[ KitGuru ] Source: AMD to cut price of Fury GPU

[Stuka87]

Did anybody consider that the chips are cheaper to make now, so a price cut is normal? Also the case of once the company has recouped some of its R&D, they can drop the price and still make a profit, plus sell more cards?

 

[AtenRa]

Production catching up with demand is, undoubtedly, a key factor in the price drop. However, I think it is more plausable than not that poor sales of the fury lineup is another key factor in the price drop.

Regarding the GTX980, it is clearly an unsavory choice when compared to the 970 and 980ti. Throw the 390 or 390x into the equation and it becomes a redundant choice, at its current price point. So yes, I should imagine that the 980 sales are extremely poor.

God knows why people are getting so defensive about price cuts.

Fury products were not available in retail many times the last months of 2015. The availability is much better after the Holidays and it is now they are announcing the price cut. So it seams they artificially raised the price on release day in order to get lower demand at the time they had low availability.

It doesn't say 980s are getting a price cut, just Fury.

It was last year,

http://www.techpowerup.com/217977/nvidia-prepares-new-pricing-for-geforce-gtx-900-series.html

To make the most out of the holiday shopping season, and to better compete with AMD, NVIDIA is preparing new pricing for key GeForce GTX 900 series SKUs. The new pricing sees the popular GeForce GTX 970 priced at US $299, although some deals could see the card start for well under that. This SKU is ideal for 1080p-thru-1440p gaming. The GTX 980, on the other hand, could be priced around $449. This SKU is firmly capable of 1440p gaming. Lastly, the GeForce GTX 960, could be priced around $179, to deal with competing offerings from AMD, such as the R9 380 better.

 

[Headfoot]

Production catching up with demand is, undoubtedly, a key factor in the price drop. However, I think it is more plausable than not that poor sales of the fury lineup is another key factor in the price drop.

Regarding the GTX980, it is clearly an unsavory choice when compared to the 970 and 980ti. Throw the 390 or 390x into the equation and it becomes a redundant choice, at its current price point. So yes, I should imagine that the 980 sales are extremely poor.

God knows why people are getting so defensive about price cuts.

I wouldn't doubt there are still good amounts of continuing 980 sales due to the fact that 980 Ti as the halo chip is marketed as if it's a lot closer to the 980 than it is. People probably think the 980 isn't a lot slower than the 980 ti due to the name and see the lower price and think, "that's probably good enough." Best Buy buyers and the like

 

[MrTeal]

Did anybody consider that the chips are cheaper to make now, so a price cut is normal? Also the case of once the company has recouped some of its R&D, they can drop the price and still make a profit, plus sell more cards?

I would imagine that most people should have. Really, the cost of everything other than the chip on even a great Fury board like the Tri-X isn't going to be very much different than something like a 380X that draws relatively close to the same power. The difference in PCB cost might even make up the difference in the extra fan placement on the Tri-X.
Better yield on the HBM + better yield on Fiji + better yield on the interposer assembly not only provides more supply, but drives down cost as well.

 

[RussianSensation]

$399 for 390X, $449 for Fury, $549 for Fury X would make a lot of sense IMO. But I don't think the Fury X will see that drastic of a price cut, if any, who knows.

Market prices after gift cards and rebates:

PowerColor R9 390 = $270 - $10 gift card = $260
XFX R9 390X = $360 - $20 gift card = $340
PowerColor AMD Nano ~ Fury in performance = $464
Sapphire Fury = $507

IMO, at current Newegg prices, the only two cards NV has worth buying are GTX980Ti and Titan X. AMD has a better videocard at every price level from $100 to $575.

The price drops on Fury and Nano lines shouldn't be surprising at all. AMD did what made the most sense:

1) Early gen cycle = maximize profits while maintaining brand value
2) Mid-gen cycle = start lowering prices along the price/technology curve as cutting edge /latest generations starts to go through the product life cycle.

As consumers, this is great to see. Conversely, the entire GTX960/970/980 line continues to sell closer to their launch MSRP.

It's strange that the best engineered GPU on the market right now in terms of perf/mm2, perf/w, and OC headroom, is also the worst priced GPU. Usually the best chip in those metrics can be priced relatively well because of it's high versatility and (likely) great yields.

Once you realize that most GPU purchases on the high-end are driven by the average Joe's brand value and perception, it shouldn't be that surprising that 980 sold for $500-550. That's why 10-20% slower 980 can easily outsell Nano/Fury, while offering horrendous value relative to GTX970/390/390X at the same time.

I mean even before Nano/Fury/980Ti/Fury X came out, it was obvious that 980 was one of the worst priced cards of this generation. What's more surprising is just how MANY high-end buyers are this clueless to keep buying a September 2014 GPU for $475+, despite the card offering the worst value and/or performance in this bracket among AMD or NV's own cards.

On the positive side, the stupidly high prices of 980 can be turned into an advantage for the consumer who can offload a 1.5 year old used 980 for close to $400 before Pascal drops. Just have to time the resale right.

Its just to understand why its happening.

Who cares why it's happening unless you are a shareholder in NV/Intel/AMD. As consumers, as long the company is not going out of business, more price cuts is awesome, more game bundles is awesome, more performance per dollar is awesome.

I wouldn't doubt there are still good amounts of continuing 980 sales due to the fact that 980 Ti as the halo chip is marketed as if it's a lot closer to the 980 than it is. People probably think the 980 isn't a lot slower than the 980 ti due to the name and see the lower price and think, "that's probably good enough." Best Buy buyers and the like

True. For someone who doesn't read reviews and is generally clueless about PC tech, 980 and 980Ti sound like 2 GPUs in the same class, just the Ti one is slightly faster, like 560 vs. 560Ti.

 

[thilanliyan]

IMO, at current Newegg prices, the only two cards NV has worth buying are GTX980Ti and Titan X. AMD has a better videocard at every price level from $100 to $575.

Most of the time that doesn't seem to matter lol.
It's unfortunate...at least TWO strong IHVs is definitely better than ONE.

 

[flopper]

Once you realize that most GPU purchases on the high-end are driven by the average Joe's brand value and perception, it shouldn't be that surprising that 980 sold for $500-550. That's why 10-20% slower 980 can easily outsell Nano/Fury, while offering horrendous value relative to GTX970/390/390X at the same time.



True. For someone who doesn't read reviews and is generally clueless about PC tech, 980 and 980Ti sound like 2 GPUs in the same class, just the Ti one is slightly faster, like 560 vs. 560Ti.

why some buy Apple in spite of other brands being a better experience in actual use.
AMD marketing havent figured that out yet.

 

[sm625]

Not sure what they hope to accomplish with a price cut. Even if they priced it at $329 to match the GTX970, the GTX970 would still outsell it.

 

[RussianSensation]

Not sure what they hope to accomplish with a price cut. Even if they priced it at $329 to match the GTX970, the GTX970 would still outsell it.

That is true, but they may be trying to convert objective/AMD buyers still rocking HD4000-7000 series. For instance, Nano at $649 is steep but at $465, someone might bite. Of course NV's main customer base would still buy a $299 970 over a $299 Fury/Nano/Fury X but that's not the entire market.

Infraction issued for trolling.
-- stahlhart

 

[tential]

Not sure what they hope to accomplish with a price cut. Even if they priced it at $329 to match the GTX970, the GTX970 would still outsell it.

To make more sales for themselves....

I mean that was an obvious answer to your question.

The gtx 970 outselling the card is irrelevant. Amds goal is to maximize profits not best the gtx 970....

 

[tential]

That is true, but they may be trying to convert objective/AMD buyers still rocking HD4000-7000 series. For instance, Nano at $649 is steep but at $465, someone might bite. Of course NV's main customer base would still buy a $299 970 over a $299 Fury/Nano/Fury X but that's not the entire market.

At 465 I'm slowly coming to thinking about it. Waiting to see if it may drop to 400. Problem. Is I'd give my bro my old card, but I need an nvidia card for light boost

What also makes the nano attractive is no worries about crossfire for me so I'll keep an eye on it but it'll most likely be crossfire Polaris for me on a 55 inch 4k monitor.

 

[DooKey]

At 465 I'm slowly coming to thinking about it. Waiting to see if it may drop to 400. Problem. Is I'd give my bro my old card, but I need an nvidia card for light boost

What also makes the nano attractive is no worries about crossfire for me so I'll keep an eye on it but it'll most likely be crossfire Polaris for me on a 55 inch 4k monitor.

That old feature thing that defies price/performance....imagine that?

 

[Arachnotronic]

I see now how 'proof' can be entirely subjective. :awe:

In the real world, you often don't have access to all of the information that you need and have to make inferences and make deductions based on known facts and whatever information is available.

From those, you can often put together reasonable conclusions that are probably, if not undeniably, correct.

In this case, none of us here likely has access to what was going through the minds of the decision makers at AMD when they decided to cut prices. However, we do know the following:

1. AMD is a publicly traded company whose job and only real purpose for even existing in the first place is to try to generate a financial return for its shareholders.
2. To maximize return, AMD needs to maximize the profit that it generates. Meaning that it needs to maximize the following equation:

Net Profit = (Gross Margin Percentage * Net Revenue) - (Operating Expenses) - (Tax Liability).

3. Raising/lowering prices of the cards does not impact operating expenses and tax rate is generally dependent on (Gross Margin Percentage * Net Revenue) <--- also known as Gross Profit.

4. The price of the cards for a given manufacturing cost, however, impacts net revenue and gross margin percentage, which means that what we really want to maximize is Gross Profit.

5. Lowering card prices and ultimately impacting gross profit (as it would impact both net revenue and gross margin percentage) would only make sense if AMD thought that it could sell greater volumes, enough so to both offset the reduction in gross margin and net revenue.

6. By the above analysis, it is reasonable to assume that AMD thinks it can move enough incremental volume to more than compensate for the negative impact from the price cuts on gross profit margin and per-unit revenue.

There is nothing subjective about this analysis.

 

[YBS1]

Not sure what they hope to accomplish with a price cut. Even if they priced it at $329 to match the GTX970, the GTX970 would still outsell it.

This may or may not be true, but it doesn't mean it doesn't sway a significant portion of the target buyers. For instance, while I was waiting on the particular 980Ti's I ended up getting I remember looking for full coverage waterblocks for Fury X's. Had I been able to get 3 or 4 Fury X's + waterblocks for X amount of dollars I would have went that route. Had they been priced better and/or actually been easily available at that time (it was when they were somewhat scarce) I would have bought them. I don't remember what the particular price I had in mind was at the time, but it wasn't low enough to sway me from the benefits (perceived or real) of the nVidia solution.

 

[LTC8K6]

To clear the pipeline of EOL stock and make room for the new stock.

Why not clear them out at the same price by waiting another month or two, if they are still moving off the shelves okay?

Are the new cards going to generate so much more profit that you need to get them on the shelves now, at the expense of the profit left in the 4 month old cards that are still selling okay?

Nano is just 4 months old. The other Fury cards just 6 months.

I think it's more likely that the cards just aren't moving out fast enough.

 

[Erenhardt]

That is true, but they may be trying to convert objective/AMD buyers still rocking HD4000-7000 series. For instance, Nano at $649 is steep but at $465, someone might bite. Of course NV's main customer base would still buy a $299 970 over a $299 Fury/Nano/Fury X but that's not the entire market.

Infraction issued for trolling.
-- stahlhart

Quit trolling. GTX970 3,5GB is an entire market. Look up steam hardware numbers.:wub:

Infraction issued for moderator callout.
-- stahlhart

 

[Goatsecks]

In the real world, you often don't have access to all of the information that you need and have to make inferences and make deductions based on known facts and whatever information is available.

From those, you can often put together reasonable conclusions that are probably, if not undeniably, correct.

In this case, none of us here likely has access to what was going through the minds of the decision makers at AMD when they decided to cut prices. However, we do know the following:

1. AMD is a publicly traded company whose job and only real purpose for even existing in the first place is to try to generate a financial return for its shareholders.
2. To maximize return, AMD needs to maximize the profit that it generates. Meaning that it needs to maximize the following equation:

Net Profit = (Gross Margin Percentage * Net Revenue) - (Operating Expenses) - (Tax Liability).

3. Raising/lowering prices of the cards does not impact operating expenses and tax rate is generally dependent on (Gross Margin Percentage * Net Revenue) <--- also known as Gross Profit.

4. The price of the cards for a given manufacturing cost, however, impacts net revenue and gross margin percentage, which means that what we really want to maximize is Gross Profit.

5. Lowering card prices and ultimately impacting gross profit (as it would impact both net revenue and gross margin percentage) would only make sense if AMD thought that it could sell greater volumes, enough so to both offset the reduction in gross margin and net revenue.

6. By the above analysis, it is reasonable to assume that AMD thinks it can move enough incremental volume to more than compensate for the negative impact from the price cuts on gross profit margin and per-unit revenue.

There is nothing subjective about this analysis.

You seemed to have missed both of the only two points I was making in my post:

1) Karlitos thinks that when one user makes a comment it is 'pessimism' and requires 'proof'. When another, more favorable, user makes the same comment it is 'a good explination'.

2) Cleary, proof is not subjective.

 

[KaRLiToS]

You seemed to have missed both of the only two points I was making in my post:

1) Karlitos thinks that when one user makes a comment it is 'pessimism' and requires 'proof'. When another, more favorable, user makes the same comment it is 'a good explination'.

2) Cleary, proof is not subjective.

I know it is the second post where you are trying to attack me. And your two posts are off topic.

I didn't say arachnotronic post was proof, where did I mention that I just said a sarcastic "well explained".

We have no proof about the reasons of the prices cut. That was my point. But some users always like to throw negative and pessimistic comments about AMD.

Nice try by the way.

 

[railven]

Are these official price cuts? And are they live yet? I was at Microcenter last night and they still had some Fury's listed at $580, and the only Fury X they had in stock was $700. WTF!!!!

 

[KaRLiToS]

Are these official price cuts? And are they live yet? I was at Microcenter last night and they still had some Fury's listed at $580, and the only Fury X they had in stock was $700. WTF!!!!

If you read in the article it says:

The good news is that retail sources close to Kitguru informed us that a price drop is planned for the Fury graphics card in the coming weeks.

 

[Goatsecks]

...I didn't say arachnotronic post was proof, where did I mention that I just said a sarcastic "well explained"...

The sarcasm in a simple, "Well explained", is cryptic to say the least.

 

[KaRLiToS]

The sarcasm in a simple, "Well explained", is cryptic to say the least.

But he actually well explained it though, its just that I already know... but you know, we are getting off topic.

I think everyone would be happy with price cuts and as some have mentionned it, it will probably shake more prices afterward.

 

[Shmee]

Alright, not much more to talk about here guys. I think we can agree lower prices are good. Until we get some substantial new information on the price cuts, or we see it happen, there is no point in speculating on it anymore. Lets give this thread a rest until new developments occur.

 

[superstition]

why some buy Apple in spite of other brands being a better experience in actual use.

OS X is better than Windows 10.

The only advantage Windows has is that it runs a lot of games.

edit: I didn't see the mod's post until after I posted. Sorry.