AMD's new Radeon RX 3080 XT: RTX 2070 performance for $330?

[Neftex]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's is just bad business to intentionally make mediocre products unless you want to be known as the budget option with budget performance. And never considered when someone wants top performance.

yes, unlike what you say, many companies do exactly this. they aim below the top where they can compete on price and make the most profit

[GoldenLag]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

AMD did not intentional gimp their own product solely to sell in the middle market. 

in the case of Polaris, that might have actually been the case. 

 

because at that point, everytime AMD played the high end, they lost the throne regardless of how good their product was. 

[illegalwater]

13 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Ironically the only ray tracing demos that I've actually been impressed by are Quake and Minecraft. Both of which where coded by some random person on their own for free, and neither of which even use RT cores. 

 

Combine that with Crytek's non-RTX demo and the fact that both Navi and Xe allegedly are optimized for Ray tracing, and I honestly don't see RTX lasting more than a generation or two. 

https://www.cryengine.com/news/how-we-made-neon-noir-ray-traced-reflections-in-cryengine-and-more#

"It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56." So much for Crytek and Vega ray tracing.

Also what are you even trying to say with that last sentence? Nvidia dropping their hardware accelerated ray tracing makes literally no sense, especially now that their competitors are planning on supporting ray tracing in the future.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Neftex said:

yes, unlike what you say, many companies do exactly this. they aim below the top where they can compete on price and make the most profit

 

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

in the case of Polaris, that might have actually been the case. 

 

because at that point, everytime AMD played the high end, they lost the throne regardless of how good their product was. 

You both said it right there,  They can't compete at the top,  ergo Polaris was their top. 

 

This is not a shit dig at AMD, this is just business.  They'll cme good soon enough, but the reality is they never intended to be the budget option, it's just not Lisa su's MO.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

You both said it right there,  They can't compete at the top,  ergo Polaris was their top. 

no, AMD lost the GPU wars everytime they launched a high ed product. not neccecarly due to price or performance, but due to mindshare and marketing.

 

with Polaris they actually aimed for mid-range. Why do we know this? because Diesize and CU count. 

[Neftex]

@mr moose amd doesnt intend to stay the budget option, but in current situation they have to aim for it to get funds.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

no, AMD lost the GPU wars everytime they launched a high ed product. not neccecarly due to price or performance, but due to mindshare and marketing.

Mindshare and marketing comes after you have a high end product not before.  If you can;t make the best you aren't the best. that's how the market sees every company.

 

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

with Polaris they actually aimed for mid-range. Why do we know this? because Diesize and CU count. 

Raja himself said polaris would be high end, but they canned it, obviously for the reason we agree on, they couldn't make it compete with the top end, they wanted to, but couldn't.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/01/amd-confirms-high-end-polaris-gpu-in-development-for-2016/

2 minutes ago, Neftex said:

@mr moose amd doesnt intend to stay the budget option, but in current situation they have to aim for it to get funds.

They never intended to be there in the first place, but when you can't produce the best , that is the end result.  Ergo they have no intention of not producing an industry best.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, mr moose said:

Mindshare and marketing comes after you have a high end product not before.  If you can;t make the best you aren't the best. that's how the market sees every company.

Mindshare comes after you manage to market you product properly while having good enough products. not saying AMD is the be all and end all at the time, but they certainly did not have the marketshare. 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Raja himself said polaris would be high end, but they canned it, obviously for the reason we agree on, they couldn't make it compete with the top end, they wanted to, but couldn't.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/01/amd-confirms-high-end-polaris-gpu-in-development-for-2016/

Polaris certainly could be high end. but they didnt. why? because regardless of how good their top end card was, the sales numbers did not give them profit, nor money. 

 

which is most likely why they chose to return to their old strategy of being the best at mid range volume sales. 

[Neftex]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Mindshare and marketing comes after you have a high end product not before.  If you can;t make the best you aren't the best. that's how the market sees every company. 

they had high end products before, better than nvidia. didnt help them one bit.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They never intended to be there in the first place, but when you can't produce the best , that is the end result.  Ergo they have no intention of not producing an industry best.

they didnt intend to get there but as i said above, top end products didnt work out well in the market. so they just stopped doing them

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Mindshare comes after you manage to market you product properly while having good enough products. not saying AMD is the be all and end all at the time, but they certainly did not have the marketshare.

