-
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
Associate
Oh great, thank you.
We didn't have another judgmental post in a while and was looking forward to one.
It's cute how some people believe they have the answer and they simply apply it to everyone else. Everyone else who does not think like me is an idiot, right? You might want to stop and think if that is the correct attitude. Might come up with something surprising
Unless amd go under I won't be buying another nvidia gpu in the foreseeable future.
So what exactly would be the point of selling something that we've already had access to for a quite awhile already for the same price?
They have to price it competitively as that is what competition is all about and why it is great for us consumers! 
Caporegime
So what exactly would be the point of selling something that we've already had access to for a quite awhile already for the same price?
It will be cheaper than the Nvidia alternative but not by silly amounts, not enough to make Nvidia hack lumps of the price of their cards, Nvidia know they don't need to unless AMD are drastically cheaper.
I agree with Panos, AMD have the right to make money, they don't just exist to make life cheaper for Nvidia fanboys.
Soldato
AMD need to price lower that nvidia, if not it's like selling tesco value beans higher than Heinz beans, they won't sell.
Caporegime
This isn't a question about fanboyism, but basic economics; MR = MC and all that.
Pricing your cards where you have no profit makes no sense in basic economics.
Well, if you are late to the party and cannot provide anything over the competition, you really don't have a say when it comes to price.
And it's not always about right now, but about gaining market share and future profits. They might also make some money in the beginning, but in the long run profits are going to diminish due to decreasing demand. And in this particular case releasing a high-performance GPU into a market that has already been saturated by your competitior's GPUs, at the same price isn't the best idea (they need to decrease prices to attract more buyers, otherwise that market would already have been saturated by nvidia).
Last edited:
Soldato
Well, if you are late to the party and cannot provide anything over the competition, you really don't have a say when it comes to price.
They might also make some money in the beginning, but in the long run profits are going to diminish due to decreasing demand. And in this particular case releasing a high-performance GPU into a market that has already been saturated by your competitior's GPUs, at the same price isn't the best idea (they need to decrease prices to attract more buyers, otherwise that market would already have been saturated by nvidia).
I would like to know, are you going to write the same, when Volta arrives around Q2 2018 at an exuberant price when Vega going to be in the market for 8-9 months?
Also must say, having lived with a 1080 for few, no more NV for me. The throttling from 32C is ridiculous, killing the perf of the cards.
Last edited:
Of course - this is not a matter of opinion, but rather about how the market works. If Volta doesn't provide any performance benefit over existing products then of course they are going to have to price it the same! The GTX 1070 was priced exactly the same as the GTX 980 Ti upon release due to it providing no performance benefit. It was newer though so demand did boost the prices.
The sales of the FuryX were also pretty stale due to nvidia offering a better product for the same amount of money, and AMD failing to lower the price enough to lure consumers away from nvidia. Had they released the Fury at the same time at say 500 USD it would have been a whole different matter, as it would have swayed those that wanted better performance, but weren't enthused about the idea of spending 650 USD for it, and it would have topped the performance/$ charts for the high-end segment! Not sure what AMD were thinking at the time, but the hybrid-cooled FuryX with only 4 GB of memory wasn't the best response to the GTX 980 Ti (many benchmarking-sites listed the 4GB as a con).
The Pascal cores are pushing clock speeds waaay over what the TSMC 16nm FF+ process was envisaged running though - at around 300mm2 anything over ~1.8GHz is hugely ambitious nVidia is lucky really to have got away with it - compare for instance what AMD are managing in comparison. With some slight tweaks you shouldn't be losing more than 1-2% performance potential at all due to thermal throttling as worst case you will always (short of maybe some cards with custom BIOS) be running into the ~2.02GHz floor due to the power target anyhow.
Caporegime
Well, if you are late to the party and cannot provide anything over the competition, you really don't have a say when it comes to price.
They might also make some money in the beginning, but in the long run profits are going to diminish due to decreasing demand. And in this particular case releasing a high-performance GPU into a market that has already been saturated by your competitior's GPUs, at the same price isn't the best idea (they need to decrease prices to attract more buyers, otherwise that market would already have been saturated by nvidia).
Yes, i have made this point many times.
Nothing like enough people buy AMD cards over $500 so IMO they shouldn't be wasting resources making card for that market.
Stick to $400 and under, let Nvidia run wild in segments higher than that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,158
I don't think this will ever be done due to the proffesional sector. Amd need a really high end card to compete in that sector. It would be a waste not to transfer that into the gaming segment.
Last edited:
Soldato
That is not an excuse to throttle the cards from the 32C mark.
Caporegime
Throttling while idle lol
Last edited:
Why not? the cards are running considerably above their rated boost clock even when throttling and realistically dealing with the physical properties of the process they are made on. Its not like they are throttling just for lols.
I honestly think the 300-600 USD segment is the most lucrative looking at the sales of the GTX 970 and GTX 1070 (you just need to offer >15% increase in performance especially if you want to price the products at the upper end of the spectrum).
Let's for instance look at the 290/290x - they offered about 10% better performance than the GTX 780 at release for 100 USD less, which of course is better value, but when you really think about it - would you upgrade for only 10% increase if that also meant more noise and higher power usage?
The price was basically stuck at 500 USD until the release of Nvidia's maxwell cards that offered another 15% increase over the 290x at only 50 usd more (GTX 980). The GTX 970 was an absolute steal at only $329 and overclocked like a beast (both cards did), which meant that a lot of GTX 780, and lower, buyers that weren't swayed by AMD's offering due to price/heat/noise suddenly had a decent card to upgrade to for very little money! The low launch price also opened up the market to a lot more buyers, and if you check Steam's hardware survey you can see that AMD's R9 200 series cards had only managed to secure 0.5% during this time, while the GTX 970 then managed to secure over 5%!
And AMD fell into the same trap with the FuryX setting the initial price way too high, and despite offering a decent performance gain over the GTX 980 - it failed to beat the GTX 980 Ti, which became the card to get at around $650. The Fury and Nano were much better cards, but due to being released too late, the market they were for didn't exist anymore (most people grew tired of waiting, and once they saw what the FuryX had to offer, just pulled the trigger on a GTX 980 Ti) and they again didn't offer much for the GTX 980 owners out there:
"As a result there are fewer factors to consider, and in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance." Anandtech
So this was the first time in a long while you had to pay extra to get an 8% performance improvement over the last generation!
No wonder sales weren't great, especially since the custom GTX 980s offered similar/better performance once overclocked for less money. 
Then we have the GTX 1070 which was priced at $429(FE)/$379(custom) at release. The prices of the GTX 980 Ti had already fallen by insane amounts due to high expectations, and the card could be found for as low as $419. Still the GTX 1070 again offered better value, due to a slight performance improvement over the GTX 980 Ti at a lower price (due to high demand prices were of course higher and you could score cheap GTX 980 Tis on the second hand market).
AMD's "response" was the RX 480, which basically was just another x80 product marketed as being something more, and Nvidia of course easily responded with the GTX 1060 which offered better performance for the same amount of money.
Again not sure what AMD were thinking, as they should have been able to see that they would ideally only be able to capture 50% of the RX 480/GTX 1060 market, and with nvidia being nvidia, would most likely fall short of that. I mean why would anyone owning a GTX 970/980/290/290x/390/390x switch to something that offers less performance? Sure there was the x380 market, but that was 0.5% according to Steam's hardware survey, and a lot of those would have course pick the best performing card in that price range and that was the GTX 1060 (haven't checked newer benchmarks, but I assume they are on par now?).
So to sum up we can easily see why Nvidia has earned their place at the top, and why their market share is as high as it is, despite offering what some would call "expensive GPUs" (this is really just due to little to no competition in this segment that would normally have driven down prices by about $50 or so).
Caporegime
Wall of text ^^^^^ the 970 was never $500 so the wall is likely to be nonsense.
If you can't say it in a few sentences don't bother, most people browsing around here don't have time to read text walls.
-------------
Pascal doesn't run 2100Mhz 24/7?
If you can't say it in a few sentences don't bother, most people browsing around here don't have time to read text walls.
-------------
Pascal doesn't run 2100Mhz 24/7?
Last edited:
- Status