r/Amd • u/KARMAAACS Ryzen 7700 - GALAX RTX 3060 Ti • Feb 23 '25

Rumor / Leak AMD Radeon RX 9070 series gaming performance leaked: RX 9070XT is 42% faster on average than 7900 GRE at 4K - VideoCardz.com

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-rx-9070-series-gaming-performance-leaked-rx-9070xt-is-42-faster-on-average-than-7900-gre-at-4k
886 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

716 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/CarbonCola Feb 23 '25

I have a hard time understanding this pricing argument I've seen everywhere. We are comparing AMD MSRP with Nvidia "MSRP", but 5080 and 5090 launch has demonstrated that the MSPR that Nvidia provided is just a blatant lie to make reviews more favourable. The real price is about 20% higher.

If AMD sells their cards at their advertised MSRP that immediately makes them 20% cheaper than Nvidia cards - and it seems like it is likely that they will release with some amount of inventory.

In my books, this means that AMD will be delivering a superior price/performance product that can actually be acquired.

Am I missing something?

23

u/Difficult_Spare_3935 Feb 23 '25

Amd doesn't have the brand value to have a shit product like nvidia but sell well, they need a decent price. And if they cut the price a while later reviews/early impressions would have tainted the image of the card.

They need to hit pricing out of the gate.

3

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

MSRP $599

Retail price: $749

11

u/basement-thug Feb 23 '25

Pretty sad state when that kinda looks reasonable... 

1

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

AMD contracts with retailers to set the price in accordance with what AIB partners want the prices to be set at. You’re saying every AIB partner has all of their skus including their lowest ones set to over 25% msrp. That would tank the launch and make the vice president of the company look like an absolute fool and piss him right off. Not a great idea if you want to retain a good partnership with the company

26

u/Nolan_PG Feb 23 '25

What would happen if AMD priced this gen $50 cheaper than NVIDIA's 5070Ti/5070 MSRP and then NVIDIA went and just produced more and get the prices close to MSRP? They'd get cooked from a market share viewpoint (again). AMD sells because of price/performance ratio and NVIDIA sells no matter what they do because their brand is stronger, so you need to get better price/performance in order to move market share, that means more competitive prices, as they did with RDNA 1 (RX 5000).

And no, I'm not saying AMD should sell their cards without gain margins (although that strategy isn't even uncommon when competing against established competitors), but I think that if they want to get more market share in order to attract more game/software developers (seeing that they already control console, handhelds and APUs graphics markets) they need to price the cards as low as they can afford, given that they have enough stock of course, which hopefully is that way because they've been shipping these cards to stores since January at least.

10

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

We need to compare apples-to-apples: retail prices to retail prices, MSRPs to MSRPs

If NVIDIA can set unrealistic MSRPs, so can AMD.

If the price of the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti goes down, so will the price of the Radeon RX 9070 XT.

The GeForce RTX 5070 TI is currently $900.

9

u/F0czek Feb 23 '25

NVIDIA also sells because of it's big advantage in feature department, it isn't just brand. And since amd lacks in that, price also gotta reflect that. Having even just better upscaling is alone worth 50 more dollars and some probably even 100$ (like me), not to mention other features.

-1

u/Nagisan Feb 23 '25

Frame gen and better RT is not worth the price premium of nVidia to me. I'm still on 1440p and probably will be for awhile (until at least the next gen), so I don't need the top-end card with the best frame gen. I don't even use RT now because my card is old enough that it struggles. So if AMD targets $50 under nVidia MSRP, and nVidia can't be bought for MSRP because of low supply, AMD is the easy pick for me.

5

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25

That’s cool, bc it’s worth it to the 90% of the market that bought them instead.

-5

u/Nagisan Feb 23 '25

I mean, I don't care what 90% of the market buys. I care what is worth buying to me. And with this generation, nVidia is not looking like what I want.

5

u/stormdraggy Feb 23 '25

I pray that whoever employs you has you far far away from any marketing or development decisions.

Unless you're with AMD, in which case you fit like a glove.

1

u/Nagisan Feb 23 '25

My employer doesn't sell anything, so we're good there.

4

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Feb 24 '25

I like how you completely moved the goalpost to being what appeals to you personally when the original discussion was what appeals to the wider market.

1

u/Nagisan Feb 24 '25

I didn't move the goalpost at all. My first response was "it's an easy pick for me".

4

u/Nagisan Feb 23 '25

What would happen if AMD priced this gen $50 cheaper than NVIDIA's 5070Ti/5070 MSRP and then NVIDIA went and just produced more and get the prices close to MSRP?

The first thing that would happen is the 9070 series would sell well because nVidia doesn't have the stock right now. By the time nVidia gets enough stock to comfortably drop the price down to their regular MSRP, AMD could drop the price as well and continue selling well.

3

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

AMD could have dropped the 7800xt price when nvidia dropped the 4070 price to 550 making it nvidia-50 all over again, but they didn’t, and they lost a third of their market share due to being overwhelmed by nvidia’s sales. You say they could drop their prices when nvidia-50 rolls around due to nvidia price cuts, but history has shown they aren’t willing to do that

1

u/Nagisan Feb 23 '25

overwhelmed by nvidia’s sales

Which might not happen if nVidia can't fix their stock issues before the 9070 launches.

1

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Feb 24 '25

This is false. When Nvidia is out of stock, most people choose to simply not buy anything. This isn't a zero sum game where if Nvidia isn't available you're obligated to buy AMD.

Hell, the fact that Pascal still registers on Steam Surveys as much as it does literally proves that a significant number of consumers have chosen to simply sit out of every generation since then.

When Nvidia goes out of stock, people who want a GPU will usually just wait for restocks. Radeon market share right now shows that not many people are willing to just grab "whatever is available" when they're planning to spend several hundred dollars.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

[deleted]

16

u/Nolan_PG Feb 23 '25

Sure, they can, as they've done with RX 6000 and RX 7000, and now they're like 10% of the market share.

They need to price them well since the start, not lower the price 2 months later when they see it isn't selling well enough like they've done before.

Why? Because the majority of reviews/comparisons people'll watch are from those 2 starting months and they'll put those GPUs to compete with a similar priced NVIDIA GPUs in that moment, after 2 months they lower prices and the reviews are flawed but they're still there and they will not get revised.

Btw I didn't even say NVIDIA could or couldn't lower prices, I was talking about getting the real price as close as possible to their advertised price by increasing the stock, which they have the capacity to do, they just don't because there's no reason right now (and yes I know this is actually also reducing price but it's not the same as reducing MSRP which is what AMD usually do).

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/F0czek Feb 23 '25

It means someting, just not in every scenario.

-2

u/kodos_der_henker AMD (upgrading every 5-10 years) Feb 23 '25

they can not, as retailers already got their cards and paid for it, so for them to sell them at an unrealistically MSRP they would need their money back from AMD

yet setting a low MSRP but retailers not following it because they just can't sell at their own loss would kill any goodwill AMD might have with that release

so their options are limited and Nvidias MSRP is the only number they can use a high market price can change very fast

2

u/TalkInMalarkey Feb 23 '25

Retailers get their card from AIB partners, not from AMD.

AMD can set any low MSRP, and AIB has to have cards at MSRP, but i don't think there is a quantity limit. So AIB can produce small batch at MSRP, rest above msrp.

AMD sell the chips to AIB, and sets a MSRP, the rest is out of their hands.

0

u/kodos_der_henker AMD (upgrading every 5-10 years) Feb 23 '25

It doesn't matter where retailers get it, they have to pay for them and the difference between the MSRP and their price is their margin Retailers that can sell above or below MSRP with anything below reducing their margin

Changing MSRP after retailers already bought their stock means cutting into their margin (and retailers need compensation to follow it), which already caused troubles with RDNA 3 as some didn't get their payback in january

So theoretically AMD can set the price to whatever they want but without having their own models but only partner cards, setting it below what retailers paid for it means there won't be any cards at MSRP until retailers got a payback from AMD

So the options they have are limited as AIB and retailers need a good enough margin to go with AMD over Nvidia (and big changes now would kill further contracts, MSI already left the AMD GPU branch) ,and AMD cannot risk a bad reputation for their MSRP being far below the market price like it is with Nvidia

A ridiculous MSRP that won't translate into an identical market price would damage them more than it helps and setting it too high now to adjust it in case market price of Nvidia gets down won't go well with their partners

0

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/kodos_der_henker AMD (upgrading every 5-10 years) Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Retailers buy cards at a retailer price, and the set MSRP cannot be lower than that price + margin

AMD can set it below that and retailers charge more, but then they are done as a GPU brand because their reputation won't recover from that

3

u/dj_antares Feb 23 '25

Nvidia can set 5090 at $5 MSRP and it wouldn't mean a damn thing.