And they lost any chance they had at gaining market share when they stopped competing at the top end.

 

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Polaris certainly could be high end. but they didnt. why? because regardless of how good their top end card was, the sales numbers did not give them profit, nor money. 

 

which is most likely why they chose to return to their old strategy of being the best at mid range volume sales. 

Even though those mid range volume sales did little for their bottom line nor their market share.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Neftex said:

they had high end products before, better than nvidia. didnt help them one bit.

they didnt intend to get there but as i said above, top end products didnt work out well in the market. so they just stopped doing them

two things,

 

1. They were gaining market share.  but they lost any chance they had of maintaining that growth when they couldn't outdo Nvidia

2. They are still trying to make top end products and have been all along.  Why? because that is the only way to make money.

 

 

[GoldenLag]

Just now, mr moose said:

And they lost any chance they had at gaining market share when they stopped competing at the top end.

they most likely did, but they werent making any money from the high end, and they werent selling much of it. for them there was no reason to make any high end chips, because people would buy Nvidia regardless. such was and is the market. 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Even though those mid range volume sales did little for their bottom line nor their market share.

but it was the sector that was making them money, gambling on another large chip after fiji is not a good idea. especially when they still had unsold fiji-stock. 

 

making large chips didnt make sense, because it wasnt giving them marketshare. 

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

They are still trying to make top end products and have been all along.  Why? because that is the only way to make money.

AMD made plenty of money playing in the Mid-range. they were most likely designing top end chips, but it was not the sector that was making them money. 

 

AMD most likely made the misstake of forgetting that the highest end chip is more of a marketing chip than a chip that is actually going to be sold. 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Neftex said:

they had high end products before, better than nvidia. didnt help them one bit.

In the two most well known and documented situations where AMD/ATI had the clear fastest product the sales were greatly in favor of them, 70/30 territory. If you look at sales history and top GPU at those times it tracks exactly to who has that sales lead. AMD has best top performance product market sales goes to them, Nvidia has best then they get the sales.

 

Sales data definitely shows halo products sells everything, top to bottom. Mind share wins out in situations where products are too close to call so people stick with previous best or the one with the longer track record of being the best. At no time has anyone ignored a clearly best GPU and brought worse.

[illegalwater]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In the two most well known and documented situations where AMD/ATI had the clear fastest product the sales were greatly in favor of them, 70/30 territory. If you look at sales history and top GPU at those times it tracks exactly to who has that sales lead. AMD has best top performance product market sales goes to them, Nvidia has best then they get the sales.

 

Sales data definitely shows halo products sells everything, top to bottom. Mind share wins out in situations where products are too close to call so people stick with previous best or the one with the longer track record of being the best. At no time has anyone ignored a clearly best GPU and brought worse.

"At no time has anyone ignored a clearly best GPU and brought worse."
Tell that to the RX 570. The 1050 Ti totally demolished it in sales despite being slower and more expensive.

 

The RX 580 is also arguably better than the 1060, yet it too got outsold by a gigantic margin.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

they most likely did, but they werent making any money from the high end, and they werent selling much of it. for them there was no reason to make any high end chips, because people would buy Nvidia regardless. such was and is the market. 

How do you know they weren't making money, they sold out of vegas and fury's if i remember right.

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

but it was the sector that was making them money, gambling on another large chip after fiji is not a good idea. especially when they still had unsold fiji-stock. 

it's not gambling, its business 101. 

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

making large chips didnt make sense, because it wasnt giving them marketshare. 

because they weren't making big enough.  It has to be more than just an alternative to gain market share and mindshare.  in the consumers eye if they haven't got the best on paper and in benchmarks then they aren't the best. period.

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

AMD made plenty of money playing in the Mid-range. they were most likely designing top end chips, but it was not the sector that was making them money. 

 

AMD most likely made the misstake of forgetting that the highest end chip is more of a marketing chip than a chip that is actually going to be sold. 

Except that having the best on the market (even if it doesn't sell well) still sells all the other cards.   AMD are not in the business to be the middle player.  They are not going to and have never intentional shunned the top end.

[leadeater]

Just now, System32.exe said:

"At no time has anyone ignored a clearly best GPU and brought worse."
Tell that to the RX 570. The 1050 Ti totally demolished it in sales despite being slower and more expensive.

Not a better GPU than another, the BEST.

[illegalwater]

Just now, leadeater said:

Not a better GPU than another, the BEST.

My mistake. I wasn't sure if you meant best overall or best within a category.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, System32.exe said:

"At no time has anyone ignored a clearly best GPU and brought worse."
Tell that to the RX 570. The 1050 Ti totally demolished it in sales despite being slower and more expensive.

There was a period when you could only buy the 1050ti, it likely had the better sales simply due to availability for a lengthy time before the 570 released and during the mining boom when even after the 570 was released it was hard to get.

[leadeater]

Just now, System32.exe said:

My mistake. I wasn't sure if you meant best overall or best within a category.

Yep, I would point to the 1080 Ti as to the reason why something as bad as the 1050 Ti compared to the RX 570 would out sell it. Buyers blinders are quite strong to those halo products, I don't know why but it appears to be a thing. Something I cannot explain.

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How do you know they weren't making money, they sold out of vegas and fury's if i remember right.

they also dropped the price on them by a lot. most of it was based on sales firgures. and the high end wasnt doing too well. low end was good. 

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

it's not gambling, its business 101. 

its gambling. look at fiji, they struggled to sell out after badly predicted miningcrisis. not to mention new node. AMD is great at using a new node, but it is expencive. 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except that having the best on the market (even if it doesn't sell well) still sells all the other cards.   AMD are not in the business to be the middle player.  They are not going to and have never intentional shunned the top end.

top end cards do effect sales. and im pretty sure AMD commited that mistake. but Polaris could be top end, and decided not to. they most likely had designs on the table. 

 

the issue AMD had was that their top offering was overshadowed in mindshare compared to Nvida`s offering regardless of performance. 

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

very mature.    I'm guessing your early teenage years by your responses and lack of understanding.

 

If that's the case then it is no wonder you don't believe anyone.   For your information, no company aims low,  no company wastes time and resource being average, it's not good for retaining shareholders,  investors, public image, sales the whole lot.  Polaris was the best they could do.  End of story. 

 

 

 

So, by your logic, because Hyundai doesn't make a 450km/h 2sec to 100km/h road supercar like Ferrari, they just aren't aiming "high enough", only being satisfied with producing shitty hatchbacks... That's your logic. No wonder you don't understand half of shit here and then you go around screaming how I'm the dumb one. Dafaq...

[illegalwater]

Just now, RejZoR said:

So, by your logic, because Hyundai doesn't make a 450km/h 2sec to 100km/h road supercar like Ferrari, they just aren't aiming "high enough", only being satisfied with producing shitty hatchbacks... That's your logic. No wonder you don't understand half of shit here and then you go around screaming how I'm the dumb one. Dafaq...

Cars and computer hardware are two totally different markets.

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, System32.exe said:

Cars and computer hardware are two totally different markets.

No they are not. Hyundai isn't trying to go against Ferrari and their sports cars. But they are very good at doing family cars and hatchbacks. But you all keep on expecting AMD to make Ferrari rivaling products when they can't due to financial reasons that are no god damn secret for a while now. You're just all entirely disconnected from reality and you keep on pissing on AMD for it. So they can't make a Ferrari. How is that bad if they can make great products in another segment? The logic here...

[pas008]

Just now, RejZoR said:

No they are not. Hyundai isn't trying to go against Ferrari and their sports cars. But they are very good at doing family cars and hatchbacks. But you all keep on expecting AMD to make Ferrari rivaling products when they can't due to financial reasons that are no god damn secret for a while now. You're just all entirely disconnected from reality and you keep on pissing on AMD for it. So they can't make a Ferrari. How is that bad if they can make great products in another segment? The logic here...

exactly so your point is moot