AMD is confident there won't be availability issues with the RX 6000 series when it launches

[thechinchinsong]

AMD saying nothing: "Lol, AMD's so bad, they won't even comment on availability"

AMD saying there will be decent stock at launch: "Lol, AMD's lying in order to look good" or "Lol, AMD's just saying that cause there's no demand"

AMD saying there might be delays: "Lol, AMD can't even learn from Nvidia's mistakes"

 

It doesn't matter if AMD releases a perfect product because in the minds of everyone, AMD can't be better.

[Beskamir]

20 hours ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

This doesn't necessarily mean that there will be good supply. You folks aren't looking at the other side of the equation.

 

Perhaps the demand will be low.

lol I was about to comment something to the effect of "of course they'll be in stock! Except it'll be cause nobody will wanna buy them "

[NumLock21]

AMD is confident there won't be availability issues with the launch of the RX6000. AMD must be really up there, to make that high of a claim.

If the cards are gobbled up by miners, can I sue them for making a false statement?

 

[LAwLz]

So there are a few scenarios stemming from this.

 

1. They are hoping that stores like Newegg will have improved their bot detection before their launch. The 30 series was kind of a wake-up call for all stores that they need better bot detection if they don't want angry customers. So hopefully things will be better at the AMD launch. Not because AMD has done anything special, but because third party resellers will have had time to improve their systems.
2. AMD will delay the launch just so they can build up a bigger stock.
3. Demand will be low.
   1. Most people who want a new graphics card will already have bought an Nvidia 30 series, so they won't be that many people eager to buy new cards.
   2. The cards will be so unimpressive and bad that nobody actually want to buy them.
4. AMD's marketing team is full of shit as always. I mean, how many times have they been caught lying and deceiving again? How anyone can take anything they say seriously is beyond me at this point.

 

 

My guess is that it will be a bit of everything. Stores will have better bot detection, AMD is launching their cards fairly late, their cards won't be as impressive as Nvidia's so demand will be lower, and AMD's marketing team are just full of shit and see this as an easy way to make some empty promises to win some imaginary Internet points with their gullible fans.

[BlackManINC]

47 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

their cards won't be as impressive as Nvidia's so demand will be lower

Well, we'll see about that one. 

[Briggsy]

33 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Well, we'll see about that one. 

agreed. AMD have the advantage of developers optimizing for GCN and RDNA hardware, the process node advantage, the efficiency advantage, and seemingly a head start on production as well to work out any hardware kinks. 

 

I mean, if AMD don't have something good this time with all these advantages, then maybe they need to stick to APU's and designing custom silicon for 3rd party vendors. Nvidia needs competition at the high end, not a company who's trousers keep falling down in public. Even if their top end SKU this time is 10% slower than a 3080 but they get their sh!t together with drivers, then AMD are a solid choice, while also keeping under the radar of scalpers.

[BlackManINC]

13 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

agreed. AMD have the advantage of developers optimizing for GCN and RDNA hardware, the process node advantage, the efficiency advantage, and seemingly a head start on production as well to work out any hardware kinks. 

 

I mean, if AMD don't have something good this time with all these advantages, then maybe they need to stick to APU's and designing custom silicon for 3rd party vendors. Nvidia needs competition at the high end, not a company who's trousers keep falling down in public. Even if their top end SKU this time is 10% slower than a 3080 but they get their sh!t together with drivers, then AMD are a solid choice, while also keeping under the radar of scalpers.

Right, even at 10% less FPS, fact is its still gonna be light years better than my RX 470 that was a peasant class GPU even when it first launched, and I'm planning on sticking with AMD for a number of reasons. To put things into perspective, the performance gap between the RX 5700XT and RTX 2080S was less than 30%. So if anything, we can expect AMD's top end GPU to be right up there with the RTX 3080, if the actual difference between the 3080 and 3090 only being 10-15% is any indication. The RTX 3090 is already proving itself to be even more of a rip off than the RTX 2080TI. For $800 more, the most performance boost you get is a margin of error difference. I think AMD will do just fine this time around. 

 

RTX 3080 vs. RTX 3090 | How Big Is The Difference?:

 

[eeeee1]

you know something?

i agree. there will not be crowds of scalpers and fans buying them up.

instead, amd has deployed one of the best strategies I have ever seen, they made the damned bike so we all laugh so hard we forget to buy the cards on launch week so amd can fix any sudden issues and just say that the original problem never existed.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

AMD have the advantage of developers optimizing for GCN and RDNA hardware

Not on the PC they do not, AMD has been the console hardware provider for a long time and this has done exactly zero to get game developers to give equivalent or preferential optimization treatment for AMD. Nvidia on PC is king by a very long way and thus gets treated in the way their position commands, almost all games and game engines are optimized for Nvidia architecture, that's just how it is and will not change without multiple consecutive generations of AMD outselling Nvidia. You don't reverse over a decade of market dominance in a single generation i.e. Ryzen vs Intel.

[Briggsy]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not on the PC they do not, AMD has been the console hardware provider for a long time and this has done exactly zero to get game developers to give equivalent or preferential optimization treatment for AMD. Nvidia on PC is king by a very long way and thus gets treated in the way their position commands, almost all games and game engines are optimized for Nvidia architecture, that's just how it is and will not change without multiple consecutive generations of AMD outselling Nvidia. You don't reverse over a decade of market dominance in a single generation i.e. Ryzen vs Intel.

its conjecture on both sides of the argument really. I'm merely stating that they should have such an advantage at this point, given developers have now had the lifespan of the PS4 and XBone to figure out the nuisances. Nvidia have a massive advantage when it comes to gameworks and blackbox code that may run poorly on AMD hardware, and there's also the unreal engine definitely favoring Nvidia, I'll give you that, but the rest is conjecture.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

I'm merely stating that they should have such an advantage at this point, given developers have now had the lifespan of the PS4 and XBone to figure out the nuisances.

Like I said this has done nothing, those consoles have been around for a very long time and nothing has changed in that regard, in fact gotten worse. Consoles do not effect PC development at all. It's not conjecture, it's actual fact.

[Briggsy]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Like I said this has done nothing, those consoles have been around for a very long time and nothing has changed in that regard, in fact gotten worse. Consoles do not effect PC development at all. It's not conjecture, it's actual fact.

right... i'll have to take your word for it.

 

My original point still stands, which is that AMD have a lot going for them this generation that they didn't in previous generations, and if they screw it up its on them. 

[leadeater]

Just now, Briggsy said:

My original point still stands, which is that AMD have a lot going for them this generation that they didn't in previous generations, and if they screw it up its on them. 

The only difference this time around is that AMD are using a TSMC node which may or may not be better than the Samsung customized node for Nvidia. But node advantage isn't going to do as much as you might think also i.e. Ryzen vs Intel.

 

I would be very careful setting your expectations too high. Just in the same way everyone did when AMD/RTG announced the Radeon VII was getting a node shrink to 7NM on TSMC and was very much not competitive because of architecture reasons. So your assumption has to be that AMD has somehow designed a superior architecture than Nvidia has using less resources and is able to form partnerships with the industry to make sure that it gets fully utilized.

 

I reference Ryzen vs Intel a lot because it perfectly represents this situation as well. Ryzen is about to go in to it's 4th architecture generation and is only now consistently outselling Intel and Intel still has a gaming performance advantage, and Intel still has far more systems in use by real people than AMD does because Intel's market dominance has been huge for a very long time.

 

The best you should be expecting is a mirror of Ryzen, excellent product that is competitive but will still need years to make any real changes to the market. Well unless they come out with a card that is 30%+ faster than the RTX 3090 and costs the same or less than the RTX 3080 but that would actually be crazy to expect.

[AldiPrayogi]

As long as the 3060 equivalent is competitive, that's good enough for man

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

The only difference this time around is that AMD are using a TSMC node which may or may not be better than the Samsung customized node for Nvidia. But node advantage isn't going to do as much as you might think also i.e. Ryzen vs Intel.

 

I would be very careful setting your expectations too high. Just in the same way everyone did when AMD/RTG announced the Radeon VII was getting a node shrink to 7NM on TSMC and was very much not competitive because of architecture reasons. So your assumption has to be that AMD has somehow designed a superior architecture than Nvidia has using less resources and is able to form partnerships with the industry to make sure that it gets fully utilized.

 

I reference Ryzen vs Intel a lot because it perfectly represents this situation as well. Ryzen is about to go in to it's 4th architecture generation and is only now consistently outselling Intel and Intel still has a gaming performance advantage, and Intel still has far more systems in use by real people than AMD does because Intel's market dominance has been huge for a very long time.

 

The best you should be expecting is a mirror of Ryzen, excellent product that is competitive but will still need years to make any real changes to the market. Well unless they come out with a card that is 30%+ faster than the RTX 3090 and costs the same or less than the RTX 3080 but that would actually be crazy to expect.

I’m not sure they’d need a full 30%.  15% would likely do it.  Depends on how much faster a 3090 can go than it does now.  The impression I get is “some”.  Not sure how much. All they have to get is more performance than ga102 can actually do.  How much that is though I don’t know.  One thing I noticed about the 3090 boards is that there is basically no pcb used on the sides of the board.  A 3090 is apparently really just a 3080 with more memory, unlocked busses, and a bigger cooler. Still very unlikely though. 

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Like I said this has done nothing, those consoles have been around for a very long time and nothing has changed in that regard, in fact gotten worse. Consoles do not effect PC development at all. It's not conjecture, it's actual fact.

They historically haven’t  affected hardware development much.  This storage latency thing might do something or it might not. We’ll know pretty shortly.  What they do affect is they sort of put a potential floor on game hardware requirements. Game devs have the option of using that floor or not.  If devs continue developing apps that run fine on 6 fast threads they will do nothing at all.   The question is how likely that is to happen.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Nvidia needs competition at the high end, not a company who's trousers keep falling down in public. Even if their top end SKU this time is 10% slower than a 3080 but they get their sh!t together with drivers, then AMD are a solid choice, while also keeping under the radar of scalpers.

If AMD's future flagship is 10% slower than Nvidia's 3080 then Nvidia does not have high end.

You can't say they need high end, and then in the next sentence say AMD only need to be 10% worse than a card that isn't even Nvidia's top end card.

If AMD wants to compete with Nvidia in the high end they need to be 0% behind the 3080. Preferably ahead of it so they can compete with the 3090.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, BlackManINC said:

Right, even at 10% less FPS, fact is its still gonna be light years better than my RX 470 that was a peasant class GPU even when it first launched

AMD isn't competing with themselves from 4 years ago. Their new cards need to be competitive with the 30 series, not the 400 series from AMD themselves.

 

7 hours ago, BlackManINC said:

and I'm planning on sticking with AMD for a number of reasons.

You shouldn't do that. You should buy from whichever company has the best product. Since we don't even know how the AMD product will perform I find it ridiculous to already have made up your mind about getting it.

 

7 hours ago, BlackManINC said:

To put things into perspective, the performance gap between the RX 5700XT and RTX 2080S was less than 30%.

30% difference is quite a lot.

That's almost the difference between a 2060S and 2080S. I'd say that's entirely different tiers of products.

 

 

8 hours ago, BlackManINC said:

if the actual difference between the 3080 and 3090 only being 10-15% is any indication.

The 3090 is around 20% higher performance according to TechPowerUp, at least in 4K.

[BlackManINC]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The 3090 is around 20% higher performance according to TechPowerUp, at least in 4K.

Not according to the benchmark videos I've seen its not. Its no higher than 15% max. And even if I were to give it 20%, it still doesn't justify the exorbitant price tag considering gaming was its selling point. I hope AMD capitalizes on Nvidia's greed, make them regret it. If you spent another $800 more on a 3090 just to play games, get a refund, because you got ripped off. 

[Briggsy]

4 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Not according to the benchmark videos I've seen its not. Its no higher than 15% max. And even if I were to give it 20%, it still doesn't justify the exorbitant price tag considering gaming was its selling point. I hope AMD capitalizes on Nvidia's greed, make them regret it. If you spent another $800 more on a 3090 just to play games, get a refund, because you got ripped off. 

yeah at 4K its about ~15% on average, according to techpowerup. I'm sure there's outliers above 15%, but there's also outliers below that too.

 

Spoiler

 

Even the best case scenario with the Strix 3090 isn't pushing much further.

 

Spoiler

 

[Bombastinator]

There are 

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If AMD's future flagship is 10% slower than Nvidia's 3080 then Nvidia does not have high end.

You can't say they need high end, and then in the next sentence say AMD only need to be 10% worse than a card that isn't even Nvidia's top end card.

If AMD wants to compete with Nvidia in the high end they need to be 0% behind the 3080. Preferably ahead of it so they can compete with the 3090.

 

 

 

 

AMD isn't competing with themselves from 4 years ago. Their new cards need to be competitive with the 30 series, not the 400 series from AMD themselves.

 

You shouldn't do that. You should buy from whichever company has the best product. Since we don't even know how the AMD product will perform I find it ridiculous to already have made up your mind about getting it.

 

30% difference is quite a lot.

That's almost the difference between a 2060S and 2080S. I'd say that's entirely different tiers of products.

 

 

The 3090 is around 20% higher performance according to TechPowerUp, at least in 4K.

re: high end

part of the issue is the 3080 and the 3090 are both ga102.  The 3090 appears to more or less actually BE a 3080 with some gimping removed, more memory, and a bigger cooler. If AMD wanted to they could make a 3080 almost as fast as a 3090.  
 

re: should/shouldn’t. 
a stick that points both ways.  There are people jumping on the 30xx purely because it’s Nvidia.  I assume there will be a few that do the same for AMD.  There are reasons to feel that AMD in general makes cards more useful for a particular type of buyer.  There are also reasons to feel the same for Nvidia. AMD cards tend to get slightly faster over time have more memory, and last longer.  Nvidia cards tend to have specialized functions that are killer apps for some.  Studio drivers, nvenc, and that tesla based noise cancelation come to mind. 
 

Re: 3090 performance.

this one seems somewhat subject to situation. I’ve seen anywhere from 10%-25%.  One of the unknowns of ga102 is how fast it can really go.  Overclocking a 3090 on air seems to not be immensely different than overclocking it on LN. high 13,000s to low 14,000s on port royal. If an AMD gpu can make those kinds of numbers it’s probably competitive with the ga102.  I haven’t seen such numbers for ga104.  I also don’t know what the differences are between ga104 and ga102  They may actually be effectively the same die for all I know and the 3070 is merely gimped harder than the 3080.  I assume AMD is frantically researching such things to determine where to position their offerings. If Navi23 is faster than ga102 Nvidia may be in trouble.  If it isn’t they can likely wiggle out of any situation AMD creates with their new gpu chip

Edited September 28, 2020 by Bombastinator

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There are 

re: high end

part of the issue is the 3080 and the 3090 are both ga102.  The 3090 appears to more or less actually BE a 3080 with some gimping removed, more memory, and a bigger cooler. If AMD wanted to they could make a 3080 almost as fast as a 3090.  
 

re: should/shouldn’t. 
a stick that points both ways.  There are people jumping on the 30xx purely because it’s Nvidia.  I assume there will be a few that do the same for AMD.  There are reasons to feel that AMD in general makes cards more useful for a particular type of buyer.  There are also reasons to feel the same for Nvidia. AMD cards tend to get slightly faster over time have more memory, and last longer.  Nvidia cards tend to have specialized functions that are killer apps for some.  Studio drivers, nvenc, and that tesla based noise cancelation come to mind. 
 

Re: 3090 performance.

this one seems somewhat subject to situation. I’ve seen anywhere from 10%-25%.  One of the unknowns of ga102 is how fast it can really go.  Overclocking a 3090 on air seems to not be immensely different than overclocking it on LN. high 13,000s to low 14,000s on port royal. If an AMD gpu can make those kinds of numbers it’s probably competitive with the ga102.  I haven’t seen such numbers for ga104.  I also don’t know what the differences are between ga104 and ga102  They may actually be effectively the same die for all I know and the 3070 is merely gimped harder than the 3080.  I assume AMD is frantically researching such things to determine where to position their offerings. If Navi23 is faster than ga102 Nvidia may be in trouble.  If it isn’t they can likely wiggle out of any situation AMD creates with their new gpu chip

The main issue is really the assumption or expectation that not only AMD can but also will release a card as fast as or faster than the RTX 3080. When is the last time AMD had a current generation fastest GPU? What historical record are peopling going off to set this expectation? Seems to be all purely hopes and dreams to me.

 

I've basically always owned ATI/AMD GPUs with a few Nvidia but that does not influence me in any way to making critical assessments of the situation.

[LAwLz]

33 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Not according to the benchmark videos I've seen its not. Its no higher than 15% max. And even if I were to give it 20%, it still doesn't justify the exorbitant price tag considering gaming was its selling point. I hope AMD capitalizes on Nvidia's greed, make them regret it. If you spent another $800 more on a 3090 just to play games, get a refund, because you got ripped off. 

Well there is always a massive diminishing return on price to performance when you get into the high end. Happens with pretty much all products from all companies.

Cards like the 3090 aren't made for the price conscious. Never has been.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

yeah at 4K its about ~15% on average, according to techpowerup. I'm sure there's outliers above 15%, but there's also outliers below that too.

The graph you posted puts it at 16% higher on average, and the Asus card being 19% higher on average.

86 to 100 = 16.3% increase.

84 to 100 = 19% increase.

 

So I'd say it's more accurate to say the 3090 is 15-20% faster than the 3080 according to TechPowerUp.

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

part of the issue is the 3080 and the 3090 are both ga102.  The 3090 appears to more or less actually BE a 3080 with some gimping removed, more memory, and a bigger cooler. If AMD wanted to they could make a 3080 almost as fast as a 3090.  

I don't understand what you mean. What does this have to do with AMD needing a high end card to be competitive with Nvidia? The person I responded to said they would think AMD were competitive on the high end if their top of the line card was 10% slower than Nvidia's 3080. I said I would only consider AMD competitive on the high end if their top of the line card was actually matching Nvidia's high end cards.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: should/shouldn’t. 
a stick that points both ways.  There are people jumping on the 30xx purely because it’s Nvidia.  I assume there will be a few that do the same for AMD.  There are reasons to feel that AMD in general makes cards more useful for a particular type of buyer.  There are also reasons to feel the same for Nvidia. AMD cards tend to get slightly faster over time have more memory, and last longer.  Nvidia cards tend to have specialized functions that are killer apps for some.  Studio drivers, nvenc, and that tesla based noise cancelation come to mind. 

Are you sure about that? I'd say people are buying Nvidia cards not because "they are Nvidia fanboys" but rather because Nvidia simply have the best products on the market.

I don't think a lot of people are buying the 30 series of GPUs just because they want an Nvidia card. I think they are buying it because they are simply way better than what AMD is offering, and I think you'll find it hard to prove otherwise.

[RejZoR]

@leadeater

Tho, if we are honest, AMD did bring RX 5700 XT literally out of nowhere. It wasn't a crown stealing product, but the way how AMD was struggling for years and every time we thought they have a killer card like R9 Fury with its radical design or RX Vega with it's hype, they were always underwhelming. But then came RX 5700 XT and surprised everyone. We didn't really heard anything about it, nothing about RDNA, it just dropped out of the blue and it's a well performing card. Given how they just dropped this one and made it a really good success, my hopes and expectations are now much higher than during Fury or Vega era. It means they now have some clue how to make good GPU. Similar was with Ryzen. It wasn't a killer, but it was a disruptor. I'm suspecting Big Navi to be that too. And that's fine.

[GDRRiley]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The main issue is really the assumption or expectation that not only AMD can but also will release a card as fast as or faster than the RTX 3080. When is the last time AMD had a current generation fastest GPU? What historical record are peopling going off to set this expectation? Seems to be all purely hopes and dreams to me.

 

I've basically always owned ATI/AMD GPUs with a few Nvidia but that does not influence me in any way to making critical assessments of the situation.

why are we trying to go off of records. if we did that intel would be on 7nm right now.

7970 680

we do know enough specs though to make some guess around how it should perform. 2x the CU of 5700xt with 2x the memory. 2x a 5700xt is dam fast.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

why are we trying to go off of records. if we did that intel would be on 7nm right now.

7970 680

we do know enough specs though to make some guess around how it should perform. 2x the CU of 5700xt with 2x the memory. 2x a 5700xt is dam fast.

But things don't scale linearly and historical records and ability to execute does absolutely count. Who cares what node Intel is on when they still have the performance required for the market, something AMD GPUs do not in anything other that mid/upper-mid to low tier. How much do you care about Intel 10600k? Yea not much right compared to 10900k and Ryzen 3900X/3950X correct? At least with AMD CPUs you get basically the same gaming performance up and down their CPU stack so something like a 3600 is actually interesting.

 

We've "known" about spec before and been able to guess before and every time AMD has missed the mark, each and every time. You know I love my 290X's they were great value, still not the best GPU on the market at the time but the best AMD could do.