*** The AMD RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***

[humbug]

I don't understand. Why is it not 18%? I've been staring at the image like it is some sort of brain teaser lol.

When some one asks how much faster is A than B you need to calculate how much performance B needs to gain to reach A. the simplest way to do that is to divide A by B

So if A is 100% and B 82% you divide 100 by 82 = 1.21951, the number greater than the decimal point is the performance needed to reach 100%, target A, rounded to the nearest number, that being 1.22 so its 22%.

What is 100 as a percentage of 82?

 

[Bidley]

It does seem daft that AMD apparently have the responsibility of doing us a favour by pricing low, but Nvidia can charge whatever they want and get away with shrinkflation.

AMD need to price based on Nvidia. They're not going to give us a 4080 for £400 and nor should they be expected to. Madness.

Look at the B580. It's the same price as a 2 year old budget Nvidia card while being 5% faster with 4gb extra VRAM and everyone is gobbling it up.

 

[KentMan]

AMD won’t take any meaningful market from Nvidia until their total package surpasses Nvidias and I think we’re still a few gen away from that if it happens at all.

Price - unfortunately for AMD they need to undercut Nvidia in each tier segment for now due to the stigma attached to their gpus, ie weak drivers, rubbish ray tracing, less “features”, hot, loud etc etc. Most of us know a lot of these reasons are now irrelevant, their drivers are stable and over the cards average lifetime it’s FPS generally increases decently, the cooling on the cards moved away from the loud blowers so that’s also a non issue and their feature stack reportedly is catching up with Nvidia if RDNA rumors are true.

They’ll still likely be a gen behind Nvidia for Ray Tracing and fake frames but as they are both exceedingly contentious points and personable to each buyer it’s always going to be a debate.

If RDNA has got close to previous gen Ray Tracing and their fake frame solution is catching up with DLSS that will help but the mindshare Nvidia still has is still so strong it will be hard to overcome it with this gen of cards but I do think this could be their Ryzen moment if they price it in such a manner it makes your average Nvidia buyer actually pause before hitting buy on their 5070 or below.

They’ll need to deliver on the rumors and speculation that the cards are matching 4070ti and 4080 in RT and Raster respectively (or thereabouts).

Then come again with a revision next gen that improves on both and delivers close performance to Nvidias newer offerings.

Once they get a couple of gens of really good performance cards into the segment and actually catch up and compete with Nvidia then they’ll start taking market share.

AMD need either a mic drop moment or Nvidia need to screw the pooch however for any real market share to shift to them, Nvidia as a brand is too well ingrained now in the average gamer.

I’ve seen 5xxx series news splashed across mainstream media now, something I’ve not seen before or nowhere near as much.

 

[KentMan]

It does seem daft that AMD apparently have the responsibility of doing us a favour by pricing low, but Nvidia can charge whatever they want and get away with shrinkflation.

AMD need to price based on Nvidia. They're not going to give us a 4080 for £400 and nor should they be expected to. Madness.

Look at the B580. It's the same price as a 2 year old budget Nvidia card while being 5% faster with 4gb extra VRAM and everyone is gobbling it up.

Whole heartedly agree but I feel unfortunately for AMD they actually do, they need a mic drop moment, something so out of the ordinary that it actually makes people / die hard Nvidia buyers to actually consider them.

AMDs mind share In the gpu market is like their actual market share, small. And historically riddled with views that are no longer relevant, hot, loud, bad drivers etc.

Funny thing is even if they did deliver 4080 for £400 people would still buy Nvidia 50:1

 

[mahius]

AMD have named the things as such, so unless they get mega aggressive on price I can't see it being as low as £500.

AMD need to price based on Nvidia. They're not going to give us a 4080 for £400 and nor should they be expected to. Madness.

Look at the B580. It's the same price as a 2 year old budget Nvidia card while being 5% faster with 4gb extra VRAM and everyone is gobbling it up.

If AMD just do what they've been doing rcently and just follow Nvidia's pricing... nothing changes. They continue to lose market share. Nvidia keeps on cranking up prices.
I'll agree that Intel B580 reviews are admittedly comparing it at USD pricing and MSRPs. But I also think people are sick of Nvidia's nonsense and want something that isn't a 4060.

Last time they did only mid tier was 5700XT right?
...
Sad times if 9070XT turns up at over £500.

I knew folks who bought that generation of AMD GPU. Usually nobody buys them as we all know. But it's already been sad times with how abysmal this current gen of GPU releases went.
Nvidia is looking to top that with a more expensive, less impressive flagship and keeping close to current gen prices with minimal real performance improvements.

If AMD follows suit... that's another generation I don't touch buying a new GPU.
Heck, it's not like I play games much on my PC (though a new GPU would give me an excuse to tackle my Steam backlog).

 

[michty_me]

One of my mates who has had PC's for years didn't even know AMD made graphics cards. He has always had Nvidia, it's all he has known.

 

[ZG002]

Nvidia keeps on cranking up prices.

So do AMD in the next breath.

I just can't see them cutting loads of profit out of the card in the hope it will sell like hot cakes, especially if they feel they have something that will compete on merit with Nvidia.

