• 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.

Just what is NVIDIA up to?

humbug said:
AMD do not set prices, they aren't the ones with that power, placing that bourdon on them will never work. It just encourages Nvidia to ramp pricing up, which is exactly what they do.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, AMD can price their products however they want, they actively chose to follow Nvidia rather than go for the kill.
 
tommybhoy said:
Outrageous that they can't sell a 79XTX(or whatever no. you want to call it)for 4070 level pricing to gain market share.

I should have just bought another 4070(or whatever no. you want to call it) instead of my 79XTX, that would have shown AMD Radeon Technologies a right good lesson.:p
Click to expand...

It would make little difference, it might move the needle slightly but you're never going to convert people from Nvidia to AMD, those who would buy AMD already are because they don't think Nvidia are worth more than AMD just because RT or DLSS, those that do always will.

The only way to bring Nvidia pricing down is to put the pressure on them.
 
Joxeon said:
The trouble is its not worked out for them as revenue is down and they have lost marketshare.
Click to expand...
Profits are the margins you're making in the revenues beyond your costs.

If it costs you $2bn to develop, build, market and then ship a 100,000 products and you get $1.9bn back in revenue then you're not $1.9bn up, you're $100,000 in the red. selling those product for less doesn't increase your revenue, it decreases it, with that you're even more in the red.

ATI sold a lot of their equivalent GPU's for less than Nvidia, ATI only calculated their BOM costs, short term thinking to try and gain rapid market
share, they did gain market share, but they didn't factor in to their calculations R&D costs, Nvidia had the mindshare and didn't budge, watching their market share decrease with higher MSRP's, they still turned a profit, more than enough for R&D, so they simply waited ATI out, sure enough it didn't take too long before ATI ran out of money to keep up with R&D'ing ever better GPU's. then they fell behind Nvidia and it all went wrong for them. All Nvidia did was not panic and wait safe in the knowledge that enough people were always going to pay a premium to own Nvidia.

It was AMD who bailed ATI out.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Gaming dGPU's...... guess what, they made a loss, Nvidia dGPU's, huge profits.
Click to expand...
Maybe if they had went for volume sales they would have benefitted from cheaper production costs, also wasn't chiplet supposed to to cheaper as it was shifting the cache onto a cheaper node.
 
humbug said:
If it costs you $2bn to develop, build, market and then ship a 100,000 products and you get $1.9bn back in revenue then you're not $1.9bn up, you're $100,000 in the red. selling those product for less doesn't increase your revenue, it decreases it, with that you're even more in the red.
Click to expand...
Only if you sell the same amount, if you sell 10x more then the marketing and design costs are split by 10x and if you order more components in bulk you generally get those for a cheaper price.
 
Joxeon said:
Maybe if they had went for volume sales they would have benefitted from cheaper production costs, also wasn't chiplet supposed to to cheaper as it was shifting the cache onto a cheaper node.
Click to expand...
Think it like this, if 4080 would have launched as 4070 (what it really is) how would AMD price their mid range card (7900xtx) at $1000? :)
 
Last edited:
Joxeon said:
Only if you sell the same amount, if you sell 10x more then the marketing and design costs are split by 10x and if you order more components in bulk you generally get those for a cheaper price.
Click to expand...

The more you buy the more you save.....
 
humbug said:
It would make little difference, it might move the needle slightly but you're never going to convert people from Nvidia to AMD, those who would buy AMD already are because they don't think Nvidia are worth more than AMD just because RT or DLSS, those that do always will.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree, with Nvidia upsetting a large percentage of their customer base this generation AMD have never had a better chance to pick up those sales at the expense of Nvidia had they got the pricing right.
 
Joxeon said:
I'd disagree, with Nvidia upsetting a large percentage of their customer base this generation AMD have never had a better chance to pick up those sales at the expense of Nvidia had they got the pricing right.
Click to expand...

Well.
The 7900XTX is £890 vs £1100 for the 4080
The 7900XT £725 vs £770 that could be £699 and it might be some time.

The 7600 is £240 vs £290.

I suppose it depends on the pricing of the rest of them.
 
humbug said:
Well.
The 7900XTX is £890 vs £1100 for the 4080
The 7900XT £725 vs £770 that could be £699 and it might be some time.

The 7600 is £240 vs £290.

I suppose it depends on the pricing of the rest of them.
Click to expand...
Again its not enough, I value a 4080 at £800 max despite what Nvidia say its worth so with AMD priced above that for a similar card with less features is not enticing in the slightest.
the same applies to a 4070ti which I would not pay more than £550 for and also the 4060 which is a £200 card in my view.
 
Joxeon said:
Again its not enough, I value a 4080 at £800 max despite what Nvidia say its worth so with AMD priced above that for a similar card with less features is not enticing in the slightest.
the same applies to a 4070ti which I would not pay more than £550 for and also the 4060 which is a £200 card in my view.
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest the AMD cards should be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom