Navi Rumors

Status
Not open for further replies.
cybereality said:
But, you do realize this is a rumors thread, right? Everything here is basically pure speculation.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I would think that at least rumors (and speculations) should at least have basis on something factual, not just rumors based on rumors.
 
Last edited:
_mockingbird said:
AMD was going to announce Navi at CES, but a group of elite ninja monkeys broken in and stole all the engineering samples and deleted months of work.
Click to expand...

The problem is you're conflating rumors of release date and rumors of price/performance. Just because the adored tv "leak" had a different release date doesn't mean that the performance isn't going to line up with the leak. The CES zen2 leak in terms of performance was pretty accurate.
 
kirbyrj said:
The problem is you're conflating rumors of release date and rumors of price/performance. Just because the adored tv "leak" had a different release date doesn't mean that the performance isn't going to line up with the leak. The CES zen2 leak in terms of performance was pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

Really?

Did AMD talked about anything else (concerning 3rd gen Ryzen) aside from Cinebench scores (as far as performance is concerned) at CES?

I don't recall AdoredTV talking about Cinebench scores.
 
The bickering will please stop. I do not want to close this thread.
 
Auer said:
In a luxury goods market (Yes consumer gaming GPU's are a luxury good) public perception plays a big part.

Lowering prices does affect image. Not here on [H] so much but in the rest of the world.

They could have gotten a TON of positive publicity by selling the R VII for $599.
Instead they went with the "People will think it's lesser if it costs less" mentality.

Also, no one chooses a Toyota over a Lexus based on anything but price. And they know they get less. They either don't care or simply can't afford more.

I also could go on and on about the prices of Cell Phones. Especially high end. But I wont. You get the point.

I will be surprised when AMD comes out with a 2070 equivalent for $399. I really will. But let's hope it happens for the sake of our wallets.

It's obvious looking at threads on enthusiast forums that buying a GPU is a somewhat emotional experience. People are passionate about their hobbies. Me too.
But for the vast majority of gamers out there it's simply more about just having a peer approved "Best" brand. You don't have to read up a whole lot to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

The entire videocard market is not luxury goods. That's a flawed assumption. Because it assumes the market generally responds favorably to price increases. As we have seen with the RTX launch, a brand isn't enough to sell card, you need increases with price to performance to go along with it. Generally speaking, the higher end the market, the likelyhood that the good becomes a luxury good.

But the entire discrete market is not a luxury good. The reason is PC gaming has become one of the most affordable ways to entertain yourself. There is no longer this barrier to entry where you need a 2k computer(3k with inflation) and an expensive videocard. With computers becoming uniquitous and essential for home function and work, adding a discrete card to a computer is relatively cheap. With games costing potentially 0 dollars PC gaming has been mainstream for a while. What this means is there is alot of people who still buy based on price to performance. It not a rich person hobby. As in most market, there are sub segments in the product category, which can create luxury goods out of normal goods. But gaming has past the point of being a niche and stopped being a pure luxury good much like the first LCDs, Computers, smartphones etc.

As things becoming cheaper and uniquitous for mass market adoption, companies have to start competing and offering better price to performance because the larger the market the tougher the sell because early adopters are willing to take the hit and experiment with new technology. The mainstream market not so much which makes the market more sensitive to cost. The high end market is what I would consider a luxury goods market because they are far less sensitive to cost.

Lets not look as goods as essential and luxury goods which I think you were trying to do. Lets break it down into inferior goods, normal goods and luxury goods to better take into account price elasticity.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/normal-good.asp

Ultimately most buyers follow a price elasticity when it comes to videocards. That is people are sensitive to price increases particularly in the mainstream market. This is what makes it a normal good.

Luxury goods, are products where people spend more in percentage terms on a product or service than their increase income. Normal goods on the other hand increases demand from the public as people make more money. That means they follow a normal supply and demand and profit is largely linear with quantity and demand.

This is why Nvidia is increasing price to performance in this market (RTX 2060/1660/1660 ti) as a normal good unlike the rest of the RTX cards. In the mainstream market, cards need to have an increase in price to performance to sell. Increasing price without increasing performance leads to a drop in demand which offsets the extra margin from a higher pricing making it less profitable. This is something that corresponds to a normal good.

From what I can see, the end of the mainstream market and where luxury goods begins is around 40-500 dollars and more. It's why Intel focused on 400 and less market for so long. Increase the price any further and the demand falls off too much. Looking at the RTX launch, it seems like the RTX 2070 card is having the hardest time being sold because it has gone below MSRP unlike the rest of the RTX series. Too expensive for the mainstream market and too slow for the high end market.

This is why market segmentation is so important to maximize and increase the total addressable market, companies realize groups of people have different willingness to pay and for the RTX 2070, it in no mans land where not much of a market exists with its price to performance offering.

But the high end market, the luxury goods market don't follow the rules of the traditional market.

High end videocards can be considered luxury goods, because the market is less sensitive to price which means increasing the price won't cause the drop in demand one would normally expect from a normal good. It not linear. A 50% increase in price might not change the quantity demanded. This is because buyers in this segment care most about having the fastest and some cherish scarcity of the card. The only RTX card out of stock consistently has been the RTX 2080 ti which reflects why this is a luxury good. It's price inelastic which allowed the huge price increase.

If we want to measure which segment is a luxury good, we need to look at its price elasticity and explore it from a demand and income standpoint. Which segments respond linearly with price/performance and which ones have the same demand even with a price increase.

This is largely why I avoid calling Nvidia a luxury good and call them the prestige or luxury brand. Thinking the videocard market is luxury goods market where it is primarily brand prestige that sells a card is lazy and doesn't take into account enough variables.

Brand helps sell cards, but what has really allowed Nvidia to turn the tide against AMD is they largely at launch match or beat AMD when it comes to price to performance. The GTX 1080,1060, 1070, 1060 3gb and even the GTX 1050 followed this rule. Add the efficiency, heat/quietness on top of the brand and this is the reason why AMD has largely been unable to gain marketshare.

This of it like this. The following is quantity demanded for videocards.

quantity demanded = k[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]

Where K is a base selling marketshare, lets say 70/30 for Nvidia(the marketshare AMD and Nvidia get when price to performance is equal).

x represents the score for price to performance
y represents the score for efficiency
z represents the score for heat/noise.
The constants represent the the weight of importance.

So what happens when Nvidia/AMD match across the board, we have it so AMD and Nvidia match price to performance and everything else, we get the 70/30 percent marketshare.

What happens with price/performance is equal, but AMD scores 5 and 5 for efficiency and heat and noise and Nvidia scores a 10/10, Nvidia gains marketshare.

So 70(10*.8 + 10*.1 + 10*.1) = 700

AMD 30(10*.8 + 5*.1 + 5*.1) = 270

In this case Nvidia has 72.1% marketshare vs AMD has 27.9. No longer then 70/30 marketshare. Now lets make this value the new brand modifier for next generation.

So what happens when Nvidia beats AMD price to performance on top of the other factors, it leads to even marketshare loss, if AMD doesn't win price to performance and loses the heat and efficiency battle.

q= 72.1[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]
and q = 27.9[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]

What it illustrates is why AMD needs to beat Nvidia on price to performance to close the gap and why during even a fantastic generation, they have a hard time taking marketshare E.g 4870 generation where AMD scores 10 across the board vs Nvidia 5 for price to performance and takes 5 for efficiency and power/heat.

70(6*.8 + 5*.1 + 5*.1) = 406
30(10*.8 + 10*.1 + 10*.1) = 300

42% marketshare for AMD and 58% marketshare for Nvidia which is about where AMD had the best marketshare from the last 12 years. What it illustrates also why AMD did not outsell Nvidia even when they had much better price to performance. But it bled out marketshare quickly which is necessary for AMD to raise it's base demand or k value.

The problem for AMD is Nvidia has not allowed the 4870 launch to happen again, aggressively pricing their products and responding quickly when AMD beats them. It also shows why raising price to raise brand prestige is counter productive. Pricing the same or as high as Nvidia has no positive effect on k or base demand. If anything it lowers it.

This is because k is mostly a function of last generations accumulated marketshare/brand value/halo effect. How would increasing price relative to the competition raise this value, particularly when your mindshare is weaker?

The only way AMD gains marketshare in the long run is gaining marketshare with a card like the 4870/4850 and continuing to apply the pressure so that AMD maintains that value and increases it or clawing away at it with price/performance and beating Nvidia on efficiency and heat.
 
tajoh111 said:
The entire videocard market is not luxury goods. That's a flawed assumption. Because it assumes the market generally responds favorably to price increases. As we have seen with the RTX launch, a brand isn't enough to sell card, you need increases with price to performance to go along with it. Generally speaking, the higher end the market, the likelyhood that the good becomes a luxury good.

But the entire discrete market is not a luxury good. The reason is PC gaming has become one of the most affordable ways to entertain yourself. There is no longer this barrier to entry where you need a 2k computer(3k with inflation) and an expensive videocard. With computers becoming uniquitous and essential for home function and work, adding a discrete card to a computer is relatively cheap. With games costing potentially 0 dollars PC gaming has been mainstream for a while. What this means is there is alot of people who still buy based on price to performance. It not a rich person hobby. As in most market, there are sub segments in the product category, which can create luxury goods out of normal goods. But gaming has past the point of being a niche and stopped being a pure luxury good much like the first LCDs, Computers, smartphones etc.

