
The Radeon RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT are among the best graphics cards. However, not all the usual vendors have embraced AMD's Radeon RX 9000-series (RDNA 4) lineup. MSI has confirmed that it chose to forgo this generation of AMD Radeon graphics cards.
We contacted MSI to determine if the company had plans to release any Radeon 9000-series graphics cards utilizing the RDNA 4 architecture. A company representative responded to Tom's Hardware, saying, "Regarding your question, MSI is not manufacturing AMD GPUs this generation."
The statement suggests that MSI's decision isn't restricted to the Radeon RX 9070 series that has recently come out of the oven. We infer that it encompasses RDNA 4 as a whole, considering MSI's use of the phrase "this generation." Whatever the core reasons, MSI isn't saying, and this doesn't mean there won't be future AMD-based graphics cards from the company. But for now, MSI doesn't plan to offer any RDNA 4-based graphics cards.
MSI Radeon Graphics Cards
Graphics Card | Models | Graphics Card | Models | Graphics Card | Models |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Radeon RX 7900 XTX | 1 | Radeon RX 6950 XT | 2 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | 6 |
Radeon RX 7900 XT | 1 | Radeon RX 6900 XT | 5 | Radeon RX 5700 | 10 |
Radeon RX 7800 XT | 0 | Radeon RX 6800 XT | 5 | Radeon RX 5600 XT | 6 |
Radeon RX 7700 XT | 0 | Radeon RX 6800 | 6 | Radeon RX 5600 | 0 |
Radeon RX 7600 XT | 0 | Radeon RX 6750 XT | 5 | Radeon RX 5500 XT | 8 |
Radeon RX 7600 | 2 | Radeon RX 6700 XT | 5 | Radeon RX 5500 | 0 |
Row 6 - Cell 0 | Row 6 - Cell 1 | Radeon RX 6650 XT | 5 | Radeon RX 5300 XT | 0 |
Row 7 - Cell 0 | Row 7 - Cell 1 | Radeon RX 6600 XT | 6 | Radeon RX 5300 | 0 |
Row 8 - Cell 0 | Row 8 - Cell 1 | Radeon RX 6600 | 3 | Row 8 - Cell 4 | Row 8 - Cell 5 |
Row 9 - Cell 0 | Row 9 - Cell 1 | Radeon RX 6500 XT | 2 | Row 9 - Cell 4 | Row 9 - Cell 5 |
Row 10 - Cell 0 | Row 10 - Cell 1 | Radeon RX 6400 | 1 | Row 10 - Cell 4 | Row 10 - Cell 5 |
Total | 4 | Total | 45 | Total | 30 |
If we analyze the last three generations of Radeon graphics cards, it's evident that MSI was a devoted AMD partner until the launch of the Radeon RX 7000-series (RDNA 3). For instance, the shift from the Radeon RX 5000-series (RDNA) to the Radeon RX 6000-series (RDNA 2) resulted in a 50% increase in the number of models available. However, you can argue that the Radeon RX 6000 refresh helped boost the numbers. Excluding the refreshed models would reduce the RDNA 2 total to 33 different models, still amounting to a 10% increase over RDNA.
Things took a turn for the worse with RDNA 3, as MSI offered only four custom models: one Radeon RX 7900 XTX, one Radeon RX 7900 XT, and two Radeon RX 7600. This marked a significant 91% decrease in models compared to RDNA 2. MSI even neglected to release custom models for other RDNA 3 SKUs, such as the Radeon RX 7800 XT, Radeon RX 7700 XT, or the Radeon RX 7600 XT.
While we didn't collect the data for Nvidia's GeForce graphics cards, it's not difficult to see that MSI clearly invests more effort in supporting the Green Team. A quick look at MSI's website shows that the last-generation RTX 4090, despite its eye-watering $1,599 price tag, was offered in 12 different variants, 3X more than the entire RDNA 3 lineup.
Is MSI turning into the new EVGA?
In a way, the writings were always on the wall that MSI could participate less in AMD's graphics card launches. MSI did not partner with AMD for a few product launches in the last generation, like the Radeon RX 7800 XT. The brand didn't put out any new designs but salvaged coolers from the previous generation. The Radeon RX 7900 XTX Gaming Trio Classic 24G utilized a recycled cooler that stemmed from the Radeon RX 6900 XT Gaming Trio Plus 16G.
MSI did not specify why it isn't producing AMD RDNA 4 graphics cards, though we can speculate on several possible reasons.
One key thought is that MSI may want to become a premiere Nvidia partner to fill the void that EVGA has left behind. Skipping RDNA 4 means MSI can allocate all the company's resources toward the latest GeForce RTX 50-series (Blackwell) graphics cards and potentially receive better pricing or special incentives. According to the latest Steam Hardware and Software survey, Nvidia remains a dominant force in the graphics card market, with a usage share of 83.07% compared to AMD's 11.49% from September 2023 to February 2025.
Perhaps MSI's decision not to offer RDNA 4 graphics cards is related to demand. The company likely ran the numbers and determined that the ROI didn't warrant the brand's involvement this generation. That might seem difficult to understand, given the strong demand that has left the Radeon RX 9070 series nearly sold out worldwide, but that's all in hindsight. MSI likely made a decision on this a year or more in the past, when it wasn't clear that Nvidia supply would be lower than normal resulting in more demand for alternative options. It seems like a missed opportunity for MSI in retrospect.
We've also heard rumblings (not from MSI) that AMD didn't disclose its intended MSRPs for the 9070 series until that information was given in AMD's live presentation — that the AIB partners were simply supposed to assume that the recommended pricing would leave enough margin. If that's true, it's just one more reason for a partner to balk. Conversely, we also have Acer entering the U.S. market and elsewhere as an AMD (and Intel) GPU provider, potentially taking over MSI's former spot.
Whatever the case, MSI hasn't disclosed any plans for future AMD graphics cards. We'll have to wait and see if RDNA 5 (UDNA 1?) can persuade MSI to hop back on the AMD train, or if MSI ultimately transforms into the new EVGA.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Zhiye Liu is a news editor and memory reviewer at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
DS426 No, only EVGA is (was) EVGA. MSI can be a try-hard, maybe even absorbing some of the former EVGA employees. Still, very different leadership, corporate structure, ethos, and so on.Reply
Can't say I was really a MSI fan previously and definitely not now -- those that don't believe in and invest in diversity and choice in the PC ecosystem are as good as Apple wannabe's to me.
Admittedly, Sapphire, Powercolor, and XFX have all stepped up their Radeon game, resulting in stiff competition. Still, MSI would be one to compete. -
logainofhades Dumb move on MSI's part, considering how well those cards have been received and are selling.Reply -
TheSecondPower My last two graphics cards are MSI with AMD GPUs. That would certainly be a top choice for me next time. But the move is not surprising. AMD has long implied sort of passing over this generation in favor of UDNA and Acer is taking up some of the limited market, so I can see why MSI thought it was a good generation to skip.Reply
The surprise is that RDNA4 is quite competitive. It almost doesn't make sense that AMD isn't taking RDNA4 to the high end. Almost; it does make sense considering the limited foundry supply. AMD can make a lot more chips from the same number of wafers by not producing high-end chips. (Even Nvidia is doing this to an extent by releasing several models under the 5090 just weeks after the 5090.) -
Notton MSI is dedicated.Reply
They're the only ones using Intel Core in handheld PCs. (Though arguably Lunar Lake is better than Ryzen Z2) -
rluker5 Must be hard to make a profit with the prices AMD is charging for chips.Reply
One wouldn't expect a company to turn down profitable work making the next iteration of a product they have the means to produce.
It isn't like the AIB's are seeing any of those rebates for MSRP models. -
JarredWaltonGPU
I briefly noted some of this in the text. Imagine being MSI and asking AMD what the MSRP will be on RDNA4 GPUs. "We don't know yet." Why don't you know? "We have to see where Nvidia prices its chips and how fast they are."rluker5 said:Must be hard to make a profit with the prices AMD is charging for chips.
One wouldn't expect a company to turn down profitable work making the next iteration of a product they have the means to produce.
It isn't like the AIB's are seeing any of those rebates for MSRP models.
So let's say AMD wants $300 per GPU plus VRAM (I have no idea if that's accurate) for Navi 48. Everything else — cooler, PCB, VRMs, etc. — maybe adds another~$150 to the cost. Again, this is just for illustrative purposes, I don't have hard numbers and am basically making these numbers up off the top of my head. The point is, if the total BOM for an RX 9070 ends up being $450, MSI would probably need for it to sell at retail for $650 or more to make it viable. Because distributors and retail outlets all want some margin as well.
If an AIB asks AMD about MSRP for the parts and gets "we don't know yet" as a response, that's incredibly problematic! And if the "break even" point for the RX 9070 is $550, that means MSI makes zero money off selling those cards, and probably zero money off selling 9070 XT at $600 as well. And by "makes no money" I mean that literally: There's no profit margin, and yet MSI would still need to pay for R&D and all its employees.
Most likely, there's still some margin left in whatever AMD and Nvidia are giving as MSRPs... but factor in the tariffs and that's not just gone, AIBs would likely be in the negative selling GPUs in the US at the stated MSRPs. AMD and Nvidia either need to raise MSRPs or lower whatever they're charging for the GPU core and VRAM. Either way, the current MSRPs seem to be entirely unsustainable.
Perhaps that's why AMD doesn't make reference MBA cards for the 9070 series? And Nvidia probably only makes a relatively small number of Founders Edition cards, which it could even sell at a loss just to create a "fake MSRP" that the AIBs then have to compete against. Because Nvidia at least is flush with cash and spending a few tens of millions isn't going to hurt.
Ultimately, the real MSRP will show up in the market. And right now, all indications are that the 9070 will be priced at $650+, 9070 XT at $750+, 5070 at $650+, etc. Hopefully that comes down in time, but the tariffs are going to make it very difficult for US buyers to find "MSRP" cards going forward as far as I can tell. Unless there are exceptions granted and deals struck, we could be in for some very painful pricing increases. -
edzieba
We don't actually know how well the cards of either vendor are selling. Thus far, every die that either vendor can procure is going onto a card and being sold, and lineups of both are widely out of stock and pumped well above MSRP. There are no stacks of unsold GeForce or Radeons sitting around anywhere. Current sales volumes are more down to who is getting more dies from TSMC than actual popularity, as supply is far, far behind demand.logainofhades said:Dumb move on MSI's part, considering how well those cards have been received and are selling. -
JarredWaltonGPU
The more I think about it, the more I can only conclude that the current MSRPs are a bold-faced lie. I don't think AMD and Nvidia are being realistic about prices, in a post-tariffs world. And I'm not saying the tariffs are good or bad, but they are real. I get that the goal is to bring a lot of production out of China (and Asia, and Mexico, and... you get the point) but that will take some time to happen. And the net result will likely still be higher prices.edzieba said:We don't actually know how well the cards of either vendor are selling. Thus far, every die that either vendor can procure is going onto a card and being sold, and lineups of both are widely out of stock and pumped well above MSRP. There are no stacks of unsold GeForce or Radeons sitting around anywhere. Current sales volumes are more down to who is getting more dies from TSMC than actual popularity, as supply is far, far behind demand.
If AMD and Nvidia use the Arizona TSMC facility as an example, and it costs 20% more to do that? Well, if tariffs are 30%, it's a net 10% difference, but it's still 20% higher than the "fake MSRPs" that were set at launch. But let's just use the 30% for tariffs for a moment. (I think that's a reasonable estimate: 10% in January, then another 10%, and Mexico and Canada also got 25%, right? Whatever, it's not going to be 100% accurate data below, but let's continue...)
I've heard that some AIBs asked AMD/Nvidia to change MSRPs, but it didn't happen because "it would look bad" or something along those lines. If I were a business making a product and it costs $100 to make and sells for $200 at retail, that means maybe I charge $125 to a distributor, who charges $ 156 to a retail store, who then sells it to a customer for $195. We're all making 25% margins. If my costs then suddenly jump to $130? I'm not going to keep selling the part for $125. I'm going to increase that to at least $156 (and cut my margins to 20%). And let's say the distributors and retail stores do the same. So the distributor now charges $187, and the retail price increases to $225.
Now, let's just take those same 20% margins and try to apply it to graphics cards. AMD and Nvidia make a GPU and it costs them $300 (including memory). They sell that to an AIB for $360. The AIB adds $150 in cooling and PCB and such ($510 BOM), and sells the card to a distributor for $612, and then the distributor sells it to a retailer for $734 and the final retail price ends up at $880. That's a "healthy" profit margin, but the market probably won't support that. So cut the margins to 10%.
AMD/Nvidia make a GPU that costs $300 (again, including VRAM that they buy). They sell to an AIB for $330. AIB still adds $150 in PCB/etc. costs to get to $480. Sells to distributor for $528, who sells to retailer for $580, who sells at retail for $639. That's probably at least reasonably close to where the 5070 and 9070 land right now. And it's why $549 isn't actually a viable MSRP.
Now let's say the base price of the chip and VRAM increases by 30% because of tariffs. Now it costs $390 to make, and gets sold to AIBs at $429. Add in $150 plus 30% tariffs again and that takes the card to $624! Distributor pays $686 and retailer pays $755 and the customer pays $830. Oops. So much for that $549 MSRP!