Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by nEo717, Jun 26, 2019.
They need it done to the 2080ti as well. That would be much more interesting, IMO.
AMD has nothing that competes with the 2080Ti.
So? Not sure your point. Lower the price of the current unit and put it at that price point. If the numbers are good, then it might be worth it.
The Point is that 2060/2070 Super are an unusual refresh, and a direct response to AMD 5700/5700XT launch.
No such conditions exist to force an unusual refresh on 2080Ti.
This picture tells us otherwise :
It is a refresh to gain more revenue the thing is Nvidia was not selling enough units to make the very large number you see in the previous quarters .....
Not this BS again...Adorked is bad.
You willfully ignore the crypto-bubble...or did you just forget about it?
Nearly everyone except you and Adored TV (that you keep pimping) realize the "Super" refresh is all about messing with the Navi launch.
It will become even more blatant when the Navi NDA expires, and reviewers are completely free to speak on all the details.
I expect almost every review will comment on how NVidia did it to mess with Navi launch, and how successful they think it was or wasn't.
Just look at AMDs Navi marketing so far, they released performance slides directly comparing 5700Xt to 2070, and 5700 to 2060, and both those cards get a never before seen "Super" upgrade, and get released to reviewers with NDA dropping less than a week before AMDs. It looks like those slides showing an AMD lead will now be turned into a NVidia lead.
No one coincidentally flukes into exactly the perfect response. This was well planned, and so far looks well executed targeting of the Navi release.
Numbers don't lie
Numbers from Nvidia are clear they are not making enough money.
But you want to do some more cheer leading. You can try it and ignore it but it does not change the fact that Nvidia wants to sell cards and what they are doing now is anything but responding to Navi. Navi is not a market disruptive card it is just something that AMD says is a replacement for Vega and by definition that is not what people are looking for slightly faster then Vega slightly cheaper as Vega and that is not a mass market card.
You can even see that the RTX 2070 super is a card which comes close to RTX 2080 which in itself is a weird proposition why sell RTX 2080 performance for $499 the performance is closer to Radeon VII not to Navi. 1 card that is in Navi range that is it.
And then it comes back to Nvidia not selling enough cards which is reflected in the numbers displayed by neutral source beside the excellent AdoredTV .
I would like to see GPU's still moving forward. I understand that AMD has nothing, but Nvidia could still move forward.
It hasn't even been a year, since Turing launch. GPU cycles tend to be about 2 years in recent times.
Then 1 year left and time is ticking.
Here are some more numbers for those that NEED to pretend there was no crypto bubble in order to push their narrative:
And more numbers in this post:
Remember now...numbers don't lie
Here is the Navi vs RTX cards value per spec :
- price = equal (normal Nvidia are cheaper and Super are a little more expensive)
- gaming performance without Raytrace = advantage Nvidia Super
- Raytrace = only Nvidia does it is does well, but you can get an old Pascal and it will do but slower. AMD doesn't(.
- VRS = all Turing. Nothing on AMD.
- compute = huge advantage for Nvidia. Older AMD cards would have stand but Navi is a huge step backward, 5700XT is ridiculously beaten by any Vega card, Vega 56, 64 and Radeon VII are far superior. But Nvidia RTX is at their level.
- TDP = AMD is now close to Nvidia but needs 7nm to do so.
- Process used = 7nm for AMD, 12nm for Nvidia, but Nvidia makes much better with much older technology, means AMD is very far from Nvidia knowledge on graphic cards.
- Packaging : AMD has a great packaging and this is new on Navi. AMD used to have boring packaging and boring look. Now this is the only positive change on navi. There is no other brand with such a great packaging for their graphic cards
Gonna have to stop you there regarding compute, as much as Nvidia fan, Nvidia never really have the pure compute advantage that AMD has. RX 5700XT has a Single Precision Computer of 9.75 TFlops vs RTX 2070S of 9.1 TFlops while RX 5700 has 7.95 TFlop vs RTX 2060S of 8 TFlop (that is essentially the same for me) and looking at Vega 64, it has a compute of 13.4 TFlops vs RTX 2080 of 10.1 TFlops. If I was just looking for a pure compute card for my work, I will consider AMD over Nvidia as that is the cheaper option.
1) I don't think anyone is arguing that there wasn't a crypto-bubble. The question is really whether nVidia is maximizing profit at the current pricing structure, or if the current high prices are depressing sales to the detriment of nVidia. The crypto bubble you bring up is important context when analyzing falling revenue at nVidia/AMD. However, nVidia's RTX pricing may still have been suboptimal for the company's bottom line. Perhaps revenue wouldn't have dropped as much if RTX had been priced lowers. OR, maybe revenue would've dropped even more.
