WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.740 Oh, Linus Sebastian is remoting in from Texas 00:00:03.740 --> 00:00:10.600 to present our next award of the evening. And the least crap GPU of 2025 award goes to AMD 00:00:12.160 --> 00:00:16.120 for the Radeon 9070XT. 00:00:16.120 --> 00:00:20.960 That's right, folks. After fumbling for years, AMD has finally figured out 00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:25.720 how to manufacture and price a GPU that will actually sell. 00:00:25.720 --> 00:00:30.240 And all it took for this to happen was for NVIDIA to slip on a banana peel, 00:00:30.240 --> 00:00:34.200 fall down an elevator shaft, and then have a piano drop down. 00:00:34.200 --> 00:00:39.080 As for the 9070 non-XT, it's also here 00:00:39.080 --> 00:00:45.560 in all seriousness, though. At $599 and $550, both of these cards are well-priced, 00:00:45.560 --> 00:00:49.680 capable of both 4K gaming and actually good ray tracing, 00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:53.240 and even add AI-powered upscaling capabilities. 00:00:53.240 --> 00:00:56.320 But as per AMD's long-proud tradition, 00:00:56.320 --> 00:01:01.960 they also come with caveats, like performance and productivity and power consumption. 00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:07.720 With that said, if they can stay in stock, I think we're gonna be able to look past those little details 00:01:07.720 --> 00:01:13.600 toward a brighter future for gamers and a bright segue to our sponsor. 00:01:13.600 --> 00:01:17.600 ["Suggestion of the Year"] 00:01:22.520 --> 00:01:25.840 AMD says these cards, they're for high-resolution gaming. 00:01:25.840 --> 00:01:31.760 So let's talk 1080p later and jump right into 1440p rasterization where, wow, 00:01:31.760 --> 00:01:36.480 does the 9070XT ever make NVIDIA look like a bunch of greedy buffoons. 00:01:36.480 --> 00:01:41.360 It nearly matches the performance of the RTX 5070 Ti 00:01:41.360 --> 00:01:46.360 while coming in $150 below the MSRP of that card, 00:01:46.600 --> 00:01:51.160 which of course is an imaginary price that no gamer has ever paid. 00:01:51.160 --> 00:01:54.400 Even the lesser non-XT variant looks decent here, 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:59.000 going blow-for-blow with the 5070 across all of our benchmarks. 00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:03.320 We even got the occasional clear win for AMD, like in Alan Wake 2, 00:02:03.320 --> 00:02:08.320 where the non-XT beats the non-Ti by a whopping 17%. 00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:12.160 The only definitive loss for AMD in our suite 00:02:12.160 --> 00:02:16.960 was in Blacksmith Wukong, where the Ti beats the XT by around 9%. 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:24.000 But the second you factor in the price, AMD's small L turns into a big W. 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:29.240 In our Vulcan benchmark, Red Dead Redemption 2, we do see some worrying issues in frame-pacing 00:02:29.240 --> 00:02:33.640 where both of the new cards drop in ranking because of their poor 1% lows, 00:02:33.640 --> 00:02:37.640 despite solid average FPS, so hopefully this is something that AMD's team 00:02:37.640 --> 00:02:42.800 can work on post-launch. Overall though, we are off to a great start. 00:02:42.800 --> 00:02:47.120 The 9070XT is a clear winner in performance and value, 00:02:47.120 --> 00:02:53.080 and as for the 9070, well, it's about as bad a deal as the RTX 5070, 00:02:53.080 --> 00:02:57.640 at least on paper, and we'll talk a bit more about our theory as to why later. 00:02:57.640 --> 00:03:01.240 First, I wanna talk about 4K, because unlike NVIDIA, 00:03:01.240 --> 00:03:06.240 AMD gave their $550 card sufficient VRAM for Ultra HD gaming. 00:03:07.120 --> 00:03:10.960 Sure, it's GDDR6 and not GDDR7, 00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:15.840 but faster memory is gonna be irrelevant when you don't have the capacity to keep up, 00:03:15.840 --> 00:03:21.160 and there is no better illustration of this than the way that the 9070 extends its lead 00:03:21.160 --> 00:03:26.440 at higher resolutions, especially when we look at the all-important 1% lows, 00:03:26.440 --> 00:03:29.920 which is what determines the smoothness of your gameplay. 00:03:29.920 --> 00:03:36.920 Look at last of us part one here. The 9070 leads by a whopping 23% over the RTX 5070. 00:03:38.340 --> 00:03:41.560 Why? We'll look at the VRAM usage. 00:03:41.560 --> 00:03:47.000 On the 5070, it's full, which results in these gameplay hitches that you see here. 00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:52.440 Compare that to the 9070, or to NVIDIA's own cards that do have 16 gigs, 00:03:52.440 --> 00:03:57.160 and those hitches disappear. And I mean, sure, not everyone has a 4K monitor, 00:03:57.160 --> 00:04:00.280 and these limitations don't rear their heads in every game, 00:04:00.280 --> 00:04:04.200 or even most games, but still, it's kind of embarrassing 00:04:04.200 --> 00:04:08.000 when you're supposed to be the market leader in gaming GPUs, right? 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:11.120 Overall, the 9000 series does fall a bit short 00:04:11.120 --> 00:04:14.680 of true 60 FPS 4K Ultra gaming, 00:04:14.680 --> 00:04:19.040 and in our tests, it did not achieve the lofty margins 00:04:19.080 --> 00:04:22.520 over the 7900 GRE that AMD promised in their slides, 00:04:22.520 --> 00:04:28.720 but we're not that disappointed yet, because AMD included ray tracing in their averages, 00:04:28.720 --> 00:04:32.680 and that is a very different story with these new cards. 00:04:32.680 --> 00:04:36.520 Before we look at those results though, let's dive into what AMD has done 00:04:36.520 --> 00:04:39.800 to bring about this generational leap in performance. 00:04:39.800 --> 00:04:44.720 To me, the most impressive thing is shrinkage. The new monolithic die that underpins both the 9070 00:04:44.720 --> 00:04:47.800 and 9070 XT should have been codenamed Frightened Turtle. 00:04:47.840 --> 00:04:54.240 It's built on TSMC's N4C process node, and it cramps 92% as many transistors as the 7900 XTX 00:04:54.240 --> 00:04:59.400 into just two thirds of the die area. This, along with some major improvements in performance 00:04:59.400 --> 00:05:02.560 per CU, is what makes these cards such a compelling value. 00:05:02.560 --> 00:05:05.760 Diving deeper into the compute engine, we see vastly improved matrix operations 00:05:05.760 --> 00:05:08.920 with support for more data types, a new dynamic register allocator, 00:05:08.920 --> 00:05:13.120 and improvements to the scheduler. Combine this with dual SIMD 32 vector units, 00:05:13.120 --> 00:05:18.440 overhauled AI accelerators, and beefed up ray tracing capabilities, and you get a card that can do a lot of calculations 00:05:18.440 --> 00:05:22.200 all at once, especially when it comes to ray tracing and AI. 00:05:22.200 --> 00:05:26.160 But wait, there is more. Both cards get an improved media engine, 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:30.080 which provides a considerable improvement for low bit rate encoding during streaming. 00:05:30.080 --> 00:05:33.800 YouTube's compression might make this impossible to see, but to the human eye, 00:05:33.800 --> 00:05:39.800 these Twitch optimized recordings of Returnal, there's a clear improvement over the 7900 XTX. 00:05:39.800 --> 00:05:43.440 And it's even difficult to distinguish AMD from NVIDIA's end banking coding. 00:05:43.440 --> 00:05:47.920 We'll talk more about encoding later, but it's really great to see AMD finally catching up here. 00:05:47.920 --> 00:05:51.960 But where AMD is still behind is in 422 hardware encoding and decoding, 00:05:51.960 --> 00:05:55.520 which could make this a less desirable option for professional video creators, 00:05:55.520 --> 00:06:00.920 but it's unlikely to matter for non-pros. Another slight disappointment compared to the RTX 50 series 00:06:00.920 --> 00:06:07.400 is AMD's DisplayPoint 2.1a, which are only UHBR 13.5 rather than UHBR 20. 00:06:07.400 --> 00:06:12.720 So these new cards can still do 4K 240 Hertz, but they will rely on display stream compression to do so. 00:06:12.720 --> 00:06:16.800 Not a huge deal to me. I find it nigh imperceptible, but your mileage may vary. 00:06:16.800 --> 00:06:22.920 Enough specs. Let's talk ray tracing, where both the new cards beat the 7900 XTX, 00:06:22.920 --> 00:06:28.720 a card that was well received at a thousand US dollars. Too bad they don't fare quite as well against NVIDIA. 00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:32.200 In Alan Wake 2, the 9070 keeps up with the 5070, 00:06:32.200 --> 00:06:35.720 showing just how bad the 5070 is, 00:06:35.720 --> 00:06:39.240 but the 5070 Ti provides substantially better performance 00:06:39.240 --> 00:06:43.040 than the 9070 XT, giving NVIDIA one clear win 00:06:43.040 --> 00:06:48.480 for their overpriced 50 series cards, or one win so far. 00:06:48.480 --> 00:06:55.640 In the heavily path traced Black Myth Wukong, the 9000 cards handily outclass the 7000 series, 00:06:55.640 --> 00:07:01.120 but fall substantially behind NVIDIA's latest, and as for F124, 00:07:01.120 --> 00:07:07.080 AMD looks great across the board here, while the 5070 gets beaten by its own predecessor, 00:07:07.080 --> 00:07:09.640 the 4070 Super. It... 00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:14.560 The clown show. Removing Black Myth Wukong from the equation, 00:07:14.560 --> 00:07:17.920 the 9070 family is neck and neck with the competition, 00:07:17.920 --> 00:07:21.640 showing that AMD is no longer two generations behind 00:07:21.640 --> 00:07:26.760 in ray tracing. With that said, Black Myth Wukong does in fact exist, 00:07:26.760 --> 00:07:30.760 and shows that AMD is still one generation behind, 00:07:30.760 --> 00:07:35.560 which may matter in future games. And even in AMD's own tech demo, 00:07:35.560 --> 00:07:40.680 we can see that their path tracing implementation struggle with boiling artifacts and ghosting, 00:07:40.680 --> 00:07:43.920 that reminds me more of last gen's ray reconstruction. 00:07:43.920 --> 00:07:47.600 Hey, but here's hoping that AMD can continue to catch up 00:07:47.600 --> 00:07:50.840 and maybe even surpass NVIDIA in the future. 00:07:50.840 --> 00:07:55.320 Maybe the guy can dream. Hey, did we leave a 1080p raster? 00:07:55.320 --> 00:08:00.400 We ran those numbers, so damn it, I want them in the video. Even if the story remains largely the same, 00:08:00.400 --> 00:08:07.040 the 5070 Ti is still a pretty bad deal. It does win, but its margin of victory is so small 00:08:07.040 --> 00:08:11.040 compared to the pricing chasm between these cards that it's really hard to recommend. 00:08:11.040 --> 00:08:16.560 So if you are looking for an overkill 1080p upgrade, the 9070 XT looks like a great way 00:08:16.560 --> 00:08:19.800 to push huge FPS numbers in eSports titles. 00:08:19.800 --> 00:08:22.800 Or any title, if you don't mind a little AI upscaling. 00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:26.120 AMD said at one point that they don't think AI is necessary for upscaling, 00:08:26.120 --> 00:08:31.840 and they could get the same results using more traditional means. Ha, spoken like a company that did not have AI figured out 00:08:31.840 --> 00:08:37.080 yet. The good news is that AMD has used their slow start to squeeze a lot of image quality out of temporal upscaling, 00:08:37.080 --> 00:08:41.600 and now that they've added their proprietary Fp8 machine learning model to improve upscaling even further, 00:08:41.600 --> 00:08:46.840 the results are very impressive. Compared to FSR 3.1, we see reductions in artifacting 00:08:46.840 --> 00:08:51.680 and improvements in the rendering of fine lines. There are a few instances where it even beats DLSS4, 00:08:51.680 --> 00:08:56.640 like with these butterflies in Horizon Forbidden West. On FSR3, there's unsightly trailing and dissolving, 00:08:56.640 --> 00:09:02.080 and on DLSS4, they just kind of are blurry. But with FSR4, they appear much crisp and clearer 00:09:02.080 --> 00:09:05.800 than either of the other technologies. Sure, when you look closely, the artifacts are still there, 00:09:05.800 --> 00:09:09.280 but it's a market improvement. Just like haloing around detailed character models, 00:09:09.280 --> 00:09:12.520 it's very heavily reduced. And motion is just sharper in general. 00:09:12.520 --> 00:09:17.240 I would say that at least when upscaling to 4K, I found the image quality of FSR4 to be no more distracting 00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:20.880 than that of DLSS4. But none of the reduced image quality tradeoffs matter 00:09:20.880 --> 00:09:26.520 if we don't get better performance. And compared to DLSS, FSR gives a less substantial performance 00:09:26.520 --> 00:09:32.240 uplift at each quality setting than NVIDIA, in both the Last of Us Part 1 and in Horizon Zero Dawn. 00:09:32.240 --> 00:09:36.720 But we do see that AMD's Framegen provides a better uplift than NVIDIA's solution, 00:09:36.720 --> 00:09:39.880 which indicates that FSR 3.1 Framegen has less overhead 00:09:39.880 --> 00:09:43.600 than NVIDIA's Multiframegen. While AMD doesn't quite match NVIDIA yet, 00:09:43.600 --> 00:09:47.840 this is the most competitive their upscaler has been ever. 00:09:47.840 --> 00:09:52.360 Except support is a problem. Even though you can use the driver to force the updated 00:09:52.360 --> 00:09:56.760 FSR4 model in games with FSR3, AMD just has less games that use FSR3. 00:09:56.760 --> 00:10:00.160 And unlike DLSS4, older cards are not able to take advantage 00:10:00.160 --> 00:10:04.160 of the new machine learning the enhanced upscaling. And AMD still doesn't have a competitor 00:10:04.160 --> 00:10:07.760 for Multiframegen yet. However, FSR4 does have Framegen, 00:10:07.760 --> 00:10:11.080 but it makes use of FSR3.1's Framegen implementation. 00:10:11.080 --> 00:10:15.320 But you can bring Framegen to any game using AMD's driver level fluid motion frames, 00:10:15.320 --> 00:10:20.520 now on version 2.1. But even with the additional decimal point, AFMF still sucks. 00:10:20.520 --> 00:10:25.400 Without game integration, you get all these weird UI issues and overlays get mangled with motion heavy heck 00:10:25.400 --> 00:10:29.200 in even motion light scenes. Let's be real, it's just frame interpolation 00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:34.080 and no number of fancy names can change that. And if the use case for NVIDIA's Framegen was already weak, 00:10:34.080 --> 00:10:41.560 AFMF feels like it exists only so AMD can say, actually we support Framegen in way more games. 00:10:41.560 --> 00:10:45.800 But no, no one wants it. It's, I don't know, who cares? 00:10:45.800 --> 00:10:49.840 Despite the swath of shareholder approved AI junk 00:10:49.840 --> 00:10:55.120 in their latest driver software, AMD falls pretty well short of the mark here. 00:10:55.120 --> 00:11:01.400 There are some great gen over gen improvements in computer vision, but even the 4070 Super 00:11:01.400 --> 00:11:05.200 manages a sizable lead over the 9070XT. 00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:10.960 The generational gains are even more apparent in stable diffusion, but the story remains the same. 00:11:10.960 --> 00:11:17.920 Finally, there's AI text generation, and I bet AMD wishes an AI could rewrite these benchmark results 00:11:17.920 --> 00:11:21.120 over the new cards failed to improve substantially 00:11:21.120 --> 00:11:24.200 over last gen and get absolutely dunked on by NVIDIA, 00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:30.520 regardless of which model you're using. The one silver lining is that either of these cards 00:11:30.520 --> 00:11:34.160 can run all the same models that the 5080 can, 00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:37.640 and can run some that the 5070 cannot. 00:11:37.640 --> 00:11:41.960 Thanks to AMD's generous 16 gigs of VRAM. 00:11:41.960 --> 00:11:46.000 I mean, it's only generous compared to NVIDIA, but thank you guys. 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:49.920 Don't be too thankful though. AMD still needs to impress in content creation 00:11:49.920 --> 00:11:53.280 where they do okay for video editing, 00:11:53.280 --> 00:11:58.600 but the 9070 and 70XT provide good, but not exceptional performance in Premiere Pro 00:11:58.600 --> 00:12:03.960 and DaVinci Resolve. And in Blender, the 9070 and 70XT perform about on par 00:12:03.960 --> 00:12:07.040 with the flagships from AMD's last generation, 00:12:07.040 --> 00:12:12.080 but they still just don't really get anywhere close to NVIDIA thanks to optics rendering. 00:12:12.080 --> 00:12:17.080 Yeah, there was a transition that I was written that made more sense before we had to record this. 00:12:17.080 --> 00:12:22.680 Speaking of updates, we have some encoder testing for you. While AMD has made strides to improve their encoder, 00:12:22.680 --> 00:12:25.960 they still fall behind in quality compared to NVIDIA and Intel, 00:12:25.960 --> 00:12:31.160 especially at lower bit rates in H.264. For this encoding test, we only set the bit rate 00:12:31.160 --> 00:12:34.320 and no other parameters. Depending on what encoder tweaks are used, 00:12:34.320 --> 00:12:38.240 any of these cards could have improved quality compared to our tests. 00:12:38.240 --> 00:12:41.480 But the simplest way to improve quality is use AV1. 00:12:41.480 --> 00:12:46.080 But sadly, we've excluded the 7,000 series from our results due to a hardware bug. 00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:49.240 The good news is everyone outputs better quality in AV1, 00:12:49.240 --> 00:12:51.960 and AMD is sadly still in last place. 00:12:52.880 --> 00:12:55.880 We are almost there. Let's talk power and thermals. 00:12:55.880 --> 00:13:00.200 Over the past several generations, AMD has made some substantial improvements to efficiency, 00:13:00.200 --> 00:13:04.400 and in their announcement, they didn't really talk much about it. I guess they were being modest. 00:13:04.400 --> 00:13:10.360 In F124, the 9070 pulls lower power on average than the 5070, but with less stable power delivery, 00:13:10.360 --> 00:13:14.480 having transient spikes as high as 321 watts. 00:13:14.480 --> 00:13:20.440 Speaking of which, the 9070 XT has a massive spike to 426 watts, and its average is 309 watts, 00:13:20.440 --> 00:13:24.480 which is already higher than its rated TBP of 305 watts. 00:13:24.480 --> 00:13:28.000 And that propensity for pulling profuse power can be found in combustor, 00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:32.940 where both AMD cards also use more than their rated total board power on average. 00:13:32.940 --> 00:13:36.720 But AMD is allowing some partner cards to use a higher power budget, 00:13:36.720 --> 00:13:41.120 so I guess this isn't fully out of spec, but I would definitely recommend you stick 00:13:41.120 --> 00:13:45.960 with the manufacturer recommended power supply capacity. And I recommend you check out PSU circuit 00:13:45.960 --> 00:13:49.720 if you need to make an upgrade decision. Well, that's a good info there. Thankfully, despite the power draw, 00:13:49.720 --> 00:13:53.040 thermals seem to be under control on our provided sapphire pulse samples. 00:13:53.040 --> 00:13:58.160 I'm sure in part to their use of PTM7950, which you can buy for yourself over at LTTstore.com. 00:13:58.160 --> 00:14:03.840 That's a double plug, double whammy. Self promo, baby! AMD doesn't feel the need to hide GPU hotspot metrics 00:14:03.840 --> 00:14:07.600 like NVIDIA does, and in combustor, we see that sapphire's coolers provide 00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:10.600 ample thermal headroom, which is good. And they're a little big. 00:14:10.600 --> 00:14:14.640 They're not obnoxious, but you know, come on. It does allow the cards to stay much cooler 00:14:14.640 --> 00:14:18.760 than say the 5070 or the 6700 XT in F124. 00:14:18.760 --> 00:14:22.040 So if you're coming from an older card, you can confidently upgrade to either the 9070 00:14:22.040 --> 00:14:27.200 or the 9070 XT, and know you'll get a solid improvement in raster performance and ray tracing, 00:14:27.200 --> 00:14:31.480 which is a big plus for folks who are on older ray tracing cards like the 2000 series, 00:14:31.480 --> 00:14:36.240 or if you're coming from the 6000 series on AMD. It's just, it's good, it's good, it's cool, it's nice. 00:14:36.240 --> 00:14:39.240 We like it, we're happy. They could be cheaper. 00:14:39.240 --> 00:14:42.560 They could be, they could be cheaper. There's kind of two conclusions here. 00:14:42.560 --> 00:14:48.440 A short one and a long one. The short one is that the 9070 XT is a winner. 00:14:48.440 --> 00:14:53.400 If AMD can keep this thing in stock and you have $600 to spend on a gaming GPU, 00:14:53.400 --> 00:14:57.440 you are gonna love this thing, and NVIDIA needs to respond now, 00:14:57.440 --> 00:15:01.020 or AMD might actually take some real market share for a change. 00:15:01.020 --> 00:15:06.140 The long conclusion is that it seems like AMD is trying to eat their cake and have it too here. 00:15:06.140 --> 00:15:09.880 See, the XT's 599 price point is giving real 00:15:09.880 --> 00:15:14.080 good guy AMD vibes, but the 9070 non-XT's price 00:15:14.080 --> 00:15:17.160 is giving maximized margins while GPUs 00:15:17.160 --> 00:15:23.240 are in short supply vibes. By matching the 5070 in both price and performance, 00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:26.720 unfortunately, you've also matched it in value, 00:15:26.720 --> 00:15:31.200 and let's be real. The 5070 is not a great value. 00:15:31.200 --> 00:15:34.440 Once nobody buys the non-XT because the XT 00:15:34.440 --> 00:15:40.200 is so much better for just $50 more, you're gonna end up dropping the price on this thing 00:15:40.200 --> 00:15:44.120 after the reputational damage has already been done to it. 00:15:44.120 --> 00:15:48.920 Did you guys learn nothing from the terrible initial reception to the 7900XT? 00:15:48.920 --> 00:15:52.280 And it's not like you have just reputation 00:15:52.280 --> 00:15:56.400 for days to give up. You have nothing to compete in the high end. 00:15:56.400 --> 00:16:00.840 And sure, 85% of gamers do buy cards under $700. 00:16:00.840 --> 00:16:04.280 I'm sure that's true, but without a high end card at all, 00:16:04.280 --> 00:16:09.080 you're giving up precious mind share. I mean, we didn't even bother to compare 00:16:09.080 --> 00:16:12.480 the 9000 series against NVIDIA's last gen flagship, 00:16:12.480 --> 00:16:15.440 the 4090, let alone their new flagship. 00:16:15.480 --> 00:16:19.560 And yes, 16 gigs of VRAM at 550 bucks is nice, 00:16:19.560 --> 00:16:23.440 but it's a bummer that the cheapest way to get more VRAM in your lineup 00:16:23.440 --> 00:16:27.520 is still a last generation 7900XT. 00:16:27.520 --> 00:16:32.920 If you have no plans to compete in the high end, we need you guys dominating the mid-range 00:16:32.920 --> 00:16:36.960 and enthusiast segments, especially because your non-gaming performance 00:16:36.960 --> 00:16:40.940 is still kind of lacking. Another thing that we need to acknowledge 00:16:40.940 --> 00:16:44.920 in our longer conclusion is the PlayStation-shaped elephant in the room. 00:16:44.920 --> 00:16:49.160 As impressive as these cards are, there is still a strong argument to be made 00:16:49.160 --> 00:16:52.600 that PC gaming has just plain gotten too expensive 00:16:52.600 --> 00:16:59.960 when you can pick up an all-in-one gaming box that will already run at 4K for less than the MSRP of a 9070 00:16:59.960 --> 00:17:03.340 and even lesser if you buy it secondhand. 00:17:03.340 --> 00:17:06.800 Sure, you'll pay more for games and online services in the long run, 00:17:06.800 --> 00:17:12.080 but boy, is it ever a reasonable upfront cost. But hey, maybe the best is yet to come 00:17:12.080 --> 00:17:17.260 on the discrete GPU side. AMD has announced that 9060 cards will be coming in Q2 00:17:17.260 --> 00:17:20.260 and those could provide even better value, 00:17:20.260 --> 00:17:25.220 assuming of course that AMD doesn't launch them at a high price in order to maximize margin for those ones, 00:17:25.220 --> 00:17:29.900 which grosses me out just thinking about it. What I'm not grossed out by is ending this video 00:17:29.900 --> 00:17:33.540 saying that this is truly probably the best GPU launch 00:17:33.540 --> 00:17:39.780 of the year and safe for Intel's B580, perhaps the best launch of the past several years 00:17:39.780 --> 00:17:44.540 if they can keep it in stock. But as per usual, for you, the consumer, 00:17:44.540 --> 00:17:47.580 there is no single right answer, just what's right for you. 00:17:47.580 --> 00:17:51.380 So whether you wanna go with these new cards or pay extra for Team Green 00:17:51.380 --> 00:17:54.500 or go for a console, all the power to you. 00:17:54.500 --> 00:17:57.580 And all the power to our sponsor! 00:17:57.580 --> 00:18:01.380 Thanks for watching, guys. We are pretty tired from doing back to back to back 00:18:01.380 --> 00:18:05.620 to back GPU launches. Massive shout out to you for watching 00:18:05.620 --> 00:18:11.100 and of course to our Labs team, our editors, our camera team, our writers, everyone for being part of it. 00:18:11.100 --> 00:18:15.220 I think there's a little time to breathe. Wait, 90, 60 and Q2? Okay, okay, no. 00:18:15.220 --> 00:18:18.700 Oh, and 50, 60 I guess is coming. Well, whatever, if you liked this video, 00:18:18.700 --> 00:18:22.220 check out, I don't know, 50, 80 review.