Navi Rumors

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

I keep hearing this, but in general that only works if you have competition.

Time is not on AMD's side atm. I was hoping for something much sooner and as has been pointed out by others Nvidia is selling cards every day. and those buyers aren't likely to switch to AMD when Navi comes out.

Also:
images.jpg
 
Power consumption (and thus thermals inside computer case and noise levels) and DXR (and thus having all fancy new features) matters to me more than some 100$ that's for sure :)

I recommended and would still recommend people to get AMD card despite these things because Freesync support being offered on pretty much any good monitor on the market. But since Jensen decided Freesync does work there is one less good reason to get Radeon anymore.
AMD still have HDMI Freesync and in case of people wanting to hook up their PCs to VRR supporting TVs it makes a lot of sense to get AMD card.

Nvidia has an unhealthy profit margin for their business and it will catchup to them sooner rather then later.
Selling less for higher price or more for lower price is not how business work
The point is to put more logos on your product and sell more for higher price

Besides it is competition that is to blame for this sharp price rise. Can you really blame any corporation for wanting more money? Neither NV nor AMD (and definitely not Intel :dead:) are charity organizations.
And if AMD put great product for great price NV can always decrease its profit margins. Or release the same damn chip but overclock it and name it RTX 2070 Ti or something like that.
NV have less to do to go to 7nm than AMD to make new architecture and add all expected features to it.

In other words I would not worry that much about Nvidia future :coffee:
 
I expect same or more performance from 7nm Navi compared to current Nv offerings at the same or less price.

Anything else would seem pointless.

In a perfect world AMD and Nv would leapfrog each other in performance every 6 months or so but that's not where we are atm.
 
Nvidia has an unhealthy profit margin for their business and it will catchup to them sooner rather then later.
What is an "unhealthy" profit margin in the context of Nvidia's situation? Serious question.

Not making enough money on each product sold is an unhealthy profit margin.
 
What is an "unhealthy" profit margin in the context of Nvidia's situation? Serious question.

Not making enough money on each product sold is an unhealthy profit margin.

The other way to look at this is how many more cards would they have sold if they priced it more "reasonably." I'm sure a lot more people would have jumped on a $799 2080Ti vs an $1199 one. There really is no compelling reason to upgrade from a 1080 to a 2070 for the same price/performance and likewise from a 1080Ti to a 2080. Essentially we've had 3 years of Nvidia price stagnation in terms of price/performance. Nvidia was banking on new card sales, but the average consumer wasn't biting and their 4Q/18 results showed.

All AMD has to do with high end Navi is perform between the 2060 and 2070 and be priced under $350. A kickass card for 1080p and 1440p with Freesync support priced less than the Nvidia part will sell fine. If the mid-range Navi trades blows with the 1660Ti and costs less, that's another win for AMD.

Ideally, it would come out close to the Zen 2 launch as I'm sure a certain subset of the enthusiast community is waiting to see how it performs before upgrading again.
 
Power consumption (and thus thermals inside computer case and noise levels) and DXR (and thus having all fancy new features) matters to me more than some 100$ that's for sure :)

Funny how you said...

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

...but suddenly you made DXR into a must have feature
 
I keep hearing this, but in general that only works if you have competition.

Time is not on AMD's side atm. I was hoping for something much sooner and as has been pointed out by others Nvidia is selling cards every day. and those buyers aren't likely to switch to AMD when Navi comes out.

Also: View attachment 150157
Funny that coming from a RTX 2070 owner. You paid for it a lot more and when you keep buying Nvidia product you will keep paying more every time.


You are paying more for less performance.
What is an "unhealthy" profit margin in the context of Nvidia's situation? Serious question.

Not making enough money on each product sold is an unhealthy profit margin.

The products have nothing of value to offer and is killing price performance ratio. Why would you spend $700 on 10% performance increase.

Not many people will buy the products from a company that even if it is faster it is not worth the money any more.

You know the expression: carrot on a stick
It is no longer a carrot it is no longer attractive. You already saw that with RTX. Not very popular ....
 
Selling less for higher price or more for lower price is not how business work
The point is to put more logos on your product and sell more for higher price

That's called brand awareness, and AMD don't have a lot of it (compared NVIDIA).

It doesn't matter how AMD priced its (video card) products if consumers aren't aware them.

Launching year-round marketing campaigns would go a long way
 
Last edited:
Funny that coming from a RTX 2070 owner. You paid for it a lot more and when you keep buying Nvidia product you will keep paying more every time.

What else new under $500 with matching performance should I have bought then?
 
What else new under $500 with matching performance should I have bought then?

Well, "new" being the key I guess as a used GTX 1080 is a much better buy. I think his point is more to the fact that the same $500 you spent now is performing nearly the same as $500 spent 3 years ago if you jumped in with an early Pascal GTX 1080. There has been practically zero improvement per dollar spent in moving to a new generation of GPUs.
 
Well, "new" being the key I guess as a used GTX 1080 is a much better buy. I think his point is more to the fact that the same $500 you spent now is performing nearly the same as $500 spent 3 years ago if you jumped in with an early Pascal GTX 1080. There has been practically zero improvement per dollar spent in moving to a new generation of GPUs.

Warranties are cool too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XoR_
like this
Well, "new" being the key I guess as a used GTX 1080 is a much better buy. I think his point is more to the fact that the same $500 you spent now is performing nearly the same as $500 spent 3 years ago if you jumped in with an early Pascal GTX 1080. There has been practically zero improvement per dollar spent in moving to a new generation of GPUs.
Price raise was an attempt to fill their treasuries... and recently announced RTX adoption figures and income figures show that it was excellent strategy.
This price increase caused 2070 to replace 1080 and as RTX name imply Nvidia in 20x0 generation concentrated on real time ray tracing so rasterization performance didn't improve much.

But again: NV could do it and did it and got their bags of money with ease and this is not fault of NV but of competition. Namely AMD which is two years behind because they didn't develop new architecture for seven f***ing years.
Who I am going to blame this on and be angry at? Obviously not at Nvidia.
I can be mad at Nvidia for other things but not bringing ray-tracing and charging as much money for their product as they can.

What else new under $500 with matching performance should I have bought then?
Vega 64 and new 750W power supply to drive it and some fans for your case

But seriously from purely performance/price point used 1080Ti is still the best high-end card to get.
I myself got RTX 2070 pre-ordered the day they were announced. Very happy with the card :)
 
I'm glad people bought 2070's or 2080's and are happy with their cards.

I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the value proposition was poor in light of cards that enthusiasts likely already had (GTX 1070 and above...personally, I had a 1080Ti). Whether or not Nvidia felt like they could charge more due to AMD's blundering or whatever you want to call it, I still wasn't going to pay the same or more money for the performance of a card I already had. I'm not mad about it. I'm just not going to pay Nvidia what they want to charge. This is coming from someone who pre-ordered a 2080 thinking it had to be somewhat better than a 1080Ti as it was $250+ more, but then realized it was almost exactly what I already had with less memory after reading reviews. So I immediately cancelled. The only card worth buying if you already owned a Pascal card is the 2080Ti, and I for one, refuse to pay $1200 for what should be a $800 card.

That being said, I hope Navi is competitive enough to force a price cut from Nvidia. And when the reviews are out, I'll look and see where the price/performance falls between Nvidia and AMD in the price tier I'm comfortable with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
Price raise was an attempt to fill their treasuries... and recently announced RTX adoption figures and income figures show that it was excellent strategy.
This price increase caused 2070 to replace 1080 and as RTX name imply Nvidia in 20x0 generation concentrated on real time ray tracing so rasterization performance didn't improve much.

But again: NV could do it and did it and got their bags of money with ease and this is not fault of NV but of competition. Namely AMD which is two years behind because they didn't develop new architecture for seven f***ing years.
Who I am going to blame this on and be angry at? Obviously not at Nvidia.
I can be mad at Nvidia for other things but not bringing ray-tracing and charging as much money for their product as they can.

Almost a billion in revenue sales drop quarter to quarter is not doing well. RTX adoption has been abysmal by developers and gamers and it's obvious when you go to a store and see tons of RTX cards on the shelves. The price is way too high and the performance increase from one generation to the next was a joke. Heck the performance jump is so bad that just a shrink on Vega caught them up to a 2080 a feat most thought was impossible for AMD. Nvidia nor AMD can sustain this pricing level as there is not enough performance demand to justify it as even my 1080 is more then enough for my 1440p screen and most run at 1080p.
 
https://www.techradar.com/news/nvid...s-cards-as-outselling-pascal-by-45-in-revenue

I think you're referring to this data. The key is that it's up 45% in REVENUE, not in units shipped. Here's a good summary according to Nvidia's own data:
50% of Nvidia owners are running a Pascal card, and only 2% have bought a Turing GPU, with the remaining 48% having an older model than Pascal. That would seemingly point to a slower start for Turing, though adoption takes time – especially at RTX prices, so again this is no real surprise.

There's plenty of data out there suggesting that actual Turing adoption is slower than Pascal such as:
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...a-turing-adoption-lagged-compared-with-pascal
https://articles.marketrealist.com/...f-geforce-rtx-gpus-to-impact-nvidias-revenue/
https://markets.businessinsider.com...aming-business-anytime-soon-2018-9-1027552454

I love this quote from Market Analysts at Morgan Stanley:
"We are surprised that the 2080 is only slightly better than the 1080ti, which has been available for over a year and is slightly less expensive," a team of Morgan Stanley analysts led by Joseph Moore wrote in a note sent out to clients on Thursday.

"With higher clock speeds, higher core count, and 40% higher memory bandwidth, we had expected a bigger boost."

Anything AMD puts out should hopefully start bringing Nvidia back to reality in their pricing.
 
Last edited:
Almost a billion in revenue sales drop quarter to quarter is not doing well. RTX adoption has been abysmal by developers and gamers and it's obvious when you go to a store and see tons of RTX cards on the shelves. The price is way too high and the performance increase from one generation to the next was a joke. Heck the performance jump is so bad that just a shrink on Vega caught them up to a 2080 a feat most thought was impossible for AMD. Nvidia nor AMD can sustain this pricing level as there is not enough performance demand to justify it as even my 1080 is more then enough for my 1440p screen and most run at 1080p.
NV got fooled by shitcoin mining craze. If my memory is not failing me AMD did similar error few year before. Speculative bubbles are unpredictable and making any big financial decisions that require them to last for long time is terribly risky/stupid.

Vega VII depending on game and resolution sits somewhere between 2070 and 2080 despite crazy amount of very fast memory and this card takes >300W of power. Also because of high HBM2 price AMD is not making tons of money out of it...
I wouldn't call this a success story you make it to be. Especially since there is 1080Ti which is simply better card - and 2 year old card only proving AMD is 2 years behind

Performance jump of 20x0 series is small and pricing terrible but architecturally it is big and most importantly right step forward.
Someone eventually had to bite the bullet and add hardware ray-tracing and exactly because this move they have something competition does not have and as much as you want to live in ignorance and say it does not matter it does matter.
Why do you think you are smarter than Jensen Huang?

Like you said no one forces you to get RTX card now and since there is not a lot of games even supporting DXR there is little incentive not to wait it out.
 
That being said, I hope Navi is competitive enough to force a price cut from Nvidia. And when the reviews are out, I'll look and see where the price/performance falls between Nvidia and AMD in the price tier I'm comfortable with.
Yeah I don't think that AMD wants that really the proposition has to favour AMD only ;)
Anything AMD puts out should hopefully start bringing Nvidia back to reality in their pricing.
There is no incentive to do so. Nvidia owns the market at the high end and they simply never cared for the customer in that way why would they start now when AMD releases a mid range card...
I wouldn't call this a success story you make it to be. Especially since there is 1080Ti which is simply better card - and 2 year old card only proving AMD is 2 years behind

I have seen this before most people recognize it from videos that are youtube tech oriented AMD is behind Nvidia wins....
The reality in sales does not reflect what is going on AMD has had no funds to compete their marketing is so bad that every card that has a better price performance ratio still gets outsold by Nvidia.

When AMD gets their gpu team rolling it will still be an uphill battle. And a nasty one. The only thing that might get somewhat better position is if their APU are fast enough for OEM laptops to replace the dedicated gpu ...

People are expecting way way way to much from AMD. Remember how bad it was after Bulldozer was launched , no income no budget and radical changes were slow and that got them Zen. And with graphics I don't expect miracles just 2 years of the same. Navi 10 this year Navi 20 next year. Nothing outstanding nothing special .....
 
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.

The other choices being 1080's that are going to run at what, 3FPS, or Radeon VII's that run at 0FPS?

[yes, it's obvious that you're making a sub-informed jab at RTX]
 
I do think brand is important, but it's not just recognition. Probably everyone in the PC gaming space has heard of AMD, they just equate them with lesser quality products.

Nvidia is seen as the higher quality brand, justifiably, but even in the face of somewhat competitive products consumers will still buy Nvidia over AMD.

What AMD needs is a product release without caveats. Is Navi enough to do that, I don't know. Certainly they could try and maybe it will be good.
 
Last edited:
The other choices being 1080's that are going to run at what, 3FPS, or Radeon VII's that run at 0FPS?

[yes, it's obvious that you're making a sub-informed jab at RTX]

I mean you could always turn off Ray Tracing in the 2 games that are out that support it and still have a good experience on either of those cards ;).

I know we've discussed before about how RT has to start somewhere (which I agree with in principle). But I don't know that I'd pay $100 extra to play only 2 games with fancy lighting either even if it ran at 100% of the same speed as "RTX Off."
 
The other choices being 1080's that are going to run at what, 3FPS, or Radeon VII's that run at 0FPS?

[yes, it's obvious that you're making a sub-informed jab at RTX]

My point is rtx is not worth it unless you go all bells and whistles with 2080ti or better yet wait another gen. Plus it looks nice in demos but for me it’s hard to tell in game lol.
 
My point is rtx is not worth it unless you go all bells and whistles with 2080ti or better yet wait another gen. Plus it looks nice in demos but for me it’s hard to tell in game lol.

They're still the fastest and most efficient cards at their respective levels, so I don't see bringing RTX into it at all- especially in a thread about Navi that won't have DXR in hardware anyway.
 
They're still the fastest and most efficient cards at their respective levels, so I don't see bringing RTX into it at all- especially in a thread about Navi that won't have DXR in hardware anyway.

IMO Ray Tracing is like Physx. Eventually every card from both camps can do it, and no one will care or even use a turing card.

Ray tracing a great tech no doubt. But the RTX cards are all marketing.
 
They're still the fastest and most efficient cards at their respective levels, so I don't see bringing RTX into it at all- especially in a thread about Navi that won't have DXR in hardware anyway.

I wasnt brining RTX in to it. I was responding to a conversation I have having with someone who was putting emphasis that RTX is worht extra 100 on 2070 if Navi offers same performance at 100 dollars cheaper. Like everything being equal but it was worth paying extra 100 for 2070 with hardware dxr.
 
IMO Ray Tracing is like Physx. Eventually every card from both camps can do it, and no one will care or even use a turing card.

Ray tracing a great tech no doubt. But the RTX cards are all marketing.
Nvidia PhysX™ (https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx) is brand name but what do you mean by "Ray Tracing"? You mean this: http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/Appel.pdf? Every GPGPU capable GPU can already ray tracing. Not sure DX8-9 class cards but definitely you can program DX10 card to do ray tracing in hardware - meaning on GPU hardware in general sense of the term.

Maybe you meant Microsoft DXR (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2018/03/19/announcing-microsoft-directx-raytracing/)?
DXR is not needed to have ray-tracing but like with any hardware acceleration (this is why DirectX was created - to take advantage of hardware acceleration of then 2D graphics cards and some other types of hardware) it is very useful for both software developers and hardware manufacturers to support it.

You do not need GeForce 3 to be able to get Call of Duty to run on modern GPU and to get DirectX8 eye candy like nicer water pseudo-reflections and nicer dynamic lighting. Similarly you wont need Turing RTX card for DXR games.
The way DXR is implemented does not matter. If market adoption of this API is significant then every hardware manufacturer will most likely have specialized hardware features to accelerate it, if not then we might see software implementations using shaders to save die space.

And here is my personal opinion: Chances DXR not being widely adopted by software developers are about the same as chances DirectX 8 had in 2001. It will be most likely extended in the future with additional features added and I would even risk saying that years from now full path tracing using DXR (or some other API if somehow Microsoft loose dominance in personal computer market) will be used to generate almost all computer graphics in games.

Few random notes:
Turing is the same for ray tracing acceleration as GeForce3 was for per pixel shaders and geometry vertex shaders. These effects could be emulated by available at the time computational hardware (CPU) albeit very slowly.

Similar to GTX 1660 cards not supporting DX8 Nvidia released non-DX8 card (GeForce 4 MX 440) after releasing GeForce 3 so such move to release hardware not supporting all newest features is nothing new.

Back then ATI was quick to respond with Radeon 8500 which was released only few month after GeForce 3 but now AMD being two years behind Nvidia means it will most likely take them about two years to respond with hardware (non shader-only) implementation DXR.
 
They're still the fastest and most efficient cards at their respective levels, so I don't see bringing RTX into it at all- especially in a thread about Navi that won't have DXR in hardware anyway.
Hopefully guys in charge of setting Navi price do not have attitude: "we do not support DXR acceleration so let's completely ignore it " or it will be sad to watch their market share falling even more :(
 
Last edited:
Hopefully guys in charge of setting Navi price do not have attitude: "we do not support DXR acceleration so let's ignore it completely" or it will be sad to watch their market share falling even more :(

They can wait until next gen to have anything related to hardware based acceleration? It’s not like Nvidia is crushing it in ray tracing games with first gen. Not sure why you keep hammering this point and making it about dxr. Like I said Nvidia themselves admitted Turing wasn’t doing all that great. People are still buying mid range without rtx. Not having hadware based dxr acceleration is not the end of Navi. It has to be power efficient and great midrange performer to compete with Nvidia. Of course little cheaper.

As far as dxr is you mean hardware acceleration. Otherwise AMD supports dxr just fine. Check the new cry engine demo running on Vega 56. Until it goes mainstream not having hardware based ray tracing is not the end of the world.
 
They can wait until next gen to have anything related to hardware based acceleration? It’s not like Nvidia is crushing it in ray tracing games with first gen. Not sure why you keep hammering this point and making it about dxr. Like I said Nvidia themselves admitted Turing wasn’t doing all that great. People are still buying mid range without rtx. Not having hadware based dxr acceleration is not the end of Navi. It has to be power efficient and great midrange performer to compete with Nvidia. Of course little cheaper.
I keep hammering it because I think this is valid reason why Navi must be cheaper.
AMD might of course add some other feature to offset this.
I do not believe AMD cards must be cheaper because it is AMD.

As far as dxr is you mean hardware acceleration. Otherwise AMD supports dxr just fine. Check the new cry engine demo running on Vega 56. Until it goes mainstream not having hardware based ray tracing is not the end of the world.
Cry engine demo most probably does not run DXR but some other trickery related to voxels.
The whole point of DXR is to accelerate ray-intersections and denoising and not have to dwell deeper and deeper into rasterization insanity. Though even voxel based lighting and reflection effects can be combined with DXR for even better performance.

As for support for DXR specifically there is special fallback driver in it and it could be ran without RTX card and even before latest windows update that added DXR. But it is not intended to be used in released programs. AMD need to write driver for it. It wouldn't be probably very hard but still necessary and so far I have not seen any official announcement from AMD they already support it or will support it with current hardware. Did I miss anything?
 
I do think brand is important, but it's not just recognition. Probably everyone in the PC gaming space has heard of AMD, they just equate them with lesser quality products.

Nvidia is seen as the higher quality brand, justifiably, but even in the face of somewhat competitive products consumers will still buy Nvidia over AMD.

What AMD needs is a product release without caveats. Is Navi enough to do that, I don't know. Certainly they could try and maybe it will be good.
AMD has less bullshit attached to it. A superior brand with the slogan "the way it is meant to be played" is nothing short of being dishonest they did not invent the gpu they did not create gaming they sure as hell did not do anything regarding API or hardware that ever benefited the user rather then their own wallet.

The blind obedience towards Nvidia was shown when how many websites or youtube tech channels reported it(GPP,3.5gb,space invaders,gtx1030,evga extra hot edition1080). Websites(not really youtube that place can't be taken seriously you are being fooled over there) that review materials with conclusions as "does not support CUDA" or "does not support G sync" shows you what the superior brand is really about.

You can get dead cards or cards that do not have the same specs as listed from the superior brand. And yet nothing happens to the superior brand.

You have got to be deaf,dumb and blind to not see this....
 
AMD has less bullshit attached to it. A superior brand with the slogan "the way it is meant to be played" is nothing short of being dishonest they did not invent the gpu they did not create gaming they sure as hell did not do anything regarding API or hardware that ever benefited the user rather then their own wallet.
The fact that you've chosen to interpret that slogan in this way shows that you're not exactly objective :D

Again, fwiw, I will buy whatever product suits my needs best. If that's Nvidia or AMD, or AMD or Intel, then so be it. What I don't do is get emotionally invested in any of those brands, because all of the above are corporations who are out to make as much money as possible. That doesn't mean I have to like everything that each company does, but when I'm buying a product I will spend my money in such a way to get the best return I can. Being objective is the best way to do that. Liking or disliking a specific company doesn't magically make its products better or worse.

I don't know why tech in particular seems to attract this blind partisanship but it's annoying.
 
I'd like to think that most "Enthusiasts" have used a variety of brands with good results.

I certainly wasn't happy with the latest pricing. Nv and AMD are both expensive atm if you look at the 2070 and up, or the VII. (Or even V64's)

But since I can't influence the pricing my next best thing was to buy whatever was the best bang for the buck right now. Regardless of brand.
(RTX or DLSS have no meaning to me atm. They are unused features that appear in no titles I play)

The VII would have been awesome at $600. But AMD had no reason to price it lower and didn't.
In my endless optimism I was hoping for under $600 actually at launch.

If AMD could produce something that sits between the 2060 and 2070 performance and price it like a 2060....that would be nice.
 
I think if AMD could afford to price it lower they would have (Radeon VII that is). They are too expensive to make for what they are. Hopefully Navi fixes the BOM cost for them.
 
I keep hammering it because I think this is valid reason why Navi must be cheaper.
AMD might of course add some other feature to offset this.
I do not believe AMD cards must be cheaper because it is AMD.

Funny how you said...

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

...but suddenly you made DXR into a must have feature
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this
The fact that you've chosen to interpret that slogan in this way shows that you're not exactly objective :D

Again, fwiw, I will buy whatever product suits my needs best. If that's Nvidia or AMD, or AMD or Intel, then so be it. What I don't do is get emotionally invested in any of those brands, because all of the above are corporations who are out to make as much money as possible. That doesn't mean I have to like everything that each company does, but when I'm buying a product I will spend my money in such a way to get the best return I can. Being objective is the best way to do that. Liking or disliking a specific company doesn't magically make its products better or worse.

I don't know why tech in particular seems to attract this blind partisanship but it's annoying.
I did not interpret anything that is what they use. I don't twist words I don't have an agenda unlike others....

When using words they have a purpose when you choose a slogan those words are "in general" to live by.
The slogan becomes hollow for the nonsense they attached to it. You forgot to read the first line.
...or just realize that despite the zealotry of those with significant emotional attachment to a particular brand, Nvidia still manages to make the best products.
You do what you do best :)
Pay more to Nvidia for less performance each year because they are the best.
 
