AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year

[TNA]

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.

Just feeling like your missing the point by fixating on the “half the price“ and using lines like “AMD are not a charity”. What is the problem with AMD disturbing the market like they did with Ryzen? Better for us than just slightly undercutting nvidia’s ever inflating prices no?

LePhuronn seems to get it

 

[Sargatanas2511]

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?"

As I said on a personal level I agree and the cheaper the better. I can't tell you how much it costs AMD to make a card though, so I don't know how much profit there is to be made on each card. I do know that even if it was pushed down to half the cost there would still be a lot that would buy Nvidia anyway.

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.

It was directly mentioned that it should have come out at $250, while the 2070 and Super were closer to $500 which is why I said half the cost.

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.

Again I completely agree on a personal level, but the fact is the cards are selling so why would the price drop next gen?

 

[Sargatanas2511]

Just feeling like your missing the point by fixating on the “half the price“ and using lines like “AMD are not a charity”. What is the problem with AMD disturbing the market like they did with Ryzen? Better for us than just slightly undercutting nvidia’s ever inflating prices no?

LePhuronn seems to get it

Ryzen wasn't massively cheap when it came out, it was £500 for the 1800X remember. I agree disruption would be great but their priority is to make money and to please their shareholders.

I would love a 2080 performance card for £300 don't get me wrong but I am being realistic about it.

 

[TNA]

Ryzen wasn't massively cheap when it came out, it was £500 for the 1800X remember. I agree disruption would be great but their priority is to make money and to please their shareholders.

I would love a 2080 performance card for £300 don't get me wrong but I am being realistic about it.

But why are you concerned with their priorities? Why is it you want them to please shareholders instead of us? You a shareholder?

I will say it once again, 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 and so should everyone imo. Otherwise essentially what you advocating is money to continue to flow up to the top 1%.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

But why are you concerned with their priorities? Why is it you want them to please shareholders instead of us? You a shareholder?

I will say it once again, 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 and so should everyone imo. Otherwise essentially what you advocating is money to continue to flow up to the top 1%.

Nope I am not a shareholder. I am focusing on their priorities because that is what affects what we actually get and I am being realistic about the situation.

If they could do what you said that would be fantastic for sure, I just don't see it happening. I am not trying to advocate anything, I voted with my wallet and didn't buy a card this gen and got a 1080Ti second hand the gen before. I can't stop others buying what they want to buy though.

 

[TNA]

Nope I am not a shareholder. I am focusing on their priorities because that is what affects what we actually get and I am being realistic about the situation.

If they could do what you said that would be fantastic for sure, I just don't see it happening. I am not trying to advocate anything, I voted with my wallet and didn't buy a card this gen and got a 1080Ti second hand the gen before. I can't stop others buying what they want to buy though.

I recon you should leave that to Lisa Su, she seems to be doing a good job of that

 

[Sargatanas2511]

I recon you should leave that to Lisa Su, she seems to be doing a good job of that

We aren't going to get anything that doesn't fit their priorities are we?

 

[TNA]

We aren't going to get anything that doesn't fit their priorities are we?

What if their priorities is to increase marketshare and mindshare? They won’t be doing that by slightly undercutting nvidia. If they can make a profit and disrupt the market by offering better price for performance then that is what I want to see, just like Ryzen. I do not want to see them matching nvidia or slightly undercutting them. That would be bad for us all no? I want to see price for performance to continue to improve. I want competition. I am not enthusiastic about shareholders continuing to line their pockets.

 

[gpuerrilla]

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.

This is what we notice and its a tough game dying on the hill for.

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.

Yeah OK Greg.

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.

cause Nvidia card is way overpriced

This is the problem, wont change until this "intel + nvidia are the gamers choice.." marketing is buried. Its like an old wives tail, hard to debunk as there is a pre-conviced mindset. You just have to vote with your wallet and one day it may change toppling the herd out there.

 

[TNA]

Yeah OK Greg.

Lol

 

[Besty]

that is kinda hard to pass by tbh, and basically tells us Big Navi wont be the price consumers want

My spidey senses tell me £499 for big navi 3 months after launch which will be clocked just enough to match a GTX3080 and a 2080ti.

I would expect £549 at launch and then a quick price drop.

I doubt Nvidia will give up the £1,200 3080ti Price tier, whether that card is going to be worth the 35% performance increase over a big Navi, is probably going to be down to your own sensibilities. It won't be worth it for me.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I doubt Nvidia will give up the £1,200 3080ti Price tier, whether that card is going to be worth the 35% performance increase over a big Navi, is probably going to be down to your own sensibilities. It won't be worth it for me.

Agree, I will be interested in a 3070 or that bracket offered card which might edge out a 2080Ti ~ 400 sheets.

 

[EastCoastHandle]

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.

We are talking about those individuals willing to pay over $1200. Which is a minority, subsection of segregated users. Usually, they are in some form or fashion involved with Nvidia physically, mentally or emotionally. Which reinforces them to place a higher priority with Nvidia then most others who actually own a Nvidia card.

I don't consider them consumers as they show a lack of self preservation. Therefore, I don't see 1/3 of them going to AMD. One reason, for the 1st time since windows xp, they are said to actually update their GUI for the drivers. For such individuals pretty, pretty, shiney, shiney is too irresistible to pass up. Something I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, I am not saying there won't be a market shift in this duopoly if AMD does well. Many would consider them as long as they price their products according to current market trends. Trends that include consoles.

