They're still pulling that glue shit with the top aesthetic cover plate... I have the 6800XT Liquid Devil and when I had to open it up to clean the inside of the block, there was no easy way to remove that thin aluminium cover plate without destructively ripping/bending it off. Powercolor/EK, just you just punch some holes in it so we can unscrew the acrylic top without having to touch it?

Now tell me the price so I could give up.

CrackongNow tell me the price so I could give up.

1500BTC

This better not be more than $1100 cause otherwise I see a lot of potential buyers just taking a 4080 or even 4090.

One could ignore catching up on ray tracing and up-scaling for two generations straight, but a third consecutive generation of getting pwnd by Nvidia on those features is a problem. To me.
So yeah, definitely skipping this gen as I want a feature strong product but also don't want to pay two minimum salaries for it.

DimitrimanThis better not be more than $1100 cause otherwise I see a lot of potential buyers just taking a 4080 or even 4090.

Watercooled 4080s are like 1500$, I didn't even bother to look up how much 4090s cost, you get the point.

But anyway, you do realize people buying these aren't really taking the cost into consideration that much, they just want a model that they can put into a custom loop.

DimitrimanOne could ignore catching up on ray tracing

What exactly do you mean "catching up" ? RTX 4080 is only 17% faster in RT while costing 20% more, what exactly are you people expecting ? Twice the RT performance for half the price Nvidia is offering ?

huggiThey're still pulling that glue shit with the top aesthetic cover plate... I have the 6800XT Liquid Devil and when I had to open it up to clean the inside of the block, there was no easy way to remove that thin aluminium cover plate without destructively ripping/bending it off. Powercolor/EK, just you just punch some holes in it so we can unscrew the acrylic top without having to touch it?

This and cost is why I prefer to buy my own blocks. I have a Sapphire Pulse 7900XT on an Alphacool WB and it is sweet and smooth as butter. In every way the 7900XT is faster than the 6800XT and my Timespy score is about 500 points slower than the 7900XTX. This card is very sexy though, there is something about a single slot High performing GPU.

Vya DomusWatercooled 4080s are like 1500$, I didn't even bother to look up how much 4090s cost, you get the point.

But anyway, you do realize people buying these aren't really taking the cost into consideration that much, they just want a model that they can put into a custom loop.


What exactly do you mean "catching up" ? RTX 4080 is only 17% faster in RT while costing 20% more, what exactly are you people expecting ? Twice the RT performance for half the price Nvidia is offering ?

I expect parity, like the parity in raster between 4080 and the XTX. Even Intel did it on the first try...

Yeah, what a great idea. Make a card that's going to be a far more expensive version than the standard card which is too expensive to begin with. Maybe instead of coming up with ways to make an overpriced card even more overpriced, maybe AMD should be talking about releasing the cards that people will actually be interested in purchasing. I'm honestly surprised that we haven't heard about anyone being fired at AMD for the klousterfokken that has been the RX 7000-series release. I know that nVidia was harshly criticised for trying to pass off the RTX 4070 Ti as an RTX 4080 variant, and rightfully so but AMD had done the same thing with the RX 7900 XT. I think that AMD should have faced similar backlash for the existence of the RX 7900 XT.

AMD's previous generation had a launch that was FAR better-executed. The card with the full Navi 21 GPU was called "RX 6900 XT" and the slightly cut-down Navi 21 was called "RX 6800 XT" with the 6900 XT being only 9% faster than the 6800 XT. The RX 6900 XT was intentionally given exorbitant pricing because AMD didn't expect many people to bother with it in the same way that Jensen Huang referred to the RTX 3080 as "The Flagship Card". Then the mining craze happened and people lost their minds because miners were buying EVERYTHING that they could get their hands on. In an alternate universe where the mining boom didn't occur, the RTX 3080 and the RX 6800 XT would be considered the flagship cards while the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT would be considered "the sucker's cards". It doesn't help matters that tech reviewers keep talking about comparing the RX 6900 XT with the RTX 3080 because they're forcing a false narrative where the RX 6900 XT is the rival of the RTX 3080 when it was, in fact, the RX 6800 XT.

Now AMD wants us to believe that a 16% slower card than the RX 7900 XTX only loses an "X" in its suffix instead of being considered as the level-8 card when in the previous generation, the level-8 card was only 8% slower? AMD should've been slammed harder for this and maybe they would've caved like nVidia did.

Now we're seeing a card that few, if any, would buy. It makes no sense.

DimitrimanI expect parity, like the parity in raster between 4080 and the XTX. Even Intel did it on the first try...

That's totally unrealistic though, I mean, Intel's cards don't quite play like an AMD or Nvidia card either do they.

Parity between 3 GPU companies would mean none of them have a unique selling point. That's a pretty surreal market!

I think the far more realistic take is that every market will have a variety of offerings, and the baseline is sufficient on all of them, so everything, if priced right could be a good deal. That is how companies generally work on carving out their slice of a market. If you place value in the feature of RT, then performance parity at an equal price point seems like a fair way to look at it, to me. Is Nvidia really stronger at that point? I think the gap is minimal.

It better costs reference card + 250 for ek block and we will let them keep the change that they would use to make the reference cooling solution.

DimitrimanI expect parity, like the parity in raster between 4080 and the XTX. Even Intel did it on the first try...

7900XTX is faster in raster, what are you talking about ?

Avro ArrowI know that nVidia was harshly criticised for trying to pass off the RTX 4070 Ti as an RTX 4080 variant, and rightfully so but AMD had done the same thing with the RX 7900 XT.

