New AMD Navi RX 3080 "XT"- "Pro" / 3070 Info

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,466
"a product manager and PR director for Sapphire spoke to the press in China about AMD's upcoming Radeon graphics cards built around Navi. The rep said AMD's aim is to target two price points initially—$499 for an full-fledged "XT" product and $399 for tamer "Pro" model. If past rumors turn out to be correct, we could be looking at a Radeon RX 3080 XT and a Radeon RX 3080 Pro.

The rep also indicated that Navi will be "stronger than 2070," meaning NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2070 graphics card, presumably in reference to the XT variant. That was not clarified, though given the price points, it makes sense that the XT would compete with the GeForce RTX 2070 while the Pro goes up against the GeForce RTX 2060".

Full article here:
https://hothardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-3080-navi-pricing-performance-leaked
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Yeah because what the world is waiting for is Nvidia prices for Nvidia performance with just a brand change to AMD and keep the Nvidia pricing whomever thought of that must be missing a few chromosomes.

Corporations exist to maximize profits, not to give the world what it waiting for. AMD included.

Look at Launch pricing of RX 480, RX 580, RX 590, Vega 56, Vega 64, Radeon VII. All were essentially NVidia performance levels, with NVidia pricing levels.

Why would anyone expect AMD would suddenly upset the status quo and decimate it's own margins? Other than, Too good to be true rumors.
 

techguymaxc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
139
Corporations exist to maximize profits, not to give the world what it waiting for. AMD included.

Look at Launch pricing of RX 480, RX 580, RX 590, Vega 56, Vega 64, Radeon VII. All were essentially NVidia performance levels, with NVidia pricing levels.

Why would anyone expect AMD would suddenly upset the status quo and decimate it's own margins? Other than, Too good to be true rumors.

Because recent pricing is the exception to the rule. Historically, RTG products have been priced lower than the competition. Also, Vega 56 and 64 were supposed to offer more performance for less money than equivalent Nvidia parts, so I'm not sure they benefit your narrative.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,125
Because recent pricing is the exception to the rule. Historically, RTG products have been priced lower than the competition. Also, Vega 56 and 64 were supposed to offer more performance for less money than equivalent Nvidia parts, so I'm not sure they benefit your narrative.

The only problem is that the Vega products never were available at a price point lower than the comparable Nvidia products until recently. Whether or not that's what AMD intended is another story.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
Corporations exist to maximize profits, not to give the world what it waiting for. AMD included.

Look at Launch pricing of RX 480, RX 580, RX 590, Vega 56, Vega 64, Radeon VII. All were essentially NVidia performance levels, with NVidia pricing levels.

Why would anyone expect AMD would suddenly upset the status quo and decimate it's own margins? Other than, Too good to be true rumors.

You know right that you are contradicting yourself?
If AMD sells to the price performance crowd and that is where they do well.
All of a sudden they will now maximize profits?

If you are right they would abandon their core market and make more money by maximizing profits?
And it took them so long to discover this ?

Your reasoning is so abnormally flawed it is not even funny.
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,277
Because recent pricing is the exception to the rule. Historically, RTG products have been priced lower than the competition. Also, Vega 56 and 64 were supposed to offer more performance for less money than equivalent Nvidia parts, so I'm not sure they benefit your narrative.

Historical doesn't matter. Lisa Su is in charge now and she has never shown interest in price checking Nvidia. She believe AMD's products are just as worthy of a high price tag as Nvidia. The days of 4870 type launches bringing prices tumbling down overnight and nvidia customers demanding partial refunds are over.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
You know right that you are contradicting yourself?
If AMD sells to the price performance crowd and that is where they do well.
All of a sudden they will now maximize profits?

If you are right they would abandon their core market and make more money by maximizing profits?
And it took them so long to discover this ?

Your reasoning is so abnormally flawed it is not even funny.

AMD margins are ~40%, if the sell cards at half the price, they would lose money on each one. But no doubt you think they would make it up on volume. :rolleyes:

Why do you think your brilliant marketing plan keeps being ignored by AMD?

Because recent pricing is the exception to the rule. Historically, RTG products have been priced lower than the competition. Also, Vega 56 and 64 were supposed to offer more performance for less money than equivalent Nvidia parts, so I'm not sure they benefit your narrative.

Not sure what Vega pricing you are referring to. Vega 56 launched at $399 vs 1070 at $350, Vega 64 at $499 vs 1080 at $499. It was only intended to be about equal.

You mean recent pricing, since Lisa Su, current CEO took over?

I would say that is the pricing history that matters, more than pricing strategy under previous CEOs.
 

jeffj7

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
113
crazy prices started with mining. then nvidiia showed that they could keep getting inflated prices. so not so suprising. My only hope is this an intentional leak to see what responce they get and these are not final. wishfull thinking mabey.
 

techguymaxc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
139
Historical doesn't matter. Lisa Su is in charge now and she has never shown interest in price checking Nvidia. She believe AMD's products are just as worthy of a high price tag as Nvidia. The days of 4870 type launches bringing prices tumbling down overnight and nvidia customers demanding partial refunds are over.

AMD margins are ~40%, if the sell cards at half the price, they would lose money on each one. But no doubt you think they would make it up on volume. :rolleyes:

Why do you think your brilliant marketing plan keeps being ignored by AMD?



Not sure what Vega pricing you are referring to. Vega 56 launched at $399 vs 1070 at $350, Vega 64 at $499 vs 1080 at $499. It was only intended to be about equal.

You mean recent pricing, since Lisa Su, current CEO took over?

I would say that is the pricing history that matters, more than pricing strategy under previous CEOs.

We're talking about customer expectations of pricing. RTG products have been priced lower than the competition for a LONG time. People have become accustomed to this. It's going to take awhile for a parity pricing model to supplant the old model, in people's minds.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
We're talking about customer expectations of pricing. RTG products have been priced lower than the competition for a LONG time. People have become accustomed to this. It's going to take awhile for a parity pricing model to supplant the old model, in people's minds.

Is it an actual model, or a few exceptions that people latch onto. When was the last time AMD massively undercut pricing?
 

techguymaxc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
139
Is it an actual model, or a few exceptions that people latch onto. When was the last time AMD massively undercut pricing?

R9 290 launch pricing was drastically below the competition, DESPITE BEING FASTER. Fury X was priced equivocally, but that was clearly a mistake as it didn't sell for crap. AMD of today is trying to sell Radeons for the same price as Nvidia, despite being slower in some games, faster in others, hotter, more power-hungry, and without hardware-accelerated ray tracing or DLSS.

Hard pass. Wake me up when they get back to offering same/slightly more performance for less money, or have an outright performance king.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
R9 290 launch pricing was drastically below the competition, DESPITE BEING FASTER. Fury X was priced equivocally, but that was clearly a mistake as it didn't sell for crap. AMD of today is trying to sell Radeons for the same price as Nvidia, despite being slower in some games, faster in others, hotter, more power-hungry, and without hardware-accelerated ray tracing or DLSS.

Hard pass. Wake me up when they get back to offering same/slightly more performance for less money, or have an outright performance king.
The R9 290X was $549 at launch while the GTX 780 was $499 at the time, and the 290X and 780 were about equal in performance at the former's launch back at the end of 2013.
 

TheFlayedMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
411
Current UK pricing for non-blower AMD cards: Vega 56 Sapphire Pulse £250, Sapphire Nitro+ Vega 64 £350, Powercolor Radeon VII £600

Current UK pricing for non-blower Nivida cards: MSI 2060 Ventus OC £305, MSI 2070 Ventus £432, Zotac 2080 £634

The AMD cards are priced lower due to lower performance perhaps? I'm tempted by the Vega 64
 

techguymaxc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
139
The R9 290X was $549 at launch while the GTX 780 was $499 at the time, and the 290X and 780 were about equal in performance at the former's launch back at the end of 2013.

I'm talking about the R9 290 specifically, not the X model. I bought 5 of them for mining on launch day. $400 each. 108% of the performance for $100 (20%) less. This is the exact type of scenario AMD needs to put themselves in again.

https://www.techspot.com/review/736-amd-radeon-r9-290/page9.html

Also, the $500 GTX 780 price was a REACTION to the R9 290 launch. It was $650 prior to that.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7465...-gtx-780770-price-cuts-gtx-780-ti-launch-date
 

deton8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
435
I don't see how those prices can be real. Who is going to pay the same price for the same performance as the competition had more than a year ago, just to get a red logo instead of green?

Or did I answer my own question...?
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,338
I don't see how those prices can be real. Who is going to pay the same price for the same performance as the competition had more than a year ago, just to get a red logo instead of green?

Or did I answer my own question...?

This would be worst case scenario I was hoping would not happen. (IF) AMD had come out with these products like a month after NV released theirs last year, then there would be real competition.. people who wanted 2070 performance have already... bought a 2070. They're not going to jump to AMD.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
Nothing wrong with price matching at launch. If navi is good it will steal some market share, potentially causing Nvidia to cut prices and start the competition.

If navi does not sell well, AMD will have to cut prices over time until it does.

If we get competitive cards, prices will slowly come down either way. Unfortunately it looks like 2080 and up will stay extremely expensive, probably right into 2020.

Edit: I'm ignoring Radeon VII, not even up to date on its performance or price. Maybe that is against the 2080
 
Last edited:

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,038
Nothing wrong with price matching at launch. If navi is good it will steal some market share, potentially causing Nvidia to cut prices and start the competition.

If navi does not sell well, AMD will have to cut prices over time until it does.

If we get competitive cards, prices will slowly come down either way. Unfortunately it looks like 2080 and up will stay extremely expensive, probably right into 2020.
If nobody buys it prices will drop, and if they don’t customers will go with a lower model or maybe they take up console gaming. It’s not like you need the $500 + parts cards exist from like $30 to $9000 so it’s not like there aren’t parts to meet the need.

Companies exist to make a profit and that has been something AMD has been sorely lacking for like a decade. Lisa Su May not be the CEO we want but she is probably the one AMD needs.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
R9 290 launch pricing was drastically below the competition, DESPITE BEING FASTER. .

That was great for gamers, but the question most fail to ask is: "was it good for AMD?"

Did AMD gain a lot of market share?

Looks like no:
94a2dfe2708f.jpg


If all that happens if AMD makes a drastic pricing move, is that NVidia cuts it's prices to maintain the status quo, exactly how does that benefit AMD? They get the same market share, but just get less money for each card sold.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
You know right that you are contradicting yourself?
If AMD sells to the price performance crowd and that is where they do well.
All of a sudden they will now maximize profits?

If you are right they would abandon their core market and make more money by maximizing profits?
And it took them so long to discover this ?

Your reasoning is so abnormally flawed it is not even funny.

Ummmmm, stop this line of reasoning because now I will have to agree with Snowdog and I do not want to make a habit of that. :D ;) :) Ultimately, we will see what we get when they are announced really soon. Truth is, if the PR person actually released this info accurately, I would imagine that person will be looking for a new job once this information is officially released. (They could not take action until then and even then, I wonder if this was an intentional leak orchestrated by AMD themselves, to test the waters.)
 
Last edited:

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
That was great for gamers, but the question most fail to ask is: "was it good for AMD?"

Did AMD gain a lot of market share?

Looks like no:
View attachment 162500

If all that happens if AMD makes a drastic pricing move, is that NVidia cuts it's prices to maintain the status quo, exactly how does that benefit AMD? They get the same market share, but just get less money for each card sold.

