Pair of AMD Navi GPU's to be shown at Computex

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If not for mining, AMD could have sold a lot more cards to gamers, amd was catering to the miners instead of the regular gaming consumers that didn't really have much choice but to buy the Nvidia card. People want to blame Nvidia for inflated gpu prices except dgpu prices were inflated because of mining.

they definitely did not cater to mining, and they even got out of their way to try and get some cards to gamers by making those bundles, the most they did to miners was 2 driver changes to increase mining performance, nothing more, and its not like amd could prevent cards from going to miners, the reason prices went up as much as they did was in part because amd didn't increase production as much as nvidia did, which meant in the end they had less inventory issues compared to nvidia (amd suffered quite a lot in 2013 with too much 290x inventory which never sold).

now nvidia doesn't have any excuse for the increase prices of the current cards, as there is no mining pressure anymore

[Blademaster91]

6 minutes ago, Neftex said:

rtx inflated prices are in no way caused by mining

Except people were already willing to pay more for a gpu, from either Nvidia or amd. The new tech in rtx cards does allow them to increase the price some however amd would do the exact same thing.

[NumLock21]

One other thing that Nvidia has is CUDA. They heavily market that technology and software developers updated their products to support it. Buying a card isn't just for games, we use it for other things too and when we heard about a new features that can speed up out jobs in the programs we used, we tend buy the card that has it, even when it's entry level. This is why a GTX1650 sells, even tbough a RX580 is better in game performance and cheaper. 

I can't remember if AMD supports CUDA or not, but if it does, people will still go with Nvidia because it's their product, and people will always go with the company who makes it. 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except people were already willing to pay more for a gpu, from either Nvidia or amd. The new tech in rtx cards does allow them to increase the price some however amd would do the exact same thing.

arent they already doing the same thing by releasing newer cards at the right price segments?

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

One other thing that Nvidia has is CUDA. They heavily market that technology and software developers updated their products to support it. Buying a card isn't just for games, we use it for other things too and when we heard about a new features that can speed up out jobs in the programs we used, we tend buy the card that has it, even when it's entry level. This is why a GTX1650 sells, while a RX580 is better in game performance and cheaper. 

I can't remember if AMD supports CUDA or not, but if it does, people will still go with Nvidia because it's their product, and people will always go with the company who makes it. 

OpenCL and a few other approaches. Issue is that Intel enters the market in 2020 and they're going with OpenCL as well. Nvidia's biggest worry is Intel.

[RejZoR]

We were expecting GTX 1080 performance. Now they are mentioning RTX 2070 which is quite a bit faster. If rumors are to be believed, performance isn't bad at all.

[MeatFeastMan]

36 minutes ago, Humbug said:

I get what you are saying and I too expected them to blow away Nvidia's price/perf because they can.

 

But AMD is thinking like below

• If we radically beat Nvidia price/performance then Nvidia will drop their prices too. And then 75% of people will buy Nvidia anyway ignoring AMD as usual. And we will be left with the other 25% at lower margins.

OR

• We could just slightly better Nvidia price/performance. Maybe we will get just 20% market share of new GPU sales in those categories but hey now we have big fat margins and can make lots more money.... Done. Nvidia has created super high pricing with the RTX lineup, now we can take advantage of that.

 

Remember it's different from the CPU enthusiast and gamer market. In the CPU market when AMD puts out a good product gamers and enthusiasts buy it. The uptake of bulldozer and the uptake of Zen is poles apart, because the latter is a good product. So here AMD knows that it is worth it to lower prices because people will buy and then can really grow their market share. Buyers are more rational and will flock to the better product be it Intel or AMD. But in the GPU market most people just buy Nvidia even if it is not as good.

 

So it was inevitable that at some point this would start factoring into RTG's decision making. Lowering prices works if users are willing to switch away from Nvidia and really change the market share balance. Then AMD would think this is worth it to gain market share even at lower margins. If not why bother... better to make money.

Nvidia is mainly all about itself. It hasn't explored many options. AMD is partnering with others to make big money. Therefore, it makes sense for AMD to lower prices. Even if Nvidia follow up on that, it means less profits and with AMD's other partnerships and strengths with ryzen, they can rely on other areas. Lowering the prices is a very powerful tool for AMD, because most of where their money comes from is from Ryzen anyways. If Nvidia fell into that trap and decreased prices, it's only a negative for them, not for AMD. Nvidia's failure to branch out would have left them weaker had AMD continued to lower prices.

 

They are most likely using some money from what they gained with Ryzen to boost their gpu side. Nvidia are using the money they gained from their gpu's to fund their next generation of gpu's. By lowering prices, it levels the playing field in this instance because of the fact that their cpu side is stable and they have the funding gained from their cpu side to help them tackle Nvidia. If Nvidia's profits go down due to lower prices, and AMD gains loads from Zen2..then AMD will close in on Nvidia for the next generations while Nvidia has less profits.

 

Lower prices is a good thing for AMD in the long term. It's a lose-lose for Nvidia. They either lower prices, have lower profits and therefore AMD catch up with profits from Zen2, Zen3 etc, or...they stay where they are and allow AMD to gain back market share.

 

 

[NumLock21]

14 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

OpenCL and a few other approaches. Issue is that Intel enters the market in 2020 and they're going with OpenCL as well. Nvidia's biggest worry is Intel.

AMD uses OpenCL and yet not many  talk about it or have a interest in it, besides the small group of people that does. As for intel, we shall see how good their dgpus are and if it's bad, no one will care what features it has.

[pas008]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

We were expecting GTX 1080 performance. Now they are mentioning RTX 2070 which is quite a bit faster. If rumors are to be believed, performance isn't bad at all.

Wasn't it 1080 performance for 250 

Not 400 

 

[ravenshrike]

11 hours ago, Neftex said:

amd vs intel cpu and amd vs nvidia gpu is quite different

I mean, if you assume that serious work on the next gen gpu stuff beyond GCN iterations didn't start till Zen was a successful launch, the only real difference in their situation is that AMD is able to seriously compete at the low to mid level cards. It remains to be seen if AMD can bring their A game to the GPU space in 2 years or so.

[williamcll]

Imagine if TSMC increased their Chip prices.

[RejZoR]

6 hours ago, pas008 said:

Wasn't it 1080 performance for 250 

Not 400 

 

300. And I've always counted that in €. Which is basically 400 in murican money. 300€ is a reasonable price for such performance.

[Humbug]

10 hours ago, pas008 said:

Wasn't it 1080 performance for 250 

Not 400 

Pricing is often not finalized until close to launch.

 

It's just that this time AMD has a huge pricing range to play with because the RTX cards are so expensive. They can just pick their price point. Normally they only have a narrow range within which they can sell their GPUs with adequate profit and still come in lower than the competing Nvidia model.

So AMD has probably decided to make money for themselves rather than forcing a price war.

[pas008]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

300. And I've always counted that in €. Which is basically 400 in murican money. 300€ is a reasonable price for such performance.

it was rumored at 250 on fud/wccf

need the articles?

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Pricing is often not finalized until close to launch.

 

It's just that this time AMD has a huge pricing range to play with because the RTX cards are so expensive. They can just pick their price point. Normally they only have a narrow range within which they can sell their GPUs with adequate profit and still come in lower than the competing Nvidia model.

So AMD has probably decided to make money for themselves rather than forcing a price war.

of course we are talking about the rumors

 

and no they are being typical like any business charge as much as they can

 

so its performance is slightly better than vega64 which is already 400?

 

[Humbug]

46 minutes ago, pas008 said:

so its performance is slightly better than vega64 which is already 400?

Well obviously speculating but that rumour stated the USD 400 GPU called the Navi pro was faster than the RTX 2060 but slower than the RTX 2070. That pretty much means Vega 64 performance... It can't be much faster than the Vega 64 because then we are getting into RTX 2070 territory. Whereas the $500 GPU called the Navi XT is supposed to be a bit quicker than the RTX 2070.

 

If that rumour is true then AMD is going to have big fat margins and plenty of room to drastically drop prices later on when they need to. e.g. When Nvidia launches Ampere 7nm GPUs.

[pas008]

25 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Well obviously speculating but that rumour stated the USD 400 GPU called the Navi pro was faster than the RTX 2060 but slower than the RTX 2070. That pretty much means Vega 64 performance... It can't be much faster than the Vega 64 because then we are getting into RTX 2070 territory. Whereas the $500 GPU called the Navi XT is supposed to be a bit quicker than the RTX 2070.

 

If that rumour is true then AMD is going to have big fat margins and plenty of room to drastically drop prices later on when they need to. e.g. When Nvidia launches Ampere 7nm GPUs.

I was talking about previous rumor of 1080 performance for 250 from fud/wccf but they pricing it at 400 with this rumor

[RejZoR]

That was my speculation, GTX 1080 performance for 300€, not a leak from anyone. You can look my posts back where I said this.

[Humbug]

On 5/22/2019 at 6:13 PM, Humbug said:

I get what you are saying and I too expected them to blow away Nvidia's price/perf because they can.

 

But AMD is thinking like below

• If we radically beat Nvidia price/performance then Nvidia will drop their prices too. And then 75% of people will buy Nvidia anyway ignoring AMD as usual. And we will be left with the other 25% at lower margins.

OR

• We could just slightly better Nvidia price/performance. Maybe we will get just 20% market share of new GPU sales in those categories but hey now we have big fat margins and can make lots more money.... Done. Nvidia has created super high pricing with the RTX lineup, now we can take advantage of that.

To add to this...

 

 

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Humbug said:

Well obviously speculating but that rumour stated the USD 400 GPU called the Navi pro was faster than the RTX 2060 but slower than the RTX 2070. That pretty much means Vega 64 performance... It can't be much faster than the Vega 64 because then we are getting into RTX 2070 territory. Whereas the $500 GPU called the Navi XT is supposed to be a bit quicker than the RTX 2070.

 

If that rumour is true then AMD is going to have big fat margins and plenty of room to drastically drop prices later on when they need to. e.g. When Nvidia launches Ampere 7nm GPUs.

I'm not sure why anyone would want AMD's pricing to be high, a price war would be good for the consumer and without marketing to gain some brand recognition AMD needs to price their GPU's lower. And if it isn't faster than the Vega64 then they're just pulling another RX590 with an overpriced card when you could just buy a RTX2070 or a Vega 64.

15 hours ago, RejZoR said:

300. And I've always counted that in €. Which is basically 400 in murican money. 300€ is a reasonable price for such performance.

Its not, more like around $330USD. Interesting because the previous "leaks" were claiming there would be 1080 performance for $250.

[Humbug]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'm not sure why anyone would want AMD's pricing to be high, a price war would be good for the consumer and without marketing to gain some brand recognition AMD needs to price their GPU's lower. And if it isn't faster than the Vega64 then they're just pulling another RX590 with an overpriced card when you could just buy a RTX2070 or a Vega 64 in that $500 price range.

Its not, more like around $330USD. Interesting because the previous "leaks" were claiming there would be 1080 performance for $250.

Of course price wars are good for the consumer, but bad for the sellers.

 

AMD just may be done with pricing their GPUs significantly lower than Nvidia. Because too many consumers will just buy inferior geforce cards for more money anyway. So AMD may decide no point in a price war and instead settle for less units sold overall but enjoy the fat margins.

[Paparachipupopep]

16 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Of course price wars are good for the consumer, but bad for the sellers.

 

AMD just may be done with pricing their GPUs significantly lower than Nvidia. Because too many consumers will just buy inferior geforce cards for more money anyway. So AMD may decide no point in a price war and instead settle for less units sold overall but enjoy the fat margins.

Oh snap. That makes sense. Until AMD can have a Ryzen moment in the GPU space, maybe it is in their best interest to be just as crappy to consumers as Nvidia.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Paparachipupopep said:

Oh snap. That makes sense. Until AMD can have a Ryzen moment in the GPU space, maybe it is in their best interest to be just as crappy to consumers as Nvidia.

Then they aren't any better than Nvidia in terms of overpricing hardware, you have to be pretty loyal to AMD to be fine with them overcharging for a product and still blame Nvidia for it.

For AMD to have a "Ryzen moment" they're gonna need to have similar or better performance, some decent marketing and undercut the prices as they did with Ryzen.

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Of course price wars are good for the consumer, but bad for the sellers.

 

AMD just may be done with pricing their GPUs significantly lower than Nvidia. Because too many consumers will just buy inferior geforce cards for more money anyway. So AMD may decide no point in a price war and instead settle for less units sold overall but enjoy the fat margins.

Bad for the seller, unless like I said they gain some brand recognition and actually have a compelling product that people actually want to buy, people buy Nvidia because its more well known and have a halo tier card. People aren't going to buy it anyway if its similarly priced to the geforce card, and as a consumer I could care less what is good for the seller anyway, I'll buy what performs the best for the price.

[Paparachipupopep]

 

25 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Then they aren't any better than Nvidia in terms of overpricing hardware, you have to be pretty loyal to AMD to be fine with them overcharging for a product and still blame Nvidia for it.

Nothing to do with loyalty to one or the other. Anyone who's loyal to either is a fool, I cringe when I see people factoring loyalty into a purchase decision, even as a tiebreaker. I just appreciate the good business sense if this is in fact the case, no sense in them leaving money on the table if it doesn't buy them extra market share. 

[Drak3]

On 5/21/2019 at 11:30 PM, RejZoR said:

you mean the absolutely superior control panel

Only if you care about aesthetic.

 

I'd take Nvidia's control panel or AMD's old panel any day over the current one.

[Humbug]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Bad for the seller, unless like I said they gain some brand recognition and actually have a compelling product that people actually want to buy, people buy Nvidia because its more well known and have a halo tier card. People aren't going to buy it anyway if its similarly priced to the geforce card, and as a consumer I could care less what is good for the seller anyway, I'll buy what performs the best for the price.

*couldn't care less

 

Lol of course we don't care what is good for the seller when it comes to our purchasing decisions. We are just analysing their possible reasoning here. They know they won't sell anywhere near as many units as Nvidia and may have lowered their target for number of units sold and decided that that is ok as long as they make higher margins.