Has anyone been able to sign up on AMD site to be notified about release ?
Last few days I keep visiting the site and fill out info and keep getting the following error. I may call Investor Relations tomorrow and see what going on for them to pass the word of error-
Please correct the following errors:
- We were unable to process your request; please try again later. If the problem persists, contact support for assistance.
Would be great if it's a compute beast. Attacking the competition in the lucrative markets while offering competitive products at attractive prices hurts them more than AMD loosing a little profit.
Don't you think it would better if AMD priced it, $750? Maybe even $800? I mean, if their own slides showed it beating a $800 RTX 2080, surely they are confident it can go toe-to-toe with it?
Don't you think it would better if AMD priced it, $750? Maybe even $800? I mean, if their own slides showed it beating a $800 RTX 2080, surely they are confident it can go toe-to-toe with it? And if on the compute side it can, as so many are hoping for, compete with a $2500 Titan, surely $800 is justifiable?
Looking at the AMD of today I'm thinking the overall strategy is too bring the competition to them and not follow them. If you make a compelling product that can satisfy the market(s) and sell it for a reasonable price it makes the competition look overpriced. If AMD'S offering cuts into the competitor's sales they have to cut prices, offer more, or both. Zen did this to Intel. Sure Intel still sells, but now a person pays less for more than in the past. Gotta hurt Intel more than the extra bucks AMD would make. Same philosophy applies towards Nvidia. AMD just went after Intel 1st.
According to AMD's benchmarks it's around 10% slower than the 2080 and around 1080ti perf. You're making it look like they can either price it at $700 or $400. They don't. They could've priced it at $600 and it would've been much better. At $700, for gaming, it competes against a faster and more efficient 2080 with the usual Nvidia PR feature (stereoscopic 3D, physx, gameworks, rtx or whatever). Unless benchmarks show otherwise, the only thing going for it is "future proof" 16GB ram - which might (or might not) pan out.Don't you think it would better if AMD priced it, $750? Maybe even $800? I mean, if their own slides showed it beating a $800 RTX 2080, surely they are confident it can go toe-to-toe with it? And if on the compute side it can, as so many are hoping for, compete with a $2500 Titan, surely $800 is justifiable?
I get prices are soaring, but seriously is this how pro-AMD posters expect AMD to catch up? By continuously underselling their products? Again, the HD 4870 redux conundrum. You see it almost everywhere regarding this company. It's almost as it's loyal users/buyers would rather the company exist as a small player selling cheaper products versus making money and competing on a better platform?
Pre-Polaris launch: 90% of GTX 1080 in DX12 for half the price. Yeah, sure
RX 580 - GTX 1070 performance closer to GTX 1080 overclocked, for half the price!. Yeah, sure.
Vega - poor Vega.
Zen - you had posters expecting a i7 4970 killer for half the price. You can argue they got something to what they wanted in multi-tasking threads.
But why are the people you'd expect to prop AMD usually the first who want the world for half the price?
As numerous others have said time and time again, we already know what happens to sales when AMD charges the same price as NVidia.
In an ideal world this wouldn't be the case, but NVidia has mindshare that AMD doesn't, and brands do have value. It's why Apple can sell phones for $1000 when other companies can barely get by selling equivalent hardware for half the price.
$700 is already a niche market. It doesn't really matter what AMD does here as they're not planning on shipping massive numbers of these cards. An extra $50 may not even result in an additional quarter million dollars in revenue if some of the rumors regarding the limited supply of these cards are to be believed.
If this card happens to fit your niche needs and represents a good value, by all means purchase one. I think that most of us would rather hold out for Navi and hope that AMD has made significant improvements to their architecture and that they sell them at prices that represent a similarly significant improvement in value to the consumer.
According to AMD's benchmarks it's around 10% slower than the 2080 and around 1080ti perf. You're making it look like they can either price it at $700 or $400. They don't. They could've priced it at $600 and it would've been much better. At $700, for gaming, it competes against a faster and more efficient 2080 with the usual Nvidia PR feature (stereoscopic 3D, physx, gameworks, rtx or whatever). Unless benchmarks show otherwise, the only thing going for it is "future proof" 16GB ram - which might (or might not) pan out.
Of course this is pending reviews. If the card is faster than a 2080 from day 1 - then at least it'll be give people other options and maybe some mindshare, but I don't see that happening. Also, that's obviously for gaming. If you need something for compute, then that's something else eniterly.
I think that most of us would rather hold out for Navi and hope that AMD has made significant improvements.
Yes, it's PCIE5 that may be different.PCIe4 cards should be backward compatible with PCIe3 slots.
Yea, PCIe4 will work with 3, but you are only getting a small taste of it's bigger potential.
Another, older rumour. He did get Radeon 7, 16gb and performance target almost on the money. So I wonder if his info on number of cards can be relied upon too.