AMD admits its Radeon RX 5700 series price cuts were a trap for Nvidia

...and a 'trap' that Nvidia was ready for ;).

Though AMD is the one that will 'pay'. Nvidia didn't have to lower their prices, AMD could have kept their original pricing, and AMD (and Nvidia) would have had higher margins.

As discussed in other threads, Nvidia is far more prepared to survive a price war than AMD, so it makes little sense for AMD to start one.
 
For better context, here's the video being referenced. Start around the 25:25 mark for the start of the discussion

 
Lol, I think it is spin.

If AMD could get away with the higher price, they would have. Only when they figured out thier stuff wasn't performing fast enough per $ did they lower the price.

If they could charge $999 for a GPU, they would. Don't kid yourselves.
 
Last edited:
So, after watching the actual interview, it appears that the price change was just part of an overall strategy to see what Nvidia would do, and then AMD reacts. My take is that if NVIDIA did not release the Super cards, the price cut on the Navi cards would not have happened, but AMD was ready to drop pricing upon nVidia's release of the updating RTX cards.
 
GoodBoy said:
If they could charge $999 for a GPU, they would. Don't kid yourselves.
Click to expand...

You mean if they could do that,,,,,,, and sell them.
It is quite normal, some one also make 2 million USD cars,,,,,,, but they dont sell that many of those.

Its not what you can make, cuz anything can be made if you throw enough money at it, it is a matter of what you can sell,,,,, and at what price and what profit.
 
Oldmodder said:
You mean if they could do that,,,,,,, and sell them.
It is quite normal, some one also make 2 million USD cars,,,,,,, but they dont sell that many of those.

Its not what you can make, cuz anything can be made if you throw enough money at it, it is a matter of what you can sell,,,,, and at what price and what profit.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nvidia can make all the 2080Ti's they want, but I sure as hell aren't going to give them $1199 for one.
 
jardows said:
So, after watching the actual interview, it appears that the price change was just part of an overall strategy to see what Nvidia would do, and then AMD reacts. My take is that if NVIDIA did not release the Super cards, the price cut on the Navi cards would not have happened, but AMD was ready to drop pricing upon nVidia's release of the updating RTX cards.
Click to expand...

Well sure.

AMD has almost no command of the market, so they have to have at least one contingency plan- and given that Nvidia's Turing GPUs have largely been received as overpriced, AMD would look foolish if they weren't ready for Nvidia to adjust their lineup.
 
Pure Spin. But at the same time what was nvidia motivation to offer a better product? If the rDNA was underperforming/matching their product line, didnt Nvidia have their RTX value proposition, unless Nvidia decided to grow a heart?

Whoever was feeding each competitor info about the other, was really the ultimate "trapper".

Of course this is a rumor and purely a joke, but did Team Blue's GPU lead feed team green and red a trap
 
awww cute plot twist

anyway, 5700/xt is a huge step up in the consumer GPU space for AMD. I don't see any reason why they can't scale up on that small die and give Nvidia a run for their money when 7nm improves a bit in yield. Doesn't the 2080Ti have literally 300% die area?

issue is prices are going to stay high if we have to keep relying on 750mm^2 dies
 
Like Gamer Nexus said, it was not some 5D chess move to bait or trick NV into anything, it was AMD reacting when they saw the performance of the super cards and they HAD to lower the price. They are trying to spin it, as it's a horrible PR look, even if it was some crazy 5D chess move, it would be a horrible one, had they come out the gate with the cheaper prices, it would have made them look like the ones forcing NV's hand.

Also considering NV has much lower yields on a huge monolithic die for their GPU's vs AMD with much smaller die and much higher yields and no RT cores and no Tensor cores, I would think AMD would have much greater headroom over NV for pricing, but it doesn't seem they wanted to do that at all.
 
Mode13 said:
I don't see any reason why they can't scale up on that small die and give Nvidia a run for their money when 7nm improves a bit in yield.
Click to expand...

Could've done it with Polaris, didn't.

BlueFireIce said:
Also considering NV has much lower yields on a huge monolithic die for their GPU's vs AMD with much smaller die and much higher yields and no RT cores and no Tensor cores, I would think AMD would have much greater headroom over NV for pricing
Click to expand...

This is a bad assumption- even without the facts (that we'll never get), you're not considering other factors that play significantly into per-unit cost.
 
GoodBoy said:
Lol, I think it is spin.

If AMD could get away with the higher price, they would have. Only when they figured out there stuff wasn't performing fast enough per $ did they lower the price.

If they could charge $999 for a GPU, they would. Don't kid yourselves.
Click to expand...

They've done it at multiple points in the past.

Athlon X2 4800+ carried a launch MSRP of $1001 back in 2005...

Radeon Fury X was $649 back in 2015, which was the same price as the faster performing 980Ti at the time.

[edit]
Excluding the 290X I mentioned earlier, since I was mistaken that it was competing with the 780Ti instead of the 780 vanilla...

Radeon 290X was $550 in 2013.
 
Last edited:
Mode13 said:
awww cute plot twist

anyway, 5700/xt is a huge step up in the consumer GPU space for AMD. I don't see any reason why they can't scale up on that small die and give Nvidia a run for their money when 7nm improves a bit in yield. Doesn't the 2080Ti have literally 300% die area?

issue is prices are going to stay high if we have to keep relying on 750mm^2 dies
Click to expand...

You should really be looking at transistor count and cost per transistor rather than area.
 
DejaWiz said:
They've done it at multiple points in the past.

Athlon X2 4800+ carried a launch MSRP of $1001 back in 2005...

Radeon Fury X was $649 back in 2015, which was the same price as the faster performing 980Ti at the time.

Radeon 290X was $550 in 2013.
Click to expand...

The 980Ti was definitely an eff you to AMD moment back in 2015, announced and released first before Fury X.
 
DejaWiz said:
They've done it at multiple points in the past.

Athlon X2 4800+ carried a launch MSRP of $1001 back in 2005...

Radeon Fury X was $649 back in 2015, which was the same price as the faster performing 980Ti at the time.

Radeon 290X was $550 in 2013.
Click to expand...


I feel the 290X is unfairly mentioned in your post given that at release it was cheaper and faster than the 780 and much cheaper while still competitive with the Titan. (And [H]s own review showed that at 4K it was consistently faster than the Titan apples to apples.)

Was it cheap? Hell no. But it wasn’t some hugely priced gouging product.
 
Hobby, entertainment which in many ways is cheaper then others. Come on , a nicely spec gaming rig is less than $2000 if you don’t recycle anything, much cheaper if you do. Not a luxury item in my view, an economical alternatives to much more expensive endeavors. Plus it can last for years with just game purchases.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
...and a 'trap' that Nvidia was ready for ;).

Though AMD is the one that will 'pay'. Nvidia didn't have to lower their prices, AMD could have kept their original pricing, and AMD (and Nvidia) would have had higher margins.

As discussed in other threads, Nvidia is far more prepared to survive a price war than AMD, so it makes little sense for AMD to start one.
Click to expand...
purple_monster said:
imagine personally identifying with a video card company. yes, i hope these guys bait each other into lowering pricing constantly. oh no! my team got baited! now we all have faster cards for lower prices! what a tragedy! NOT FAIR WAHHHHHHHHH!
Click to expand...


Yes thank you ! Nvidia is a-hole because they basically raised the the cost of GPU for no reason other than they could at the time. Now they're a F"K because their chip is too big and has no head room and AMD has a much smaller chip that in some benchmarks matches the performance of their $700 card. So recap AMD new gpu scale up Nvidia's doesn't and Nvidia cards cost alot more produce so they can't cut cost. So the AMD story is totally plausible.
 
123Lanoix said:
Yes thank you ! Nvidia is a-hole because they basically raised the the cost of GPU for no reason other than they could at the time. Now they're a F"K because their chip is too big and has no head room and AMD has a much smaller chip that in some benchmarks matches the performance of their $700 card. So recap AMD new gpu scale up Nvidia's doesn't and Nvidia cards cost alot more produce so they can't cut cost. So the AMD story is totally plausible.
Click to expand...

Source on AMD costing less to mfg?
 
DejaWiz said:
They've done it at multiple points in the past.

Athlon X2 4800+ carried a launch MSRP of $1001 back in 2005...

Radeon Fury X was $649 back in 2015, which was the same price as the faster performing 980Ti at the time.

Radeon 290X was $550 in 2013.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the 4800+, the Fury X price was just not smart but, the 290X price was good.
 
I was gonna say, of all the B-stock, the 2080Ti stayed in stock well after I thought they would. West coast users have such a huge advantage for those Wednesday sales.

If I'm getting up at 3am - that's for Fantasy Football only lmao.
 
Nolan7689 said:
I feel the 290X is unfairly mentioned in your post given that at release it was cheaper and faster than the 780 and much cheaper while still competitive with the Titan. (And [H]s own review showed that at 4K it was consistently faster than the Titan apples to apples.)

Was it cheap? Hell no. But it wasn’t some hugely priced gouging product.
Click to expand...
The 7970 was a bit slower than the 680 at much louder noise and Temps. Plus it was $50 more.
 
GoldenTiger said:
This. Yeah it's binned lower but it OC 's and boosts the same as the "A" chips.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your talking about. I'm simply stating that the NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti reference cards can be had for $999 at Microcenter etc. This has been the case for awhile. I was responding to the fact that the other poster said it was $1,200, which it isn't. I paid just a bit more than that for a non-reference design that was factory overclocked.
 
Dan_D said:
I am not sure what your talking about. I'm simply stating that the NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti reference cards can be had for $999 at Microcenter etc. This has been the case for awhile. I was responding to the fact that the other poster said it was $1,200, which it isn't. I paid just a bit more than that for a non-reference design that was factory overclocked.
Click to expand...
I was agreeing, but I didn't know the reference went for $999 too :).
 
I agree with most, they probably already knew what it was the supers (who didn't?) and announced a price they thought would be competitive knowing Nvidia would probably match and had the price drop as a contingency. It's still well played as most reviews come out saying at the current price it's a good perf/$. If the original price stayed, they would all be recommending Nvidia cards.
 
Nobody trapped anybody. Competition made them lower prices. Nvidia reacted to the new AMD cards by releasing good cards (2080ti is the only 2000 series card before that wasn't overpriced crap, it was still overpriced though) and AMD countered by lowering their prices. In the end we win and I will buy none of their new video cards. I'm getting a used 1080ti when prices settle.
 
Dayaks said:
Source on AMD costing less to mfg?
Click to expand...


When has Nvidia dropped the prices? They just EOL the RTX 2060 and 2070 because they are too expensive to produce and they can't compete. Look a the power draw on a 5700XT it's way lower than what Nvidia is running. i'm drawing less than 200w and hitting over 2ghz boost ! People that actually own these cards know what i'm talking about there is a ton of head room in the 5700XT cards.
 
Dermen said:
In the end we win and I will buy none of their new video cards. I'm getting a used 1080ti when prices settle.
Click to expand...
Protip: used 2080 is actually the new value/money second-only-to-2080Ti sweet spot, no longer 1080Ti. Herd is still overpaying 1080Ti while 2080 can be found cheaper. Or, wait until after 2080 Super launches and this slowly becomes even more true.
 
Well, I'll give AMD credit for being able to put a spin on it but that is some serious PR bullshit. I'm sure they had a backup plan in case Super forced them to react, but they still reacted. There was no elaborate trap or anything. AMD mad the first move, Nvidia reacted to it, and AMD reacted to Nvidia's reaction. Simple as that. Saying they had some grand plan sure does make them look a lot better though.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
...and a 'trap' that Nvidia was ready for ;).

Though AMD is the one that will 'pay'. Nvidia didn't have to lower their prices, AMD could have kept their original pricing, and AMD (and Nvidia) would have had higher margins.

As discussed in other threads, Nvidia is far more prepared to survive a price war than AMD, so it makes little sense for AMD to start one.
Click to expand...

It's a bad trap too because Nvidia is on such a mature node, their die size isn't really a liability for them, whereas 7nm transistor pricing is definitely a liability for AMD.
 
BS Story. The actual interview, what they are talking about are contingency responses to what NVidia would do.

Having contingency response, is NOT a trap. Make no mistake, AMD would much rather have not needed to use that contingency as it cut a chunk out of their profit margin.

Also the difference in pricing where they ended, is typically where the pricing relation between AMD and NVidia end up anyway.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Could've done it with Polaris, didn't.



This is a bad assumption- even without the facts (that we'll never get), you're not considering other factors that play significantly into per-unit cost.
Click to expand...

Bad assumption how? Serious here, as everything points to it being cheaper, every deep dive I have read, every insider talking about it who mentions costs per die or wafer also say it will be cheaper for AMD, some suggest it's significantly so, while others suggest it's only marginally cheaper. No where have I see anyone suggest it would cost more.

Also, NV went with nicer cooling solutions, and again, like Gamer Nexus said after AMD again tried to spin their blower cooler as a good thing, it's not. It was done because they are cheap.

Price has to do with transistor count, which Turing is still higher, next is process size, the smaller or more advanced will cost more per wafer, however the smaller node size means more dies per wafer which reduces overall cost, but this has been flat lining. Next is total die size as the larger it is, the higher chances for defects and the less unaffected units you get per wafer, which is already reduced significantly due to the die being twice the size because of RT and Tensor cores.

This is from someone who was hoping for the GPU side to be the same as the CPU side, where AMD is offering huge amount of crunching power for the price vs Intel, even if Intel is still the single threaded king, in *most* situations outside of some CPU limited games. But as it turns out, on the GPU side, it's just the same old thing, matching cards launched a year ago, slight undercutting in price but not enough to sway me, and less features overall, even though I know people love to hate on RT and Tensor, you are still missing out on them going AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top