AMD explains why your Radeon costs more than expected, even if it didn’t want it to

Note: This feature was first published on 23 May 2025.

If there are two words guaranteed to unite gamers in frustration, they would undoubtedly be “GPU pricing”. It’s an ongoing saga that accelerated at the onset of the Covid-19 outbreak and has turned into one of the gaming community's most heated discussions. In a candid roundtable discussion at Computex 2025, AMD’s chief architect of gaming solutions, Frank Azor, peeled back the layers of complex market dynamics, supply chain disruptions and the misconception about AMD’s role in setting prices for their GPUs – and addressed head-on the frustration felt by gamers facing prices significantly above AMD’s suggested retail price (SRP). Now, to be clear, Frank is only speaking exclusively on AMD’s behalf, not addressing NVIDIA’s GPU economics.

The issue of GPU pricing, according to Frank, isn't as straightforward as we often assume. It is not solely about corporate profit margins or arbitrary pricing decisions but rather a convoluted interplay of global market forces, production constraints, distribution channels, and retailer pricing strategies. He stressed AMD’s limited control over final retail prices, a point he frequently revisited throughout the conversation.

Recent history has shown that GPU prices have fluctuated to a disproportionate level due to two key market factors: cryptocurrency mining booms and global crises like the Covid-19 pandemic. These periods have consistently resulted in dramatic spikes in GPU demand, severely outstripping supply capabilities. Frank explained that these events created substantial bottlenecks, pushing retail prices far beyond AMD’s suggested benchmarks. Each time such an event occurred, the GPU market had to navigate through extended recovery periods before prices could stabilise.

Addressing the confusion around pricing, Frank stressed AMD's business model as being chip-focused. AMD designs and produces GPU chips, selling them directly to Add-In Board (AIB) partners, who then integrate these chips into complete graphics cards, packaged with memory configurations of their choosing – in the case of the Radeon RX 9060 XT GPUs, either 8GB or 16GB – and then sell it to a retailer or sometimes a distributor, who then sell it to a retailer. Frank adds that: “Everybody in that chain has the ability to sell whatever price they want, based on the way the economies and typically government laws are written, so we have no control whatsoever on what the actual price is at the end on the shelf is”.

AMD’s SRP, therefore, is genuinely a "suggested" price. The final price consumers see at retail is dictated not by AMD, but by a combination of AIB decisions, retailer pricing strategies, government-imposed tariffs (which we should all know by now), taxes, and broader market forces.

More interestingly, Frank addressed the role of consumer frustration directly. While gamers frequently direct their dissatisfaction towards AMD when prices climb above SRP, he argued that AMD neither benefits financially from these price hikes nor actively encourages them. AMD’s revenue from GPU sales remains constant, irrespective of retail pricing fluctuations. If they sell a chip to an AIB partner for, say $100, their revenue from the sale remains at $100 no matter what price the partner sells the cards after. Therefore, from a purely economic standpoint, AMD has every motivation to ensure GPUs reach consumers at or near their recommended prices to maintain competitive market positions and consumer goodwill.

Understanding the nuance of this pricing issue, Frank pointed out that AMD actively engages in extensive behind-the-scenes efforts to keep prices reasonable. He mentioned ongoing dialogues with AIB partners and retailers, urging them to maintain pricing closer to AMD’s SRP, despite having no legal power to enforce such requests.

The crux of his argument lay in the cyclical nature of GPU pricing trends. He provided historical context, noting previous pricing disruptions – such as during the aforementioned cryptocurrency mining surges and supply chain crises caused by the Covid-19 outbreak – that eventually stabilised once market conditions adjusted. The current inflated prices, he reassured, are temporary, part of yet another challenging cycle that will eventually correct itself as production capacity and supply chains adapt to meet surging demand.

Frank called for patience from gamers and consumers, suggesting that anger directed towards AMD is somewhat misplaced. Instead, he recommended gamers adopt a more nuanced understanding of how the GPU market operates, including the multiple layers involved in price setting. From AMD’s perspective, the preferred narrative is clear: the company wants gamers to access their GPUs at competitive, affordable prices, and it actively strives towards that end within the constraints of its business model and market conditions.

Crucially, and perhaps more tellingly, if we read between the lines and connect the dots, Frank has subtly suggested where the true price-setting power lies. While not explicitly blaming any specific part of the chain, it becomes apparent that the key to fairer GPU pricing may rest more heavily with the partners and retailers who set the final prices.

Read more:

• Here are the GeForce RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 graphics cards' prices in Singapore
• Here are the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, RTX 5070 and Radeon RX 9070, RX 9070 XT graphics cards' prices in Singapore

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.