Yeah agree the high range for amd is meh, if you're just looking for the best out there money is no object, fine with >$1000 gpus, Nvidia has no competition there. The 7900s are more competitive with the Nvidia 4080s and undercut those on price too, 4080s are $1200. So they should really be looked at as a 4080 alternative not 4090 which has no real alternative. Amd offers nothing nearly as expensive as a 4090.

Im very interested in the 7800xt which is a 4070 competitor. If it's outperforming the 4070 in most respects like the amd numbers suggests I think it'll be a great value since it's $100 cheaper. The 4070 only having 12 gb of vram is pretty disappointing too for future proofing, especially for the price. Would like to wait on the reviews of the 7800xt of course first, we only have company provided numbers so far. Also interested in their progress on ray tracing and fsr, which they've clearly been behind Nvidia on for a number of years. But getting enough fps and achieving the resolution you want should still be priority number one over something more niche and game dependent like ray tracing when you're picking out a card I think.

[–] EatBorekYouWreck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, amd does undercut nvidia but not by a lot. There’s no reason for pricing their gpus so high other than pure greed. A 1000 usd is pretty damn expensive for something that does nothing by itself.

So no, AMD is not cheap

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh didn't mean to imply they're not greedy, it's a company. Nvidia would be far greedier though then unless you value their extra features with otherwise worse performance by that much more money. And without competition Nvidia would have free reign to get even more absurd in their pricing. Some competition is better than none. Maybe Intel gpus will start getting good and we can really get some competition going to drive prices lower hopefully.