AMD encouraging retailer price gouging

[cj09beira]

8 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Is the rasterizer still not enabled? Im planning on asus dual die vega. Hoping prices level out by then... 

 

Ive got the 1800x and the asrock taichi board. I guess ill borrow some ram from work to test it at least. Ive personally not felt terribly behind with the 9590, but i dont know if thats because im so used to its perf, or because of my monitors res. 

that card will not be affected by the mining craze as its too expensive for its perf, as its better for them to buy 2 vega 56s for example

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

go inform yourself on what happend in the last mining craze

I don't care if it costs them: That's the risk of doing business by encouraging compute like they do.

[cj09beira]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I don't care if it costs them: That's the risk of doing business by encouraging compute like they do.

ahh, so you demand they increase supply even if it fucks them, congrats

on a more serious note ethereum will stop being minable pretty soon

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

ahh, so you demand they increase supply even if it fucks them

Yes: if they can't compete in the free market they should die. I thought we were all capitalist here, mediocre business that can't compete should die and make room, the market should dictate that.

 

If they can sustain a GPU business with compute only (with either workstation clients, miners or both) more power to them. If not well tough.

[cj09beira]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Yes: if they can't compete in the free market they should die. I thought we were all capitalist here, mediocre business that can't compete should die and make room, the market should dictate that.

 

If they can sustain a GPU business with compute only (with either workstation clients, miners or both) more power to them. If not well tough.

so they are selling every card they make they arent able to compete? come on 

they not selling their card =/= not being able to compete

 

Spoiler

its on everyones best interest that amd does well in both the cpu and gpu markets, now if you look at the past even with amd having the best card by far people still bought nvidea which is a problem because it means that the products aren't being sold on there merits, no company can keep investing into R&D forever if people don't buy their product, amd is focusing on the server market because there they can sell cards at higher prices while also having a better change of selling the cards as the buyers are more informed 

 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes: if they can't compete in the free market they should die. I thought we were all capitalist here, mediocre business that can't compete should die and make room, the market should dictate that.

 

If they can sustain a GPU business with compute only (with either workstation clients, miners or both) more power to them. If not well tough.

The free market allows choices to be made on both the consumer side, and the producers of goods. Under free market, AMD is under no obligation to increase supply if they so choose. Whether or not they go belly up due to their decisions is entirely up to them. A free market does not obligate players to be aggressive.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

The free market allows choices to be made on both the consumer side, and the producers of goods. Under free market, AMD is under no obligation to increase supply if they so choose. Whether or not they go belly up due to their decisions is entirely up to them. A free market does not obligate players to be aggressive.

It does: it only takes one aggressive competitor to put you out of business if you can't respond. Your entire assertion works from the assumption that a free market can tolerate mediocrity and "I'm ok with second place" companies: This is not accurate. More aggressive companies will attempt to eat the passive and/or smaller fish in the pond and venture capitalist and investors that see such "non-aggressive" companies would jump ship when they fail to see a drive towards not only success but expansion, dominance, etc. 

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, Notional said:

If you mine, go step on one.

They did, a gold mine.  

5 hours ago, one-sixty said:

You could at least sell it with a triple A game instead of an early access

I don't think this deal has anything to do with AMD (in other words, they didn't pick the card/game, they were simply promoting it for BigBoxBuy).

5 hours ago, Notional said:

But going from an FX to a Ryzen. Night and day.

I concur.  When I upgraded from my FX-8370 to my Ryzen 1800x, it was a significant improvement.  And with the later BIOS updates - allowing me to clock my RAM to it's full potential - the performance was even better (albeit not by as significant a margin, but still worth it).

[HalGameGuru]

10 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

@leadeater This goes on the assumption that you can wait it out. Ethereum prices have surpassed all expectations and the coin remains profitable. More over a brand new coin is likely to quickly if not immediately replace it if is no longer profitable: this coins are true Fiat and are whatever people agree on so people that have invested in gpus are likely to quickly agree on a new gpu friendly coin if the need arises.

 

So if mining is permanent AMD has to do something even if it's seemingly impossible (because again it doesn't seems to be for Nvidia, that tells me that a better production supply chain is possible it just takes a more prepared company) 

 

In any case going back on topic one would expect AMD to at least don't make things worst with bad PR moves like this in the meantime. 

I don't think you understand cryptocurrency if you are going to label them fiat like state currency. They aren't backed by gold or oil but they aren't fiat. They are backed by blockchain. Some more robustly than others, but the reason their values are increasing is not JUST a gold rush mentality. The big blockchain techs are being used for more and more new things as time goes on. From corporate, to state, to registration, ledgers, banks, etc. There are even non-coined blockchains being used privately for a myriad of functions.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

It does: it only takes one aggressive competitor to put you out of business if you can't respond. Your entire assertion works from the assumption that a free market can tolerate mediocrity and "I'm ok with second place" companies: This is not accurate. More aggressive companies will attempt to eat the passive and/or smaller fish in the pond and venture capitalist and investors that see such "non-aggressive" companies would jump ship when they fail to see a drive towards not only success but expansion, dominance, etc. 

Investors favor aggression if the risk/return deems it worthwhile. Considering past history, as well as the fact that AMD is setting itself up for the profitable server business, it seems logical to avoid diverting excessive funds into an unpredictable GPU market.

 

What return would there be for risking the financial resources that can be used elsewhere?

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Investors favor aggression if the risk/return deems it worthwhile. Considering past history, as well as the fact that AMD is setting itself up for the profitable server business, it seems logical to avoid diverting excessive funds into an unpredictable GPU market.

 

What return would there be for risking the financial resources that can be used elsewhere?

By that logic, keeping the consumer GPU alive is the risk for the more important and profitable segments like workstation use or their console business. I understand that the logic is "We already did the R&D anyways for those other segments we might as well use it for consumer GPUs too" but I'd say it might be time to either come up with a tremendous winner or reassess. 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

They aren't backed by gold or oil but they aren't fiat.

Every currency is ultimately a fiat, but cryptocurrencies are ultimately backed up by literally nothing more than the thought they have any value, despite not being widely used for barter and not being an actual, usable resource.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

19 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

But after my thorough poisoning of the well, what are your thoughts?

My thought is it's not cool, but it's also not cool to poison the well, as it begins to make you (the informer) look ridiculous and unprofessional.

 

Quote

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem...

-Wikipedia

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by JurunceNK

[Zodiark1593]

56 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

By that logic, keeping the consumer GPU alive is the risk for the more important and profitable segments like workstation use or their console business. I understand that the logic is "We already did the R&D anyways for those other segments we might as well use it for consumer GPUs too" but I'd say it might be time to either come up with a tremendous winner or reassess. 

Well, putting excessive money into production alone would be the unfavorable risk for the GPU segment. Ideally, money should be put to the R&D fund to develop an architecture to face Nvidia's Volta series in both consumer and workstation/server. If this can be accomplished, then, at that point, should AMD aggressively push production.

 

Until that point however, I don't see how increasing production of current Polaris parts will be a favorable risk for AMD to take right now. Focus should be on the next gen architecture.

[MoonSpot]

9 hours ago, Notional said:

I even think the vendors are selling at competitive prices. The retailers, however, are not. There's just nothing to do about it until either supply or demand evens out properly.

What?  Frack that.  Get Sapphire Ed on the phone and talk to him about how Elon Musk deals directly with customers and set up a ship direct system.

 

I'm usually down with supporting the distribution chain, but I absolutely hate dog fucking cronies that gouge.  That's the sort of soulless horse shit big Pharma does.

[vanished]

Hm, I have to wonder, is this "the end"?  Have companies moved on from seeing this as a momentary upset and accepted these new demand-inflated prices as the new norm?  If so, it would suggest they expect mining and the demand from it to stick around for the foreseeable future.  It also mean (gamers are gonna hate this ) that they've accepted miners into their customer base with open arms, and will continue to cater to that market, as opposed to actively trying to push them away so the stock is reserved for gamers (what so many seemed to think they should do).

 

Interesting.

[HalGameGuru]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Every currency is ultimately a fiat, but cryptocurrencies are ultimately backed up by literally nothing more than the thought they have any value, despite not being widely used for barter and not being an actual, usable resource.

No fiat is explicitly that which is enacted by power or coercion. Money that has no backing but the word or command of someone or some thing with power. The US Dollar is fiat. WoW Gold... would you consider that fiat? It's worth more than the Venezuelan Bolivar right now... but isn't backed by anything real. Money that is backed by gold, or silver, or bushels of wheat, are not fiat. Crypto is backed by the blockchain. The blockchain is not a physical resource like gold but it has utility and value just the same. Crypto is rising in value because the amount of crypto available and operating block chains is a lot smaller than the available market for blockchain services. Eventually the number of competing and utile blockchains and their incumbent cryptocurrencies will find an equilibrium. And more and more firms and concerns will start using their own private blockchains that don't rely on outside miners to administer. 

 

There is no one with a gun making people use or value crypto. It is the antithesis of fiat currency. You could say it is intrinsically valueless since it does not have a hard physical commodity behind it. And that is entirely your prerogative. I see the blockchain as a nascent gold rush about to explode.

[Drak3]

Just now, HalGameGuru said:

would you consider that fiat

Up until recently, the only value gold held was being considered desirable by the elite of many societies. Now, some actual value backs it as we use it for electronics, products that enhance out lives outside of "ooh, shiny!" But gold's price is overly inflated, and in the end, it's value comes from governing bodies holding the stance that gold is valuable.

 

3 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

There is no one with a gun making people use or value crypto. It is the antithesis of fiat currency.

Same for most currencies in use today, and they didn't start out that way either. And Bitcoin is only valued at any capacity because regulations in some countries allow bitcoin to have value, value tied to the USD and shifts in a similar manner to a stock in the stock market.

[HalGameGuru]

24 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Up until recently, the only value gold held was being considered desirable by the elite of many societies. Now, some actual value backs it as we use it for electronics, products that enhance out lives outside of "ooh, shiny!" But gold's price is overly inflated, and in the end, it's value comes from governing bodies holding the stance that gold is valuable.

 

Same for most currencies in use today, and they didn't start out that way either. And Bitcoin is only valued at any capacity because regulations in some countries allow bitcoin to have value, value tied to the USD and shifts in a similar manner to a stock in the stock market.

That question was specifically WOW Gold, not REAL gold. MOST currencies in use today have legal tender laws backing them up. At least the ones not backed by a commodity, which typically don't NEED such laws to get people to make use of them. Gold having value is due to far more than it being shiny and appreciated by elites. There are videos all over as to why Gold became one of the goto value stores of many societies. 

 

I'm sorry, but no. Bitcoin being more accessible and there being more avenues of trading it for other currencies has definitely improved its value to the uninitiated but it holds plenty of value of its own. Many of the newest players peg their use of it to the USD or GBP, like car dealers and retailers, but there are plenty of places that set prices in BTC separated from fiat currencies. And the subjective value it holds to those investing or purchasing through it is very often entirely separate from trading. At one time it took thousands of BTC to buy something simple like a pizza, now you can buy almost anything through overstock with BTC, you can buy/sell/trade across the world with it, transfer money around the world without fees, have a single wallet you can use to purchase things anywhere in the world without having to change to the local currency, you can enact, serve, and fulfill contracts and registrations with coins. You can file copyrights and register trademarks through it. 

 

Coins are merely the outward facing side of the blockchain. They can do a lot more than merely be transferred around.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, CUDA_Cores said:

The weird thing is AMD doesn't actually make any money from these price-gouging schemes, so why would they promote it? I suppose it is their business and they may choose to do what they want, but I would rather advertise some card in newegg for $10-$50 over MSRP. 

They're either genuinely trying to push the cards that are in supple stock and as close as to MSRP as we're going to see from physical stores, or because the price they're promoting is cheaper than a 1060 of similar quality.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

They're either genuinely trying to push the cards that are in supple stock and as close as to MSRP as we're going to see from physical stores, or because the price they're promoting is cheaper than a 1060 of similar quality.

Except that you know...it's not:

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125906&cm_re=1060_3gb-_-14-125-906-_-Product