Potato Head
Newcomer
AMD has said multiple times mid-range. 7900xtx level performance is not mid-range.
AMD RDNA4 potential product value
- Thread starter Potato Head
- Start date
AMD has said multiple times mid-range. 7900xtx level performance is not mid-range.
Well the definition of mid-range is kind of fluid as well and performance is generally expected to go up gen on gen. For the next gen from Nvidia I expect more of a performance increase at the high end and relatively lower for mid and low end. But I agree with you, I expect RDNA 4 performance to match 7900xt at best, with the two chips spanning the 5060 to 5070ti range.
Where? I can only remember references to skipping highest end which isn't the same thing.
el etro
Newcomer
But... 7900xtx can't run 60fps 4k more in the majority of the new games(i. e. Staker2). Is in WCCFTECH, i'm not the source.
Last edited:
Potato Head
Newcomer
“So, my number one priority right now is to build scale, to get us to 40 to 50 percent of the market faster. Do I want to go after 10% of the TAM [Total Addressable Market] or 80%? I’m an 80% kind of guy because I don’t want AMD to be the company that only people who can afford Porsches and Ferraris can buy. We want to build gaming systems for millions of users.”
80% TAM is Nvidia xx60 TI and below. Not 500mm dies.
Edit: He even mentions the $499 price point of a PlayStation. If AMD could do 4080S performance at $499 they would have.
Last edited:
Potato Head
Newcomer
There’s your mistake. Why would you think anything from WCCF is true.
arandomguy
Veteran
This is not an analysis either way of what RNDA4 will target but just exploring the idea of the mid range and addressing the largest possible market.
This is market share for 4xxx series on the desktop according to Steam -
So it seems like the 4070ti and lower would account for 80% of the desktop market in terms of unit volume. Now in terms revenue share it would likely be higher in term of SKUs, but we can't really calculate that exactly without knowing ASP for Nvidia. But for fun if we used MSRP (yes it's poor) as a stand in -
Then you see the 4080 and lower would account for about 75% of revenue and the 4080 Super and lower 83% of all revenue.
Now if you look at AMD's perspective for 7xxx desktop product page the 7700xt and 7800xt sit in the middle of the 6 product stack. RNDA3 is really a 3 die product stack, cutting out Navi 31 would still leave the 7800xt and lower serviced by 2 dies.
4080/Super performance sounds high end now but keep in mind last gens high end does get moved down the stack. Nvidia's 5070 or 5070ti at the very least will likely be where the 4080/s sits now. So AMD's biggest die for RNDA4 would only need to be competiting against Nvidia's 2nd biggest die cut down, or even it's 3rd biggest die (and GB205 itself seems like it will sit lower relative to previous 04 dies).
As commentary. Yes I know people have some dislike of the absolute costs of GPUs but in terms of actual relative purchasing the "mid range" isn't as low as people might think.
This is market share for 4xxx series on the desktop according to Steam -
| GPU | Steam % | RTX 4xxx % | RTX 4xxx Cumulative % |
| 4060 | 3.83 | 24.47% | 24.47% |
| 4060ti | 3.18 | 20.32% | 44.79% |
| 4070 | 2.51 | 16.04% | 60.83% |
| 4070 Super | 1.64 | 10.48% | 71.31% |
| 4070ti | 1.25 | 7.99% | 79.30% |
| 4070ti Super | 0.69 | 4.41% | 83.71% |
| 4080 | 0.78 | 4.98% | 88.69% |
| 4080 Super | 0.74 | 4.73% | 93.42% |
| 4090 | 1.03 | 6.58% | 100.00% |
So it seems like the 4070ti and lower would account for 80% of the desktop market in terms of unit volume. Now in terms revenue share it would likely be higher in term of SKUs, but we can't really calculate that exactly without knowing ASP for Nvidia. But for fun if we used MSRP (yes it's poor) as a stand in -
| GPU | Steam % | MSRP | RTX 4xxx % | RTX 4xxx Cumulative % |
| 4060 | 3.83 | $300 | 11.74% | 11.74% |
| 4060ti | 3.18 | $400 | 13.00% | 24.74% |
| 4070 | 2.51 | $600 | 15.39% | 40.12% |
| 4070 Super | 1.64 | $600 | 10.05% | 50.18% |
| 4070ti | 1.25 | $800 | 10.22% | 60.40% |
| 4070ti Super | 0.69 | $800 | 5.64% | 66.04% |
| 4080 | 0.78 | $1200 | 9.56% | 75.60% |
| 4080 Super | 0.74 | $1000 | 7.56% | 83.16% |
| 4090 | 1.03 | $1600 | 16.84% | 100.00% |
Then you see the 4080 and lower would account for about 75% of revenue and the 4080 Super and lower 83% of all revenue.
Now if you look at AMD's perspective for 7xxx desktop product page the 7700xt and 7800xt sit in the middle of the 6 product stack. RNDA3 is really a 3 die product stack, cutting out Navi 31 would still leave the 7800xt and lower serviced by 2 dies.
4080/Super performance sounds high end now but keep in mind last gens high end does get moved down the stack. Nvidia's 5070 or 5070ti at the very least will likely be where the 4080/s sits now. So AMD's biggest die for RNDA4 would only need to be competiting against Nvidia's 2nd biggest die cut down, or even it's 3rd biggest die (and GB205 itself seems like it will sit lower relative to previous 04 dies).
As commentary. Yes I know people have some dislike of the absolute costs of GPUs but in terms of actual relative purchasing the "mid range" isn't as low as people might think.
My take is that AMD should focus on a specific price point rather than going toe to toe with nvidia across the range. Similar to what Intel did with Battlemage and focused on $250.
AMD winning outright in the 350-500 lineup would do wonders for their market share and mine share. It would also take the stress of competing at a technical level with Nvidia. Both consumers and tech media is way more responsive to bang for buck price points.
Then hopefully with udna they can start clawing back on the tech side. If they carry on with rdna4 as they have, it’ll be rough.
AMD winning outright in the 350-500 lineup would do wonders for their market share and mine share. It would also take the stress of competing at a technical level with Nvidia. Both consumers and tech media is way more responsive to bang for buck price points.
Then hopefully with udna they can start clawing back on the tech side. If they carry on with rdna4 as they have, it’ll be rough.
They tried that with the HD 4000, HD 5000 and HD6000 series, never really manifested (and thus they gave up that approach):
But I understand they have to try something, because the trend has been clear since NVIDIA launched the GeForce 8 series.
They kinda keep status quo until they fumble and lose market share, then rinse and repeat.
It seems the most recent blunder/oversight were RT.
The numbers tell a story.
Geforce 8 series hurt them. (Excellent performance from team Green)
Geforce 900 hurt them even more (Excellent performance and power consumprtion from team Green)
GeForce 20 series hurt them again. (RT and Upscaling from team Green)
GeForce 40 series hurt them bad. (Even more RT and Upscaling from team Green)
Despite people saying that the GeForce 40 series is "bad value", customers disagree.
AMD has a 2 sided problem.
1. Their hardeware trails in RT performance, even Intel is surpassing them in RT in the same performance segment.
2. Their software is chasing NVIDIA/Intel, offering less features/image quality).
They cannot solve this by soley going "mid range", their software stack is "killing" them as much as their hardware is.
But I understand they have to try something, because the trend has been clear since NVIDIA launched the GeForce 8 series.
They kinda keep status quo until they fumble and lose market share, then rinse and repeat.
It seems the most recent blunder/oversight were RT.
The numbers tell a story.
Geforce 8 series hurt them. (Excellent performance from team Green)
Geforce 900 hurt them even more (Excellent performance and power consumprtion from team Green)
GeForce 20 series hurt them again. (RT and Upscaling from team Green)
GeForce 40 series hurt them bad. (Even more RT and Upscaling from team Green)
Despite people saying that the GeForce 40 series is "bad value", customers disagree.
AMD has a 2 sided problem.
1. Their hardeware trails in RT performance, even Intel is surpassing them in RT in the same performance segment.
2. Their software is chasing NVIDIA/Intel, offering less features/image quality).
They cannot solve this by soley going "mid range", their software stack is "killing" them as much as their hardware is.
Yeah GB205 seems less ambitious than AD104 so maybe AMD will have an easier task going up against Nvidia’s #2 die.
They need to do a lot more than compete though. They need to absolutely demolish Nvidia at whatever price point they’re targeting. Similar performance for $100 less isn’t going to cut it.
DegustatoR
Legend
Could probably mean something for the possible launch price of N48 card(s).
Cappuccino
Newcomer
It is poor value, compared to previous Nvidia generations, hence why 30 series generally outsold it.
And still it gained more marketshare against AMD than the 30 series (posting never graph):
Attachments
Cappuccino
Newcomer
This is literally the last image you posted, you didnt need to post it twice lol.
Measures of value arent predicated on how it does vs the competitor. Both releases were incredibly poor value (particularly at first). 40 series was pretty poor value, 7000 series was even worse value.
Just updated the graph with 2 more quarters, source:
Die Grafikchip- und Grafikkarten-Marktanteile im dritten Quartal 2024 | 3DCenter.org
Die Marktforscher von Jon Peddie Research zeigen die neuen Zahlen zum Markt der Grafikchips für Desktop-Grafikkarten (Add-in Boards) für das dritte Quartal 2024. In selbigem ging der weltweite Grafikkarten-Absatz der Grafikchip-Entwickler AMD, nVidia
You'll have to explain the measurable criteria you're using to define "value." Like it or not, one person's value is another person's subjective reasoning. I value the color purple, so neither product line has a lot of "value" to me. I'm simultaneously right, and obviously tainting the argument to favor my specific opinion. Value comes in a lot of dimensions, all of which require definition to facilitate reasonable conversation.
Nevertheless, regardless of your definition of "value", the data strongly suggests many people feel it had value. The 4000-series product offerings were purchased at a higher rate than the 3000-series predecessors, and certainly more than the competitor's offerings.
Would you kindly remain on topic. Market Share seems to be entirely off topic for this Architecture and Product discussion.
If you want to discuss that, go find another thread for it likely in the Graphics and Semiconductor Industry section or some place which isn't here. This thread should not devolve into yet another tired Nvidia vs Amd cycle, so lets cut that off before it continues.
If you want to discuss that, go find another thread for it likely in the Graphics and Semiconductor Industry section or some place which isn't here. This thread should not devolve into yet another tired Nvidia vs Amd cycle, so lets cut that off before it continues.
DegustatoR
Legend
I have no idea where the "worse value" argument comes up from. It's not worse even in MSRPs and then you'd have to remember that 30 series has been selling during crypto boom at outrageously high prices. For me personally my old 3080 had cost just a tad less than my current 4090 (!) So yeah.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Industry Jobs
