Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This all sounds too good to be true. This IS AMD we're talking about, so always lead with doubt
i went from the phenom II 940 3.8Ghz to a R5 1600(3.4Ghz stock), absolutely no regrets. the performance difference was insane.
Buckaroos
Apologies if this is brought up later in the thread, but what you are missing here is that Vega is expensive to make, largely because of the HBM2 requirement and die size. Vega dies are pretty big. AMD could not price the Vega series much lower than they did at release and still make money on it. By all reported rumors, Navi is actually really cheap to make, both because it will be on 7nm and because it uses the (much) cheaper GDDR6. It is very possible they could price it in the sub-$300 range and still make good money on it.
So, my 4770 proc/board died 3 weeks ago.
Which, was in time to get the 2700x that was available on Black Friday, but now it had waited to blow up until after these came out.
I don't need anything bigger, but ARRRRGGGHGHGHGHGHGHG
same time, I did NOT upgrade the GTX770 (since I'm just now getting to games that are limited, gotta love dad-gaming-lag-time), so now I am going to wait, but Big Green pissed me off with the 20XX release hardcore. I am not paying $600 for a card that can run games at 4k well enough.
There’s no way anyone with a shred of business sense would create a card that can beat a GTX 1080 and sell it for such a huge discount. Small discount to make it inticing? Sure. But that high of a delta? I mean we all can dream, but it would be completely stupid to do from a business standpoint.
Given the hype we were fed for Polaris and Vega, two cards I was interested in for upgrading my R9 280X only to be completely disappointed when they actually launched, I would file this under “believe it when I see it”.
Ok, and by the same token, RTX is expensive to make, which is part of the pricing picture, but the main part is what the company can get. Nvidia saw that people were willing to pay $1000 for a Titan and that was pretty much the end for sane pricing at the high end of the video card market. In the case of the GTX 1080 level market segment, If the market price is $400, and you want to make inroads, $350 is aggressive. $250 is just stupid and will kill the ability for you to actually make money because it lowers the expectations of the consumer. If Navi costs that much to make on the production side (notwithstanding R&D costs and other inputs beyond the actual production), then the only possible business reason AMD could have would be to flood the market specifically to take share and nothing more. While that can be plausible because they don’t have a whole lot of share in either the CPU or GPU markets, but to go THAT aggressive I think is akin to giving the product away, and I just don’t see the business case for doing so. I would contend that to go from $350 to $250 in that scenario would do nothing to expand profitability, and do everything to kill the market price making it more difficult to drive margins as they capture market share.
As it stands, both Intel and Nvidia have a gross profit margin close to 63%, which is double AMD’s. That’s the strength market leadership can bring, but AMD also needs to get their profit margins higher at some point if they want to be competitive in the long run. They’re way behind Nvidia in video technology, and although they have a CPU advantage over Intel at the present, Jim Keller now works for Intel with a significantly higher R&D budget to work with. AMD needs to make hay now if they can do it.
The only reason I can see them pricing them that low is if is somehow below Nvidia's cost to product, package & put them on shelves. In that case even if the profit margin is tiny for AMD they'd get market share. Market share = advertising in the long run. Add in Free Sync monitors which are cheap and a peripheral that most keep for many years if they gain a lot of market share with short term profits it will likely help them more in the long run. If Nvidia can lower the RTX prices to be similar and still turn a profit then they'd have a problem. In which case, $350 or so for RTX 2070 level cards makes sense.
I agree to a point, but historically AMD Graphics cards have pushed higher performance down-market at the same/similar price points in relatively short order. The RX480 8G @MSRP ($200) was delivering R9 290X performance with twice the RAM capacity a hair less than 3 years later. The MSRP of the R9 290X was $549. MSRP of GTX 1080 is still close to $500 (though they can be frequently found for less, of course) and this card has been out for over 2 years. By the time these Navi units release, the $250 theorized price point isn't really a stretch compared to AMD's past practice.
One thing that you have to consider is that AMD has had superior product to nVidia several times, just not very recently. nVidia always managed to sell more cards regardless - even when the nVidia parts were significantly behind. AMD knows this, so the only real way they have to increase market share is to price the cards aggressively if they have the room to do so. This is what they have done vs. Intel and for a variety of reasons it is paying off in spades. We'll see how well the same strategy works against nVidia.
In the case of the GTX 1080 level market segment, If the market price is $400, and you want to make inroads, $350 is aggressive. $250 is just stupid and will kill the ability for you to actually make money because it lowers the expectations of the consumer.
Doubtful, but it would be really cool to see triple channel memory for DDR4 for 2 reasons:
- 24 GB seems like a great amount for future proofing current power users (this is ignoring the "I am running 4 VM's while video editing and transcoding" uber class)
- The extra bandwidth would really help the APUs.
There is always the TR quad channels, but now you are talking expensive boards that need at least 32 GB of Ram as well as being huge making smaller form factors impossible.
I agree to a point, but historically AMD Graphics cards have pushed higher performance down-market at the same/similar price points in relatively short order. The RX480 8G @MSRP ($200) was delivering R9 290X performance with twice the RAM capacity a hair less than 3 years later. The MSRP of the R9 290X was $549. MSRP of GTX 1080 is still close to $500 (though they can be frequently found for less, of course) and this card has been out for over 2 years. By the time these Navi units release, the $250 theorized price point isn't really a stretch compared to AMD's past practice.
One thing that you have to consider is that AMD has had superior product to nVidia several times, just not very recently. nVidia always managed to sell more cards regardless - even when the nVidia parts were significantly behind. AMD knows this, so the only real way they have to increase market share is to price the cards aggressively if they have the room to do so. This is what they have done vs. Intel and for a variety of reasons it is paying off in spades. We'll see how well the same strategy works against nVidia.
This makes me moist.
AMD aren't going for raw profit, they're going for market share. Lisa has shown again and again that she plays the long game, not the short gain. By making it basically impossible to justify the Nvidia alternative, AMD just might sell 1 for every 4 Nvidia cards.
Oh I agree, AMD will discount. They don’t have a choice. They won’t discount it by 40% though, at least I don’t see why they would even with the delta on market share. It’ll kill their profit potential. 10-20% would be more realistic if they want to grab share.
If they do want to give away GTX 1080 performance for $250 though, I’ll take two, thanks! Lol
She's smart. AMD is the Tortoise, Nvidia is the Hair. Or she's basically in cohoots where her uncle "You make the high end", "We'll make the mid ranged" & keep all the money in the family
I think you are getting Nvidia "Hair" Works mixed up with Hare. And it's cahoots. Sorry, having a grammar/spelling Nazi moment here.
Don't need a Navi to test. It will be a nice and efficient and will work just fine as does the current Vega APUs. BUT it will still be sharing the SAME DDR4 system RAM as the current APUs. Memory bandwidth will still be very limited.Fine, I don't have a Navi GPU to test. But given the current generations performance, that 15 (or even 20) CU APU should play most mainstream games at 1440 if you didn't insist on maxing out graphics settings. I know lots of people that just install the game, set to their native rez (if it's even needed) and play. They only mess with settings if it feels slow. Why do you think games started auto-detecting settings rather then defaulting to low-medium? If you loaded Overwatch with that setup right now, with a 1440 display, it would likely give you 1440 @ high-med settings. Most peeps would play the crap out of it without complaint.
Sorry, should have thrown in a 'mainstream' in there somewhere so enthusiasts wouldn't get butthurt.
Don't need a Navi to test. It will be a nice and efficient and will work just fine as does the current Vega APUs. BUT it will still be sharing the SAME DDR4 system RAM as the current APUs. Memory bandwidth will still be very limited.
You're looking at the same core configuration as an RX560, So even with quadruple the bandwidth, I doubt it would be able to run 1440p. Even then: unless the I/O chip can work miracles, it's going to be starved for bandwidth.
