• 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.

Hi all, visiting from a different forum to try and find some answers about AMD's pricing on Vega

Blackjack Davy said:
Good grief its been perfectly clear from the outset that these were introductory prices and that means its likely to go up afterwards. Whats so hard to understand about that? People apparently have amnesia and are trying to paint it as deliberate deception. The information was right there from the start. Its obvious AMD were aiming to match the 1080 in performance and thats what they've achieved, albeit at the expense of pushing the chip hard hence the high temperatures. Also why do people think the 1080ti was released when it was, only a few months after the new XP when even the reviewers were grumbling about it? Nvidia obviously got wind of what AMD were up to and pushed out the ti to pull the rug from under AMD's feet the same as they did with the 980ti/Fury.

The amount of hysteria over this launch is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not everybody buys from or even reads this forum, it was obfuscated from reviewers hence why reviews all stated they believed the msrp for the base version was going to be $499 and the whole review/conclusion was coloured by this price point being the one that was going to be available. Even other retailers either didnt seem to know or chose not to reveal this info.

Props to ocuk/jibbo for being upfront but quite obviously everyone else involved is drawing some flak for not being abundantly clear on what the real price was going to be.

If ocuk had been the only outlet who knew in advance about the 3.5gb 970 issue, would nvidia have drawn any less flak over it? No of course not.

Some people like to paint AMD as the good guys and nvidia as inherently evil. What this situation highlights is that they both will play fast and loose with "facts" if they think it serves their purpose.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Good grief its been perfectly clear from the outset that these were introductory prices and that means its likely to go up afterwards. Whats so hard to understand about that? People apparently have amnesia and are trying to paint it as deliberate deception. The information was right there from the start. Its obvious AMD were aiming to match the 1080 in performance and thats what they've achieved, albeit at the expense of pushing the chip hard hence the high temperatures. Also why do people think the 1080ti was released when it was, only a few months after the new XP when even the reviewers were grumbling about it? Nvidia obviously got wind of what AMD were up to and pushed out the ti to pull the rug from under AMD's feet the same as they did with the 980ti/Fury.

The amount of hysteria over this launch is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The issue is that retailers where getting the rebates but this information wasn't passed onto reviewers who were drawing conclusions and recommendations based on the lower price. If prices go up but $100 after the first 500 cards are sold and the remaining 7500 are 20% to 25% more expensive it materially invalidates those conclusions, that's why people are getting up set (btw OCUK were the only retailer to make this clear that this was a limited deal).

Well done to Gibbo for making this clear but shame on AMD for trying to pull a stunt like this.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Good grief its been perfectly clear from the outset that these were introductory prices
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can make that statement, the reviews certainly were not aware that these were introductory prices, it seems from all the fuss about Gibbos statement that the first people knew about the truth of this was when he posted it.
 
My thoughts on vega. For me i think vega is a bit of a damp squib as a gaming card. Not terrible but just not able to really match pascal. But it looks like its compute is really good. So while it kinda sucks for gamers, i think if profesionals and miners are going to buy these cards as fast as amd can make them. Then amd should charge what the miners and pros will pay. Gamers can already buy better gaming cards. Heck the 1080 can be had for under £500 and it handily beats the vega 64 in most games, so we're not really losing out. But if vega can be a cash cow for amd for the next 12 months it can only be good for them. Amd selling vega at cost to gamers will only make it harder for them to compete.

I hope this little ramble makes sence. In short. Amd making money off vega is good in the long term even though it sucks right now for gamers
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Good grief its been perfectly clear from the outset that these were introductory prices and that means its likely to go up afterwards. Whats so hard to understand about that? People apparently have amnesia and are trying to paint it as deliberate deception. The information was right there from the start. Its obvious AMD were aiming to match the 1080 in performance and thats what they've achieved, albeit at the expense of pushing the chip hard hence the high temperatures. Also why do people think the 1080ti was released when it was, only a few months after the new XP when even the reviewers were grumbling about it? Nvidia obviously got wind of what AMD were up to and pushed out the ti to pull the rug from under AMD's feet the same as they did with the 980ti/Fury.

The amount of hysteria over this launch is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...


As above has said, no it was not perfectly clear. The reviewers of the cards based their conclusions on the RRP given to them. This RRP was manipulated by AMD as it was based on discounted stock to the retailers. It was in fact not the RRP as it seems clear now that it was less than the product costs the retailers once the discount is removed.

Many of the reviewers have now stated that they certainly would have reached a different conclusion if they knew the true retail price of the card. Basically vega 64 is NOT worth buying at its current price (caveats been compute/those with freesync monitors (even then its not really recommended))
 
lol If this had been Nvidia a lot of people on this thread would be crucifying them, but because its AMD its ok. Most people I know weren't aware that the lower price was limited to a small batch of cards, they though it was Vega's retail price. It matters not as Vega is a bit of a cluster****

Don't avoid the Swear filter - Thanks, Armageus
 
Scougar said:
I don't recall any other gpu launch that had msrp discounted prices in this manner. They aimed and advertised a price in order to get more favourable reviews. That is what is clear.
Click to expand...

Uhhh the 480 definitely had AMD supporting the retailers to sell the "4GB" which were 8GB cards bios flashed to be appear as 4GB ones.

They met the long in advance advertised price of selling 480 at £175/$200 and it was never seen at that price after that day.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not new at all.

The difference this time is the 480 was still great value for gaming even after the price hikes.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
As above has said, no it was not perfectly clear. The reviewers of the cards based their conclusions on the RRP given to them. This RRP was manipulated by AMD as it was based on discounted stock to the retailers. It was in fact not the RRP as it seems clear now that it was less than the product costs the retailers once the discount is removed.

Many of the reviewers have now stated that they certainly would have reached a different conclusion if they knew the true retail price of the card. Basically vega 64 is NOT worth buying at its current price (caveats been compute/those with freesync monitors (even then its not really recommended))
Click to expand...

Remember, freesync is free*

*but we'll massively over charge for GPU's and you'll all need new 1000w power supplies to prevent constant crashing
 
I'm normally quite supportive of AMD, as the GENERAL attitude from them is far better than we usually see from Nvidia.
That said, this move still utterly stinks, and could have been avoided very, very easily. Whoever thought of this and didn't consider the backlash from this move in the way it came across...well...they need to be removed from marketing, because they've hurt a lot of goodwill amongst those who read the press or computing forums, and that's a bad move, as many of these people will be the same people advising other less knowledgable people.

I'm guessing RTG has independent marketing to the CPU side of AMD, as I didn't see any faux pas nearly as drastic from them recently. With how comparatively late AMD RTG is for the performance compared to current Nvidia cards, this was the last thing they needed.

Shameful.
 
jaffveyda said:
Nothing is free these day, there is always a small print somewhere( or lack of it in this instance :))
Click to expand...

Its just really funny how this forum was flooded with "free"sync talk for a while and now the reality is beginning to bite. I think a few points were raised at the time but people didnt want to hear it.
 
Hotwired said:
Uhhh the 480 definitely had AMD supporting the retailers to sell the "4GB" which were 8GB cards bios flashed to be appear as 4GB ones.

They met the long in advance advertised price of selling 480 at £175/$200 and it was never seen at that price after that day.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not new at all.

The difference this time is the 480 was still great value for gaming even after the price hikes.
Click to expand...
It's not really the same thing. The 480 was released at a starting price of "from $199". It was clear that $199 was for the 4GB model and the 8GB would cost more (different cards).

The issue with Vega 64 is that the same card has risen in price by $100 since initial release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom