• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RBImGuy said:
AMD is likely to have 3 cards faster than the 3070 which then they can place price and performance and Nvidia cant do anything than either drop the 3070 to a loss or the 3080 to a loss.
Click to expand...

Except they won't and they'll likely still outsell AMD's offerings by 10:1

KentMan said:
Nvidia actually done everyone a favour by kinda resetting or almost bringing back prices a bit with the 3080 for £650, although extremely few will ever see that MSRP, it kinda forces AMD to meet similar prices.
Click to expand...

So Nvidia are forced to drop their prices due to having competition from AMD and thus Nvidia are the good guys who are shaming AMD? Wow.

Twinz said:
Really? My 1080Ti launched in the $700 range. $700 dollars will get me a lot more performance with Ampere than it did with Pascal or Turing...or any past generation for that matter. We all know that Turing was a rip off, but we didn't need names to figure that out. The price points and performance told the story.
Click to expand...

Er, the 1080ti was an "almost" Titan card for half the money of one, the 3080 that beats it is not a "Titan class" for that you're paying another grand for the 3090. Yes you're getting more performance but thats expected for a generation jump, price hikes are not. Or is your TV set thats way superior to your parents when you were a kid costing thousands more because its is faster/better/flatter/more features? C'mon, if you buy into this you've been completely suckered by Nvidia.
 
danlightbulb said:
Ok I see what you mean. You weren't talking about progression over time really, just that there won't be too much difference in price between the two if the cards are similar.

I agree. Also don't really care what the very top card does, im in it for the more mainstream cards.
Click to expand...
I'm up for the top tier card but if it's 3090 prices then like you, nope, I want best bang per buck like 99% of the world tbh... so yeah... it really all comes down to price v's performance which ultimatly is the deciding factor. tell you what, they'll be a lot of disaspointed people if Navi is more expensive than nVidia (even if it does give more performance) as I truly think people (including myself) that AMD will undercut them... imagine our shock if they don't...
 
Twinz said:
Or look at the price, and decide if the performance is worth the money. If $700 buys performance (now) that's meaningfully better than that amount of money ever has before it doesn't matter what name they scribble on the box.
Click to expand...

Ok whatever makes you happy, I am more of a forward looking decision maker..

Straw poll (to get back on the topic of this thread):
RX6800 XT equal to RTX3800 in rasterization but 40% slower in RT (not a fact). At what price would you bite the 6800 XT?
 
pugheaven said:
I'm up for the top tuier card but it's it's 3090 prices then like you nope, I want best bang per buck like 99% of the world tbh... so yeah... it really all comes down to price v's performance which ultimatly is the deciding factor. tell you what, they'll be a lot of disaspointed people if Navi is more expensive than nVidia (even if it does give more performance) as I truly think people (including myself) that AMD will undercut them... imagine our shock if they don't...
Click to expand...

If that's what happens then I come down a price tier. Will still be a decent upgrade to what I currently have. I was prepared to stretch to £650 for 3080 performance which will be more than I have ever spent on a single component. I refuse to pay more for a 3080 than that, and similarly I won't pay more than that for AMD's card. The benchmark has been defined now in my opinion.
 
Nablaoperator said:
Ok whatever makes you happy, I am more of a forward looking decision maker..

Straw poll (to get back on the topic of this thread):
RX6800 XT equal to RTX3800 in rasterization but 40% slower in RT. At what price would you bite the 6800 XT?
Click to expand...
do many gamers really care about RT at the mo?, maybe further down the line when there is more take up, but for me, im not bothered with RT myself
 
LePhuronn said:
The 16 series didn't show up for a long-ass time though, so for a period the cost of entry was significantly higher because everything got pushed up a couple of price points. It's more pronounced with Ampere too, what are Nvidia going to fill a $500 void with? And when?
Click to expand...

I’m sorry chap but Twinz is entirely correct, names are irrelevant it’s just price, performance and power consumption that matter (maybe aesthetics if you like your bling too).

Your argument about the entry level being £700 in that case is missing the point. Just because older GPU lines went by a certain nomenclature doesn’t mean you should expect the same from a new line.

Simply look at what performance your budget gets you today compared to the last time you bought and make your buying decision. Then look at the name and whether it’s called the FerretMAXXX 30000 or the Navi 21 should make no difference at all.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Er, the 1080ti was an "almost" Titan card for half the money of one, the 3080 that beats it is not a "Titan class" for that you're paying another grand for the 3090. Yes you're getting more performance but thats expected for a generation jump, price hikes are not.
Click to expand...

I'm getting a lot more performance at at the same price. I'm not getting a price hike at all.

I'll just take out a crayon and scribble "Super-Duper, Big E-peen, Top Tier, Look at me I have the best, THIS IS SPARTAAAA!!! edition" on the the box before I open it.

The same can be said for AMD. I don't care what's on the box.

6400L ("L" for "low performance" of course)...that is as fast as a 3080 for $650? Sign me up!
 
LoadsaMoney said:
I see they're still blaming Nvidia for high pricing, when for the past 5+ years, AMD have been the more expensive, while being slower, and having less features.

You just couldn't make it up :p
Click to expand...
errr... before the 3090, the 2080Ti offered 35% more performance than the 5700XT, and at around 3 times the price (just saying circa 400v1200 within reason)? yes, people are, including myself, going to blame invidia for price rising beings as the most expensive card AMD ever released was the 295X2 at £699 think it was (correct ime if i'm wrong, I bought one it was around that and not sure there was anything else out there to match it performance wise) but at the time was two cards and a one off... and yes, the 3090 is selling for nigh on twice as much as the 3080 (nvidia)... so, yeah, by nVidia putting mental card prices on things that will drive up price so AMD will do the same ultimately because it's a closed market. Not sure AMD ever doubled their GPU prices?

Anyhow it's apples and pears. What we have here is a few years ago we tiopped out at £600 cards, now we're seeing £1799 on OKUK for a 3090 rofl rofl rofl. Yes it's way more powerful but because it's 2x the performance doesn't mean 2x the price, otherwise in 5 years time we'll be paying £4,999 for a top end GPU? That's my logic anyway.

I know what your saying but the price of cards now is getting out of hand at the top end because of ZERO competition. The sooner Intel through their hand in the better for everyone, once again just my thoughts and not saying I'm right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Marak said:
I’m sorry chap but Twinz is entirely correct, names are irrelevant it’s just price, performance and power consumption that matter (maybe aesthetics if you like your bling too).

Your argument about the entry level being £700 in that case is missing the point. Just because older GPU lines went by a certain nomenclature doesn’t mean you should expect the same from a new line.

Simply look at what performance your budget gets you today compared to the last time you bought and make your buying decision. Then look at the name and whether it’s called the FerretMAXXX 30000 or the Navi 21 should make no difference at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah *70 part was lot higher up the stack than it is now.
 
Nablaoperator said:
Ok whatever makes you happy, I am more of a forward looking decision maker..

Straw poll (to get back on the topic of this thread):
RX6800 XT equal to RTX3800 in rasterization but 40% slower in RT (not a fact). At what price would you bite the 6800 XT?
Click to expand...

Nablaoperator said:
So you are okay with $699.. is that a fair assumption?
Click to expand...

I wont buy a card just because of features, but if two cards perform equally for the same price and one of the two *also* has better features, I'll get the one with the better features.

So an AMD "bare-bones" card that otherwise performs as well as the 3080 needs to have *some* discount for me to buy. $100 less and I'm all over it....$50 less...probably.
 
Last edited:
pugheaven said:
errr... before the 3090, the 2080Ti offered 35% more performance than the 5700XT, and at around 3 times the price (just saying circa 400v1200 within reason)? yes, people are, including myself, going to blame invidia for price rising beings as the most expensive card AMD ever released was the 295X2 at £699 think it was (correct ime if i'm wrong, I bought one it was around that and not sure there was anything else out there to match it performance wise) but at the time was two cards and a one off... and yes, the 3090 is selling for nigh on twice as much as the 3080 (nvidia)... so, yeah, by nVidia putting mental card prices on things that will drive up price so AMD will do the same ultimately because it's a closed market. Not sure AMD ever doubled their GPU prices?

Anyhow it's apples and pears. What we have here is a few years ago we tiopped out at £600 cards, now we're seeing £1799 on OKUK for a 3090 rofl rofl rofl. Yes it's way more powerful but because it's 2x the performance doesn't mean 2x the price, otherwise in 5 years time we'll be paying £4,999 for a top end GPU? That's my logic anyway.

I know what your saying but the price of cards now is getting out of hand at the top end because of ZERO competition. The sooner Intel through their hand in the better for everyone, once again just my thoughts and not saying I'm right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Sigh, the 2080 Ti was a card out on its own.

The 4GB FuryX launched at £550, then a week later, it went to £650, the much faster 980 Ti, with an extra 2GB more vram, was only £525.

The Vega 64, if you wanted the 1080 competitor, you had to pay £700 for the LC, now i can't remember how much the 1080 was then, but i don't think it was as high as £700.

The 5700 XT, was competing with the 2070, but was even dearer than the slightly faster 2070 Super, which also had Dx12 Ultimate support, and extra HW for RT.

If they had a higher card, that could touch the 2080 Ti, do you really think they too wouldn't charge £1300+ or more for it ?, of course they would have. :p

AMD said at the time of the Fury, we're no longer want to be to be known as the cheap brand, we are going premium, so thats why since then, they've been the more expensive, and since then, Nvidia have been the cheap brand.

If they have a card that can even sniff the 90s ass, it'll be up there with it on pricing, and you'll all come back, blaming Nvidia yet again, saying, if it wasn't for them pricing their 90 at £1500 (or whatever it is), AMD wouldn't have priced theirs at that pricing, yadda yadda yadda.

For the past 5 years, Nvidia have been cheaper than AMD, and for those past 5 years, they've been getting absolutely slagged to death for their pricing, its a ******* joke!.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom