• 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 ***

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
 
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.
 
sx_turbo said:
I still think the biggest reason for the reduced market share is lack of installation in OEM machines.

No doubt Nvidia sell more cards to tech nerds, but a fair amount also have AMD, when reading through forums there is quite significant numbers with and cards.

The issue is with non nerds/the less informed, they buy a pre built gaming pc for a price point, generally made of low quality components but the selling point would usually be having an Nvidia card, they know as far as the higher the last 2 digits on Nvidia card means more money and more performance, which is why AMD changed their naming scheme, however my point here is that they recognise Nvidia as graphics card brand, AMD doesn't have the same level of recognition, they did have when they were ati, I remember the graphics by ati stickers on things most fondly the GameCube.

I know AMD are ati, but i still miss the ati branding

Gaming Laptops are also a good 95%+ Nvidia.

Many businesses cad design machines make use of the cuda cores so more Nvidia cards sold.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
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 what they feel may be the answer.

They aren’t wrong and simply pointing out the reality AMD face in the GPU market.
 
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:
humbug said:
Look here and find me a single RTX 5080 for £980. In fact try and find one for less than £1150.
Click to expand...

I said 5070Ti! :p and yes there is no way they will be going for £729 judging by the launch so far.

humbug said:
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.....
Click to expand...

It seems nvidia have done AMD a favour. All the XT and XTX in stock have been popular and this would be because the price was below the £999 and £899 release. Probably wont dent the steam hardware survey like but it shows sales are rather healthy for them and they should have plenty of data to indicate what price points they should be participating in.
 
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.
 
If you want to know the real reality it is that AMD should probably bow out, its getting there.......
 
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:
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).
 
Bidley said:
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...

As they are AIB only you know it will be a small volume of units at £799 bots only for the rest of the flavours to be around £1000 waiting for the next round of frenzy before the pre-orders again!
 
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:
HUB are in a difficult spot because they really are just reflecting what the gaming consumer base are actually doing - which is buying overpriced and underperforming Nvidia cards over the AMD equivalents. They're right when they say a 30% price undercut would ensure success for AMD.

Where they go wrong is conflating success for Radeon/AMD with good or better price/performance. The two things should be kept entirely separate. A brand's Q2 reports should not be a factor in your next GPU purchase.

Let's not forget that HUB are very critical of Nvidia, and moreso since Nvidia tried to bully them years ago for the 30 series launch. I don't think calling them or other Youtubers influencers, when they do crazy amounts of pretty fair and in depth analysis on GPU performance and the DLSS software suite, is particularly fair.

Equally I don't blame people for wanting the Nvidia ecosystem. It is compelling and (currently) better than what AMD offer. But if that's what you want, you need to pay the toll. And if you don't care about that, and still pay the toll, it's not the fault of AMD. I think we're getting close to the limit of what people will bear to pay for those bells and whistles, especially if AMD catch up and offer better price/perf.
 
humbug said:
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.....
Click to expand...

That is not why they said at all. The irony of calling out someone else’s critical thinking skills here is not lost on me. ;)

They said the reality is that near feature parity and being cheaper to entice people to “take a chance”, is possibly the answer.

Get FSR near parity
Roughly RT parity
Cheaper but still enough to make a profit

That is what is required to gain mind share and with improved mind share you get improved market share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom