I've always liked an orange/black combo of colours.
-
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
- Thread starter tamzzy
- Start date
What colour though? I mean intel is blue, Nvidia green. Purple ? Pink or brown
Brown for sure
Looks like that colour already takenBrown for sure
Asus RTX 4080 Noctua Edition
Last edited:
As a neutral here I don't particularly care for any side. I would even buy an Intel GPU (actually thinking about it)
I don't blame AMD for not putting out a high end GPU next round. Most people would buy Nvidia anyway even if the Radeon card was twice as fast. Nvidia are excellent at marketing, AMD aren't. I think AMD should rebrand. Maybe even back to ATI,at least for the graphics side. Brand recognition matters. Just ask Xbox lol.
I don't blame AMD for not putting out a high end GPU next round. Most people would buy Nvidia anyway even if the Radeon card was twice as fast. Nvidia are excellent at marketing, AMD aren't. I think AMD should rebrand. Maybe even back to ATI,at least for the graphics side. Brand recognition matters. Just ask Xbox lol.
I think many people would buy AMD but the value just isn’t there, they would either need to be 30% cheaper to a similar tier Nvidia card or at least 30% faster in raster if they want to price match to outweigh Nvidia’s RT advantage and DLSS.
I agree with you. But like I said even if they were 30% faster people still wouldn't buy them. Nvidia have better features and have a great marketing team that's the difference imo. Like for me emulation is important, guess who's better? Same for people that need CUDA etc. Ok AMD is better on Linux but nobody uses that a a main. I might be mistaken on that one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,686
- Location
- Chengdu
It frequently feels like AMD launch at a price to get the AMD whales, and then put it down to what it should be a bit later. The damage is done in the initial reviews though. If I'm going to be spending nearly as much as the competing Nvidia card, then I'd probably just wait and buy one...
At the ultra high-end, there's no other choice but to buy Nvidia.
For lowly peasants like me, it'll always be what's best value, which was Intel this time round. Next round, I guess it'll be who flinches first on the price drops.
At the ultra high-end, there's no other choice but to buy Nvidia.
For lowly peasants like me, it'll always be what's best value, which was Intel this time round. Next round, I guess it'll be who flinches first on the price drops.
What intel card did you buy? I'm honestly considering buying one, but it needs to perform with regards to emulation. (GameCube/PS2 era) I should probably read into it myself tbh. But any info is appreciated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,686
- Location
- Chengdu
The Predator BiFrost A770 16gb. Over here you can get them for < £200 new quite often.
For gaming it's been much better than I expected it to be. I haven't tried emulation of anything on it really. I only ever use the TV PC with an AMD 5700U when I feel like playing older stuff.
For gaming it's been much better than I expected it to be. I haven't tried emulation of anything on it really. I only ever use the TV PC with an AMD 5700U when I feel like playing older stuff.
I find your memory bandwidth limitation theory interesting. Have you seen any supporting evidence elsewhere, beyond your own benchmarks?
See this just nonsense and delusional I’m afraid. I can get a very similar experience playing CP2077 on a 7900XT vs a
Ironically 30% faster in raster would make them on par in RT at the same tier. Would you then demand Nvidia drop prices because AMD offer similar RT performance but are much faster in raster?
In the majority of games the RT impact is not even that high compared to Nvidia. So tier vs tier to expect AMD to be 30% cheaper is just unrealistic and frankly insulting to AMD.
Though I always suspect people with such expectations really just want AMD to be cheap so you can buy the Nvidia GPU cheaper. Most of these people would still not buy AMD.
Last edited:
Edit: Apologies I meant 4070 Super not Ti. Though I note you left out the rest of my point. I was picking GPUs that under Joxeon’s premise, should be similarly priced but where the AMD gpu is 30% faster.
In Raster a 7900XT is about ~20% faster than a 4070 super and is slower in RT by less than ~15%. It also has 8GB more VRAM.
I could just as easily picked the 7900 XTX for the same comparison as it is about 35% faster in raster and similar in RT. It also has twice the VRAM.
So Joxeon wants AMD to sell their 7900 XT (or even XTX) for the same price as a 4070 Super. I’m all in for that but we need to be realistic.
Last edited:
If Nvidia charged £1000 for a 4070S then do you think AMD should charge over £1000 for a 7900XT? the point I’m making here is that the 4070S is a £500 card at best so £600 for the 7900XT is more than reasonable and in fact it has been available for £570-600 lately anyway.
The mistake you’re making is basing AMDs value off Nvidia’s fantasy pricing.
If AMDs sales are tanking at the prices they charge then they have 2 choices, either make better cards if they want to keep prices higher or cut prices, it’s as simple as that, consumers are voting with their wallets at the end of the day.
Last edited:
I most certainly am not. I specifically picked an Nvidia £530 GPU to show that would mean a 7900 XTX (let alone an XT) would be the AMD “equivalent” using your premise.
You would then have a GPU that was substantially faster in raster and equivalent in RT as well as having a lot more VRAM. I’m all for AMD being better than Nvidia on price/perf but your “demand” would be unreasonable as a “but you aren’t Nvidia” tax. If everyone felt like that then AMD may as well quit the GPU market now.
Last edited:
Its a long video but you should really watch all of it, its where my theory comes from.
7900 GRE: 80 CU's @ 2.4 Ghz = memory bandwidth <100%>
6950 XT 80 CU's @ 2.4 Ghz = memory bandwidth <100%>
7800 XT 60 CU's @ 2.4 Ghz = memory bandwidth <120%>
6800 60 CU's @ 2.4 Ghz = memory bandwidth <100%>
The 7800 XT is underclocked on the core.
The 6800 is overclocked on both the core and memory.
Add to that the 7900 GRE with 80 CU's and 18 Gb/s memory is the same performance as the 7800 XT with 60 CU's and 19.5 Gb/s memory.
The IPC RDNA 3 vs RDNA 2 is quite a lot higher, but very clearly completely hamstrung by memory bandwidth, well, the only one that isn't is the 7800 XT, which is why for a small 60 CU's GPU its the one that seems unusually fast in the range and is also the one that overclock's like a beast.
Last edited:
I never said the 7900XTX should be selling for the same price as the 4070S, This is what I said AMD should have launched the cards for and I think this is more than reasonable considering that they are now selling close to these prices.
Last edited: