AMD RX 5700 Navi New arch

[ThePD]

54 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

If we're going here, can I argue the RX 5700's price is a stupid ridiculous increase from AMD's previous level 7 SKUs?

I think the price is too high to be honest. Especially the 5700 XT

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 minutes ago, ThePD said:

I think the price is too high to be honest. Especially the 5700 XT

I mean, we're talking about a $180 SKU level that got bumped up to a $450 one.

[ThePD]

Just now, Mira Yurizaki said:

I mean, we're talking about a $180 SKU level that got bumped up to a $450 one.

Which is largely why this launch is incredibly disappointing. Nvidia has been taking well deserved flak for overcharging for the RTX cards. And hopefully AMD will take the same Flak for overpricing Navi.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, ThePD said:

Which is largely why this launch is incredibly disappointing. Nvidia has been taking well deserved flak for overcharging for the RTX cards. And hopefully AMD will take the same Flak for overpricing Navi.

Honestly though, people should really disassociate SKU level with price. Otherwise we have arguments like this.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Mira Yurizaki said:

Honestly though, people should really disassociate SKU level with price. Otherwise we have arguments like this.

Like people who insists the 2080 Ti is the new TITAN despite having a $2500 RTX TITAN out there... it's simply the new pricing of the x80 Ti... deal with it, am I right? heh

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, JediFragger said:

Because I can.

 

I swear crack would be a cheaper hobby

 

Amen, i happened for giggles to do the conversion on what i paid for my 2080Ti back in january, works out at nearly 1800 USD (i'm in UK for those curious and prices have gone up since then on all but the lowest end models).

 

7 hours ago, ACatWithThumbs said:

Yep, and during Fermi and early Kepler days, AMD was extremely strong.
Many people bought the HD7970 and HD6970 over the 680 and 580, especially since they had more Vram at the same or better performance and price.

Their cards just haven't been competitive since 2013, either in price, performance, or they were too hot.

And AMD not having any high-end cards kills their entire marketing, everyone on youtube or twitch is using Nvidia and if you want to see game showcases they will always be on Nvidia.
People don't often think about this but the high-end market dictates the entire profile of the company and the perception on the lower end as well.

What we need is AMD to come back with a full line up like the 7000 series, so 6+ GPU's at once against Nvidia's entire lineup.
High-end models, mid-range, low-end and all need to be on par with Nvidia features wise and be competitive in price and performance.


 

 

GN mentioned this as have a fair few others TBF. Even if you barely sell any of your top end card's the marketing effect of a Halo product is important. TBH thats largely where the most recent NVIDIA generation's rep as expensive comes from, on a price per performance level the 2080 and especially the 2080Ti are waaaay out there.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe... But you'd think that people would actually calculate the price:performance before blabbing on and on about how AMD is superior in that regard when it is clearly not true.

I mean, it's not hard to verify, and once you do verify it you realize that Nvidia and AMD both have their fare share of good value and poor value cards, with no clear winner in the value category across the board.

 

I am getting pretty tired of people just parroting what they think is true without verifying it.

 

Here is an example:

 

The only AMD cards with worse performance per dollar are the R7 and the Vega64 and every single one of them outperforms the 1650. Even the poor RX570 is on par with the 1060 3GB thats just slightly behind the 1650 on the table. Honestly if it wasn't for the 1660Ti  AMD would still have the midrange market completely cornered from a value PoV.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

GN mentioned this as have a fair few others TBF. Even if you barely sell any of your top end card's the marketing effect of a Halo product is important. TBH thats largely where the most recent NVIDIA generation's rep as expensive comes from, on a price per performance level the 2080 and especially the 2080Ti are waaaay out there.

Same with brand recognition. A friend of mine who wasn't quite a technonerd like the rest of us but was a programmer pointed something out: Everyone knows who Intel is. And that was large in part due to their marketing campaign back in the 90s.

 

People probably get more exposure to NVIDIA as well due to the lack of AMD GPUs in many laptops. And the whole NVIDIA branding on games.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Loote said:

2 AMD cards have less perf/$ than 1650 and 8 from nvidia, 4 AMD cards are better and 5 from Nvidia. In Top 6 Perf per $ there are 4 AMD cards and 2 from Nvidia. But mostly it's: AMD RX cards are great price/perf, Nvidia has okay competitors at their price range, outside of it, it's nearly Nvidia only territory because HBM driven Vega costs too much, though V56 is a some sort of an anomaly. Lack of real competition makes Nvidia price their top tier stuff ruthlessly, they also allowed themselves to make some really expensive to produce cards thanks to that.

It's important to remember that with the exception of 2 Nvidia cards (the 1050 and 10603G) the worst price/performers are all top end cards (1070 or better), an area that AMD seriously lacks products.   There are 5 better priced Nvidia products under the 1650strix and only 4 AMD, which means price to performance is basically the same for both companies.  

 

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

The only AMD cards with worse performance per dollar are the R7 and the Vega64 and every single one of them outperforms the 1650. Even the poor RX570 is on par with the 1060 3GB thats just slightly behind the 1650 on the table. Honestly if it wasn't for the 1660Ti  AMD would still have the midrange market completely cornered from a value PoV.

Which goes to show only 3 things,  within the midrange and below both companies are on par,  in the upper range AMD are lacking products, the 1050 and 1060 3g are shit buys (always have been), but when Nvidia lacked competition during their prime what do people expect?

[CarlBar]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's important to remember that with the exception of 2 Nvidia cards (the 1050 and 10603G) the worst price/performers are all top end cards (1070 or better), an area that AMD seriously lacks products.   There are 5 better priced Nvidia products under the 1650strix and only 4 AMD, which means price to performance is basically the same for both companies.  

 

 

Which goes to show only 3 things,  within the midrange and below both companies are on par,  in the upper range AMD are lacking products, the 1050 and 1060 3g are shit buys (always have been), but when Nvidia lacked competition during their prime what do people expect?

 

Yeah but prior to the 16xx series every AMD card in there outperformed everything below the 1650 on the graph except the 1060 6Gb which beat the 570 and matched the 580, (which has better perf per dollar than it on the chart).

 

Seriously take the 1660 and 1660Ti out of that chart and every AMD card bar the R7 and Vega 64 thrashes NVIDIA ethier on price per performance at the same absolute performance or on absolute performance at the same price per performance, (which depending on the exact comparison done).

 

The 1660 and the 1660Ti are the only reasons from a pure objective standpoint that NVIDIA are even relevant at any performance level below the Vega 56. And their much newer cards than anything AMD had put out until Navi so no one was expecting them to stand toe to toe with them. Navi was expected to be the answer that would let AMD take that back, (it may yet be when Navi 12 arrive ofc), and the trend set by this is to not expect that. AMD looks like they're effectively going "ok we give up you win NVIDIA". Ultimately meaningful competition requires that there be some reason to choose one product over another. Right now other than brand loyalty and RTX there's little reason to jump one way or the other.

 

Now when AIB's get their hands on this, it could change. It's not clear how aggressive AMD are being with the clocks and how much further board partners can push it. Potentially they might actually be able to make a compelling product out of this ifit can be pushed further by them than NVIDIA's alternatives. but right now in a reference vs reference fight there looks to be little if anything making the AMD offering a compelling choice over an existing proven product from NVIDIA.

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Yeah but prior to the 16xx series every AMD card in there outperformed everything below the 1650 on the graph except the 1060 6Gb which beat the 570 and matched the 580, (which has better perf per dollar than it on the chart).

 

Seriously take the 1660 and 1660Ti out of that chart and every AMD card bar the R7 and Vega 64 thrashes NVIDIA ethier on price per performance at the same absolute performance or on absolute performance at the same price per performance, (which depending on the exact comparison done).

That's because AMD only have two in the top tier.   If you take out the 16XX then it's 50/50 for either company in the perf/price stakes.

 

38 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

The 1660 and the 1660Ti are the only reasons from a pure objective standpoint that NVIDIA are even relevant at any performance level below the Vega 56. And their much newer cards than anything AMD had put out until Navi so no one was expecting them to stand toe to toe with them. Navi was expected to be the answer that would let AMD take that back, (it may yet be when Navi 12 arrive ofc), and the trend set by this is to not expect that. AMD looks like they're effectively going "ok we give up you win NVIDIA". Ultimately meaningful competition requires that there be some reason to choose one product over another. Right now other than brand loyalty and RTX there's little reason to jump one way or the other.

 

Now when AIB's get their hands on this, it could change. It's not clear how aggressive AMD are being with the clocks and how much further board partners can push it. Potentially they might actually be able to make a compelling product out of this ifit can be pushed further by them than NVIDIA's alternatives. but right now in a reference vs reference fight there looks to be little if anything making the AMD offering a compelling choice over an existing proven product from NVIDIA.

Really not sure how you worded that out.   There are just as many nvidia cards in the bottom half of that graph as there are AMD,  that means they are the about the same with the 570 taking the crown for the best price/perf and the 1060 3g being the worst.   Price/perf is always worse in the top performing products of any category, GPU's sports cars, trucks, monitors anything.  If AMD had a 2080ti competitor it would be up there balancing out the graph at the top end.

[Humbug]

8 hours ago, Firewrath9 said:

There will be no "reference" card, except for the special ed, keep in mind NVidias "reference" ed. costs 600$ (2070)

all the RX 5700 will be partner models at launch

Source?

6 hours ago, ThePD said:

Which is largely why this launch is incredibly disappointing. Nvidia has been taking well deserved flak for overcharging for the RTX cards. And hopefully AMD will take the same Flak for overpricing Navi.

Yep. Now they both deserve flak. This isn't about nvidia vs AMD anymore. This trend is now a huge threat to PC gaming on the whole. Until recently pc gaming has been growing despite the rest of the pc ecosystem declining. This continious price escalation will make it more niche and elitist and push people towards alternatives.

[Arika]

[killcomic]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Source?

Yep. Now they both deserve flak. This isn't about nvidia vs AMD anymore. This trend is now a huge threat to PC gaming on the whole. Until recently pc gaming has been growing despite the rest of the pc ecosystem declining. This continious price escalation will make it more niche and elitist and push people towards alternatives.

Yep. I'm out of PC gaming now. My 1060 will only last so long.
Why would I buy a video card now when I could buy a new console next year for a similar price, similar performance AND with ray tracing.

How bad of a joke will it be when your USD$500 GPU can't do the eye candy that a USD$500 console can?

Once ray tracing hits consoles, it will go mainstream and the console makers will be pushing it in games, I can guarantee it.

 

[Humbug]

14 minutes ago, killcomic said:

Yep. I'm out of PC gaming now. My 1060 will only last so long.
Why would I buy a video card now when I could buy a new console next year for a similar price, similar performance AND with ray tracing.

How bad of a joke will it be when your USD$500 GPU can't do the eye candy that a $500 console can?

Once ray tracing hits consoles, it will go mainstream and the console makers will be pushing it in games, I can guarantee it.

 

Tell me about it. I still use my 5 year old Sapphire R9 290 vapor-x. It's only 20% slower than a GTX 1060. Things have really slowed down in the midrange, while the high end moves out of reach of us. I see more and more posts like yours in various forums and comments sections.

 

Thing is that as Nvidia and AMD make PC gaming unattractive... AMD is going to not get hit, because they get the business anyway whether people shift to consoles, or shift to stadia, and now it looks like they are even selling RDNA designs to mobile. But longterm Nvidia is really shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy by making PC gaming look so bad.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

-the joke-

I was also about to write a reply to you because I thought you were serious.

That's about the level or reasoning skills I have come to expect from people who participate in AMD vs Nvidia vs Intel threads.

 

 

15 hours ago, cj09beira said:

partly because its nvidia that keeps increasing the prices, and if we try to figure out how much those new gpus cost nvidia to make many of them in earlier generations were being sold with much more reasonable margins, recent history is a bit hard to follow due to the mining problems, and memory price fixing, amd is following nvidia, kinda the same way samsung is following apple, samsung had lower prices, apple started to make 1k+ phones and samsung said if they can get away with it so will i  

Yeah, but if both sides are doing it why are people pretending like "Nvidia bad and expensive, AMD good guys!"? Both deserve shit in that case.

 

 

12 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

It also doesn't help that everyone conveniently forgets that the FE pricing for the GeForce 20 cards is not the starting MSRP.

Maybe I should redo TechPowerUp's chart, because I think they use MSRP pricing at launch for their performance per dollar chart. For the Nvidia cards that means FE pricing. So all Nvidia cards on the list should be slightly better than what it shows.

 

 

9 hours ago, CarlBar said:

The only AMD cards with worse performance per dollar are the R7 and the Vega64 and every single one of them outperforms the 1650. Even the poor RX570 is on par with the 1060 3GB thats just slightly behind the 1650 on the table. Honestly if it wasn't for the 1660Ti  AMD would still have the midrange market completely cornered from a value PoV.

Dude, are you listening to yourself?

You're talking about "if we remove these Nvidia products from this particular segment, AMD would dominate that segment". No shit. If you remove products from a product stack it leaves a gap. Yes, if Nvidia did not have a midrange card on the market then AMD would have that market completely corned. The exact same thing can be said for any brand, or any product, in any market. If AMD did not have any midrange cards then Nvidia would have the midrange market cornered too.

Shocking, right?

[killcomic]

41 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Tell me about it. I still use my 5 year old Sapphire R9 290 vapor-x. It's only 20% slower than a GTX 1060. Things have really slowed down in the midrange, while the high end moves out of reach of us. I see more and more posts like yours in various forums and comments sections.

 

Thing is that as Nvidia and AMD make PC gaming unattractive... AMD is going to not get hit, because they get the business anyway whether people shift to consoles, or shift to stadia, and now it looks like they are even selling RDNA designs to mobile. But longterm Nvidia is really shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy by making PC gaming look so bad.

 

 

 

Yep, that's exactly right. Nvidia think it's winning but it's only killing its own market, meanwhile AMD is giving them a helping hand by pricing people out of PC gaming. They're cool with that because gamers will move to consoles and AMD has a monopoly there.

[CarlBar]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Dude, are you listening to yourself?

You're talking about "if we remove these Nvidia products from this particular segment, AMD would dominate that segment". No shit. If you remove products from a product stack it leaves a gap. Yes, if Nvidia did not have a midrange card on the market then AMD would have that market completely corned. The exact same thing can be said for any brand, or any product, in any market. If AMD did not have any midrange cards then Nvidia would have the midrange market cornered too.

Shocking, right?

 

A newer generations outperforms an older one. 

 

Shocking right.

 

 

The point is the 16xx series are significantly newer than every card on there except the R7, none of the AMD cards where specced or priced to compete with the 16 series and until they were released, (which required a new architecture from Nvidia), AMD offered the best absolute performance for your money at every point below the vega 56. The whole point of Navi, (to a consumer), is that it's AMD's answer to the 16xx series cards. It's AMD's next generation of graphics cards as turing was for nvidia. If you compare the 1060 to the 16 series it has awful price per performance, thats just the performance uplift from a new generation at the same price points at work, you frames per dollor will allways get better in that situation.

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's because AMD only have two in the top tier.   If you take out the 16XX then it's 50/50 for either company in the perf/price stakes.

 

Really not sure how you worded that out.   There are just as many nvidia cards in the bottom half of that graph as there are AMD,  that means they are the about the same with the 570 taking the crown for the best price/perf and the 1060 3g being the worst.   Price/perf is always worse in the top performing products of any category, GPU's sports cars, trucks, monitors anything.  If AMD had a 2080ti competitor it would be up there balancing out the graph at the top end.

 

Hopefully a lot of what i said to lawlz addressed this for you.

 

But what i'm getting at isn't how many cards are where. But the relevancy of the cards. Nvidia has a lot of cards in the bottom half of the stack, but all the cards except the 16 series are irrelevant because every single one of those cards, (except the 1060 6Gb which is tied), has an AMD competitor that offers better performance for the same price. So if you wanted the best FPS for X dollars AMD was your best pick. If you wanted the minimum price for Y FPS AMD was your best pick.

 

Obviously the 16 series messed with that. but they're a new architecture, they're expected to offer better performance per dollar that prior generations and AMD doesn't have it's new generation hardware out so it's expected Nvidia will hold the edge until they do launch it because if they didn't Nvidia would have really done f*****'d up.

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

A newer generations outperforms an older one. 

 

Shocking right.

 

 

The point is the 16xx series are significantly newer than every card on there except the R7, none of the AMD cards where specced or priced to compete with the 16 series and until they were released, (which required a new architecture from Nvidia), AMD offered the best absolute performance for your money at every point below the vega 56. The whole point of Navi, (to a consumer), is that it's AMD's answer to the 16xx series cards. It's AMD's next generation of graphics cards as turing was for nvidia. If you compare the 1060 to the 16 series it has awful price per performance, thats just the performance uplift from a new generation at the same price points at work, you frames per dollor will allways get better in that situation.

 

 

Hopefully a lot of what i said to lawlz addressed this for you.

 

But what i'm getting at isn't how many cards are where. But the relevancy of the cards. Nvidia has a lot of cards in the bottom half of the stack, but all the cards except the 16 series are irrelevant because every single one of those cards, (except the 1060 6Gb which is tied), has an AMD competitor that offers better performance for the same price. So if you wanted the best FPS for X dollars AMD was your best pick. If you wanted the minimum price for Y FPS AMD was your best pick.

 

Obviously the 16 series messed with that. but they're a new architecture, they're expected to offer better performance per dollar that prior generations and AMD doesn't have it's new generation hardware out so it's expected Nvidia will hold the edge until they do launch it because if they didn't Nvidia would have really done f*****'d up.

It's price to performance.  It doesn't matter when they were released, who released them or what tech is in them.  They are all rated on how they perform for their price, not how they perform compared to any other metric or card but their own price.

 

 

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's price to performance.  It doesn't matter when they were released, who released them or what tech is in them.  They are all rated on how they perform for their price, not how they perform compared to any other metric or card but their own price.

 

 

 

And every time we get a new generation of hardware the first one out the door with it gets this advantage. There's a reason by and large you don't compare a 1060 to a 960 outside of right around release, (and then only to get an idea of the performance uplift), it just isn't a valid comparison.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

And every time we get a new generation of hardware the first one out the door with it gets this advantage. There's a reason by and large you don't compare a 1060 to a 960 outside of right around release, (and then only to get an idea of the performance uplift), it just isn't a valid comparison.

why would you try to compare cards like that?    as I said:

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

They are all rated on how they perform for their price, not how they perform compared to any other metric or card but their own price.

 

 

 

This basically shows that the dollar for FPS each company charges is about the same and only changes as you go up and down the tiers but not across the brands.  Sure you can get technical and start talking about minor variation caused by AIB deals, game optimization and which API is used, but that is out of both AMD and NVidia's control.