We are in such a bad spot in the PC market that GPU value seems to be regressing. The 7900 GRE can outperform the 9070 XT and has 33% more VRAM and costed the same as the 9070 XT does now 2 years later. That doesn't even include the overclocking headroom you have on the 7900 GRE, that you don't have on the 9070 XT. You would figure that a new generation's rasterization and performance increases would at least offset the increases in some material costs, or that they would find ways to minimize nerfing GPUs for market purposes if these things were regressing in value and performance. We aren't even getting a GDDR7 on these new cards, so our bandwidth is still nerfed, not that these cards would necessarily scale with more bandwidth anyway. Dies are shrinking, bus width's are shrinking, TDPs are shrinking, and therefore cooling costs are shrinking. VRAM is just one small part of a GPU's cost. Adding 4GB of VRAM on the spot market, is under 50 dollars. And that's if we ignore the fact that they are not paying spot market pricing. Can anyone make a case for the 9070 XT that I am missing, or are we really just buying 2 year old hardware, but made worse? And does anyone think that a recession would bring about decreases in GPU costs because they are solely bought with disposable income, or do we think they will just decrease performance to cut costs and artificially cut supply and raise prices?