 

[Gregster]

We are talking about those individuals willing to pay over $1200. Which is a minority, subsection of segregated users. Usually, they are in some form or fashion involved with Nvidia physically, mentally or emotionally. Which reinforces them to place a higher priority with Nvidia then most others who actually own a Nvidia card.

I don't consider them consumers as they show a lack of self preservation. Therefore, I don't see 1/3 of them going to AMD. One reason, for the 1st time since windows xp, they are said to actually update their GUI for the drivers. For such individuals pretty, pretty, shiney, shiney is too irresistible to pass up. Something I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, I am not saying there won't be a market shift in this duopoly if AMD does well. Many would consider them as long as they price their products according to current market trends. Trends that include consoles.

Fair point and I see and mostly agree with your reasoning. I just see those who are happy to chuck £1200 at a GPU, will have no issue doing the same if AMD are leading the pack. That was basically my point. I also do feel that AMD consistently releasing cards that are faster than NVidia in each segmented price bracket would see a shift to AMD.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD/ATI have been far closer to the top end in the GPU space in the last 15 years,than AMD has been for its CPUs. However,AMD has to do far less in CPUs,to get more users,than they have to do with GPU. Ryzen does not even beat Intel overall in gaming,yet people have no problems buying loads of them. When it comes to GPUs,even if AMD beat Nvidia for a few years,Nvidia would still sell a ton of gaming GPUs. This is why AMD did the clever thing and put more emphasis onto CPU R and D.

 

[gpuerrilla]

AMD/ATI have been far closer to the top end in the GPU space in the last 15 years,than AMD has been for its CPUs. However,AMD has to do far less in CPUs,to get more users,than they have to do with GPU. Ryzen does not even beat Intel overall in gaming,yet people have no problems buying loads of them. When it comes to GPUs,even if AMD beat Nvidia for a few years,Nvidia would still sell a ton of gaming GPUs. This is why AMD did the clever thing and put more emphasis onto CPU R and D.

AMD need to offer more, and target people with the likes of the streaming craze. They dropped a ball when nvidia got the sound noise cancelling for the mic I thought that was an excellent move, one that AMD should have been faster with. They cant trade blows with nvidia in the GPU space (top end) so need to get past that by offering discounted games or ancillary devices which makes them a valid reason to choose.

 

[EastCoastHandle]

Imho, Radeon needs to find there way into more OEMs.
This is were Nvidia holds a considerable lead in. Which is often misinterpreted as individual purchases.

Remember the steam survey debacle? Where steam was counting Cafe users in the Asian market. I'm not sure the terminology used for that. But the gist of it is that they can go into a special storefront or hotel log in and play games on computers that are provided there. Steam would count every user of that computer as a Nvidia owner. I'm sure that's not the only example of this.

Point is AMD should really up their game in the OEM space. And mandate Radeon specifically in Ryzen oem builds. Take a page from intel for crying out loud. We shouldn't be seeing Ryzen laptops with 2080 mobile cards with no Radeon options. This is unacceptable. Whoever is in charge of that should be fired!!!

 

[chris85oc]

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.

Fanboys think like that, you aren’t one so you can’t ‘understand’ why, but it’s easy to see why they think like that.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD need to offer more, and target people with the likes of the streaming craze. They dropped a ball when nvidia got the sound noise cancelling for the mic I thought that was an excellent move, one that AMD should have been faster with. They cant trade blows with nvidia in the GPU space (top end) so need to get past that by offering discounted games or ancillary devices which makes them a valid reason to choose.

Look at Ryzen,it doesn't beat Intel in gaming,and even the first two generations were merely competitive in non-gaming applications. Yet,AMD had very strong sales. Before then,the FX series was a disaster,and the Phenom II series barely were competitive in certain aspects with Intel. Phenom was a disaster. Yet,in the situations AMD was merely competitive,they got decent sales. Compare to their GPU side,over the same time period,ATI/AMD was far more competitive compared to Nvidia,than AMD was compared to Intel for most of that time period.

That is the reason they invested into CPUs,etc and cut GPU R and D for years,and its quite clear Sony/MS/Apple were bankrolling AMD GPU R and D for a few years. They can trade blows with Intel in CPU and get tons of sales,and more money. AMD can sell 80MM2 of 7NM silicon,and a bit larger 12NM I/O die for upto £400. A Navi die is 250MM2 with GDDR6,etc can sell for as low as £250. AMD already is better value for money,etc but in the end if people are making huge expectations that need to be faster,cheaper,better power consumption,more features and launch before Nvidia,that is way too much to expect. They tried that with the HD5870,etc and it didn't really work longterm. Have you noticed ever since the HD4000/HD5000/HD6000 series,AMD has never been as aggressive in launching first,or even pricing aggressively??

If people had the same expectations of the AMD CPU division as they have of their GPU division,Ryzen would have been flop,and most enthusiasts would be still buying Intel. Even RDNA2,is for consoles..if the RDNA2/RDNA3 based GPUs don't sell well,expect AMD to just to push more on the CPU side.

 

[BigBANGtheory]

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.

I think that is a pretty good summary, AMD need to show tangible gains to win over consumers but if they make more out of CPU sales it may indeed be the case they aren't pushing volume and are happy with a higher margin strategy. I hope not but who can say at this point probably only an AMD VP and they sure as hell won't tell you that even if its true. The one saving grace and nugget of info is their use of the word disrupt that implies something more Ryzen like