confirmed: AMD's big Navi launch to disrupt 4K gaming

Aegir

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
58
So what I'm seeing is roughly:


$9 for a really good sandwich at Red's Sandwich Shop, but $10 for an equal sandwich at Blue's.

And if you want the best sandwich, it's $50 at Red's, and a slightly better one for $100 or something at Blue's, but nothing is better?

So basically Blue has the best sandwich, but the price is absurd.

It's still just a sandwich, eh? I'll get my sandwich at Red's and remain sane.
 

Iratus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
1,314
At this point I just want AMD support with CUDA. The ML stuff is the war they can't afford to lose and I can't see OpenCL getting anywhere atm.

If they somehow got into the DC/ML/Vision space properly, and competitively, that's me retiring off my share gains. Seriously (bought at 13, sold at 31, bought back again at 20, thanks Trump and Lisa). The best thing about them being competitive in the CPU space now is that they're freeing up money to get back into it on the GPU side. Plus getting this generation of consoles as well can't hurt.

To the topic though, if they did manage to get a card out that was competitive with a 2080Ti and didn't require a second mortgage, I'd probably get one. NVidia badly needs some competition to stop the price escalation. I'm not holding my breath though. They constantly fuck up in this space.
 

Aegir

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
58
I'm going to jump off the AMD GPU cliff no matter what. They will get my money for better or for worse.
It's up to us to support the Nvidia Killer.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,030
I'm going to jump off the AMD GPU cliff no matter what. They will get my money for better or for worse.
It's up to us to support the Nvidia Killer.
A monolithic megacorp with seven-figure-salaried execs and anon shareholders that wouldn't care if you died all really appreciate you tying yourself to the train tracks under the misguided notion they're some poor little engine that could.

I kid! Personally I'll keep evaluating case by case and buying whatever gives me the most performance for the money I want to spend, rather than blind buying on brand alone no matter how much I might be overpaying for the performance level. If that ends up being AMD, fantastic. But to anthropomorphosize corporations as your friend or attach emotions to them is folly.
 

Aegir

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
58
I didn't imply allegiance. Just cliff jumping.
No parachute.

As for actually buying their new video card, I'll still be waiting for benchmarks and testing before I truly commit.
 

Marees

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
424
It's up to us to support the Nvidia Killer.
Interestingly the Nvidia "killer" is supposed to the lower end chip, of the same size as Polaris, PS5, Navi 10 (5700 XT)

Still 6 months to go for confirmation of this rumor tho.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,386
He reminds me of shintai who did the same thing for Intel instead of AMD. Honestly thought that guy had some mental issues until he got a lady friend or something.. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here tbh 😂
Lol, where did shintai go anyway?
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
First post here, so hello everyone.

I don't think AMD, NVIDIA, or Intel are worthy of any brand loyalty on the consumer level. As corporations there's not much that differentiates them aside from scale. Though AMD does seem to "care" more about the retail consumer. In my case it's always a matter of who provides the best product for the money. I recently went to AMD on the CPU side, no regrets there. I've been using NVIDIA for quite a long time now. If the new iteration of GPUs provides a better product for less money I would happily go to an AMD product.

Historically AMD has not provided the best product, but they're doing some great things now. So more power to them and if it means a better product for me, I'm all in. At the least it's refreshing to see somebody successfully compete with the NVIDIA and Intel monoliths. Makes things interesting for sure.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,328
So what I'm seeing is roughly:


$9 for a really good sandwich at Red's Sandwich Shop, but $10 for an equal sandwich at Blue's.

And if you want the best sandwich, it's $50 at Red's, and a slightly better one for $100 or something at Blue's, but nothing is better?

So basically Blue has the best sandwich, but the price is absurd.

It's still just a sandwich, eh? I'll get my sandwich at Red's and remain sane.
Red's sandwich gives you the shits sometimes though.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,328
It seems its fairly frequent too.
Navi was rough on the stomach initially, but the size of the sandwich for the price has been hard to beat. Quality control has stepped in and they've been putting out a fairly good sandwich since February in my experience.

Vega had some launch trouble, polaris was mostly trouble free in my experience.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
AMD seems to have some really great engineers if you look at what they did on the CPU side. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to pull it out on the GPU side as well. Never thought a professional CEO could make that much of a difference in a company, but evidently that Lisa Su is a gosh darn wizard.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,225
I am looking forward to seeing what both teams bring to the table, I doubt I am replacing my GPU this gen unless something truly fantastic comes out but I am not holding my breath on that.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,544
AMD seems to have some really great engineers if you look at what they did on the CPU side. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to pull it out on the GPU side as well. Never thought a professional CEO could make that much of a difference in a company, but evidently that Lisa Su is a gosh darn wizard.
nVidia hasn't been sitting on their butt in the same way Intel has over the last decade.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,843
nVidia hasn't been sitting on their butt in the same way Intel has over the last decade.
Nvidia does not have to sit on their butt for AMD to become competitive. Also, just because Intel was sitting on their butt does not mean that AMD was lucky or something, they became competitive and now, on top in almost every way.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
Intel was running along at their usual pace, but then they got held up due to process issues. Even if that had not happened I think AMD would still be considerably competitive on the CPU side. As luck would have it for AMD, Intel is having serious process issues and they don't seem to be getting resolved quickly. That means Intel will have a lot catching up to do once they get things straightened out.

In terms of CPU units shipped, Intel still outnumbers AMD hugely. Intel has always been and still is top dog in terms of production and I'm sure they've got designs on reserve to compete with AMD performance. AMD has always counted on untapped market segments, the difference is they're making inroads into mainstream ones now. If they ever surpass Intel in terms of units shipped it would be the upset of the century. At this point it's like an order of magnitude.

On the GPU side, NVIDIA is running along at its usual pace so it just means they might swap crowns back and forth. That's fine because AMD likes to undercut the competition in price and that's good for us consumers. That's always been a big strategy for them, more performance for less. The difference is now they're holding the crown in some products and that makes a big difference for consumer desirability. Eventually that trickles down to sales in bigger markets. The people making the volume orders have perceptions too.
 
Last edited:

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,544
Intel was running along at their usual pace, but then they got held up due to process issues. Even if that had not happened I think AMD would still be considerably competitive on the CPU side. As luck would have it for AMD, Intel is having serious process issues and they don't seem to be getting resolved quickly. That means Intel will have a lot catching up to do once they get things straightened out.

In terms of CPU units shipped, Intel still outnumbers AMD hugely. Intel has always been and still is top dog in terms of production and I'm sure they've got designs on reserve to compete with AMD performance. AMD has always counted on untapped market segments, the difference is they're making inroads into mainstream ones now. If they ever surpass Intel in terms of units shipped it would be the upset of the century. At this point it's like an order of magnitude.

On the GPU side, NVIDIA is running along at its usual pace so it just means they might swap crowns back and forth. That's fine because AMD likes to undercut the competition in price and that's good for us consumers. That's always been a big strategy for them, more performance for less. The difference is now they're holding the crown in some products and that makes a big difference for consumer desirability. Eventually that trickles down to sales in bigger markets. The people making the volume orders have perceptions too.
Intel was running along at ~5% improvements gen over gen, with no real improvement in multi-core models or pricing, thats sitting on their ass. AMD was able to take advantage of that.

nVidia has been trucking along at ~20-30% gains gen over gen, but has been increasing prices steadily. nVidia's problem isn't power and price like intels is, its just price.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,544
Nvidia does not have to sit on their butt for AMD to become competitive. Also, just because Intel was sitting on their butt does not mean that AMD was lucky or something, they became competitive and now, on top in almost every way.
Given overall research budgets and competing in two different markets, I completely disagree as usual. Don't let reality stop you though, it never does anyway.

AMD is smart, very smart, they manage to hold on when every other competitor has either been bought or closed their doors. They have also survived multiple shady tactics and attacks. Still for them to take the crown is a combination of luck, butt sitting, and good business decisions.

What you are lacking in your narrative, is that nVidia hasn't been as unsuccessful as Intel. They haven't failed at nm transitions, they haven't failed to deliver performance gains, they don't have a architectural issue (speculative processing leading to specter/meltdown/etc), they just have a greed problem in pumping their prices up causing a bit of brand damage.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
nVidia has been trucking along at ~20-30% gains gen over gen, but has been increasing prices steadily. nVidia's problem isn't power and price like intels is, its just price.
I was listening to an interview somewhere with an insider talking about the cost of doing business for these guys. They actually mark up their stuff like ten times for consumer prices. The volume buyers get the traditional markups. We consumers pay probably five times more. So basically they're just screwing the consumers, but the volume guys are getting fair prices. It's pretty lame when you consider the unit numbers for consumer versus OEM. It's like a drop in the bucket. They're gouging consumers just to be dicks.
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,639
In all fairness most retail begins at a 4x markup (just saying)
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,667
I was listening to an interview somewhere with an insider talking about the cost of doing business for these guys. They actually mark up their stuff like ten times for consumer prices. The volume buyers get the traditional markups. We consumers pay probably five times more. So basically they're just screwing the consumers, but the volume guys are getting fair prices. It's pretty lame when you consider the unit numbers for consumer versus OEM. It's like a drop in the bucket. They're gouging consumers just to be dicks.
Weird. Sounds like they're a normal business...
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,544
I was listening to an interview somewhere with an insider talking about the cost of doing business for these guys. They actually mark up their stuff like ten times for consumer prices. The volume buyers get the traditional markups. We consumers pay probably five times more. So basically they're just screwing the consumers, but the volume guys are getting fair prices. It's pretty lame when you consider the unit numbers for consumer versus OEM. It's like a drop in the bucket. They're gouging consumers just to be dicks.
Its not gouging, its called what the price the market will bare. For example, shoes are on average 2-3x's the cost in Canada as they are in the US, it isn't that it costs more to get the shoes here, or that we have more disposable income than an average american. It is literally the price that the Canadian market will pay for shoes, so it is the price that businesses charge.

There is no law that tells businesses what they can charge or says that a markup is fair/unfair, it is a free market, and in a free market businesses set their own price.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
Way back, when I was working through college, I was in retail. That was a long time ago, but typical retail markup was 30%. Distributor markup was also 30%. If the producer is marking up say 30%, that's about a 100% markup or double the cost of production to the consumer. Of course producers have overhead such as tooling and engineering. That has to be covered as well. Fairness in those additional costs comes down to volume. The higher numbers dilute that cost.

Let's say doubling the cost of production results in a fair price for the maker where they make a reasonable profit. Of course that can vary greatly, but lets just say it's 100% markup. That's not the case for these consumer products. They're running more in the 500% range. Even 200% markup could be considered fair since these chips have a longer path in getting to the consumer, still a far cry from 500%.

Of course in a free market sellers are free to charge what the market will bear. That's not to say that is fair, just says that's the way it is. I mean when do your cross that line from charging what the market will bear and just gouging the customer. Who's to say one is one and not the other.
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,639
4x retail markups? With what type of products? I've heard of 100-200% markups but not 400%
Operational overhead for retail is extreme. It can depend on what the market is.

Places with very high regular sales volumes... maybe not a problem. But that's not typical (?).
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,544
Of course in a free market sellers are free to charge what the market will bear. That's not to say that is fair, just says that's the way it is. I mean when do your cross that line from charging what the market will bear and just gouging the customer. Who's to say one is one and not the other.
The market will say when a product stops selling because its priced itself out. Lets be honest here, GPU's are an extreme luxury good, and luxury goods have extreme markups jewelry is usually %200+ for example. High end nVidia GPU's are a further luxury niche in an already niche market.

Gouging isn't really possible (or a concern if you prefer that term) in a luxury segment, you don't need that product, and there are affordable alternatives if you do.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,225
If they were gouging than somebody would have drastically under cut them, you would see cases where AMD would release something at 80% the performance but 1/3'rd the cost. Unless they are both gouging then we are waiting for Intel to be our saviours and enter the fight. TSMC's nodes aren't cheap, they are the world leader and they get to charge for it, and nVidia and AMD get the privilege to bid against Apple for that fab time which drives costs up more. This isn't the good old days of 22nm when everybody and their dog could make your chip and have it come out virtually identical, if you want to release a competitive GPU you are going to need to use TSMC and they know it. Furthermore nVidia and AMD both release some pretty clear financials, if they were gouging you would see profits in the triple digits, but instead we are seeing numbers in the mid 40's on average. I think at some point it just has to be accepted that this is an expensive hobby and costs are going up.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,855
AMD seems to have some really great engineers if you look at what they did on the CPU side. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to pull it out on the GPU side as well.
AMD has great GPU circuit engineers; great hardware all around. They produce great designs that then get mangled by their board partners, their driver team, their firmware team. It's a similar situation with their CPUs really, and it's a disparity between themselves and their competitors in respective markets: both Nvidia and Intel exert significantly more control over their partners and lead in software development.

It's not until you realize that good circuit designs alone are useless that the value of the rest of the stack comes into focus.

Never thought a professional CEO could make that much of a difference in a company, but evidently that Lisa Su is a gosh darn wizard.
She's an engineer and quite worthy of the title, and she happens to not suck at business (as would be typical of engineers).

She also lucked out with having Ryzen in the pipes, consoles in the bag, and TSMC at the top of their game. I don't want to discount her contributions in the slightest but there is some context here.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
86
She also lucked out with having Ryzen in the pipes, consoles in the bag, and TSMC at the top of their game.
Yeah that TSMC seems to be a big part of their success.

I haven't been keeping up on things until I went to build a new desktop system recently. The one I had before was aging and I retired it (Intel based). I replaced it with a fairly high-end i7 based laptop and used that exclusively for a couple years. I found I really missed having a desktop system so I put one together (AMD based). At that point I started reading up because of all the interesting news.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,843
If they were gouging than somebody would have drastically under cut them, you would see cases where AMD would release something at 80% the performance but 1/3'rd the cost. Unless they are both gouging then we are waiting for Intel to be our saviours and enter the fight. TSMC's nodes aren't cheap, they are the world leader and they get to charge for it, and nVidia and AMD get the privilege to bid against Apple for that fab time which drives costs up more. This isn't the good old days of 22nm when everybody and their dog could make your chip and have it come out virtually identical, if you want to release a competitive GPU you are going to need to use TSMC and they know it. Furthermore nVidia and AMD both release some pretty clear financials, if they were gouging you would see profits in the triple digits, but instead we are seeing numbers in the mid 40's on average. I think at some point it just has to be accepted that this is an expensive hobby and costs are going up.
2080ti = Titan with RT Cores
2080 = 1080Ti with RT Cores
And so on. They was no real performance difference between the generations, overall, just added a at the time unused feature, relabeled the products and charged more for them.

However, the 5700 and 5700 XT is faster than the previous Vega 56 and Vega 64, uses significantly less power and costs less at MSRP then the Vega's, as well.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,855
2080ti = Titan with RT Cores
2080 = 1080Ti with RT Cores
And so on. They was no real performance difference between the generations, overall, just added a at the time unused feature, relabeled the products and charged more for them.
No.
However, the 5700 and 5700 XT is faster than the previous Vega 56 and Vega 64, uses significantly less power and costs less at MSRP then the Vega's, as well.
Bigger no.

Navi is a consumer focused part, the Vega and Radeon VII releases are enterprise focused. Neither particularly excels at what the other is designed for.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,539
1. AMD cards cannot OC this well.

2. AMD GPU's are already balls to the walls from the factory because if they were not, they simply would not be competitive.
1. Neither can nVidia to be honest. You argue about base vs boost. But who defines yhe base and boost? nV does. And if they design a chip to run at 1700mhz boost then that is not an OC that is just a normal.design parameter. Its like saying a core I7 that can base clock to 900mhz in ppwer save mode an then turbo to 4.3 is an OC
Its not. Its a design parameter. Boost clocks etc.. are just marketing jazz. Real OC is pushing way past boost clocks with high end cooling i.e.. water or ln2 etc..

2. Maybe in past lives. Big NaVI is fully developed under Dr. Su's leadership. Same as Ryzen. We seen what she and they could do with Ryzen. She was hired after vega was already half way done. So she has no real play in that project. Bug Navi is going to be the giant leap in GPU for AMD like Ryzen was for CPU.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,843
No.

Bigger no.

Navi is a consumer focused part, the Vega and Radeon VII releases are enterprise focused. Neither particularly excels at what the other is designed for.
Actually, yes, for both points. Vega was a consumer graphics card so, whatever it was used for is not relevant. Heck it is even faster than the Radeon VII well being far cheaper so, that just reinforces my point.

Also, show me where the 5700 and 5700XT is not cheaper at MSRP, faster and uses less power, I will wait.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,831
2080ti = Titan with RT Cores
2080 = 1080Ti with RT Cores
And so on. They was no real performance difference between the generations, overall, just added a at the time unused feature, relabeled the products and charged more for them.

However, the 5700 and 5700 XT is faster than the previous Vega 56 and Vega 64, uses significantly less power and costs less at MSRP then the Vega's, as well.
2080 die:
1589559939080.png


1080 Ti die:
1589560006227.png


Yes, the are exactly the same :rolleyes:
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,225
Actually, yes, for both points. Vega was a consumer graphics card so, whatever it was used for is not relevant. Heck it is even faster than the Radeon VII well being far cheaper so, that just reinforces my point.

Also, show me where the 5700 and 5700XT is not cheaper at MSRP, faster and uses less power, I will wait.
The Radeon VII is going to be a mini beast for CAD and Animation work, it is their first real card that even steps to a Quadro in a fair while and on those workloads neither the 5700 nor the 5700XT can even hold a candle they are orders of magnitude slower. And depending on the workload the Vega64 easily outpaces the 5700 and 5700XT
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,843
The Radeon VII is going to be a mini beast for CAD and Animation work, it is their first real card that even steps to a Quadro in a fair while and on those workloads neither the 5700 nor the 5700XT can even hold a candle they are orders of magnitude slower.
Well, I would figure we are assuming gaming around these parts.
 
Top