Does the RTX series create an openning for AMD?

[AtenRa]

Right now Vega 64 is going for almost $100 more than GTX 1080, despite both companies reportedly having excess stock to clear. That bigger die on Vega is a large part of the reason Vega 64 is trying to sell for a much higher price.

Just no, VEGA 64 is selling at those prices only because of the crypto mining, the MSRP is way lower unlike RTX MSRP related to Pascal cards.

 

[PeterScott]

GPU mining is all but dead. While people who bought card may still be mining with them, it really doesn't make sense to buy GPU cards for mining now.

There was a recent Q&A with someone from AMD and they admitted they are stuck with excess inventory they need to clear, and you can clearly see there are ZERO stock issues with Vega.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Not to participate in the derailment of my own thread (and for the purpose of rerailing it), but if I'm not mistaken the last time AMD/ATI had a clean lead over NV (price, performance, power) was the 9700 pro. Even the 290x launched to lukewarm reviews thanks to it's garbage stock cooler and half baked drivers (AMD snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).

X800's lacked Sm9.0c so that definitely hurt them, especially later in their life.

The xtx1950 PE whatever edition was a beast but it was power hungry (hence hot) and pricy for the performance over the 7950 GTX.

NV from the 8800GTX through the GTX 580 NV retained, if nothing else, the performance lead at the expense of massive die sizes.

This is where AMD dropped the ball. If they employed the same strategy NV used against them from the Kepler through the Pascal arch years NV might have still captured the compute market, but AMD's GPU's would be a household name as opposed to the "other guys".

NV is offering AMD a rare opportunity here with the RTX dies. Maybe NV ends up defining the deep learning market at this moment, but AMD can make serious inroads using what they have for maximum effect in the consumer space while they keep chasing NV's last generation.

 

[maddie]

Nonsense.

Big dies present exactly the same problem for both NVidia and AMD. It increases production costs, and usually some/all of that gets passed onto the consumer in the form of increased retail price.

Right now Vega 64 is going for almost $100 more than GTX 1080, despite both companies reportedly having excess stock to clear. That bigger die on Vega is a large part of the reason Vega 64 is trying to sell for a much higher price.

It's also a large factor in why the new RTX card are much more expensive.

That is reality. Big dies increases production costs and selling price for both NVidia and AMD. That reality doesn't have a bias.

The only issues are from people who want to pretend that reality doesn't exists, and that massive dies don't drive up production costs.

So they pretend that those big dies were never a problem for AMD's competitiveness, and that the price increases from NVidia have nothing to do with increased die size.

If you need a bigger die than your competitor to deliver the same performance, then it will hamper how competitive you can be. The bigger the delta, the bigger the problem, because you can't really compete on price without killing your margins.

That applies equally to NVidia and AMD.

It's just that until RTX, AMD was suffering the Big die disadvantage.

Now that RTX has massive die, it could turn the tables. Which, BTW, is exactly the point of this thread.

Can AMD take advantage of NVidias big die problem? The RTX tax on die size is the exactly the opening we are discussing.

You were the person claiming that transposer+HBM2 was the reason for the Vega being unable to be sold at lower prices. Now you claim the die size is the main reason? It's a good thing that posters here are generally above average intelligence and can see through the BS. I've refrained from posting a lot lately as the intense incessant push by some to justify these enormous price increases gets monotonous.

 

[krumme]

Nonsense.

Big dies present exactly the same problem for both NVidia and AMD. It increases production costs, and usually some/all of that gets passed onto the consumer in the form of increased retail price.

Right now Vega 64 is going for almost $100 more than GTX 1080, despite both companies reportedly having excess stock to clear. That bigger die on Vega is a large part of the reason Vega 64 is trying to sell for a much higher price.

It's also a large factor in why the new RTX card are much more expensive.

That is reality. Big dies increases production costs and selling price for both NVidia and AMD. That reality doesn't have a bias.

The only issues are from people who want to pretend that reality doesn't exists, and that massive dies don't drive up production costs.

So they pretend that those big dies were never a problem for AMD's competitiveness, and that the price increases from NVidia have nothing to do with increased die size.

If you need a bigger die than your competitor to deliver the same performance, then it will hamper how competitive you can be. The bigger the delta, the bigger the problem, because you can't really compete on price without killing your margins.

That applies equally to NVidia and AMD.

It's just that until RTX, AMD was suffering the Big die disadvantage.

Now that RTX has massive die, it could turn the tables. Which, BTW, is exactly the point of this thread.

Can AMD take advantage of NVidias big die problem? The RTX tax on die size is the exactly the opening we are discussing.

The market dont care about your production cost. Nobody today have a pricing strategy derived from cost. Margins and total profit decide pricing. Nv margin will follow their guidelines and its record high. Looking at the prices its no wonder. I am not saying its bad just stating it as a fact.

Why dont you answer my question if you have any indirect or direct interest in nv?

 

[PeterScott]

The market dont care about your production cost. Nobody today have a pricing strategy derived from cost. Margins and total profit decide pricing. Nv margin will follow their guidelines and its record high. Looking at the prices its no wonder. I am not saying its bad just stating it as a fact.

The market cares about Vega 64 costing more than GTX 1080, and the companies care a lot about their margins collapsing.

Why don't you answer my question if you have any indirect or direct interest in nv?

I think it is more entertaining to feed your conspiracy theories. All questions like this reveal is your own deep bias. You think I have connection with NVidia, because I point out that both NVidia and AMD have the same problem with large dies?

 

[krumme]

Do you have any inderect or direct interest in nv?

 

[UsandThem]

I think it is more entertaining to feed your conspiracy theories. All questions like this reveal is your own deep bias. You think I have connection with NVidia, because I point out that both NVidia and AMD have the same problem with large dies?

Do you have any inderect or direct interest in nv?

Keep the discussion on topic, and
stop any the backhanded accusations
and insults.

AT Mod Usandthem

 

[Arkaign]

I think there is an opportunity to get a vastly underserved market if they were able to get a die shrunk clock hopped GDDR6 GPU @ 1080 performance for $229 or so. Nvidia seems to have utterly stalled the price/performance metric with the 2000 series, leaving 10xx still completely viable, because 30% more performance than 1080ti = 30% more $$$ or thereabouts.

The gap between 1050ti and 1060 is already quite big, and 1070+ are just too expensive for your average casual gamer.

I think 480/580 was poised to really take some of that market, only to nearly immediately have prices go through the roof thanks to Crypto. $249 580 8GB was a hell of a deal for 1080p high framerate gaming and even acceptable 1440p 60fps gaming with reasonable settings. But it simply never got the chance to really get traction with gamers because it just became a $600+ part almost overnight. No gamer was going to buy a 580 for that price. 1060 was slower for ETH, so it's $3xx price made it the default mid budget gaming card along with 1050ti, and even those suffered some scalping due to miners needing every card they could wrangle, hundreds or thousands at a time.

It makes me wonder, with GPU mining seeming to be on another downward spiral and ETH ASICs on the way, when will miners begin unloading those millions of GPUs built up over the past 18 months? It seems like it should lead to a pretty solid second hand price crash in the foreseeable future. I mean once the mining returns are far less than operating expenses, it makes no sense to hoard them. Holding onto them only makes them less desirable long term, as HDMI 2.x and 7nm loom, with the potential for $249 1080ti performance with an eventual 2160 or RX680 in GDDR6 form.

I mean there must be a completely astonishing number of RX4xx/5xx/10xx GPUs in mining operations out there. I remember seeing one in Scandinavia where these massive hangers were packed with hundreds of thousands of GPUs, and it was only a single operation amongst thousands worldwide, to say nothing of hundreds of thousands of hobbyists running a half dozen or a dozen cards in a closet or garage. For many months basically the entire supply of GPUs in the $200+ range were almost exclusively purchased for mining, constant out of stock and doubled in price or more.

 

[PeterScott]

I think there is an opportunity to get a vastly underserved market if they were able to get a die shrunk clock hopped GDDR6 GPU @ 1080 performance for $229 or so.

Sure, who wouldn't like 1080 performance for $229, but that is less than half current pricing, so you have to realize there is a difference between wishful thinking and an opening in the market.

There are openings the size of a barn door for AMD, since NVidia went nowhere on Price/$.

2080/1080Ti performance for ~$600
1080 perf for ~$400
1070 perf for ~$300

If AMD has something in that range then they could get some nice sales. It isn't a lack of openings, it's an apparent lack of new product from AMD.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Sure, who wouldn't like 1080 performance for $229, but that is less than half current pricing, so you have to realize there is a difference between wishful thinking and an opening in the market.

There are openings the size of a barn door for AMD, since NVidia went nowhere on Price/$.

2080/1080Ti performance for ~$600
1080 perf for ~$400
1070 perf for ~$300

If AMD has something in that range then they could get some nice sales. It isn't a lack of openings, it's an apparent lack of new product from AMD.

-And 2080Ti performance for $800? One can dream.

 

[Qwertilot]

I think those apparent openings at 4/300 would get shut down very fast - by discounted pascal cards even if we don't get a 2060 etc quite fast.

Further up the stack maybe, although not easy.