I do not believe Nvidia would drop their prices, regardless.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
Ummmmm, stop this line of reasoning because now I will have to agree with Snowdog and I do not want to make a habit of that. :D ;) :) Ultimately, we will see what we get when they are announced really soon. Truth is, if the PR person actually released this info accurately, I would imagine that person will be looking for a new job once this information is officially released. (They could not take action until then and even then, I wonder if this was an intentionally leak orchestrated by AMD themselves, to test the waters.)

I don't believe that we need to go there. If AMD is selling at overpriced Nvidia prices no one will buy their products. Stuff as Vega or Radeon VII have had good reason for their pricing. When you cut down the cost on materials and do what Nvidia does what is the logic in this whole exorcize?

So can you explain why people that bought AMD for the reason of price performance would all of a sudden now buy AMD when they going to get shafted the same way people buying Nvidia gpu?

There is nothing that people spamming the crap out of these topics that ever explained this.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,246
I guess my question is, if AMD doesn't have lower price/performance than nVidia, and I already have some level of investment in the nVidia ecosystem (G-Sync monitor, etc.)...what reason would I have to buy these new AMD cards?

I think that's what people are getting at when they say these should be faster and/or cheaper.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
I don't believe that we need to go there. If AMD is selling at overpriced Nvidia prices no one will buy their products. Stuff as Vega or Radeon VII have had good reason for their pricing. When you cut down the cost on materials and do what Nvidia does what is the logic in this whole exorcize?

So can you explain why people that bought AMD for the reason of price performance would all of a sudden now buy AMD when they going to get shafted the same way people buying Nvidia gpu?

There is nothing that people spamming the crap out of these topics that ever explained this.

Those price/performance people will not buy Navi yet. There will always be that spike of people that will buy the cards at launch prices even though average consumers won't touch it, so from a business perspective it makes sense to fluff the prices for that first spike of sales. I don't doubt prices will start sinking within a couple months of launch and then sales will pick up. Even the much hated (outside of mining) Vega 56/64 is now suddenly appearing in many a joe schmo gamers PC since price is down. It may be deferred income but it's still income. These companies are still trying to ride the high prices generated by bitcoin and clearly hoping the boom comes back.

I doubt AMD is expecting navi to make much of a dent up or down on the financial reports with the recent Epyc/Ryzen successes anyway..

It is a real shame though, AMD hasn't had a true full and competitive product line since the 200 series now, ~6 years ago.

I'm one of those price to performance people, but I'm completely brand neutral. Those guys are the ones buying 1080s and 1080 Tis now.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I do not believe Nvidia would drop their prices, regardless.

Past history tends to disagree. As in the last example of when AMD undercut them significantly (R9 290) which we were discussing, NVidia did indeed respond with price cuts.

In reality big Price Cuts are kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction. You pretty much force the other side to react, and after they do, you both lose.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
Past history tends to disagree. As in the last example of when AMD undercut them significantly (R9 290) which we were discussing, NVidia did indeed respond with price cuts.

In reality big Price Cuts are kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction. You pretty much force the other side to react, and after they do, you both lose.

Not really if you have a gpu on 300 mm2 and your competition has something on 700 mm2 the one that has the bigger die size is going to be crying for a long while.
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,277
Not really if you have a gpu on 300 mm2 and your competition has something on 700 mm2 the one that has the bigger die size is going to be crying for a long while.

Or you could sell your cheaper to produce card at close to the same price as your competitor's card and make even better margins and both companies are happy. This seems to be AMDs new approach with GPUs. With only two companies in the market, manufactures have the luxury of being able to price fix without officially price fixing. Lisa Su is going to take advantage of it rather than trying to steal market share.

It's no fun for consumers but it makes really good business sense.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
I guess my question is, if AMD doesn't have lower price/performance than nVidia, and I already have some level of investment in the nVidia ecosystem (G-Sync monitor, etc.)...what reason would I have to buy these new AMD cards?

I think that's what people are getting at when they say these should be faster and/or cheaper.

If you already have a G Sync monitor, switching would not be worth it, no matter the price / performance ratio.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,246
If you already have a G Sync monitor, switching would not be worth it, no matter the price / performance ratio.

I don't know about that. I could be tempted to upgrade my monitor as well, given how the price of FreeSync 2 monitors has been dropping lately.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
Past history tends to disagree. As in the last example of when AMD undercut them significantly (R9 290) which we were discussing, NVidia did indeed respond with price cuts.

In reality big Price Cuts are kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction. You pretty much force the other side to react, and after they do, you both lose.

Yes but, this is not the Nvidia of the past, where they now consider they could do whatever they want and damn the customer.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
I don't know about that. I could be tempted to upgrade my monitor as well, given how the price of FreeSync 2 monitors has been dropping lately.

I suppose you could be right but, most are not going to have a crappy, cheap G Sync monitor either. (Chances are, I am guessing you do not, yourself.)
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,246
I suppose you could be right but, most are not going to have a crappy, cheap G Sync monitor either. (Chances are, I am guessing you do not, yourself.)

True, I guess I meant since I am running a 1440p / 27" monitor, I could be tempted to go larger, or 4K, or ultrawide, etc. if it also made a lot of sense to go AMD as a GPU upgrade.
 

Fleat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
973
This more or less aligns with the expectations set directly by AMD in previous announcements. Somehow, that doesn't completely eliminate the disappointment.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,979
I generally want to support AMD as they tend toward openness and better treatment of the customer than their primary competitors. While I've sometimes felt AMD was unfairly maligned for not carrying the overall performance crown yet making a fantastic showing at every other tier and offering much better value (ie Radeon VII is RTX 2080 level for less the price, even though they have nothing to beat the RTX 2080 Ti etc). That said,these announcements are a bit disappointing and I hope AMD can "fix" the issue.

Those talking about "AMD has to charge as much as Nvidia etc" I feel are incorrect for many reasons. First, Nvidia (and Intel when it comes to CPU) often are continuing to jack prices to the moon and AMD shouldn't follow that nonsense. As we've seen with their Ryzen CPUs and the most successful GPUs , AMD is at their best when they can offer great price/performance. They have the opportunity to capture marketshare by offering as they did with Ryzen - high performing hardware for a lesser price than competitors offerings, with some new desirable features and better showing at given tiers. Especially considering that some feel Nvidia is the "de-facto" GPU brand, allowing them to do everything proprietary and jack prices as they wish, AMD can't simply add Nvidia-competitive cards at Nvidia-competitive prices and expect people to switch - they'll just buy Nvidia. This is also true when every pundit and reviewer will be saying (if this reporting is correct) "AMD has created cards equal in performance and price to NV 2060 and 2070...a year later. Woo? ". It won't be enough for them to come late and not have anything to show for it!

If AMD can compete either on price, performance, or both they'd have some winners on their hands but simply doing what the other guy already isn't enough. I hope AMD isn't too wrapped up in the "we need to have premium pricing to show we're as good as the other guy" ideology crap that they miss the chance to call out their biggest competitor for GPUs on multiple fronts from jacking prices hugely, to proprietary more expensive platforms (ie GSync) and more.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
I seem to recall several distinct periods of time where AMD cards sold significantly over MSRP and were rarely in stock.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
usually when there was a mining boom

From AMDs perspective does it matter much? A sale is a sale.

I mean, for all the people here who seem to be arguing that AMD has to sell at a lower price point to even have a chance at being competitive - this is one example where that just isn’t true.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,125
From AMDs perspective does it matter much? A sale is a sale.

I mean, for all the people here who seem to be arguing that AMD has to sell at a lower price point to even have a chance at being competitive - this is one example where that just isn’t true.

I don't think AMD really reaped the benefit of gouged pricing as they are selling at a predefined cost to their partners. The only thing they did was sell more chips. They control the cost to their partners and what their partners charge retailers or what retailers charge end users isn't directly determined by AMD.
 
Top