As things becoming cheaper and uniquitous for mass market adoption, companies have to start competing and offering better price to performance because the larger the market the tougher the sell because early adopters are willing to take the hit and experiment with new technology. The mainstream market not so much which makes the market more sensitive to cost. The high end market is what I would consider a luxury goods market because they are far less sensitive to cost.

Lets not look as goods as essential and luxury goods which I think you were trying to do. Lets break it down into inferior goods, normal goods and luxury goods to better take into account price elasticity.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/normal-good.asp

Ultimately most buyers follow a price elasticity when it comes to videocards. That is people are sensitive to price increases particularly in the mainstream market. This is what makes it a normal good.

Luxury goods, are products where people spend more in percentage terms on a product or service than their increase income. Normal goods on the other hand increases demand from the public as people make more money. That means they follow a normal supply and demand and profit is largely linear with quantity and demand.

This is why Nvidia is increasing price to performance in this market (RTX 2060/1660/1660 ti) as a normal good unlike the rest of the RTX cards. In the mainstream market, cards need to have an increase in price to performance to sell. Increasing price without increasing performance leads to a drop in demand which offsets the extra margin from a higher pricing making it less profitable. This is something that corresponds to a normal good.

From what I can see, the end of the mainstream market and where luxury goods begins is around 40-500 dollars and more. It's why Intel focused on 400 and less market for so long. Increase the price any further and the demand falls off too much. Looking at the RTX launch, it seems like the RTX 2070 card is having the hardest time being sold because it has gone below MSRP unlike the rest of the RTX series. Too expensive for the mainstream market and too slow for the high end market.

This is why market segmentation is so important to maximize and increase the total addressable market, companies realize groups of people have different willingness to pay and for the RTX 2070, it in no mans land where not much of a market exists with its price to performance offering.

But the high end market, the luxury goods market don't follow the rules of the traditional market.

High end videocards can be considered luxury goods, because the market is less sensitive to price which means increasing the price won't cause the drop in demand one would normally expect from a normal good. It not linear. A 50% increase in price might not change the quantity demanded. This is because buyers in this segment care most about having the fastest and some cherish scarcity of the card. The only RTX card out of stock consistently has been the RTX 2080 ti which reflects why this is a luxury good. It's price inelastic which allowed the huge price increase.

If we want to measure which segment is a luxury good, we need to look at its price elasticity and explore it from a demand and income standpoint. Which segments respond linearly with price/performance and which ones have the same demand even with a price increase.

This is largely why I avoid calling Nvidia a luxury good and call them the prestige or luxury brand. Thinking the videocard market is luxury goods market where it is primarily brand prestige that sells a card is lazy and doesn't take into account enough variables.

Brand helps sell cards, but what has really allowed Nvidia to turn the tide against AMD is they largely at launch match or beat AMD when it comes to price to performance. The GTX 1080,1060, 1070, 1060 3gb and even the GTX 1050 followed this rule. Add the efficiency, heat/quietness on top of the brand and this is the reason why AMD has largely been unable to gain marketshare.

This of it like this. The following is quantity demanded for videocards.

quantity demanded = k[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]

Where K is a base selling marketshare, lets say 70/30 for Nvidia(the marketshare AMD and Nvidia get when price to performance is equal).

x represents the score for price to performance
y represents the score for efficiency
z represents the score for heat/noise.
The constants represent the the weight of importance.

So what happens when Nvidia/AMD match across the board, we have it so AMD and Nvidia match price to performance and everything else, we get the 70/30 percent marketshare.

What happens with price/performance is equal, but AMD scores 5 and 5 for efficiency and heat and noise and Nvidia scores a 10/10, Nvidia gains marketshare.

So 70(10*.8 + 10*.1 + 10*.1) = 700

AMD 30(10*.8 + 5*.1 + 5*.1) = 270

In this case Nvidia has 72.1% marketshare vs AMD has 27.9. No longer then 70/30 marketshare. Now lets make this value the new brand modifier for next generation.

So what happens when Nvidia beats AMD price to performance on top of the other factors, it leads to even marketshare loss, if AMD doesn't win price to performance and loses the heat and efficiency battle.

q= 72.1[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]
and q = 27.9[(x)0.8 + (y)0.1 + (z)0.1)]

What it illustrates is why AMD needs to beat Nvidia on price to performance to close the gap and why during even a fantastic generation, they have a hard time taking marketshare E.g 4870 generation where AMD scores 10 across the board vs Nvidia 5 for price to performance and takes 5 for efficiency and power/heat.

70(6*.8 + 5*.1 + 5*.1) = 406
30(10*.8 + 10*.1 + 10*.1) = 300

42% marketshare for AMD and 58% marketshare for Nvidia which is about where AMD had the best marketshare from the last 12 years. What it illustrates also why AMD did not outsell Nvidia even when they had much better price to performance. But it bled out marketshare quickly which is necessary for AMD to raise it's base demand or k value.

The problem for AMD is Nvidia has not allowed the 4870 launch to happen again, aggressively pricing their products and responding quickly when AMD beats them. It also shows why raising price to raise brand prestige is counter productive. Pricing the same or as high as Nvidia has no positive effect on k or base demand. If anything it lowers it.

This is because k is mostly a function of last generations accumulated marketshare/brand value/halo effect. How would increasing price relative to the competition raise this value, particularly when your mindshare is weaker?

The only way AMD gains marketshare in the long run is gaining marketshare with a card like the 4870/4850 and continuing to apply the pressure so that AMD maintains that value and increases it or clawing away at it with price/performance and beating Nvidia on efficiency and heat.
Click to expand...

Holy wall of text Batman!

IMO opinion anything that is not a necessity for survival (food, clothing, shelter) is a luxury item.
 
Krenum said:
Holy wall of text Batman!

IMO opinion anything that is not a necessity for survival (food, clothing, shelter) is a luxury item.
Click to expand...

Which is something I mentioned. Too limited a term and doesn't account for variability enough. Not enough math or anything to determine what dictates a luxury good even within an essential good. E.g What foods are luxury foods, when does clothing start to become a luxury good, what houses are considered a luxury etc.

Too limited and bad for analysis. Strangely enough essential goods are some of the most price inelastic goods. If all housing went up at once, consumers would basically have to accept it because it is essential to the point you have to pay the price no matter what. Same with power. This further screw up why using it in market analysis is useless.
 
cybereality said:
Here is the latest rumor, looks like August.
https://wccftech.com/exclusive-amds-7nm-navi-gpu-will-launch-roughly-a-month-after-ryzen-3000/
Click to expand...


Wccftech.com is full of crap because science regarding the 4096 number.
4096 is a limit imposed by amdahl's law, a formula that determines the maximum number of cores you can expect to use efficiently according to the percentage of code that is actually parallelizable(the original statement is more general but this is the gist of it).
At 95% parallel code that number is 4096, so nobody should expect significant increases even when doubling the number of cores/sp in this case, what they need to work is refining their efficiency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
 
I wasn't aware of Amdahl's Law but I don't see why AMD can't just put as many processors as possible, even if it has diminishing returns (just as they released the first 16GB consumer card when it's not needed).
 
Revdarian said:
Wccftech.com is full of crap because science regarding the 4096 number.
4096 is a limit imposed by amdahl's law, a formula that determines the maximum number of cores you can expect to use efficiently according to the percentage of code that is actually parallelizable(the original statement is more general but this is the gist of it).
At 95% parallel code that number is 4096, so nobody should expect significant increases even when doubling the number of cores/sp in this case, what they need to work is refining their efficiency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Click to expand...

Developers might currently put 4096 in GPGPU code (actually I do not know if this is true, it might as well be false) and this might limit benefits of more shaders in compute workloads (which can also be false) but games are different case altogether.
At 4K you have 8'337'600 pixels to do calculations for so plenty of data to work on for a single frame and doubling shader count to 8192 would certainly help with performance.

Limiting factor is GCN dispatcher that is limited to 4096 shaders so it would need to be improved.
Nvidia already have GPU's with higher shader count. RTX 2080Ti have 4352, Titan RTX have 4608 and Titan V have whooping 5120 !!!!1 and these cards do have better performance with larger core count. It is especially visible with 2080Ti and Titan RTX comparisons.

Of course improving per-shader core performance is a must for AMD to be able to compete because they are lacking badly in this category, at least when games are concerned. But I highly doubt they can ever dare to dream to get on top of performance charts without going beyond this stupid 4096 shader limit.
 
But Navi is not going to break barriers for the PC desktop. The only thing I hope that Navi will see is the same launch as the RX 590 , custom cooling from the start.
 
RTX 2070's can now be had for under $500, I'm hoping Navi will at least match that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XoR_
like this
Krenum said:
IMO opinion anything that is not a necessity for survival (food, clothing, shelter) is a luxury item.
Click to expand...

Then you have a misunderstanding of what these terms mean from an economics perspective. There are plenty of things that fall outside of those categories that are not luxury items. Having a hard wall like that leaves no room for nuance or greater understanding of market forces.
I think tajoh111 summarized a lot of these points very clearly. Most notably a true luxury good is impervious to the state of the market and its sales increase when the price is raised.

It also leaves out the categorization of luxury product segmentation. It's the difference between why a Mclaren can sell for over a million, but price a base Corolla over $25k and its sales will drop like a rock. If a car is a luxury good is the way you define it (not food, clothes, shelter) then there should be no price elasticity on the Corolla. Toyota should be able to "price match" the Mclaren and still be able to sell it.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
You forgot to say rtx 2070 performance at half the price. Not that is being optimistic ;)
Click to expand...
RTX 2070 is last year card. AMD need to deliver this level of performance while being cheaper because so will NV with new GPU series that will come around the same time.

They might actually be able to deliver sub-300$ parts with 2070-like performance, albeit with higher TDP rating and no hardware DXR. This is possible because as we can see Radeon VII is pretty small chip, 331 mm² compared to 445 mm² of TU106 and with cheaper memory, more mature process node (thus cheaper) and some architectural improvements it wouldn't be that hard to achieve this levels of performance and price of Radeon VII is mostly prohibitively expensive 16 freaking GB of HMB2.
 
XoR_ said:
RTX 2070 is last year card. AMD need to deliver this level of performance while being cheaper because so will NV with new GPU series that will come around the same time.

They might actually be able to deliver sub-300$ parts with 2070-like performance, albeit with higher TDP rating and no hardware DXR. This is possible because as we can see Radeon VII is pretty small chip, 331 mm² compared to 445 mm² of TU106 and with cheaper memory, more mature process node (thus cheaper) and some architectural improvements it wouldn't be that hard to achieve this levels of performance and price of Radeon VII is mostly prohibitively expensive 16 freaking GB of HMB2.
Click to expand...

Nvidia is not coming with new GPUs mid year or this year. 2020 is for nvidia next gen. Not sure why people are assuming nvidia is going to drop new high end less then a year after Turing. They squeezed 2+ years from Pascal. Heck they are still releasing mid range no rtx Turing cards. No doubt AMD will have to target best bang for buck but nvidia is not releasing anything new this year on gaming side.
 
XoR_ said:
RTX 2070 is last year card. AMD need to deliver this level of performance while being cheaper because so will NV with new GPU series that will come around the same time.
Click to expand...
Mate, the 2070 has been out for five months (launched October 2018). Technically that does indeed make it "last year's card" but you are bonkers if you think that Nvidia will release a card that replaces the 2070 within a year of Turing first launching. Not going to happen. They haven't even finished releasing the full Turing stack yet!

It's like that article the other day about "Nvidia fails to announce 7nm GPUs" or whatever bollocks it was. The only people who actually thought Nvidia would supersede the 20-series cards within a year of launching them were people who think that WCCFtech and the likes actually have a fucking clue about anything. When have we ever seen Nvidia (or AMD) do this?
 
XoR_ said:
RTX 2070 is last year card. AMD need to deliver this level of performance while being cheaper because so will NV with new GPU series that will come around the same time.
Click to expand...

There no indication that "NV with new GPU series [] will come around the same time"

XoR_ said:
They might actually be able to deliver sub-300$ parts with 2070-like performance, albeit with higher TDP rating and no hardware DXR.
Click to expand...

That's think thing called R&D.

Have you ever heard of it?

XoR_ said:
This is possible because as we can see Radeon VII is pretty small chip, 331 mm² compared to 445 mm² of TU106 and with cheaper memory, more mature process node (thus cheaper) and
Click to expand...

Do you really think that a brand new 7nm process is "more mature process node" than the then 12nm/16nm?

Don't make me laugh.

XoR_ said:
some architectural improvements it wouldn't be that hard to achieve this levels of performance and price of Radeon VII is mostly prohibitively expensive 16 freaking GB of HMB2.
Click to expand...

Vega has worse delta color compression than Maxwell

Don't worry! Easy fix! /sarcasm
 
_mockingbird said:
Vega has worse delta color compression than Maxwell

Don't worry! Easy fix! /sarcasm
Click to expand...

Pieter3dnow said:
And yet Vega has less problems (smaller performance hit) when using HDR.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of these things will impact the sales #'s for Navi.

Most ppl would not know what Delta color compression is and as far as HDR goes...most monitors don't have it or if they do it's poorly implemented. At least in the lower price ranges for now.

And I don't think Navi will be aimed at the $800+ monitor crowd. But I could be wrong of course.
 
_mockingbird said:
There no indication that "NV with new GPU series [] will come around the same time"
Click to expand...
Too bad...
Or good... depends where you sit. Good for AMD obviously :)

That's think thing called R&D.
Have you ever heard of it?
Click to expand...
It is how exactly related to quoted part of my previous post?
AMD did tons of r&d on GCN already. They might improve it for real this time but frankly I stopped believing it after Vega came out...

Do you really think that a brand new 7nm process is "more mature process node" than the then 12nm/16nm?
Don't make me laugh.
Click to expand...
I meant it will be more mature than 7nm of Vega VII thus better yield thus lower production cost

Vega has worse delta color compression than Maxwell
Don't worry! Easy fix! /sarcasm
Click to expand...
Maxwell was a huge improvement over Kepler power efficiency
If AMD make similar jump now then they might be able to compete in this area, especially on 7nm which itself is very power efficient.

Pieter3dnow said:
And yet Vega has less problems (smaller performance hit) when using HDR.
Click to expand...
It might be because Nvidia has better designed drivers which can squeeze more juice from their hardware.
Just compare difference between cards at 1080p and 2160p if you do not believe me. One could interpret this as "AMD have less performance hit when doing 4K" but I see it as "crappy unoptimized drivers" :)
 
XoR_ said:
Too bad...
Or good... depends where you sit. Good for AMD obviously :)


It is how exactly related to quoted part of my previous post?
AMD did tons of r&d on GCN already. They might improve it for real this time but frankly I stopped believing it after Vega came out...


I meant it will be more mature than 7nm of Vega VII thus better yield thus lower production cost


Maxwell was a huge improvement over Kepler power efficiency
If AMD make similar jump now then they might be able to compete in this area, especially on 7nm which itself is very power efficient.


It might be because Nvidia has better designed drivers which can squeeze more juice from their hardware.
Just compare difference between cards at 1080p and 2160p if you do not believe me. One could interpret this as "AMD have less performance hit when doing 4K" but I see it as "crappy unoptimized drivers" :)
Click to expand...

You keep saying that AMD will provide GeForce RTX 2070 performance for $300, but I don't see why it wouldn't be $400, $450, $500 or any some other numbers.

As far as I am concern, you are throwing out a number that happens to pop into your head.
 
Last edited:
_mockingbird said:
You keep saying that AMD will provide GeForce RTX 2070 performance for $300, but I don't see why it wouldn't be $400, $450, $500 or any some other numbers.

As far as I am concern, you are throwing out a number that happens to pop into your head.
Click to expand...
AMD can put any price tag they want but if they want any significant market penetration they need to compete with price and if they do not fix high power consumption and do not put hardware DXR they cannot expect good sales with price close to RTX 2070 which already have these things done right.
Me mentioning sub-300$ is only because rumors say 250$.
They will probably charge ~400$ for it as they do for Vega 64 and imho this price is not competitive at all.
 
XoR_ said:
AMD can put any price tag they want but if they want any significant market penetration they need to compete with price and if they do not fix high power consumption and do not put hardware DXR they cannot expect good sales with price close to RTX 2070 which already have these things done right.
Me mentioning sub-300$ is only because rumors say 250$.
They will probably charge ~400$ for it as they do for Vega 64 and imho this price is not competitive at all.
Click to expand...

it doesnt work that way. look at rx 580 you could have it for less than 200 or 50 below 1060 but people still buy 1060. AMD can sell for less but it makes them look like a cheap brand and people go with Nvidia regardless. If you are going to sell the same amount why not sell at 100 more.

If Navi is close to 2070 and its 100 less how is that a bad deal and not competitive at all? Also hardware dxr doesn't even matter with 2070. Its not like you can get great game play experience with ray tracing enabled on it. RTX is a luxury feature and nvidia already said they haven't sold that well. RTX is nice but only worth it if you have like 2080ti.
 
_mockingbird said:
You keep saying that AMD will provide GeForce RTX 2070 performance for $300, but I don't see why it wouldn't be $400, $450, $500 or any some other numbers.

As far as I am concern, you are throwing out a number that happens to pop into your head.
Click to expand...

It's the continual AMD must be cheap or I won't buy it mantra. AMD fans are their own worst enemies.
 
Montu said:
It's the continual AMD must be cheap or I won't buy it mantra. AMD fans are their own worst enemies.
Click to expand...

You got it wrong. AMD fans buy AMD thats the only reason they sell. Its the Nvidia fans that want same performance for cheap lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
XoR_ said:
AMD can put any price tag they want but if they want any significant market penetration they need to compete with price and if they do not fix high power consumption and do not put hardware DXR they cannot expect good sales with price close to RTX 2070 which already have these things done right.
Click to expand...

If people haven’t heard of Radeon, they are not going to buy it. PERIOD

Radeon RX 580 8GB is ~20% cheaper than GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, yet the latter easily outsell the former.

Bottom of the barrel pricing is a losing strategy.

If AMD wants significantly increase market share (in GPU sales), it needs good marketing and good products.

Also, DXR is hardly a killer feature that would cause someone to decide which video card to choose.

XoR_ said:
Me mentioning sub-300$ is only because rumors say 250$.
They will probably charge ~400$ for it as they do for Vega 64 and imho this price is not competitive at all.
Click to expand...

Okay, I just came up with a new rumor: Price will be $399 with GeForce RTX 2070-like performance.

We shall now discuss this new rumor.

How is this not competitive when it’s $100 less than the GeForce RTX 2070?

If AMD’s offerings are already cheaper than NVIDIA’s and people still buy from NVIDIA, what makes you think dropping the prices any further would change their mind?
 
Last edited:
_mockingbird said:
If people haven’t heard of Radeon, they are not going to buy it. PERIOD

Radeon RX 580 8GB is ~20% cheaper than GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, yet the latter easily outsell the former.

Bottom of the barrel pricing is a losing strategy.

If AMD wants significantly increase market share (in GPU sales), it needs good marketing and good products.

Also, DXR is hardly a killer feature that would cause someone to decide which video card to choose.



Okay, I just came up with a new rumor: Price will be $399 with GeForce RTX 2070-like performance.

We shall now discuss this new rumor.

How is this not competitive when it’s $100 less than the GeForce RTX 2070?

If AMD’s offerings are already cheaper than NVIDIA’s and people still buy from NVIDIA, what makes you think dropping the prices any further would change their mind?
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. The 570 is objectively faster than the 1050 ti, yet I struggle to sell it for $50 cheaper...
 
KazeoHin said:
You're not wrong. The 570 is objectively faster than the 1050 ti, yet I struggle to sell it for $50 cheaper...
Click to expand...
This is a problem for AMD in some market segments it appears, lack of availability in some of the lesser-spoke of countries can be really patchy.

How to fix? Smarter marketing and getting cards to the right people and places. Not denying they are doing a much better job recently..
 
tajoh111 said:
The entire videocard market is not luxury goods. That's a flawed assumption. Because it assumes the market generally responds favorably to price increases. As we have seen with the RTX launch, a brand isn't enough to sell card, you need increases with price to performance to go along with it. Generally speaking, the higher end the market, the likelyhood that the good becomes a luxury good.

But the entire discrete market is not a luxury good. The reason is PC gaming has become one of the most affordable ways to entertain yourself.
/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Doesnt make much sense, you are saying it is not a luxury good because it is a cheaper way of spending money on entertainment?
 
_mockingbird said:
Radeon RX 580 8GB is ~20% cheaper than GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, yet the latter easily outsell the former.
Click to expand...
KazeoHin said:
You're not wrong. The 570 is objectively faster than the 1050 ti, yet I struggle to sell it for $50 cheaper...
Click to expand...
Maybe because these GeForce cards are better products?
power_peak.png


_mockingbird said:
Also, DXR is hardly a killer feature that would cause someone to decide which video card to choose.
Click to expand...
Even PhysX is still selling NV cards. People will more likely get product with more features
DXR is implemented in more and more titles. By the time Navi comes out this number of games having DXR and/or DLSS might get quite big, especially since support for this APIs was/is_being added to major game engines. Even indie games will have it...

_mockingbird said:
Okay, I just came up with a new rumor: Price will be $399 with GeForce RTX 2070-like performance.
We shall now discuss this new rumor.
How is this not competitive when it’s $100 less than the GeForce RTX 2070?
Click to expand...
If Navi have similar performance and TDP then it will all come down to features or features + performance comparison between DXR implementation on both cards.
I personally would pay this 100$ (which is not that much actually) more for hardware DXR and especially if Navi had worse TDP... but this is me, I got my RTX 2070 in pre-order so... you know my stance on this already XD

_mockingbird said:
If AMD’s offerings are already cheaper than NVIDIA’s and people still buy from NVIDIA, what makes you think dropping the prices any further would change their mind?
Click to expand...
_mockingbird said:
If AMD wants significantly increase market share (in GPU sales), it needs good marketing and good products.
Click to expand...
So far AMD GPU's are literally years behind NV in products and as long as there are other factors than performance and price at play this is not apple to apple comparison.
AMD needs new GPU architecture which will bring them up in relevance like Zen did for their CPUs. So far Navi does not look like Zen but more like tweaked Bulldozer on lower node and without memory speed advantage. In other words doesn't look that interesting. Only thing which made these rumors interesting was 250$ price tag... Certainly Jensen Huang does not loose sleep over it XD
 
Nvidia is making branded toaster ovens with 4 8 prong power plugs and 600W that idle at 80C people deride AMD cards for somewhat offering less performance for price

If I remember correctly "Price:preformance has always been the metric we use" "its the most important thing" "yeah let me more money for a shitty card to save 3 cents a month"

Fast forward 2019 when Nvidia cards have the lead in all that "irrelevant" other metrics and suddenly price:preoformance is just another factor to think about

very interesting
 
XoR_ said:
Maybe because these GeForce cards are better products?
View attachment 150125


Even PhysX is still selling NV cards. People will more likely get product with more features
DXR is implemented in more and more titles. By the time Navi comes out this number of games having DXR and/or DLSS might get quite big, especially since support for this APIs was/is_being added to major game engines. Even indie games will have it...


If Navi have similar performance and TDP then it will all come down to features or features + performance comparison between DXR implementation on both cards.
I personally would pay this 100$ (which is not that much actually) more for hardware DXR and especially if Navi had worse TDP... but this is me, I got my RTX 2070 in pre-order so... you know my stance on this already XD



So far AMD GPU's are literally years behind NV in products and as long as there are other factors than performance and price at play this is not apple to apple comparison.
AMD needs new GPU architecture which will bring them up in relevance like Zen did for their CPUs. So far Navi does not look like Zen but more like tweaked Bulldozer on lower node and without memory speed advantage. In other words doesn't look that interesting. Only thing which made these rumors interesting was 250$ price tag... Certainly Jensen Huang does not loose sleep over it XD
Click to expand...

Glad to know you would pay 100 extra for rtx on 2070 that can't even give you enough frames to give you a decent playable experience. look at hardocp review. They recommend 2080 for 1080p minimum.
 
XoR_ said:
Maybe because these GeForce cards are better products?
View attachment 150125


Even PhysX is still selling NV cards. People will more likely get product with more features
DXR is implemented in more and more titles. By the time Navi comes out this number of games having DXR and/or DLSS might get quite big, especially since support for this APIs was/is_being added to major game engines. Even indie games will have it...


If Navi have similar performance and TDP then it will all come down to features or features + performance comparison between DXR implementation on both cards.
I personally would pay this 100$ (which is not that much actually) more for hardware DXR and especially if Navi had worse TDP... but this is me, I got my RTX 2070 in pre-order so... you know my stance on this already XD
Click to expand...

Let's see.

Where do I even start?

GeForce RTX 2080 Ti can barely handle a game at 1080p with Ray-Tracing enabled.

DXR performance is a questionable.

As someone said:

XoR_ said:
DXR runs like poop on RTX cards. On GTX cards, also including 1080Ti, it will run like constipation :sorry:
Click to expand...


DLSS looks worse than running at a lower resolution and scaling up the image

∴ RTX and DLSS are running jokes rather must have features that you make them out to be.

Maybe power consumption is important for a gaming lounge, but, as far as the general consumer is concern, he/she is getting GeForce RTX 2070-like performance for ~$100 less.

You still haven't answer my question:

If AMD’s offerings are already cheaper than NVIDIA’s and people still buy from NVIDIA, what makes you think dropping the prices any further would change their mind?

XoR_ said:
So far AMD GPU's are literally years behind NV in products and as long as there are other factors than performance and price at play this is not apple to apple comparison.
AMD needs new GPU architecture which will bring them up in relevance like Zen did for their CPUs. So far Navi does not look like Zen but more like tweaked Bulldozer on lower node and without memory speed advantage. In other words doesn't look that interesting. Only thing which made these rumors interesting was 250$ price tag... Certainly Jensen Huang does not loose sleep over it XD
Click to expand...

In other words....

...let's just downplay the two things that most consumers care about.
 
Last edited:
XoR_ said:
Memory gets more expensive, only two memory suppliers, process node is harder and more expensive to do, boards are more complex... and competition have cards with like twice the TDP and GCN card in the pipeline... and people still expect Nvidia to release cards so cheap that they would have hardly any profit from selling them just because of some unwritten law "new generation was always faster & cheaper" ... ridiculous =(

I bet NV could launch RTX 2060 with the price of 1660Ti with the 250$ price tag, 2070 with 400$ and so on but that would just like you say only make things worse for them and obviously for AMD, just like you said
Click to expand...

Funny how you make the opposite arguments when it comes to AMD and NVIDIA.

_

When it comes to NVIDIA:

Memory is expensive. Process node is expensive. etc.

NVIDIA can't sell its video cards for much cheaper because it would hardly be making any profit

_

When it comes to AMD

Memory is cheap. Process node is cheap. etc.

AMD can sell its video cards at fire sale prices, profit be damned.
 
Last edited:
Well find this out when you make excellent profit on 3 cards is that going to grow your business , or sell 1000 cards with less margin .
Which one is better, you know ...

Then you could argue if your not selling many videocards might as well get better profits either solution is not satisfactory since selling more products will work better in the long run.

Nvidia has an unhealthy profit margin for their business and it will catchup to them sooner rather then later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top