AMD cuts price on 300 & Fury GPUs

[Silverforce11]

http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-nano-price-cuts/

Prices are with rebates, ~$10-20 more without.

Fury X Down to $569, where it should have debuted in the first place IMO. Price was high due to supply constraints as Lisa Su admitted the ramping only happened after it debuted, being highly priced and out of stock was an indicator they could not lower the price until volume was good.

R9 Nano down to $549

Fury down to $499.

These prices are what they should have launched with based where these products fit against the competition. While Fury X has water cooling advantages, it lacks the single GPU OC performance of the 980Ti so it simply cannot justify being close to it in price.

390X down to $359 and 390 to $259

They are basically glorified 290/X with more vram which has actually served AMD very well in wiping away the "Hot & Loud" labels that stuck with Hawaii. I was very surprised they sold well from etailers here, given that 290/X Tri-XX and DD models were basically $100-150 cheaper and people didn't buy those!

R9 380 2GB & R9 380 4GB Down to $139 & $159

That's some real good prices at the low-end.

This means the 380X is going to drop to ~$189-$199 real soon.

Also, we have ~2 quarters before 14/16nm GPUs debut. Current stuff do need to move before then as its a major node jump + major uarch revolution = epic performance gains to be expected.

Hopefully these prices translate to EU & Asia, because you guys over in the USA have amazing hardware prices.

 

[RussianSensation]

I still think Fury, Nano and Fury X are too expensive. With GTX980Ti for $530-550, it's hard to recommend any of these 3 cards. Relative to the R9 390/390X, they are all still too expensive.

R9 390 should be the sweet-spot of the U.S. GPU market right now.

From price/performance metrics, AMD is absolutely dominating the market in the U.S. right now.

R9 270 = $90
R9 380 2GB = $140
R9 380 4GB = $160
R9 280X = $170
R9 290 = $230 (but can be had as low as $180)
R9 390 = $270 (but can be had as low as $220)

Right now in the US, NV's only truly appealing card between $90-400 is the ~$235-250 GTX970.

For some perspective, November 2013 we had reference R9 290X for $549.99 and GTX780Ti for $699.99. Just 2 years later, in the U.S. it's possible to buy a $220-250 R9 390 or a $235-250 GTX970. Nice!

The rest of the world gets shafted, as usual.

 

[jpiniero]

I still think Fury, Nano and Fury X are too expensive. With GTX980Ti for $530-550, it's hard to recommend any of these 3 cards. Relative to the R9 390/390X, they are all still too expensive.

Given how huge the dies are I don't know if AMD can really. TSMC's probably charging them like $300 just for a good Fiji die let alone everything else.

 

[RussianSensation]

Given how huge the dies are I don't know if AMD can really. TSMC's probably charging them like $300 just for a good Fiji die let alone everything else.

Oh come on now. The Xbox One die is 363 square millimeters, up from the PS4's 348 sq mm. The prices for those chips 2 years ago directly from AMD were $100-110.

That was 2 years ago and that's with AMD's profits, after manufacturing costs. You cannot honestly believe that TSMC sells AMD a single Fiji die for $300 US.

The graphics die costs much less than you think.

There is no way that a mature 28nm wafer with today's yields would result in a $300 GTX980Ti/Fiji die from TSMC. Also, one just has to look at NV's gross margins to see how much $$$ they are raking in by selling $600 980Ti (or any other cards too on a % basis).

 

[Teizo]

From price/performance metrics, AMD is absolutely dominating the market in the U.S. right now.

However, given the metrics of the discrete gpu add-in card market sales by vendor, penny pinching is not the only thing that drives consumers.

 

[3DVagabond]

However, given the metrics of the discrete gpu add-in card market sales by vendor, penny pinching is not the only thing that drives consumers.

You are really good at putting a negative spin on a positive.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You are really good at putting a negative spin on a positive.

AMD "leads" in price/perf not by choice, but because they are forced to. Consumers are willing to pay more for NVIDIA GPUs at a given level of performance than AMD GPUs.

Sucks for AMD, but good for AMD buyers

 

[RussianSensation]

However, given the metrics of the discrete gpu add-in card market sales by vendor, penny pinching is not the only thing that drives consumers.

Well in the case of NV consumers, often it's paying more and getting less, like GTX750/750Ti vs. 265/270/270X or R9 280X vs. 960. I also find it amusing that many NV owners start to belittle price/performance and call price/performance "penny pinching" every time NV starts to get blown out of the water in this metric. However, when NV is winning such as the case with GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 6800GT, 8800GT, 8800GTS 512MB, 9800GT, GTX460, 560Ti, GTX970, price/performance is a HUGE metric. The same way overclocking works - when NV's cards suck at overclocking or when AMD's cards are overclocking like crazy (such that a $280 HD7950 was trading blows with a $450 GTX680), overclocking is suddenly a "swing" metric.

I'll give you a real world example that applies directly to you. Instead of buying GTX760 SLI that you had, HD7970 CF OC not only crushed that setup but today 980 cannot outperform HD7970CF in most AAA games, especially not at 1440P. Heck, HD7950 OC CF would have crushed 760 SLI with no effort. But why penny pinch when you can just buy NV and get less, but at least you own NV?

In that point in time 760 SLI cost $400 and 980 another $400, while HD7970 CF cost $0 (bit-coin mining) while outperforming both of those setupsa and all of that performance was available from 2012, and 2013, etc. You can call price/performance penny-pinching but I call it "I had to waste less $$$ on PC parts that I instead used on other hobbies". If price/performance isn't a factor, why aren't we all running GTX980Ti/SLI/Tri-SLI?

It obviously matters, matters A LOT for majority NV users who only buy NV cards. It's why cars like 660/660Ti/760/950/960/970 sell so well. Clearly loyal NV users care greatly about price/performance just not when it comes to AMD cards since to them those products don't exist -- I guess they do exist of the purpose of lower prices on NV cards.

If tomorrow the regular Fury dropped to $299, Fury X to $399, I am sure the loyal NV users will not care at all but as soon as NV reacts to these price drops with its own price drops, they'll open their wallets in no time. Before that though, some of them might call AMD desperate for lowering prices and delivering more value to the consumer.

AMD "leads" in price/perf not by choice, but because they are forced to. Consumers are willing to pay more for NVIDIA GPUs at a given level of performance than AMD GPUs.

Sucks for AMD, but good for AMD buyers

Ya, and that's been the case even when NV had genuinely mediocre GPU generations such as GeForce 5 or 7. However, trying to diminish the price/performance metric is an interesting tactic because price/performance is a crucial metric within NV's own line-up. Price/performance obviously matters a great deal seeing how popular 960 and 970 are but it doesn't mean that if Fury X is $299 tomorrow that it'll outsell a GTX970, because well it's not an NV card.

In fact, the worst 2 generations ever where the bias/loyalism of NV users was front and center for everyone to see was when AMD had a 6 months lead with HD5000 series and when AMD had a 2.5-9 months lead with the top-to-bottom HD7000 line-up. I remember on this very forum people still bought GTX285 over HD5870 or refused to upgrade to the HD5850/5870, waiting 6 months for Fermi.

How many people on this forum waited for the superior R9 290/290X? What about how many people bought 980Ti before even seeing a single review of the Fury X? You get the picture.

In any event, even for NV loyalists, price drops on AMD cards should be praised and welcomed because ultimately it means more pressure on NV to lower prices. Honestly, any objective gamer would want the market to shift to 50%/50% because that produces the healthiest competition and the biggest price wars. With lower volume sales, AMD cannot engage in long-term price wars while with 80%+ market share, NV may not even care to ever offer amazing price/performance over long periods. Neither of these scenarios is good for the average PC gamer. Only those who buy $600-1000 flagship NV cards might not care about this because well they aren't price/performance buyers for the most part. Either way, AMD needs to start gaining more market share for the future of the dGPU market. Who wants a monopoly?

 

[Arachnotronic]

It obviously matters, matters A LOT for majority NV users who only buy NV cards. It's why cars like 660/660Ti/760/950/960/970 sell so well. Clearly loyal NV users care greatly about price/performance just not when it comes to AMD cards since to them those products don't exist -- I guess they do exist of the purpose of lower prices on NV cards.

NVIDIA runs a really great business :thumbsup:

Seriously, this is something people should learn from...there is far more to running a successful chip company, especially when you are selling directly to end users, than just performance/specs. NVIDIA is clearly doing a lot of things right in terms of marketing its products and building significant brand equity.

 

[96Firebird]

How many people on this forum waited for the superior R9 290/290X? What about how many people bought 980Ti before even seeing a single review of the Fury X? You get the picture.

How many people waited for the 290(X), only to see the horrible reference cooler? Then waited for custom coolers, only to see the price skyrocket due to mining? (I was in this boat)

How many people waited on purchasing their flagship card until the Fury X was reviewed, only to see the lackluster performance compared to the 980 Ti?

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD "leads" in price/perf not by choice, but because they are forced to. Consumers are willing to pay more for NVIDIA GPUs at a given level of performance than AMD GPUs.

Sucks for AMD, but good for AMD buyers

That has nothing to do with my post.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well in the case of NV consumers, often it's paying more and getting less, like GTX750/750Ti vs. 265/270/270X or R9 280X vs. 960. I also find it amusing that many NV owners start to belittle price/performance and call price/performance "penny pinching" every time NV starts to get blown out of the water in this metric. However, when NV is winning such as the case with GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 6800GT, 8800GT, 8800GTS 512MB, 9800GT, GTX460, 560Ti, GTX970, price/performance is a HUGE metric. The same way overclocking works - when NV's cards suck at overclocking or when AMD's cards are overclocking like crazy (such that a $280 HD7950 was trading blows with a $450 GTX680), overclocking is suddenly a "swing" metric.

I'll give you a real world example that applies directly to you. Instead of buying GTX760 SLI that you had, HD7970 CF OC not only crushed that setup but today 980 cannot outperform HD7970CF in most AAA games, especially not at 1440P. Heck, HD7950 OC CF would have crushed 760 SLI with no effort. But why penny pinch when you can just buy NV and get less, but at least you own NV?

In that point in time 760 SLI cost $400 and 980 another $400, while HD7970 CF cost $0 (bit-coin mining) while outperforming both of those setupsa and all of that performance was available from 2012, and 2013, etc. You can call price/performance penny-pinching but I call it "I had to waste less $$$ on PC parts that I instead used on other hobbies". If price/performance isn't a factor, why aren't we all running GTX980Ti/SLI/Tri-SLI?

It obviously matters, matters A LOT for majority NV users who only buy NV cards. It's why cars like 660/660Ti/760/950/960/970 sell so well. Clearly loyal NV users care greatly about price/performance just not when it comes to AMD cards since to them those products don't exist -- I guess they do exist of the purpose of lower prices on NV cards.

If tomorrow the regular Fury dropped to $299, Fury X to $399, I am sure the loyal NV users will not care at all but as soon as NV reacts to these price drops with its own price drops, they'll open their wallets in no time. Before that though, some of them might call AMD desperate for lowering prices and delivering more value to the consumer.



Ya, and that's been the case even when NV had genuinely mediocre GPU generations such as GeForce 5 or 7. However, trying to diminish the price/performance metric is an interesting tactic because price/performance is a crucial metric within NV's own line-up. Price/performance obviously matters a great deal seeing how popular 960 and 970 are but it doesn't mean that if Fury X is $299 tomorrow that it'll outsell a GTX970, because well it's not an NV card.

In fact, the worst 2 generations ever where the bias/loyalism of NV users was front and center for everyone to see was when AMD had a 6 months lead with HD5000 series and when AMD had a 2.5-9 months lead with the top-to-bottom HD7000 line-up. I remember on this very forum people still bought GTX285 over HD5870 or refused to upgrade to the HD5850/5870, waiting 6 months for Fermi.

How many people on this forum waited for the superior R9 290/290X? What about how many people bought 980Ti before even seeing a single review of the Fury X? You get the picture.

In any event, even for NV loyalists, price drops on AMD cards should be praised and welcomed because ultimately it means more pressure on NV to lower prices. Honestly, any objective gamer would want the market to shift to 50%/50% because that produces the healthiest competition and the biggest price wars. With lower volume sales, AMD cannot engage in long-term price wars while with 80%+ market share, NV may not even care to ever offer amazing price/performance over long periods. Neither of these scenarios is good for the average PC gamer. Only those who buy $600-1000 flagship NV cards might not care about this because well they aren't price/performance buyers for the most part. Either way, AMD needs to start gaining more market share for the future of the dGPU market. Who wants a monopoly?

With the 5000 series it wasn't just the 5870/50 that was out. They had their complete stack out for almost a year before the 460 launched. At which point all of the market share gains AMD had made immediately reversed.

It just proves that the vast majority of buyers have no idea what's better.

 

[Shmee]

Cool!

 

[Gikaseixas]

390X down to $359 and 390 to $259

Does not compute

$100 delta??? Vanilla 390 is close to 390x in a lot of scenarios

 

[boozzer]

damn, could we be seeing new gpus in a few months?

 

[tential]

I posted these deals a couple days ago I think and was questioning why NO sites had the deals mentioned. No where, not even deal sites or anandtech. Weird for me to post deals first on so many different places. Of course, still not attractive prices on Fury X/Nano with the 980Ti looming.

 

[Actaeon]

AMD's performance value for most of the market segments is far superior to Nvidia. I bought two premium aftermarket cooled 290Xs a year ago for just $300 each and they came with 4 games each. Today that card is still very competitive and in some ways equal or better than the more expensive 980. I basically bought two R290Xs at the price of one 980.

It really is hard to recommend anything but a R290/R390 between $160-$300 given how strong their performance is. At $300 you could make an argument for a 970 if you really like Nvidia over AMD, but I'd still do the 290/390. You can finally start to find 980s at around $400, but I don't know if its worth the premium over the R290X/R390Xs.

Only in the high end $500+ market does Nvidia have a better offering. Stock the Fury X can stand toe to toe with the 980Ti, but the 980Ti has got so much overclocking headroom it comes out ahead. There is an easy 20% performance boost hidden in Maxwell just by overclocking.

Fury needed a price drop and could still use another. It didn't make sense at equal pricing to a 980 Ti and an R390 isn't that much slower.

I have two 290Xs, just bought a 980Ti, no brand bias here. I just buy whatever fits my needs the best. If I didn't need HDMI 2.0 I would have stuck with the 290Xs, they are that good.

 

[tential]

How many people waited for the 290(X), only to see the horrible reference cooler? Then waited for custom coolers, only to see the price skyrocket due to mining? (I was in this boat)

How many people waited on purchasing their flagship card until the Fury X was reviewed, only to see the lackluster performance compared to the 980 Ti?

Me on both.... and then I waited for Fury X Voltage Unlock too... and then it was too late for me in my eyes for a 980Ti.

 

[RussianSensation]

Does not compute

$100 delta??? Vanilla 390 is close to 390x in a lot of scenarios

Cheapest GTX970 $260
GTX980 $410

That's 58% more expensive, or $150 more, for 16-18% more performance.

With R9 390 vs. 390X, the 390X is 33% more expensive ($270 vs. $360) for about 10% more performance.

When looking at where the after-market 970 = 390 = ~290X and 390X/980 sit, it seems it makes sense to buy the 970/390 or go all the way up to an after-market 980Ti. During this generation, we don't have a 'great' card between $300 and $550. I honestly don't remember any other recent GPU generation like that but that's how I see it.

It's also possible now to purchase 2x 970/390 cards for what a single 980 cost in September of 2014. That's a huge improvement for the market as a whole (since to most gamers $250-280 R9 290/290X didn't exist).

I bought two premium aftermarket cooled 290Xs a year ago for just $300 each and they came with 4 games each. Today that card is still very competitive and in some ways equal or better than the more expensive 980. I basically bought two R290Xs at the price of one 980.

Ya, because you did your research and you aren't brand biased. You didn't freak out about 290Xs 95C thermal operating temperature and didn't suddenly think you needed a 1500W PSU to run them. That's how 12 months passed and there is still nothing much better in the $300 price segment vs. a 290X. To this date, you'll hardly find any 980 user who'll admit 970 SLI or R9 295X2/R9 290X CF was by far the better choice.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

NVIDIA runs a really great business :thumbsup:

Seriously, this is something people should learn from...there is far more to running a successful chip company, especially when you are selling directly to end users, than just performance/specs. NVIDIA is clearly doing a lot of things right in terms of marketing its products and building significant brand equity.

Yah, monopolistic practices are great for the fanboys, but not so much for the consumers.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Meh, here in NL the 970 and 390 are still at launch price. The 290 isn't really for sale anymore, only ~10% cheaper, not worth it.

 

[SPBHM]

390/X launch price was to high if they really wanted to do some damage against the 970, better late than never I guess?

 

[nvgpu]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5775/...4000-gpus-being-moved-to-legacy-status-in-may

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9815/amd-moves-pre-gcn-gpus-to-legacy

All those people that bought the HD4000 because it was $250 and HD5000/6000 cards are pretty much regreting it now and cursing AMD for dropping support for their card, yes you save a little money early on but you'll regret it later when you'll be replacing them for another few hundred dollars.

Tesla(GF8/9/200) still supported until April 2016 and Fermi 400/500 will be supported far longer than VLIW 5/4 ever will be.

 

[3DVagabond]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5775/...4000-gpus-being-moved-to-legacy-status-in-may

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9815/amd-moves-pre-gcn-gpus-to-legacy

All those people that bought the HD4000 because it was $250 and HD5000/6000 cards are pretty much regreting it now and cursing AMD for dropping support for their card, yes you save a little money early on but you'll regret it later when you'll be replacing them for another few hundred dollars.

Tesla(GF8/9/200) still supported until April 2016 and Fermi 400/500 will be supported far longer than VLIW 5/4 ever will be.

What modern games (the only ones you'll need constant updates on) are you going to play with VLIW cards? Remember they aren't DX12 capable either.

 

[ultima_trev]

Indeed. Same for GF 8/9/200 series cards. If your GPU is more than four years old, one should not expect support in the latest Operations Systems, let alone the latest games.