AMD reduces Navi GPU Prices before launch

[maartendc]

27 minutes ago, Kenpachi1985 said:

Yes and that is a letdown, while i am still happy that they come to chase Nvidia for real again its still a missed opportunity to right out step ahead of at least the 2070 super. 

It is, but unfortunately this seems to be the best AMD can do right now. There is also Radeon VII, which doesnt beat Nvidia, but is still a very powerful card.

 

Seeing as the Radeon VII is more on par with the RTX 2080, really more competition in the midrange $300-$400 bracket was needed. The RTX 1660Ti, 2060 and 2070 were running unopposed in that price range (which is a very important market segment). Vega 56 and Vega 64 were getting a bit long in the tooth... Essentially The Navi cards are successors to Vega 56 and Vega 64. 15-20% better performance at much better power consumption and temps.

 

Just like Vega 56 and 64, it is really competing in the upper-midrange rather than the high-end. It is disappointing that AMD cannot really make something to beat a 2080Ti, but at the end of the day: who cares? Who spends $700+ on a GPU anyway? Not me!

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Here you go.

 

Apparently pretty bonkers but it needs some bug fixes.

Thanks for the link. Looks like one of those things that's going to take off in a few months after the tech starts being "presentable" in easier ways.

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 hours ago, Ha? said:

AMD baited nvidia and won this round.

The fact that AMD was willing to sell the cards at the original price and all of a sudden dropped them two days before launch tells me more they were wanting to keep the original price. If they were willing to go with the reduced price, they would've set it at that first in all of the high-profile press announcements.

 

So I don't see how AMD "wins" anything.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Mira Yurizaki

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

 they were willing to keep the original higher price.

 

The whole driving purpose of setting prices is to maximize profit, It is not to gamble on getting the consumer the lowest price.  It never has been and never will be.  this idea that AMD are playing games with Revenue is just a twitter response to hide the fact they had to drop the prices (most likely due to performance).

 

 

[AnonymousGuy]

3 hours ago, Kenpachi1985 said:

 

You are correct, the value of the radeon cards is better on paper. What worries me is the way worse temperatures and the inferiour noise level of the Navi cards. I can agree on the fact that the 2070 super is not strictly a high end card- although pretty close, the upcoming 2080 super and 2080 ti are (and/or will be)  a good step above that, but still - lacking in 2 important categories (while noise is obviously not as important as temperatures) still puts the 2 Navi models clearly below the 2070 super. To be fair, both are FE editions and who knows what partner cards can make of that

And drivers from ATI/AMD always being shit.  Y'all can't even get the frequency reporting to be accurate on a launched product? 

 

This is the argument going forward, especially for enterprise customers.  AMD may give you better value on paper but you buy Intel + NV if you just want your shit to work.

[Mira Yurizaki]

35 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

This is the argument going forward, especially for enterprise customers.  AMD may give you better value on paper but you buy Intel + NV if you just want your shit to work.

This makes me wonder how good good AMD's software support is.

 

The general feeling I get out of AMD is "we leave ourselves open for you to figure out how it works, good luck!"

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The whole driving purpose of setting prices is to maximize profit, It is not to gamble on getting the consumer the lowest price.  It never has been and never will be.  this idea that AMD are playing games with Revenue is just a twitter response to hide the fact they had to drop the prices (most likely due to performance).

If you think that's what what people have suggested then you haven't understood what people were saying about AMD purportedly faking out Nvidia on the price, because I have yet to see anybody suggest that it was for the sake of consumers getting the lowest price. There is no correlation between or dependency on what Nvidia's prices are and what AMD can set theirs at if wanting to give consumers the lowest possible price. So, if that was AMD's goal, then AMD would simply price their GPUs lower from the start, or even right now, and whatever Nvidia's prices are would be completely irrelevant.

 

The understanding is that, if AMD did price higher to fake-out Nvidia then lower their prices after, then it was because they already knew they were going to have to lower prices to remain competitive against Nvidia's upcoming offering, and so wanted to do it in a way that would avoid lowering prices any further than necessary. What AMD did, if they did it, was a business calculation to maximize profits.

[MMKing]

Hopefully they can stick to a set naming scheme this time around... i'm not putting down any money on this.

 

If you can say that the 5700 is a bit better than the 2060, and the 5700 XT is a bit better than the 2070. For me currently, AMD has the better value. The 5700 is slightly more expensive than the 2060, but slightly better, so about equal. The 5700 XT is about 10% cheaper than the 2070, and slightly better.

 

It will be interesting to see how the 2060 super and the 2070 super will be priced in my market. But it seems customers accustomed to Nvidia, will have no significant incentive to go AMD based on current data. To really grab the market shares, AMD needs more than a competitive (3% +/- performance difference) at about the same price.

 

@AnonymousGuy I'm not sure why people keep forgetting Nvidia drivers, not infrequent enough, kill the customers graphics cards. Just search for ''Nvidia drivers kill GPU''. You will find info from 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2017.

 

''Y'all can't even get the frequency reporting to be accurate on a launched product?''

Is an insignificant issue in comparison.

[thorhammerz]

24 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

The general feeling I get out of AMD is "we leave ourselves open for you to figure out how it works, good luck!"

Which is great if someone else has already figured it out for you (open source ftw?) after a few months or years... not quite so great if you end up needing to "fill in the blanks" (as it were) and your (rather expensive) software engineers are also needed elsewhere.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

Which is great if someone else has already figured it out for you (open source ftw?) after a few months or years... not quite so great if you end up needing to "fill in the blanks" (as it were) and your (rather expensive) software engineers are also needed elsewhere.

To me it sounds like the group that should know most about the thing doesn't want to really support the thing.

 

Community support is fine and all, but I'd argue nothing beats having the people who should be intimate with it help you.

[Neftex]

4 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Here you go.

 

Apparently pretty bonkers but it needs some bug fixes.

i wasnt aware of this, none of the reviews i watched mentioned it. thanks for the link, makes deciding quite a bit easier

[Tonberry]

6 hours ago, Kenpachi1985 said:

but still - lacking in 2 important categories (while noise is obviously not as important as temperatures) still puts the 2 Navi models clearly below the 2070 super. To be fair, both are FE editions and who knows what partner cards can make of that 

Wait for Sapphire make their 5700XT Nitro+ their coolers blows heat away so well..

[Goldilock]

On 7/6/2019 at 4:57 AM, MeatFeastMan said:

RX 5700 at $349 still isn't perfect for the midrange, but with a fairly large improvement over the 2060, and with that 8gb VRAM...it's just about bearable. Thanks to AMD for making the right decision. We finally have something to buy in the midrange.

 

I think it's safe to say that the 2070 Super is pointless now. RX 5700 XT being $100 less while being within touching distance makes it a decent choice.

 

Don't get me wrong, we still can't really defend the prices. They should STILL be $50 lower and both AMD and Nvidia know darn well what they've done wrong here. But at $349 I think people should be just about able to stomach it given all the benefits over the 2060 that it brings.

 

The midrange was being sent to the burial site, coffin ready to be placed for July 7th. And thankfully AMD has come to the rescue at the last minute.

 

 

 

 

I miss the days when $349 is the high end

[Tonberry]

8 minutes ago, Goldilock said:

I miss the days when $349 is the high end

Blame crypto mining..

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, PotatoCanDo! said:

Blame crypto mining..

And general inflation, chinese trade issues, supply/demand, etc.

[79wjd]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And general inflation, chinese trade issues, supply/demand, etc.

Those are some strange ways to spell nVidia.

 

/s

[Neftex]

23 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Here you go.

 

Apparently pretty bonkers but it needs some bug fixes.

well, seems like the encoder is only good for hevc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLqpVImLPGE

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, Neftex said:

well, seems like the encoder is only good for hevc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLqpVImLPGE

That's a software problem though. So hopefully it'll be fixed although given the timelines it seems like it might not. Depends on whether AMD will put more resources towards fixing their neglect.

[descendency]

22 hours ago, PotatoCanDo! said:

Blame crypto mining..

The GTX 8800 was over 349 and well before crypto mining. Prices went up a long time ago.

 

But the high end also meant 'had a discrete GPU' and not even necessarily an additional power cable. GPUs have gotten a lot more complicated and powerful since the days of the first GeForce and Radeon cards. (and others)

[Mira Yurizaki]

16 hours ago, descendency said:

The GTX 8800 was over 349 and well before crypto mining. Prices went up a long time ago.

Taking inflation into account, prices haven't really changed all that much and in some cases, have dropped.

[Fasterthannothing]

Honestly what amazes me is the fact that people still don't understand that AMD will never be competitive in the ultra high end again. Ok now before people tell at me about being a Nvidia shill I would like to say I have an AMD CPU and almost got a 5700xt instead of the 2070 super but some of the features on the Nvidia made me get a 2070 super but that's besides the point. Nvidia isn't Intel they aren't sitting on their butt and not doing anything. Nvidia has multiple paths to take whenever AMD comes out with a semi competitive product. They can do like they did this time and release an updated card early or if that doesn't work keep dropping prices way further than AMD can because they have more profit margins to start with than AMD. The reason Intel fell behind is because the stopped innovating however Nvidia didn't.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Shorty88jr said:

Honestly what amazes me is the fact that people still don't understand that AMD will never be competitive in the ultra high end again

Well people also said that about AMD and CPUs too, never say never .

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Shorty88jr said:

Honestly what amazes me is the fact that people still don't understand that AMD will never be competitive in the ultra high end again. Ok now before people tell at me about being a Nvidia shill I would like to say I have an AMD CPU and almost got a 5700xt instead of the 2070 super but some of the features on the Nvidia made me get a 2070 super but that's besides the point. Nvidia isn't Intel they aren't sitting on their butt and not doing anything. Nvidia has multiple paths to take whenever AMD comes out with a semi competitive product. They can do like they did this time and release an updated card early or if that doesn't work keep dropping prices way further than AMD can because they have more profit margins to start with than AMD. The reason Intel fell behind is because the stopped innovating however Nvidia didn't.

Just want to correct one notion, Intel didn't stop/slow their innovating or developing, they just couldn't develop or innovate fast enough to keep in front.  And I am only saying that because it sounds like they are doing these things intentionally, they are not, no company intentionally sits on its ass or sandbags unless they are unquestionably that far in front (they aren't) or they don't want to be a company anymore.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

they are not, no company intentionally sits on its ass or sandbags unless they are unquestionably that far in front (they aren't) or they don't want to be a company anymore.

But where would people find easy-to-blame scapegoats if a "bad guy" narrative isn't established?  

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

But where would people find easy-to-blame scapegoats if a "bad guy" narrative isn't established?  

 

They would find that in the perpetual ignorance of the internet promoting such a narrative.  For every myth we successfully dispel they simply create another 5.