the 4080 16GB. That is a mighty big assumption based on what was said.
This is true, but it does beg the question, if they have something to compete with 4090, why not show that? It seems to me, and yes this is my speculation, but AMD appears to want to be the value choice, not the best of the best. These days, a value priced card will likely sell well. Very few people want to spend $1600 on a GPU and even $1200 is too high. I think the age of $500 GPUs is over, at least for top of the line cards. Now we all wait to see what Nvidia does in response. Will the 12G 4080 resurface as a 4070 for $700, possibly undercutting the AMD cards and delivering similar performance and maybe even better RT?
 

dangh

Posts: 851   +1,445
I don't see any issue here. Amd still need 2 generations to get the stuff together and achieve same breakthrough as with the cpu family. We know that they pushed most resources to xpu division to get stability and market support. Only recently they fit resources to spare on gpu and we slowly see the results - a 999 card with new architecture and a base for future evolution - excellent performing card for sale money as their flagship year ago.
I have 6900xt and really, my 4k uw is absolutely fine with it. With the new card I'd probably be able to push it to some crazy hz... But I'm not pro anyway.
 

Warrior247

Posts: 24   +19
Nvidia has the most powerful card on the market with the RTX 4090, and now the upcoming RTX 4090Ti. They were criticized by AMD fanboys for the cost, power, and power consumption of the 4090 card. Yet, these same fanboys are now disappointed that AMD didn’t make an equivalent card. Ridiculous. The truth is they can’t. They don’t have the technical capability nor the equivalent technology like Ray Tracing and DLSS3!

The RTX 4090 is a very necessary card with never before seen GPU power. Gaming at 4K and 8K is now a reality. If you don’t have to have the best, you can buy AMD.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,973   +6,430
Nvidia has the most powerful card on the market with the RTX 4090, and now the upcoming RTX 4090Ti. They were criticized by AMD fanboys for the cost, power, and power consumption of the 4090 card. Yet, these same fanboys are now disappointed that AMD didn’t make an equivalent card. Ridiculous. The truth is they can’t. They don’t have the technical capability nor the equivalent technology like Ray Tracing and DLSS3!
.
The RTX 4090 is a very necessary card with never before seen GPU power. Gaming at 4K and 8K is now a reality. If you don’t have to have the best, you can buy AMD.
this is one of the silliest comments I've ever read. AMD is doing more to push 8k Gaming than nVidia is while only being a few percentage points behind in performance. They're doing this at nearly half the performance per watt that and about 2/3rds the price.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 744   +612
Nvidia has the fastest car in the race atm.

ec1752d8-roborace-1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,564   +1,468
AMD is smart, they don't need a 4090 competitor. The card is ludicrous and pointless for 99.999999% of users. AMD's pricing makes a mockery of Nividia's 4080 and Huang's will be having sleepless nights.RDNA3 is far cheaper to manufacture than Lovelace, so AMD is still able to get good margins at $899 and $999. $899 is what Ngreedia will ask for the 4070 Ti with it's whopping 192 bit bus.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,257   +4,397
I agree but also disagree with your statement. I’m very interested in the high end tier because I don’t want to have to upgrade my gpu for 6 years or so. When you look at new AAA games like cyberpunk the 4090 can just keep more than 60fps in ultra at 4k and that’s with dlss quality. If devs keep pushing ray tracing more and more it will just be even more demanding. When devs start using UE5 it will destroy current gpus on ultra settings. All this said most people don’t play on 4k with ultra, but they do exist like me.
Just wanted to clarify something real quick: People with far more modest GPUs also take 6 years or even longer to upgrade their GPU.

Case and point is the recent steam survey: the 1060 is still near the top of the chart for most popular GPUs and is very close to that 6 years mark. Now I can concede this doesn't happens every generation because some of them are clear duds and not worth keeping around that long but just like you would, people with a 1060 are now playing on 1080p low and if anything this is going to be the case for even longer for 2060 and 3060 owners that have access to DLSS 2.0 and FSR for years to come.

Now as for playing in 4k with little scaling or very high level of detail (Or even more silly, with ray tracing enabled) it's not like the option shouldn't exist at all as I implied, I do think however that it shouldn't be the first and only card out of the gate to push people into buying it for the holidays season this year.

And yes, I am affraid you're part of the problem if you demand 4k ultra/ray tracing for gaming: the hardware industry listens to your wishes and only your wishes so whenever you like hearing this or not you're helping Nvidia push unnecessarily high end options, terrible power efficiency and just all aroud very silly cards like the 4090.

Is not something you personally should do anything about after all, it's the marketing and executives that decide the luxury rich customer is the only one that matters, but I would not bring it up as a badge of honor: your money wasting ways ruin things for all of us.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,718   +2,682
AMD is smart, they don't need a 4090 competitor. The card is ludicrous and pointless for 99.999999% of users. AMD's pricing makes a mockery of Nividia's 4080 and Huang's will be having sleepless nights.RDNA3 is far cheaper to manufacture than Lovelace, so AMD is still able to get good margins at $899 and $999. $899 is what Ngreedia will ask for the 4070 Ti with it's whopping 192 bit bus.
AMD loses to lower specs on paper often. It's also never a good idea to pick one or two specs for comparisons. There is a lot going on in a GPU.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,759   +2,603
These days, a value priced card will likely sell well. Very few people want to spend $1600 on a GPU and even $1200 is too high. I think the age of $500 GPUs is over, at least for top of the line cards. Now we all wait to see what Nvidia does in response. Will the 12G 4080 resurface as a 4070 for $700, possibly undercutting the AMD cards and delivering similar performance and maybe even better RT?
I agree.

The days of $500 top end gpus was long time ago. That is what I paid for a Ati Radeon 9700 Pro on launch.
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 447   +655
Nvidia will have to drop the price of the 4080, I think that much is pretty much assured. The 4080 looks to be about 40% slower than the 4090 and that means that even the RT advantage over the 7900 XTX won't be that great. The 7900 XTX will likely be 25-30% faster than 4080 on average in raster and about 50% behind in RT. In games like Resident Evil Village, that won't make much of a difference at all because the implementation of RT is minimal so the raster performance will keep the 7900 XTX in the lead. In games like Cyber Punk with Ultra RT, the 4080 will pull ahead by quite a bit. Nvidia's answer will almost certainly be the 4080 Ti. They've sold 100K 4090s apparently, so don't expect that price to drop.
 

godrilla

Posts: 624   +339
Just to put things in perspective in 2007 the GTX 8800 ultra launched at $830 price, in 2012 the gtx 690 was $1000, in 2018 the rtx 2080ti was $999 ( for reference and black versions of non reference) while exotic flavors ranged from $1299 to $1900 for Kingpin. In 2020 the 3090 fe version was $1499 and exotic flavors were closer to $2k before scalping and crypto craze, and now the 4090 launched at $1599 for both FE model and some non reference models while exotic ones are closer to $2k .

Haha once Nvidia got the mindshare crown now you see cut down versions emerging like a 2 slot blower design.
https://hothardware.com/news/geforce-rtx-4090-with-a-2-slot-blower-style-cooler-emerges
 
Status
Not open for further replies.