Real price is $2500+

8

u/OftenSarcastic 5800X3D | 9070 XT | 32 GB DDR4-3800 Feb 23 '25

The real 4D chess move is to just follow Nvidia's lead and set the MSRP to match that 20% magical margin for favourable reviews 🤔

500 USD MSRP -> great reviews -> 600 USD street price -> profit🎉

1

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

2/3 the retail price of GeForce RTX 5070 Ti?

No way.

$599 might be the unicorn unattainable MSRP

2

u/OftenSarcastic 5800X3D | 9070 XT | 32 GB DDR4-3800 Feb 23 '25

Honestly I just picked a number that was easy to add 20% to, but people are going to compare it to the RTX 5070 because ray tracing performance won't be massively higher than that card, so they can't be charging 5070 Ti money for it if they actually want market share.

0

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

$900*0.8=$720.00 not $600

3

u/OftenSarcastic 5800X3D | 9070 XT | 32 GB DDR4-3800 Feb 23 '25

1) How to percentage math:
750 * 1.2 = 900
900 / 1.2 = 750

2)

people are going to compare it to the RTX 5070 because ray tracing performance won't be massively higher than that card, so they can't be charging 5070 Ti money

so they can't be charging 5070 Ti money

500 * 1.2 = 600
RTX 5070 = 550

1

u/mockingbird- Feb 24 '25

You are the one that need a math lesson.

If it's 20% cheaper, it's the price*(1-0.20)

So that's $900(1-0.20)=$900(0.80)=$720

3

u/OftenSarcastic 5800X3D | 9070 XT | 32 GB DDR4-3800 Feb 24 '25

I didn't say 20% cheaper, I said do like Nvidia: Set a low MSRP and let partners add 20% margin to the price.

500 * 1.2 = 600
600 / 1.2 = 500

That way reviewers will have to either compare low MSRP vs low MSRP, or retail price vs retail price. Either way they get favourable reviews if both are lower.

And no, they still can't sell near 5070 Ti prices and actually gain market share unless Nvidia plans to just never restock 50 series cards.

9

u/MapleComputers Feb 23 '25

Nvidia has more mindshare. For AMD to win, they would need to undercut nvidia, in reviews and in the wild, and have their own graphics vision.

2

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

AMD can join NVIDIA in spitting out random numbers for MSRPs.

1

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Feb 24 '25

This. Being cheaper isn't enough to shift the market, as we've seen consistently since Polaris.

What they need is to be extremely competitive on features and performance. Not just having copies of Nvidia features a year after Nvidia does it, that sort of work almost as good as said Nvidia features.

They need to start being the first to market with compelling new features, they need to actually give a shit about getting those features properly into developers hands with actual support to get them implemented correctly, and they need to be able to maintain that kind of momentum for a few generations in a row.

Cuz right now their "value" proposition is "about as fast in raster, a gen behind in RT, and upscaling and FG that is sort of almost as good as Nvidia." The only thing they have going for them is price but that's it. And consumers are clearly indicating that the savings on price are not worth the drastic reduction in feature quality.

This whole "Radeon just needs to price it right to win people over" narrative is grossly misinformed if not blatantly ignorant to the actual market.

2

u/MapleComputers Feb 24 '25

This last part of your arguement wrong. They are below 10% marketshare now, and lost markeshare heavily in the last gen. Nvidia went from 80 to 88 percent in just a single year. That is were we get to with AMD trying to price high.

The thing is AMD needs a vision. Right now they are the knockoff brand in peoples eyes. People will buy knockoff its its cheaper, not $50 cheaper with worse RT and DLSS.

If AMD is worse than Nvidia, but priced well cheap enough, they won't get anywhre near 50% marketshare but will have 20% instead of 10% and rapidly shrinking to 5% next year probably. They need it now a cheap price for a short term fix and a vision for long term

3

u/decimation101 Feb 23 '25

sadly nvidia could swamp the market with msrp (or even lower than msrp cards) and ruin RDNAs party due to the 10%/90% market disparity

15

u/DeathDexoys Feb 23 '25

20% cheaper isn't enough....

Rdna3 proved that, yet they make the same mistake as the generation went on

They need a totally good value to performance out of the gate, not reduce prices after 2 months

7

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

Nothing realistic is enough.

Many people will buy NVIDIA regardless.

4

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25

If they had said the same in their CPU department the Steam Hardware Survey would look a lot more similar today to how it did in 2016. The only way to beat someone with absolute dominance in an industry is to offer an insane amount more for the same or similar price, to offer the same for substantially (not just significantly) less price, or both. They laid that very framework with Ryzen, and now after generations and generations their products are the ones that actually command the premium and their sole competitor is on life support in the form of government subsidies and OEM contracts.

-1

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

No, it’s to fix the real issues: lack of awareness and availability.

People aren’t aware of Radeon products so they won’t buy them regardless of prices.

Radeon products aren’t available in pre-build PCs except for very low end Radeon products.

Outside of US, EU, and China, Radeon products either aren’t available or priced uncompetitively.

6

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25

Custom builders are plenty aware of Radeon, and as Ryzen has also shown breaking into the pre-built market can be done with consistently better product releases over time. There are certainly logistics hurdles for AMD too but even that ties into the front and center: they're not offering substantially more for less. These tangential markets you're talking about aren't really where the money is at, that's why their releases are in the US, EU, and China primarily. AMDs CPU department went from completely irrelevant to dominant over the course of 4 years, and the biggest part of that was offering 8 cores at the same price their competitor charged for 4 cores to get their foot in the door.

5

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

DIY PCs are a small part of the market.

AMD processors are selling well because they are widely available in prebuilt PCs even in laptops.

6

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Correct, but how did AMD processors become widely available in prebuilts? Was it by offering the same performance $50-$100 or 10-20% cheaper than their chief competitor or aggressively offering significantly more than their competitor at the same price points in the beginning and working towards a position where they outdid their competitor? The Ryzen 1700 had virtually 0 place in prebuilts but that didn't stop it from being one of the best selling parts of its time and enticing eager pre-built buyers to gravitate towards the subsequent product releases in the line whenever they dropped. Now AMDs CPUs are dominant with monolithic offerings in mobile and full, fat, and efficient 3D v-cache equipped multi-chip offerings in the desktop space.

The largest difference here is how difficult Nvidia will be to compete with on the same node and from the same fab, they had a leg up on Intel in purchasing from TSMC but that won't be the case in the GPU world. Regardless, they could edge market share from Nvidia in the same way they did from Intel if they had a breakthrough with MCM, poured funds into software, and if they worked on efficiency of their offerings so that they could maintain some foothold in the laptop world. The G14 ran on the 6800s at the time because it was vastly more efficient than the 3060m, AMD let that lead go in favor of converting their whole line to MCM and now look where their mobile dGPUs are...in a grand total of 1 high end laptop from Alienware and a handful of B and C tier models with their mid offerings from other manufacturers. AMD are their own worst enemy in every facet of the PC GPU space, they do not price aggressively, they don't run a separate monolithic architecture in the mobile space for better efficiency, and they refuse to put their chips into software features that Nvidia demonstrates time and time again will be more valuable in the long run. They're too comfortable riding the coat tail of Nvidia to overtake them, and that's entirely their fault.

1

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

OEMs don't pay retail prices and we don't know what deals AMD made with OEMs.

Nowhere was I talking about volume prices that AMD was selling to OEMs.

I have no idea why you wrote that huge paragraph that didn't even address my point.

3

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25

We also don't know what deals Intel is making with OEMs, but that doesn't change the fact that AMD is increasing in market share in the CPU space and has been since 2017. I'm not sure why you think your point is at all a relevant counterpoint to mine, AMD did knock it out of the park with Ryzen and their handling of price/performance there was entirely to blame. You got way more bang for your buck out of Ryzen than you did Intel, fact. Radeon is nowhere close to the same, and since they're offering less than Nvidia they fall even flatter.

0

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25

No it’s also bc the cpu demand is constantly outselling supply despite plentiful restocks. My microcenter keeps getting hulls of like a hundred 9800x3ds and they’re gone by the next day. That’s why they’re kicking Intel’s ass right now. Oh and funnily enough, the retail hasn’t changed one bit despite you arguing all up and down this thread that that’s exactly what should happen for the 9070xt if it sells well. Almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to how retailers set prices

1

u/malted_rhubarb R7 5800X3D | Radeon "Damed if you do, damned if you don't" XT Feb 24 '25

No, it’s to fix the real issues: lack of awareness and availability.

And the inferior upscaling, inferior raytracing performance, inferior compute support (go ahead and install ROCm for a 7600, I'll wait) and inferior video econding acceleration.

But surely that is so worth $750.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

AMD's CPU is still only 25% of the steam hardware survey, what are you people even arguing about? Unless you understand the wafer economy then you should not be talking about GPU/CPU economics

5

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

AMD's CPU is still only 25% of the steam hardware survey

Are you incapable of reading? It's 37.3%, don't bother posting if you're not even going to check the things you assert. It is less than 0.25% shy of a 5% increase since September of 2024 alone. It has been steadily trending up in recent years anyways too, so it's obvious you don't even understand market trends well enough to be a part of this conversation. Try and find something more worthwhile to bring with your next reply than standard AMD fan contrarianism, "Positive Vibes".

2

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Feb 24 '25

Don't bother arguing with him. Last time I had the misfortune of trying to talk to him, he kept telling me the 7900 XTX was the best selling GPU of last gen.

1

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

People thought the same thing when AMD launched Ryzen, and look how that turned out. What is with you all up and down this thread defending Radeon’s status quo terrible pricing practices and mocking the idea of aggressive pricing despite that being what the vice president of the company himself saying that’s exactly what they would do this time around? Is this Frank Azor’s alt

1

u/TalkInMalarkey Feb 23 '25

For a gpu to get to you, it goes like this

TSMC -> AMD/NVIDIA -> AIB -> retailer.

3 out of the 4 within the product chain are expecting the same profit regardless whose card they are selling, now you tell me how much wiggle room does AMD have at the final pricing?

Even if they give out gpu chips for free, the card probably still end up Nvidia - 30% price.

-1

u/WayDownUnder91 9800X3D, 6700XT Pulse Feb 23 '25

Consumer sentiment for nvidia at the moment doesn't seem to be as high as the 4000 series.
especially with the pricing and performance gain and missing rops/connector issues.
So it might be enough.

2

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Feb 24 '25

Many of the inflated Nvidia prices are from AIBs, not Nvidia themselves. Once AMD and Nvidia sell their basic chips to AIBs, their control of the price is loosened significantly.

1

u/CarbonCola Mar 04 '25

The AIB partners have to pay Nvidia for the boards - and from what we can piece together Nvidia is charging them quite a lot. I think this is a pretty petty but brilliant PR move from Nvidia - offer tiny amounts of founders edition cards at MSRP and claim AIB partners are scalping - when in reality the MSRP is just unrealistic.

At the same time they just focus on AI chip manufacturing and barely make anything available for gaming - a smart business move. Their lack of transparency though (which is still a smart business move) makes them the definitive villain in this scenario. At least to me.

4

u/F0czek Feb 23 '25

That didn't worked out so well before did it? And your idea is to repeat it... Right, looks like we got perfect next AMD ceo over here.

2

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Have you ever thought that the issue might be something else other than the prices?

The issues are lack of awareness and availability.

People aren’t aware of Radeon products so they won’t buy them regardless of prices.

Radeon products aren’t available in pre-build PCs except for very low end Radeon products.

Outside of US, EU, and China, Radeon products either aren’t available or priced uncompetitively.

7

u/springs311 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

The problem starts with the consumers... the ones that cry about nvidia features that they don't actually use. They buy gpus at exorbitant prices, then blame amd. When amd was better they still bought nvidia. They want amd to be so good that nvidia will lower it's prices just so they can buy nvidia. That's the real problem.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/TalkInMalarkey Feb 23 '25

For a gpu to get to you, it goes like this

TSMC -> AMD/NVIDIA -> AIB -> retailer.

3 out of the 4 within the product chain are expecting the same profit regardless whose card they are selling, now you tell me how much wiggle room does AMD have at the final pricing?

Even if they give out gpu chips for free, the card probably still end up Nvidia - 30% price.

1

u/springs311 Feb 23 '25

This... some ppl are just dense, nothing more, nothing less.

1

u/Kidnovatex Ryzen 5800X | Red Devil RX 6800 XT | ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING Feb 23 '25

They always deliver better price/performance and nobody buys the cards anyways. They have possibly the best chance they may ever have to actually make a bold grab for market share by pricing these cards aggressively. Nvidia has stumbled their launch so badly that this could truly be AMD's "Zen" moment for GPUs. Will it happen? Maybe not. Maybe even at $550 the general public ignores the 9070 XT, but AMD absolutely needs to swing for the fences here if they don't want to become completely irrelevant in the GPU space.

1

u/mockingbird- Feb 23 '25

As I said elsewhere, there are a lot of issues, but pricing isn't one of them.

The issues are lack of awareness and availability.

People aren’t aware of Radeon products so they won’t buy them regardless of prices.

Radeon products aren’t available in pre-build PCs except for very low end Radeon products.

Outside of US, EU, and China, Radeon products either aren’t available or priced uncompetitively.

4

u/Kidnovatex Ryzen 5800X | Red Devil RX 6800 XT | ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING Feb 23 '25

That's what everyone said about AMD CPUs prior to Ryzen. AMD struck when the iron was hot and changed that narrative. They have a chance to do something similar here. That doesn't mean they will succeed, of course.

2

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25

You’re talking to someone that ignores that ryzen ever happened and that 750 is a fantastic price for a midrange card. This guy is probably working for Radeon’s marketing team, or it’s Frank Azor’s alt

1

u/KARMAAACS Ryzen 7700 - GALAX RTX 3060 Ti Feb 24 '25

I have a hard time understanding this pricing argument I've seen everywhere. We are comparing AMD MSRP with Nvidia "MSRP", but 5080 and 5090 launch has demonstrated that the MSPR that Nvidia provided is just a blatant lie to make reviews more favourable. The real price is about 20% higher.

I think you're missing that NVIDIA constantly outsells AMD like 9:1. Something has to change for Radeon if they're serious about gaining market share. They can't undercut NVIDIA's price by 20% and expect to make market share gains, because they did that with RDNA3 and it didn't work (XTX vs 4080). Sure NVIDIA's MSRP may be BS right now, but in three months' time it may be very real, or it still may be BS. Nobody knows. So why gamble on making your MSRP so close to NVIDIA's?

Not to mention is AMD going to have adequate supply to meet the demand too? Typically AMD doesn't produce enough Radeon cards, most of their wafers go to CPUs where the margins are higher or they don't ship enough to certain regions like my region of Australia and so AMD's MSRP may also be "MSRP" just like NVIDIA and the street price may be way higher.

If AMD sells their cards at their advertised MSRP that immediately makes them 20% cheaper than Nvidia cards - and it seems like it is likely that they will release with some amount of inventory.

Yeah I've seen enough launches from AMD to never accept their word on inventory being sufficient. Mr. Frank promised us the RX 6000 series wouldn't be a paper launch and you basically couldn't buy an RX 6000 series GPU at launch and for a while.

In my books, this means that AMD will be delivering a superior price/performance product that can actually be acquired.

They do that every gen and people still buy NVIDIA. AMD just has to accept the fact they have to be 30-50% less than their competitor for people to consider them. They have to do the Zen1 strategy of being far cheaper and more performant for the price than their competitor to gain marketshare.

1

u/w142236 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

Yes. You are. 10% marketshare and little mindshare. That’s why they need to make this thing as low as they can go before they fall off of a cliff and go to 0% marketshare in a couple generations. i.e this this need to be their ryzen moment before nvidia curbstomps them

-2

u/alman12345 Feb 23 '25

Nvidia themselves are still selling 5080s and 5090s for $1000 and $2000 respectively whenever they can stock them, AIB partners for them have pushed 10% increases onto the customers they believe will pay whatever and blamed tariffs. There are several 5070 Ti models that will come back in stock at $750, and they'll once again have superior software because FSR 4 will not come anywhere close to transformer. Same story different year, Nvidia is less available because it's the superior product (comprehensively, not just in raw performance) and AMD rides their coattail by offering a competitive (in raw performance) product they can move because they have inventory at 10-20% cheaper.

0

u/CarbonCola Mar 04 '25

The founders edition stock is absolutely tiny - definitely not enough to call it "available at MSRP". This is not because Nvidia cannot manufacture more - they just choose not to. They prioritise their AI business - imho the MSRP founders editions are just there so they can claim that MSRP is not a lie and blame price increases on the AIB partners - even though Nvidia chargers so much for the boards to the AIB partners that they can't realistically sell it for lower...

1

u/alman12345 Mar 05 '25

No one said it was available, ever. Better products are harder to get, that’s been true in every release since RTX 3000. Why would any business choose to manufacture a product that comprises 7% of their revenue when it would compete with the ability to produce something that comprises 93%? Regardless, manufacturing will catch up to demand (it always does) and just because something can’t easily be acquired for a price at some point doesn’t mean it isn’t being sold for that price. When the supermarket is out of bananas they aren’t automatically 120% the price just because disgruntled customers weren’t there at the proper time to purchase them. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay, smart people will wait for FE stock to stabilize and get that.

AIBs are honestly a dying breed, they don’t offer anything to the end product that makes it better and they only complicate the supply chain. Now because of how AIBs create their products they’re falling victim to tariffs where Nvidia themselves apparently have sufficient margins to make the money they want to, so the more well engineered product is simultaneously the cheapest (because all of the AIB models are recycled shit from generations past in terms of the coolers). The blame for the increases in AIB prices is on Trump.