Radeon 7 (Vega 2, 7nm, 16GB) - $699 available Feb 7th with 3 games

Auer said:
If AMD can beat the GTR2060 at under $300 I would guess most Fanboy's would be delighted.

I don't know how plausible that is but it does not seem unreasonable atm imho.
Click to expand...

Since nVidia incorporated RTX into 2060 I’d be highly disappointed if AMD couldn’t beat it by $100.
 
Dayaks said:
Since nVidia incorporated RTX into 2060 I’d be highly disappointed if AMD couldn’t beat it by $100.
Click to expand...

I would think that if they can beat the 2060 $50 would be about right.

Why would they drop a whole $100 if they don't have to?
 
deruberhanyok said:
Also keep in mind those Navi price/performance rumors read like a fanboy’s dream. It could be true! Or, not.
Click to expand...

You mean a mid range video card for a mid range price, there must be something wrong ...
Boil said:
Keep in mind Radeon VII has 16GB of HBM2 (estimated to be up to 350 bucks in cost) whereas the forthcoming Navi GPUs will use up to 8GB of GDDR6...
Click to expand...

True but both cards will do 1440p fine.

Auer said:
I would think that if they can beat the 2060 $50 would be about right.

Why would they drop a whole $100 if they don't have to?
Click to expand...
No one would advice someone to buy a RTX 2060 vs a $250 ish Navi 10 not just because of performance. It is a clear winner in that price bracket.

The amount of money AMD makes on Navi must be really good (not just due to GDDR6). That also means the yield is pretty good as well.
 
AMD could just as easily make a card that barely looses to the 2060 and sell it for $100 less and make way more money that way.

Tons of people settle for "Almost as good" to save $100.
 
Auer said:
I would think that if they can beat the 2060 $50 would be about right.

Why would they drop a whole $100 if they don't have to?
Click to expand...

We’ll have to see the situation when it launches but like Peter said it’d be a clear winner. They should also be able to and still hold good gross margin considering a decent portion of the RTX 2060 die is dedicated to (currently useless) RTX features. The Navi competittor will be a tiny die in comparison. Should be a lot cheaper to mfg, cool, power, ect.

For $50 I’d personally go with the RTX card *just incase* the features become popular. $100 I can’t ignore.
 
Auer said:
AMD could just as easily make a card that barely looses to the 2060 and sell it for $100 less and make way more money that way.

Tons of people settle for "Almost as good" to save $100.
Click to expand...
They won't do this, though. If they produce a card that's, say, 85% as fast as a 2060, they'll sell it for about 85% of the price, not 60%.
 
Dayaks said:
We’ll have to see the situation when it launches but like Peter said it’d be a clear winner. They should also be able to and still hold good gross margin considering a decent portion of the RTX 2060 die is dedicated to (currently useless) RTX features. The Navi competittor will be a tiny die in comparison. Should be a lot cheaper to mfg, cool, power, ect.

For $50 I’d personally go with the RTX card *just incase* the features become popular. $100 I can’t ignore.
Click to expand...

This kind of foolishness is why Nvidia has a 75% "gaming" market share, and we get the shit they shove down our throats like G-snyc (semi failed), Physx (failed), Nvidia GPP, etc..

I am not being an AMD fanboy, but outside of the extreme high end, they have cards that are just as good or better at every price point with equal or BETTER drivers for years now yet we have this kind of fanboyish crap making everyone drink Green kool-aid....

To be clear, I am not attacking you Dayaks , just the message.
 
They are using AMD's figures in those charts, it's not their own testing.
 
ccityinstaller said:
This kind of foolishness is why Nvidia has a 75% "gaming" market share, and we get the shit they shove down our throats like G-snyc (semi failed), Physx (failed), Nvidia GPP, etc..

I am not being an AMD fanboy, but outside of the extreme high end, they have cards that are just as good or better at every price point with equal or BETTER drivers for years now yet we have this kind of fanboyish crap making everyone drink Green kool-aid....

To be clear, I am not attacking you Dayaks , just the message.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but it's basically reality. We're not going to change the human race and our purchasing habits. For brand changes to happen people in general need a decent incentive. We also can't ignore nVidia has more features... even if they are useless many people may not see it that way. nVidia does have a lot of CUDA/NVENC apps as well.

Just saying AMD could decently undercut AMD and have nVidia like gross margins, especially in the 2060 area. The vast majority of people don't get into video card politics 'nvgeedia' and *insert AMD equivalent* nonsense. They just look at fps and price.
 
ccityinstaller said:
This kind of foolishness is why Nvidia has a 75% "gaming" market share, and we get the shit they shove down our throats like G-snyc (semi failed), Physx (failed), Nvidia GPP, etc..

I am not being an AMD fanboy, but outside of the extreme high end, they have cards that are just as good or better at every price point with equal or BETTER drivers for years now yet we have this kind of fanboyish crap making everyone drink Green kool-aid....

To be clear, I am not attacking you Dayaks , just the message.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your message however I wouldn't say PhsyX failed. It is used in several game engines these days and used in professional grade software as well. What didn't go far was GPGPU based PhysX.
 
Derangel said:
I don't disagree with your message however I wouldn't say PhsyX failed. It is used in several game engines these days and used in professional grade software as well. What didn't go far was GPGPU based PhysX.
Click to expand...
Actually physx is the most popular phisics engine. And just recently nvidia made it open source, so AMD has no excuse not to support it.
 
Stoly said:
Actually physx is the most popular phisics engine. And just recently nvidia made it open source, so AMD has no excuse not to support it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I was referring to the Nvidia lock in via their GPUs...That did FAIL, and I am glad they saw the the light and opened it up to compete with havoc and others.
 
TPtnvRe.jpg


yX7X2Mh.jpg


https://www.hd-tecnologia.com/exclusiva-asi-rinde-la-radeon-vii-vs-la-rtx-2080-en-1440p-y-4k/

Assuming these benches are legit, more or less the same performance as a 2080 for the same price but no RTX features (irrespective of how useless they are ATM). I am still not seeing where the competition is, AMD should drop the price to $499 if it actually wants to steal market share away from Nvidia.
 
Blade-Runner said:
View attachment 140243

View attachment 140244

https://www.hd-tecnologia.com/exclusiva-asi-rinde-la-radeon-vii-vs-la-rtx-2080-en-1440p-y-4k/

Assuming these benches are legit, more or less the same performance as a 2080 for the same price but no RTX features (irrespective of how useless they are ATM). I am still not seeing where the competition is, AMD should drop the price to $499 if it actually wants to steal market share away from Nvidia.
Click to expand...

you don't win market share with a high-end card. Never do and never will. AMD will not sell this for 499, this is card to say hey we have something. I can bet you AMD does not care about how many of these are sold. Navi is where they will target maket share with. Not a 700 dollar card. If they could build this for 300 then yea sure they could try 499 but that memory alone is probably 300 on it from whats out there.



Oh almost forgot. These are the same benches that AMD released nothing new. They just put the numbers in graphs.
 
JasonLD said:
Was $699 not too long ago. Probably price error.
Click to expand...

It's a common marketing tactic for prices to be lower when out of stock. It'll jump back to $699 when the cards are actually available unless AMD's pulling a rabbit out of their hat.
 
Blade-Runner said:
View attachment 140243

View attachment 140244

https://www.hd-tecnologia.com/exclusiva-asi-rinde-la-radeon-vii-vs-la-rtx-2080-en-1440p-y-4k/

Assuming these benches are legit, more or less the same performance as a 2080 for the same price but no RTX features (irrespective of how useless they are ATM). I am still not seeing where the competition is, AMD should drop the price to $499 if it actually wants to steal market share away from Nvidia.
Click to expand...

No RTX features. lol. Nv fans are sure hanging their hat on something that appears to be a flop. I'd actually call having no RTX features a plus at this point, it ballooned the die, skyrocketed the price and has zero benefit to the end user while currently implemented in a single game with less than a handful on the way. Radeon VII has something useful, compute performance. If it is similar in gaming performance, it's worth every penny that Nvidia charges for their similar performing card. Unless you are suggesting the 2080 should be 499 as well. I doubt they can get it that low though due to the die size and use of expensive GDDR6.
 
Peppercorn said:
Nv fans are sure hanging their hat on something that appears to be a flop.
Click to expand...

Damn, it's like some people just hate graphics progress unless it comes from their favored vendor...

[here's a hint: it'll come from AMD in AMD's time, they've already announced that they're supporting DXR]
 
Peppercorn said:
No RTX features. lol. Nv fans are sure hanging their hat on something that appears to be a flop. I'd actually call having no RTX features a plus at this point, it ballooned the die, skyrocketed the price and has zero benefit to the end user while currently implemented in a single game with less than a handful on the way. Radeon VII has something useful, compute performance. If it is similar in gaming performance, it's worth every penny that Nvidia charges for their similar performing card. Unless you are suggesting the 2080 should be 499 as well. I doubt they can get it that low though due to the die size and use of expensive GDDR6.
Click to expand...

the RTX features are the reason Nvidia priced their cards at that price point...for the Radeon VII to have similar performance to a 2080 minus the RTX/DLSS it should be priced $150- $200 less
 
polonyc2 said:
the RTX features are the reason Nvidia priced their cards at that price point...for the Radeon VII to have similar performance to a 2080 minus the RTX/DLSS it should be priced $150- $200 less
Click to expand...

Maybe not quite that much, but i think it world have been cheaper if not for the amount of HBM2 it has. The rumors say it's quite expensive.
 
NKD said:
you don't win market share with a high-end card.
Click to expand...

You mean you don't win market share by being late to market whilst offering the same performance and emulating the price gouging practices of your competitors? Thanks for the lesson in business 101.

NKD said:
If they could build this for 300 then yea sure they could try 499 but that memory alone is probably 300 on it from whats out there.
Click to expand...

Great, overpriced ram that barely enables AMD to keep pace with Nvidia. Good to know we can look forward to another cycle of performance stagnation and eye watering GPU prices.
 
polonyc2 said:
the RTX features are the reason Nvidia priced their cards at that price point...for the Radeon VII to have similar performance to a 2080 minus the RTX/DLSS it should be priced $150- $200 less
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Maddness said:
Maybe not quite that much, but i think it world have been cheaper if not for the amount of HBM2 it has. The rumors say it's quite expensive.
Click to expand...

Seriously....can someone please explain what the advantage of HBM2 is if it doesn't actually allow AMD to offer superior performance to Nvidia's cards!?
 
Blade-Runner said:
Seriously....can someone please explain what the advantage of HBM2 is if it doesn't actually allow AMD to offer superior performance to Nvidia's cards!?
Click to expand...

Sure. It helps in tons of stuff, except you know, games.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the Radeon VII (and the Vega arch that it is a shrink of) was perhaps designed with something else in mind.
 
polonyc2 said:
the RTX features are the reason Nvidia priced their cards at that price point...for the Radeon VII to have similar performance to a 2080 minus the RTX/DLSS it should be priced $150- $200 less
Click to expand...
Even if they priced it higher then the RTX 2080 it has a different value the amount of ram the bandwidth of the memory makes it better option for other then gaming.
I see no value in both ray tracing in the 2080 or DLSS for that matter since there is nothing on the market that started supporting this.
You are projecting your dismay for Nvidia prices on to the AMD product while not understanding why it is using the hardware it does.
https://fudzilla.com/news/graphics/48020-radeon-vii-production-cost-650
Blade-Runner said:
You mean you don't win market share by being late to market whilst offering the same performance and emulating the price gouging practices of your competitors? Thanks for the lesson in business 101.
Great, overpriced ram that barely enables AMD to keep pace with Nvidia. Good to know we can look forward to another cycle of performance stagnation and eye watering GPU prices.
Click to expand...
Business 101 is why you are complaining on the AMD forum about AMD cards being overpriced you see the problem right?
The ram is not overpriced Nvidia just uses it in their professional products. If you knew why Vega 64 needed it then you would have understood the need for it now.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I see no value in both ray tracing in the 2080 or DLSS for that matter since there is nothing on the market that started supporting this.
Click to expand...

So do you see any value in AMD supporting the same technologies in their future products?

Pieter3dnow said:
If you knew why Vega 64 needed it then you would have understood the need for it now.
Click to expand...

Because it's innefficient relative to competing parts?

It's likely that AMD bet on HBM and wasn't ready to produce a part using GDDR. That bet has turned out to be a pretty poor one overall; the Vega arch is a monster on paper, but loses out in terms of efficiency to the competition.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Sure. It helps in tons of stuff, except you know, games.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the Radeon VII (and the Vega arch that it is a shrink of) was perhaps designed with something else in mind.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Someone wake me when they actually release a GPU with super expensive HBM that actually improves gaming performance.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
So do you see any value in AMD supporting the same technologies in their future products?



Because it's innefficient relative to competing parts?

It's likely that AMD bet on HBM and wasn't ready to produce a part using GDDR. That bet has turned out to be a pretty poor one overall; the Vega arch is a monster on paper, but loses out in terms of efficiency to the competition.
Click to expand...

I can see AMD come with more to offer to the table then empty gestures :) .
Nope the design needed HBM due to power consumption on Vega 64 and thus the only supported memory was HBM and to make another version of Vega it would have cost way way way more to redesign it for GDDR6.

Some rumours suggest that if there were no Navi hiccup then Radeon 7 would have never seen the light of day since that design uses GDDR6 and has a smaller die size as well..
 
Blade-Runner said:
Awesome. Someone wake me when they actually release a GPU with super expensive HBM that actually improves gaming performance.
Click to expand...

Well, AMD is releasing them on consumer GPUs (that are really more like compute GPUs). Nvidia only uses them on their top compute GPUs, and these don't get sold as consumer products except as the odd Titan.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I can see AMD come with more to offer to the table then empty gestures :) .
Click to expand...

For gaming? What would those be? A part that competes in terms of power, performance, and price, and features with a part their competitor released two years ago?

Pieter3dnow said:
Nope the design needed HBM due to power consumption on Vega 64 and thus the only supported memory was HBM and to make another version of Vega it would have cost way way way more to redesign it for GDDR6.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious that using HBM parts for consumer cards was never part of the plan, which you seem to recognize when you say:

Pieter3dnow said:
Some rumours suggest that if there were no Navi hiccup then Radeon 7 would have never seen the light of day since that design uses GDDR6 and has a smaller die size as well..
Click to expand...

Which is basically what Nvidia does. Well, not the hiccup part. It's something I wish AMD would do too- but they seem to be focused much more on compute then gaming these days.
 
Blade-Runner said:
You mean you don't win market share by being late to market whilst offering the same performance and emulating the price gouging practices of your competitors? Thanks for the lesson in business 101.



Great, overpriced ram that barely enables AMD to keep pace with Nvidia. Good to know we can look forward to another cycle of performance stagnation and eye watering GPU prices.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your are trying to say here. your reponse doesn't prove anything. I was stating facts! market share is not won at the top end. Many here will agree. Had nothing to do with Radoen 7 being late bla bla bla. Its a product not designed to win market share. you think 2080 and 2080ti were designed to win market share? Was never trying to teach anyone a lesson.

once again. My comment about the price of ram had nothing to do with performance. it was stating cost of build.

Won't quote you again. Promise. Not worth having this conversation with you lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
This is ignoring the effects of halo products on marketing completely.

The fact is, AMD has a habit of not competing in the top end, and this does affect their marketability and thus their market share.
Click to expand...

I am just talking bout Radeon 7. I already said its there for show, not there to take market share. just that, nothing much nothing more.

AMD needs an efficient design that has great performance for the price. I am not talking about Halo Products, I am talking about numbers. OEM is where AMD is missing out. They can win hard if Navi is priced low and has an efficient design for cheap.

Its clear AMD is not trying to win marketshare here with this card so why make a big deal about it is all I am saying. lets see what they do with Navi. I expect them to push hard with that in mid-range gamin and oem space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top