Currently Online 
JEMC said:
I think that anyone buying either the 3090 or the 6900XT will already have a 4K monitor, so for them the 3090 is the better deal and, unlike with the other cards, has more memory. And the extra $500 won't be a deal breaker. But it could be a good card for those that want to play at 1440p and have a 144Hz monitor. By the way, here's the usual review roundup from Videocardz: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-rx-6900-xt-review-roundup Also, looks like part of the supply problems of the 3070, 3060Ti and all AMD cards could be the lack of enough GDDR6 chips: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/poor-availability-of-rx-6800-(xt)-and-rtx-3060-ti-and-3070-would-be-due-shortage-of-gddr6-chips.html |
Pretty much.
If AMD priced the 6900XT $800, $6800XT $600 and 6800 $500, that would have been a dominating lineup. Their current pricing structure really doesn't make much sense. If Nvidia's RT performance is this far ahead and AMD's main claim is Raster, then the 6000 at every price point and resolution should be beating 3000 series. Instead they choose the path where they mostly lose at 4k, trades blows at 1440p and wins in 1080p. It's quite hard to justify unless you are a die hard AMD fan.
I almost want to call it greed which to be fair, the 6900XT 110% is. But I think Nvidia really pulled out a surprise price point which they were able to achieve with Samsung's 8nm being cheaper than TSMC's 7nm. And because of that, it potentially goofed with AMD's plans overall which would explain the wonky AIB pricing for the 6000 series.
Now the question is, can they continue a good path with RDNA 3 and actually beat Nvidia?
Last edited by Jizz_Beard_thePirate - on 08 December 2020 
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