They then drop a 8GB graphics ram card into a PCI or m.2 slot...
Yeah, again the problem with the idea of AMD setting MSRP lower than necessary is resellers and flippers will balloon it back to the pricepoint of the comparable Nvidia part -- demand would be very high. They'd have to produce tons of them to create enough of a wave. Maybe there's some merit to the idea of AMD selling direct with a quantity limit per address to get buzz going initially.
If only they could start pumping these out today, because Nvidia has definitely left an opening in the market as resale values of Pascal cards have ballooned in revolt to the 2000-series pricing.
You think that's "slightly"!?IPC will increase slightly - say 10-15% ...
Most probably not.Does this mean more RAM channels?
Interesting thought...Since these have separate chiplets, does that imply easier boost of 2x the cores? ...
I agree. If the rumored power/performance is anywhere true miners will likely queue up to buy all these graphics cards since they'll make it profitable again. Hopefully Crypto currencies won't go up enough to re-start the craze.Yeah, again the problem with the idea of AMD setting MSRP lower than necessary is resellers and flippers will balloon it back to the pricepoint of the comparable Nvidia part -- demand would be very high. They'd have to produce tons of them to create enough of a wave. ...
If only that were possible.
Running GPU RAM over the PCI bus would be ULTRA slow. RAM needs direct connections to GPU because we're talking 256+GB/sec of bandwidth. PCI 4.0 x16 has a max of 64GB/sec of bandwidth, and don't even get me started on the latency.........
AdoredTV also said the RX480 would compete with a 1080 before it launched and it could barely beat a 1060 in a few DX12 titles, lol. This guy loves to over hype AMD stuff.
Might be good performance, but $250 for 2070 performance? Doesn't make sense. Why would they price it at $250, when they could easily price it at $300-$350 and it would still be a great deal, considering the 2070 goes for $550+?
They are in competition mode. Sleazy Nvidia is milking the fan base and thinking the crypto price wave will continue. The only bonus for end users is a free game of Space Invaders.
if AMD can make profit at that price, they will be in more systems and that's their goal.
I'm rocking a 1070 now but at those post crypto prices, I'll build a new AMD crossfire system next year.
Even if were true, you'll never get them at $250. Retailers will take advantage of increased demand like they always do and increase prices. Like when Amazon was selling gtx 1060 for $400 during the mining craze and the msrp was $260.
It'd still be true, they'd just be sold out on their site and you'd have to buy them on ebay/amazon instead. Well, assuming the scalpers don't ignore their site for some reason.This is true. Unless, AMD sold them directly from their site.
And we won't see PCIe 4.0 on consumer boards until 2020. Btw, PCIe 4.0 will be for consumers while PCIe 5.0 will not be for consumers. PCIe 5.0 will only be for AI and science, medical research etc.
And we won't see PCIe 4.0 on consumer boards until 2020. Btw, PCIe 4.0 will be for consumers while PCIe 5.0 will not be for consumers. PCIe 5.0 will only be for AI and science, medical research etc.
Don't be surprised if we don't see consumer 7nm AMD Ryzen 3000 CPU's and X570 motherboards until Q3 2019. AMD has already made it clear that the first 7nm batch is not for consumers. CES 2019 would be too soon for such a release. Computex in June 2019 at the earliest.
AMD has been quite vague about a specific release date for consumer release, and based on AMD's release history I'm remembering the Vega GPU that was announced at CES 2017 but didn't get released until Q3 2017 - like 9 months late.
AMD has been clear that the first round of 7nm AMD CPU's will *NOT* be for consumers. CES seems to early for such a release - I hope I'm wrong but again, based on AMD's release history it could be announced at CES but still not be released for 9 months.
And we won't see PCIe 4.0 on consumer boards until 2020. Btw, PCIe 4.0 will be for consumers while PCIe 5.0 will not be for consumers. PCIe 5.0 will only be for AI and science, medical research etc.