Radeon 6000 series: Disappointing Pricing??

How do you feel about AMD 6000 series announced Launch prices?

  • Too high!

    Votes: 35 12.8%
  • Just right!

    Votes: 158 57.7%
  • They came in cheaper than I expected!

    Votes: 49 17.9%
  • Mixed feelings/Confused.

    Votes: 32 11.7%

  • Total voters
    274

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,254
You know no one is stopping you from just paying more and getting less performance. Also what did AMD blatantly lie about?

Fury X performance, dual RX480s being better and cheaper than a GTX 1080. Both of which [H] called them out on. Just two that come to mind.

After AMD screwed people on the Fury X (performance claims, ignoring pump issues/deleting customer’s posts) I only loosely follow them tbh. Mainly look at independent reviews.

Given a lot of that was Raja era so I could be over reacting. I just find it strange they are doing extensive testing... why not just let the reviewers publish their testing...
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
392
Given a lot of that was Raja era so I could be over reacting. I just find it strange they are doing extensive testing... why not just let the reviewers publish their testing...
Isn't standard for reviewer to receive a extensive benchmark list, so they can check if there is an issue when doing their reviews if a result is different.

A bit of protection for AMD/Nvidia in case either a bad card or a bad system in the field give a bad benchmark to them in the first reviews out there.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
51,067
I just find it strange they are doing extensive testing... why not just let the reviewers publish their testing...
Why not? Sounds like a great idea to me. Pull in control of that from reviewers that may or may not have any idea of what they are doing. As long as the testing is on the up and up, more power to AMD on this.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,207
I'm torn.

Having done this for a while, I remember a time when the fastest CPU and GPU money could buy both cost about $350.

Things were progressing faster then, and you had to upgrade more often than today, but still.

This also neglects inflation, and the fact that these devices are more complex, and more costly to manufacture today than they were then. I don't have any data from industry, but I'd go out on a limb and say I feel pretty certain gross profit margins from GPU's and CPU's today are way larger than they were when I got a GeForce 3 TI 500 for ~$350 or an Athlon XP 1800+ for ~$350.

AMD's pricing is better than NVidia's and Intel's. I still think pricing in the industry is out of whack.

But... That's what you get with limited competition. Having two competitors is better than having none, but for a truly competitive market you really need 3 or 4 players or more.

All in all, while I think the market as a whole is overpriced, it is what it is, and I still want AMD to be able to earn enough money to stay competitive in the next generations, because if they can't, things will only get worse.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,207
Why not? Sounds like a great idea to me. Pull in control of that from reviewers that may or may not have any idea of what they are doing. As long as the testing is on the up and up, more power to AMD on this.

As long as they are fair numbers, I don't have a problem with it.

This hasn't always been the case in the past though, with all major manufacturers on occasion using misleading numbers to try to get an edge at the consumers expense.

That's why the industry needed folks like you to hold their feet to the fire.

it's a very different market today though, with way too many clowns on youtube thinking of themselves as expert hardware reviewers, but really not having a clue what they are doing, and being little more than shitty "influencers".

Time will tell if the numbers are accurate. I hope they are. I'd like to believe AMD are the good guys and are being transparent. I've been burnt before though.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
51,067
Time will tell if the numbers are accurate. I hope they are. I'd like to believe AMD are the good guys and are being transparent. I've been burnt before though.
I would suggest to you those numbers are very much real. I did some asking around since Friday and finally got an answer this morning. Those benchmarks do NOT have "Rage Mode" turned on, so another few frames to be put onto those.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,071
I would suggest to you those numbers are very much real. I did some asking around since Friday and finally got an answer this morning. Those benchmarks do NOT have "Rage Mode" turned on, so another few frames to be put onto those.

This is very good to hear. :) I am not looking to upgrade yet but, when I am, things will be worth it, even from my RX5700.
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
392
I remember a time when the fastest CPU and GPU money could buy both cost about $350.

This were progressing faster then, and you had to upgrade more often than today, but still.
And many remember a time when it was quite expensive

Say 1996 without going pentium pro:
https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-releases-new-prices-on-pentiums/
Highlights include reductions of 20 percent to 25 percent on the most popular Pentium processors, including the 120-, 133-, and 166-MHz versions.
For example, the 166-MHz Pentium is dropping from its $630 price level in January--the last major adjustment--to just under $500. Analysts said this will spur further PC price cuts.


If you went for the pentium pro 200 MHZ it was $1,200

In 2020 dollar, in early 96 a pentium 166 mhz was just over $1000 and the pentium pro was just below $2000

If we go in 2000, the pentium 1.5 ghz was $645 or $975 today.

I think some of the things that changed:
1) Like you said generation time, yes a geforce 3 TI was cheaper than a 1080/1080ti, but 4 year's later it was completely over for it while a 1080p is still an incredible capable card, the amount of R&D that went into them was way smaller and the number of transistor as well.
2) Company process got better, back in some days you could buy a good week 1700+ and turn it into something more performing than the biggest chips sold by the company (3200+) or p4 2.4 into something faster than the ultra expensive P4 3.0C for incredible value, not only core is a big differentiator and cannot be OC, but auto OC and pushing things to limits, we do not see those anymore, people that were actually buying the top of the line stuff were paying a lot back then (look at the P4 2.0ghz in 2001 when it would have been the fastest CPU with that 350TI, it was around $850 in today dollar)
3) Professional hardware did bleed a bit in our day to day, I imagine that back then a scsi system with much needed RAIDS would have cost so much that we just didn't even try to make the fastest PC just to play games.

One way to look at 2001, Geforce 350 Ti/athlon 1800+ era and pricing versus today

The Xbox in 2001 has a celeron 733 with a custom Geforce 3

How much do you need to be about has powerful hsa the new XBOX is maybe the good equivalent to the Geforce 3 TI of back then ? and if so that could be around the $500 AMD 6700xt or maybe less than that and if so that would be a very similar price, that kind of ridiculous and more powerful than that 250+ watts options exist does not mean that the Geforce 3 Ti 500 equivalent cost more today, but a mix that the market of very rich PC gamers is way bigger now than back then and that about everything else in the PC got much cheaper (and reusable from build to build) over time as well.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,760
Fury X performance, dual RX480s being better and cheaper than a GTX 1080. Both of which [H] called them out on. Just two that come to mind.

After AMD screwed people on the Fury X (performance claims, ignoring pump issues/deleting customer’s posts) I only loosely follow them tbh. Mainly look at independent reviews.

Given a lot of that was Raja era so I could be over reacting. I just find it strange they are doing extensive testing... why not just let the reviewers publish their testing...

I dont really recall a issue with Fury X other then the video card memory it had. Also both companies have pointed to SLI or Crossfire being better when reality it almost never is other then a few niche cases and luckily is pretty much dead now. I pretty much going by their current record of being pretty transparent on the performance you can expect from the hardware but I always hold out to see what reviews end up saying as well.

As for Raja, he loved to boast and luckily we dont have to contend with that now for AMD. But I also see nothing wrong with them posting their data for people to see as well.
 

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,549
I personally think the 6900xt is overpriced. Literally the same specs as 6800xt except an extra 8 CU translating to an extra 10% for an additional $350. Why the hell is there a 12CU difference between 6800 and 6800XT yet only an $80 difference. Going by the same math then the 6900xt shouldn't cost more than $700 lol. $350 more for 10% more CU's is pathetic.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,760
I personally think the 6900xt is overpriced. Literally the same specs as 6800xt except an extra 8 CU translating to an extra 10% for an additional $350. Why the hell is there a 12CU difference between 6800 and 6800XT yet only an $80 difference. Going by the same math then the 6900xt shouldn't cost more than $700 lol. $350 more for 10% more CU's is pathetic.

You could ask Nvidia that same question on their cards as well, however keep in mind the 6900XT requires perfect dies and I doubt they get a ton of them on each wafer.
 

mysterfix

n00b
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
13
The 6900 XT is also just a starting offer of sorts. A competitively priced 12GB 3080 Ti will invariably trigger a price cut to the 6900XT, so in that sense people have a lot of incentive to wait.
There's no room for a 3080Ti. 3090 is only about 10% faster than 3080 in most games. How many morons are going to go out and buy 3080Ti at 5% performance uplift just to get double the ram?????
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,108
Sounds like you already have your mind made up.

He hasn't been exactly hiding that he strongly prefers Nvidia. He said as much either earlier in this thread or another thread.

There's nothing wrong with that I guess.
 

mysterfix

n00b
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
13
I personally think the 6900xt is overpriced. Literally the same specs as 6800xt except an extra 8 CU translating to an extra 10% for an additional $350. Why the hell is there a 12CU difference between 6800 and 6800XT yet only an $80 difference. Going by the same math then the 6900xt shouldn't cost more than $700 lol. $350 more for 10% more CU's is pathetic.
Yet it's ok for Nvidia to gouge you with the ridiculous $1500 RTX 3090? Why because it has more CU but only 10% performance over RTX 3080. No one should be buying these ripoff items form either company. Consumers have the ultimate power, if we don't buy the prices come down.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,108
There's no room for a 3080Ti. 3090 is only about 10% faster than 3080 in most games. How many morons are going to go out and buy 3080Ti at 5% performance uplift just to get double the ram?????

It's not like Nvidia hasn't done this before with just about every version of the "Titan" or "Titan-class" card to date. The 3080Ti will have less memory, but perform almost the same as the flagship "Titan-class" card for less money.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,108
You could ask Nvidia that same question on their cards as well, however keep in mind the 6900XT requires perfect dies and I doubt they get a ton of them on each wafer.

Exactly. The fact that we are getting a secondary card with "only" 8CU's disabled probably means that the yields are better than we think though.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,493
Irrelevant since we’re not using peformance numbers from nVidia on the 3xxx series. AMD should release the indepenent reviewers.

I am not debating which company is ethically better than the other - they are both terrible - but based on historical deltas between AMD and reality the real reviews would have the 6800 on par with the 3070.

It’s unforunate the [H] reviews are all gone.. they used to call out AMD on their nonsense all the time.

You're digging deep.

The most recent releases the marketing slides lined up exactly with reviews (5700xt beating the 2070, 5600xt beating the 1660 super)
 

mysterfix

n00b
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
13
It's not like Nvidia hasn't done this before with just about every version of the "Titan" or "Titan-class" card to date. The 3080Ti will have less memory, but perform almost the same as the flagship "Titan-class" card for less money.
I guess I'm a little annoyed by the idiocy of the whole thing which is why I always ignore those launches and press releases. You are correct though.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
48
I personally think the 6900xt is overpriced. Literally the same specs as 6800xt except an extra 8 CU translating to an extra 10% for an additional $350. Why the hell is there a 12CU difference between 6800 and 6800XT yet only an $80 difference. Going by the same math then the 6900xt shouldn't cost more than $700 lol. $350 more for 10% more CU's is pathetic.
I agree. That said, Nvidia is most recently the one who started doing this and making this a trend, far more egregiously than AMD.

That said, I don't think AMD should get a pass just because Nvidia's is even worse. It's a bad trend.
 

Marstg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
201
The price of 6800 should equal that of 3070, otherwise for 6800xt and 6900 the price is competitive with the performance.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,475
I haven't been this excited to buy a GPU since the 980 ti.

I haven't been this excited to buy a CPU in over a decade!

way to go AMD*.

*independent reviews pending.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,427
The price of 6800 should equal that of 3070, otherwise for 6800xt and 6900 the price is competitive with the performance.
Why? How much extra $ would you spend on a 3070 with double the VRAM? Another $50-$100? That puts it directly in the price of the 6800... except not only does it have 2x the VRAM, it's faster as well and draws less power... why on earth would AMD need to lower it's price to the 3070? I get people are cheap, but maybe it's nvidia who should have had lower prices to begin with? I think > 2080ti performance for < $600 is still a pretty good deal. I wouldn't doubt a 6700xt or similar will come out that will be similar speed as 3070 for same or slightly lower price, but your getting 10% performance for 10% more cost PLUS double the VRAM, I'm not sure how that's a bad deal comparatively speaking.
 

shinotenshi

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
71
There's no room for a 3080Ti. 3090 is only about 10% faster than 3080 in most games. How many morons are going to go out and buy 3080Ti at 5% performance uplift just to get double the ram?????
I'm going to guess that these Ti models will be made on TSMC 7nm process. I also wouldn't put it past Nvidia to release a 7nm version of the 3900 and call it a titan. lol
 
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
805
There's no room for a 3080Ti. 3090 is only about 10% faster than 3080 in most games. How many morons are going to go out and buy 3080Ti at 5% performance uplift just to get double the ram?????

If its priced lower than the 6900 XT and is somewhat faster than 6800 XT I think some people will simply because of Nvidia mind share.
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,181
I think the results of the poll can best be summarized thusly:
tpir.jpg
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,640
If its priced lower than the 6900 XT and is somewhat faster than 6800 XT I think some people will simply because of Nvidia mind share.
You also have the pricing problem. Figure current 3080's basically go for $750 - $800 on average. This means these cards (Ti's) are going to have to go for at best case $879 if not $900. Will people still go for it? Sure. But it's no slam dunk when you have a much higher performing card for only $100 more and a card that's close enough at $200 + cheaper especially with the ethos of 10GB being enough. Unless of course it isn't.
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
392
There's no room for a 3080Ti. 3090 is only about 10% faster than 3080 in most games. How many morons are going to go out and buy 3080Ti at 5% performance uplift just to get double the ram?????
Couldn't they make a 3080TI that perform even faster in game than a 3090 without being much of an issue ? But with 16 gig instead of 24 gig and less tensor core so not has interesting for some pro workload. They could pivot and stop the 3090 gaming marketing all together to make it more into an cheaper Titan once the new "quadro" A6000 with 48 gig are out and a higher FPS cheaper 3080TI is out, it could be priced at $999 if the 6900xt stay there.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,640
Couldn't they make a 3080TI that perform even faster in game than a 3090 without being much of an issue ? But with 16 gig instead of 24 gig and less tensor core so not has interesting for some pro workload. They could pivot and stop the 3090 gaming marketing all together to make it more into an cheaper Titan once the new "quadro" A6000 with 48 gig are out and a higher FPS cheaper 3080TI is out, it could be priced at $999 if the 6900xt stay there.
People who bought a 3090 would riot because in reality they paid Titan prices for Ti performance.
 

Astral Abyss

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,830
People who bought a 3090 would riot because in reality they paid Titan prices for Ti performance.
I didn't riot when they came out with the 1080Ti after I had bought a Titan X Pascal, not even after they came out with the Titan Xp to retake the crown. I just stuck a watercooler on my card and overclocked the shit out of it.
 

Hakaba

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
843
I believe it just did and the prices are less than Nvidia's.



New cases and PSU's cause of nvidia's much higher power draw. Won't have to do that either due to AMD's lower power draw.
When I say eclipse I don't mean trade blows as mentioned by the guy below. I mean when AMD pulls an Intel on Nvidia. When that happens their prices will go above and beyond their competition (like the CPUs are now). Crazy thing is, they have not included air coolers on all of their SKUs, so shouldn't the prices be cheaper? (Basic argument against Intel.)

I get it, some people have not been in this hobby when AMD charged $1K+ for their CPU and Intel was playing the value game. But when AMD doesn't have to compete on value they will charge what their products are worth (look at the steady increases on the CPU/GPU line).

I'll put it this way. It is awesome AMD is bringing the heat on Nvidia in the GPU market. Furthermore, instead of an AMD release sometime in 2021/2022, it is coming out next month. Which... Jesus, it has been a while since I've seen a release from both companies that are this close.
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
392
People who bought a 3090 would riot because in reality they paid Titan prices for Ti performance.
A Titan is still $2,500 USD now on Nvidia.com, but in general the extremely small number of people that buy Titan type card for gaming end up always paying Titan Price for TI performance no ?

If we look at the Titan RTX ($2500) vs 2080 TI ($1200) it is practically the same:

Or Titan X vs 1080TI (the 1080TI was even faster):

I would assume the same will happen again here and I imagine people that overpaid for cards not made for gaming to game with were again be angry about it, but they knew it was not making much sense at the moment, they willing in this and a very small amount of person that know that it will happen but want to have the biggest card for 6 months/fear of not being future proof/etc....

Maybe this time the 3090 not having Titan attached nor special driver will make it sting more, but there is a large pricing gap that NVIDIA will fill and I am not sure they can afford for not piss of niche buyer type of reason to not be above a 6800xt with the 3800Ti, (if they can do it obviously).

With how large the price gap is between a 3080 and a 3090 and how small the performance is, I would fully expect to have like for the 2 previous generation a cheaper card than the 3090 that perform equally or better in game for cheaper but not as strong in professional workload, it would fully make sense, you pay so much for 24 gig of GDDR6X and use only 4-12 gig of it when you game, there is clearly a not too hard to make better fps/price to be made with just less memory for the price cut.

NVidia could afford to not make it for a year for respecting early buyer and product line and sell more 3090 than they would, etc... if AMD does not force them, but they seem to be clearly pushing them.
 
Last edited:

travm

Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
682
Only financially cheap people think AMD pricing is too much.
If it was $50 cheaper then....that type of nonsense.
Prices per tier in the midrange basically doubled. The whole market is crazy. I just think all the pricing is crazy
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,877
Irrelevant since we’re not using peformance numbers from nVidia on the 3xxx series. AMD should release the indepenent reviewers.

I am not debating which company is ethically better than the other - they are both terrible - but based on historical deltas between AMD and reality the real reviews would have the 6800 on par with the 3070.

It’s unforunate the [H] reviews are all gone.. they used to call out AMD on their nonsense all the time.
You talk about AMD lying in the past and when Nvidia gets called on their shenans it's irrelevant? Lmao, this is delusional thinking.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,254
You talk about AMD lying in the past and when Nvidia gets called on their shenans it's irrelevant? Lmao, this is delusional thinking.

Yes, because like I said, we have third party results. I was questioning the veracity of AMD’s numbers and nVidia has zero to do with that.

Kyle later said AMD is being straight with us so that’s good.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,877
Yes, because like I said, we have third party results. I was questioning the veracity of AMD’s numbers and nVidia has zero to do with that.

Kyle later said AMD is being straight with us so that’s good.

No you were making a statement about AMD lying and got upset when someone mentioned Nvidia lying about 970s not being able to use 4 gigs of memory
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,254
No you were making a statement about AMD lying and got upset when someone mentioned Nvidia lying about 970s not being able to use 4 gigs of memory
Please show me where I got upset or denied any wrong doing by nVidia.

I just thought it was strange everyone switched from “wait for reviews” to “take my money” on this particular launch without any outside data
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
838
Prices per tier in the midrange basically doubled. The whole market is crazy. I just think all the pricing is crazy
I don't see where prices have double so what do you consider proper pricing for them? What are you defining as midrange.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,696
Please show me where I got upset or denied any wrong doing by nVidia.

I just thought it was strange everyone switched from “wait for reviews” to “take my money” on this particular launch without any outside data
Wait for reviews to substantiate performance, drivers, features working. Before cards are sold there should be plenty of reviews. No one must buy before reviews are out anyways.

If one trust AMD then maybe they can pre-order if that becomes available. One size does not fit all on what people do.

Right now it looks like Nvidia has the over priced cards to me.
 
Top