[Rumor, Tweaktown] AMD to launch next-gen Navi graphics cards at E3

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,465
390
126
Low prices from AMD only make sense if the card isn’t good for mining. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if you can get 2070 performance for $300 because miners will buy everything up again and the price will quickly inflate. Even if they try to limit bulk sales people will buy from multiple stores or outlets and flip on ebay and miners will pay the inflated prices.

It doesn’t even matter if the card isn’t as good as a 2070 if the prices are favorable for miners they’ll chase after those cards and drive prices beyond what consumers care to pay.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,730
876
146
I disagree completely. First, we've never seen a situation where AMD was as fast or faster than NVIDIA, use less power and also cheaper. When was the last time anything like that happened? I can't think of any. Yes, AMD has a huge uphill battle ahead of them and yes NVIDIA has the majority of gamers in their pocket, but that doesn't mean that AMD can't rapidly gain marketshare.

AMD did just that with Ryzen. If they can do something similar with their GPU division then the cards will sell. What they can't do is release cards with less performance/options, significantly higher power draw, and a similar price to NVIDIA. The choice to go AMD has to be compelling and until it is consumers will go NVIDIA.
Guess you weren’t around for the HD5870 launch. It competed with the GTX 285 for almost 9 months.

HD 5870 vs GTX 285
  • Launch Price: $379 vs $400
  • Tech: DX11 vs DX10
  • Load Power system (AT): 295W vs 323W
  • Relative Performance (TPU): 100% vs 78%

AND/ATI peaked at 44.5 percent jumping 10% marketshare in 6 months vs 54.3 for NV with a card that was 5% cheaper, used 10% less power and was 22% faster.

Not only does the Radeon have to be better than what’s available from NV in all categories but there can’t be anything new from NV for probably over year before marketshare changes appreciably.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
I will change my prediction on Navi GPUs:

Navi 14: 20 CU chip, with performance at GTX 1660 level, or between GTX 1660 and 1660 Ti levels.
Navi 10: 40 CU chip with slightly(around 10-15%) faster than RTX 2070.
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
I will change my prediction on Navi GPUs:

Navi 14: 20 CU chip, with performance at GTX 1660 level, or between GTX 1660 and 1660 Ti levels.
Navi 10: 40 CU chip with slightly(around 10-15%) faster than RTX 2070.
Dude, 2070+15% is pretty much already 2080.VII isnt really as fast as 2080.So, something not right here :p
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
Dude, 2070+15% is pretty much already 2080.VII isnt really as fast as 2080.So, something not right here :p
In what? 1080P? In CPU bottlenecked scenarios? On techpowerup suite? No.

RTX 2080 is 25-35% faster than RTX 2070, almost everywhere else.

P.S. Navi 10 will not be as fast as RTX 2080.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
941
166
136
Guess you weren’t around for the HD5870 launch. It competed with the GTX 285 for almost 9 months.

HD 5870 vs GTX 285
  • Launch Price: $379 vs $400
  • Tech: DX11 vs DX10
  • Load Power system (AT): 295W vs 323W
  • Relative Performance (TPU): 100% vs 78%

AND/ATI peaked at 44.5 percent jumping 10% marketshare in 6 months vs 54.3 for NV with a card that was 5% cheaper, used 10% less power and was 22% faster.

Not only does the Radeon have to be better than what’s available from NV in all categories but there can’t be anything new from NV for probably over year before marketshare changes appreciably.

I was, and guess what, the market responded. When you're perceived as the value brand, have poor marketing, have less mindshare, etc, it's an upward battle. Nobody is claiming it's not an upward battle for AMD, but plenty (mostly AMD apologists) have the mindset that no matter what AMD does, the market will still choose NVIDIA, which is simply not the case. Yes, AMD needs to knock it out of the park and make a compelling case for choosing one of their GPUs, parity on price, performance, and much high power consumption isn't good enough.

Hopefully AMD invests heavily in their GPU division, specifically on the software side, and hopefully NAVI and it's successors are compelling products. I rocked a 7970 and a 390 in my mainbox until AMD failed to execute properly. I'm looking forward to the day I can go back without making compromises.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
I was, and guess what, the market responded. When you're perceived as the value brand, have poor marketing, have less mindshare, etc, it's an upward battle. Nobody is claiming it's not an upward battle for AMD, but plenty (mostly AMD apologists) have the mindset that no matter what AMD does, the market will still choose NVIDIA, which is simply not the case. Yes, AMD needs to knock it out of the park and make a compelling case for choosing one of their GPUs, parity on price, performance, and much high power consumption isn't good enough.

