-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Next generation AMD cards to be launched at same time as BF4??
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
It sounds bonkers because, to be blunt, it sounds like you don't understand the situation.
AMD is taking market share away from nVidia with their line up of cards, AMD's cards are faster than nVidia's for less money.
nVidia releases the Titan to bring some attention back to them and make a fuss over outright top single GPU performance.
Corporate espionage will likely be going on, retailers know AMD's bringing out new cards at some point this year, they have apparently been ready for a while, nVidia will have been one of the first to know this.
nVidia has nothing outside of GK104 and GK110, so they usher in re-brands as a reaction to the talk of AMD's upcoming refresh, which will likely be the 9XXX series.
AMD is taking market share away from nVidia with their line up of cards, AMD's cards are faster than nVidia's for less money.
nVidia releases the Titan to bring some attention back to them and make a fuss over outright top single GPU performance.
Corporate espionage will likely be going on, retailers know AMD's bringing out new cards at some point this year, they have apparently been ready for a while, nVidia will have been one of the first to know this.
nVidia has nothing outside of GK104 and GK110, so they usher in re-brands as a reaction to the talk of AMD's upcoming refresh, which will likely be the 9XXX series.
How does Titan really impact on the 7900's when it costs £400 more, and mini-Titan costs £200 more? Surely these cards will cost NVidia just as many GTX680 sales as it costs AMD 7900 sales (probably more so because people who prefer NVidia will jump that way anyway).
No, NVidia have just created a new price point / sector, for those who want more than GTX680/7970 and less than GTX690/7990 and to some extent big Titan.
These cards are low-volume flagship willy-wavers. They will take very few sales from AMD whilst they hold such a price premium. Just look at the prices and it is eady to see they are not direct competitors.
GTX780/Titan cards do virtually nothing for market share because they sell in such low numbers.
Hell, GTX690 and the 7970 are technically faster anyway, even they are are dual GPU cards. If NVidia was really concerned with losing market share they would drop prices for 670/680's. After all, these cards are cheaper to make than 7900's due to smaller die, 256bit pcb's and 1GB less GDD5. No, NVidia are more fussed about profit margin than they are about market share. They undoubtedly make a damned site more profit for every 670/680 sold than AMD do on 7900's.
Last edited:
Now theres a good quote if ever i saw one.
It's about the brand awareness, typically why AMD and nVidia try to one up eachother in performance, because they can then incorporate that in to their marketing.
I don't believe for a second that a Titan will take sales from AMD because people are choosing a Titan over an AMD card, but what it will do is strengthen the rest of the brand, there are still people who think nVidia is always faster than AMD at the same price points.
There's a huge amount of ignorance, and nVidia knows this and plays on it. I know so many people who buy nVidia based on ignorance, it's not even funny.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,597
AMD in terms of gfx seem to be doing rather well, as already stated they control 100% the new console parts which equates to tens of millions of chips over the lifespan of the new consoles. The only development they will need to do with those chips will be a die shrink or two over the next 5 years.
I also expect that as gfx chips are becoming more and more complex dev time would become greater and greater. A 22 month cycle is nothing really considering that consoles are the medium driving the gaming industry these days and we all know how long they are between new system releases.
I also expect that as gfx chips are becoming more and more complex dev time would become greater and greater. A 22 month cycle is nothing really considering that consoles are the medium driving the gaming industry these days and we all know how long they are between new system releases.
Yeah, pretty much rounds off what i'm saying here..
I agree, Nvidia carving out overpriced GPU's from GK110, and gluing a new cooler on existing GPU's to advance the product number..... does smell like a reaction.
So be it, let them react, its not going to have any meaningful effect on AMD between now and late this year, so there is no reason to react to Nvidia.
Its just reacting for the sake of reacting, just release a bombshell along with what is the most anticipated game of this year and have Nvidia react to that to.....
its all good
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,222
- Location
- UK
I'd be suprised if they waited till Oct to release as it would be a huge gap from their 7000 series. I'd expect them to release before BF4 and bundle keys with it, which would seem to make more sense in terms if timing as launching against the PS4 and XBO would not help their sales at all.
Releasing their new cards with battlefield 4 is what will happen guaranteed.
That and the fact the main trailer was run on a 7990, which looked graphically pleasing and as smooth as my back crack and sack after a brazilian.
Once they new consoles launch they will be in bed with everyone. I have a feeling the compute units on AMD's cards are going to finally start to get a good workout after Christmas whilst the likes of Physx die a death overnight.
It is indeed probable that AMD sell more 7x00's than NVidia sells 6x0 series cards, but it is also just as probable that NVidia makes much more from each sale and more overall.
GTX 680
Die size 294mm²
Bus Bandwidth 256bit
Memory 2GB GDDR5
Price: £371
HD 7970
Die size 365mm²
Bus Bandwidth 384bit
Memory 3GB
Price: £319
So, AMD's die size is >20% larger, meaning less GPU's per wafer at significantly higher costs. Larger die's are also a major contributing factor to lower yields. A 384bit bus requires more complex PCB's which also add cost, and clearly 50% more GDDR will cost ~50% more. Additionally AMD throws in rather desirable games bundles which add further costs (although probably very low compared to manufacturing costs).
Taking all of the above into account, it is likely that each 7900 costs at least 20% more to produce than each GTX 670/680, yet NVidia sells their cards for ~20% more. Making a very speculative assumption that AMD makes 10% margin on each 7900 sold, NVidia will make 40%. It is even possible that AMD makes a loss or virtually no margin on their top end cards.
AMD may sell more cards and certainly provide the best value, but it is hard to argue that they have a better high-end business than NVidia.
edit: Just because I am arguing for NVidia's case within this topic does not mean that I support the green team. My recent AMD purchases greatly outnumber my NVidia cards, but I can see NVidia's lineup is currently in a better condition (profit wise) than AMD.
GTX 680
Die size 294mm²
Bus Bandwidth 256bit
Memory 2GB GDDR5
Price: £371
HD 7970
Die size 365mm²
Bus Bandwidth 384bit
Memory 3GB
Price: £319
So, AMD's die size is >20% larger, meaning less GPU's per wafer at significantly higher costs. Larger die's are also a major contributing factor to lower yields. A 384bit bus requires more complex PCB's which also add cost, and clearly 50% more GDDR will cost ~50% more. Additionally AMD throws in rather desirable games bundles which add further costs (although probably very low compared to manufacturing costs).
Taking all of the above into account, it is likely that each 7900 costs at least 20% more to produce than each GTX 670/680, yet NVidia sells their cards for ~20% more. Making a very speculative assumption that AMD makes 10% margin on each 7900 sold, NVidia will make 40%. It is even possible that AMD makes a loss or virtually no margin on their top end cards.
AMD may sell more cards and certainly provide the best value, but it is hard to argue that they have a better high-end business than NVidia.
edit: Just because I am arguing for NVidia's case within this topic does not mean that I support the green team. My recent AMD purchases greatly outnumber my NVidia cards, but I can see NVidia's lineup is currently in a better condition (profit wise) than AMD.
Last edited:
This is the first time that nVidia have had a smaller GPU than AMD, this is not the norm.
nVidia changed things up because the GPUs they were historically producing were not sustainable at the price points they were selling them at.
AMD's chips will still be profitable though, and they have been taking marketshare from nVidia.
To put it in to perspective, Titan's production costs are around the same as the GTX580's production costs. So nVidia has very high margins on their chips this time around, you are effectively paying a lot more for a lot less, but it's not to such an extent that AMD's production costs will be so high that they're not making anything or even making a loss.
nVidia changed things up because the GPUs they were historically producing were not sustainable at the price points they were selling them at.
AMD's chips will still be profitable though, and they have been taking marketshare from nVidia.
To put it in to perspective, Titan's production costs are around the same as the GTX580's production costs. So nVidia has very high margins on their chips this time around, you are effectively paying a lot more for a lot less, but it's not to such an extent that AMD's production costs will be so high that they're not making anything or even making a loss.