** The AMD Navi Thread **

[D.P.]

And AMD are therefore losing a golden opportunity to gain back market share by matching Nvidia's prices.

Ryzen's design, release and pricing is clear evidence of a focussed, forward thinking approach and implementation of that plan.
Maximising profits off a 1-year late graphics card is ridiculously short-sighted and will bite them.

Except the evidence is the GFX card consumers are actually happy to pay Nvidia's prices and are avoiding AMD's cheaper products. The market is not as price sensitive as you think.


The CPU market is totally different to GPUs. CPUs have far lower margins and business strategy is very different. Discrete GPUs are aimed at consumers who are already willing to be a substantial amount of money to game, otherwise they would only use a console or smartphone.

 

[Vince]

It's like AMD are working with nvidia at this point, maybe AMD should just sell Radeon to nvidia or intel and call it a day


Radvideon

You realise AMD basically put everything on the line to buy ATI? It was an absolutely monumental risk for them and could have went very wrong so the comment although tongue in cheek doesn't fit with what we all already knew about the AMD Zen vision. It's not about consumer GPU's its about IP, it is as simple as that. In this thread we appear to have a lot of "upset" AMD fans being upset about a product which:

1) We always knew was a mid range product (so why people with or who had high end cards such as 7/2080/ti etc are disappointed seems weird to me).
2) The cost of the product isn't as simple as the sum of the parts that go to making it. So assuming they can give it away when it matches or exceeds a competing product is madness for any business and to assume that they would do that would be your issue, not theirs.

Lets look at it from a different aspect, you work in hospitality right? Lets say you run your own hotel and you have a competing hotel across the road with similar rooms, grounds and food quality etc, in fact give or take personal preference there isn't a whole lot to choose between the two and for the sake of this there is also plenty of customers available to you in your pool of customers. So your hotel is doing ok and you tick over making just enough to pay everybody and carry on for the next month. Over the road however they seem to be bustling, do you? 1) Reduce your prices, screw your margin and effectively make a loss for each person coming through the door in the hope that your offering will entice them back (presumably at an expected reduced price)? Or do you 2) carry on offering what you were at the prices you were happy with, while still innovating and making a decent margin yet still managing to pay everybody and carry on?

You choose your weapon, option 1 and you make about the same / less and are much busier as a result. Option 2 you carry on while making some choice changes based on client feedback (remember we are not the client, in this instance sony, ms, google etc etc are).

Not only you but people in general need to have a good look at what they are actually expecting and rationalise that against what they are willing to pay. 20 years a customer or not doesn't matter, a customer for 20 years who is buying products at what they cost to produce isn't really a customer that they want / need.

 

[4K8KW10]

Stella increased their price considerably and enjoyed far greater sales volume at massively increased profit margins.

What is stella and why should you compare it with videocards pricing?!

 

[D.P.]

Well despite all the doom and gloom I think there is actually something brewing. I find it quite funny that AdoredTV Jim has flipped and gotten really grumpy about Navi when he's usually pretty good at analysis and seeing the bigger picture, and he did a rough price up of Navi cards based on information we do know. I roughly determined that the 5700 XT at $449 is carrying $230 markup. Obviously that's not pure profit because R&D and whatnot needs to be considered, but it's certainly higher than the 45% Lisa Su stated she wanted to put on her kit.

Then I watched a video from Moore's Law Is Dead who posited an interesting idea: AMD are goading Nvidia into a price war, because without some kind of shift in existing prices where exactly do Nvidia pitch the Supers? There's not that much of a gap between the existing tiers to squeeze more cards in, and if (for example) a 2070 Super is almost a 2080 then there's a risk of one cannibalising sales of the other. And if the non-Supers get a price drop, where do they drop to if AMD does have a chunk of wiggle room on their Navi cards to respond? $230 markup on a 5700 XT is quite the potential war chest.

I can see 5700 XT dropping to about $370-400 by August-ish if the 2070 non-Super comes down to $430 or so. And in a silly sort of way, that is a little bit of the market correction we all wanted to see with an aggressively priced Navi.

Let's see what happens.

TL,

but the whole point of the super cards is just to replace the old cardss. The vanilla 2070/2080 will no longer exist, they are EOL. The price reduction is only to shift old stock. nvidia are not cannibalizing any of their sales.


And I would stay well clear of Adored TV if you want to get a reasonable look at the GPU industry and the state of AMD. I expect this is where you have gone wrong, watching trashing YT videos without a single shred of evidence and believing in obviously ridiculous clams form an inter troll.

 

[D.P.]

Yeah OK. I flesh out and give a little more context to your initial, incomplete example and yet I'm the one spouting nonsense

Within my little corner of the world, yes. Yes I do. Because I don't give a rat's ass about R&D costs, I don't give a rat's ass about bankruptcy (as you yourself say a consumer should not), and yet I sure as **** am not buying a 5700 XT at £450. Nor are people on this forum. Nor are other commenters and consumers elsewhere on the interwebs. So if AMD's experts think that £450 is a good price yet the consumer base think it's not, pray tell who's wrong here? Unless of course you think not letting AMD butt*** us like Nvidia and Intel have done somehow makes us wrong?

This might be hard for you to believe, but AMD don't actually care about you, they care about their share holders. You might not like what AMD has done, but AMD have acted ina way that their experts believe maximizes the chance of generating healthy profits using all the data they have available.

 

[LePhuronn]

You have pulled a 5:1 ratio out of your backside
Nope, it was a rough idea based on opinions and "nay" votes on this forum about who'd buy at $450. And certainly has a modicum of logic behind it, rather than the numbers you similarly pulled out of your backside.

You pulled a $200 BoM out of your backside
Nope, it was based on some analysis of estimated yields using the wafer cost calculator and other BoM costs from around the web done by a few different tech tubers.

And yet you expect me to take your simplistic example seriously?
That is entirely your prerogative, but if your need to acknowledge my presence is fuelled purely to laugh at my apparent inadequacies then I'd suggest you stop responding.

I know full well the price elasticity of demand, a don't need a 5 year old's interpretation. You are just showing your complete naivety about how companies like AMD derive pricing models. It is far more complex, far more variables.
And by what possible metric did I ever insinuate I was factoring in complexities? What is it with this forum that starts crying when somebody attempts a few illustrative numbers and then starts banging on about "but it's much more complex". Yes. Yes I know it is, and I never made overtures to the contrary. Given that you're starting to strop like a 5 year old it's rather fitting you feel my interpretation is of the same age.

here is something that will completely throw you. Stella increased their price considerably and enjoyed far greater sales volume at massively increased profit margins.
Well there's no accounting for taste, is there.

This might be hard for you to believe, but AMD don't actually care about you, they care about their share holders.
And I'm not naive enough to think that they do.

You might not like what AMD has done, but AMD have acted ina way that their experts believe maximizes the chance of generating healthy profits using all the data they have available.
We'll see how that pans out for them then.

 

[4K8KW10]

You realise AMD basically put everything on the line to buy ATI? It was an absolutely monumental risk for them and could have went very wrong so the comment although tongue in cheek doesn't fit with what we all already knew about the AMD Zen vision. It's not about consumer GPU's its about IP, it is as simple as that. In this thread we appear to have a lot of "upset" AMD fans being upset about a product which:

1) We always knew was a mid range product (so why people with or who had high end cards such as 7/2080/ti etc are disappointed seems weird to me).
2) The cost of the product isn't as simple as the sum of the parts that go to making it. So assuming they can give it away when it matches or exceeds a competing product is madness for any business and to assume that they would do that would be your issue, not theirs.

Lets look at it from a different aspect, you work in hospitality right? Lets say you run your own hotel and you have a competing hotel across the road with similar rooms, grounds and food quality etc, in fact give or take personal preference there isn't a whole lot to choose between the two and for the sake of this there is also plenty of customers available to you in your pool of customers. So your hotel is doing ok and you tick over making just enough to pay everybody and carry on for the next month. Over the road however they seem to be bustling, do you? 1) Reduce your prices, screw your margin and effectively make a loss for each person coming through the door in the hope that your offering will entice them back (presumably at an expected reduced price)? Or do you 2) carry on offering what you were at the prices you were happy with, while still innovating and making a decent margin yet still managing to pay everybody and carry on?

You choose your weapon, option 1 and you make about the same / less and are much busier as a result. Option 2 you carry on while making some choice changes based on client feedback (remember we are not the client, in this instance sony, ms, google etc etc are).

Not only you but people in general need to have a good look at what they are actually expecting and rationalise that against what they are willing to pay. 20 years a customer or not doesn't matter, a customer for 20 years who is buying products at what they cost to produce isn't really a customer that they want / need.

The GlobalFoundries split off saved them, actually.
About 2):

Well, the costs of the products is something that is very known and simple for them. They have experience with that over decades...

It's just that the top management want higher bonuses in the end of the year, so that's why the higher profit margins hit.

 

[Vince]

TL,

but the whole point of the super cards is just to replace the old cardss. The vanilla 2070/2080 will no longer exist, they are EOL. The price reduction is only to shift old stock. nvidia are not cannibalizing any of their sales.


And I would stay well clear of Adored TV if you want to get a reasonable look at the GPU industry and the state of AMD. I expect this is where you have gone wrong, watching trashing YT videos without a single shred of evidence and believing in obviously ridiculous clams form an inter troll.

Do we actually know this already re the super cards? Doesn't seem right to me, they have never retired the current while fleshing out the stack (apart from with superior products of the same name, im thinking the gtx 260 whith varying shader count) - Got some linky to more about the release? I'm not in the market but am curious.

 

[Panos]

I can see 5700 XT dropping to about $370-400 by August-ish if the 2070 non-Super comes down to $430 or so. And in a silly sort of way, that is a little bit of the market correction we all wanted to see with an aggressively priced Navi.

Let's see what happens.

The rumoured MSRP reduction could be for the 2070 FE card which is $600 atm.

 

[Vince]

The GlobalFoundries split off saved them, actually.
About 2):

Well, the costs of the products is something that is very known and simple for them. They have experience with that over decades...

It's just that the top management want higher bonuses in the end of the year, so that's why the higher profit margins hit.

Yea simplistic was the approach I took Plus the sale of IBM's microelectronics to Glofo also played it's part in where we are today. I mean there is obviously many factors over an above an overly simplistic scenario I laid out but the jist is there At least I think it is!

 

[D.P.]

Do we actually know this already re the super cards? Doesn't seem right to me, they have never retired the current while fleshing out the stack (apart from with superior products of the same name, im thinking the gtx 260 whith varying shader count) - Got some linky to more about the release? I'm not in the market but am curious.

None of it is confirmed but that is what the rumours indicate, and logically Nvidia are not going to produce a dozen different GPUs so close to each other. Nvidia want to release the super cards at the same time as Navi, yet their inventory is probably quite high.

 

[LePhuronn]

The rumoured MSRP reduction could be for the 2070 FE card which is $600 atm.

That could end up doing diddly-squat then if you can already get a Gigabyte Windforce for $480 on US Rainforest.

I wonder if AMD's experts D.P. is lauding so hard actually looked at AIB cards, not Nvidia's Founders? Because the $550 for 2070 they stated just doesn't exist in reality.

 

[Vince]

None of it is confirmed but that is what the rumours indicate, and logically Nvidia are not going to produce a dozen different GPUs so close to each other. Nvidia want to release the super cards at the same time as Navi, yet their inventory is probably quite high.

Yea im just wondering where they are in the stack. I have a feeling the "super" moniker basically replaces the Ti but they can't rename the current 2080 to a Ti as there is already one of them.... So 2060/2070/2080 Super it is then. Leaving the Ti Moniker to just the 2080 ti which can then also have a 2080 Ti Super. It fixes the glaring 1080(non TI)/2080 issue with naming in their stack. I genuinely think it's that simple and super is just a way to fix the fact they can't give the 2080 a ti.

 

[Poneros]

Do we actually know this already re the super cards? Doesn't seem right to me, they have never retired the current while fleshing out the stack (apart from with superior products of the same name, im thinking the gtx 260 whith varying shader count) - Got some linky to more about the release? I'm not in the market but am curious.

All rumours, not official.

https://videocardz.com/81046/nvidia-geforce-rtx-20-super-series-to-launch-mid-july

This is more or less pulling a Polaris. Just like the 480 -> 580 jump from AMD, no more than 10% performance bump.

 

[Vince]

All rumours, not official.

https://videocardz.com/81046/nvidia-geforce-rtx-20-super-series-to-launch-mid-july

This is more or less pulling a Polaris. Just like the 480 -> 580 jump from AMD, no more than 10% performance bump.

Sort of hints at what I am saying above. Should be interesting to see what they do.

 

[Illuminist]

Sort of hints at what I am saying above. Should be interesting to see what they do.

In hospitality, you are dynamic with the pricing, the prices go up the less rooms you have left, and the closer to the time it becomes, also if certain events are happening nearby, you have to be aware.
It's not as simple as you made out as it''s not the same way gpu's are priced, otherwise the prices would change every single week due to stock levels with vendors. and as they sold out the last ones would be 2x more expensive, with prices going up on the gpus as new games came out that are most popular.

But yeah I'm just bored at work , maybe not thinking it through

 

[D.P.]

All rumours, not official.

https://videocardz.com/81046/nvidia-geforce-rtx-20-super-series-to-launch-mid-july

This is more or less pulling a Polaris. Just like the 480 -> 580 jump from AMD, no more than 10% performance bump.

Except Nvidia are not rebranding the cards and pretending it is a whole new architecture. They are explicitly keeping the 20x0 series naming

 

[Vince]

In hospitality, you are dynamic with the pricing, the prices go up the less rooms you have left, and the closer to the time it becomes, also if certain events are happening nearby, you have to be aware.
It's not as simple as you made out as it''s not the same way gpu's are priced, otherwise the prices would change every single week due to stock levels with vendors. and as they sold out the last ones would be 2x more expensive, with prices going up on the gpus as new games came out that are most popular.

But yeah I'm just bored at work , maybe not thinking it through

Simplistic overview was too simplistic, plus I know you and know what you were getting at and in fact why you changed as we spoke about it - This thread over the last few pages though shows how people generally are on any given product and and it's obvious from somebody standing back reading that people really get overly into it, I mean I love it as much as the next man but when is all said and done it's just a bit of metal and plastic. For a product that has yet to release it read like a load of teenagers fighting over who gets the last piece of KFC.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

It does it very competently & I'm not talking for others, only myself.

Sorry but a £500 gpu struggling to get 50fps at 1080p is not competently.

 

[humbug]

And AMD are therefore losing a golden opportunity to gain back market share by matching Nvidia's prices.

Ryzen's design, release and pricing is clear evidence of a focussed, forward thinking approach and implementation of that plan.
Maximising profits off a 1-year late graphics card is ridiculously short-sighted and will bite them.

Few people buy AMD GPU's, more people than not just want AMD to be cheap so nVidia lowers the price on their cards which they then go and buy.

AMD need to make some money too, just being there as a pricing check against nVidia has not worked for them in over a decade so they've given up on it.