• 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.

AMD Announces RX 470 and RX 460 cards

Yeah I don't quite understand it either. Surely if NVidia cards are overpriced and AMD manages to build something amazing, it should be considerably cheaper thus enabling them to steal market share. That's my expectation anyway.
 
I'm saying you're fantasising about a scenario where AMD is in a luxurious position of selling cheap high performance so attractive that brand loyalty is forgotten.

And I bring up the matter that if it was so attractive it would surely be badly priced.

No such thing as too cheap is a consumers idea of a good price. But if a company does not price a product to get the most profit it can while it can it is doing it wrong and is losing money by underpricing a product which can and will sell at a higher price.


You see it here all the time with OCUK making sure prices are increased when supply < demand to maximise profits, surely you're aware of how this works.

Graphics cards are a good example, underprice them, they fly out and now you have none to sell when you could have put the price higher and gained more for that quantity of cards.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
I'm saying you're fantasising about a scenario where AMD is in a luxurious position of selling cheap high performance so attractive that brand loyalty is forgotten.

And I bring up the matter that if it was so attractive it would surely be badly priced.

No such thing as too cheap is a consumers idea of a good price. But if a company does not price a product to get the most profit it can while it can it is doing it wrong and is losing money by underpricing a product which can and will sell at a higher price.


You see it here all the time with OCUK making sure prices are increased when supply < demand to maximise profits, surely you're aware of how this works.

Graphics cards are a good example, underprice them, they fly out and now you have none to sell when you could have put the price higher and gained more for that quantity of cards.
Click to expand...

I don't have this brand loyalty at all. I buy whatever is best for me, it just happened that in the past 9 years Nvidia won every time. Looking forward to a card which changes that.
 
Personally I'm fantasising about a 470 that is better perf/$ than a 380. Sadly a fantasy it will remain.

We appear now to be living in a world where nVidia have normalised mid-range card pricing at about £400, so now a low-end card is "cheap" if it's <£250.

So now we can only hope that developers don't target these new top-end cards for their latest releases. Finding yourself hoping that devs don't push the boundaries too much is perverse, but the alternative is spending £400+ on a single component to be able to keep playing PC games.

Not a good situation either way.
 
FoxEye said:
As far as I'm concerned, Fury isn't ancient history. Heck, it's the out-going gen!! It's still being sold!!

And it (sadly) highlighted that AMD will say anything, true or not, for a couple sales. They obviously don't care about their reputation for truthfulness.

Which is also true of nVidia, naturally.

The points is - these companies aren't your friends. They'll lie to you when it suits them. Why spring to their defense over a stupid joke or two?
Click to expand...
If 'AMD', as in the entire company, was willing to say anything then it would have been plastered everywhere and not just found in a single persons statement. Nvidia plastered 4gb everywhere on the 970 so must we not also apply the same logic and presume they are willing to lie for any sales to a much worse extent? Why although you admit Nvidia do it, are we still not acknowledging that if it were the case that you believe this is such a big deal that you don't even acknolwedge the massive differences in how it was done? Plastering them both as just being as bad as each other seems more like a scape goat when one was actually worse and plastered everywhere tus resulting in big lawsuits.

I'm not overly concerned but I hope to see you screaming from the roof tops about Nvidia's deceipt in the short future then because they must have truly been heinous to lie to such extent. I was merely defending not derailing threads in a one sided way, I saw no mention of Nvidia until you was challenged and even then it was just to say they are as bad as each other whether that be factual or just convenient for sliding the argument. Again, since my aim is more to caution on potential toxicity / derailing / faux neutrality then I think we can leave it at that and not have to worry whether this argument has a winner or not as it was just a reminder to stay civil so no need for defense. A joke or two not needed can do this too.
 
Last edited:
Insanties_birth said:
If 'AMD', as in the entire company, was willing to say anything then it would have been plastered everywhere and not just found in a single persons statement. Nvidia plastered 4gb everywhere on the 970 so must we not also apply the same logic and presume they are willing to lie for any sales to a much worse extent? Why although you admit Nvidia do it, are we still not acknowledging that if it were the case that you believe this is such a big deal that you don't even acknolwedge the massive differences in how it was done? Plastering them both as just being as bad as each other seems more like a scape goat when one was actually worse and plastered everywhere tus resulting in big lawsuits.

I'm not overly concerned but I hope to see you screaming from the roof tops about Nvidia's deceipt in the short future then because they must have truly been heinous to lie to such extent. I was merely defending not derailing threads in a one sided way, I saw no mention of Nvidia until you was challenged and even then it was just to say they are as bad as each other whether that be factual or just convenient for sliding the argument. Again, since my aim is more to caution on potential toxicity / derailing / faux neutrality then I think we can leave it at that and not have to worry whether this argument has a winner or not as it was just a reminder to stay civil so no need for defense. A joke or two not needed can do this too.
Click to expand...

Some of you people really have a persecution complex, I swear.

I didn't mention nVidia probably because this is a thread about... you know... AMD products.

If the thread is about the 470 and I think it's going to suck... I'm not going to tack on, at the end of every sentence, "But let's remember I also think the 1060 sucks." Btw, I think the 1060 sucks. I said it in the thread for the 1060. Where, interestingly, I also didn't end every sentence by saying "but let's remember I think the AMD Fury sucks." You getting the picture here?

But nooooooo... I am an nVidia shill. Unpaid, unloved, uknown to my hero Jen Hsun. Oh nVidia, my unrequited love for you and your overpriced tat are the ruination of me.
 
Hotwired said:
I'm saying you're fantasising about a scenario where AMD is in a luxurious position of selling cheap high performance so attractive that brand loyalty is forgotten.
Click to expand...
I think you're way overemphasizing how much 'loyalty' people have towards Nvidia. Maybe you've spent too much time on this board and assume most PC gamers are 'on a side', but this place isn't remotely representative of the average PC gamer. There was a poll not too long ago where there was nearly an even split between 1080p and 1440p monitor owners, which should give some indication how representative a hardware enthusiast forum is of the average gamer.

In reality, most of us do not care what color our card is(metaphorically speaking!). We just want the best value and one that we can rely on to deliver solid performance for the games we actually want to play. Nvidia has largely been the better answer to this for a good percentage of users over the past 5-6 years or so. AMD is certainly making strides and Hawaii has improved enough and dropped enough in price to where if you went to any more objective PC gaming forum in the last year or so, you'd see a fairly strong concensus that a 390 was a better buy than a 970. But that changeover also happened well after the 970 came out. Which really does affect people's impressions, especially if they look up reviews that dont take into account changes that have happened.

I agree that if AMD provided a card that outperformed an Nvidia equivalent convincingly, while also being cheaper on Day 1, then it would absolutely drive sales towards AMD and away from Nvidia. Because that's what matters to people most in the end. There is no huge conspiracy towards Nvidia and people dont buy Nvidia purely because they are fools or are lured by marketing. AMD simply have to do better. And they certainly can. Nvidia are certainly giving them a ton of rope to at least best them in the price department should their cards be competitive enough.
 
AMD had the HD5850/HD5870 for six months and nine months before the GTX480 and GTX460 respectively and they still could not beat Nvidia in sales marketshare. The 9700 and 9500 series didn't do it. Only the X800 series did it.
 
To me, it has nothing to do with who makes the card I want, my purchase is dependent on other factors. Like how much cash do I have at my disposal, some times I've had that more than others. So when I needed bang for buck, I bought stuff like the X1950 Pro and X800GTO (unlockable to 16 x pixel pipelines). And when I've wanted raw performance and had a few quid to spend, I went for whatever was doing fairly well at the time.

NVidia are currently top dog in that respect, but I'm really hoping that AMD come up with something good in the coming year or two. I have an Athlon XP2600 chip on my desk, those were great days, when the original Athlon before the XP range came out and trounced the Intel equivalent, when the 9800Pro came out and thrashed the NVidia equivalent. There was competition and we, the consumer or enthusiast, benefited massively from it. We need that again.

And that is why brand loyalty is futile. Get what suits you. We all need Vega and Zen to be competitive, for our pockets' sake.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
AMD had the HD5850/HD5870 for six months and nine months before the GTX480 and GTX460 respectively and they still could not beat Nvidia in sales marketshare. The 9700 and 9500 series didn't do it. Only the X800 series did it.
Click to expand...
Marketshare figures aren't immediate. They are typically told after-the-fact. And it requires momentum to move perception.

AMD's marketshare has actually increased in the past 6 months, for instance. Not because the last 6 months was the start of any swing, but because there was a shift in value perception about a year ago and a bit.
 
heatonpkmassive said:
We all need Vega and Zen to be competitive, for our pockets' sake.
Click to expand...

For a while now, it has always been the *next* big thing that will save AMD.

And when it comes, and turns out to be pretty average, or disappointing even, then we look to the next thing...

First it was Bulldozer, now it's Zen.

Or it was Fiji, then Polaris, now Vega. Always the next one will be the good one. The one where AMD really hits the ball out of the park.

Frankly AMD are on life-support. We all know that if Zen isn't their next Athlon-64 moment, the game is up.
 
FoxEye said:
For a while now, it has always been the *next* big thing that will save AMD.

And when it comes, and turns out to be pretty average, or disappointing even, then we look to the next thing...

First it was Bulldozer, now it's Zen.

Or it was Fiji, then Polaris, now Vega. Always the next one will be the good one. The one where AMD really hits the ball out of the park.

Frankly AMD are on life-support. We all know that if Zen isn't their next Athlon-64 moment, the game is up.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with a lot of that. But my explanation was more about why brand loyalty was futile rather than that AMD are a bit behind these days.

I know they are, but I wish they weren't. We'd all be better off if they weren't.
 
Luckily Zen doesn't have to be an Athlon 64 repeat or kick Intel's arse, it needs to be competitive in a sector and sell profitably to be a commercial success.
No PC consumer/gamer should be expecting a skylake beating architecture core-core or 95% skylake 'performance' for 2/3 the price etc. That would just be setting up for a disappointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom