You've got it completely backwards and obviously spend way too much time on boards like this thinking they represent the average PC gamer.
-
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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
Exactly.
I cannot believe my eyes he is still digging a hole for himself. It all started when he replied to my post where I gave my expectation and he disagreed with them:
Going by what he is saying now it is clear he has no foresight and just looked at what the card prices were at the time. Even more embarrassingly he clearly does not know what's what as now he is claiming that only the 1080 was out when we had this debate at the time! But last I checked the Titan XP was released in August 2016, the debate we had was on 22nd September 2016 well over a month after
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Well, We got pricing competition with Ryzen so let's hope RTG follow their lead and do the same.
Months ago I predicted it would give us 1080 performance at best but the longer we wait and the more I think about it, we all need better than that, If it is giving performance somewhere between a 1070 and 1080 that means AMD have fallen behind by a massive margin and they'll need Navi to be a miracle product..
Last edited:
Yep, £50 less than a TXP would be suicide, even if the card is slightly faster than the TXP. You have the 1080Ti sitting at $699, so if AMD have the performance to match the TXP or the 1080Ti, I would think they would drop in around or slightly cheaper to compete. If AMD consistently beat NVidia over a couple of generations, they would be the market leader in terms of sales and would have the ability to charge more.
I really don't get why anyone would think that £50 less than a TXP would be a good thing, even if it is relative to performance.
If AMD want to do well then they will not price it around 1080ti at all, sell it for 1080 price max even if its equal to NV current top end in performance, just like what AMD have done with there current top end Ryzen.
It doesn't have to be 1080Ti performance, all they need is a 1080 DX11 performance comparative/smash their back doors in DX12 AMD 8Gb Vega gpu@~£330, now that would make some noise, bring back the brand recognition with improved marketshare.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,990
- Location
- London
This is why I'm holding out for Vega. I have a feeling the launch will be similar to Ryzen. They did it with the 480 as well.. that is bringing enthusiast features down to consumer pricing.
That's AMD marketing strategy.
Allow the competition to set the pricing at the high end, then come to market and sell the high end performance of the competition at much cheaper prices.
May not end up with a Vega but at least I'll know what Vega is and it will bring down current prices.
That's AMD marketing strategy.
Allow the competition to set the pricing at the high end, then come to market and sell the high end performance of the competition at much cheaper prices.
May not end up with a Vega but at least I'll know what Vega is and it will bring down current prices.
+1
But i think it would be more around the £400 mark.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I've been saying that I'm expecting 1080 performance at best since last year, and I've been saying I'll be happy with that, Then we got the video of Vega matching the 1080 in Vulkan Doom which solidifies the thought that it will sit in between the 1070 and 1080 in dx11 stuff so it won't be a shock if it is 1080 performance, However I think it'll cost closer to 600.
My Fury Pro cost me 450 when it was new to the market and that was the small Fiji card so I think big Vega will easily cost close to a 1080ti regardless of whether it matches it, that is a shame too as it will leave them with a card that looks overpriced for what it is. And what's even sadder is that I'll still be buying one to match it up with my Freesync monitor.
The pp can be anything tbh, it just needs to be the next tier up performance(1080)but under the 1070 pp wherever it lands.
Ignoring Fiji, going historically, slower lesser specced costlier Nv gpu's still manage to outsell AMD card due to mindshare imo.
But, if AMD want market share, they need to pull off a Ryzen and get people talking and taking notice about their products and the best way to do it is release a ground shaking gpu that doesn't need to be the fastest but opens up the market to everyone that's been screaming out for a high end gpu under the £350 pp, that pp is a bigger addressable market than the existing>£350 market, it's huge-think 970 huge.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Zen seems to show aggressive pricing is possible so I'll go with 1080 for a price they will compete with while outperforming also possibly. One or the other and hopefully both
Im guessing Vega isnt there to compete at that Fury or Titan level of extreme performance and price but maybe this is what the higher and lower release will be about
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,579
High end parts and performance will obviously come at a cost, AMD aren't going to deliver 1080Ti performance at half the price I think that's simply unrealistic.
Vega is also targeting the High end not the "average PC gamer", as a high end consumer myself there is only the 1080Ti in my eyes so Vega will perform higher or lower there is no middle ground and price whilst important is secondary to performance in this case to me and probably many others.
Vega is also targeting the High end not the "average PC gamer", as a high end consumer myself there is only the 1080Ti in my eyes so Vega will perform higher or lower there is no middle ground and price whilst important is secondary to performance in this case to me and probably many others.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,990
- Location
- London
HBM2 will make it expensive. But I expect there will be a tradeoff, otherwise AMD wouldn't be going for it.
My particular feeling is that these cards are aimed at the VR market. Massive bandwidth and massive memory caches.
That's what all this HMBC is all about after all. Or what I see it geared towards.
Plus huge emphasis on VR during the capsaicin and cream event.
My particular feeling is that these cards are aimed at the VR market. Massive bandwidth and massive memory caches.
That's what all this HMBC is all about after all. Or what I see it geared towards.
Plus huge emphasis on VR during the capsaicin and cream event.
Exactly.
I cannot believe my eyes he is still digging a hole for himself. It all started when he replied to my post where I gave my expectation and he disagreed with them:
Going by what he is saying now it is clear he has no foresight and just looked at what the card prices were at the time. Even more embarrassingly he clearly does not know what's what as now he is claiming that only the 1080 was out when we had this debate at the time! But last I checked the Titan XP was released in August 2016, the debate we had was on 22nd September 2016 well over a month after
While you are right i got my dates mixed up, the point does not change, AMD are in there right to charge £50 less for the same relative performance to what the competition is offering at the top end, the point was not whether we would like it or not.
I have not been following closely lately because there is little of interest, Titans and XP don't interest me after the initial release because the price in my opinion is silly so i pay very little attention to them hence why i have been only looking at 1080 prices and cards below.
If Vega was confirmed be anywhere near XP TI price point i would not be wasting any of my time in reading up on whats going on untill release and then not bother following whats going on with it again while its at a silly price point.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
They are obsessed with VR, thats not the first time Ive heard that. I guess its the industrys job to not get caught asleep at the wheel in terms of new developments, markets, new customers who arent even normally gamers. That horizon represents rapid growth, not just recycling of current market share. As both companies are stock listed and very hyped by finance analysts that would match the hunger for that new direction.
Personally I wont touch VR in the next decade I bet
Personally I wont touch VR in the next decade I bet
I thought you blocked me?
AMD can charge whatever they want. But end of the day this whole debate started when you thought I was being unreasonable saying £500-£600 for Titan XP performance when Vega would launch 9-12 month's after it. I think not only did you get the dates mixed up, but also what the whole debate was about in the first place
No problem, I don't hold grudges.
£350, that would really be pushing it as i was paying £400 top tier in 2006. If its £350 then it will be unlikely be there top end card.
I hear what you are saying and VR does need bigger res screens and that special something (no idea what) to make it really take off. I love my Rift but it is mainly gathering dust at present purely because lack of content. There are some decent games that need to be seen really (Elite Dangerous being my all time favourite) and whilst VR seems to be the talk from GPU vendors, I would be surprised if many VR owners are using it gaming on a day to day basis who bought at launch. Another point is VR capapble cards are out there now. PCars runs very well on a 1080, as does any other VR game I have and 4K was easily doable a generation or 2 back, albeit settings needed turning down but they still do in most of the graphical intensive/frame demanding games.
On saying that, if there was a 4K version of the rift, I would buy it straight away but that is for a different subject. As for Vega, the first release top card will soon be here and we can put this price and performance matter to bed (or we will probably debate for many threads after
)I thought you blocked me?
AMD can charge whatever they want. But end of the day this whole debate started when you thought I was being unreasonable saying £500-£600 for Titan XP performance when Vega would launch 9-12 month's after it. I think not only did you get the dates mixed up, but also what the whole debate was about in the first place
No problem, I don't hold grudges.
But my point was it would not be unreasonable for AMD to charge just £50 less than whatever the Titan XP costs If the XP is still the top performance from NV.
There was no mix up from my original point back in september, with people saying AMD has to offer top end performance for half the price as if they should not be allowed to ask for more just because they are AMD, AMD has near enough matched top performance for half the price before and people still bought NV, but the difference this time is NV prices have gotten to the point many may just be feed up enough to going AMD this time for there high end fix as i said in another thread NV's own actions may be doing more for AMD this time, the only mixup was on the dates and current prices, is NV offering you Titan XP performance for £500-£600 ?, its about £700.
Last edited:
- Status