Have they taken such risks in the past?

I hope I'm wrong, as I'd absolutely love this thing to come in at £500, I have a full build in my basket minus a gpu.

 

[FredFlint]

It does seem daft that AMD apparently have the responsibility of doing us a favour by pricing low, but Nvidia can charge whatever they want and get away with shrinkflation.

AMD need to price based on Nvidia. They're not going to give us a 4080 for £400 and nor should they be expected to. Madness.

Look at the B580. It's the same price as a 2 year old budget Nvidia card while being 5% faster with 4gb extra VRAM and everyone is gobbling it up.

AMD needs market share, NVidia has it. The AMD GPU need to be priced to sell or people will keep going to NVidia.
Step one: Get market share.
Step two: Jack the price up.
AMD skipped step one, NVidia did not.

 

[Bidley]

Funny thing is even if they did deliver 4080 for £400 people would still buy Nvidia 50:1

Agreed.

Let me be clear; I, like I suspect many here, don't really care about Radeon, marketshare or AMD's profit margin. I just want a good card at a good price in the current market. Nvidia set the current market, and they've set it high. For Radeon to get my money, they need to offer a good package at a good price in comparison to the Nvidia offering (Intel aren't offering performance that's interesting to me).

If the 5070ti is £800 (no FE remember, I doubt we'll get one for MSRP here), then a 9070xt that offers similar performance minus MFG (which has no appeal to me) at £600 gets my money. It's really quite simple. If you think £600 is too much, then buy a 5070ti for £200 more, then you're part of the problem. A general 'you', not you specifically

If AMD just do what they've been doing rcently and just follow Nvidia's pricing... nothing changes. They continue to lose market share. Nvidia keeps on cranking up prices.
I'll agree that Intel B580 reviews are admittedly comparing it at USD pricing and MSRPs. But I also think people are sick of Nvidia's nonsense and want something that isn't a 4060.

They're following Nvidia but still undercutting it. If it's a good card for the money, it's a good card. People should be buying based on that, not in the hope that it makes the Nvidia card they actually want cheaper.

Everyone is sick of Nvidia's nonsense. But if the 9070xt came out at the same price as the 4070ti, was 5% faster (on average) with 4gb more VRAM there would be an absolute meltdown on this thread. People are already saying it's a bad card because it might not be 40% cheaper than an incoming gen Nvidia.

I do agree that to increase marketshare they need to price incredibly aggressively, but that's because they have negative mindshare apart from Nvidia's mindshare. They priced below Nvidia in the last generation (7900xtx was $999, 4080 was $1199) so the myth that they don't is baffling. If the product improves and they continue to undercut Nvidia even more, then the rest will follow.

Or people will continue to cut their own noses off, and complain about AMD's cheaper pricing then buy Nvidia's even more overpriced offerings.

 

[Thekwango]

Have they taken such risks in the past?

It’s how they shook the cpu landscape up. 1st gen Ryzen pricing/performance was bang on, made people jump ship from intels strangle hold.

 

[ZG002]

AMD needs market share, NVidia has it. The AMD GPU need to be priced to sell or people will keep going to NVidia.
Step one: Get market share.
Step two: Jack the price up.
AMD skipped step one, NVidia did not.

They need more than just a card trading blows at a cheap price to make real inroads into the market share gap.

They need something everyone wants or needs regardless of price, a knock out punch that makes everyone sit up and take note. This isn't that regardless of price.

once they started to supply both main consoles I honestly thought everything would start to fall into place and games would start to run better on AMD and they would close that gap knowing what devs wanted and needed.

Nvidia not only staying ahead but opening the gap more is impressive from them.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

See point above - why should they price relative to a few years ago when it's clear the market has moved on and customers will pay a higher price?

(I'm not happy about this, just outlining the reality of it )

Also, supply constraint is a thing! Why should they take lower profits when they know they can sell a lower volume of consumer GPUs at a high price/profit, and use the silicon capacity in servers for an even higher margin? (Fourth response down here).

Their sales share is now at 10% and its quite clear their tactics are not working. That is their lowest sales share in the whole history of ATI and AMD. In the markets they sell they have way too much unsold inventory,which means they need to change tact.

If they continue trying to offer general worse products,with their only advantage being moar VRAM, then their share will be soon will be even less. With OEMs,no wonder they don't want AMD when:
1.)They keep delaying their products to see what Nvidia is offering.So zero time to market advantage for AMD over Nvidia.
2.)Charge almost the same amount as Nvidia,so hardly any cost advantage.
3.)Have not enough supply,so Nvidia ends up cheaper because of bulk discounts. You can get an RTX4070 Super for RX7800XT at system integrators for the same price!
4.)They are behind in software features and implementation of those features in games.

AMD are the budget brand relative to Nvidia. The same as their CPUs,until Zen3 came along where they beat Intel in most areas.

Nvidia spends far more than AMD,so this is how they have gotten to the position of dictating the market.If AMD wants to charge Nvidia prices,they need to spend Nvidia money on their graphics division.

As their sales share plummets,it also means their overall share of the PC market will start to get worse and worse. Why? All the people already on AMD cards will shift increasingly to Nvidia.

This will eventually impact their console business. One of the reasons Sony and MS went with AMD,was because of ease of development with AMD having 30% to 40% of the PC gaming market historically.

But if 90% or more of the discrete market is Nvidia,it increasingly makes sense for them to consider Nvidia. Nvidia is also apparently making it's own ARM based SOC,which is their version of Strix Halo. They are also directly partnering with Mediatek,so their tech will also come to phones and tablets.

Even if hardware costs will be worse,the fact is it will be much cheaper to develop for all the console market,part of the phone market and 90% of the PC gaming market. Software costs in games are the major part of the cost of development now.

 

[Bidley]

One of my mates who has had PC's for years didn't even know AMD made graphics cards. He has always had Nvidia, it's all he has known.

This is pertinent - what do we attribute this to? It's clear that he hasn't been told that AMD are overpriced and bad, because he'd never heard of them. I suspect he isn't alone.

 

[ZG002]

It’s how they shook the cpu landscape up. 1st gen Ryzen pricing/performance was bang on, made people jump ship from intels strangle hold.

The price was right yeah, but didn't they also compete in every area including the very top end?

 

[Phixsator]

It’s how they shook the cpu landscape up. 1st gen Ryzen pricing/performance was bang on, made people jump ship from intels strangle hold.

There was more to it than just a lower price. Intel had been offering 4c/8t cpus as mainstream for ages and out the blue you could get Zen 1 with 8C/16T at a lower price. Nvidia isn't the same beast as Intel was. Intel was stagnating and still is. Nvidia is a much more capable foe. Even if AMD managed to get ahead performacne wise, nvidia is still the masters of inventing new tech and convince people that they need it. So AMD has to fight nvidias hardware which can be capable if nvidia wants it to be and the software and the marketing vs just the hardware from intel. It's a much tougher fight and there wont be as many if any freebies handed to them either like Intel has done.

 

[mahius]

I just don't trust people, never mind big corporations to do the right thing, if they can get more money out of your pocket.. they will.

I must agree there. They are out for profit and we've seen that from all of these companies. Just that if they play smart enough, a short term 'investment' (or loss/risk) can end up turning out a long term gain. It worked for AMD on the CPU front, no reason why they can't repeat it on the GPU front. Nvidia's left the goal wide open by focusing more on software-based trickery than hardware advancements.

Would add, criticality of component as well... motherboards are relatively cheap (at least they used to be?!) but it's such a critical part, I try and go deep into forum threads to be aware of all the potential pit falls

Even though I already am using my AM5 motherboard, I still have a permanent tab open for that AM5 motherboard spreadsheet. What a goldmine, it helped direct me to the motherboard to best suit my needs.

Anyhow, back on topic, I guess some folks will disagree that a 9700XT priced higher than £550 especially with well less than 7900XTX/4080 perf is silly move by AMD.
Performance can be anything, but it's the price that the GPU with that performance is sold at that matters.
AMD could just have something that performs no better than a 7900GRE, but as long as such a GPU is priced appropriate (below £400 or £350 for GRE level), it can still sell.
AMD said themselves they are not competing high end, so there's no reason to price like high-end.

 

[Troezar]

When some one asks how much faster is A than B you need to calculate how much performance B needs to gain to reach A. the simplest way to do that is to divide A by B

So if A is 100% and B 82% you divide 100 by 82 = 1.21951, the number greater than the decimal point is the performance needed to reach 100%, target A, rounded to the nearest number, that being 1.22 so its 22%.

Alternatively you can divide 18 by 82 multiplied by 100 to get the same result

 

[RavenXXX2]

So shops have them but AMD has not even acknowledged their existence officially. Somethings not right, I think they are conflicted over pricing. I bet after seeing 5070 performance they will go 599 and 549.

 

[Bidley]

Anyhow, back on topic, I guess some folks will disagree that a 9700XT priced higher than £550 especially with well less than 7900XTX/4080 perf is silly move by AMD.
Performance can be anything, but it's the price that the GPU with that performance is sold at that matters.
AMD could just have something that performs no better than a 7900GRE, but as long as such a GPU is priced appropriate (below £400 or £350 for GRE level), it can still sell.
AMD said themselves they are not competing high end, so there's no reason to price like high-end.

I agree with that, but that's not the angle at least that I'm coming from at all.

If it's 7900xt/GRE/4070 level, then yes £550 is out of the question. I don't think anyone has disputed that. If it's 4080/5070ti, then it isn't.

There was one dodgy Timespy leak that put it at a 7900GRE. There are many more that put it nearer 4080/xtx. So that's what all my £500-£600 thinking is based on.

£600 is not high end any more, sadly. Hasn't been for a number of years.

 

[ZG002]

Nvidia's left the goal wide open by focusing more on software-based trickery than hardware advancements.

I'm not entirely sure they have, I mean they may have with people who follow this stuff closely i.e a forum full of computer enthusiasts.

The general public buying a ready built with Nvidia marketing plastered all over the thing, be that fake AI frames or not, most of them know green good or their child knows green good.

I'm not sure where most of the sales come from? Is it single cards being bought for self build or upgrade or OEM's.