looks like the value results are in if you determine the performance fps by the dollar amount D:
(Ray tracing and RTX 5070 Ti not included) lol
1 Like
They say it’s still “much more expensive than MSRP” but YMMV on that! Micro Center in particular has the Powercolor Reaper Radeon RX 9070 XT in-stock for MSRP in significant quantities. Depending upon where you’re located in the world, that will heavily play into which card makes more sense.
2 Likes
Been saying for months now. I own a 9070xt Steel Legend and It is one of the best Gpu’s ive ever owned. The Steel Legend is near the bottom of the rankings for that card too and still performs great! I do wish AMD made an 80 class card this gen using their new architecture. I usualy by 80 class cards.
2 Likes
The problem now is, the “classes” of cards have gotten fairly complicated. Particularly when you factor in the price.
Credit to Hardware Unboxed on YouTube for this image, check them out!
As you can see here, just a couple of generations ago the “80 class” meant you were getting 70-80% of the flagship performance. GTX 980, 1080, 2080, and 3080 all performed admirably against their flagship counterparts… the 4080 was underwhelming when compared against a 4090, and the 5080 just doesn’t cut it with only 49% of the CUDA core count against a 5090.
So while the sentiment makes sense of wanting to buy “80 class,” nobody really knows what that means anymore. Considering RX 9070 XT is the fastest card AMD makes, and it’s capable of 1440p gaming, we feel it’s a spiritual 80-class card. Considering its performance against what NVIDIA calls 80-class, we can easily shoehorn it into that 80-class category.
agreed, and I have seen that chart. I just wondered what price to performance a 9080 would have been over a 9070. I’m sure it would’ve been similar to the Nvidia cards, but I have not bought an Nvidia card since the GTX 480. Plus I don’t plan on doing it in any point in the future because their price per performance is just stupid. Although a premium on the “90 class” is warranted because there’s nothing else like it. I by no means think AMD is any better as a corporate entity. I’m sure if they made a 9080 it would be between $900- $1100 MSRP also.
Let’s look at the numbers.
The RX 6800 XT boasted 4608 cores against the RX 6700 XT with 2560 cores. That was an 80% increase in core count, but the difference in performance is 41%.
The RX 7800 XT boasted 3840 cores against the RX 7700 XT with 3456 cores. That’s only an 11% increase in core count, and the 7800XT is 14% faster.
Historically, with older cards like the Vega 56 and 64, the RX 570 and 580, they don’t even compete on the 80-class level even though they might be named that way. RX 580 traded blows with a GTX 1060 at the time, as an example. Funny enough Vega 56 and 64 have the same core counts as an RX 9070 non-XT and an RX 9070 XT.
If we were to do a trajectory of the extra cores and theoretical extra performance, an RX 9080 XT might have somewhere around 5120 cores, and about 15% better performance than an RX 9070 XT. With 15% better performance, it would go neck-and-neck against the RTX 5080, winning in raster and losing in ray tracing just like the rest of AMD’s Radeon product stack.
2 Likes
you can see how AMD was going in the same direction. As you stated the 6800 XT (great card by the way) was 41% faster yet 35% more expensive. Then the next generation, the 7800 XT was only 14% faster yet like 50% more expensive. then like you said these companies make things more confusing with their product stack naming. the 7900 GRE was probably The spiritual successor to the 6800 XT🤦🏻‍♂️