Pay more to Nvidia for less performance each year because they are the best.
Why more money?
AMD only occasionally have better performance/price for some products and it all often depends on use cases
Besides as it is now higher price can be justified by lower power consumption

BTW. Anyone remember this:

Karma comes back :dead:
 
Because what you paid for high end 5 years ago is now what you have to spend to be able to purchase mid range.

And I do hope that AMD will change this with Navi .....

I agree. I'm well aware that Nvidia has better performance, and has performance at the high end that AMD cannot touch right now. However, I was absolutely not amused when the 2070 released at 1080 Prices with 1080 performance, the 2080 released at 1080Ti pricing with 1080Ti performance, etc. I get they are a business and can charge what they want, but Nvidia gave me absolutely no reason to upgrade, and left a bad taste in my mouth with the pricing of the 2080Ti. You've essentially been paying the same price for the same performance for 3 years straight (with minor fluctuation) and onto a new generation. That has never happened.

Is AMD to blame? I don't have the answer to that. But that's what the market looks like when you only have 1 super power, and they've shown they have no qualms with charging (IMO) obscene prices relative to 3 year old performance. I'm hoping for a successful Navi launch to put pressure on Nvidia. You can say it won't happen, etc., but who would have thought AMD would be pressuring Intel after Bulldozer?
 
Because what you paid for high end 5 years ago is now what you have to spend to be able to purchase mid range.

And I do hope that AMD will change this with Navi .....
5 years ago the best high-end GPU was GTX 780Ti and Radeon 290X. These were 700$ and 600$ parts respectively

Todays high-end cards RTX 2080 and Vega VII are both 700$.
GTX 1080Ti if you wanted to buy new card is priced at 675$ and it was 700$ last year.

High end consistently stays at 700$. It is rather expansion to higher price segments which started with Titan V


I agree. I'm well aware that Nvidia has better performance, and has performance at the high end that AMD cannot touch right now. However, I was absolutely not amused when the 2070 released at 1080 Prices with 1080 performance, the 2080 released at 1080Ti pricing with 1080Ti performance, etc. I get they are a business and can charge what they want, but Nvidia gave me absolutely no reason to upgrade, and left a bad taste in my mouth with the pricing of the 2080Ti. You've essentially been paying the same price for the same performance for 3 years straight (with minor fluctuation) and onto a new generation. That has never happened.
Why upgrade then? You get to save money by not upgrading :)
Just because we got used to upgrade GPU constantly it doesn't mean it will continue indefinitely.
We used to change CPUs constantly because progress was so rapid but eventually progress slowed down and we got used to using processors for many years. Mine is from 2012 and is just fine and ten years earlier in 2009 using CPU from 2002 would be torture even for simple things like browsing internet or watching HD movies.

Hopefully with 7nm Nvidia be able to increase core count and improve performance. RTX stuff is already overkill as far as hardware goes so there is no reason to pack more of them, except maybe necessity to put one RT core per SM bloc but they might as well increase shader count per SM which would make a lot of sense imho.
 
Why upgrade then? You get to save money by not upgrading :)
Just because we got used to upgrade GPU constantly it doesn't mean it will continue indefinitely.
We used to change CPUs constantly because progress was so rapid but eventually progress slowed down and we got used to using processors for many years. Mine is from 2012 and is just fine and ten years earlier in 2009 using CPU from 2002 would be torture even for simple things like browsing internet or watching HD movies.

Hopefully with 7nm Nvidia be able to increase core count and improve performance. RTX stuff is already overkill as far as hardware goes so there is no reason to pack more of them, except maybe necessity to put one RT core per SM bloc but they might as well increase shader count per SM which would make a lot of sense imho.

Fair enough...I side-graded and down-graded to try new things. Ended up getting a lower res high refresh monitor instead of using a 40" 4K TV after seeing what the 2080Ti cost. The cost to drive 4K is still high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top