confirmed: AMD's big Navi launch to disrupt 4K gaming

legcramp said:
Of course they are going to charge $1200 for a card if their offering is faster than Nvidia's offering at $1200. Or they'll charge $1000-$1100 and make Nvidia charge less.

Do you think if their Ryzen chips are faster than Intel's at gaming that they would still be cheaper with more cores than Intel's offering? They would never charge over 1K for a consumer grade cpu.. cough... fx-60 cough.
Click to expand...
They are going to charge the most they can for what they can, end of story. They managed to sell something like 91% of all the 3000 series CPU’s they made that is insanely good numbers. They will aim for the same with the 4000’s, the lower the volume of a part they make the more they are going to charge for it, it maximizes profit for that part while minimizing demand. They don’t have an infinite supply and their production runs are limited they have to drive people to the products they want to move.
 
The idea that AMD sets prices for any other reason than profit maximization is mind boggling. There's literally no other reason for the company to exist. That idea is almost as silly as the suggestion that it's fine for AMD to charge high prices because nVidia "did it first".

If RDNA2 blows Ampere out of the water I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for handouts from AMD.
 
Profit maximization does not mean charging a higher price. If that were the case, they could price Big Navi at $1 million dollars, but obviously they wouldn't sell many (or any) at that price.

They can do the calculations, like how many they will sell at $1,200 how many at $1,000 how many at $800 and see where the highest profit is at. Knowing that a lower price will naturally move more units.

Only AMD knows what it costs them, how their cards have traditionally sold, what volumes they can handle, and what strategy they want to do long term. We can only speculate here.
 
cybereality said:
Profit maximization does not mean charging a higher price. If that were the case, they could price Big Navi at $1 million dollars, but obviously they wouldn't sell many (or any) at that price.

They can do the calculations, like how many they will sell at $1,200 how many at $1,000 how many at $800 and see where the highest profit is at. Knowing that a lower price will naturally move more units.

Only AMD knows what it costs them, how their cards have traditionally sold, what volumes they can handle, and what strategy they want to do long term. We can only speculate here.
Click to expand...

Given the experience of 5600 XT being delivered a KO by Nvidia via EVGA RTX 2060, I believe in future AMD will not "overprice" unless perf >> RTX 3080 ti

Based on rumors that AMD is preparing 3 chips (this will be new. So far AMD has not produced so many high-end chips in same generation)

I expect 6700 Xt & RX 6800 XT to compete with RTX 2080 super & RTX 2080 ti between $500 to $800

iff the 6900 XT can compete with RTX 3080 ti ($1000+ definitely??) then ofc AMD has the luxury of choosing price based on Nvidia's price
 
Marees said:
I expect 6700 Xt & RX 6800 XT to compete with RTX 2080 super & RTX 2080 ti between $500 to $800
Click to expand...

Though they need to compete with the 3000 series, not the two year old 2000 series.

Pricing will likely settle out quickly because neither AMD nor NVidia want any kind of price war to eat margins. AMD will be $0-$100 less than NVidia counterparts as has been the case consistently for many years.

This is going to be a very interesting release cycle, with both NVidia and AMD likely releasing new architectures, in the same quarter.
 
noko said:
Benchmark Red Dead Redemption 2, 1440p, OC 5700 XT AE. Slight undervolt, custom fan curve -> at end of video the OC settings are shown. Game is set to max preset slider settings. GPU clocks do vary. Recording the video takes off about 4FPS. Card toasts my 1080 Ti's in this game. No problem keeping the card cool with +50 power and custom fan curve, it is noisy but I could care less. This was done back in December, have not tested it lately to see if AMD did any further improvements. Got bored with game, will probably go back to it.

Click to expand...


Thanks. You got bored with the game? I loved the game and is the first one I played from beginning to end in probably 20 years and it took over 100 hours to finish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
cybereality said:
Profit maximization does not mean charging a higher price. If that were the case, they could price Big Navi at $1 million dollars, but obviously they wouldn't sell many (or any) at that price.

They can do the calculations, like how many they will sell at $1,200 how many at $1,000 how many at $800 and see where the highest profit is at. Knowing that a lower price will naturally move more units.

Only AMD knows what it costs them, how their cards have traditionally sold, what volumes they can handle, and what strategy they want to do long term. We can only speculate here.
Click to expand...

Correct, nobody said higher prices always leads to higher profit. It's basic econ. Clearly if Nvidia and AMD could make more money by lowering prices they would do so.
 
legcramp said:
Of course they are going to charge $1200 for a card if their offering is faster than Nvidia's offering at $1200. Or they'll charge $1000-$1100 and make Nvidia charge less.

Do you think if their Ryzen chips are faster than Intel's at gaming that they would still be cheaper with more cores than Intel's offering? They would never charge over 1K for a consumer grade cpu.. cough... fx-60 cough.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think the AMD processors would still be less expensive. Your example means nothing, since that is the AMD of old under an old CEO that did not know what he was doing.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Only because people won't pay more for them.
Click to expand...
I disagree, if they were faster than Intel chips, people would pay more for them... There are enough people dropping > $1200 on a desktop GPU that if AMD came out with a CPU with single core > Intel in all games plus more cores, people would absolutely drop $1k+ on them.
 
GoodBoy said:
I should take a picture of my volt and fan modded 9700 Pro. "I bet mine is louder than yours"
Click to expand...
Meh, when I leave my lid off my r710 server it's rediculously loud (all fans run at 100%). Was looking at modding the fans just lower the RPMs a bit, lol. They can run over 10k RPMs... All 5 of them.
 
ManofGod said:
Yes, I do think the AMD processors would still be less expensive. Your example means nothing, since that is the AMD of old under an old CEO that did not know what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Okay well we're all still waiting for that day to come so..
 
Ready4Dis said:
I disagree, if they were faster than Intel chips, people would pay more for them... There are enough people dropping > $1200 on a desktop GPU that if AMD came out with a CPU with single core > Intel in all games plus more cores, people would absolutely drop $1k+ on them.
Click to expand...
Enough for AMD to move enough units to make a successful business case for the price increase?

Cause that's the question 😉
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Enough for AMD to move enough units to make a successful business case for the price increase?

Cause that's the question 😉
Click to expand...
Highly binned parts with low availability? They'd probably sell out just like they did with the 3900x and the 3950x when those came out. And the business case is taking the performance crown back from Intel so anyone looking for the absolute best would buy it. It wouldn't be mainstream but it would bring more prestige to their name. Do I think it's going to happen? No, not really, just saying I could see people buying it, people were already buying $800 3950x's and they're slower than 9900k in plenty of games. I can imagine if that last holdout was gone they could raise the price to $1k and still sell pretty well.
 
legcramp said:
Okay well we're all still waiting for that day to come so..
Click to expand...

That day is now and today. 3900X faster than 9900K and less expensive, 3700X faster than 8700K and 9700K and less expensive. 3600 faster than all Intel processors in that price range and less expensive. 3950X faster than all Intel HEDT processors and less expensive. But hey, lets forget the 8 core / 16 thread Intel Processors where nearly $2000 before AMD released Ryzen, won't we?
 
Ready4Dis said:
Highly binned parts with low availability? They'd probably sell out just like they did with the 3900x and the 3950x when those came out. And the business case is taking the performance crown back from Intel so anyone looking for the absolute best would buy it. It wouldn't be mainstream but it would bring more prestige to their name. Do I think it's going to happen? No, not really, just saying I could see people buying it, people were already buying $800 3950x's and they're slower than 9900k in plenty of games. I can imagine if that last holdout was gone they could raise the price to $1k and still sell pretty well.
Click to expand...

Slower, if you are using a 2080Ti but even then, not noticeably slower, unless an FPS meter was displayed. :)
 
ManofGod said:
Slower, if you are using a 2080Ti but even then, not noticeably slower, unless an FPS meter was displayed. :)
Click to expand...
That was my point, that's te only instance Intel has even a slight advantage... If that evaporated and 4950x games faster and mutlithreads better, people will spend more for it.
 
Last edited:
Ready4Dis said:
That was my point, that's te only instance Intel has even a slight advantage... If that evaporated and 4950x games faster and mutlithreads better, people will spend more for it.
Click to expand...
But even if some will; could AMD charge more for it, on the whole, and still move enough units to balance revenue and profit?

AMD is still missing brand cache, and a big part of that has been their various stumblings with their board partners. Another part is supply volume, for which they're limited by TSMC. And every time they put out a chipset or new CPU and so on, no one knows just how rocky that can get; also, no one expects it to go smooth. AMD largely gets a pass from enthusiasts for this, who readily make excuses for them (and even brigade for them on social media and forums), but the situation doesn't remain uncommunicated nor does AMD come away from rocky releases entirely untarnished.

This is one of the bigger things that AMD must overcome in order to charge more for their products on average. They're not going to do it overnight; the Ryzen 3000 release was fairly, but not completely smooth, and the 5700XT earned universal scorn for its release state.

They're going to have to prove that they can do better consistently by doing better repeatedly, to the point where betting on a smooth AMD release becomes statistically reasonable. Right now, it's the opposite, whatever performance or price advantages may exist.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
But even if some will; could AMD charge more for it, on the whole, and still move enough units to balance revenue and profit?

AMD is still missing brand cache, and a big part of that has been their various stumblings with their board partners. Another part is supply volume, for which they're limited by TSMC. And every time they put out a chipset or new CPU and so on, no one knows just how rocky that can get; also, no one expects it to go smooth. AMD largely gets a pass from enthusiasts for this, who readily make excuses for them (and even brigade for them on social media and forums), but the situation doesn't remain uncommunicated nor does AMD come away from rocky releases entirely untarnished.

This is one of the bigger things that AMD must overcome in order to charge more for their products on average. They're not going to do it overnight; the Ryzen 3000 release was fairly, but not completely smooth, and the 5700XT earned universal scorn for its release state.

They're going to have to prove that they can do better consistently by doing better repeatedly, to the point where betting on a smooth AMD release becomes statistically reasonable. Right now, it's the opposite, whatever performance or price advantages may exist.
Click to expand...
All they would need to do is break even, and I feel that would be easy enough to do id it's a binned part that they normally sell for cheaper. To leave Intel with zero claims of being better would be worth it to sell their other chips and as you mentioned, bring some more branding. I also said I feel it's unlikely and it was a big *if* to being with. Theoretically anything is possible, but reality isn't so convenient. I wouldn't be hugely surprised by a high binned part asking for a premium though.
 
This will disrupt 4k gaming!
20200509_215434.jpg
20200509_215529.jpg

Several heatsinks, multiple loud ass delta fans, stickers identifying the various voltage measurement points, adjustable by the pots (little blue boxes). Came as a kit, had to do soldering.
 
Lakados said:
Whoever releases their cards first has a financial obligation to their shareholders to charge the most the market will bear for that product. Who ever releases second / third then gets the decision to to price accordingly based on the numbers set by those before them.
Nvidia, AMD, and Intel are all using the same plants on the same node their costs will all be similar (not identical) and their pricing needs to reflect not only the physical costs but the R&D costs as well and leave a bare minimum of 30% profit on top of that. If the company who launches first comes out the gate at 30% and somebody is able to challenge them at a slightly cheaper point they have nowhere to go with out risking taking a loss. A much safer point is between 45-55% profit margins it allows them to respond to changes in the market and not risk falling below that 30% point unless they really have too.
Why 30% some may ask, because it is a solid baseline that keeps investors happy not meeting that baseline tends to devalue stock and anger shareholders and lenders alike. Given supply for a given chip is not infinite, and their production runs are limited strategy must be used to price them accordingly otherwise you are just going to loose money to secondary markets (aka price gougers).
Click to expand...
Intel has their own Fabs FYI.
 
Marees said:
For consumer graphic cards, Intel are supposed to be using TSMC, as it is not a high profit venture
Click to expand...
That and Intel openly admits their fabs and processes are not current suited to GPU production. They expect their 7nm process to be up to the task but that is still 2 years out.
 
ManofGod said:
That day is now and today. 3900X faster than 9900K and less expensive, 3700X faster than 8700K and 9700K and less expensive. 3600 faster than all Intel processors in that price range and less expensive. 3950X faster than all Intel HEDT processors and less expensive. But hey, lets forget the 8 core / 16 thread Intel Processors where nearly $2000 before AMD released Ryzen, won't we?
Click to expand...

Okay which chip is faster than a 9900K in gaming performance, I'll switch right away.
 
legcramp said:
Okay which chip is faster than a 9900K in gaming performance, I'll switch right away.
Click to expand...
Wait, which game and resolution...? I know, the 9900k is the fastest for low res high hz competitive gaming in most games. If that's your thing, there is nothing else to get. For everyone else, Intel makes a much less compelling argument. This is why I always ask what the use case is before making a recommendation, but most who are competitive gamers don't need to ask as they already know.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Wait, which game and resolution...? I know, the 9900k is the fastest for low res high hz competitive gaming in most games. If that's your thing, there is nothing else to get. For everyone else, Intel makes a much less compelling argument. This is why I always ask what the use case is before making a recommendation, but most who are competitive gamers don't need to ask as they already know.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct.

AMD performance to value is amazing right now but for a straight-up gaming box it's not the fastest.
 
legcramp said:
Okay which chip is faster than a 9900K in gaming performance, I'll switch right away.
Click to expand...

At stock speeds, all of them. You would have to overclock the 9900K just to get the boost and even then, that means you would have to buy an overclocking capable board and not cheap cooling.
 
ManofGod said:
At stock speeds, all of them. You would have to overclock the 9900K just to get the boost and even then, that means you would have to buy an overclocking capable board and not cheap cooling.
Click to expand...

Nonsense of course, but it does seem part your religion to post only pro AMD things, even if requires they come from some kind of alternate reality opposite universe.

Stock 9900k bests every other stock CPU for gaming, both AMD and Intel.

 
Snowdog said:
Nonsense of course, but it does seem part your religion to post only pro AMD things, even if requires they come from some kind of alternate reality opposite universe.

Stock 9900k bests every other stock CPU for gaming, both AMD and Intel.

Click to expand...


Nope but, that is ok, I would not expect any less. Also, I know what I am saying because I have seen it before but, then I realized, this video is from July of 2019 and things have changed since then.

Edit: Also, I would like to know what he uses for an Intel based board because, Asus boards auto overclock Intel chips, which are not stock speeds. (And no, PBO is not the same thing because that is part of the stock processor speed.)
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Nonsense of course, but it does seem part your religion to post only pro AMD things, even if requires they come from some kind of alternate reality opposite universe.

Stock 9900k bests every other stock CPU for gaming, both AMD and Intel.

Click to expand...

I agree, but for the majority the difference small enough and the other benefits big enough. For those that need absolute max FPS (someone trying to make a living gaming or just really wants to be competitive), the 9900k is it. Outside of this niche of a niche, AMD has better offerings most of the time. I always recommend finding benchmarks for the software you run me make a decision based on that reality. Some apps just run better/worse on a different platform.
 
Snowdog said:
Nonsense of course, but it does seem part your religion to post only pro AMD things, even if requires they come from some kind of alternate reality opposite universe.

Stock 9900k bests every other stock CPU for gaming, both AMD and Intel.

Click to expand...


He reminds me of shintai who did the same thing for Intel instead of AMD. Honestly thought that guy had some mental issues until he got a lady friend or something.. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here tbh 😂
 
ManofGod said:
Nope but, that is ok, I would not expect any less. Also, I know what I am saying because I have seen it before but, then I realized, this video is from July of 2019 and things have changed since then.

Edit: Also, I would like to know what he uses for an Intel based board because, Asus boards auto overclock Intel chips, which are not stock speeds. (And no, PBO is not the same thing because that is part of the stock processor speed.)
Click to expand...

gamersnexus said:
  • Gigabyte X570 Master FC5
  • ASUS Maximus XI Hero Z390
  • ASUS Crosshair VII Hero X470

MCE is always disabled on test platforms, ensuring that turbo boost durations should be running within specifications set by the CPU manufacturer. We also try to keep an eye out for other motherboard trickery, like MSI’s oft-boosted BCLK, and then reset to stock settings when applicable. XMP is used on the Corsair memory in our test benches.
Click to expand...

The 9900k is almost NEVER slower than any ryzen 3000 series in gaming (though there are a select few games the ryzen 3000 series wins). Though, the 3000 series certainly comes close when both overclocked, they're effectively equivalent and it's hard to justify a 9900k, even for high refresh rate gamers.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

But to say the 9900k is slower than the 3000 series in gaming? You're off your rocker.
 
Also depends on the use-case. If you are looking at 4K, there is almost no difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top