And if Big Navi beats the 3080 Ti then those muppets who dropped over a grand on Nvidia may well do the same for AMD.
You jest, but you know it's true
-
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 Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
- Status
Aye. It's a shame that RDNA 1 didn't pan out like the rumoured specs indicated. We all know the 5700XT was originally named the 690, and it would've been immense if it were AMD's upper-entry card beating Nvidia's midrange RTX (because the 5700 XT does beat the RTX 2070). Alas, AMD made the decision to fill their midrange offering with their baby Navi die clocked to the **** and then charge midrange pricing for it, seemingly in the absence of a properly working full product stack.
As for nothing left to squeeze out, that's only because AMD massively clocked what was planned to be Navi 14 (i.e. the 2nd released die cut down from Navi 10). Had we had proper 56 and 64 CU models (the original Navi 10) to replace Vega we could've seen a different story. This is why I suggested a while back that the "refreshed" cards Lisa Su talked coming alongside "Big" Navi were actually using a fully-working and fixed RDNA 1, with RDNA 2 occupying only the top end for now, perhaps akin to the way Nvidia did the RTX 2000 and GTX 1600 split. But that would've been confusing and all the **** aimed at Nvidia would've been equally justified for AMD. But then again I don't care about ray tracing until using it doesn't crash performance, so I probably would've been happy to buy a fixed RDNA 1 card in the RX 600 range and leave those with more money than I to buy the 6000XT cards
Not the dreaded HBM. Thought we'd seen the last of that on gaming cards. HBM2 to boot, that's £150+ on the price of the cards.
@Poneros, get that spreadsheet updated asap
Busy actually gaming for once lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,594
that is kinda hard to pass by tbh, and basically tells us Big Navi wont be the price consumers want
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,153
- Location
- Scotland
Why should it be at $250? It's matching a card Nvidia are selling for close to $500.
For the same reason Ryzen has been so competitive with Intel CPU’s?
We should not be defending or celebrating AMD matching or slightly undercutting Nvidia imo. I want to see AMD do the same in the GPU space which will be better for all our bottom lines rather than the shareholders
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,153
- Location
- Scotland
For the same reason Ryzen has been so competitive with Intel CPU’s?
We should not be defending or celebrating AMD matching or slightly undercutting Nvidia imo. I want to see AMD do the same in the GPU space which will be better for all our bottom lines rather than the shareholders
Right now Ryzen isn't really undercutting Intel but is still doing well against them. I don't get why AMD should need to put a card at half the price of Nvidia while offering similar performance for people to consider them.
I understand there are some feature deficits but that isn't worth half the value of the card.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 852
- Location
- Hartlepool
For the same reason Ryzen has been so competitive with Intel CPU’s?
We should not be defending or celebrating AMD matching or slightly undercutting Nvidia imo. I want to see AMD do the same in the GPU space which will be better for all our bottom lines rather than the shareholders
You know as well as I do that, regardless of where AMD price their GPUs, everyone will still flock to Nvidia like it's the holy grail.
AMD can't win, they price too low and people don't see it as a bargain, they see it as inferior. They price competitively and its seen as a rip off.
If it makes no tangible difference to the units sold, AMD are being sensible by pricing competitively, even though 'we' don't like it.
Well if they want improve their market share, get in more PC’s and convince people they are just as good and ultimately improve mindshare (assuming the drivers team do not **** it up).
I just look at it from my point of view, not theirs. I want cheaper prices, not for my money to line shareholders pockets.
If we keep looking at it like you do, Nvidia will keep upping the prices and you will be sitting there saying “but why should AMD be any cheaper?” leading to more profits for them and more expensive GPU’s for us.
If AMD can make a card that performs the same for half the price as Nvidia and still make a profit, I will root for that
That is why they need to compete at the top end and have the best card money can buy and price it as such imo. I have no problem if AMD charge £2000 or whatever like Nvidia do with their RTX Titan.
When people keep seeing AMD dominate the benchmarks year after year, people would soon change their tune. Assume as I say the driver team does their job.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,153
- Location
- Scotland
Well if they want improve their market share, get in more PC’s and convince people they are just as good and ultimately improve mindshare (assuming the drivers team do not **** it up).
I just look at it from my point of view, not theirs. I want cheaper prices, not for my money to line shareholders pockets.
If we keep looking at it like you do, Nvidia will keep upping the prices and you will be sitting there saying “but why should AMD be any cheaper?” leading to more profits for them and more expensive GPU’s for us.
If AMD can make a card that performs the same for half the price as Nvidia and still make a profit, I will root for that
If people keep buying Nvidia cards that are the same performance but ~25% more expensive then yes prices will continue increasing. That's not AMD's fault and AMD have every right to look at the market, see what people are paying and try to get some profit too.
AMD are not a charity, they don't have any incentive to sell cards at no profit or a loss just because so many people would buy Nvidia regardless of anything.
I never understand this kind of post. Look at the CPU side of things and Intel had dominated for eons, then Ryzen came along and people looked at the performance and price and went with Ryzen over Intel. Whilst AMD are not competitive against NVidia, they will lose out on sales but release a product that is faster and continue to do that and you will see people switching. PC geeks like me want fast for some apparent reason and will buy what fits the bill, regardless of who makes it.
See, I am not sure you understood my post. Please read again with a neutral mindset
But there is a line. Simply matching Nvidia on pricing isn't going to do anybody any good because there is no reason to question Nvidia's dominant image and tackle mindshare. I said this at releases of Radeon VII and 5700XT - what is the point in undercutting Nvidia by 50 bucks? Green team did such a good job brainwashing the masses that RTX was the second coming of Christ that a mere $50 premium over the equivalent (andoftentimes better) AMD card is worth it, and therefore flock to Nvidia.
AMD simply must offer a noticable performance gain and noticable lowering of price against Nvidia to get any attention, just like they did with Ryzen against Intel. I'm not saying Radeon cards have to be twice as powerful and half the price as the equivalent Nvidia card, but if AMD are going to charge the same money then they need to have a good chunk better performance.
Unless of course AMD do not care about discrete GPUs for PC gamers, that's just a lip service utilisation of their GPU tech that is powering consoles, cloud gaming servers, data centre compute and (hopefully soon) generational-leap notebooks and portables.
cause Nvidia card is way overpriced
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,153
- Location
- Scotland
See, I am not sure you understood my post. Please read again with a neutral mindset
I did understand it completely, I have no reason not to be neutral either. I would love cheaper cards from all parties, but while people flock to Nvidia regardless fo cost there's no reason AMD will not use those prices as accepting what people will pay and go there too. Last I saw the 5700XT wasn't actually doing badly as a product either but people still buy Nvidia more.
Offering the same performance at 10% less is a good thing so I can't see the problem there. RTX being marketed as you said is the bigger issue though, even the RTX 2060 is close in price to the 5700XT even though performance is a fair bit down and people still seem to pay it. I can completely understand where people are coming from with saying AMD should undercut but the same performance at half the price that was mentioned? Not going to happen I am afraid.
I agree with you personally, but can it really be considered overpriced if they have steady demand? People are paying it so the new price standard is being set.
I don’t know man, you seem to be looking at it from their point of view.
Maybe I am wrong but I think if AMD can do what they did with Ryzen with their GPU’s then that is a good thing. Just look at how much Intel was holding things back and overcharging. I would have never had a 6 core CPU for £180 in 2019 if ryzen never happened. Your way of thinking will lead to us paying more money, no thanks.
As I said, if AMD can make a card that performs the same for half the price as Nvidia and still make a profit, I will root for that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,153
- Location
- Scotland
I don't think many people want to pay more but the problem is that people are still buying. I will buy whichever is cheaper for the performance I need but you keep saying half the price which I feel is unrealistic and don't see happening at all. 20% less sure but 50%? I don't see it and don't see why any company would offer a similar product for half the cost.
It's arguably not enough given how low AMD's mindshare is. Again look at the 5700XT. It outperformed the RTX 2070 at launch and was $50 cheaper. Given how RTX was marketed, getting access to the future of graphics is "well worth the little extra". But would people have made the same choice if the 5700XT was $75 cheaper? $100?
AMD are not a charity, but being complicit with Nvidia's price gouging does them no favours. AMD can capitalise on the inflated market values and still use Nvidia's greed against them. Imagine launching the Radeon VII at $629, or even $599 (that's money they'd not normally have given those MI50 packages were going in the bin anyway). "OK consumers, we can match Nvidia's RTX 2080 on raster performance and we're giving you twice the amount of VRAM. but we don't have ray tracing. Is ray tracing really worth 100 bucks to you?. Same with 5700XT. If that was $75 cheaper than RTX 2070 at launch (without the alleged Jebaiting) with the claim "we utter smash the RTX 2070 and it can't even ray trace properly anyway. Is ray tracing you can't even use worth $75 quid to you?"
I'd rather make $50 profit per unit and sell 100 than make $250 profit per unit but sell 10, especially as increased unit sales bolsers mindshare. This is exactly what's going on with Ryzen. The price undercut is noticable but not ludicrous, and the product is superior in all meaningful metrics. And it's selling, and mindshare is improving.
That's just hyperbole. And if it's not hyperbole then such opinion is ridiculous within the scope of the current market. Objectively yes, the 5700XT should've been about $300, but then the RTX 2070 should've been about $300 too.
Of course it can be considered overpriced. Just because people pay for it doesn't justify the price. All it shows is people are retarded.
Last edited:
- Status