• 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 RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***

Case1987 said:
I expect the price to be £699 for the 9070XT after reading this
Click to expand...

Price without context is meaningless, if it has enough performance $700 may not look at all unreasonable, it may even look really good.

As @gpuerrilla alluded to we know now $1000 for the 5080 is a fake price, FE cards in limited numbers are that but good luck finding an AIB card for less than $1200 when they are gone, you might find a couple $1100 or under with junk coolers i should caveat but you get what i'm saying...

If it can get to or near 90% the performance of a 5080 $700 is not bad at all, if however its no better than a 4070 Ti then yeah that's bad.
 
Last edited:
The cheapest 5080 is £1160, there are "a couple" yeah..... $1200. most are £1300.
 
Last edited:
aminegriffy said:
Do you guys reckon that the 9070 non XT is gonna beat the 4070 super ? I'll very skeptical around these rumours that 9070xt is gonna come close to a 4080 super. AMD slides clearly stated that 9070xt is targeting the 7900xt with better RT, whilst the 9070 is targeting the 7700XT/7800XT range.
Click to expand...

That slide is about naming convention, IE 9070 = equivalent tier to 5070 and 9070 XT equivalent to 5070 Ti, the ##70 being..... well ##70 and the XT being Ti.

That's not to say this is the equivalent performance, its just how AMD wish potential consumers to place them in hierarchy, they could be similar in performance but cheaper, faster but the same price or faster and cheaper.

From what we can gather reading in to AMD's actions since the 50 series launch we are assuming AMD expected the 5070 and perhaps the 5070 Ti to be more expensive than what Nvidia announced, that being $550 and $750, the assumption also is that they expected them to be faster than it looks like they would be, with that there seems to be some rethinking going on at AMD, what that might be? And what it all mans? Your guess is as good as ours.
 
Last edited:
Hedge said:
What will happen (like always) is people with no intention of buying Amd will be annoyed that Amd don't sell cards cheap enough to force nvidia cards (which they do intend on buying) to come down in price.

It seems to be seen as AMDs duty to sell cheap cards. Nvidia are just given freedom to do wtf they want with pricing but Amd better be a quarter of the price.
Click to expand...
Pretty much....
 
gpuerrilla said:
Click to expand...

So they go right in to "it needs to be 30% cheaper, but its not us saying that, its you" no... you set the tone, if you're telling people its not worth buying, which you do, then people are not going to buy it, you can't behave like an influencer and then say its nothing to do with us, its all on you, if you're going to tell people what to do then at least own it instead of weaselling your way out of your responsibility of how you are shaping the market in your image.

The 7800 XT 30% cheaper than the 4070 would have been £420, 15% cheaper than the RX 6700 XT. This is not a business model, idiots.
 
Last edited:
Look... if i sell my products for less than it costs me to make that sale then i stand the best chance of selling the most products, i will however lose money for every product i sell.

Do you want to know why you can't get any B580's for its £230 RRP? because at that money it costs Intel to sell it, the launch MSRP on it was fake, they did that to get the kudos from people like this, as soon a the limited number first batch sold its now at its real price.

Oh.... BTW, Nvidia are doing the same, these fake prices are just to get the approval of people like him. It matters!
 
Last edited:
gpuerrilla said:
Well it kind of falls into the pricing that some of the guys here already said. 30% off the 5070Ti would be just over £500. I mean I cannot see it especially from launch but Radeon cards do tend to creep lower over time so if they launch at £599 then discounts and deals would suggest it could get down toward £500. However if the Ti is a paper launch too and the AIB cards are £900+ then that would mean £650 would be somewhat HUB acceptable price metric.
Click to expand...

At todays exchange rates:

£1 = $1.24. $1000 X 0.81 = £810 + 20% VAT = £972.

Look here and find me a single RTX 5080 for £980. In fact try and find one for less than £1150.


Influencers are easily taken advantage of if you're inclined to do it, it happens all the time.
 
Last edited:
B580, should be £230.

Try and find one...

Intel Arc Graphics Cards

Intel Arc GPUs are a phenomenal choice for budget-conscious gamers, as their quickly evolving drivers allow for excellent results across a range of titles.
www.overclockers.co.uk www.overclockers.co.uk
 
GuruJockStrap said:
It’s a pretty corrupt process.

Hardware manufacturer sets a false MSRP for day one reviews, influencers get “free" review sample to review with a lovely PowerPoint document on review guidance, they heap praise on it, they generate views on their channel, gain income from it, hardware goes on sale in limited numbers, stock in short supply and prices now nowhere near MSRP.

The circle is complete.
Click to expand...

To be fair both the A770 and the 40 series were at least to some extent at MSRP for the life of those products, most versions weren't but there was always a couple or more available at MSRP.

Intel were the first to fake an MSRP, Nvidia have copied them, the 5080 is only about 15% better than the 4080 but at least its $200 cheaper, so 15% more performance and 20% cheaper, a value increase of 35%, there it is on our value for money chart, looks fine.

Its £1200, always was intended to be £1200, like the 4080 before it.

With that these influencers now have a standard they will hold AMD to, that being 30% cheaper than the MSRP of the 50 series GPU's, fake MSRP's, With AMD possibly already seeing what Nvidia are doing they may feel forced to do the same fake MSRP trick because they can't do -30% and certainly not the -20% fake MSRP on top of that.

Who do you think will get the flack for it when these idiots eventually realise what is going on? Intel for starting it? Nvidia for following Intel's lead? Or AMD for just doing it?
 
Last edited:
KNiVES said:
Hm, I don't miss having to find omega drivers because ATi made rubbish drivers. I don't miss their horrific naming schemes where you'd buy something like a 9200SE and it was like less than half the speed of a 9200.
When AMD bought them out, their act got cleaned up big time.
Click to expand...

Not had a single issue with my AMD drivers, absolutely flawless.

My Nvidia owning peers do in Star Citizen, i can run 6 hour sessions flawlessly while the Nvidia people i'm playing with have problems, CIG, the developers have just said Nvidia's latest driver has errors in it, they advise rolling back to a previous version.

ICDP said:
To be fair they did qualify that 20% - 30% faster in raster alone is not working to gain AMD market share. RT and upscaling parity (or close to it) AND 20% lower cost is why they feel may be the answer.

They aren’t wrong and simply pointing out the reality AMD face in the GPU market.
Click to expand...

Yes but its easy to say the product is not selling because its not cheap enough as if simply being cheaper enough will solve all your problems, apply some critical thinking to that idea.....
 
Last edited:
A GPU at £250 vs its competing £500 GPU might sell 70/30 to me, or 30/70 to Nvidia in this case but if my GPU costs just as much to sell as that £500 competitor my problem may no longer be that i'm not selling enough GPU's, its that i'm selling too many and should probably not do that if i want to remain in business.

There are limits and -30% is a lot, another -20% is a lot more on top of that.
 
Ask Gibbo what he does when he buys a pallet of a product that he subsequently finds he can't sell for anything other than less than what he paid for it.

i know exactly what he will say, he will say that's the last time he stock's that product.
 
Last edited:
Bidley said:
I both agree and disagree with HUB, and it sort of sums this thread up with regards to pricing.

Yes, I agree that AMD need to price considerably lower than Nvidia to convert people away, even at full feature/performance parity. In this thread and others you have people saying they're not interested in DLSS, RT etc and want more VRAM... Then are convinced the 4080 was a better card than the 7900xtx, when the 7900xtx outperformed the 4080 in raster, had 8gb more VRAM and was cheaper.

But equally, if the AMD card is, say, 15% cheaper at full feature/performance parity, then does that make it a bad card or a bad deal relative to the Nvidia card? Of course not. And this is what should be emphasised in reviews, not the potential marketshare gain.

if somebody buys a £1400 5080 over a hypothetical £650 9070xt that's 15% slower, I can't understand how that is somehow AMD's fault for not selling the 9070xt for £499. Even if the 5070ti is equal to the 9070xt at £900 (and you'd better believe it'll be somewhere around that IRL).
Click to expand...

AMD should and will, because they are a business, sell their product for whatever they can where it still makes sense for their business. They aren't going to listen to HUB complaining they should be cheaper if AMD can't do that.

If AMD decide that they can't sell these product at a rate that makes sense to them they will simply stop, HUB calling for 20% because 10% wasn't enough and then calling for 30% because 20% wasn't enough and then 40%...... all that does is add to AMD's reasoning for their eventual decision making.

If HUB actually want to help this industry they are going to have to find another 30 IQ points from somewhere so they can make more intelligent arguments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom