• 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 ***

@Nexus18 I think for you its always going to be Nvidia irregardless of price, you're always going to look for a reason and if you need to look for it you will find it, we just need less people like you, we don't have to extinguish them ^^^

Joxeon said:
The launch reviews compare it to the 4070 though as it wasn't priced $440 at launch which is the point im making that AMD need to hit the ground running and get the launch prices right.
Click to expand...

IMO they did get the launch price right with the RX 7800 XT, £470 on launch day was a good price, the 4070 in some ways is a better GPU, DLSS, a bit better RT.... but at £580 on launch made the 7800 XT better, its still about 10% more which to me makes it a more difficult decision but its 12 GB is already showing some signs of becoming a problem and you can make the 7800 XT match a 4070 Ti in raster easily, that's an £800 GPU and the 4070 barely overclocks at all.
 
Last edited:
I tested that in The First Dependent, i noticed i was seeing exactly 100 FPS at one point, it made me think... i stopped there right at 100 FPS, pressed Alt + R, went Performance > Tuning and moved sliders about without any finesse, clicked apply and boom 119 FPS, just like that....
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
@Nexus18 I think for you its always going to be Nvidia irregardless of price, you're always going to look for a reason and if you need to look for it you will find it, we just need less people like you, we don't have to extinguish them ^^^
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with "looking for a reason", it simply comes down to what allows me to enjoy games the most? Well rtx hdr delivers incredible IQ improvements in a space where unfortunately hdr is awful in the gaming space, ray reconstruction allows me to enjoy better IQ and usually performance (if the implementation hasn't been ******), DLSS allows me to play the game with better IQ than native AND TAA/NO TAA whist also getting improved performance and when I game(d) on a 1440p display, DLDSR in combination with DLSS allowed better IQ and performance than either native 1440p or dlss quality at 1440p. So in the current situation, it's not a hard choice. I can put up with the issues of not having gsync ultimate but come upgrade time, it will be a consideration.

Also, again, I haven't always been nvidia, I was amd every gen from the 3850 to vega 56, same for cpu from the 2600 to the 5600x then the 5800x3d (and intend on staying amd for cpu side for the forseeable). The difference in the dgpu space now is that nvidia have developed technologies which are in a huge amount of games, I mean the biggest standout is the fact you can use dlss performance and get better IQ and better performance than FSR quality, that is the biggest issue right now when we make these comparisons of nvidia to amd.

AMD are taking all the right steps right now to hopefully get them back to competing with nvidia:

- investing millions into their software in general, as they even said themselves, they know they are behind nvidia
- FSR 4 finally getting AI upscaling which should allow them to at least match dlss now or get a lot closer than any previous version of fsr anyway
- unifying their RDNA and CDNA which will allow them to deliver similar ai technologies such as rtx hdr, ray reconstruction etc.

They already have frame gen in a good place so that box is ticked.

I mean the fact that you and other amd fans/customers are getting excited about the RT, FSR 4 improvements show that these things do matter to you after all.

If amd can deliver the "whole" package then they can and should charge in the same bracket as nvidia but if they can't, then they need to price appropriately, be that ££ or £££ difference.....
 
humbug said:
IMO they did get the launch price right with the RX 7800 XT, £470 on launch day was a good price, the 4070 in some ways is a better GPU, DLSS, a bit better RT.... but at £580 on launch made the 7800 XT better, its still about 10% more which to me makes it a more difficult decision but its 12 GB is already showing some signs of becoming a problem and you can make the 7800 XT match a 4070 Ti in raster easily, that's an £800 GPU and the 4070 barely overclocks at all.
Click to expand...
The price was not right at launch which is why it was outsold heavily by the 4070.

If amd intend to go for marketshare with RDNA 4 then they need to get this right from the start.
 
Last edited:
$550 -33% is $370 @Joxeon and AMD aren't selling them at that, AIB's take a slice before the supplier takes a slice before the retailer takes a slice and these things cost billions to develop.

ATI undercut Nvidia like that, Nvida didn't reduce prices, they sat and watched with popcorn, ATI maybe didn't lose any money on BOM costs but they also didn't make enough money to develop the next generations, which is why at the end of ATI's life they ended up with badly rehashed GPU's and ultimately went bust, AMD bailed them out to the tune of $5.9 Billion.
 
Last edited:
So what's the solution, produce basically the same level of GPU, with slightly worse feature set and sell for slightly less like they did this generation? How did that work out for AMD this time around? Clawed back massive amounts of marketshare did they?
If so, yeah, keep doing the same thing.
If that didn't work, maybe try something different?

I mean if the market was roughly 50/50 between Nvidia and AMD and if your average consumer thought of them both as being premium brands then releasing a similar product for a similar price seems reasonable. But with lower marketshare and and the mindset of most consumers that Nvidia make the best graphics cards it feel like you need to give non-enthusiast people a reason to buy AMD.

Lots of people won't spend that much time researching things as they may not know or care how much difference some thing can make.
Some people will just buy a Ninja air fryer because it's what a lot of people think of as being the top brand.
Some people will buy a Dyson vacuum because it's what a lot of people think of as being the top brand.
Some people will buy an Nvidia based PC or graphics card because it's what a lot of people think of as being a top brand.

If Aldi wanted to sell their brand of vacuum, even if it was really good, I think they'd struggle if they listed it at £1.99 less than a Dyson. Ultimately things are worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That will vary from person to person, the question is, how many people do you want to be willing to pay for your product?
I feel this is what AMD need to decide. Are they happy with a relatively small number of people buying their products or do they want to grow their marketshare?
 
humbug said:
$550 -33% is $370 @Joxeon and AMD aren't selling them at that, AIB's take a slice before the supplier takes a slice before the retailer takes a slice and these things cost billions to develop.

ATI undercut Nvidia like that, Nvida didn't reduce prices, they sat and watched with popcorn, ATI maybe didn't lose any money on BOM costs but they also didn't make enough money to develop the next generations, which is why at the end of ATI's life they ended up with badly rehashed GPU's and ultimately went bust, AMD bailed them out to the tune of $5.9 Billion.
Click to expand...
AMD should have got the 7800XT out when the 4070 launched not 6 months later when Nvidia had already dropped the pricing on the 4070.

$400 would have been the baseline but the 7800XT was around 7% faster so they could have gone for 400+7%=428 so around $430 should have been the launch price had it launched around the same time as the 4070, by the time the 7800XT did end up launching it should have been $400
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
So what's the solution, produce basically the same level of GPU, with slightly worse feature set and sell for slightly less like they did this generation? How did that work out for AMD this time around? Clawed back massive amounts of marketshare did they?
If so, yeah, keep doing the same thing.
If that didn't work, maybe try something different?

I mean if the market was roughly 50/50 between Nvidia and AMD and if your average consumer thought of them both as being premium brands then releasing a similar product for a similar price seems reasonable. But with lower marketshare and and the mindset of most consumers that Nvidia make the best graphics cards it feel like you need to give non-enthusiast people a reason to buy AMD.

Lots of people won't spend that much time researching things as they may not know or care how much difference some thing can make.
Some people will just buy a Ninja air fryer because it's what a lot of people think of as being the top brand.
Some people will buy a Dyson vacuum because it's what a lot of people think of as being the top brand.
Some people will buy an Nvidia based PC or graphics card because it's what a lot of people think of as being a top brand.

If Aldi wanted to sell their brand of vacuum, even if it was really good, I think they'd struggle if they listed it at £1.99 less than a Dyson. Ultimately things are worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That will vary from person to person, the question is, how many people do you want to be willing to pay for your product?
I feel this is what AMD need to decide. Are they happy with a relatively small number of people buying their products or do they want to grow their marketshare?
Click to expand...

Do AMD want to grow their market share? Not at any cost, no they don't.
 
Joxeon said:
They are claiming they want to go for market share with RDNA4 though so will need to be bold on pricing rather than more of the same.
Click to expand...
They prob think another $20 off is a 'bold move' for a non-budget brand...

I'm not holding my breath, AMD have proven they're more than willing to match Intel and Nvidia in some bad ways.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Do AMD want to grow their market share? Not at any cost, no they don't.
Click to expand...
And yet their statement was that they wanted to grow their market share. But they're not willing to do anything in order to make that happen?

Nvidia make the fastest graphics cards, most people want the fastest graphics cards, so they'll buy Nvidia.
What do AMD do? It would seem, the absolute barest of bare minimums about 18 months after their competition.
How do they think they're going to grow market share doing the same thing they done, or not done, for the last few generations? And this time they're possibly not even making a top end card, so they're doing even less.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
And yet their statement was that they wanted to grow their market share. But they're not willing to do anything in order to make that happen?

Nvidia make the fastest graphics cards, most people want the fastest graphics cards, so they'll buy Nvidia.
What do AMD do? It would seem, the absolute barest of bare minimums about 18 months after their competition.
How do they think they're going to grow market share doing the same thing they done, or not done, for the last few generations? And this time they're possibly not even making a top end card, so they're doing even less.
Click to expand...
None of this makes any sense, they haven't done anything regards to your cited statement RDNA 4 isn't out yet.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
And yet their statement was that they wanted to grow their market share. But they're not willing to do anything in order to make that happen?

Nvidia make the fastest graphics cards, most people want the fastest graphics cards, so they'll buy Nvidia.
What do AMD do? It would seem, the absolute barest of bare minimums about 18 months after their competition.
How do they think they're going to grow market share doing the same thing they done, or not done, for the last few generations? And this time they're possibly not even making a top end card, so they're doing even less.
Click to expand...
Most people can't afford the fastest Graphics card and then opt for a more expensive Nvidia card that's slower than the AMD card in the majority of games because Nvidia have the fastest graphics card. I opted for a 7900xt because it ended up being around £100 or more less expensive than a 4070ti with 8gb more Vram and was more powerful for my needs. Only a fool would pay more for the ti in my use case but the majority do.
 
Last edited:
The problem is AMD just launches everything too late because of their obsession of clearing out old stock,instead of just using other channels to do so. Nvidia no doubt has the same issues with old stock too,but it doesn't affect their launch cadences as much. The RX7800XT was launched 5 months after the RTX4070.

They also need to stop trying to base all their pricing and naming on what Nvidia decides it to be. For example,the RX7800XT is an RX7700XT and the RX7900XT is an RX7800/RX7800XT and should have been priced in line with the previous generations. The RX5700XT was £360~£400(using a brand new TSMC 7NM process and GDDR6),the RX6700XT was £420+ during a time of very high components pricing and the RX7800XT at best should have been a £400 to £450 card,like the RTX4070 which is really an RTX4060TI at best.

Just because Nvidia wants to overcharge doesn't mean AMD has to. AMD is also trying to get repeat business from its own customers,who also generally tend to be a bit more clued on up why they might go for them over Nvidia,ie,better value for money is one reason.

If AMD had launched the RX7800XT within a month of the RTX4070 launch even at £470ish,with a copy of a game(it was Starfield at launch),when the RTX4070 12GB was £580,they might have looked OK. This is despite me considering both the RX7800XT and RTX4070 being £400ish class dGPUs. Instead by the time they did launch it,the RTX4070 price had dropped much closer to £500 and Nvidia had also bundled Alan Wake 2 with the cards.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The problem is AMD just launches everything too late because of their obsession of clearing out old stock,instead of just using other channels to do so. Nvidia no doubt has the same issues with old stock too,but it doesn't affect their launch cadences as much. The RX7800XT was launched 5 months after the RTX4070.

They also need to stop trying to base all their pricing and naming on what Nvidia decides it to be. For example,the RX7800XT is an RX7700XT and the RX7900XT is an RX7800/RX7800XT and should have been priced in line with the previous generations. The RX5700XT was £360~£400(using a brand new TSMC 7NM process and GDDR6),the RX6700XT was £420+ during a time of very high components pricing and the RX7800XT at best should have been a £400 to £450 card,like the RTX4070 which is really an RTX4060TI at best.

Just because Nvidia wants to overcharge doesn't mean AMD has to. AMD is also trying to get repeat business from its own customers,who also generally tend to be a bit more clued on up why they might go for them over Nvidia,ie,better value for money is one reason.

If AMD had launched the RX7800XT within a month of the RTX4070 launch even at £470ish,with a copy of a game(it was Starfield at launch),when the RTX4070 12GB was £580,they might have looked OK. This is despite me considering both the RX7800XT and RTX4070 being £400ish class dGPUs. Instead by the time they did launch it,the RTX4070 price had dropped much closer to £500 and Nvidia had also bundled Alan Wake 2 with the cards.
Click to expand...
Yep to little to late but when i was buying i just bought the fastest card that made sense to me. Nvidia made no sense what so ever. If people bought with there brain we would have more of a gpu war and maybe a price war.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The problem is AMD just launches everything too late because of their obsession of clearing out old stock,instead of just using other channels to do so. Nvidia no doubt has the same issues with old stock too,but it doesn't affect their launch cadences as much. The RX7800XT was launched 5 months after the RTX4070.

They also need to stop trying to base all their pricing and naming on what Nvidia decides it to be. For example,the RX7800XT is an RX7700XT and the RX7900XT is an RX7800/RX7800XT and should have been priced in line with the previous generations. The RX5700XT was £360~£400(using a brand new TSMC 7NM process and GDDR6),the RX6700XT was £420+ during a time of very high components pricing and the RX7800XT at best should have been a £400 to £450 card,like the RTX4070 which is really an RTX4060TI at best.

Just because Nvidia wants to overcharge doesn't mean AMD has to. AMD is also trying to get repeat business from its own customers,who also generally tend to be a bit more clued on up why they might go for them over Nvidia,ie,better value for money is one reason.

If AMD had launched the RX7800XT within a month of the RTX4070 launch even at £470ish,with a copy of a game(it was Starfield at launch),when the RTX4070 12GB was £580,they might have looked OK. This is despite me considering both the RX7800XT and RTX4070 being £400ish class dGPUs. Instead by the time they did launch it,the RTX4070 price had dropped much closer to £500 and Nvidia had also bundled Alan Wake 2 with the cards.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that but the RX 6700 XT was launched at $480, the RX 7800 XT was $20 more at $500, its 56% faster in raster and 64% faster in RT with 4GB more VRam, AV1 Encode / Decode and has hardware level AI.

Wrong naming, i agree but the amount of GPU you're getting comparatively for $20 more is frankly fantastic, stop hating on it, it makes no sense. Inflation taken in to account its actually cheaper, much cheaper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom