• 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.

** The AMD Navi Thread **

Your quite right history tells us one thing and the leaks tell us another.
Their is quite a bit of wishful thinking going on with some of the suggested prices I feel.
I'm sure that the eventual pricing will be quite sensible and allow AMD plenty of wiggle room if NVidia decide to respond to the AMD launch.
 
Of course there is wishful thinking, aren't we all sick of Intel and Nvidia abusing their dominant positions to utterly fleece their customers? I've said many times before that I don't think the pricing in the Navi leaks is realistic, even if it represents AMD's MSRP. Market factors will push it up and if AMD see an opportunity to make cash they, of course, will do so.

But what I'm arguing against is Nvidia and Intel-levels of price gouging. There is no way in hell AMD can expect to flog Navi cards anywhere near Turing prices, it would be a sales suicide. Low margin, high volume is a thing and it is successful in making a profit. Now yes, history has shown that AMD will charge stupid, unwarranted money for their graphics cards but yet we've seen backlash for it, and I would like to think that they won't make the same mistake yet again.

Zen pricing shows that something may have clicked with them and, with the exception of the 1800X (notably not repeated with Zen+), nothing in the Ryzen, Threadripper or EPYC lines since its inception has been bonkers money.

The 2700X is not 9900K money despite being in the same performance ballpark. 2600 and 2600X is not 8700K/9600K money. Threadripper significantly undercuts Skylake X. So why suddenly are people talking about Zen 2 costing Intel equivalent money? Why does Lisa Su's measured and intentional CPU pricing logic not apply to her GPUs?

Give it a couple of years until Intel have been ground into dust and AMD are the dominant CPU player. Give it a couple of years until AMD have closed the gap to Nvidia and are properly competing and beating across all ranges. THEN AMD can (and will) abuse their market dominance with prices. But they can't right now, so they won't.
 
LePhuronn said:
THEN AMD can (and will) abuse their market dominance with prices. But they can't right now, so they won't.
Click to expand...
They already are, I've already explained that they've been matching Nvidia pricing for several generations even when they don't match the performance as we saw with the Fury X. As for matching Turing prices they got 2080 performance with the VII & they matched it's price as they'll do with Navi, Nothing's going to change anytime soon, I wish it would but it won't, Things are constantly fluid when you try and match performance levels to pricing, That's why we always see cherrypicked results used to justify why X is worth the same as Y when AMD show their pre-release results. We see it time & time again so how people can sit there & claim otherwise is beyond me.
 
nashathedog said:
I don't play PUBG but I've been running 3440x1440 with a Vega 64 or VII for over a year or so & they've both done a great job.

What if this what if that? Your argument is based on AMD not doing something AMD has done time & time again, like the question your argument relies on what if's not facts.

As an example look at the Fury X, just prior to it's release there was plenty of people like yourself talking about how AMD would undercut Nvidia to gain market share with the Fiji cards but it never happened.
Even though the Fury X couldn't match the 980ti's performance it released with the same $649 launch price meaning we got less for our money, less performance & less memory which people tried to excuse with the 4gb's of HBM is like 6gb's of GDDR5 claim. Fast forward to the Vega 64 & Koduri tried to make it look like the Vega 64 undercut the GTX1080 on release by making a very limited number of cards available at a lower price, once they were gone it was back to the real msrp. People still bought the Vega cards though so why would AMD decide to change how they approach pricing this time when they haven't any other time? Yes, It'd be great if they did but history tells us they won't unless there's something big working against the new architecture, & even then they might not so basing an argument on how they will this time is folly.
Click to expand...

These are good points. The only cavet is that Fury and Vega with their HBM memory were much more expensive to produce than Navi should be. Radeon 7 is also a massively expensive product they're probably not making a profit on. Where as Navi's yield results are supposed to be very good, which I believe reduces cost. Vega cards have been undercutting Nvidia for a while as has the 570 and 580. Ofcourse you could point to this being end of line.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
These are good points. The only cavet is that Fury and Vega with their HBM memory were much more expensive to produce than Navi should be. Radeon 7 is also a massively expensive product they're probably not making a profit on. Where as Navi's yield results are supposed to be very good, which I believe reduces cost. Vega cards have been undercutting Nvidia for a while as has the 570 and 580. Ofcourse you could point to this being end of line.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to seeing what Navi offers in the price & performance stakes but even with GDDR 5 or 6 memory I can't see them undercutting Nvidia by much, If you look back at the last GDDR5 models Polaris and Grenada you can see that they didn't do it then either, On launch the 8gb 480 was only a tenner less that a 6gb GTX 1060, As for Grenada it was refined Hawaii meaning the yields would have been good and development wouldn't of been that expensive as even though it went with 8gb's of GDDR5 over the 4gb Hawaii's they already worked on & developed the 8gb 290x so you'd think that with Grenada being what it was they would have had the opportunity to under cut Nvidia's 970 & 980 pricing by a large margin. The 390's launch price was the same as the 970's, The 390x did undercut the 980 and by a large difference but at the time the 980 was an overpriced pretend flagship, at least it was until the Titan X released 6 months later and then the 980ti 3 months after that.
I want AMD's Navi to undercut Turing with big price drops but I just can't see it happening especially not now the cheaper 1600 series Turing cards are here.
 
nashathedog said:
I want AMD's Navi to undercut Turing with big price drops but I just can't see it happening especially not now the cheaper 1600 series Turing cards are here.
Click to expand...
And this is the trick: they won't need to undercut GTX Turing by much because GTX Turing doesn't have the fancy new "awesome" RTX kit. You'll have AMD cards and Nvidia cards you can directly compare against without any other confusion, and let the performance and price battle commence. And as an aside, why do you think Nvidia have priced GTX 1600 so low? Surely it's not because Navi has been long-rumoured to be cheap yet performant, and thereby pre-empting the ?

The entire argument for Navi undercutting Nvidia is when pitched against RTX Turing because of the perceived upsell in getting ray tracing and DLSS. The general consumer isn't going to fully know that RTX tech is underwhelming at this point in time, all they'll see is the Nvidia marketing machine and the mindshare that goes with it, and if you have AMD cards priced only (comparatively) a couple quid less than Nvidia, the general consumer is probably just going to drop that tiny bit more and get RT and DLSS. Price Navi 25-30% cheaper than RTX Turing and the decision to pay the extra isn't quite as straightforward.
 
nashathedog said:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Navi offers in the price & performance stakes but even with GDDR 5 or 6 memory I can't see them undercutting Nvidia by much, If you look back at the last GDDR5 models Polaris and Grenada you can see that they didn't do it then either, On launch the 8gb 480 was only a tenner less that a 6gb GTX 1060, As for Grenada it was refined Hawaii meaning the yields would have been good and development wouldn't of been that expensive as even though it went with 8gb's of GDDR5 over the 4gb Hawaii's they already worked on & developed the 8gb 290x so you'd think that with Grenada being what it was they would have had the opportunity to under cut Nvidia's 970 & 980 pricing by a large margin. The 390's launch price was the same as the 970's, The 390x did undercut the 980 and by a large difference but at the time the 980 was an overpriced pretend flagship, at least it was until the Titan X released 6 months later and then the 980ti 3 months after that.
I want AMD's Navi to undercut Turing with big price drops but I just can't see it happening especially not now the cheaper 1600 series Turing cards are here.
Click to expand...

TBF the 1660, 1660ti and 2060 are all reasonably priced cards. The only real issue is the inbuilt obsolescence of the 6gb. In 2 years or so that will become an issue on the latest games. If Navi offers 8gb similar versions at similar prices, it's already a better deal for my money.

But the thing is AMD know they need to beat the 2060 because the 2060 offers RTX/DLSS and initial Navi probably doesn't. I mean it might but yea. Although I suppose Radeon 7 doesn't have RTX so maybe VRAM will be their selling point.
 
LePhuronn said:
Of course there is wishful thinking, aren't we all sick of Intel and Nvidia abusing their dominant positions to utterly fleece their customers? I've said many times before that I don't think the pricing in the Navi leaks is realistic, even if it represents AMD's MSRP. Market factors will push it up and if AMD see an opportunity to make cash they, of course, will do so.

But what I'm arguing against is Nvidia and Intel-levels of price gouging. There is no way in hell AMD can expect to flog Navi cards anywhere near Turing prices, it would be a sales suicide. Low margin, high volume is a thing and it is successful in making a profit. Now yes, history has shown that AMD will charge stupid, unwarranted money for their graphics cards but yet we've seen backlash for it, and I would like to think that they won't make the same mistake yet again.

Zen pricing shows that something may have clicked with them and, with the exception of the 1800X (notably not repeated with Zen+), nothing in the Ryzen, Threadripper or EPYC lines since its inception has been bonkers money.

The 2700X is not 9900K money despite being in the same performance ballpark. 2600 and 2600X is not 8700K/9600K money. Threadripper significantly undercuts Skylake X. So why suddenly are people talking about Zen 2 costing Intel equivalent money? Why does Lisa Su's measured and intentional CPU pricing logic not apply to her GPUs?

Give it a couple of years until Intel have been ground into dust and AMD are the dominant CPU player. Give it a couple of years until AMD have closed the gap to Nvidia and are properly competing and beating across all ranges. THEN AMD can (and will) abuse their market dominance with prices. But they can't right now, so they won't.
Click to expand...
I agree, however the 1800X was half the price of the equivalent Intel chip on release which shows how much Intel were taking the mickey.

They absolutely need to do this with Nvidia too as you say. Nvidia charge these ridiculous prices because they can due to their dominant market position and a lack of competition, AMD absolutely cannot afford to follow suit as they are struggling to sell superior products in the low to mid range for less money as it is. This is because of a lack of an all-conquering halo product, poor marketing and the strength of Nvidia's brand as well as the prevalence of gameworks titles which are optimised for Nvidia to the detriment of AMD.

Also, AMD need at least a few years of dominance to get on an equal footing with Intel (with compelling products and prices that make it difficult for people not to switch to them) and then we can have two roughly equal companies fighting for our money which is great for the consumer. If Intel manage to fight back more quickly than this then AMD could be crushed before they can fully recover.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Its less than that for a GTX1070 - IIRC,they could be had for £230 recently.
Click to expand...

Correct. . I ended up with a Refund on my Vega because it got lost after the RMA, with the refund i was planning on getting another 64 but due to the imminent arrival of Navi i thought i would go for something cheaper like a 590, but the 1070 was priced the same so it was a no brainer.
 
Interesting board.

2x 8-pin PCIe goes against the small and efficient belief about midrange Navi so this could mean

a: just an engineering board
b: midrange Navi is a hungry beast after all (for shame, AMD, for shame)
c: this could actually for big Navi 20 and populated with Samsung's 2GB GDDR6 modules for 16GB RAM
d: the above could equally apply to a workstation card

I'm leaning towards a, although c does tickle my fancy.

Maybe one of the improvements AMD has made with Navi is sorting out memory bandwidth? I've expressed concern about the precedent AMD set by making such a big deal about Radeon VII's VRAM capacity and bandwidth in that it becomes a very hard act to follow with "real", explicitly designed gaming cards. Memory refinements to only need 256 bit bus and Sammy's 2GB modules would follow on perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom