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

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Obviously, but that wasn't the Point.

But its good enough to show his point.

 

And here you see its not about the car but about Brand!

 

Its the same for GPU Graphics cards!

halo products help with that marketing of that brand

suckers many into lower tier products in the tech world

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Nope, the car analogies just don't work.

They do in this case.

It just is to show how the market works and what is important. For that the Car Analogy is good enough to show the basic principle.

 

6 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The only aspect you could even compare is that car companies usually have their own halo tier performance or luxury vehicle as brand marketing to show consumers they can make the best. Not sure why people want AMD to have the best CPU around yet are fine with them having the second best GPU's, that totally isn't biased.

We have the same for the Graphics cards.

 

Toyota uses their own brand for Consumer cars, for company Cars they use Lexus.

nVIdia uses their own name for both, however: Consumer Cards are called GeForce, while the "Company Cards" for professional 3D Rendering and stuff are called Quattro.

 

AMD has the same, Consumer Cards are sold under the Radeon Brands, Professional Cards are Sold sold under a Brand based on the old Spea Brand: FireGL -> FirePRO.

However, there is the exception of the compute Cards Radeon Instincts...

 

So yeah, its good enough to show the basic principle.

 

I've also provided a Link in my Last Posting to show that. In Germany, only the German "Luxory" Car Companys sell cars well. Others do not.

[Stefan Payne]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

halo products help with that marketing of that brand

suckers many into lower tier products in the tech world

And who would buy a high end AMD Graphics Card?

Would you buy a Radeon 7??

[79wjd]

33 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, they don't want to compete for the top because they don't sell top products for various reasons.

With lower end Products, ideology and indoctrination is irrelevant, price/performance counts. 

Radeon 7 and Vega weren't aimed at the top? What now?

 

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

And who would buy a high end AMD Graphics Card?

Would you buy a Radeon 7??

That doesn't mean they're not trying, but failing, to compete in that segment.

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Unlike a car generally speaking far more people have a hope of buying the halo thing. I will never, ever be able to buy a 'hyper car' let alone a basic 'super car'.

But like Cars people buy cars either because they always did buy from that brand or because word of mouth.

 

SO if you have a Ford and it breaks down at least once a month and your neighbor dared to buy a KIA and it didn't break down, you might think about a KIA next time you buy a car as well.

 

The Upper Class Cars also shine down on the normal ones as well, though maybe not as extreme as with Graphics cards.

 

BUT: Due to the price the incentive to inform yourself about the product is far higher than with something you buy for just 100, 200 or 300€ for.

 

 

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And who would buy a high end AMD Graphics Card?

Would you buy a Radeon 7??

if I was buying right now maybe

but what does that have to do with anything

seriously this is about the masses not the less than 1% enthusiasts

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

if I was buying right now maybe

but what does that have to do with anything

seriously this is about the masses not the less than 1% enthusiasts

So you're still not willing to buy an AMD GPU?
WHy care what AMD does then at all, if you wouldn't even buy them?!

[Stefan Payne]

8 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Radeon 7 and Vega weren't aimed at the top? What now?

Rumors are that Radeon 7 was never really planned and only for professional usage (FirePRO, Radeon Instincts and co).

 

VEGA is not as certain, you can argue either way. And it wasn't that bad but nobody bought it because of the reasons I've mentioned...

Quote

That doesn't mean they're not trying, but failing, to compete in that segment.

Hardly anybody buys AMD these days, except for the ~100-200€ segment, so where should they have the money for R&D??

That's kinda the Problem that people DEMAND AMD to make better cards but never buy them.

 

What they really want is that AMD has to release a cheaper card, so that nVidia reduces the price and they can get an nVidia Card cheaper. That's what they want. Not an AMD Card.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So you're still not willing to buy an AMD GPU?
WHy care what AMD does then at all, if you wouldn't even buy them?!

seriously what does it matter

and honestly i'm not buying gpus for awhile

 

but whats your point ?

come to let the hate flow through you?

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And who would buy a high end AMD Graphics Card?

Would you buy a Radeon 7??

Only thing stopping me is cost. Maybe next check, as watercooled, it can be a single slot card.

[Stefan Payne]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

seriously what does it matter

and honestly i'm not buying gpus for awhile

So you're not.

I can outright say that I didn't buy a new nVidia GPU in a decade or so

(I honestly don't remember the last nVidia Graphics Card I bought new. But I think it was the Leadtek 8600GT Fanless oh wait, no, it was the Sparkle GTS250 Low Profile)

Though I did in the past and also have bought some in the not soo distant past. And I had a lot of nV Cards. Even have a couple right now (though many dead or some kind of Problem like dead VGA Port)

 

I outright say that I don't want to buy from monopolistic companys with 80%+ market share. Especially when they love proprietary shit at the cost of the consumers...

When their Market Share is at around 50/50, I might think about it.

That is my principle to avoid such companys, if I can....

 

 

Why are you avoiding this and even insult me???

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Only thing stopping me is cost. Maybe next check, as watercooled, it can be a single slot card.

You don't need to if you don't want ot.

And personally I'd wait until Summer anyway, to look at Navi...

I bought my VEGA months ago. Right now, if possible, I'd look at navi.

I could as well but didn't want to

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

You don't need to if you don't want ot.

I want to though, that's the thing. I specifically want a reference Vega card, be it 7, 56, or 64, because EK sells single slot brackets for them.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So you're not.

I can outright say that I didn't buy a new nVidia GPU in a decade or so

(I honestly don't remember the last nVidia Graphics Card I bought new. But I think it was the Leadtek 8600GT Fanless oh wait, no, it was the Sparkle GTS250 Low Profile)

Though I did in the past and also have bought some in the not soo distant past. And I had a lot of nV Cards. Even have a couple right now (though many dead or some kind of Problem like dead VGA Port)

 

I outright say that I don't want to buy from monopolistic companys with 80%+ market share. Especially when they love proprietary shit at the cost of the consumers...

When their Market Share is at around 50/50, I might think about it.

That is my principle to avoid such companys, if I can....

 

 

Why are you avoiding this and even insult me???

for starters how am I insulting you

and what am I avoiding?

 

I have no need for any gpu right now 1080ti sli(redundancy kinda not going to wait a month again for rma)  with 1060 3gb( got for $60 and use it to drive 2 more monitors)

 

but still what does me have to do with halo products, marketing and the masses?

 

a year after nvidia released its halo titan card is when their market share skyrocketed

 

[mr moose]

On 5/8/2019 at 10:04 AM, Drak3 said:

Same basic principles apply.

Different market because there are something like 18 plus car brands under 10 manufacturers with markets so significantly different that top end models in one market make shit difference to another.  No one cares about the best 4wds in a city runabout market.  but with PC, we have only two markets and two brands.

Besides the car analogies never work,  there are too many variables.

On 5/8/2019 at 10:13 AM, Neftex said:

thanks for pointing that out, AMD still doesnt have the best CPU but their mid range started selling really well. guess why? price...

AMD's CPU's didn't start selling until Ryzen hit the market and it did hit the market in a leading position.   I pointed that out last time this debate happened, if you look at AMD stocks, sales, budgets etc they all shot up after thee release of Ryzen. 

 

*snip*

 

On 5/8/2019 at 3:50 PM, Stefan Payne said:

No, they don't want to compete for the top because they don't sell top products for various reasons.

With lower end Products, ideology and indoctrination is irrelevant, price/performance counts. 

 

 

 

 Oh please, they do want to compete in the top end, stop fooling yourself.  It's one thing to like a company but if you are going to fool yourself excusing their failure to compete it key markets then there is no hope of honest discussion.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by wkdpaul
cleanup

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Oh please, they do want to compete in the top end, stop fooling yourself.  It's one thing to like a company but if you are going to fool yourself excusing their failure to compete it key markets then there is no hope of honest discussion.

It’s funny when AMD fanboys use the “they’re not aiming for the high end market” argument. Explain the Fury X, explain Vega 64 and explain Radeon VII if they really weren’t; and they’d REALLY have to explain HBM’s existence and the push they did for marketing all of those cards as the 2160p cards to get.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to put effort into the lower-end market: the peformance that the 2500U offered for how cheap you could get into it was why I bought my damn laptop, but the high end matters, and for some reason, fanboys do not want to admit that.

Again, I’m someone who’s ONLY owned AMD (yes I prefer them for my shit, but that’s irrelevant to the truth) and I can tell you that they don’t put enough effort into making the high end appealing to the consumer and making the lower end sell because of it.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

They do in this case.

It just is to show how the market works and what is important. For that the Car Analogy is good enough to show the basic principle.

I've also provided a Link in my Last Posting to show that. In Germany, only the German "Luxory" Car Companys sell cars well. Others do not.

It doesn't compare with cars at all, and of course in Germany only the German brand high end cars are going to sell as they probably have some pretty strong marketing and buyers with lots of money are going to buy the car with more brand recognition as opposed to a more reliable Lexus (Toyota)/Infiniti (Nissan)/Acura (Honda).

58 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Rumors are that Radeon 7 was never really planned and only for professional usage (FirePRO, Radeon Instincts and co).

 

VEGA is not as certain, you can argue either way. And it wasn't that bad but nobody bought it because of the reasons I've mentioned...

Hardly anybody buys AMD these days, except for the ~100-200€ segment, so where should they have the money for R&D??

That's kinda the Problem that people DEMAND AMD to make better cards but never buy them.

 

What they really want is that AMD has to release a cheaper card, so that nVidia reduces the price and they can get an nVidia Card cheaper. That's what they want. Not an AMD Card.

Except that AMD marketed Radeon 7 as a gaming card, their poor marketing and overhyping products really doesn't help them and if AMD had better marketing perhaps people would buy a high end card.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It’s funny when AMD fanboys use the “they’re not aiming for the high end market” argument. Explain the Fury X, explain Vega 64 and explain Radeon VII if they really weren’t; and they’d REALLY have to explain HBM’s existence and the push they did for marketing all of those cards as the 2160p cards to get.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to put effort into the lower-end market: the peformance that the 2500U offered for how cheap you could get into it was why I bought my damn laptop, but the high end matters, and for some reason, fanboys do not want to admit that.

Again, I’m someone who’s ONLY owned AMD (yes I prefer them for my shit, but that’s irrelevant to the truth) and I can tell you that they don’t put enough effort into making the high end appealing to the consumer and making the lower end sell because of it.

The stupid thing in all this is that there is room to be exited about a company and it's products if you want (it's likely the same psych trait that makes having a crown product a sales magnet), just don't be delusional about reality.  Not only does it make discussion hard but it actually makes people want to avoid those products.

 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Explain the Fury X, explain Vega 64 and explain Radeon VII if they really weren’t;

The Fury X and 64 are aimed at, and designed for high end, but the 64 wasn't for the top end.

 

VII might just be recycling some Instinct dies, we really don't know atm.

[Neftex]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

AMD's CPU's didn't start selling until Ryzen hit the market and it did hit the market in a leading position.   I pointed that out last time this debate happened, if you look at AMD stocks, sales, budgets etc they all shot up after thee release of Ryzen.

ryzen didnt hit the market in a leading position, 1700x didnt clearly beat intel top offering in most workloads, neither did 2700x.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Neftex said:

ryzen didnt hit the market in a leading position, 1700x didnt clearly beat intel top offering in most workloads, neither did 2700x.

Depends on the metric, by the time 2700X came Intel had their shit together again.   But your missing the point, no top end equals less sales across the board.  whether you like it or not it's just something you're going to have to get used to.

[Humbug]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:48 PM, System32.exe said:

*snip*

 

On 5/8/2019 at 10:56 PM, mr moose said:

*snip*

Honestly the majority of PC gamers do not know follow news/reviews about hardware. They just play games, and the hardware is there to serve that purpose. When their PC gets noticeably slow framerates they upgrade. It's the majority of this crowd that buys geforce without second thought, because it's the brand name they are more familiar and comfortable with. This is the area where AMD needs to improve their brand strength. The success of Ryzen could help if they can attach it to Radeon... This is their weakness.

 

People who are interested in hardware like the people who post on this forum are more likely to make purchasing decisions based on the individual merits of a particular product. People still have brand preferences of course and may be more favorable to one company but overall this crowd is equipped with more data. However this crowd is the minority amongst GPU buyers.

[Trixanity]

7 hours ago, Neftex said:

ryzen didnt hit the market in a leading position, 1700x didnt clearly beat intel top offering in most workloads, neither did 2700x.

Indeed. People keep parroting the idea that Ryzen launched as the best product on the market. It actually launched as best performance per dollar. Just like their GPUs. I just went through the trouble of digging through the launch reviews and it's basically ahead in only a few benchmarks and only based on either core count or clock speed. In head to head it loses every time. If you're talking gaming Intel was the best option without a doubt unless you consider the value proposition which we're being told doesn't matter.

 

So there is absolutely no performance crown to be had here yet Ryzen sells very well. Case dismissed.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Indeed. People keep parroting the idea that Ryzen launched as the best product on the market. It actually launched as best performance per dollar. Just like their GPUs. I just went through the trouble of digging through the launch reviews and it's basically ahead in only a few benchmarks and only based on either core count or clock speed. In head to head it loses every time. If you're talking gaming Intel was the best option without a doubt unless you consider the value proposition which we're being told doesn't matter.

 

So there is absolutely no performance crown to be had here yet Ryzen sells very well. Case dismissed.

It launched performing within bulls spit of Intel's best and actually performing better in some work loads that it can be considered top performing.  And you are forgetting that TR and Epyc are part of the Ryzen release.  That is why the whole line started to sell well.  It is also why AMD stocks went up, AMD enjoyed investor confidence.

 

A simple look at AMD's financials before during and after Ryzen release shows us this clearly.

[leadeater]

52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It launched performing within bulls spit of Intel's best and actually performing better in some work loads that it can be considered top performing.  And you are forgetting that TR and Epyc are part of the Ryzen release.  That is why the whole line started to sell well.  It is also why AMD stocks went up, AMD enjoyed investor confidence.

 

A simple look at AMD's financials before during and after Ryzen release shows us this clearly.

Ryzen CPUs also have far less of a stigma about being loud AF blowers and melting furnaces of fire. A lot is forgiven when your product is just outright performance king, which is why X800/X850 and 7970 sold so well.

[Neftex]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It launched performing within bulls spit of Intel's best and actually performing better in some work loads that it can be considered top performing.  And you are forgetting that TR and Epyc are part of the Ryzen release.  That is why the whole line started to sell well.  It is also why AMD stocks went up, AMD enjoyed investor confidence.

 

A simple look at AMD's financials before during and after Ryzen release shows us this clearly.

performance wasnt as close in the top end as youre trying to say. im not forgetting threadripper because it still wasnt clearly better performing than intel, it was just better price/performance.