It's not even close to being the same thing, Nvidia literally tried to call a product that was 20% slower exactly the same, that's straight up lying.

Nvidia wasn't just "criticized" they were probably in for a class action lawsuit for false advertising if they decided to go through with it, they've been there before with the 970 which was a lot less egregious than this, all of these companies are free to call and price their products which ever way they want as long as different products don't bear the same name.

Vya DomusWatercooled 4080s are like 1500$, I didn't even bother to look up how much 4090s cost, you get the point.

But anyway, you do realize people buying these aren't really taking the cost into consideration that much, they just want a model that they can put into a custom loop.

Pre-waterblocked 4090 is around $2199 before tax in my region.

I am one of those looking for a waterblocked card to replace my rx6800,
But none of these "New" models offers higher price/performance ratios vs my current rx6800.

I don't feel the sense of "upgrade" if I have to spend the same amount of money to get the same amount of graphics power.

Object55It better costs reference card + 250 for ek block and we will let them keep the change that they would use to make the reference cooling solution.

Same here.
999+200+100 is around the price I could endure
999 is the base price
200 for the waterblock
100 for installation and factory warranty

Vya DomusIt's not even close to being the same thing, Nvidia literally tried to call a product that was 20% slower exactly the same, that's straight up lying.

Oh I must heartily disagree because they are almost exactly the same thing. The way that nVidia and AMD both separated the two cards was with the suffixes. On on hand, you had nVidia with the RTX 4800 16GB or RTX 4800 12GB and on the other you had AMD with the RX 7900 XTX and RX 7900 XT. There is a 20% performance gulf between the GeForce cards and a 16% gulf between the Radeon cards. AMD had already demonstrated that even a 9% performance gulf was enough to change the actual number of the card (not just the suffix) the way that they did with the RX 6800 XT and RX 6900 XT.

Is nVidia worse in this case than AMD? Of course they are, they always are (and I'm not saying that ironically). I can't remember a time when AMD did something under-handed but was completely outdone in the under-handed department by either Intel or nVidia while many times Intel or nVidia did something downright sleazy and AMD refused to follow suit.

Now, don't get the idea that I'm anti-AMD because I'm far from it. Personally, I only buy AMD CPUs and ATi GPUs because of what Intel and nVidia have both done in the past. Having said that, I'm not an AMD fanboy (because fanboys are a level of stupid that I'll never approach) and I won't defend the indefensible just because AMD did it and nVidia was slightly worse.

I don't love AMD, I just buy their products because I don't want to buy anything from Intel or nVidia. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the products themselves, it's six of one and a half-dozen of the other because they all work and they all work well. The thing is, what if the pushback against AMD had been as strong as the pushback against nVidia? What if AMD had capitulated like nVidia did and sold the RX 7900 XT with the far more appropriate part number of RX 7800 XT and dropped the price an extra $100 like nVidia did? It would've caused a price war with the RTX 4070 Ti and drove prices down further for everyone. That would have been an ideal situation and not let AMD off the hook for overpricing what is now permanently known as the RX 6900 XT. Instead, what we have is the RX 7800 XT being comparable to the RTX 4070.

It's bad enough that AMD pushed their number stack down because the perception that people will have is that GeForce cards are just stronger because Radeon cards have to have a higher part number to match them. I know that it sounds ridiculous but people who are tech-ignorant (which is most people) often get ridiculous impressions from things. What AMD really should have done is not release the RX 7900 XTX as a level-9 card in the first place and kept the level-9 moniker for a later refresh that could have more closely rivalled the RTX 4090. I don't necessarily believe that AMD should follow nVidia's numbering scheme but the fact is that nVidia owns so much of the market that they are the de facto standard against which all others are compared.

AMD found success back in the day by making their Phenom II part numbers more similar to Intel's because people knew Intel's numbers and understood where each CPU stood in performance. For example, the Phenom II X4 940 was meant to compete with the Q9400 and the part number similarity made it easy for people to know what the Q9400's AMD equivalent was. People are lazy and if they have to do any mental gymnastics to figure out that you must go one number series higher on a Radeon compared to the GeForce, most will just say "screw that" and buy the GeForce. This is why I said that heads should have rolled either at AMD or ATi as a result of this debacle.

The last generation was pretty good in this regard but not as good as it could've been. I'll use last gen's numbers because they're more complete:

RX 6400 ≈ RTX 3040 (didn't exist so the equivalent was the GTX 1650)
RX 6500 ≈ RTX 3050 (the RX 6500 XT had no business using the XT suffix)
RX 6600 ≈ RTX 3060
RX 6600 XT ≈ RTX 3060 Ti
RX 6700 ≈ RTX 3070
RX 6700 XT ≈ RTX 3070 Ti
RX 6800 ≈ RTX 3080
RX 6800 XT ≈ RTX 3080 Ti
RX 6900 ≈ RTX 3090
RX 6900 XT ≈ RTX 3090 Ti

Now of course, this would be in a perfect world but the reality wasn't too far off and people had an easier time understanding it. Remember that we in the tech community aren't the norm and most people have no idea how to read part numbers for video cards or CPUs any more than we know how to read auto part numbers (which are actually less confusing).

In the end, the only side I'm on is the consumers' side because that's what I am and that's who I care about (Ray Zelinsky). If you think that the 4% difference in the performance deltas is enough to give a pass to one company over the other, I don't know what to tell you because it means that you're not on the consumers' side, you're on AMD's.

To be fair, it's usually true that being on AMD's side is the same as being on the consumers' side but this is one of those (admittedly rare) times that this doesn't apply.