Hopefully AMD invests heavily in their GPU division, specifically on the software side, and hopefully NAVI and it's successors are compelling products. I rocked a 7970 and a 390 in my mainbox until AMD failed to execute properly. I'm looking forward to the day I can go back without making compromises.
You have been proven that no matter what AMD will do, what product they will offer, they will still be behind Nvidia in marketshare. Why? Because people want AMD to be competitive, so they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper.

Why do you neglect that?
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,730
876
146
I was, and guess what, the market responded. When you're perceived as the value brand, have poor marketing, have less mindshare, etc, it's an upward battle. Nobody is claiming it's not an upward battle for AMD, but plenty (mostly AMD apologists) have the mindset that no matter what AMD does, the market will still choose NVIDIA, which is simply not the case. Yes, AMD needs to knock it out of the park and make a compelling case for choosing one of their GPUs, parity on price, performance, and much high power consumption isn't good enough.

Hopefully AMD invests heavily in their GPU division, specifically on the software side, and hopefully NAVI and it's successors are compelling products. I rocked a 7970 and a 390 in my mainbox until AMD failed to execute properly. I'm looking forward to the day I can go back without making compromises.
Ok so you have been around when that happened. Note, despite being the value, and power use champion during 48XX days and then rolling into the outright lead in all metrics with the 58XX series they still couldn’t get marketshare closer than 10-15% below NV.

Today it’s 80%-20%. (I didn’t realize it had gotten that bad). NV would have to stay on Turing and lose in all categories to AMD for probably 2 years or more before we approach marketshare parity.

For me I generally won’t buy a discrete NV GPU. For most of the last 15 years when I’ve been in the market they haven’t had a compelling product. (FX series, then no mid-high end AGP option, GTX 285 vs 5870, then 7970Ghz vs 680).

I came close to buying NV recently but went with an AIB Vega 56 for way to much money because I was an idiot and built a new computer during the crypto craze. The Vega was actually in stock when I clicked buy.
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
In what? 1080P? In CPU bottlenecked scenarios? On techpowerup suite? No.

RTX 2080 is 25-35% faster than RTX 2070, almost everywhere else.

P.S. Navi 10 will not be as fast as RTX 2080.
My bad, i was looking at the techpowerup, site.Still, its between 15 and 35% so , depends.
However it would still be too close to VII, which is more like a 1080Ti performance.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
My bad, i was looking at the techpowerup, site.Still, its between 15 and 35% so , depends.
However it would still be too close to VII, which is more like a 1080Ti performance.
Why it can't be that close to VII? Who said that RadVII is going to live forever?
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,428
120
126
You have been proven that no matter what AMD will do, what product they will offer, they will still be behind Nvidia in marketshare. Why? Because people want AMD to be competitive, so they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper.

Why do you neglect that?
Odd, someone posts info that support a strong AMD can compete with a stronger NV. Even citing market share numbers almost being split! HD 5870 was probably the last real strong AMD card that wasn't marred by horrible trends. 6970 was praised to the moon and back because of VLIW4. Just go read some of the comments of yesteryear. It's almost embarrassing.

Just pick a card after 5870, anyone, and look at it's release and included fiasco. Some are attributed to AMD others are not but affected AMD adversely.

Get out of here with this tired meme. A strong AMD/ATI USE to compete with a stronger NV. But suddenly people forget get this because "poor AMD, why can't they catch a break." So tired of it.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
Odd, someone posts info that support a strong AMD can compete with a stronger NV. Even citing market share numbers almost being split! HD 5870 was probably the last real strong AMD card that wasn't marred by horrible trends. 6970 was praised to the moon and back because of VLIW4. Just go read some of the comments of yesteryear. It's almost embarrassing.

Just pick a card after 5870, anyone, and look at it's release and included fiasco. Some are attributed to AMD others are not but affected AMD adversely.

Get out of here with this tired meme. A strong AMD/ATI USE to compete with a stronger NV. But suddenly people forget get this because "poor AMD, why can't they catch a break." So tired of it.
You still do not get it, eh?

HD5870 was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than Nvidia's GPU. And yet, AMD was not able to break even in marketshare with Nvidia. The GPU was relatively cheap to buy, by today's standards.

Once again, getting back to the whole point of this discussion: Where is the incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs, where people WANT AMD to be the value brand? You get it now? People WANT AMD to be the value brand. Because they get Nvidia/Intel hardware Cheaper. Where is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful, and expensive GPUs, even when their products will be better than their competitors, people will still pick Nvidia/Intel over AMD?

You get the whole picture, now? ;)
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,428
120
126
You still do not get it, eh?

HD5870 was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than Nvidia's GPU. And yet, AMD was not able to break even in marketshare with Nvidia. The GPU was relatively cheap to buy, by today's standards.
So I guess everyone wanting Ryzen just wants cheaper Intel. Gotcha!

Once again, getting back to the whole point of this discussion: Where is the incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs, where people WANT AMD to be the value brand? You get it now? People WANT AMD to be the value brand. Because they get Nvidia/Intel hardware Cheaper. Where is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful, and expensive GPUs, even when their products will be better than their competitors, people will still pick Nvidia/Intel over AMD?

You get the whole picture, now? ;)
As someone who's posting that I'd pay for an AMD card that rivals NV for the same price, it's odd that you would then turn and say to me "you don't exist."
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
Why it can't be that close to VII? Who said that RadVII is going to live forever?
Because of market segmentation, you cant have 330$ card being just a whisker slower than a 600$ one.
Nobody said that VII would live forever, no card is going to.But, AMD SAID its the most powerful card for this year, navi 10 wont beat it so it wont replace it.
Taking into consideration how AMD sees its performance vs nvidia (cherrypicking titles that favour them) and theit claim that VII is like a 2080, its a no brainer that if they claim 2070 Performance, its more likely gonna be between 2060 and 2070 ,maybe sometimes in some games a bit faster, but not overall.

I added a recent slide from amd shareholders meeting.
https://videocardz.com/80709/amd-confirms-radeon-navi-and-3rd-gen-ryzen-available-in-q3-2019

VII+ navi for this year.

Edited the link in hopes it would work because its linking to the article and not hotlinking to the image.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,593
1,060
136
Because of market segmentation, you cant have 330$ card being just a whisker slower than a 600$ one.
Nobody said that VII would live forever, no card is going to.But, AMD SAID its the most powerful card for this year, navi 10 wont beat it so it wont replace it.
Taking into consideration how AMD sees its performance vs nvidia (cherrypicking titles that favour them) and theit claim that VII is like a 2080, its a no brainer that if they claim 2070 Performance, its more likely gonna be between 2060 and 2070 ,maybe sometimes in some games a bit faster, but not overall.

I added a recent slide from amd shareholders meeting.
https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2019/05/AMD-Annual-Shareholder-Meeting-Navi-Ryzen-3000-1000x563.jpg

VII+ navi for this year.
access denied on that link
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,512
843
126
said that RadVII is going to live fo
Dammit multiquote. Let's try this again.

Why it can't be that close to VII? Who said that RadVII is going to live forever?
There we go.

Interestingly enough, AMD seems to have stopped selling Radeon VII directly from their site. Radeon VII is still widely-available from Newegg (and presumably other stores).
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
access denied on that link
Weird i can click it and view with 3 diff browsers, im gonna attach it.
Hope that works.
As for the store, its weird.
https://www.amd.com/en/graphics/radeon-rx-graphics
When i go there from my waterfox browser i can add to cart a golden edition of the VII ,but if i go there from opera browser i cant.Only option is to click few times and get to here
https://www.amd.com/en/where-to-buy/radeon-vii
Where you can buy them from varoius partners.

EDIT.
https://shop.amd.com/store?Action=D...SiteID=amd&id=ThreePgCheckoutShoppingCartPage ,this link works for me if i paste it directly in all browsers
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
20,070
1,081
126
Weird i can click it and view with 3 diff browsers, im gonna attach it.
Hope that works.
I have the same problem. basically "site does not allow hyper linking"

Error 1011 Ray ID: 4d7863dca854ccda • 2019-05-15 22:01:22 UTC
Access denied
What happened?

The owner of this website (cdn.videocardz.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/1/2019/05/AMD-Annual-Shareholder-Meeting-Navi-Ryzen-3000-1000x563.jpg).
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,687
49
136
Because of market segmentation, you cant have 330$ card being just a whisker slower than a 600$ one.
Nobody said that VII would live forever, no card is going to.But, AMD SAID its the most powerful card for this year, navi 10 wont beat it so it wont replace it.
Taking into consideration how AMD sees its performance vs nvidia (cherrypicking titles that favour them) and theit claim that VII is like a 2080, its a no brainer that if they claim 2070 Performance, its more likely gonna be between 2060 and 2070 ,maybe sometimes in some games a bit faster, but not overall.

I added a recent slide from amd shareholders meeting.
https://videocardz.com/80709/amd-confirms-radeon-navi-and-3rd-gen-ryzen-available-in-q3-2019

VII+ navi for this year.

Edited the link in hopes it would work because its linking to the article and not hotlinking to the image.
Why would AMD sell Radeon VII if it is so close in performance to Navi 10?

Considering that it is expensive to make, was designed for HPC/Machine Learning market, why would AMD still sell GPU that is effectively making them lose money, rather than sell small, cheap, powerful GPUs, even at market price bargain, but making them money?
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
Why would AMD sell Radeon VII if it is so close in performance to Navi 10?

Considering that it is expensive to make, was designed for HPC/Machine Learning market, why would AMD still sell GPU that is effectively making them lose money, rather than sell small, cheap, powerful GPUs, even at market price bargain, but making them money?
Well you are of course assuming two things:
a)navi 10 is gonna be close enouh with performance (i dont think so)
b)AMD loses money on VII (i dont think so)

But even if we take these two assumptions, well, ask them, they have it in their investors slide from yesterday.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,730
876
146
Well you are of course assuming two things:
a)navi 10 is gonna be close enouh with performance (i dont think so)
b)AMD loses money on VII (i dont think so)

But even if we take these two assumptions, well, ask them, they have it in their investors slide from yesterday.
On b I think because AMS decided to release the VII they actually aren’t losing money on it. I think the market has already accepted that AMD wasn’t going to release anything until Navi so they could have waited until then.

Instead AMD saw the predatory pricing and lackluster gain in performance on Turing and realized they had an opening to put something on the market while breaking even.

If the 2080TI has come in at the 1080TI price point I don’t think we would have seen the VII.
 
Mar 28, 2005
171
91
116
Odd, someone posts info that support a strong AMD can compete with a stronger NV. Even citing market share numbers almost being split! HD 5870 was probably the last real strong AMD card that wasn't marred by horrible trends. 6970 was praised to the moon and back because of VLIW4. Just go read some of the comments of yesteryear. It's almost embarrassing.

Just pick a card after 5870, anyone, and look at it's release and included fiasco. Some are attributed to AMD others are not but affected AMD adversely.

Get out of here with this tired meme. A strong AMD/ATI USE to compete with a stronger NV. But suddenly people forget get this because "poor AMD, why can't they catch a break." So tired of it.
Referring to Glo post and Adoredtv in general, it is simply lazy analysis and an over simplification to make AMD to make the free viral marketers for them to work harder. This is because it triggers an emotional response from people.

When AMD has a strong product like the 4870 and 5870 and price it well, AMD is able to get somewhere in the high 30's to mid 40 in terms of marketshare. Adored simplifies this to people not recognizing AMD product and how good they are for the price, but when you look at the 18% marketshare they carry today, people are recognizing it.

Big shifts in marketshare do not happen overnight. Whether it is the mobilephone industry, clothing industry shoe industry and every other industry. The market has favorites which allow them a greater marketshare at the same price/perfomance because brands do carry value. Companies have to consistently deliver over and over again to become the market leader and the superior brand. However this is not the only reason why Nvidia was able to maintain their marketshare.

Look at adores analysis of the Fermi generation and he completely omits of the GTX 460/560 ti because it weakens his argument tremendously. These cards were extremely well priced and was target at the mainstream segment which carries higher volume than the enthusiast segment adored was focused on.

https://www.anandtech.co2m/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king

Combine high volume card at superior price to performance than the competition on top of being the favored brand in the marketplace and it should be no surprise Nvidia was able to counter AMD and maintain their marketshare lead. The gtx 460/560 marketshare volume was greater than the GTX the GTX 480/580/5870/5850/5770 combined.

Another thing helping Nvidia was their relations with system builders/manufactures due to their driver support(before AMD cleaned up their drivers) and stronger brand.

Similarly, when the 4870 launched, Nvidia dropped their prices the next day and quickly launched the GTX 270 216 core, added game bundles(which AMD didn't really have since Roy Taylor was not with the company yet). Nonetheless the 48xx series took a tonne of marketshare back.

If we want to see a gigantic disparity between price/performance not translating into sales, look at the CPU market. Ryzen has dramatically better price to performance than Intel's processors. Much more than their GPUs and look at their marketshare.



Even with the strength of Ryzen 2 years later, AMD is still under 20 percent marketshare(under 10 percent in the server market). Intel has been mostly rehashing the skylake architecture, had security blunders and increasing the price of their products and they are still able to keep most of the marketshare. Intel has been poorly executing unlike Nvidia.

Intels launches have been generally mediocre since the skylake launch(including skylake) and their processors still sell incredibly well.

So should AMD give up because they are not getting 50% marketshare even though their processors command vastly better price to performance. Now they should not because those 5% marketshare gains in the market are because of the superior price to performance which still translate into 40-50% more processors year on year.

So at a lower pricing and higher price to performance, AMD was succeeding when they offered better price to performance than Nvidia. The idiotic notions that complete marketshare shifts happen when a company develops a superior product overnight is ridiculous and naive to how real business work. AMD succeeded when they gained near 50% marketshare in the discrete market. Although they did not outsell Nvidia, they doubled their marketshare compared to now. If we measure the success of a product purely based on being able to get more marketshare than the competition, Ryzen and threadripper are out right failures because they did not remotely get 50% marketshare. So why don't we get the same CPU mindshare argument/narrative from AMD vs Intel. It's because Nvidia is a easier company to hate and hate allows irrational arguments to get traction.

Intel's questionable(and illegal business behavior) occured over 10 years ago.This makes the hate against intel generally forgotten and the illogical arguments would simply be picked apart without the emotions distorting the validity of the argument. The same thing cannot be said for Nvidia. Nvidia have not done anything so outright bad as Intel but their small acts do add up and are somewhat numerous.(founders edition, poor driver support when arch comes out, bad performance with some game works games, the abrasiveness and cockiness of CEO).
 

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,581
67
136
For all the people asking why AMD wasn't doing better in the days of the 4000 and 5000 series GPUs, one answer to that is drivers. AMD had substantially inferior drivers to Nvidia until a couple of years ago. Even now, though their drivers are competitive in overall quality, they lag far behind on OpenGL.

Also, ever since Nvidia released Maxwell, AMD's consumer cards have been uncompetitive in terms of performance per watt. Some people don't care, but others do, and this reinforces the perception of AMD as a second-rate brand in the GPU market.

If AMD wants to gain market share, they need a product that is truly competitive across the board - not "similar performance to last year's Nvidia card, at twice the power consumption, with worse OpenGL support, at the same price as the Nvidia card".
 
Jan 26, 2004
40
20
81
For all the people asking why AMD wasn't doing better in the days of the 4000 and 5000 series GPUs, one answer to that is drivers. AMD had substantially inferior drivers to Nvidia until a couple of years ago. Even now, though their drivers are competitive in overall quality, they lag far behind on OpenGL.

Also, ever since Nvidia released Maxwell, AMD's consumer cards have been uncompetitive in terms of performance per watt. Some people don't care, but others do, and this reinforces the perception of AMD as a second-rate brand in the GPU market.

If AMD wants to gain market share, they need a product that is truly competitive across the board - not "similar performance to last year's Nvidia card, at twice the power consumption, with worse OpenGL support, at the same price as the Nvidia card".
While i agree that amd certainly needed better drivers, i think they already have better ones then nvidia.
And i REALLY doubt many people were put off by opengl thing.To me its the launches, with consistently bad cooling so they were getting the opinion of very loud, also launch day drivers were badish.
We got basically the same thing with vegas and VII.They need good coverage on day 1, not 2 months later with aib cards and fixed issues.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY