Navi discussion thread

The only way AMD gains market share by lowering prices is if they lower their prices below the point that Nvidia is willing to lower prices on Nvidia GPUs. That means that AMD would have to have SKUs that are cheap to produce that AMD is willing to make essentially no money on because Nvidia can likely match any price decrease AMD attempts.

Let's sale for no profit.

Why didn't Lisa Su think of that! /sarcasm
 
Over at Videcardz.com they have some pics :
https://videocardz.com/81282/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-gets-fancy-packaging

AMD-Radeon-RX-5700-box2.jpg

AMD-Radeon-RX-5700-XT50-box5.jpg
 
Blowers... barf. ;)

Good incase bitcoin gets jacked up again, though.
 
Blowers... barf. ;)

Good incase bitcoin gets jacked up again, though.

Nothing wrong with blower style coolers. I have the Vega 56 Reference, flashed with the Vega 64 bios and it is not loud at all. Sure, it can be if I force the fans to 100% but then again, that is true of all cards, blower or not.
 
...and what good is market share without profit?

It’s not that simple. More market share = less impact of NRE, better negotiations with suppliers, less overhead, more fexibility, more talent, ect.

Long term less profits with much higher market share is more viable.

AMD is basically price gouging with no horse in the race. At some point if they lose enough market share, which I can’t imagine them gaining any, the NRE and overhead will make it unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
It’s not that simple. More market share = less impact of NRE, better negotiations with suppliers, less overhead, more fexibility, more talent, ect.

Long term less profits with much higher market share is more viable.

AMD is basically price gouging with no horse in the race. At some point if they lose enough market share, which I can’t imagine them gaining any, the NRE and overhead will make it unsustainable.

But this whole argument about market share through lower prices, only makes sense if NVidia doesn't respond to AMD price cuts.

Which is, at best, a naive belief.

Just look at the "Super" refresh cards improving perf/$ aimed directly at the Navi Launch.

Navi vs RTX was likely going to come to market with a significant perf/$ advantage against the regular RTX cards, but NVidia reconfigured the stack, to eliminate that gap, in the same week that AMD is releasing.

All that AMD would accomplish with a steep price cut is much less margin for both AMD and NVidia. That doesn't gain AMD more market share, it just costs them more money.
 
It’s not that simple. More market share = less impact of NRE, better negotiations with suppliers, less overhead, more fexibility, more talent, ect.

Long term less profits with much higher market share is more viable.

AMD is basically price gouging with no horse in the race. At some point if they lose enough market share, which I can’t imagine them gaining any, the NRE and overhead will make it unsustainable.

As I said before:

Let's say that AMD launched the Radeon RX 5700 for $299 and Radeon RX 5700 XT for $349.

Is NVIDIA going to do nothing and let AMD take its market share?

Heck, no.

NVIDIA would cut the prices of the GeForce RTX 2060 to $299 and GeForce RTX 2070 to $349.

So, cutting the prices won't improve AMD's position.

Furthermore, it worsen AMD's position (relative to NVIDIA's) because AMD don't have the economies of scale that NVIDIA does.
 
But this whole argument about market share through lower prices, only makes sense if NVidia doesn't respond to AMD price cuts.

Which is, at best, a naive belief.

Just look at the "Super" refresh cards improving perf/$ aimed directly at the Navi Launch.

Navi vs RTX was likely going to come to market with a significant perf/$ advantage against the regular RTX cards, but NVidia reconfigured the stack, to eliminate that gap, in the same week that AMD is releasing.

All that AMD would accomplish with a steep price cut is much less margin for both AMD and NVidia. That doesn't gain AMD more market share, it just costs them more money.

As I said before:

I disagree. I’ve seen this story before and know how their current path ends.

As is AMD is in for a rough ride. Good luck to them.
 
It’s not that simple. More market share = less impact of NRE, better negotiations with suppliers, less overhead, more fexibility, more talent, ect.

Long term less profits with much higher market share is more viable.

AMD is basically price gouging with no horse in the race. At some point if they lose enough market share, which I can’t imagine them gaining any, the NRE and overhead will make it unsustainable.

The fact that everyone at marketing (a lot of them) went to Intel there left with simple options and the simplest is screw the customers and make it as cheap as possible and charge like we were green.

But this whole argument about market share through lower prices, only makes sense if NVidia doesn't respond to AMD price cuts.

Which is, at best, a naive belief.

Just look at the "Super" refresh cards improving perf/$ aimed directly at the Navi Launch.

Navi vs RTX was likely going to come to market with a significant perf/$ advantage against the regular RTX cards, but NVidia reconfigured the stack, to eliminate that gap, in the same week that AMD is releasing.

All that AMD would accomplish with a steep price cut is much less margin for both AMD and NVidia. That doesn't gain AMD more market share, it just costs them more money.

The reason is that there not selling as much as they can and Navi has nothing to do with it. The cards Nvidia wants to sell tend to be around last generation performance level and charge a higher price for current one so the backlog of gpu can be cleared.

Now that has happened Nvidia is trying to sell you another batch of overpriced hardware and they call it super.
It makes the 1st batch of overpriced hardware look bad and guess what they did it before and there doing it again.

You can do the mathematics yourself 449 vs 499 That is anything but a significant number. I can see them at Nvidia screaming there heads of $50 difference all of those cards of AMD that they will lose such an incredible amount of market share , the horror...
 
The reason is that there not selling as much as they can and Navi has nothing to do with it. The cards Nvidia wants to sell tend to be around last generation performance level and charge a higher price for current one so the backlog of gpu can be cleared.

Now that has happened Nvidia is trying to sell you another batch of overpriced hardware and they call it super.
It makes the 1st batch of overpriced hardware look bad and guess what they did it before and there doing it again.

You can do the mathematics yourself 449 vs 499 That is anything but a significant number. I can see them at Nvidia screaming there heads of $50 difference all of those cards of AMD that they will lose such an incredible amount of market share , the horror...

It must be a huge coincident that Turing refresh just happens to come out at the same time as Navi.
 
It must be a huge coincident that Turing refresh just happens to come out at the same time as Navi.

And that the two "Super" cards reviewed this week, are new versions of the same two cards AMD targeted in their Navi marketing so far. Quite the "lucky coincidence" for NVidia. :D
 
My argument has already been validated by NVidia responding to Navi with it's "Super" cards.

lol, then bleed market share like a sieve it is. At some point nVidia would stop dropping margin.

Lets sell a clearly inferior product at nearly the same price as the competitor and see what happens. Logic and reason!
 
lol, then bleed market share like a sieve it is. At some point nVidia would stop dropping margin.

Lets sell a clearly inferior product at nearly the same price as the competitor and see what happens. Logic and reason!

As the NVidia haters are so keen on pointing out, NVidia has higher margins (because high margins are apparently evil?) than AMD, giving them much more flexibility to cut them.

Also IIRC NVidia made something 20 Times as much profit as AMD last quarter, giving them a lot more breathing room if margins actually went negative.
 
As the NVidia haters are so keen on pointing out, NVidia has higher margins (because high margins are apparently evil?) than AMD, giving them much more flexibility to cut them.

Also IIRC NVidia made something 20 Times as much profit as AMD last quarter, giving them a lot more breathing room if margins actually went negative.

No one here has a problem with higher margins since were not buying Nvidia hardware :) . Wondering why we need to hate Nvidia where most of us do not want to support a company which does anti competitive things and anti consumer projects as GPP.

Most(well all) of you guys shoot blanks each time you are trying to pigeon hole the people in the AMD forum, stop calling us names stop putting us in boxes.
 
No one here has a problem with higher margins since were not buying Nvidia hardware :) . Wondering why we need to hate Nvidia where most of us do not want to support a company which does anti competitive things and anti consumer projects as GPP.

So, are you are saying I imagined those posts complaining about NVidia margins? Or posts referring to them as "Ngreedia"?

Most(well all) of you guys shoot blanks each time you are trying to pigeon hole the people in the AMD forum, stop calling us names stop putting us in boxes.

It has nothing to do with any forum, and what "names"? I mentioned "NVidia Haters" and your pretty much self identified with that, in this very post, saying you have reasons to hate NVidia.

And as usual, you just deflect instead of addressing the content of the post. Which is:

NVidia has healthier margins, and much more profit, to better weather any kind of price war.
 
So, are you are saying I imagined those posts complaining about NVidia margins? Or posts referring to them as "Ngreedia"?



It has nothing to do with any forum, and what "names"? I mentioned "NVidia Haters" and your pretty much self identified with that, in this very post, saying you have reasons to hate NVidia.

And as usual, you just deflect instead of addressing the content of the post. Which is:

NVidia has healthier margins, and much more profit, to better weather any kind of price war.
Learn to read:
It clearly said trying .....
Clearly said that we do not have a reason to hate Nvidia just don't want to support them
The content is irrelevant to the Navi discussion thread take your Nvidia cheer leading somewhere else please...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Learn to read:
It clearly said trying .....
Clearly said that we do not have a reason to hate Nvidia just don't want to support them
The content is irrelevant to the Navi discussion thread take your Nvidia cheer leading somewhere else please...

The way you worded it, I have to assume English isn't your first language, as it was ambiguous at best. If it wasn't hate, we would see the use of terms like "nGreedia". It's just like the people who hate Microsoft using M$.

And yet again(as usual), ignoring the point of the post.

Nearly all of the last 20 posts were about pricing and market share gains vs NVidia.

It isn't NVidia cheer leading, to point out actual facts germane to pricing/market share. :rolleyes:
 
lol, then bleed market share like a sieve it is.

This is pretty much AMD's future in the graphics market. 'Big Navi' basically needs release day competitive raster and ray tracing performance or AMD won't have the market share to survive when Intel starts pushing out discrete products.

Right now, you have to go pretty far down the price ladder to find the delta of moving up from an AMD GPU to the same raster performance on an Nvidia GPU but with ray tracing to be unpalatable.

If I'm already spending US$300+ for a GPU, I'll spend another US$50 just to make sure it has ray tracing hardware, as an example.
 
It’s a good thing that AMD doesn’t have a CEO like IdiotInCharge who thinks that AMD should go into a price war with NVIDIA and destroy itself in the process.
 
lol, then bleed market share like a sieve it is. At some point nVidia would stop dropping margin.

Lets sell a clearly inferior product at nearly the same price as the competitor and see what happens. Logic and reason!

But if look at the last 15 years, all AMD done is lose market share. They have tried the cheap pricing, it hasn't worked. All they have done is lose market share. The only time they have made jumps in market share is when they have priced their cards stupid cheap like the 4xxx cards or when they were first to market like Polaris with a special limited run of cheap 4Gb 480s. In both cases they lost that same market share shortly after. So they lost money for no benefit.

IF they really want to win market share, they have to release good cards. And if the Navi cards are good cards, then they will sell.

Reviews are in on the 7th, we will know then if they are 'clearly inferior' cards. At the moment they are cards whose performance and price lies somewhere between the 2060 Super and the 2070 Super.
 
It’s a good thing that AMD doesn’t have a CEO like IdiotInCharge who thinks that AMD should go into a price war with NVIDIA and destroy itself in the process.

Which you can't quote me as saying- and cowardly didn't bother tagging me with your insult.

Swing and a miss, and bordering on personal attack. I do not recommend trying again.
 
But if look at the last 15 years, all AMD done is lose market share.

It's a bit painful to bring up, but AMD's GPU adventure has essentially been an exercise in losing market share. The last time that division had a market-leading product, it was called ATi, and they'd just released the 9700 Pro.

Not only did they beat Nvidia to DX9, they had an implementation that was more in tune with what game developers were doing, and for a moment they left Nvidia in the dust (with their dustbuster coolers!).

At DX10, DX11, DX12, and now with DXR, either AMD has been behind, they had a poorer implementation, or what they did implement developers largely did not use.


And one reason that I say that it's painful is that AMD by and large puts out great GPUs- they just saddle them with borderline trash coolers and then universally fail to leverage that hardware both with their drivers and by getting support out to developers. They've become a mainstay in the much simpler compute market and a boon for the console market with its stable platforms, but for the complicated desktop gaming market, they're still shooting themselves in their own feet.
 
Which you can't quote me as saying- and cowardly didn't bother tagging me with your insult.

Swing and a miss, and bordering on personal attack. I do not recommend trying again.

I already did. It is post #1044247350

The only way AMD gains market share by lowering prices is if they lower their prices below the point that Nvidia is willing to lower prices on Nvidia GPUs. That means that AMD would have to have SKUs that are cheap to produce that AMD is willing to make essentially no money on because Nvidia can likely match any price decrease AMD attempts.

I just didn't want to quote the same post twice.
 
You probably should if you want to prove some point. I didn't say it.

The only way AMD gains market share by lowering prices is if they lower their prices below the point that Nvidia is willing to lower prices on Nvidia GPUs. That means that AMD would have to have SKUs that are cheap to produce that AMD is willing to make essentially no money on because Nvidia can likely match any price decrease AMD attempts.
 
It's a bit painful to bring up, but AMD's GPU adventure has essentially been an exercise in losing market share. The last time that division had a market-leading product, it was called ATi, and they'd just released the 9700 Pro.

Well, that class leading product didn't help ATI too much. The 9700 pro caused a brief spike in AMD's market share, but, if it hadn't been for Nvidia making a complete dogs dinner of the 5 series would the market have changed at all? As soon as the 6 series came out, Nvidia's market share jumped back up almost straight away and ATI's went down and it has been trending downwards ever since.
 
Back
Top