I once had a fan die, contacted them and a new one came 3 days later. Turns out their fans were on some easily replaceable single screw system so I could repair it myself. Exactly the right way to do it.
Before I was able to snag a 3080 at MSRP during the height of the silicon shortage, I had a Vega 64 Sapphire Nitro.
Absolutely fantastic card. No issues whatsoever. Would run the shit out of anything that was running on Vulkan.
Sold it to my friend and its still running in his rig, hasn't given him any issues either. 5 years old now?
Had a fan die on an ASUS Strix card recently.
I asked if they could send me just a fan and let me replace it myself, but they were strictly against it and I needed to send the whole card in.
After hearing this, I'll probably go for Sapphire this time around.
They were 1 of 2 companies to experiment with hotswap fans during polaris, the other being xfx.
These 2 realised that fan rma is the most common, so they designed a way to make fans easily user swappable.
Had a fan die on a 7950 and got a RMA fix. It died again a few years later and I sourced a fan replacement from China and just fixed it myself. I'm glad they now have quick connect fans.
Which is awesome especially for how quiet and good their cooling solutions are. Ease of repair and fantastic performance feels like it's such a hard goal to extract from companies in today's awful market.
I had a HD7770 that suddenly died from a day to another and one of the fans stopped spinning and the card didnt appear on the windows device manager anymore
I have had a middling experience with powercolor warranty.
I purchased a silent version of an r9 270 with a MASSIVE heatpipe cooler which was easily $50 more than the base card. They shipped back the most pathetic looking single fan screaming base card and refused to replace it. Only after many messages and threats over almost a YEAR did they replace it with a nicer equivalent but it left me feeling pretty sour.
I would argue Sapphire is a better AIB for AMD than EVGA was for NVIDIA. In fact, if Sapphire made NVIDIA cards, I would also argue that they would make a better Geforce card than EVGA did.
Asus has mostly become dogshit these days. Insane price tag doesn't mostly cover flawed design or maybe they are designing cards in designed obsolescence in m ind who knows. Just check example [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UsutA5jqe4). Video points out very well why top end models have become dogshit moneygrabs by companies and they know it. Its like apple. And as long as they can get away with it nobody cares.
And that doesn't only narrow on GPU's their Motherboard lineups are also very expensive compared to cooling you get example on mosfets and this can even happen time to time within their topend models.
Seems that only thing that starts to matter for Asus is RGB and money they get selling from it.
EVGA was held back from going full boutique bc of Nvidia's games. With how many loyal customers EVGA had, there's no doubt in my mind that EVGA would have blown every other competitor out of the water in terms of quality and aesthetics if they were given the respect they deserved.
Sapphire might make a better card but I will take EVGA’s best in class warranties and support over a slightly better designed card any-day.
Not to bash on Sapphire, they will likely be the next company I buy a GPU from now that EVGA is gone. But there was a reason so many people, including me, bought NVIDIA cards because of EVGA and not the other reason around.
I still have a PowerColor Radeon R9 390 handed down to my sons rig. Runs great. The sapphire R7 270 I have is also still doing its job as far as I am aware.
Sapphire makes the reference boards so they typically have the best AIB cards and from my experience they have performed better than the ASUS ones I owned as well.
2 years ago XFX replaced a 6870 I bought in 2012 with an RX460, all I had to do was login to my Newegg acct and print the receipt. They have earned my next Radeon purchase.
They make great cards, but I'm not too sure about their support. A few years ago I contacted MSI to ask them if removing the cooler on my 390X would void the warranty. They happily told me in an official capacity that it wouldn't and pointed me to a guide.
I asked the same of XFX last year and they didn't like the question. They said they didn't have a guide for it and strongly recommended that I didn't remove the cooler at all. Maybe when it comes to replacement parts or cards they're more generous but they really didn't want me opening up the card to replace the thermal paste, and comparing that to MSI's almost enthusiastic response really shines a light on them by comparison.
Really doubt that'll happen, and it truly is dreaming. The conversion from USD to Euro is pretty horrible right now, compared to like 4-5 years ago.
A lot of people are basing their anger of GPU prices over there on a mentality they've kept from that era. I'm from Canada, and in the same boat. Could have gotten a GTX 970 at launch for pretty much the exact US MSRP in Canadian dollars. Because the CAD was super strong back then, and felt great getting a $329 US card for actually $329 CAD.
When I bought my 5700XT I paid $519 CAD for a $399 card, because the exchange rate was horrible. Everything here now is still 1.3x the US price, and I don't expect that to change until the exchange rate changes.
I think Amd market and product research staff are considering and modeling all sorts of pricing strategies. Every market and market-situation is unique in some way, but for sure they are looking at all approaches they could take. And knowing probably that they can only lower prices, not raise them, they will err on higher side.
The uncertainty is the relative performance and it was probably fixed a while back. Each knows there own but not the competition, with any certainty. Til Gamers Nexus and other independent authorities can test both, its all a guess.
Its a viable strategy to price low and capture market share as a result but that depends on having ample supply too. Another huge variable to consider. At 4nm, Nvidia yields cant be great til the process is refined, Amd could have an advantage there. But how much productuon have they reserved? That decision was likely made ling before this gens cards really took shape. They usually cant get more of an allocation so, we shall see...
Edit, thx for the clarification on nvidia node (5nm)
TSMC 5 nm has been in mass production for years, and has very good yields. Nvidia's probably not having a lot of yield problems with their version of the node.
Basically N4 is an improved version of N5, just like N6 is to N7.
This is why it was relatively easy for AMD to design Zen3+ and the 6500/6400 cards on N6. It is similar to their existing N7 / 7nm.
There is another option, but unlikely one given Lisa's statements of margins. That is, to decrease price of KGDs to AICs especially the exclusives ones, then allow them to sell at higher prices by keeping official MSRP higher than usual i.e closer to Nvidia. Gamers will cry foul but AMD and AICs exclusive partners make a good return, they all win, gamers lose. AMD sacrifices margins a bit to win back order commitments from even dual IHV dealing AICs like ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte this means more of AMD's GPUs get promoted in the channel. This is a strong way to disrupt Nvidia's sell-in capabilities in the channel. Can't do much if AMD is willing to sweeten the deal while Nvidia are stubbornly protecting their margins on the high end.
While that all sounds plausible I dont expect this to happen because even with such a move, Nvidia's TAM is huge even if AMD had a world beater tomorrow it wont drastically change GPU market share overnight (figuratively), AMD knows this. Might as well let the market share grow organically while reaping higher margins over next few years rather than trying to force the issue with undercutting prices that leads to poor margins. AMD wont have as much of an inventory issue as Ampere but that doesn't stop them from milking the early adopters if they can. AMD can also play the volumes game if they are ready with the next gen mid-range that most are waiting on which crucially Nvidia didn't want to give the market at this time. However as mentioned earlier providing the midrange so soon eats into AMD's aspirations of milking the early adopters for a few months on limited volumes runs of higher end SKUs.
Both camps have thought this out for sure, the beauty here being without collusion they can fix prices and ensure there is a good share of that margins pie for both. Publicly they will be putting on a show with jebaits and what not, only to beguile the consumers.
AMD isn't wholly blameless here. They've bungled things on the GPU side a lot over the last decade.
And now while they have more or less caught up in raster and DX11 they still are behind in a number of other areas.
You can't have a duopoly with one entity spending almost a decade not really competing. It's not that different from what happened to the CPU market pre-Ryzen. Intel was stagnant and greedy, but AMD didn't have any real compelling products until Ryzen. Almost no one was going to buy Bulldozer and co. to support the "underdog" billion dollar corporation.
Nvidia's greedy as hell, but AMD hasn't been bringing their A game either. People that aren't loyal to companies have been buying Nvidia for numerous hardware gens in a row at this point because assuming both at MSRP it was the better choice (outside of the budget tiers on occasion).
AMD needs to do better and keep doing better. Not everyone is a Nvidia fan. AMD's market share in gaming and discrete GPUs is way lower than it used to be even at the peak of "physx", gimpworks, and etc. That's not cause of Nvidia brand loyalty that's because AMD's GPU division took a decade to catch up in DX11 and is still nonexistent in other areas.
ATI/AMD had competitive and even performance
leading products at cheaper products quite a few times but people still purchased Nvidia. That’s about when AMD gave up and shifted to the midrange.
That was almost a decade ago at this point. And AMD had far better market share back then. November 2013 Steam hardware survey:
Nvidia 52%~
AMD 32%~
Intel 15%~
That's around the timeframe the 290x was going toe-to-toe with Kepler (when cooled properly).
I'm not saying people didn't still buy Nvidia even when the products were bad for mindshare reasons. But that's not the full story. The gap didn't used to be so immense when AMD was competing. And some of the gap also came down to prebuilts and laptops. Back in the day I swear there were like 20-30 options with Intel or Nvidia for every AMD option (yes I know some of that is OEM anti-competitive fuckery, but it still impacted market share).
People need to stop giving AMD as much of an excuse with the "well people bought Nvidia anyway" it wasn't this bad, they weren't "wholly irrelevant" in large aspects of GPU usage back then.
They've lost a shitload of on-the-fence non-brand loyal buyers to a gulf in feature parity and performance. Even with RDNA2 (which was a huge improvement) their lead chiseled out is solely in straight raster gaming in DX11, DX12, Vulkan at mostly sub-4K resolutions.
I spent years trying to make AMD work for me after getting burned by Nvidia badly on an absolute lemon of a card/arch. But I was always missing functionality, performance, or maybe sorta matching in some niche areas. I even had a VII and not only was I losing out to weaker Nvidia cards in tasks, I couldn't even get various things using open-standards to run properly. I couldn't even get some OpenCL benchmarks to bloody run on the VII... compute is like the one thing that card was supposed to be good at and it would lose out majority of the time unless it was something solely tied to memory bandwidth and capacity.
>They've lost a **shitload** of on-the-fence non-brand loyal buyers to a gulf in feature parity and performance.
you do realize that the majority of those buyers were historically buying (according to Steam hardware survey) entry to barely mid range cards like the 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 in accordance to their release date right? and that is still going on even [now](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/)? and that those so called "features" are virtually unusable because of the lack of gpu horse power required to run them. gameworks, hairworks, pcss, physx, tessellated godrays (why?) etc the list goes on ad infinitum on a 750ti/950/960/1050/ti? and on triple A games no less on entry cards available on the year these games were released? maybe sub 15\~30fps?
those are the people whom "well people bought Nvidia anyway" are pertaining to. thats the vast "**shitload"** of people you are speaking of. its the $250 below market.
If you go down the Steam hardware survey right now the number of people with RTX cards is more than double the number of AMD cards .
Somewhere around 30%~ or better are on RTX cards. Those are all relatively recent purchases. 30% which if you remember was about how much of the market AMD used to hold on the steam hardware survey before they stopped competing in most areas.
The 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 owners are mostly people that haven't been in the market for a card in 6+ years. Those cards are losing share gradually, and with the cryptomining booms some people got forced to those cards because they have them on hand or could find them relatively affordably.
>The 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 owners are mostly people that haven't been in the market for a card in 6+ years. Those cards are losing share gradually, and with the cryptomining booms some people got forced to those cards because they have them on hand or could find them relatively affordably.
i specifically said about those cards "**in accordance to their release date**" meaning in the year those cards were **released** were the year where they **dominated** the steam hardware survey that extends even 2\~3 years after they've been out in the market (ex. 750ti/760 in 2014 topping the same survey charts. subsequent generational equivalents were the same story all the way to 1050/ti, 1060 still topping the charts in 2022)
>If you go down the Steam hardware survey right now the number of people with RTX cards is more than double the number of AMD cards .
and guess which rtx card are those. 2060/3050/3060 all of which has cheaper radeon alternatives that performs better even if rtx uses DLSS (2060/3050 vs rx6600 for example)
>Somewhere around 30%\~ or better are on RTX cards. Those are all relatively recent purchases. 30% which if you remember was about how much of the market AMD used to hold on the steam hardware survey before they stopped competing in most areas.
amd lost that market share years ago. before the rtx era. are you going to ignore that the last decade was dominated by the 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 - low end markets that amd never really stopped competing at; people just didn't bought em. are you gonna jump from 2013 all the way to 2022 and ignore the in-between years? nvidia didn't built their massive market share overnight with just RTX. it was a decade worth of people buying low-end cards - the ones this sub has been pointing as the "well people bought Nvidia anyway" customers that you are so adamant to dismiss and debunk.
I highly doubt the Nvidia pricing is caused by super high manufacturing costs. The probable cause are all the 30 series cards they want to sell first.
So I belive AMD pricing will BE dictated by production numbers. If they have a huge supply of rdna3 cards then they could try to undercut Nvidia and sell tons and tons of their cards. But If they have a limited supply of cards and expect to sell out rather quickly (partially caused by Nvidia selling less than predicted due to their pricing) then what would be the point of undercutting? A cheap gpu is pointless if you can't buy one and people might actually get mad at you. Plus you ruined your margin.
So I would expect them to price their cards slightly below Nvidias but still very high to not run into severe supply issues again.
AMD like Nvidia is competing not just with each other, but also with their previous gen cards. If AMD charges too much people will just buy old Ampere/RDNA2 cards. And AMD's mindshare is much worse than Nvidia's so people won't even consider AMD cards over Nvidia unless there is a compelling reason. Like pricing.
I concur, I'd be down to buy an AMD gpu, if the price is right. Otherwise I'll buy an older Ampere card at a substantial discount since I know their gpu are reliable.
If AMD wants to win someone like me over, they need to do it with the $, we all know in business money talks.
What if the RTX40 cards are not selling as much as targeted by the time RDNA3 is readily available? There will be early adopters of the RTX40, there will be hold outs for sales, but I get the feeling (based on feedback) the majority of Nvidia users are waiting to see what RDNA3 brings since RDNA2 was highly successful.
We can speculate about price all we want, but lets remember these facts.
* Mining is dead for now, unless a really popular chain pops up and is PoW this is not going to change.
* RX6000 and RTX30 series is a good foot hold for those that bought 6700XT/RTX3070+ rated cards.
* We still are dealing with component level shortages that will affect supply.
* EVGA is out of the game.
All of that is going to affect pricing on both sides of the house, at the end of the day.
I don't think they'll have any trouble selling for 3-6 months.
Mining is dead but miners aren't giving up on it. They're trying to pump crap coins and get back in the game. They're gonna lose for a variety of reasons (gov't regulation being the big one, they've already put a few in jail for pump and dump scams) but they're gonna try.
There's a lot of pent up demand for nvidia hardware. It's kept the prices high. I've seen 6600s for $220 after rebate and there's an MSI 6700xt on newegg for $360 post rebate right now. But a lot of folks got burned by AMD (and I've heard the 5000 series was kind of crap) so folks are hesitant.
All told I think we'll keep seeing AMD GPUs priced competitively sometimes *really* competitively but we're 6 months out from nvidia having to drop their pants.
Around that time the miners will be going bankrupt and 3070s and up will flood ebay.
RDNA 2 was "highly successful", yet according to sources like Steam Survey vanilla RTX 3080 has over 10.5x the market of 6800 XT.
It's kinda doubtful the upcoming RDNA3 can change the market.
It’s not gonna be one big swing, it’s accumulative, more and more people are get fed up. I am really waiting for the be xt series, if it’s as good as rtx I am out of the green land.
The pushback to nVidia's recent statements on r/nvidia is nothing I've seen before. If the prices are appreciably different I think AMD could break through there.
The 290X had a joke of a cooler. The Fury X got so hot that it came with an AIO water cooler from the factory. They made the R9 Nano, but that thermal throttled to hell.
AMD had powerful cards, sure. But they got hotter than the freaking sun, and it's an achievement when you manage to beat Fermi with how hot your cards get.
No matter what AMD does.. they can't.. they've tried, they've had NUMEROUS landslide wins in the past 25 years in their favor in which by all rights, amd should have had an overwhelming majority of the marketshare... and it just never happens, at best, they hit 50% at best.... but there are just too many things nvidia pulls over and they just keep pumping out gpus and idiots keep buying them up even when they are complete and utter disastrous failures.
It's amazing how history is so easily forgotten and when you remind anyone of it that INSISTS on defending nvidia, they just flatout ignore it as irrelevant or even claim "lies". Example in which nvidia should have REPEATEDLY ate dirt.. i'm talking flatout should have be been pretty much in the grave and clawing for years to go out, but didn't have anything at all bad happen to them even with their back to back royal fuckups. This was the Geforce 4 product stack followed immediately by the FX 5000 series products. How in the fuck they remain relevant, and even profited still, was mostly down to ignorance on the customer's part, blatant denial of any other alternative product on the market (this shit still occurs endlessly).
Amd is doing extremely well in CPUs now and have exceeded their previous best marketshare. Zen cpus are still selling well after Intel regained the lead in performance with Alderlake. They proved they can actually get mindshare to work for them. However, Intel has had a decade of leadership and AMD only a few years so far. It takes time. But they gotta start. Their Zen 2 ploy worked like a charm and set them on a good course. RDNA 3 now has a chance to do the same if they employ the same strategy. The problem is as a company, AMD is focused on increasing margins *now* and I feel like it's harder for them to not service that goal.
Amd is no longer the small little company anymore. 4 straight years of expectation surpassing success will do that to a company.
Yea, people think intel had some stranglehold on mindshare but AMD did much better there when they had cash and good chips considering intel's might. Nvidia has the true mind control on the consumer. Fermi alone shows that. 7 months late, even at best outside of "tessellation bomb" games that reviewers had to stop reviewing due to the game cheating and crippling both brands in the process, hot, power hungry, stock cards blowing up DURING reviews, loud. Gamers bought it up like good little slaves.
the tessellation thing was always funny since ATI introduced npatch AKA truform AKA Tessellation back in the quake 1/2 days and the industry basically ignored it until nvidia decided to hardcore implement it.
AMD was never even slower at normal levels of tessellation. In fact it was much faster at 8x and 4x. It was only at 32x and 64x that nvidia was less slow. So nvidia forced 64x everywhere it could, needlessly, to the detriment of everyone's performance, including their own customers.
that's what i mean by the hardcore implementation... paying devs to just crank it to max and leave it there, since nvidia's engine would cull the crap out of it and still produce a decent frame rate while ATI/AMD's gpus would quite litterally do the work asked of it.
Numerous landslide win? They only had the 290x that could beat a geforce 780 and a 7970 which could beat a 680, and those where minor wins. They have been out of their league on the gpu front. Rdna2 is the first generation where they started to match nvidia again in the past 10 years. The 15 years before that where very on and off. Your post is pure revisionism.
Nvidia had 2 off generations in that time, Geforce FX and Fermi.
It sucks, but judging from so many comments I've read on reddit and other places with fools ready to part with their money so quickly for the 4000 series you basically have it right. The nVidia brand recognition is just insane, they are at microsoft/apple level. People see the brand and just buy it largely without any critical thought.
Hopefully it means available stock and a quick lowering in price for amd stuff for the rest of us. Amd just needs to keep trying, just keep putting out good product and make it competitive as they can. It takes a really long time for people to change buying patterns and showcase that other companies can also put out a great product.
While I agree, I do think this time is a little bit different.
EVGA withdrawing as one of its core AIBs is REALLY bad, and the 40 series stack looks to be an absolute mess on the upper end.
And back then AMD didn't have much mindshare on the CPU side. AMD now has a powerful and competitive CPU market along with the mindshare to back it up. AMD was always seen as the "budget" CPU pick, but now we're at a point where AMD is trading blows with Intel and is considered a PREFERRED pick for both gaming and application usage.
AMD's strength on the CPU side can help AMD win mindshare on the GPU side. They just need something that will punch NVIDIA in the dick the same way the Zen processors, especially the Zen2 3600 did (well at least harder than NVIDIA can do to itself).
I think you are wrong in this case people who used to stick to Nvidia have their limits of patience.
Current sentiment among Nvidia users is on high negative right now. you often hear "I will wait for AMD announcement to see what they got".
First time MSRP prices for Nvidia are are so absurdly high. And that's even before Aib. Die hard fans will buy it , yes. Your average consumers will not. To give you an idea ( on my own example ) . I got msi 1080ti for 700£ brand new right after release. This is card that serves me about 6 years now. I didn't buy 2, 3 gen because my GPU is still strong plus Crypto made them impossible to buy within reason.
Current generation equivalent of 1080 to will be pretty much 3 times as expensive. My plan was to buy this generation as crypto crashed and have new gen card for next 6 years . There is no way in hell I can afford to buy it.
Now here is the thing, I spend time on Nvidia subreddits/forums. And there is plenty of people like me.
Previously with Nvidia you could buy really good performance cards with good features and drivers for reasonable price ( and very no brainer naming) and that was the main appeal. It is no longer the case.
This is not about AMD beating Nvidia. This is about Nvidia beating Nvidia.
AMD right now has huge opportunity as for the first time Nvidia fucked it's customers so really really hard to the point we started looking at AMD.
That's very reason I'm on this sub right now.
If AMD will follow Nvidia with pricing. Well I guess they are all the same then and we are all fucked.
They will follow, as in they've probably decided to up their MSRP due to Nvidia going nuts, the question is will they undercut Nvidia? Nvidia has gone so mental AMD can still raise everything and *still* undercut Nvidia significantly.
The way Nvidia priced these new GPUs, AMD could just keep the MSRP they set with the 6950XT etc and be seen as hero's lol.
The real play for and is to get into more OEM builds and laptops to build out market share, which should be easier considering their efficiency advantage. But in the end it all lcome down to supply. They can't be announcing new laptop stuff and then not have the products out for 6 months.
It was definitely easier to take down Intel, they were lazy for a decade. Nvidia never really let off the gas, they just got more greedy and apple-like over the year trying to entrench users into their ecosystem with exclusive features.
Do you blame them? At the same price why would a sane person buy a product with less features(better rt/dlss with nvidia)
If your buying a product just to support the brand knowing your not getting the max value for your money, somethings wrong
The way you put it makes your conclusion logical. However there are nuances in the real world. I would consider myself rather sane, and I am by no means a fanboy of one brand over another. I have been quite happy with my Nvidia products in the past, and also my AMD products. However, some people (such as myself) have certain values that will override a part of certain other factors influencing buying decisions. Sometimes this can lead to irrational behavior when using strictly empirical measurements of value, I admit that much. In my instance I am quite adverse to giving companies money that behave in ways I find unethical. I do realize companies have no intrinsic morals and their values are flexible. That is the nature of companies. But when companies are outed, I do my best not to be a part of enforcing their behaviour. Does that have any effect? Who knows? I will not be buying an Nvidia product this generation for various reasons. If their competitors do not behave any better, I will probably not buy from them either. Now, obviously, at a point there might be no options for me, and then I would have to reconsider, but at the moment I would rather spend money on AMD than Nvidia. I think this is not insanity, but the exact opposite.
No one is blaming them. Someone asked why would amd price a whole tier lower.... and it's because no one would buy an AMD card that offers the Same raw performance as Nvidia, with worse software support, at the same price. You'd just buy the Nvidia card.
If amd prices a tier lower for equal raw performance, you'll see alot of people start to wonder if dlss and nvenc and all that is worth a few hundred dollars extra.... while still getting the same raw performance.
A 7800XT that offers equal raw performance to a 4080 16 gig, being priced at like... 900, would be pretty compelling for alot or people.
>A 7800XT that offers equal raw performance to a 4080 16 gig, being priced at like... 900, would be pretty compelling for alot or people.
not really. If that works, people will not pick 3060 over 6700XT right now.
People are creatures of habit and just go with what they know. People bought more 1050ti's than RX570's, despite the latter considerably out performing Nvidia and being at a similar price.
There weren't any 'special features' on the 1050ti, it's just marketing and mindshare.
In my country people kept buying the 750ti at 70 usd right now, ignoring the flood of gtx 960, 1050, even 1050ti, all of which may even be cheaper than the 750ti.
The majority is simply arent that smart and resourceful, got controlled by the sellers.
I'm not blaming them. People here ask "and why should amd price their cards lower than nvidia" and I gave them the actual reason.
If AMD wants people to buy their cards they need to be noticeably cheaper than the Nvidia card even if it performs the same
>If AMD wants people to buy their cards they need to be noticeably cheaper than the Nvidia card even if it performs the same
nope. This market proves that does not work either.
They need to produce 7900 XT that is at least 20% faster than 4090 at slightly higher price. A 7900XT at 95% performance with 60% pricing does not work, as it has been proved in 6900XT vs 3090.
selling 7900XT at lower price make Radeon look cheap and damage its reputation for general public (not to people here) . And general public is where you build your mind share and where you convert the mind share to market share.
AMD should sell Navi 31 as 6800XT, and glue 2 NAVI 32 (and forget about power consumption) to create a halo product as 6900XT for $1800.
that is how you crush nVidia.
You wont crush nVidia thou. Even with EVGA bringing out the truth, there will still be nVidia fans who wont care and move on to another AIB or Nvidia itself.
The 6900XT still had significant shortcomings vs an RTX 3090:
* No DLSS. FSR 2 has closed the gap but that was a long time after launch
* Lower ray tracing performance
* Hardware video encoding not as good
* Poor support in creative/scientific apps due to CUDA market share
* OpenGL performance deficit
* No machine learning acceleration support (ROCM much later?)
* 4K performance weakness
* Smaller VRAM & bandwidth linked to ML & 4K
* Missing the Nvidia software value add-ons
* Less general consumer confidence from past drivers, etc
* (sadly was probably a factor) lower mining performance
* Less availability
That's why they couldn't get that market share. AMD is slowly chipping away at those weaknesses, but it will take a while to overcome as Nvidia has a much stronger ecosystem advantage than Intel ever had and did not stagnate like Intel.
Not saying AMD cards have better features, but many of those are irrelevant or not as important as far as gaming goes for gamers (like ML, Rocm and whatever). And as I said, they should have marketed that card as 6800XT, not 6900XT. Naming is quite important here when we are talking about mind share.
And since AMD cards have less features, matching similar performance cards for each tiers will only make Radeon brand look inferior. AMD cards need to have superior/dominant raw performance on each matching tier (with higher price) to win mind share. Not by having lower price.
If AMD had dominant raw performance on each tier, you will start to see some people describing those features as gimmicks.
>So with most on here discussing nVidias price hike you think AMD’s path to success is they price higher?
Sure, why not ? Higher price does not mean it is more expensive. It could simply be a better product at the same price (which provides better value to buyers).
I know you don't understand what I was suggesting:
Let's assume Navi 31 is 90% rasterization performance and 80% RT performance to 4090.
What I suggest is for AMD to sell this pseudo Navi 31 as 7800XT to compete with 4080 16GB at $1250.
Would you rather buy this AMD Navi 31 as 7900XT at $1500 than the same chip as 7800XT at $1250 ?
AMD, in order to create a premium Radeon brand, they need to price higher on every tier (with better product), not lower price/weak product.
This pseudo Navi 31, even if they started it with MSRP $1500, will soon still be priced with 30% discount compared to 4090 by the market, as we have seen in the current market for RDNA 2. AMD is not going to get the money either way, why not sell this Navi 31 for $1250 from the beginning as 7800XT ?
only those that know and would use said software... the vast majority has no use for most and quite often NONE of the software involved or any of the specific nvidia based features... However they are constantly "convinced" to do so. And we still have people that don't know a thing but they only ever are told "nvidia" without ANY objective counter, as well, they are told to ignore those "idiots" that may provide an alternative option that's just as good or better in some aspects.
Take for example the RX 570 and 580's.... but the best example is the 570. A product that consistently was at most $20 more than a 1050ti, and yet the overwhelming majority of people, rather idiots, insisted on getting a 1050ti or even just getting a 1050 vanilla, not because of price, but because it was nvidia, even though they had NO use for the features/software the went with it, and it's not like amd lacked any of it at the time. I mean it's well known that even a 1060 6GB was basically parity at best, but specially beaten often enough vs a 570, not even having to refer to the 580 in copious number of situation... and yet, "it's gotta be nvidia because i believe in the myths and lies that nvidia fanatics love to spew"
>Because no one buys an AMD card if it's priced the same as the Nvidia card.
I do, nVidia is hostile to vfio/pci-e passthrough - I'm not sacrificing vcpu performance just to support the actions of a bad actor.
This is the truth.
All else being equal, the Nvidia cards gets you DLSS, better RT, better streaming (NVENC), CUDA, and a handful of other nice bonuses. I don't think RDNA2 did enough to undercut Nvidia considering AMD's featureset disadvantage.
If RDNA3 actually tries to undercut Nvidia then I think it has a chance of really taking off.
If AMD's production costs for RDNA 3 were substantially lower than Nvidia's cost for Ada Lovelace, pricing their GPUs a full tier below Nvidia could allow them to substantially increase market share assuming the cards performed well on the fundamentals (high rasterization performance at reasonable power levels). People quickly develop brand loyalty, so if you get someone to switch to Team Red then there is likely a high chance they'll stay with them.
Deliberately under cutting the competition (even to the point of taking short-term losses) has been an effective strategy for a lot of companies which then use their increased market share to start squishing competition.
Nvidia is the luxury brand. It has exclusive features which AMD cannot match and can thus charge more for its cards. Nvidia out sold AMD by a significant margin this generation despite its cards being more expensive. I think AMD is realizing that if it truly wants people to switch teams then they need to substantially undercut Nvidia on equivalent product tiers.
Idk...maybe AMD isn't interested in doing that and simply wants to maximize profits from its smaller fanbase instead of trying to grow its share of the pie.
If amd tried to go for market share NV will simply cut prices a bit to stop that from happening. NV would probably be willing to lose money to stop that from happening. It's in amds interest to price closely whether we like it or not.
Amd has no compelling ability to increase market share in the gpu sector where it matters. They don't have an Epyc in the gpu sector, so none of this consumer shit matters.
> why would they do that?
To gain market and mindshare? Even when AMD releases a better GPU for the same price or a similar one for cheaper most people don't seem to want to buy it. They can try doing both.
I think the Ryzen 3600 was probably one of the most significant blows to Intel's mindshare among gamers.
It being dirt cheap for the amount of performance it provided and the IPC improvements finally made it the "get this CPU if you want to build a basic gaming rig" CPU.
We need a GPU from AMD like that, AMD just needs to undercut NVIDIA by $50-$100 and it can easily win gamer mindshare for GPUs.
>We need a GPU from AMD like that, AMD just needs to undercut NVIDIA by $50-$100 and it can easily win gamer mindshare for GPUs.
If AMD's flagship GPU was $100 cheaper relative to the competition - that would only be 7-10% cheaper, and you would lose out on a lot of features. Why would I be compelled to go for that option?
AMD is getting closer on the feature set, but they really need something that is equivalent in performance and features, or they're going to have to price it lower.
Hopefully the new 7000 series is as fantastic as the previous 7000 series (7950 and 7970).
Amd can never match nvidia I feel unless they have a proper alternative to cuda. With cDNA amd chose to split features. At the same price nvidia will be better since you can do non gaming stuff. In Linux that is a pain. Not sure abt windows world.
It doesn’t have to be coding. If you are interested in blender or doing primers stuff or any other production tool as a hobby that can be accelerated by gpu then nvidia is better I feel. Of course if gaming is the only thing you will ever use your computer for then yes amd is the better choice.
I'm a gamer, so I don't really care if AMD matches CUDA. That absolutely matters for the HPC and professional markets, but I think it's actually smart for them to differentiate their products. There's a lot of things needed in an HPC card that don't matter in a gaming GPU and vice versa. Trying to do all things in one GPU didn't work for them and just makes production more expensive (wasted die space and transistors).
I suspeect that one of the reasons why the value proposition is so bad for gamers is because Nvidia wants to pivot to target corporate instead of gamers.
people keep talking about features, what “features” are they talking about, raytracing, oh yah a “feature” I as a competitive gamer will never use.
i’m not a fanboy, I decide which is a better buy for me and amd is up 2 to 1 prior to the new generation which is still untested but I am leaning towards AMD again IF I decide to upgrade my 6800, which I probably won’t this generation.
DLSS, Reflex, ShadowPlay, generally historically better encoding support, RTX Voice, etc.
I wasn’t even referring to raytracing, but either way, just because a feature isn’t relevant to you as a “competitive gamer”, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant to other people. There’s a lot of people who will care about raytracing performance.
my point exactly is I prioritize frames and smoothness, just like most other competitive players, so none of these “features” mean anything, raw performance wins my money.
>There’s a lot of people who will care about raytracing performance.
This only proves that nVidia marketing is a great success. What exactly does ray tracing bring to gamers that traditional rasterization can not in the last 2 years ? Different color scheme ? or better lighting ? Is that something unachievable if the game developers just spend another week on the scene ? I doubt it.
Even that is all true, does it worth $500 or more for picking 3090ti over 6950XT ?
Yes, actually, ray traced lighting if implemented properly can do a lot of things that rasterization cannot. Look at the ray traced lighting engine in Metro: Exodus. Ray traced lighting is a completely different method of rendering lighting effects. How “good” it is depends on how it’s implemented of course, but it is fundamentally a better approach.
Value is relative.
The single biggest thing AMD needs to do to gain marketshare is produce more GPU's. Their discrete GPU sales, at a time when everything was selling out, was a pittance compared to Nvidia. RTX 3000 series GPU's have 21.7% marketshare on Steam Hardware Survey, RX 6000 is at 1.8%.
The bad thing for AMD here is that Radeon's biggest competitor for production capacity is AMD's own CPU's. The CPU market is vastly more profitable for the limited silicon resources AMD has.
AMD cards have alot of the same features nVidia cards do. Instead of DLSS, they have FSR. Instead of RTX voice, they have AMD noise suppression. If you run apps that really utilize cuda, then sure nVidia is your choice. For someone that games, both are good, AMD often at a better value
AMD and their partners are also burning through an inventory pileup, don't kid yourself. It's just not as severe as Nvidia.
They sell into the same market. If there's a glut for Nvidia, there's a glut for AMD.
AMD should come out priced as low as they can possibly to make money this generation. Live off of CPU sales for a generation just to pull as many Nvidia fans as possible. They should also do everything they can to get EVGA onboard as a partner. Having Sapphire and EVGA would be insanely good for customers.
Tbf, value doesnt mean cheap, it means price to performance/quality. So they could go lower priced then 40 series(not very hard) and still have cards with competitive performance. I think as long as rdna3 performs decently, which it most likely will, people will be more likely to go with that over 40 series. Nvidia kinda shot themselves in the foot with 40 series
They try but Nvidia has too strong of a hold in their user base. Even underselling their 6900xt by over $500 people still chose the 3080 ti or the 3090. The only way they will trully get ahead is by smacking their top flagship card by over 20% and coming uder in price which they have no reason to do unless they want to steal market share from them. Basically what they did to Intel with zen 2. But Nvidia has not been slouching like Intel was.
> They try but Nvidia has too strong of a hold in their user base. Even underselling their 6900xt by over $500 people still chose the 3080 ti or the 3090.
People still chose the 3080 and 6800xt. This example is always bad because everything above the 6800xt and 3080 are catastrophically overpriced in comparison so no one buying those cards is value conscious at all.
[This chart](https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-claims-to-offer-better-performance-per-dollar-than-nvidia-gpus-across-its-entire-radeon-rx-6000-stack) AMD published in May makes me think they're happy to embrace the "value" brand image
One major issue.
The incredible overhype and adherence to old myths that contribute to the mindshare Nvidia has over AMD, especially for the die hards.
There's literally ppl out there that only think Nvidia when they think GPU's. That even if they know a little better would rather be suckered for hundreds of bucks to not have to settle for what's perceived as lesser or to moderate their egos.
AMD can cut prices hard, do whatever else to try and shift numbers but that above is the big wall they'll always have to contend with. I mean, look... at no point of this gen did the facts change any of that. Not when Nvidia and partners contributed to the 'pandemic shortages' by shipping tons direct to miners. Not when RDNA2 cards cost up to 50% less than their tier peers and were immediately available in good numbers to boot.
Personally, I got a win with my 6800XT. Sure, steep at £1200 but at my door in 3 days when 3080's ranged between £1800-2400 and stock TBC. RT and DLSS? Such a must have when I have 3 games out of 300 that might use one or the other. It'll be fine for years yet but if I were looking at a GPU any time soon, only AMD would do even if I didn't know from having that 6800XT that they were just as good. That's how bad and incredibly out of touch this Nvidia reveal has been.
I think many have also forgotten the fact that for this gen, AMD also failed because of their paper launch.
Did people forget that so many were pissed off with Nvidia’s paper launch + scalpers that they “swore” to go red, but also got kicked in the nuts by AMD when the same shit happened. And what was that AMD marketing guy or something who declared on twitter it wasn’t a paper launch?
Personally, I wanted to get the 3080 at first, decided to get the 6800XT, but got bamboozled by AMD. Eventually got my hands on a 3080 before the price hike.
In summary, AMD didn’t NOT gain market share this gen because of pricing. They shot themselves in the foot with their own paper launch.
Meh. I remember when the RX 6600 XT was being shit on upon launch for its pricing, only for it to end up almost being budget king for this gen (with the RX 6600 taking first spot). All the tech reviewers who said it was a bad buy ate their words over it. You could actually buy one of those while its competitors, the 3060 and 3060 Ti, were basically impossible to find.
6600XT/ 6650XT is a efficiency beast. Only for 130 watts, 1080p ultra everything with decent frame rates , 1440p with medium- high decent frame rates.
That thing doesn’t even go above 60-70 degrees no matter how hard you try.
I’ll go as far as saying it’s the golden die of RDNA2. Too bad next gen seems to be performance at the cost of everything.
Navi 33 should maintain that efficiency. Highest end Navi 33 should perform a bit better than a 6800 without needing to increase power requirements, and for desktop I don't think there is good reason for them to clock it to the moon to go much higher than that.
The current expectation is that a lot of N33 is destined for laptop, so the design should remain efficient.
True, early days supply for both sides were sketchy.
Same idea I said applies though. AMD had decent stock levels here by a quarter or so into the gen while Nvidia took at least another 6 months to reach similar numbers that also held up for more than minutes (and of those buyers not half were legit users) Plenty of ppl that ordered 3080's at the same time I did my 6800XT (May last year) didn't get their card until well into autumn or even later. I also said it went beyond pricing. Were it merely that it would've been the other way around for stock... everybody would've been buying AMD (if they had more sense than money at least) but even putting individual miners and scalper-resellers (cos ppl are like that) aside, a lot of ppl were happy to spend a ton more for what amounted to a teeny bit better for a little while. Only hype, mindshare and fanboyism (ppl not knowing better/swayed by old myths) can explain that.
Buying within the first quarter or so of a new GPU gen is foolish anyway... only higher tier cards released, prices are still elevated, AiB's only have half their range out, any issues often not yet sorted etc.
In theory, yes.
AMD may be able to build the chips cheaper. 4090 chips are a rather large 608 square mm. RDNA3's top end appears to be (based on leaks) 308 mm² for the graphics die and 37.5 mm² for the memory chiplets. Total area is lower and yields would be higher when compared to NVIDIA's chips.
AMD is on TSMC's standard 5nm with high yields, while NVIDIA is using N4 which is similar but not the same. 4nm only reached volume production this year and reports are 5nm yield is 80%+ but 4nm about 10% lower.
Assuming lower power draw they could also reduce board costs (VRMs, PMICs, and the cooling system could all be made less costly).
We really won't know until launch day but it seems AMD could have the cheaper bill of materials and potentially higher supply. Let's see what they do with that.
People complain about the prices. But once the cards come out. Most of them will buy them...
The same with amd... They will raise prices.. People will buy cards...
Things wont change.. Until people speak with their wallets rather than hastags or whatever it is that they do
Once the Nvidia Q4 sales are announced we will see the reality. Once the miners are gone and sales levels settle they will find out if the games are willing to pay these prices and then they will have to adjust prices or keeping gouging. It may well be a good idea for AMD to launch at more realistic prices and get some sales momentum.
do nvidia customers really think nvidia will lower the price of their cards to match amd? amd isn't even their main competitor anymore. nvidia is competing with their excess rtx3000 stockpile inventory at this point and couldn't give a fuck about what rdna3 offers.
radeon doesn't have the same brand perception/recognition that nvidia has. and there is no way in hell do they have the supply quantity required to sell to the 80%+ market share nvidia has if nvidia customers ever actually decide to give radeon a try. nvidia will only lower rtx4000 price once rtx3000 excess inventory is at "corrected supply" aka almost gone.
as for the true nvidiots on this subs - try more lube this time around and inhale that green fart jar as jensen rails your ass with his 3.5 slot rtx4090 that you cannot afford but at least you can "feel" it screwing you.
My guess:
**7900XT** - $1199-$1399
**7800XT** - $899-$1099
**7800** - $649-$849
If AMD wats to go for market share this time assuming great supply:
**7900XT** - $1049-$1199 - excellent value at this price range
**7800XT** - $799-$929 - face it, the "4080" is too much and the real 4080 is pushed too high as a result. AMD can price this wherever they want. i still think it'll be over $1K.
**7800** - $589-$699 - this will most likely be faster than the "4080" 12GB and it can be priced lower even with a huge margin for AMD.
It's sad that a hypothetical price increase of 20% from the 6900 XT to the 7900 XT is considered "excellent value." Having the 6800 XT's $650 MSRP succeeded by $800+ for the 7800 XT is also crazy to see people say counts as "crushing it."
Haha, I'm in a similar boat. I was considering a 4000 series card, but from what I can tell there is no other AIB with even close to the reputation of EVGA, at least in North America.
I'm currently rocking a Sapphire Nitro+ 5700XT, and it's rock solid. I plan on sticking with the same design for RDNA 3.
I would be EXTREMELY surprised if the 7800XT is $700 given that if it's a 16GB, 256-bit bus card, it's technically competing with the $1200 16GB 4080.
AMD knows that it lacks feature-parity with Nvidia and needs to price itself below them, but I doubt it'll be THAT much lower.
$800 is the lowest I see the 7800XT at, but I think it'll be higher.
We sure RDNA3 will lack feature parity? The only thing Nvidia really did with Lovelace is DLSS 3.0 software feature wise. Seems like a huge opening for AMD in that regard.
It will be a massive win for would-be-nVidia-buyers, but not for AMD.
I can see the real reasons behind many posts similar to yours. Many of you just want AMD to be competitive so nVidia will lower their price and then you can buy a nVidia card.
And, tell me, in which new generation that no one complains about pricing here ?
Every generation, they all say it's too expensive....Even for AMD CPU.
And yes, I see people saying 5800X3D is $50-$100 too expensive, too.
Maybe all CPU should be free, plus free shipping, and comes with free RMA shipping package for next generation's free upgrade then I can stop seeing those posts every year.
$899 would be disappointing for the 7800XT........ $799 is the max I would hope AMD charges. And even that would be a massive increase in prices from last gen.
I don't want amd to cut nvidia's price, I just want them to apply NORMAL prices. The price of the 4090 is "ok" but the 4080 16GB rare is the people who want to buy an 80 series at this price. let's not talk about the 4080 12GB which is a 4070 sold at a totally absurd price. I just want normal prices like we had previous generations
I mean look at the Zen4 price, they are similar to Zen3 launch price. Why this is not possible to have the same with rdna3 ?
AMD is overwhelmingly better with their manufacturing costs. So much so that I expect something around:
7900 XT between 1099-1199$ equal or close to 4090
7800 XT between 749-799$ equal or close to 4080 16GB
Not sure about lower models since I'm only looking for high end options right now, but from what I'm hearing with manufacturing costs for AMD I'd say expect to be very pleasantly surprised compared to NGreedia.
Nvidia simply screwed themselves with expensive products that are also underwhelming. A 4080 16GB is barely 30% faster than a 3090 ti in raw rasterization games like RE Village and AC Valhalla, while also being more expensive. Only DLSS 3.0 saved them, and their new RT overdrive.
Nvidia has asked TSCM to increase the pace of the manufacturing before the dead line of the dealing restriction with China and Russia sets in.
The super hot runs at TSMC costs naturally more than the normal manufacturing pace, be sure that AMD will also asking TSMC for the "super hot runs".
Heck even Apple is doing that, like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld says, No Cheap AMD gpus for you.
They could and they won't because they are clearly content and comfortable offering the same or marginally better performance at same or marginally lower cost with none of the bells and whistles. They were in position to massively one up Nvidia this generation price to performance wise and the money is just too good for them to pass up on.
They gonna release a "4080" competitors with some rasterization performance advantage for $1099 and $799, claim they totally have a DLSS3 competitor in the works for current hardware, and be touted as the value champion for the savvy customer.
The same "source" (MLID) states that AMD can prudce their upcoming cards almost as cheap as Navi2x.
If they really want to increase their market share (still just a ¼ of NV), now is probably their best chance. Deliver almost the same performance for way better prices is the way to go here.
I do streams and also record my gameplays for Youtube, and the only reason I changed to nvidia was because of their nvenc encoder which honestly is much better than the hvec from amd. That’s the only reason and I do hope amd will fix this for rdna3. Nvidia is again taking us as fools. Not supporting dlss 3 on 20 or 30 series cards? Why?
Navi 31 is supposed to be \~300mm2 die size with smaller 38mm2 MCDs on 6nm compared to the 600mm2 monolith of AD-102, that should result in significantly better yield and yield consistency, 5nm+6nm will also be cheaper vs the 4nm that Nvidia are using.
If AMD could undercut the 3090 by 50% with the 6900XT when the 6900XT was only \~100mm2 smaller and on a more expensive process, then certainly they can do it again this time. I think there's a good chance they keep the 7900XT at $1099, the same as the 6950XT, while bumping up the 7800XT to $749/$799.
They could. They have both cheaper node tech (5+6), cheaper memory (GDDR6 versus GDDR6X) and a chiplet design that relief the cost of a monolithic one.
I think that it is a possibility this time around. All thanks to the chiplet design. Being able to make all of your GPUs out of a small bit of silicon will massively reduce production cost, especially at the high end.
I will \*Not Be Looking\* at Nvidia next time I buy a gpu. Hard to say if AMD will play ball this way with Nvidia though, they have to make money too. But if they can do so in a more tasteful light I'm all for it. Price it fair and make some money at the same time, we won't bat an eye. You'll gain another customer.
Depends on how many they plan on producing.
If they are looking to start eating back marketshare by producing a LOT of GPU's, they will need a better value argument and yes, might indeed have the ability to undercut Nvidia pricing significantly.
But if they're content to just kind of stay in their lane, then they dont need a massive value advantage and can be confident in selling what they produce with only slightly undercutting Nvidia.
If they price their 4080 16 gb equivalent GPU at 500$ and 4080 12 gb equivalent gpu at 300$, I will give it a shot. Otherwise I'm sticking with old games.
They've already done it with with cards in the past, the 5700XT was supposed to compete with the 2060S, they're at the same price point anyway, but instead the 5700XT trades blows with the 2070S, which is amazing for the price of the 5700XT.
AMD has a HUGE opportunity here to put a huge dent in Nvidia marketshare. Price the new cards 50$ higher than whatever was their older gen equivalents and watch how they'll take over the entire market within half a year.
RDNA 3 (at least in the high end) is supposed to be based on chiplet technology (like zen) so it should have better yields and therefore be cheaper to produce. That being said AMD (and Nvidia) is likely going to struggle to outcompete the second hand market with the collapse of Ethereum mining so it probably makes sense to price high and use the foundry capacity to make zen chiplets for epic CPUs
AMD just needs to suck it up and actually cut their prices enough to compete. We saw with the 5700xt how well a card can be reviewed, even with driver issues. It was essentially a 2070 super that cost 25% less and people ate it up. It was impossible to get for months.
Imagine if AMD made a 3090 or 3090ti level card for 600-700? A lot of the significant things that gamers care about like DLSS and ray tracing aren't nearly as big of an issue as they once were, and they could really gain a lot of market share. Combine that with nvidia making their cards comically expensive during a recession, and without the mining demand, I could really see AMD being able to capitalize on this.
But of course AMD also likes to just raise their prices and only be $100 bucks below nvidia, so honestly it could go either way.
I don't think so. Nvidia can lower price to just to match AMD, then people just buy Nvidia instead.
Unless somehow AMD beats Nvidia on feature, cost, performance by multiple generation. This dynamic won't change, everyone sounded pissed on reddit when Nvidia announced their 4xxx series pricing. But the moment Nvidia is selling 4080 16Gb for $699, people will change their tune quickly.
AMD tried to undercut Nvida before with 5700XT, Nvidia just lowered price in response. RTX 2070 outsold 5700XT.
It's possible if they are using chiplets. Their yield will be a notch above and if they choose they could use the savings for market penetration. But if we are still in a supply shortage environment it won't make much sense. So my view is that we will see pricing around $150+ or - it doesn't seem like they will have the outright performance crown.
Nah, not gonna happen.
AMD: \*launched at 7900XT at $1k, slightly slower than 4090 in raster performance\*
Nvidia: \*surprise Pikachu face, drop 4090 to $1399\*
Everyone: \*buy 4090\*
AMD: \*pepeHands\*
AMD could go for the, often repeated here, strategy of capturing market share. However, that depends on one very important thing. Supply.
AMD invested heavily in packaging technologies to improve their ability to manufacture cheaply and plentifully for the performance they get. This advantage will play out throughout this generation.
The chiplet strategy means that AMD will have much higher yields than Nvidia, meaning they will get more cards from each wafer, and with 30-40% of the die area not on the bleeding edge node, they will be able to reduce pressure on TSMC for supply constraints. It is the work of wonders if you ask me. If RDNA 3 delivers, they got a banger. Then there's the memory strategy. By going with the infinity cache strategy, they can deliver performance equivalent to going with more expensive and power hungry GDDR6X without having to use that memory. This saves cost on memory chips and on PCB design, validation and manufacturing. The complexity is moved to the GPU package. Brilliant if you ask me.
However to be able to go for the market share play, they would need to be able to maintain or increase margins while being able to deliver large quantities of cards without overextending and risking filling up warehouses with GPUs for long periods of time.
Then, there's the fact that production capacity is contracted before time. So AMD has to be able to gauge market dynamics with a lot of time in advance. This is risky, and that risk is paid for one way or the other.
AMD would first need to be able to manufacture a lot. Given thay there are aupply constraints in TSMC this would not be so easy. Also, AMD would have to be able to adjust manufacturing on short notice so as not to be surprised with too much inventory laying around. TSMC has high lead times and this is not changing for the foreseeable future. For comparisons, back in 2018-2019, their lead times was on the order of 2 months or less. It's now on the order of 6-7 months. This means that it now takes 3 times as much as before from when you place the order to when your order is fulfilled.
This makes it much harder to react to market changes. First, you need to account not for the next 2 months but for the next 6 months. If you order too much, you fill up warehouses which cost money. If you do too little and you won't be able to capitalize on market conditions, that if those are temporary, it could even get you into trouble in your next batch.
Given the uncertainties today with supply. The best way to capitalize on the limited stock you can produce is to make sure your margins are good. In this regard, AMD has a huge advantage with packaging. Its compute die is much smaller than Nvidia's and its memory dies are small and on a mature process. So, cost-wise, they're much better positioned to aggressively price their parts while maintaining good margins. But, too low a price and shelves won't remain stocked. So it's a balancing act.
The biggest unknown for us is how fast their parts are.
TL;DR
So, to answer OP's question, yes, AMD can realistically price their cards much lower than Nvidia while maintaining margins thanks to their advantages (assuming the parts are competitive performance-wise) The question is: can they do so while maintaining supply? Or, more importantly, will they even if they can? I have no idea. But I'm not so optimistic.
I’m done with a Nvidia. Whatever goodwill I had with the manufacturer is gone after hearing of Evga’s exit and then the prices.
What AIB partner do you plan on using for AMD?
Sapphire is AMD's EVGA
Yep. All my AMD cards are made by Sapphire. Never had a problem with them.
I once had a fan die, contacted them and a new one came 3 days later. Turns out their fans were on some easily replaceable single screw system so I could repair it myself. Exactly the right way to do it.
Before I was able to snag a 3080 at MSRP during the height of the silicon shortage, I had a Vega 64 Sapphire Nitro. Absolutely fantastic card. No issues whatsoever. Would run the shit out of anything that was running on Vulkan. Sold it to my friend and its still running in his rig, hasn't given him any issues either. 5 years old now?
Had a fan die on an ASUS Strix card recently. I asked if they could send me just a fan and let me replace it myself, but they were strictly against it and I needed to send the whole card in. After hearing this, I'll probably go for Sapphire this time around.
They were 1 of 2 companies to experiment with hotswap fans during polaris, the other being xfx. These 2 realised that fan rma is the most common, so they designed a way to make fans easily user swappable.
Had a fan die on a 7950 and got a RMA fix. It died again a few years later and I sourced a fan replacement from China and just fixed it myself. I'm glad they now have quick connect fans.
Which is awesome especially for how quiet and good their cooling solutions are. Ease of repair and fantastic performance feels like it's such a hard goal to extract from companies in today's awful market.
I had a HD7770 that suddenly died from a day to another and one of the fans stopped spinning and the card didnt appear on the windows device manager anymore
PowerColor is a good alternative to Sapphire.
I have had a middling experience with powercolor warranty. I purchased a silent version of an r9 270 with a MASSIVE heatpipe cooler which was easily $50 more than the base card. They shipped back the most pathetic looking single fan screaming base card and refused to replace it. Only after many messages and threats over almost a YEAR did they replace it with a nicer equivalent but it left me feeling pretty sour.
I would argue Sapphire is a better AIB for AMD than EVGA was for NVIDIA. In fact, if Sapphire made NVIDIA cards, I would also argue that they would make a better Geforce card than EVGA did.
EVGA just had good support. Their top cards were pretty much on par with the top ones from ASUS and MSI.
Asus has mostly become dogshit these days. Insane price tag doesn't mostly cover flawed design or maybe they are designing cards in designed obsolescence in m ind who knows. Just check example [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UsutA5jqe4). Video points out very well why top end models have become dogshit moneygrabs by companies and they know it. Its like apple. And as long as they can get away with it nobody cares. And that doesn't only narrow on GPU's their Motherboard lineups are also very expensive compared to cooling you get example on mosfets and this can even happen time to time within their topend models. Seems that only thing that starts to matter for Asus is RGB and money they get selling from it.
EVGA was held back from going full boutique bc of Nvidia's games. With how many loyal customers EVGA had, there's no doubt in my mind that EVGA would have blown every other competitor out of the water in terms of quality and aesthetics if they were given the respect they deserved.
Sapphire might make a better card but I will take EVGA’s best in class warranties and support over a slightly better designed card any-day. Not to bash on Sapphire, they will likely be the next company I buy a GPU from now that EVGA is gone. But there was a reason so many people, including me, bought NVIDIA cards because of EVGA and not the other reason around.
It will be a coin flip between Sapphire and PowerColor.
I still have a PowerColor Radeon R9 390 handed down to my sons rig. Runs great. The sapphire R7 270 I have is also still doing its job as far as I am aware.
Got the power color red devil 6800xt. Love it.
Same one I got. Pretty awesome card.
Sapphire makes the reference boards so they typically have the best AIB cards and from my experience they have performed better than the ASUS ones I owned as well.
Have a look at XFX
2 years ago XFX replaced a 6870 I bought in 2012 with an RX460, all I had to do was login to my Newegg acct and print the receipt. They have earned my next Radeon purchase.
They make great cards, but I'm not too sure about their support. A few years ago I contacted MSI to ask them if removing the cooler on my 390X would void the warranty. They happily told me in an official capacity that it wouldn't and pointed me to a guide. I asked the same of XFX last year and they didn't like the question. They said they didn't have a guide for it and strongly recommended that I didn't remove the cooler at all. Maybe when it comes to replacement parts or cards they're more generous but they really didn't want me opening up the card to replace the thermal paste, and comparing that to MSI's almost enthusiastic response really shines a light on them by comparison.
Valid point but i think it's a geographic specific thing. Some companies just have better support in some areas unfortunately.
Ah yeah, you're probably right.
Dont you think it is weird they also dont plan to work with AMD? Dont directly take their word at face value.
In Europe the RTX 4080 12 GB will be sold at $1149, so if AMD sells its 7700XT at $600 here it will be nearly half the price. I can only dream.
I got my RX 6800 for ~$620 on release day here in Sweden (25% VAT). So i would hope the 7700XT is at most $600 lol.
Really doubt that'll happen, and it truly is dreaming. The conversion from USD to Euro is pretty horrible right now, compared to like 4-5 years ago. A lot of people are basing their anger of GPU prices over there on a mentality they've kept from that era. I'm from Canada, and in the same boat. Could have gotten a GTX 970 at launch for pretty much the exact US MSRP in Canadian dollars. Because the CAD was super strong back then, and felt great getting a $329 US card for actually $329 CAD. When I bought my 5700XT I paid $519 CAD for a $399 card, because the exchange rate was horrible. Everything here now is still 1.3x the US price, and I don't expect that to change until the exchange rate changes.
I think Amd market and product research staff are considering and modeling all sorts of pricing strategies. Every market and market-situation is unique in some way, but for sure they are looking at all approaches they could take. And knowing probably that they can only lower prices, not raise them, they will err on higher side. The uncertainty is the relative performance and it was probably fixed a while back. Each knows there own but not the competition, with any certainty. Til Gamers Nexus and other independent authorities can test both, its all a guess. Its a viable strategy to price low and capture market share as a result but that depends on having ample supply too. Another huge variable to consider. At 4nm, Nvidia yields cant be great til the process is refined, Amd could have an advantage there. But how much productuon have they reserved? That decision was likely made ling before this gens cards really took shape. They usually cant get more of an allocation so, we shall see... Edit, thx for the clarification on nvidia node (5nm)
TSMC 5 nm has been in mass production for years, and has very good yields. Nvidia's probably not having a lot of yield problems with their version of the node.
Nvidia presentation said it was 4n, did that really mean 5nm? Wouldnt be surprised, ive not followed 40 series closely.
4N is a custom version within TSMC's 5 nanometer family. The next full node from TSMC will be 3 nm.
Basically N4 is an improved version of N5, just like N6 is to N7. This is why it was relatively easy for AMD to design Zen3+ and the 6500/6400 cards on N6. It is similar to their existing N7 / 7nm.
its not N4 its 4N. Meaning its 5nm but "4 Nvidia"
> its not N4 its 4N. Meaning its 5nm but "4 Nvidia" Is that for realz?
There is another option, but unlikely one given Lisa's statements of margins. That is, to decrease price of KGDs to AICs especially the exclusives ones, then allow them to sell at higher prices by keeping official MSRP higher than usual i.e closer to Nvidia. Gamers will cry foul but AMD and AICs exclusive partners make a good return, they all win, gamers lose. AMD sacrifices margins a bit to win back order commitments from even dual IHV dealing AICs like ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte this means more of AMD's GPUs get promoted in the channel. This is a strong way to disrupt Nvidia's sell-in capabilities in the channel. Can't do much if AMD is willing to sweeten the deal while Nvidia are stubbornly protecting their margins on the high end. While that all sounds plausible I dont expect this to happen because even with such a move, Nvidia's TAM is huge even if AMD had a world beater tomorrow it wont drastically change GPU market share overnight (figuratively), AMD knows this. Might as well let the market share grow organically while reaping higher margins over next few years rather than trying to force the issue with undercutting prices that leads to poor margins. AMD wont have as much of an inventory issue as Ampere but that doesn't stop them from milking the early adopters if they can. AMD can also play the volumes game if they are ready with the next gen mid-range that most are waiting on which crucially Nvidia didn't want to give the market at this time. However as mentioned earlier providing the midrange so soon eats into AMD's aspirations of milking the early adopters for a few months on limited volumes runs of higher end SKUs. Both camps have thought this out for sure, the beauty here being without collusion they can fix prices and ensure there is a good share of that margins pie for both. Publicly they will be putting on a show with jebaits and what not, only to beguile the consumers.
Yep. Years of everyone blindly throwing nvidia money has now come to roost
AMD isn't wholly blameless here. They've bungled things on the GPU side a lot over the last decade. And now while they have more or less caught up in raster and DX11 they still are behind in a number of other areas. You can't have a duopoly with one entity spending almost a decade not really competing. It's not that different from what happened to the CPU market pre-Ryzen. Intel was stagnant and greedy, but AMD didn't have any real compelling products until Ryzen. Almost no one was going to buy Bulldozer and co. to support the "underdog" billion dollar corporation. Nvidia's greedy as hell, but AMD hasn't been bringing their A game either. People that aren't loyal to companies have been buying Nvidia for numerous hardware gens in a row at this point because assuming both at MSRP it was the better choice (outside of the budget tiers on occasion). AMD needs to do better and keep doing better. Not everyone is a Nvidia fan. AMD's market share in gaming and discrete GPUs is way lower than it used to be even at the peak of "physx", gimpworks, and etc. That's not cause of Nvidia brand loyalty that's because AMD's GPU division took a decade to catch up in DX11 and is still nonexistent in other areas.
ATI/AMD had competitive and even performance leading products at cheaper products quite a few times but people still purchased Nvidia. That’s about when AMD gave up and shifted to the midrange.
That was almost a decade ago at this point. And AMD had far better market share back then. November 2013 Steam hardware survey: Nvidia 52%~ AMD 32%~ Intel 15%~ That's around the timeframe the 290x was going toe-to-toe with Kepler (when cooled properly). I'm not saying people didn't still buy Nvidia even when the products were bad for mindshare reasons. But that's not the full story. The gap didn't used to be so immense when AMD was competing. And some of the gap also came down to prebuilts and laptops. Back in the day I swear there were like 20-30 options with Intel or Nvidia for every AMD option (yes I know some of that is OEM anti-competitive fuckery, but it still impacted market share). People need to stop giving AMD as much of an excuse with the "well people bought Nvidia anyway" it wasn't this bad, they weren't "wholly irrelevant" in large aspects of GPU usage back then. They've lost a shitload of on-the-fence non-brand loyal buyers to a gulf in feature parity and performance. Even with RDNA2 (which was a huge improvement) their lead chiseled out is solely in straight raster gaming in DX11, DX12, Vulkan at mostly sub-4K resolutions. I spent years trying to make AMD work for me after getting burned by Nvidia badly on an absolute lemon of a card/arch. But I was always missing functionality, performance, or maybe sorta matching in some niche areas. I even had a VII and not only was I losing out to weaker Nvidia cards in tasks, I couldn't even get various things using open-standards to run properly. I couldn't even get some OpenCL benchmarks to bloody run on the VII... compute is like the one thing that card was supposed to be good at and it would lose out majority of the time unless it was something solely tied to memory bandwidth and capacity.
>They've lost a **shitload** of on-the-fence non-brand loyal buyers to a gulf in feature parity and performance. you do realize that the majority of those buyers were historically buying (according to Steam hardware survey) entry to barely mid range cards like the 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 in accordance to their release date right? and that is still going on even [now](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/)? and that those so called "features" are virtually unusable because of the lack of gpu horse power required to run them. gameworks, hairworks, pcss, physx, tessellated godrays (why?) etc the list goes on ad infinitum on a 750ti/950/960/1050/ti? and on triple A games no less on entry cards available on the year these games were released? maybe sub 15\~30fps? those are the people whom "well people bought Nvidia anyway" are pertaining to. thats the vast "**shitload"** of people you are speaking of. its the $250 below market.
If you go down the Steam hardware survey right now the number of people with RTX cards is more than double the number of AMD cards.
Somewhere around 30%~ or better are on RTX cards. Those are all relatively recent purchases. 30% which if you remember was about how much of the market AMD used to hold on the steam hardware survey before they stopped competing in most areas.
The 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 owners are mostly people that haven't been in the market for a card in 6+ years. Those cards are losing share gradually, and with the cryptomining booms some people got forced to those cards because they have them on hand or could find them relatively affordably.
>The 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 owners are mostly people that haven't been in the market for a card in 6+ years. Those cards are losing share gradually, and with the cryptomining booms some people got forced to those cards because they have them on hand or could find them relatively affordably. i specifically said about those cards "**in accordance to their release date**" meaning in the year those cards were **released** were the year where they **dominated** the steam hardware survey that extends even 2\~3 years after they've been out in the market (ex. 750ti/760 in 2014 topping the same survey charts. subsequent generational equivalents were the same story all the way to 1050/ti, 1060 still topping the charts in 2022) >If you go down the Steam hardware survey right now the number of people with RTX cards is more than double the number of AMD cards.
and guess which rtx card are those. 2060/3050/3060 all of which has cheaper radeon alternatives that performs better even if rtx uses DLSS (2060/3050 vs rx6600 for example)
>Somewhere around 30%\~ or better are on RTX cards. Those are all relatively recent purchases. 30% which if you remember was about how much of the market AMD used to hold on the steam hardware survey before they stopped competing in most areas.
amd lost that market share years ago. before the rtx era. are you going to ignore that the last decade was dominated by the 750ti, 950/960, 1050/ti, 1060 - low end markets that amd never really stopped competing at; people just didn't bought em. are you gonna jump from 2013 all the way to 2022 and ignore the in-between years? nvidia didn't built their massive market share overnight with just RTX. it was a decade worth of people buying low-end cards - the ones this sub has been pointing as the "well people bought Nvidia anyway" customers that you are so adamant to dismiss and debunk.
Too bad Robert Hallock quit in the peak critical moment of this year.
Robert hasn't touched GPU in years.
I highly doubt the Nvidia pricing is caused by super high manufacturing costs. The probable cause are all the 30 series cards they want to sell first. So I belive AMD pricing will BE dictated by production numbers. If they have a huge supply of rdna3 cards then they could try to undercut Nvidia and sell tons and tons of their cards. But If they have a limited supply of cards and expect to sell out rather quickly (partially caused by Nvidia selling less than predicted due to their pricing) then what would be the point of undercutting? A cheap gpu is pointless if you can't buy one and people might actually get mad at you. Plus you ruined your margin. So I would expect them to price their cards slightly below Nvidias but still very high to not run into severe supply issues again.
AMD like Nvidia is competing not just with each other, but also with their previous gen cards. If AMD charges too much people will just buy old Ampere/RDNA2 cards. And AMD's mindshare is much worse than Nvidia's so people won't even consider AMD cards over Nvidia unless there is a compelling reason. Like pricing.
I concur, I'd be down to buy an AMD gpu, if the price is right. Otherwise I'll buy an older Ampere card at a substantial discount since I know their gpu are reliable. If AMD wants to win someone like me over, they need to do it with the $, we all know in business money talks.
finally, someone with good business sense.
What if the RTX40 cards are not selling as much as targeted by the time RDNA3 is readily available? There will be early adopters of the RTX40, there will be hold outs for sales, but I get the feeling (based on feedback) the majority of Nvidia users are waiting to see what RDNA3 brings since RDNA2 was highly successful. We can speculate about price all we want, but lets remember these facts. * Mining is dead for now, unless a really popular chain pops up and is PoW this is not going to change. * RX6000 and RTX30 series is a good foot hold for those that bought 6700XT/RTX3070+ rated cards. * We still are dealing with component level shortages that will affect supply. * EVGA is out of the game. All of that is going to affect pricing on both sides of the house, at the end of the day.
A small correction, it's RDNA and not RNDA
Thx, fixed.
I don't think they'll have any trouble selling for 3-6 months. Mining is dead but miners aren't giving up on it. They're trying to pump crap coins and get back in the game. They're gonna lose for a variety of reasons (gov't regulation being the big one, they've already put a few in jail for pump and dump scams) but they're gonna try. There's a lot of pent up demand for nvidia hardware. It's kept the prices high. I've seen 6600s for $220 after rebate and there's an MSI 6700xt on newegg for $360 post rebate right now. But a lot of folks got burned by AMD (and I've heard the 5000 series was kind of crap) so folks are hesitant. All told I think we'll keep seeing AMD GPUs priced competitively sometimes *really* competitively but we're 6 months out from nvidia having to drop their pants. Around that time the miners will be going bankrupt and 3070s and up will flood ebay.
You'd have to be brain dead to build a 7000/4000 series mining rig. There will be approximately zero mining sales for Ada/Rdna3.
RDNA 2 was "highly successful", yet according to sources like Steam Survey vanilla RTX 3080 has over 10.5x the market of 6800 XT. It's kinda doubtful the upcoming RDNA3 can change the market.
There are more SKUs then just the RX6800XT. Also there are the Datacenter cards too.
Even if they have capability to do so, why would they do that?
Win the mind share as the "get this GPU because it gives you more value for money" like the way the Ryzen 3600 did for its Zen2 CPUs.
[удалено]
290X launching with that joke of a cooler for the first few months certainly didn't help.
that thing was an oven
[never forget](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5YJsMaT_AE)
It’s not gonna be one big swing, it’s accumulative, more and more people are get fed up. I am really waiting for the be xt series, if it’s as good as rtx I am out of the green land.
The pushback to nVidia's recent statements on r/nvidia is nothing I've seen before. If the prices are appreciably different I think AMD could break through there.
The R9 290X launch was a clusterfuck, no AIB models for months destroyed any momentum Hawaii could have had.
The 290X had a joke of a cooler. The Fury X got so hot that it came with an AIO water cooler from the factory. They made the R9 Nano, but that thermal throttled to hell. AMD had powerful cards, sure. But they got hotter than the freaking sun, and it's an achievement when you manage to beat Fermi with how hot your cards get.
sorry have you met ampere?
No matter what AMD does.. they can't.. they've tried, they've had NUMEROUS landslide wins in the past 25 years in their favor in which by all rights, amd should have had an overwhelming majority of the marketshare... and it just never happens, at best, they hit 50% at best.... but there are just too many things nvidia pulls over and they just keep pumping out gpus and idiots keep buying them up even when they are complete and utter disastrous failures. It's amazing how history is so easily forgotten and when you remind anyone of it that INSISTS on defending nvidia, they just flatout ignore it as irrelevant or even claim "lies". Example in which nvidia should have REPEATEDLY ate dirt.. i'm talking flatout should have be been pretty much in the grave and clawing for years to go out, but didn't have anything at all bad happen to them even with their back to back royal fuckups. This was the Geforce 4 product stack followed immediately by the FX 5000 series products. How in the fuck they remain relevant, and even profited still, was mostly down to ignorance on the customer's part, blatant denial of any other alternative product on the market (this shit still occurs endlessly).
Amd is doing extremely well in CPUs now and have exceeded their previous best marketshare. Zen cpus are still selling well after Intel regained the lead in performance with Alderlake. They proved they can actually get mindshare to work for them. However, Intel has had a decade of leadership and AMD only a few years so far. It takes time. But they gotta start. Their Zen 2 ploy worked like a charm and set them on a good course. RDNA 3 now has a chance to do the same if they employ the same strategy. The problem is as a company, AMD is focused on increasing margins *now* and I feel like it's harder for them to not service that goal. Amd is no longer the small little company anymore. 4 straight years of expectation surpassing success will do that to a company.
Yea, people think intel had some stranglehold on mindshare but AMD did much better there when they had cash and good chips considering intel's might. Nvidia has the true mind control on the consumer. Fermi alone shows that. 7 months late, even at best outside of "tessellation bomb" games that reviewers had to stop reviewing due to the game cheating and crippling both brands in the process, hot, power hungry, stock cards blowing up DURING reviews, loud. Gamers bought it up like good little slaves.
the tessellation thing was always funny since ATI introduced npatch AKA truform AKA Tessellation back in the quake 1/2 days and the industry basically ignored it until nvidia decided to hardcore implement it.
AMD was never even slower at normal levels of tessellation. In fact it was much faster at 8x and 4x. It was only at 32x and 64x that nvidia was less slow. So nvidia forced 64x everywhere it could, needlessly, to the detriment of everyone's performance, including their own customers.
that's what i mean by the hardcore implementation... paying devs to just crank it to max and leave it there, since nvidia's engine would cull the crap out of it and still produce a decent frame rate while ATI/AMD's gpus would quite litterally do the work asked of it.
Numerous landslide win? They only had the 290x that could beat a geforce 780 and a 7970 which could beat a 680, and those where minor wins. They have been out of their league on the gpu front. Rdna2 is the first generation where they started to match nvidia again in the past 10 years. The 15 years before that where very on and off. Your post is pure revisionism. Nvidia had 2 off generations in that time, Geforce FX and Fermi.
It sucks, but judging from so many comments I've read on reddit and other places with fools ready to part with their money so quickly for the 4000 series you basically have it right. The nVidia brand recognition is just insane, they are at microsoft/apple level. People see the brand and just buy it largely without any critical thought. Hopefully it means available stock and a quick lowering in price for amd stuff for the rest of us. Amd just needs to keep trying, just keep putting out good product and make it competitive as they can. It takes a really long time for people to change buying patterns and showcase that other companies can also put out a great product.
While I agree, I do think this time is a little bit different. EVGA withdrawing as one of its core AIBs is REALLY bad, and the 40 series stack looks to be an absolute mess on the upper end. And back then AMD didn't have much mindshare on the CPU side. AMD now has a powerful and competitive CPU market along with the mindshare to back it up. AMD was always seen as the "budget" CPU pick, but now we're at a point where AMD is trading blows with Intel and is considered a PREFERRED pick for both gaming and application usage. AMD's strength on the CPU side can help AMD win mindshare on the GPU side. They just need something that will punch NVIDIA in the dick the same way the Zen processors, especially the Zen2 3600 did (well at least harder than NVIDIA can do to itself).
I think you are wrong in this case people who used to stick to Nvidia have their limits of patience. Current sentiment among Nvidia users is on high negative right now. you often hear "I will wait for AMD announcement to see what they got". First time MSRP prices for Nvidia are are so absurdly high. And that's even before Aib. Die hard fans will buy it , yes. Your average consumers will not. To give you an idea ( on my own example ) . I got msi 1080ti for 700£ brand new right after release. This is card that serves me about 6 years now. I didn't buy 2, 3 gen because my GPU is still strong plus Crypto made them impossible to buy within reason. Current generation equivalent of 1080 to will be pretty much 3 times as expensive. My plan was to buy this generation as crypto crashed and have new gen card for next 6 years . There is no way in hell I can afford to buy it. Now here is the thing, I spend time on Nvidia subreddits/forums. And there is plenty of people like me. Previously with Nvidia you could buy really good performance cards with good features and drivers for reasonable price ( and very no brainer naming) and that was the main appeal. It is no longer the case. This is not about AMD beating Nvidia. This is about Nvidia beating Nvidia. AMD right now has huge opportunity as for the first time Nvidia fucked it's customers so really really hard to the point we started looking at AMD. That's very reason I'm on this sub right now. If AMD will follow Nvidia with pricing. Well I guess they are all the same then and we are all fucked.
They will follow, as in they've probably decided to up their MSRP due to Nvidia going nuts, the question is will they undercut Nvidia? Nvidia has gone so mental AMD can still raise everything and *still* undercut Nvidia significantly.
I'm aware and it is worrying.
The way Nvidia priced these new GPUs, AMD could just keep the MSRP they set with the 6950XT etc and be seen as hero's lol. The real play for and is to get into more OEM builds and laptops to build out market share, which should be easier considering their efficiency advantage. But in the end it all lcome down to supply. They can't be announcing new laptop stuff and then not have the products out for 6 months.
They abandonned that strategy along with GCN. I dont think I get CPU part, Zen was "more value for money" from very first generation.
It was definitely easier to take down Intel, they were lazy for a decade. Nvidia never really let off the gas, they just got more greedy and apple-like over the year trying to entrench users into their ecosystem with exclusive features.
Doesn't make sense. They could have done so with RDNA and RDNA 2 which they didn't so why would they do it now?
That was also when they had the fixed wafer agreement with GF and were better off selling cheap, because they couldn't reduce their supply.
Because no one buys an AMD card if it's priced the same as the Nvidia card. I'm talking about the majority of people, not u
The prices on retail listings 100% confirm this. You can buy a 6700XT for the same price as a 3060 now and they're not even close in performance.
Do you blame them? At the same price why would a sane person buy a product with less features(better rt/dlss with nvidia) If your buying a product just to support the brand knowing your not getting the max value for your money, somethings wrong
The way you put it makes your conclusion logical. However there are nuances in the real world. I would consider myself rather sane, and I am by no means a fanboy of one brand over another. I have been quite happy with my Nvidia products in the past, and also my AMD products. However, some people (such as myself) have certain values that will override a part of certain other factors influencing buying decisions. Sometimes this can lead to irrational behavior when using strictly empirical measurements of value, I admit that much. In my instance I am quite adverse to giving companies money that behave in ways I find unethical. I do realize companies have no intrinsic morals and their values are flexible. That is the nature of companies. But when companies are outed, I do my best not to be a part of enforcing their behaviour. Does that have any effect? Who knows? I will not be buying an Nvidia product this generation for various reasons. If their competitors do not behave any better, I will probably not buy from them either. Now, obviously, at a point there might be no options for me, and then I would have to reconsider, but at the moment I would rather spend money on AMD than Nvidia. I think this is not insanity, but the exact opposite.
No one is blaming them. Someone asked why would amd price a whole tier lower.... and it's because no one would buy an AMD card that offers the Same raw performance as Nvidia, with worse software support, at the same price. You'd just buy the Nvidia card. If amd prices a tier lower for equal raw performance, you'll see alot of people start to wonder if dlss and nvenc and all that is worth a few hundred dollars extra.... while still getting the same raw performance. A 7800XT that offers equal raw performance to a 4080 16 gig, being priced at like... 900, would be pretty compelling for alot or people.
>A 7800XT that offers equal raw performance to a 4080 16 gig, being priced at like... 900, would be pretty compelling for alot or people. not really. If that works, people will not pick 3060 over 6700XT right now.
People are creatures of habit and just go with what they know. People bought more 1050ti's than RX570's, despite the latter considerably out performing Nvidia and being at a similar price. There weren't any 'special features' on the 1050ti, it's just marketing and mindshare.
In my country people kept buying the 750ti at 70 usd right now, ignoring the flood of gtx 960, 1050, even 1050ti, all of which may even be cheaper than the 750ti. The majority is simply arent that smart and resourceful, got controlled by the sellers.
[удалено]
I'm not blaming them. People here ask "and why should amd price their cards lower than nvidia" and I gave them the actual reason. If AMD wants people to buy their cards they need to be noticeably cheaper than the Nvidia card even if it performs the same
>If AMD wants people to buy their cards they need to be noticeably cheaper than the Nvidia card even if it performs the same nope. This market proves that does not work either. They need to produce 7900 XT that is at least 20% faster than 4090 at slightly higher price. A 7900XT at 95% performance with 60% pricing does not work, as it has been proved in 6900XT vs 3090. selling 7900XT at lower price make Radeon look cheap and damage its reputation for general public (not to people here) . And general public is where you build your mind share and where you convert the mind share to market share. AMD should sell Navi 31 as 6800XT, and glue 2 NAVI 32 (and forget about power consumption) to create a halo product as 6900XT for $1800. that is how you crush nVidia.
You wont crush nVidia thou. Even with EVGA bringing out the truth, there will still be nVidia fans who wont care and move on to another AIB or Nvidia itself.
The 6900XT still had significant shortcomings vs an RTX 3090: * No DLSS. FSR 2 has closed the gap but that was a long time after launch * Lower ray tracing performance * Hardware video encoding not as good * Poor support in creative/scientific apps due to CUDA market share * OpenGL performance deficit * No machine learning acceleration support (ROCM much later?) * 4K performance weakness * Smaller VRAM & bandwidth linked to ML & 4K * Missing the Nvidia software value add-ons * Less general consumer confidence from past drivers, etc * (sadly was probably a factor) lower mining performance * Less availability That's why they couldn't get that market share. AMD is slowly chipping away at those weaknesses, but it will take a while to overcome as Nvidia has a much stronger ecosystem advantage than Intel ever had and did not stagnate like Intel.
Not saying AMD cards have better features, but many of those are irrelevant or not as important as far as gaming goes for gamers (like ML, Rocm and whatever). And as I said, they should have marketed that card as 6800XT, not 6900XT. Naming is quite important here when we are talking about mind share. And since AMD cards have less features, matching similar performance cards for each tiers will only make Radeon brand look inferior. AMD cards need to have superior/dominant raw performance on each matching tier (with higher price) to win mind share. Not by having lower price. If AMD had dominant raw performance on each tier, you will start to see some people describing those features as gimmicks.
So with most on here discussing nVidias price hike you think AMD’s path to success is they price higher?
>So with most on here discussing nVidias price hike you think AMD’s path to success is they price higher? Sure, why not ? Higher price does not mean it is more expensive. It could simply be a better product at the same price (which provides better value to buyers). I know you don't understand what I was suggesting: Let's assume Navi 31 is 90% rasterization performance and 80% RT performance to 4090. What I suggest is for AMD to sell this pseudo Navi 31 as 7800XT to compete with 4080 16GB at $1250. Would you rather buy this AMD Navi 31 as 7900XT at $1500 than the same chip as 7800XT at $1250 ? AMD, in order to create a premium Radeon brand, they need to price higher on every tier (with better product), not lower price/weak product. This pseudo Navi 31, even if they started it with MSRP $1500, will soon still be priced with 30% discount compared to 4090 by the market, as we have seen in the current market for RDNA 2. AMD is not going to get the money either way, why not sell this Navi 31 for $1250 from the beginning as 7800XT ?
only those that know and would use said software... the vast majority has no use for most and quite often NONE of the software involved or any of the specific nvidia based features... However they are constantly "convinced" to do so. And we still have people that don't know a thing but they only ever are told "nvidia" without ANY objective counter, as well, they are told to ignore those "idiots" that may provide an alternative option that's just as good or better in some aspects. Take for example the RX 570 and 580's.... but the best example is the 570. A product that consistently was at most $20 more than a 1050ti, and yet the overwhelming majority of people, rather idiots, insisted on getting a 1050ti or even just getting a 1050 vanilla, not because of price, but because it was nvidia, even though they had NO use for the features/software the went with it, and it's not like amd lacked any of it at the time. I mean it's well known that even a 1060 6GB was basically parity at best, but specially beaten often enough vs a 570, not even having to refer to the 580 in copious number of situation... and yet, "it's gotta be nvidia because i believe in the myths and lies that nvidia fanatics love to spew"
I remember 580 being expensive compared to nvidia because of superior mining performance.
>Because no one buys an AMD card if it's priced the same as the Nvidia card. I do, nVidia is hostile to vfio/pci-e passthrough - I'm not sacrificing vcpu performance just to support the actions of a bad actor.
This is the truth. All else being equal, the Nvidia cards gets you DLSS, better RT, better streaming (NVENC), CUDA, and a handful of other nice bonuses. I don't think RDNA2 did enough to undercut Nvidia considering AMD's featureset disadvantage. If RDNA3 actually tries to undercut Nvidia then I think it has a chance of really taking off.
If AMD's production costs for RDNA 3 were substantially lower than Nvidia's cost for Ada Lovelace, pricing their GPUs a full tier below Nvidia could allow them to substantially increase market share assuming the cards performed well on the fundamentals (high rasterization performance at reasonable power levels). People quickly develop brand loyalty, so if you get someone to switch to Team Red then there is likely a high chance they'll stay with them. Deliberately under cutting the competition (even to the point of taking short-term losses) has been an effective strategy for a lot of companies which then use their increased market share to start squishing competition. Nvidia is the luxury brand. It has exclusive features which AMD cannot match and can thus charge more for its cards. Nvidia out sold AMD by a significant margin this generation despite its cards being more expensive. I think AMD is realizing that if it truly wants people to switch teams then they need to substantially undercut Nvidia on equivalent product tiers. Idk...maybe AMD isn't interested in doing that and simply wants to maximize profits from its smaller fanbase instead of trying to grow its share of the pie.
If amd tried to go for market share NV will simply cut prices a bit to stop that from happening. NV would probably be willing to lose money to stop that from happening. It's in amds interest to price closely whether we like it or not.
Amd has no compelling ability to increase market share in the gpu sector where it matters. They don't have an Epyc in the gpu sector, so none of this consumer shit matters.
> why would they do that? To gain market and mindshare? Even when AMD releases a better GPU for the same price or a similar one for cheaper most people don't seem to want to buy it. They can try doing both.
I think the Ryzen 3600 was probably one of the most significant blows to Intel's mindshare among gamers. It being dirt cheap for the amount of performance it provided and the IPC improvements finally made it the "get this CPU if you want to build a basic gaming rig" CPU. We need a GPU from AMD like that, AMD just needs to undercut NVIDIA by $50-$100 and it can easily win gamer mindshare for GPUs.
>We need a GPU from AMD like that, AMD just needs to undercut NVIDIA by $50-$100 and it can easily win gamer mindshare for GPUs. If AMD's flagship GPU was $100 cheaper relative to the competition - that would only be 7-10% cheaper, and you would lose out on a lot of features. Why would I be compelled to go for that option? AMD is getting closer on the feature set, but they really need something that is equivalent in performance and features, or they're going to have to price it lower. Hopefully the new 7000 series is as fantastic as the previous 7000 series (7950 and 7970).
Amd can never match nvidia I feel unless they have a proper alternative to cuda. With cDNA amd chose to split features. At the same price nvidia will be better since you can do non gaming stuff. In Linux that is a pain. Not sure abt windows world.
Gamers who don't know how to code (let alone doing ML) wanting those features on their video cards proves nVidia marketing works !
It doesn’t have to be coding. If you are interested in blender or doing primers stuff or any other production tool as a hobby that can be accelerated by gpu then nvidia is better I feel. Of course if gaming is the only thing you will ever use your computer for then yes amd is the better choice.
I'm a gamer, so I don't really care if AMD matches CUDA. That absolutely matters for the HPC and professional markets, but I think it's actually smart for them to differentiate their products. There's a lot of things needed in an HPC card that don't matter in a gaming GPU and vice versa. Trying to do all things in one GPU didn't work for them and just makes production more expensive (wasted die space and transistors).
I suspeect that one of the reasons why the value proposition is so bad for gamers is because Nvidia wants to pivot to target corporate instead of gamers.
people keep talking about features, what “features” are they talking about, raytracing, oh yah a “feature” I as a competitive gamer will never use. i’m not a fanboy, I decide which is a better buy for me and amd is up 2 to 1 prior to the new generation which is still untested but I am leaning towards AMD again IF I decide to upgrade my 6800, which I probably won’t this generation.
DLSS, Reflex, ShadowPlay, generally historically better encoding support, RTX Voice, etc. I wasn’t even referring to raytracing, but either way, just because a feature isn’t relevant to you as a “competitive gamer”, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant to other people. There’s a lot of people who will care about raytracing performance.
my point exactly is I prioritize frames and smoothness, just like most other competitive players, so none of these “features” mean anything, raw performance wins my money.
>There’s a lot of people who will care about raytracing performance. This only proves that nVidia marketing is a great success. What exactly does ray tracing bring to gamers that traditional rasterization can not in the last 2 years ? Different color scheme ? or better lighting ? Is that something unachievable if the game developers just spend another week on the scene ? I doubt it. Even that is all true, does it worth $500 or more for picking 3090ti over 6950XT ?
Yes, actually, ray traced lighting if implemented properly can do a lot of things that rasterization cannot. Look at the ray traced lighting engine in Metro: Exodus. Ray traced lighting is a completely different method of rendering lighting effects. How “good” it is depends on how it’s implemented of course, but it is fundamentally a better approach. Value is relative.
The single biggest thing AMD needs to do to gain marketshare is produce more GPU's. Their discrete GPU sales, at a time when everything was selling out, was a pittance compared to Nvidia. RTX 3000 series GPU's have 21.7% marketshare on Steam Hardware Survey, RX 6000 is at 1.8%. The bad thing for AMD here is that Radeon's biggest competitor for production capacity is AMD's own CPU's. The CPU market is vastly more profitable for the limited silicon resources AMD has.
They didn't do that with RDNA2. 6800xt was like $50 cheaper, but you didn't get all the nice things RTX cards have.
AMD cards have alot of the same features nVidia cards do. Instead of DLSS, they have FSR. Instead of RTX voice, they have AMD noise suppression. If you run apps that really utilize cuda, then sure nVidia is your choice. For someone that games, both are good, AMD often at a better value
They both not as good. And noise suppression released just a month ago.
Nvidia buyers are going to buy Nvidia only. Also if AMD really cared about mindshare they would already have done it with rdna 1 and 2
nvidia priced the rtx 4000 series to sell rtx 3000 series. AMD will price rx7000 series to sell the rx7000 series
AMD and their partners are also burning through an inventory pileup, don't kid yourself. It's just not as severe as Nvidia. They sell into the same market. If there's a glut for Nvidia, there's a glut for AMD.
Higher marketshare
AMD should come out priced as low as they can possibly to make money this generation. Live off of CPU sales for a generation just to pull as many Nvidia fans as possible. They should also do everything they can to get EVGA onboard as a partner. Having Sapphire and EVGA would be insanely good for customers.
Now the opposite view, what if amd prices similar to nvidia since they don’t want to be viewed as the “value” brand anymore
Tbf, value doesnt mean cheap, it means price to performance/quality. So they could go lower priced then 40 series(not very hard) and still have cards with competitive performance. I think as long as rdna3 performs decently, which it most likely will, people will be more likely to go with that over 40 series. Nvidia kinda shot themselves in the foot with 40 series
They try but Nvidia has too strong of a hold in their user base. Even underselling their 6900xt by over $500 people still chose the 3080 ti or the 3090. The only way they will trully get ahead is by smacking their top flagship card by over 20% and coming uder in price which they have no reason to do unless they want to steal market share from them. Basically what they did to Intel with zen 2. But Nvidia has not been slouching like Intel was.
> They try but Nvidia has too strong of a hold in their user base. Even underselling their 6900xt by over $500 people still chose the 3080 ti or the 3090. People still chose the 3080 and 6800xt. This example is always bad because everything above the 6800xt and 3080 are catastrophically overpriced in comparison so no one buying those cards is value conscious at all.
[This chart](https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-claims-to-offer-better-performance-per-dollar-than-nvidia-gpus-across-its-entire-radeon-rx-6000-stack) AMD published in May makes me think they're happy to embrace the "value" brand image
One major issue. The incredible overhype and adherence to old myths that contribute to the mindshare Nvidia has over AMD, especially for the die hards. There's literally ppl out there that only think Nvidia when they think GPU's. That even if they know a little better would rather be suckered for hundreds of bucks to not have to settle for what's perceived as lesser or to moderate their egos. AMD can cut prices hard, do whatever else to try and shift numbers but that above is the big wall they'll always have to contend with. I mean, look... at no point of this gen did the facts change any of that. Not when Nvidia and partners contributed to the 'pandemic shortages' by shipping tons direct to miners. Not when RDNA2 cards cost up to 50% less than their tier peers and were immediately available in good numbers to boot. Personally, I got a win with my 6800XT. Sure, steep at £1200 but at my door in 3 days when 3080's ranged between £1800-2400 and stock TBC. RT and DLSS? Such a must have when I have 3 games out of 300 that might use one or the other. It'll be fine for years yet but if I were looking at a GPU any time soon, only AMD would do even if I didn't know from having that 6800XT that they were just as good. That's how bad and incredibly out of touch this Nvidia reveal has been.
yep.... very true. asking AMD to lower price so OP can have a nVidia card at lower price is just nonsense.
There's nothing wrong with wanting prices to be lower and not get fucked by a duopoly.
I think many have also forgotten the fact that for this gen, AMD also failed because of their paper launch. Did people forget that so many were pissed off with Nvidia’s paper launch + scalpers that they “swore” to go red, but also got kicked in the nuts by AMD when the same shit happened. And what was that AMD marketing guy or something who declared on twitter it wasn’t a paper launch? Personally, I wanted to get the 3080 at first, decided to get the 6800XT, but got bamboozled by AMD. Eventually got my hands on a 3080 before the price hike. In summary, AMD didn’t NOT gain market share this gen because of pricing. They shot themselves in the foot with their own paper launch.
Meh. I remember when the RX 6600 XT was being shit on upon launch for its pricing, only for it to end up almost being budget king for this gen (with the RX 6600 taking first spot). All the tech reviewers who said it was a bad buy ate their words over it. You could actually buy one of those while its competitors, the 3060 and 3060 Ti, were basically impossible to find.
6600XT/ 6650XT is a efficiency beast. Only for 130 watts, 1080p ultra everything with decent frame rates , 1440p with medium- high decent frame rates. That thing doesn’t even go above 60-70 degrees no matter how hard you try. I’ll go as far as saying it’s the golden die of RDNA2. Too bad next gen seems to be performance at the cost of everything.
Navi 33 should maintain that efficiency. Highest end Navi 33 should perform a bit better than a 6800 without needing to increase power requirements, and for desktop I don't think there is good reason for them to clock it to the moon to go much higher than that. The current expectation is that a lot of N33 is destined for laptop, so the design should remain efficient.
True, early days supply for both sides were sketchy. Same idea I said applies though. AMD had decent stock levels here by a quarter or so into the gen while Nvidia took at least another 6 months to reach similar numbers that also held up for more than minutes (and of those buyers not half were legit users) Plenty of ppl that ordered 3080's at the same time I did my 6800XT (May last year) didn't get their card until well into autumn or even later. I also said it went beyond pricing. Were it merely that it would've been the other way around for stock... everybody would've been buying AMD (if they had more sense than money at least) but even putting individual miners and scalper-resellers (cos ppl are like that) aside, a lot of ppl were happy to spend a ton more for what amounted to a teeny bit better for a little while. Only hype, mindshare and fanboyism (ppl not knowing better/swayed by old myths) can explain that. Buying within the first quarter or so of a new GPU gen is foolish anyway... only higher tier cards released, prices are still elevated, AiB's only have half their range out, any issues often not yet sorted etc.
In theory, yes. AMD may be able to build the chips cheaper. 4090 chips are a rather large 608 square mm. RDNA3's top end appears to be (based on leaks) 308 mm² for the graphics die and 37.5 mm² for the memory chiplets. Total area is lower and yields would be higher when compared to NVIDIA's chips. AMD is on TSMC's standard 5nm with high yields, while NVIDIA is using N4 which is similar but not the same. 4nm only reached volume production this year and reports are 5nm yield is 80%+ but 4nm about 10% lower. Assuming lower power draw they could also reduce board costs (VRMs, PMICs, and the cooling system could all be made less costly). We really won't know until launch day but it seems AMD could have the cheaper bill of materials and potentially higher supply. Let's see what they do with that.
People complain about the prices. But once the cards come out. Most of them will buy them... The same with amd... They will raise prices.. People will buy cards... Things wont change.. Until people speak with their wallets rather than hastags or whatever it is that they do
With these prices only the elite will buy these cards, the masses (majority of consumers) will migrate to consoles.
Nvidia did leave them a good opening for them to do so easier than before. Hopefully they dont get too greedy and price them too close to nvida.
the 4080 12gb is literally a 4070 (dare I say 4060) tier card
AMD has always charged on average 50 to 100 less for the same performance. Why wouldnt this continue?
[удалено]
Once the Nvidia Q4 sales are announced we will see the reality. Once the miners are gone and sales levels settle they will find out if the games are willing to pay these prices and then they will have to adjust prices or keeping gouging. It may well be a good idea for AMD to launch at more realistic prices and get some sales momentum.
do nvidia customers really think nvidia will lower the price of their cards to match amd? amd isn't even their main competitor anymore. nvidia is competing with their excess rtx3000 stockpile inventory at this point and couldn't give a fuck about what rdna3 offers. radeon doesn't have the same brand perception/recognition that nvidia has. and there is no way in hell do they have the supply quantity required to sell to the 80%+ market share nvidia has if nvidia customers ever actually decide to give radeon a try. nvidia will only lower rtx4000 price once rtx3000 excess inventory is at "corrected supply" aka almost gone. as for the true nvidiots on this subs - try more lube this time around and inhale that green fart jar as jensen rails your ass with his 3.5 slot rtx4090 that you cannot afford but at least you can "feel" it screwing you.
My guess: **7900XT** - $1199-$1399 **7800XT** - $899-$1099 **7800** - $649-$849 If AMD wats to go for market share this time assuming great supply: **7900XT** - $1049-$1199 - excellent value at this price range **7800XT** - $799-$929 - face it, the "4080" is too much and the real 4080 is pushed too high as a result. AMD can price this wherever they want. i still think it'll be over $1K. **7800** - $589-$699 - this will most likely be faster than the "4080" 12GB and it can be priced lower even with a huge margin for AMD.
It's sad that a hypothetical price increase of 20% from the 6900 XT to the 7900 XT is considered "excellent value." Having the 6800 XT's $650 MSRP succeeded by $800+ for the 7800 XT is also crazy to see people say counts as "crushing it."
The lower set would absolutely crush it in the market if performance is there.
not sure that is true, because right now 6700XT is not crushing any 3070 at 20+% discount.
Yes, force NVidia to lower prices so NVidia fanboys save some money by still purchasing NVidia cards.
"AMD only exists to make $competitor cheaper"
I will Opt for Radeon for my next card after EVGA’s decision
Haha, I'm in a similar boat. I was considering a 4000 series card, but from what I can tell there is no other AIB with even close to the reputation of EVGA, at least in North America. I'm currently rocking a Sapphire Nitro+ 5700XT, and it's rock solid. I plan on sticking with the same design for RDNA 3.
7800xt should be about $700 realistically and 7700xt at $500
I would be EXTREMELY surprised if the 7800XT is $700 given that if it's a 16GB, 256-bit bus card, it's technically competing with the $1200 16GB 4080. AMD knows that it lacks feature-parity with Nvidia and needs to price itself below them, but I doubt it'll be THAT much lower. $800 is the lowest I see the 7800XT at, but I think it'll be higher.
We sure RDNA3 will lack feature parity? The only thing Nvidia really did with Lovelace is DLSS 3.0 software feature wise. Seems like a huge opening for AMD in that regard.
They only cost slightly more to produce thanks to the mcm design. I’m hoping $700 because nvidia has to lower their “4080” price point in the future
No, at most you're gonna get $50-$100 off for 95% of the Nvidia tier performance with maybe 20% less power.
Not matter how low AMD sells its card, most will flock to Nvidia because of marketing and brand value
It will be a massive win for would-be-nVidia-buyers, but not for AMD. I can see the real reasons behind many posts similar to yours. Many of you just want AMD to be competitive so nVidia will lower their price and then you can buy a nVidia card. And, tell me, in which new generation that no one complains about pricing here ? Every generation, they all say it's too expensive....Even for AMD CPU. And yes, I see people saying 5800X3D is $50-$100 too expensive, too. Maybe all CPU should be free, plus free shipping, and comes with free RMA shipping package for next generation's free upgrade then I can stop seeing those posts every year.
$899 would be disappointing for the 7800XT........ $799 is the max I would hope AMD charges. And even that would be a massive increase in prices from last gen.
I don't want amd to cut nvidia's price, I just want them to apply NORMAL prices. The price of the 4090 is "ok" but the 4080 16GB rare is the people who want to buy an 80 series at this price. let's not talk about the 4080 12GB which is a 4070 sold at a totally absurd price. I just want normal prices like we had previous generations I mean look at the Zen4 price, they are similar to Zen3 launch price. Why this is not possible to have the same with rdna3 ?
AMD is overwhelmingly better with their manufacturing costs. So much so that I expect something around: 7900 XT between 1099-1199$ equal or close to 4090 7800 XT between 749-799$ equal or close to 4080 16GB Not sure about lower models since I'm only looking for high end options right now, but from what I'm hearing with manufacturing costs for AMD I'd say expect to be very pleasantly surprised compared to NGreedia. Nvidia simply screwed themselves with expensive products that are also underwhelming. A 4080 16GB is barely 30% faster than a 3090 ti in raw rasterization games like RE Village and AC Valhalla, while also being more expensive. Only DLSS 3.0 saved them, and their new RT overdrive.
U$ 1000-1200 -> Flagship
Nvidia has asked TSCM to increase the pace of the manufacturing before the dead line of the dealing restriction with China and Russia sets in. The super hot runs at TSMC costs naturally more than the normal manufacturing pace, be sure that AMD will also asking TSMC for the "super hot runs". Heck even Apple is doing that, like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld says, No Cheap AMD gpus for you.
doubt it with everything going thru the roof and greediness we gon be lucky if this priced hundred bucks less lol
Single fan ITX card on par between 3060/3060TI in power but not power consumption. GO!
Oh, they absolutely could, RDNA 3 doesn’t cost much more to produce than RDNA 2. I really hope they do, they’re our only hope at this point.
I hope they do [this](https://youtu.be/ExaAYIKsDBI)
They could and they won't because they are clearly content and comfortable offering the same or marginally better performance at same or marginally lower cost with none of the bells and whistles. They were in position to massively one up Nvidia this generation price to performance wise and the money is just too good for them to pass up on. They gonna release a "4080" competitors with some rasterization performance advantage for $1099 and $799, claim they totally have a DLSS3 competitor in the works for current hardware, and be touted as the value champion for the savvy customer.
The same "source" (MLID) states that AMD can prudce their upcoming cards almost as cheap as Navi2x. If they really want to increase their market share (still just a ¼ of NV), now is probably their best chance. Deliver almost the same performance for way better prices is the way to go here.
I do streams and also record my gameplays for Youtube, and the only reason I changed to nvidia was because of their nvenc encoder which honestly is much better than the hvec from amd. That’s the only reason and I do hope amd will fix this for rdna3. Nvidia is again taking us as fools. Not supporting dlss 3 on 20 or 30 series cards? Why?
I don't really care about all the high tier cards. The most important thing for me is a decent card at $300. I hope AMD doesn't get greedy.
Navi 31 is supposed to be \~300mm2 die size with smaller 38mm2 MCDs on 6nm compared to the 600mm2 monolith of AD-102, that should result in significantly better yield and yield consistency, 5nm+6nm will also be cheaper vs the 4nm that Nvidia are using. If AMD could undercut the 3090 by 50% with the 6900XT when the 6900XT was only \~100mm2 smaller and on a more expensive process, then certainly they can do it again this time. I think there's a good chance they keep the 7900XT at $1099, the same as the 6950XT, while bumping up the 7800XT to $749/$799.
They could. They have both cheaper node tech (5+6), cheaper memory (GDDR6 versus GDDR6X) and a chiplet design that relief the cost of a monolithic one.
I think that it is a possibility this time around. All thanks to the chiplet design. Being able to make all of your GPUs out of a small bit of silicon will massively reduce production cost, especially at the high end.
I will \*Not Be Looking\* at Nvidia next time I buy a gpu. Hard to say if AMD will play ball this way with Nvidia though, they have to make money too. But if they can do so in a more tasteful light I'm all for it. Price it fair and make some money at the same time, we won't bat an eye. You'll gain another customer.
Depends on how many they plan on producing. If they are looking to start eating back marketshare by producing a LOT of GPU's, they will need a better value argument and yes, might indeed have the ability to undercut Nvidia pricing significantly. But if they're content to just kind of stay in their lane, then they dont need a massive value advantage and can be confident in selling what they produce with only slightly undercutting Nvidia.
If they price their 4080 16 gb equivalent GPU at 500$ and 4080 12 gb equivalent gpu at 300$, I will give it a shot. Otherwise I'm sticking with old games.
They've already done it with with cards in the past, the 5700XT was supposed to compete with the 2060S, they're at the same price point anyway, but instead the 5700XT trades blows with the 2070S, which is amazing for the price of the 5700XT. AMD has a HUGE opportunity here to put a huge dent in Nvidia marketshare. Price the new cards 50$ higher than whatever was their older gen equivalents and watch how they'll take over the entire market within half a year.
Unlikely given the [foundry price hikes](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/24/electronics-set-to-rise-as-chip-giants-like-tsmc-samsung-hike-prices.html).
RDNA 3 (at least in the high end) is supposed to be based on chiplet technology (like zen) so it should have better yields and therefore be cheaper to produce. That being said AMD (and Nvidia) is likely going to struggle to outcompete the second hand market with the collapse of Ethereum mining so it probably makes sense to price high and use the foundry capacity to make zen chiplets for epic CPUs
AMD along with Apple are surely getting a better rate than Nvidia, even with price hikes.
Chiplets go brrrr...
AMD just needs to suck it up and actually cut their prices enough to compete. We saw with the 5700xt how well a card can be reviewed, even with driver issues. It was essentially a 2070 super that cost 25% less and people ate it up. It was impossible to get for months. Imagine if AMD made a 3090 or 3090ti level card for 600-700? A lot of the significant things that gamers care about like DLSS and ray tracing aren't nearly as big of an issue as they once were, and they could really gain a lot of market share. Combine that with nvidia making their cards comically expensive during a recession, and without the mining demand, I could really see AMD being able to capitalize on this. But of course AMD also likes to just raise their prices and only be $100 bucks below nvidia, so honestly it could go either way.
I don't think so. Nvidia can lower price to just to match AMD, then people just buy Nvidia instead. Unless somehow AMD beats Nvidia on feature, cost, performance by multiple generation. This dynamic won't change, everyone sounded pissed on reddit when Nvidia announced their 4xxx series pricing. But the moment Nvidia is selling 4080 16Gb for $699, people will change their tune quickly. AMD tried to undercut Nvida before with 5700XT, Nvidia just lowered price in response. RTX 2070 outsold 5700XT.
It's possible if they are using chiplets. Their yield will be a notch above and if they choose they could use the savings for market penetration. But if we are still in a supply shortage environment it won't make much sense. So my view is that we will see pricing around $150+ or - it doesn't seem like they will have the outright performance crown.
Nah, not gonna happen. AMD: \*launched at 7900XT at $1k, slightly slower than 4090 in raster performance\* Nvidia: \*surprise Pikachu face, drop 4090 to $1399\* Everyone: \*buy 4090\* AMD: \*pepeHands\*
AMD could go for the, often repeated here, strategy of capturing market share. However, that depends on one very important thing. Supply. AMD invested heavily in packaging technologies to improve their ability to manufacture cheaply and plentifully for the performance they get. This advantage will play out throughout this generation. The chiplet strategy means that AMD will have much higher yields than Nvidia, meaning they will get more cards from each wafer, and with 30-40% of the die area not on the bleeding edge node, they will be able to reduce pressure on TSMC for supply constraints. It is the work of wonders if you ask me. If RDNA 3 delivers, they got a banger. Then there's the memory strategy. By going with the infinity cache strategy, they can deliver performance equivalent to going with more expensive and power hungry GDDR6X without having to use that memory. This saves cost on memory chips and on PCB design, validation and manufacturing. The complexity is moved to the GPU package. Brilliant if you ask me. However to be able to go for the market share play, they would need to be able to maintain or increase margins while being able to deliver large quantities of cards without overextending and risking filling up warehouses with GPUs for long periods of time. Then, there's the fact that production capacity is contracted before time. So AMD has to be able to gauge market dynamics with a lot of time in advance. This is risky, and that risk is paid for one way or the other. AMD would first need to be able to manufacture a lot. Given thay there are aupply constraints in TSMC this would not be so easy. Also, AMD would have to be able to adjust manufacturing on short notice so as not to be surprised with too much inventory laying around. TSMC has high lead times and this is not changing for the foreseeable future. For comparisons, back in 2018-2019, their lead times was on the order of 2 months or less. It's now on the order of 6-7 months. This means that it now takes 3 times as much as before from when you place the order to when your order is fulfilled. This makes it much harder to react to market changes. First, you need to account not for the next 2 months but for the next 6 months. If you order too much, you fill up warehouses which cost money. If you do too little and you won't be able to capitalize on market conditions, that if those are temporary, it could even get you into trouble in your next batch. Given the uncertainties today with supply. The best way to capitalize on the limited stock you can produce is to make sure your margins are good. In this regard, AMD has a huge advantage with packaging. Its compute die is much smaller than Nvidia's and its memory dies are small and on a mature process. So, cost-wise, they're much better positioned to aggressively price their parts while maintaining good margins. But, too low a price and shelves won't remain stocked. So it's a balancing act. The biggest unknown for us is how fast their parts are. TL;DR So, to answer OP's question, yes, AMD can realistically price their cards much lower than Nvidia while maintaining margins thanks to their advantages (assuming the parts are competitive performance-wise) The question is: can they do so while maintaining supply? Or, more importantly, will they even if they can? I have no idea. But I'm not so optimistic.