2) I don't really think your data really shows anything interesting - for example, market share% doesn't mean much in the context of this discussion, since we'd be more interested in total revenue/unit sales/profit. After all, nVidia would be better off with less market share but higher overall profit.
The question of whether RTX sold poorly because of the crypto bubble burst or because of its pricing/performance is a hard one to answer. Is there data available on unit sales?
In the absence of any crypto-bubble, in a healthy, growing company, you would still expect revenue to rise over time. Flat revenue is a bad thing. Though, we probably need more numbers dating several more years back
The PC market is not a rising market though.
Shareholders invest because they expect growth, and Nvidia identifies other markets into which it can expand. Nvidia is a data processing company. They are expanding into all kinds markets that may involve big data analysis and data visualization, including automotives, servers, in addition to pc gaming. Plus, in an inflationary economy, flatlining revenue IS losing money.
EDIT: I forgot the data is specific to gaming, so the above is sort of useless, but I'll keep it up anyways. I would say it's still very worrying to have flat or decreased revenue given that 1) gpu prices have gone way up, which suggests that unit sales are way down. 2) Nvidia's market share has increased, which makes 1) even more worrying. 3) you can't lose revenue in an inflationary economy
Unit sales are down. The numbers everyone keeps comparing against are the Crypto inflated ones.
You really can't expect a company to maintain bubble inflated numbers, when the bubble bursts.
No doubt some of the drop is because RTX cards were more expensive, but most who keep gleefully pointing out the revenue loss, utterly ignore the massive impact of the crypto bubble bursting.
You just told me revenue is right in line with pre-crypto sales. That would suggest that unit sales are down even in the absence of crypto. Plus, even if crypto has burst, it is still a market that contributes to sales compared to pre-crypto days.
Also, people are gleeful to see revenue drop because that means that Nvidia may actually have to drop prices to match reduced demand. Why would any of us not be happy to see Nvidia revenue drop? An incredibly short refresh cycle to drop pricing is hopefully just the beginning
Ignore the blowout 2019 crypto inflated numbers, and then the revenue numbers are actually up sequentially.
"Comparing Q1 2018 to Q1 2020 has 2020 up 14.6% on revenue"
But the mix is different, and I did acknowledge that "No doubt some of the drop is because RTX cards were more expensive"
The point is, it's impossible to predict the exact impact of Crypto vs RTX but I think it is reasonable expectation that most of it was the Crypto bubble busting.
It certainly isn't reasonable to place all the blame on RTX cards as is so often done here.
This is all ancillary to NVIDIA at this point. AI in the enterprise is where nvidia is banking. Rightfully so. They are going to be making great $$ in the next 1-5 yrs.
The Crypto bubble affects sells of Turing and even AMD due to the bulk of older generation cards that were and are sold now. Seeing Nvidia overall depressed sells I do not see as unexpected. Of course pricing and performance/$ with turning was not stellar, almost bad I would say. A perfect storm.
As for AMD, come on, for a gamer the Radeon Vii looks like a joke now for price and performance, for other stuff it can be a good deal but for gamers the 2070 Supra pretty much matches and beats it at times and the FE version is going for $499 shipped to your door with less power, less noise more modern features.
Navi, unless AMD held back performance or can show a game or two taking advantage of the new design (also proving it is not hard to do that) really looks like the one that is overpriced. Which would also mean it would have to outperform the Radeon Vii. Really Navi is looking pretty much to be killed at the door with the current pricing. As far as I am concern AMD should reconsider pricing before launch, give something to their fans and not a higher price card which they will have to reduce the price in the near future to move them sufficiently. These are the highest prices I can see AMD can strive for for Navi:
5700 XT Aniversary - $449
5700 XT - $399
since the 2060 Super is slightly slower than the original 2070 which AMD was comparing it to and underselling that better performance by $50, now Nvidia has something close to that performance at $399
$449 is a ridicules price against the competition
At $399 it should have more performance above the 2060 Super than a 2070 but at the same price point, with Nvidia brand recognition plus having less features that would need exceptional marketing from AMD
I actually think even that price is too high, $379 would be a good deal and less a killer deal, just my 2 cents
5700 - $329
It should handily beat the 2060, more ram and would sell like hot cakes at this price point, just keep it slightly lower than the 2060 and AMD should do well here
$599 - It has some rather potent non gaming features to warrant the $100 price above a 2070 Super but for those just wanting a gaming card the 2070 Super is the better buy even with a reduced price Vii.
That all being said, the lower enthusiasm for PC gaming due to inflated new video card prices will affect the whole industry. If gamers are point blank turned off, there will be less CPU sells, motherboard sells, ram and the list goes on and on. The #1 reason for building the higher end computers in mass is the superior gaming you can get out of it. Most other things don't need anything close to the high end builds, the professional market is tiny compared to the gaming market. Of course the Data Centers and the upcoming Streaming Game centers will be huge. For the PC market AMD and Nvidia better think a little bit better towards the future. AMD wants to sell their higher price, higher end CPU's better give the PC builders reasons to buy them. Same with Nvidia, if they want future high volume sells then they better entice, captivate the current and future generation of PC gamers. Both companies are kinda cutting their own throats, AMD Navi pricing seems to be ridicules, Turing is really not that much better.
I kepp hearing "PC gaming in on the DECLINE"...but when you look at the numbers...that doesn't match with reality:
The next quarterly report should be the interesting one. With Nvidia presumably sold out of their Pascal inventory, much of it dried up in from retailers, if Nvidia's gaming sector sees growth from last quarter then its a sign that the new cards are selling at least decently well. If its down or relatively flat, that would be a pretty bad sign.
Sad part is that the Adorked crowd will pretend it never happend and find a new false Adorked video to spam...facts are irrelevant...cherrypicking is key...and NEVER look back!
And you think the Super refresh coming at just 5 days prior to Navi release is "anything but responding to Navi."?
You might think that but Nvidia outsells AMD normally there is no need for such strategy for Nvidia to outsell AMD. AMD countered by lowering the price of Navi.
Just a quick google, but this shows the top 5 PC games by player base RIGHT now, are all 5+ years old. https://www.ranker.com/list/most-popular-pc-games-today/ranker-games
Try getting a game in Black Ops 4 on PC, then try on Xbox/PS4. PC has either horrible matchmaking, or zero playerbase. I feel like when I logon I'm playing with the same 100 - 200 ppl every night, when they sold MILLIONS of copies.
Where are these growing sales coming from anyways? What game(s) is driving it?
Just from what I play, I feel like the player base has eroded substantially. Another example, and maybe it's my age, but NONE of my friends play on PC anymore. And we all used to upgrade our PC's constantly, 10-15 years ago. Now they won't even think about it - $1200 for a video card or $400 for a console? Choice is easy now that they all have kids and mortgages.
Money still going up for PC gaming.
But I think 2018 was a shite year for gaming...to many games just not worth anything...only game I have my hopes up for right now is CyberPunk 2077.
But I have been having fun in Cold Waters (submarine sim)...I don't like FPS like BFV (to arcadish) I prefer ARMA3 (Mil-sim) being a veteran.
But a lot of online games (eg like Eve- Online) are still present...PC gaming is different from consoles
What’s a legitimately good upgrade from a 1070 Ti (not overclocked)? 5760x1200 60hz?
I assuming if you game in the resolution, a 2070S, 2080 Ti, Radeon 7, maybe 5700 XT (waiting for review) and 2080S whenever that comes out.
The graph is for South Africa, world wide would be interesting. China would probably have the most growth but not on state of the art high end machines. The anemic current generation sells so far are not good indicators, if that trend continues gaming will probably shift even more to consoles and subsequently online streaming. For many not needing to even have to build a computer or hookup a console but yet have instant access to thousands of games will be rather enticing. Once that catches hold, the ease, the cheaper cost, the introduction to younger generations which will have zero experience in actually building a rig to game on will take hold. There will always be hard core PC enthusiasts that will want the best gaming experience possible, best reasonable rigs but that is most likely not a majority. Where as before one did not have as much choice but to build a PC or buy a console - soon it will also just be another choice on a TV to make what you do without all the overhead for a PC or even a console.
Numbers to back up your claim?
People are really buying hardcore into this false promise of game streaming being some kind of magical thing that will take over gaming instantly. Get back to me in a decade and only IF ISPs have gotten around to unfucking things in the US (which is THE largest market for AAA games).
They also need to bend the laws of physics (the speed of light)
Streaming games is not a "threat" to PC gaming...but I do see it killing of consoles.
Call of Duty on PC has been dead after CoD 4... when the original devs left and it became a shitty console port series. Even the CoD 4 remaster was left with console parameters in code so it runs shitty on PC.
MORDHAU for example just sold quickly over a million copies and was in the top 5 for a while there.
No, it doesn't. That's a poll not an actual representation of active players in PC games.
For an indication of PC activity you can check out Steam stats. Of course it only captures people playing through Steam but you get the idea.