• 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 GPU sales tanking

Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
If Radeon becomes a dependent on the rest of the company AMD will cut them loose, like a cancer, its not their job to subsidise our Nvidia preferences and they would be glad to watch Intel do that, with popcorn.



What constitutes a compelling argument?
see first post
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,291
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
see first post

This is your first post on the last page, is this what you're talking about?

the 7900gre should've been the 7800xt in the first place
the current 7800xt has so little performance uplift in rasterisation, compared to the 6800xt, that it's a travesty and a slap in the face for consumers that amd tried to pull this stunt
yes, i know the launch price of the 7800xt is less ($499) vs the 6800xt ($649), but it's also nearly 3 years between the cards.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,082
The 7800xt is not a replacement for the 6800xt. That would be the 7900xt with a nice price bump. The 6800xt was a top end part where the 7800xt is the middle chip. Had AMD named it properly we wouldn't be having that convo in here.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,291
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a 7900XT user. But am I surprised? Totally not.

Yes, AMD has to make some profit with their GPUs, but they're priced so close to their team-green alternatives that for most users, it would be better to pay the extra and get an nvidia gpu instead.
You get more VRAM with Radeon cards, but...

...Team green has better ray-tracing, DLSS is better baked compared to FSR, not to mention CUDA and NVENC
And for this gen, RTX 4k also has better (less) power draw and spikes
In general, nvidia has better resale values that negates the slightly higher up front costs

I can't see how AMD can compete without taking a massive haircut to their RRP

That's always going to be the situation, no matter how cheap or how expensive AMD's cards are.

If Nvidia price high AMD are just going to price 10% below, if AMD price low Nvidia are also going to price low, the lower AMD price the lower Nvidia follow until AMD become unprofitable and run out of money, in the short term that's great for us, but in the long run Nvidia still win and we lose.

How do you solve that conundrum?
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
yes it was and i'll call you out on that right now.

amd released the ryzen 1000 series in march 2017 which directly competed with the intel 7th gen quad cores - we know how that went down, for refreshers, here it is: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
it was not until october 2017 that intel released the 8th gen in response to the ryzen 1000 series
it is also quite disingenous to use the 1700x as a basis for your argument as we all knew that the 1700 (non-x) was the obvious value part, with minimal difference in performance but a significant price difference ($329 for the 1700, $399 for the 1700x)

once intel released 8th gen, amd released zen+ in april 2018 to counter that, and the 2700x was $329 on release...taking over the 1700 in the price category whilst being even faster than intel's hedt offerings for rendering etc: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/10
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,291
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
yes it was and i'll call you out on that right now.

amd released the ryzen 1000 series in march 2017 which directly competed with the intel 7th gen quad cores - we know how that went down, for refreshers, here it is: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
it was not until october 2017 that intel released the 8th gen in response to the ryzen 1000 series
it is also quite disingenous to use the 1700x as a basis for your argument as we all knew that the 1700 (non-x) was the obvious value part, with minimal difference in performance but a significant price difference ($329 for the 1700, $399 for the 1700x)

once intel released 8th gen, amd released zen+ in april 2018 to counter that, and the 2700x was $329 on release...taking over the 1700 in the price category whilst being even faster than intel's hedt offerings for rendering etc: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/10

Out of 6 slides on that page the Ryzen 1700 has 2 wins compared with the similarly priced 7700K.

I've looked through a couple of the other pages and its the same story, the Ryzen 1700 has a couple of wins but mostly its on par with the 7700K or it wins.

What Anand didn't test was gaming performance, i think we know its a blood bath for the Ryzen 1700.

I don't see how that's any better to what we have now in GPU's vs Nvidia, except AMD's GPU's are actually cheaper, not the same price.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
231
How was that?

Because so far as i can tell early Ryzen offered nothing compelling over Intel, they were more power efficient but the gaming performance was crap in comparison.
It offered more cores at a reasonable price. intel had been banging out flagship gaming quad cores for what, 5 generations ?

Ryzen gaming performance came later, but it had a USP from day one, that's part of the problem their GPUs have nothing to compete with but price.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
11,881
Location
Uk
I agree.

But lets say its £600, right.

Scenario 1, it does nothing or little to change market share, AMD have just lost $100 per GPU in revenue for no reason. "Hello ATI"

Scenario 2, AMD do gain significant market share, do we think Jenson will just role over and let it happen? I don't think so, i think now the 4070 is £475, still £50 more than the currently named 7800 XT.
Great, Consumers got what they wanted, but where does that leave AMD, as a company, as a competitor? Who gives a _____ about AMD? AMD give a _____ about AMD and they are not stupid.

AMD know they are in a no win situation, no tech jurno or consumer is going to manipulate them into making ATI's mistakes, you're all barking up the wrong tree.
You’re to hung up on Nvidia pricing, and this is AMDs big problem too.

They are to busy looking at Nvidia and basing their prices off what Nvidia are doing rather than listening to the consumer's.

When Nvidia released the 40 series there was a massive backlash against the prices yet and rather than hearing this and learning from it they went ahead and priced their cards just as poorly, even to the point that it made Nvidia look like better value for money.

AMD clearly had the margin to reduce prices as they are selling the cards now for around what they should have launched for but the problem now is that we are coming to the end of the generation and most people who wanted a card probably bought one by now and most of those went for Nvidia as AMD just wasnt competitive enough on pricing. To little to late as they say.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,291
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
It offered more cores at a reasonable price. intel had been banging out flagship gaming quad cores for what, 5 generations ?

Ryzen gaming performance came later, but it had a USP from day one, that's part of the problem their GPUs have nothing to compete with but price.

The gaming performance came with Ryzen 5000, by then AMD had already taken chunks out of Intel's market share, with similarly priced CPU's, it was not 7.zip that did it, so what was it?

You’re to hung up on Nvidia pricing, and this is AMDs big problem too.

They are to busy looking at Nvidia and basing their prices off what Nvidia are doing rather than listening to the consumer's.

When Nvidia released the 40 series there was a massive backlash against the prices yet and rather than hearing this and learning from it they went ahead and priced their cards just as poorly, even to the point that it made Nvidia look like better value for money.

AMD clearly had the margin to reduce prices as they are selling the cards now for around what they should have launched for but the problem now is that we are coming to the end of the generation and most people who wanted a card probably bought one by now and most of those went for Nvidia as AMD just wasnt competitive enough on pricing. To little to late as they say.

AMD comes in with 40% lower pricing, *hurray AMD* Nvidia drops pricing by 30%, did anything change for AMD, other than loosing that revenue?
 
Last edited:

G J

G J

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2008
Posts
1,426
People are also forgetting that with new cards there's a vast amount of second hand cards from AMD/Intel/Nvidia they also have to compete with esp when theres performance stagnation in the low end.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
231
The gaming performance came with Ryzen 5000, by then AMD had already taken chunks out of Intel's market share, with similarly priced CPU's, it was not 7.zip that did it, so what was it?
Like I say it had a USP, MOAR COREZ = better, even if it isn't really.

Much like people bought a 3060 because of better ray tracing or more legitimately DLSS even if a 6700xt was faster in most of the games they actually played.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Out of 6 slides on that page the Ryzen 1700 has 2 wins compared with the similarly priced 7700K.

I've looked through a couple of the other pages and its the same story, the Ryzen 1700 has a couple of wins but mostly its on par with the 7700K or it wins.

What Anand didn't test was gaming performance, i think we know its a blood bath for the Ryzen 1700.

I don't see how that's any better to what we have now in GPU's vs Nvidia, except AMD's GPU's are actually cheaper, not the same price.
I mean you don't believe it was 7.zip that was the magic for AMD back then?
disingenous again? but it's okay. i've now come to expect that off you

BdB9un5.png

Qfus8GQ.png

vQEvItj.png

MoKy0t6.png

nMtqALl.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Posts
837
I think the promise of socket support also gained them a lot of ground with us lot, I certainly bought a 2600 knowing it was a stop gap and then popped a 3700X in, I then bought a 5900X (which I ended up changing boards for as I wanted the PCI4 support), it was all done in small affordable stages.

2600 wasn't a bad chip when it came out either, I know it wasn't beating intel but it was close enough not to care and the price of 6 multithreaded cores was unbeatable.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
11,881
Location
Uk
AMD comes in with 40% lower pricing, *hurray AMD* Nvidia drops pricing by 30%, did anything change for AMD, other than loosing that revenue
Nvidia won’t drop their pricing 30%, they are to arrogant and they don’t even acknowledge AMD as a real competitor, maybe because they aren’t?.

Nvidia would have probably fast tracked a super refresh to the Autumn but by then AMD would have grabbed a chuck of market share and would have come out looking like the hero of the generation, garnering a tonne of mindshare.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
48,291
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Like I say it had a USP, MOAR COREZ = better, even if it isn't really.

Much like people bought a 3060 because of better ray tracing or more legitimately DLSS even if a 6700xt was faster in most of the games they actually played.

That's true, its also why one cannot compare this with CPU's, people assume it must be because AMD was that much better and that munch cheaper than Intel, no... where it mattered Ryzen was still worse than Intel and they were not cheaper.
Even now AMD are a bit cheaper than Intel and a bit better in some ways, none of that explains why AMD are becoming the dominant CPU brand.
People are increasingly starting to see Ryzen as the premium brand in CPU's, don't ever change the name "Ryzen" that's the brand, and don't ever copy Intel "Ultra" branding, that's them trying to communicate premium branding, what Intel are starting to realise is the power that "Ryzen" has, AMD... they are looking to make Ultra ' "Ryzen" be aware of that.
------

Its consumer perception, "Radeon" is a crap brand, its 1990's and its gained a negative association at this point, its done... change it, dump it, burry it immediately. Create a new brand image and make it a good one, one that's easy to remember, is cool and roles off the tongue, like Ryzen, change the colour as well, red???? Red is the colour our minds are programmed to avoid, its a warning colour, the Orange of Ryzen is a nice inviting colour, use that colour it should all tie in anyway...
Fix FSR, ffs..... fix it! whatever you do now just make fixing FSR the thing to do, once you've fixed it relaunch it under entirely new branding.
Any new game console or handheld device from here and forever more must carry your Ryzen and or new graphics branding, brand visibility on things people like is critical.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom