AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Review: Is This GPU DOA at $900?

poltevo

Posts: 62   +37
I see. But this budget problem still exists. See, if you have limited budget, most buyers actually have, and you cannot exceed that budget, then best card with that budget is best you can get.

This can make "bad" card to be actually good. Like with 6500XT. "Bad" card Techspot said but some weeks later they realized there is nothing better available for same price ..
I agree budget matters a lot at lower costs, but I don’t think it matters much at ultra enthusiast levels. It would be good to set a firm number on that, but I think 1000+ definitely qualifies. At that level a person can stretch a few hundred by waiting a month or too.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,803   +1,490
I agree budget matters a lot at lower costs, but I don’t think it matters much at ultra enthusiast levels. It would be good to set a firm number on that, but I think 1000+ definitely qualifies. At that level a person can stretch a few hundred by waiting a month or too.
Perhaps at 1000+ bucks range. Problem is that even when talking about around 200 bucks price point, people are still expected to spend hundreds of dollars more to get better buy according to Techspot reviews.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
I see. But this budget problem still exists. See, if you have limited budget, most buyers actually have, and you cannot exceed that budget, then best card with that budget is best you can get.
I completely agree. This fact, that I don't buy halo cards is why my refusal to buy nVidia has had no negative effects upon me. There has always been a Radeon card that out-performed the GeForce card at whatever price point I was willing to pay. This is why I think that people with low-end GeForce cards are either noobs or they got it as a gift.
This can make "bad" card to be actually good. Like with 6500XT. "Bad" card Techspot said but some weeks later they realized there is nothing better available for same price ..
Yep. There are no bad products, only bad prices.

CAVEAT: I'm of course excluding products that don't work or are unsafe to use. :laughing:
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
If someone is spending 900 (actually it’s 1000+ when you add tax) they can save a bit more and get the better value XTX card. However, does anybody(other than AMD fans) really want to spend 1000+ and miss out of the latest features?
It depends. If the features have a really positive impact on gaming, then no, I don't want to miss out on it. However there are caveats to that because not all features are equal and several features that nVidia offers just aren't of any value to me so why would I pay nVidia extra money for them?:

Ray Tracing - It's still an overhyped but immature tech that I don't want to pay more for
DLSS/FSR - Tech that no high-end card actually needs
CUDA / Streaming Codecs - I'm a gamer, not a content creator, no benefit at all

So, as you see, it's not nearly as cut and dry as you say it is.
That’s not how the ultra enthusiast market works. So even though the 4080 is one of the worst value cards of all time, AMD cards still look bad compared to it.
No, they look bad to you. I've been involved in it for over 20 years on both sides of the counter and the only solid truth about it is that nobody in that market has a monopoly on its definition. There is no "ultra-" in the enthusiast market, there's just the enthusiast market, period. Trying to invent a new word that isn't a thing to support your argument kills it before it even begins.
If AMD were serious about the GPU market, they would price these way lower, but they are happy to take the high margins instead, while losing good will with shady marketing.
On this we both agree but it's not so simple as that. With nVidia controlling 88% of the video card market, AMD needs to have some way of competing with nVidia's R&D budget.
Unless you've been supporting AMD by purchasing Radeons, your criticism is useless because you're doing nothing to change the situation by buying nVidia and actions speak louder than words. If you DO own a Radeon, then by all means complain away.

I think that AMD's dumbest mistake have been that they've been chasing profit instead of mindshare. I see this in both their Radeon pricing decisions and also their decision to NOT release an X3D version of the R7-7600X. Their market penetration would have been enormous if they had gone the other way.
 

Draconian

Posts: 149   +55
"There's no need to draw a comparison with competing Nvidia products as the 7900 XT makes no sense at $900 when you can buy the 7900 XTX for $1,000."

You can't find it for $1,000. It's sold out on Newegg and Amazon and is selling for $1,400 on Ebay. The RTX 4080 is going for $1,300 to $1,400.
 

alexnode

Posts: 107   +35
Buy a used 3090. I got one for £500. I am skipping this generation. Unfortunately we have to wait for one more GEN. I was hoping that Intel could be a player too ... but I am not sure that shareholders understand the picture really well. They will need to understand that they might have to lose money for at least 3 more years. RT will be the norm for all games and engines. What I don't understand is if the issue with AMD is mostly software, mostly hardware or both. DLSS is a fad it will be here for the next 10+ years but they main development is raytracing. Proper raytracing including refractions through glass, huge particle systems and hundreds of dynamic lights could be 15 years away. After that we will start talking about physics, particles and simulations. So there is a huge amount of work to be done.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,803   +1,490
I think that AMD's dumbest mistake have been that they've been chasing profit instead of mindshare. I see this in both their Radeon pricing decisions and also their decision to NOT release an X3D version of the R7-7600X. Their market penetration would have been enormous if they had gone the other way.
How this "market penetration" would actually help is another question. Those who buy Intel will buy Intel anyway and same for Nvidia.

AMD would just get less money and that's it.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,495   +3,219
Weird take considering that "Is it DOA?" is framed as a question in the subheadline, rather than a factual statement. And the phrase DOA doesn't actually appear anywhere in the article or the video, only in the subheadline above.

That said, you then say that the price should be around $600, give or take $50. Or 2/3 of the $900 MSRP, so by your assessment it's around 50% overpriced. Which is pretty much the definition of a product that is DOA. You can't have it both ways, either it is DOA because it's too expensive or it isn't because it's competitive for the price - and the reviews of the XT imply that it's not competitive for the MSRP vs the XTX or alternative offerings from both AMD or Nvidia.
We have two scenarios here:

1- Overpriced for what they should be (thank you dear leader jensen for that situation).

2- Matching and in cases surpassing 2 more expensive gpus from everyone’s perfect favorite company meanwhile being cheaper.

I dont know about you, but in my book neither one warrants even the suggestion of using the term DOA.

That said, by your points, then Steve should use the term DOA or DOA? on the 3090, 3090Ti, 4080 and 4090 releases and we know very well that wasn’t the case.
 
Last edited:

takaozo

Posts: 501   +802
The DOA do not appear on text or video?
Fj2Y41rVIAAT0tR


The term DOA is used wrong in this case, because the product arrived from factory in a working state. Just because it's priced wrong?
WTF?
 

takaozo

Posts: 501   +802
Remember, you get clicks/views with shocking headlines on stories and videos. It doesn't matter if the terminology you use is correct or not because the more shocking the headline, the more clicks/views. It's kind of like my kids, they call everything a "meme" except for things that are actual memes.

Perhaps Tim just doesn't understand the meaning of DOA and mistakenly used it out of context. Or he does understand what DOA means and used it anyway because he lacks imagination for creating a proper way to relay his distaste for the GPU.
I know about "click bait" and some other manipulation techniques.

What I know that both AMD cards are good performers, compared to RDNA2. But the price difference from each other it's too small. Also real world expectations regarding to pricing is a total different story. GPU vendors must come back from Mars regarding prices.

AMD has a low market share and will not increase it with this type of practices.

When the crazy prices started I was suspecting "cartel" or "mafia" practices regarding price manipulation and said it many times on this forum.

But you can't expect something else from two people from the same island. We all know that if you give enough time to an island population all become related.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
How this "market penetration" would actually help is another question. Those who buy Intel will buy Intel anyway and same for Nvidia.
Yeah but the question is "Why do they choose only Intel and nVidia?" and the reason is because nVidia pretty much owns the market and the mindshare. These aren't exactly cheap items no matter which way you go.
AMD would just get less money and that's it.
Not necessarily. If they had significantly better price to performance, they'd probably entice a lot of people to switch. Granted, it wouldn't be everyone, but it might be enough to be worth it. It's not like they're going to lose money and the position that they're in is completely untenable as it is.

I keep hearing that nVidia has 88% of the market and that frightens me because at some point, AMD might just decide that Radeon is a failed product and stop producing them altogether. If AMD throws in the towel, what do you think that will mean for the market? At the moment, nVidia is willing to charge exorbitant prices even WITH Radeons competing with them. Can you imagine what the prices would be if there were no Radeons at all?

Jensen already tried to give the lame "Moore's Law is Dead" excuse which means that he intends to keep raising prices generation over generation. If there were no Radeons, how long do you think it would take before PC gaming became a boutique industry that only catered to the very rich? I guarantee you, if AMD throws in the towel, it's only a matter of time before an nVidia halo-level card costs $5,000USD because you'll have no other choice.

The existence of Radeon has made a lot of people spoiled because it makes their nVidia cards less expensive. However, if people refuse to support Radeon, it won't be there one day and when that happens, there's no going back and the people who have only ever had nVidia cards will have nobody to blame but themselves when they can no longer afford to game on PC. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people wouldn't be able to afford to game on consoles either because nVidia would own that market as well.

People have to look at the bigger picture because if they buy a Radeon today, they'll still be able to buy a GeForce tomorrow. The inverse may not be so true.
 
Last edited:

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,495   +3,219
Yeah but the question is "Why do they choose only Intel and nVidia?" and the reason is because nVidia pretty much owns the market and the mindshare. These aren't exactly cheap items no matter which way you go.

Not necessarily. If they had significantly better price:performance, they'd probably entice a lot of people to switch. Granted, it wouldn't be everyone, but it might be enough to be worth it. It's not like they're going to lose money and the position that they're in is completely untenable as it is.

I keep hearing that nVidia has 88% of the market and that frightens me because at some point, AMD might just decide that Radeon is a failed product and stop producing them altogether. If AMD throws in the towel, what do you think that will mean for the market? At the moment, nVidia is willing to charge exorbitant prices even WITH Radeons competing with them. Can you imagine what the prices would be if there were no Radeons at all?

Jensen already tried to give the lame "Moore's Law is Dead" excuse which means that he intends to keep raising prices generation over generation. If there were no Radeons, how long do you think it would take before PC gaming became a boutique industry that only catered to the very rich? I guarantee you, if AMD throws in the towel, it's only a matter of time before an nVidia halo-level card costs $5,000USD because you'll have no other choice.

The existence of Radeon has made a lot of people spoiled because it makes their nVidia cards less expensive. However, if people refuse to support Radeon, it won't be there one day and when that happens, there's no going back and the people who have only ever had nVidia cards will have nobody to blame but themselves when they can no longer afford to game on PC. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people wouldn't be able to afford to game on consoles either because nVidia would own that market as well.

People have to look at the bigger picture because if they buy a Radeon today, they'll still be able to buy a GeForce tomorrow. The inverse may not be so true.
The problem with todays fans is that they don’t consider what will happen tomorrow, only care for the here and now plus the lack of a moral compass.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,100   +936
Yeah but the question is "Why do they choose only Intel and nVidia?" and the reason is because nVidia pretty much owns the market and the mindshare. These aren't exactly cheap items no matter which way you go.

Not necessarily. If they had significantly better price:performance, they'd probably entice a lot of people to switch. Granted, it wouldn't be everyone, but it might be enough to be worth it. It's not like they're going to lose money and the position that they're in is completely untenable as it is.

I keep hearing that nVidia has 88% of the market and that frightens me because at some point, AMD might just decide that Radeon is a failed product and stop producing them altogether. If AMD throws in the towel, what do you think that will mean for the market? At the moment, nVidia is willing to charge exorbitant prices even WITH Radeons competing with them. Can you imagine what the prices would be if there were no Radeons at all?

Jensen already tried to give the lame "Moore's Law is Dead" excuse which means that he intends to keep raising prices generation over generation. If there were no Radeons, how long do you think it would take before PC gaming became a boutique industry that only catered to the very rich? I guarantee you, if AMD throws in the towel, it's only a matter of time before an nVidia halo-level card costs $5,000USD because you'll have no other choice.

The existence of Radeon has made a lot of people spoiled because it makes their nVidia cards less expensive. However, if people refuse to support Radeon, it won't be there one day and when that happens, there's no going back and the people who have only ever had nVidia cards will have nobody to blame but themselves when they can no longer afford to game on PC. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people wouldn't be able to afford to game on consoles either because nVidia would own that market as well.

People have to look at the bigger picture because if they buy a Radeon today, they'll still be able to buy a GeForce tomorrow. The inverse may not be so true.

Why not just cut marketing out of it and buy a dGPU based on price/performance...?


Over the last 20 years, I have purchased a close to 30 GPUs... and have always been hardware agnostic and don't care brand. Just quality and features for hardware and price/performance for GPUs. EVGA left the GPU market for a reason. nVidia no longer makes specific gaming dies/GPUs. AMD does...

@ $899 the 7900xt sucks relative to the 7900xtx. But the 7900xt is still a better buy than the rtx 4080. And relative to that card, it is still a better value/deal.... just not as good of a deal as the $999 7900xtx.

AMD knows the real battle is this summer and I think a good many of you will be surprised at what AMD has in store. Transistor to transistor, RDNA3 has Ada beat in gaming and expect Dr Su to exploit that with Navi 32/33. (And N31 cutdowns)


AMD has a better over-all product right now. Has better technology and a better environment for gaming. nVidia has fallen to 2nd place after leading for so long.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
We have two scenarios here:

1- Overpriced for what they should be (thank you dear leader jensen for that situation).
It's because they're overpriced but there's a lot more to it than just that. They aren't terribly overpriced compared to other things of this gen on the market but the problem is proximity. Maybe this will help explain the problem:

The RTX 4080 has a worse price:performance ratio than the RTX 4090. However, there is a $400 price difference between them. OTOH, the RX 7900 XT has a worse price:performance ratio than the RX 7900 XTX but there's only a $100 price difference between them. That makes it a lot easier to overlook the RX 7900 XT in favour of the RX 7900 XTX than it is to overlook the RTX 4080 in favour of the RTX 4090.

If the RX 7900 XT were to be priced at $700, it would be the hottest-selling card in the world right now. There's no question that AMD would be making money hand-over-fist considering that the chiplet design is well-known as a cost-saving measure. AMD's problem right now isn't money because they have two absolute cash-cows known as "Radeon Instinct" and especially, "EPYC". Their problem is the fact that nVidia controls an insane 88% of the video card market. That's not competition, that's utter domination.

What AMD needs more than just money is for more people to buy their products. There's so much FUD out there about Radeon drivers that people are afraid to spend their money on a product that they're unfamiliar with. Let's be honest, even $700 is a lot of money and I completely understand their trepidation. What AMD needs to do is make choosing their product less of a perceived risk.

Being only 20% cheaper than the "sure thing" brand while only matching them in non-ray-traced performance is no way to make yourself attractive to a prospective customer who might be skittish about your brand, even if they have no use for RT, CUDA or NVENC.

If AMD doesn't do better than this, the Radeon brand won't be around to see 2030 and we'll all be up Schitt's Creek.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
The problem with todays fans is that they don’t consider what will happen tomorrow, only care for the here and now plus the lack of a moral compass.
It's not just about a lack of a moral compass. Many of them truly don't know about what nVidia (or Intel for that matter) has done in the past. Most people aren't enthusiasts like us.

It would be like you trying to choose a washer and dryer set. Do you take Whirlpool, GE, Maytag, Bosch, Amana, Samsung, Roper, LG, Admiral or Inglis? Most people don't know that Maytag, Amana, Roper, Admiral and Inglis are all Whirpool machines that are just priced differently with essentially the same parts under the hood.

Most people don't know about home appliances and those aren't nearly as complex as state-of-the-art video cards so I forgive them their ignorance.
 
Last edited:

m3tavision

Posts: 1,100   +936
If the RX 7900 XT were to be priced at $700, it would be the hottest-selling card in the world right now.

Ever since the 7900 announcement on Nov 3rd, it had seemed that AMD plans on making the 7900xt cheaper. They are just suffocating the rtx4080 right now and once the 4070ti is announced, AMD will lower the XT to $799.... (Call of Duty/Warzone 2.0 = 7900xt beats the 4080, so it will destroy the 4070ti)

AMD will have far more defective N31 dies and more supply in 2 months... and will be able to mock nVidia with price/performance. AMD can keep selling the N31 cutdowns lower than nVida can sell 4070ti's...
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
"There's no need to draw a comparison with competing Nvidia products as the 7900 XT makes no sense at $900 when you can buy the 7900 XTX for $1,000."

You can't find it for $1,000. It's sold out on Newegg and Amazon and is selling for $1,400 on Ebay.
Being sold out is temporary and eBay scalper prices are irrelevant because any card can be scalped on eBay. The RX 7900 XTX will be back in stock at some point so all that is required is patience.
The RTX 4080 is going for $1,300 to $1,400.
Yep, because the scalpers failed miserably. People just aren't interested in what they have anymore.

The RX 7900 XT is a missed opportunity by AMD and whoever made the decision to release it $900USD should be fired. They've shot themselves in the foot with this card to the point that people would prefer to buy the RTX 4080. The RTX 4080 didn't sell all that well when the RX 7900 XTX was around but once it was gone, sales of the RTX 4080 increased dramatically while sales of the RX 7900 XT remained more or less non-existant.

At $700, the RX 7900 XT would sell like mad and AMD would not only be raking in the profits, they'd also gain the market share that is far more important to them than a few extra dollars right now.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,803   +1,490
Yeah but the question is "Why do they choose only Intel and nVidia?" and the reason is because nVidia pretty much owns the market and the mindshare. These aren't exactly cheap items no matter which way you go.
On other hand, since Nvidia owns market regardless what 7900XT costs, it makes little sense to sell it cheaper. AMD is still catching up from GlobalFoundries 7nm ripoff (and GF contract will end of 2024 anyway) and since AMD is not right now in position to grab more market selling cheap. That time will come.
Not necessarily. If they had significantly better price to performance, they'd probably entice a lot of people to switch. Granted, it wouldn't be everyone, but it might be enough to be worth it. It's not like they're going to lose money and the position that they're in is completely untenable as it is.

I keep hearing that nVidia has 88% of the market and that frightens me because at some point, AMD might just decide that Radeon is a failed product and stop producing them altogether. If AMD throws in the towel, what do you think that will mean for the market? At the moment, nVidia is willing to charge exorbitant prices even WITH Radeons competing with them. Can you imagine what the prices would be if there were no Radeons at all?

Jensen already tried to give the lame "Moore's Law is Dead" excuse which means that he intends to keep raising prices generation over generation. If there were no Radeons, how long do you think it would take before PC gaming became a boutique industry that only catered to the very rich? I guarantee you, if AMD throws in the towel, it's only a matter of time before an nVidia halo-level card costs $5,000USD because you'll have no other choice.

The existence of Radeon has made a lot of people spoiled because it makes their nVidia cards less expensive. However, if people refuse to support Radeon, it won't be there one day and when that happens, there's no going back and the people who have only ever had nVidia cards will have nobody to blame but themselves when they can no longer afford to game on PC. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people wouldn't be able to afford to game on consoles either because nVidia would own that market as well.

People have to look at the bigger picture because if they buy a Radeon today, they'll still be able to buy a GeForce tomorrow. The inverse may not be so true.
As said, AMD is not yet in strong enough financial position to sell cheap. They need more money for R&D.

As others said, fanboys won't think about tomorrow. No matter if Nvidia prices are 3X tomorrow, if they get card cheaply today. So yes, people are stupid but that's just the way it is today.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
On other hand, since Nvidia owns market regardless what 7900XT costs, it makes little sense to sell it cheaper. AMD is still catching up from GlobalFoundries 7nm ripoff (and GF contract will end of 2024 anyway) and since AMD is not right now in position to grab more market selling cheap. That time will come.

As said, AMD is not yet in strong enough financial position to sell cheap. They need more money for R&D.
They're not exactly in dire straits. The amount of money they rake in from data centre sales of EPYC CPUs has to be mind-blowing because Intel made literally $0 profit from Xeon last year (or so it has been said). Just imagine what that means in terms of dollars.

Through the dark years of FX, ATi essentially carried AMD on its back. It's time for AMD to return the favour.
As others said, fanboys won't think about tomorrow. No matter if Nvidia prices are 3X tomorrow, if they get card cheaply today. So yes, people are stupid but that's just the way it is today.
Yep. I'm just hoping that if I point it out to them, it might wake some of them up. Do I have high hopes? Hell no, but it's worth a few keystrokes to try.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,803   +1,490
They're not exactly in dire straits. The amount of money they rake in from data centre sales of EPYC CPUs has to be mind-blowing because Intel made literally $0 profit from Xeon last year (or so it has been said). Just imagine what that means in terms of dollars.

Through the dark years of FX, ATi essentially carried AMD on its back. It's time for AMD to return the favour.
Intel is still about 10 times larger than AMD So AMD could not yet return favour. Intel did made zero result from datacenters of something but usually companies have more than one Intel department coupled on same results. That makes comparison much harder. Perhaps GPU profits were on same category?
Yep. I'm just hoping that if I point it out to them, it might wake some of them up. Do I have high hopes? Hell no, but it's worth a few keystrokes to try.
Agreed. There may be ways to cure stupidity...
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
Intel is still about 10 times larger than AMD So AMD could not yet return favour. Intel did made zero result from datacenters of something but usually companies have more than one Intel department coupled on same results. That makes comparison much harder. Perhaps GPU profits were on same category?
You could be right. I'm just thinking that the money from EPYC combined with the fact that the chiplet design is supposed to be cheaper to make and the fact that cards are insanely overpriced would give plenty of room to make Radeons almost impossible to resist and still be more than profitable enough.
Agreed. There may be ways to cure stupidity...
That's the thing about hope. It doesn't spring very high, but it does spring eternal. :laughing:
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,406   +2,939
Staff member
The amount of money they rake in from data centre sales of EPYC CPUs has to be mind-blowing because Intel made literally $0 profit from Xeon last year (or so it has been said). Just imagine what that means in terms of dollars.
AMD doesn't separate server/data center revenue from their semi-custom line, but combined it brought in $2.2 billion in 2021; total revenue was $16.4 billion. Intel's DCG (data center group) revenue for the same period was $25.8 billion so even if every Xeon sale resulted in zero profit, that entire sector hasn't suffered at all.

Through the dark years of FX, ATi essentially carried AMD on its back.
AMD doesn't separate CPU and GPU sales either, so there's no direct evidence for that. All one can say is that between the period of the FX being launched in 2011 to Ryzen appearing in 2017, AMD only made a profit once. So if its GPU division was propping up all of the rest, it wasn't making much of a difference.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
AMD doesn't separate server/data center revenue from their semi-custom line, but combined it brought in $2.2 billion in 2021; total revenue was $16.4 billion. Intel's DCG (data center group) revenue for the same period was $25.8 billion so even if every Xeon sale resulted in zero profit, that entire sector hasn't suffered at all.


AMD doesn't separate CPU and GPU sales either, so there's no direct evidence for that. All one can say is that between the period of the FX being launched in 2011 to Ryzen appearing in 2017, AMD only made a profit once.
Yes, but it stemmed the bleeding enough that there was enough time bought for AMD to hire Jim Keller to draw up Zen.
So if its GPU division was propping up all of the rest, it wasn't making much of a difference.
It meant the difference between life and death for AMD which only shows just how close to death AMD was because that "not much of a difference" was still enough.

What we do know for certain is that FX sales were absolutely abysmal on the consumer side because of performance and on the sever side because of power use. If that was all AMD had during that time, it wouldn't exist to talk about today.

OTOH, Radeon did pretty well with cards like the HD 6850, 7970, R9 290/X, R9 390/X and R9 Fury but even they were nothing compared to the success known as Polaris. Polaris was a standout because the miners wanted it so badly for its compute performance and gamers wanted it for its great value. The miners won and so gamers were forced to choose the GTX 1060 instead. That's how the GTX 1060 was #1 on Steam for so long while the RX 580 was (and maybe still is) the #1 Radeon card on Steam.

When you look at the (at least perceived) sales of the CPU side and compare them to the same on the GPU side, it doesn't take a genius to see that even though AMD paid well above market value for ATi (because ATi didn't really want to be bought), there's no question in my mind that it's what saved their bacon. As a CPU producer, they were completely dead in the water and I don't think that there are any good arguments against that statement.
 
I don’t understand these reviews that say it’s not value. I mean I understand that it’s RRP would suggest it’s not value but I can’t find it anywhere for thesis price.

In the UK the XT is £899 and the XTX is £1200+ so to me even if it’s not quite a good it’s certainly a lot better value than the XTX.

The nVidia cards are the same with huge prices well over what nVidia say they are worth. But you can’t get them at the RRP so you end up spending way more if you want one at this time. It’s also been this way for a while, it’s only been a few months since I was looking at a 3090 and they were about £1300+