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

[Mockingbird]

Assuming that the latest information is correct,

What that tells me is that there will be limited availability at launch.

Think about it:

If AMD/AIBs have very limited number of units to sell at launch, in which case, the product will be sold out immediately, why wouldn't AMD/AIBs charge higher prices?

Then:

Months later when AMD/AIBs have unsold inventory sitting on their shelves, they can lower the prices.

 

[tajoh111]

And you do not think that demanding RTX 2070 performance at half the price, and calling it a failure because it does not cost half the price, with the same performance level is beyond ridiculous?

I ask you again. What is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs if People WANT AMD to sell them at a bargain? You are not able to tell me that demanding this from any company is the right thing to do in a world of competition.

And no, I am not happy about the rumored prices/power efficiency and even performance. But I can understand why AMD might price their products that way. If Nvidia can show "F*** You" to customers, why AMD cannot do the same thing, objectively?

Noone is calling for half off pricing(except a troll), they are expecting something with simply better pricing then the hosed pricing of the RTX line up in general. I.e Less than single digit improvement in performance per dollar in that range.

If AMD starts charging $500 for 200mm dies, then they are one upping Nvidia for ripping off the customers.

Not passing any of the savings from the new node onto the consumers can have catastrophic consequences for improvements in performance per dollars per dollar. A 200mm2 die is crazy increase vs the 240/250 dollar pricing we paid for the rx480/gtx1060 and the yields should be fantastic on it vs the the RTX 207G

In terms of cost, AMD should be cheaper because their brand value is less and they have moved to a leaner business model by moving most of their R and D to China and India for their graphics.

I would personally pay more for products when I know a bulk of their labor and creation is done in north America.

That means they can succeed with lower prices on their GPU, particularly since they rebrand so much.

AMD will always be a CPU centric company whose bread and butter is CPUs. They are less reliant on their GPU revenue.

People are not asking for AMD products to be half of Nvidia except a troll post. They are simply asking them to be better than Nvidia's prices today because two companies completely ripping off the market, particularly the value company, will lead to awful pricing for consumers and accelerate the rise of prices consumers pay.

Even from a financial standpoint, AMD particularly when it comes to GPU's should be the value company because the are amortizating their IP at a much lower rate than Nvidia. That is while Nvidia spends 4 or 5 billion over 3 years in R and D on graphic, AMD is spending less than a just a bit more than half of that on R and D on CPU and GPUs and with CPU development taking the vast majority of that, they are probably spending a 5th or less of what Nvidia does on GPU development.

This means their costs are lower which should lead to lower prices. Nvidia needs a higher gross margin(which does not cover R and D expense, just production) to cover their R and D expense. Just because AMD is the underdog, does not give them the licence to rip us off.

We should not pay 280 for recycled IP in the form of the RX590(the third iteration of polaris) using the same memory, same die size etc from a value company when the competition with the better brand is developing new cards, with larger performance gains, using dies 40% larger and using memory 70% more expensive for the same 280 dollar and still get criticism for it. Free games are not a replacement for R and D and better products.

People should not pay the same prices for the same performance when their costs are so much lower.

 

[tajoh111]

Assuming that the latest information is correct,

What that tells me is that there will be limited availability at launch.

Think about it:

If AMD/AIBs have very limited number of units to sell at launch, in which case, the product will be sold out immediately, why wouldn't AMD/AIBs charge higher prices?

Then:

Months later when AMD/AIBs have unsold inventory sitting on their shelves, they can lower the prices.

I said something similar for the RTX launch where it holds far more water not only due to the timeline(AMD should have gotten rid of most of it's inventory by now) but if you look at their assets, you will notice another anomaly.

If you look at their inventory on hand, Nvidia's inventory doubled from about 750 million to 1.5 billion. It's crazy how big it is.

That means nvidia will likely have to do a giant write off sooner or later because of excessive inventory they have. Nvidia stock will take a big hit when this happens.

AMD just went from 700-750 million to 900 million which could easily be explained by them holding inventory for the Ryzen 2 and Navi launch.

Also TSMC should have extra 7nm room at this point because of the downturn in the mobile industry(particularly from apple). At $400/$500 dollars, AMD should have no problems getting a large supply of GDDR6 and definitely not GDDR5.

 

[Glo.]

Noone is calling for half off pricing(except a troll), they are expecting something with simply better pricing then the hosed pricing of the RTX line up in general. I.e Less than single digit improvement in performance per dollar in that range.

If AMD starts charging $500 for 200mm dies, then they are one upping Nvidia for ripping off the customers.

Not passing any of the savings from the new node onto the consumers can have catastrophic consequences for improvements in performance per dollars per dollar. A 200mm2 die is crazy increase vs the 240/250 dollar pricing we paid for the rx480/gtx1060 and the yields should be fantastic on it vs the the RTX 207G

In terms of cost, AMD should be cheaper because their brand value is less and they have moved to a leaner business model by moving most of their R and D to China and India for their graphics.

I would personally pay more for products when I know a bulk of their labor and creation is done in north America.

That means they can succeed with lower prices on their CPU, particularly since they rebrand so much.

AMD will always be a CPU centric company whose bread and butter is CPUs. They are less reliant on their GPU revenue.

People are not asking for AMD products to be half of Nvidia except a troll post. They are simply asking them to be better than Nvidia's prices today because two companies completely ripping off the market, particularly the value company, will lead to awful pricing for consumers and accelerate the rise of prices consumers pay.

Even from a financial standpoint, AMD particularly when it comes to GPU's should be the value company because the are amortizating their IP at a much lower rate than Nvidia. That is while Nvidia spends 4 or 5 billion over 3 years in R and D on graphic, AMD is spending less than a just a bit more than half of that on R and D on CPU and GPUs and with CPU development taking the vast majority of that, they are probably spending a 5th or less of what Nvidia does on GPU development.

This means their costs are lower which should lead to lower prices. Nvidia needs a higher gross margin(which does not cover R and D expense, just production) to cover their R and D expense. Just because AMD is the underdog, does not give them the licence to rip us off.

We should not pay 280 for recycled IP in the form of the RX590(the third iteration of polaris) using the same memory, same die size etc from a value company when the competition with the better brand is developing new cards, with larger performance gains, using dies 40% larger and using memory 70% more expensive for the same 280 dollar and still get criticism for it. Free games are not a replacement for R and D and better products.

People should not pay the same prices for the same performance when their costs are so much lower.

Once again. What is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs, if consumers WANT AMD to be the value brand, and sell their chips for a bargain?

Do people really want AMD to move the needle in price so that they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper?

You have posted a lot of reasons for AMD to price their products accordingly, not from perspective of making money but from perspective of consumers. What is the business side of this view, hm?

If Nvidia can price RTX 2070 at 499$ why AMD cannot equally performing GPU, or faster one at the same price?

 

[AtenRa]

I hope they will not do the same thing as Pitcairn (HD7870) back in 2012.

 

[DrMrLordX]

If Nvidia can price RTX 2070 at 499$ why AMD cannot equally performing GPU, or faster one at the same price?

dGPUs are still depreciating assets, even in this price-inflated market. Over time, a 2070 should be worth less than its launch MSRP. It's only through weird demand spikes and/or artificial price hikes that we see dGPUs hold their value over such long periods of time (see 1080Ti). Street price for a 2070 right now is $450, and I don't expect that to go up once Ampere hits the streets. If AMD can launch a 2070 competitor for $399 then okay, that's a little savings, but $499? Cmon now. It's like AMD is aiming at prices established months ago. The whole thing seems kinda stupid. At least Radeon VII offered a few features (like 1/4 FP64) not found in the 2080.

AMD's real shot was in the $250-$300 range which is far removed from where they priced Radeon VII (something more expensive could hit next year to open up more market share grabbing opportunities). Perhaps Navi12 can cover that price range. But to make a big splash, that card has to at least match a 2060. If it beats the 2060, that leaves very little room between Navi10 and Navi12. And who is going to pay up to $200 more for something that may have such a small performance advantage?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

While AMD does not necessarily want to engage NV in a price war, they have a ton of room to play thanks to NV's massive dies sadled with RT features.

A lean 2070 level part coming in @ 250mm without a bunch of extra garbage would allow AMD to undercut NV while keeping their margins high.

NV could keep their prices the same touting their extra features, and folks looking for the performance sans the features could pick up AMD.

I figure it would be a route for AMD in that event (by the standards of the industry underdog) in terms of sales + market share... And even margins.

People may have forgotten since it's ancient history at this point, but ATI and NV have been slapped with a price fixing lawsuit before.

 

[Headfoot]

If AMD do not release something faster than the 1080 Ti 2.25 years later then this generation is an unmitigated failure. Doesn't matter to me what the fiddly small peanuts slight shifting of perf/$ brings in the lower tiers. We need something other than the 2080 Ti for $1300. Releasing also-ran performance, at an also-ran price is uninspiring and a failure. If they can't beat 2017 tech on 16nm with a brand new GPU arch on 7nm then they've failed again.

 

[Ajay]

Not passing any of the savings from the new node onto the consumers can have catastrophic consequences for improvements in performance per dollars per dollar. A 200mm2 die is crazy increase vs the 240/250 dollar pricing we paid for the rx480/gtx1060 and the yields should be fantastic on it vs the the RTX 207G

What cost savings? 7nm design costs are higher. 7nm wafer costs are higher. 7nm yields are almost certainly lower than the mature 14nm node Polaris was being fabbed on. Volumes (wafer starts) will be lower than Polaris (no mining boom). GDDR6 was more expensive than GDDR5 last I read. Where are you coming up with this cost savings?

 

[Glo.]

Navi12 can cover that price range.

There is no Navi 12. Only two GPUs that are apparent in drivers and DeviceIDs are Navi 10 and Navi 14.

Where are you coming up with this cost savings?

CHINESE WORKFORCE!

 

[tviceman]

If it was being built on 12 or 14nm, maby. But its not, its 7nm, so it will be smaller than that most likely. Polaris 20 was 232mm sq. I would expect Navi 10 to be in between.

EDIT: By in between I mean if it was on a larger node for comparison sake. As it is 7nm, I expect it to be quite a bit smaller.

If AMD do not release something faster than the 1080 Ti 2.25 years later then this generation is an unmitigated failure. Doesn't matter to me what the fiddly small peanuts slight shifting of perf/$ brings in the lower tiers. We need something other than the 2080 Ti for $1300. Releasing also-ran performance, at an also-ran price is uninspiring and a failure. If they can't beat 2017 tech on 16nm with a brand new GPU arch on 7nm then they've failed again.

I still don't see them beating their previous generation flagship (Vega64) in performance with a ~250mm2 chip, especially when the there will be more of the TDP dedicated to GDDR memory vs. HBM. Great if they do, though. That would be awesome to see RTX 2070 performance for $400 given the market's sustained price inflation.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Once again. What is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs, if consumers WANT AMD to be the value brand, and sell their chips for a bargain?

Do people really want AMD to move the needle in price so that they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper?

You have posted a lot of reasons for AMD to price their products accordingly, not from perspective of making money but from perspective of consumers. What is the business side of this view, hm?

If Nvidia can price RTX 2070 at 499$ why AMD cannot equally performing GPU, or faster one at the same price?

AMD just doesn't have the brand cache. If you're an average consumer but still aware that the two products are equal in performance, are you going to go with the tried and true brand or the one that's finally competitive. That doesn't even account for all the AIB partner brand recognition which I would argue has an even wider brand disparity. I think an identical $500 part would have to be priced around $450 to really move the needle. But people thinking they'll get performance parity at $300 or something are nuts.

 

[Glo.]

AMD just doesn't have the brand cache. If you're an average consumer but still aware that the two products are equal in performance, are you going to go with the tried and true brand or the one that's finally competitive. That doesn't even account for all the AIB partner brand recognition which I would argue has an even wider brand disparity. I think an identical $500 part would have to be priced around $450 to really move the needle. But people thinking they'll get parity at $300 or something are nuts.

I hope that you understand that Financial competition, eg. RTX 2070 competitior for 300$, would last till ... Nvidia would slash the prices of the RTX 2070 to 300$. What benefit there is for AMD to price so low, if they perfectly know they have no brand recognition? Those people, who you quote, would immediately jump out of their pants to buy brand new shiny Nvidia GPU, for such price.

AMD does not function in vacuum in the market. The only way AMD can get profits, AND market share is by going on a price war with Nvidia. Pricing their product equally to the Nvidia, at the start and then slashing, one by one prices of their GPUs, the same way Nvidia does down the road.

 

[Ajay]

CHINESE WORKFORCE!

Lol! That’s just to improve margins. AMD isn’t in the graphics business to make GPUs. They make and sell GPUs to make money for their Graphics business.

 

[Glo.]

Lol! That’s just to improve margins. AMD isn’t in the graphics business to make GPUs. They make and sell GPUs to make money for their Graphics business.

I should have added "/s" on the end of the post...

 

[ozzy702]

If AMD do not release something faster than the 1080 Ti 2.25 years later then this generation is an unmitigated failure. Doesn't matter to me what the fiddly small peanuts slight shifting of perf/$ brings in the lower tiers. We need something other than the 2080 Ti for $1300. Releasing also-ran performance, at an also-ran price is uninspiring and a failure. If they can't beat 2017 tech on 16nm with a brand new GPU arch on 7nm then they've failed again.

Not going to happen. We'll have to wait for NVIDIA's 3000 series for that. Tops we'll see from AMD is 1080TI/2080 performance over the next year if we're lucky.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I think you're reading way too much hyperbole into what I'm saying... AMD does not have "no brand recognition," they just don't have the clout nvidia does (esp factoring AIBs). How is pricing a competing part at $450 "pricing so low" when they're trying to make up ground and move units? Yes, any undercutting risks a price war with nvidia, but there is a balance somewhere.

 

[tviceman]

What cost savings? 7nm design costs are higher. 7nm wafer costs are higher. 7nm yields are almost certainly lower than the mature 14nm node Polaris was being fabbed on. Volumes (wafer starts) will be lower than Polaris (no mining boom). GDDR6 was more expensive than GDDR5 last I read. Where are you coming up with this cost savings?

To be fair, and I'm totally guessing, I'd imagine that a 225-250mm2 die on the 1+ year old 7nm manufacturing process yields as good, if not better than, 450-750 mm2 dies on 12nm FF+. The die sizes Nvidia are using right now for RTX are huge, which is probably part of the reason why TU102 and TU104 are cut down for their respective RTX parts.

 

[railven]

And you do not think that demanding RTX 2070 performance at half the price, and calling it a failure because it does not cost half the price, with the same performance level is beyond ridiculous?

Yeah, as ridiculous as I thought when you were banging the drum that Vega would be faster and cheaper than Pascal was. I mean, you did the same for Polaris and it's second and third revisions. But why the change now?

I ask you again. What is the financial incentive for AMD to design powerful GPUs if People WANT AMD to sell them at a bargain? You are not able to tell me that demanding this from any company is the right thing to do in a world of competition.

Que? As someone who has said multiple times he'd buy AMD if it cost the same as NV if it they had the same performance (at my preferred performance tier). I mean, I did back it up when I bought not one but two HD 7970s, and I tried to keep supporting AMD until miners drove the price up of 200-series far above MSRP and Fiji basically had a <10 unit run (sarcasm, but I think you get me - or I hope).

And no, I am not happy about the rumored prices/power efficiency and even performance. But I can understand why AMD might price their products that way. If Nvidia can show "F*** You" to customers, why AMD cannot do the same thing, objectively?

You're using the wrong argument against the wrong poster.

 

[Headfoot]

Not going to happen. We'll have to wait for NVIDIA's 3000 series for that. Tops we'll see from AMD is 1080TI/2080 performance over the next year if we're lucky.

So another complete snoozer from AMD. Let's hope they actually try to move the bar instead of 2017 era performance for 2017 era pricing

 

[tviceman]

Yeah, as ridiculous as I thought when you were banging the drum that Vega would be faster and cheaper than Pascal was. I mean, you did the same for Polaris and it's second and third revisions. But why the change now?



Que? As someone who has said multiple times he'd buy AMD if it cost the same as NV if it they had the same performance (at my preferred performance tier). I mean, I did back it up when I bought not one but two HD 7970s, and I tried to keep supporting AMD until miners drove the price up of 200-series far above MSRP and Fiji basically had a <10 unit run (sarcasm, but I think you get me - or I hope).



You're using the wrong argument against the wrong poster.

This isn't directed at me, is it?!

 

[Glo.]

Yeah, as ridiculous as I thought when you were banging the drum that Vega would be faster and cheaper than Pascal was. I mean, you did the same for Polaris and it's second and third revisions. But why the change now?



Que? As someone who has said multiple times he'd buy AMD if it cost the same as NV if it they had the same performance (at my preferred performance tier). I mean, I did back it up when I bought not one but two HD 7970s, and I tried to keep supporting AMD until miners drove the price up of 200-series far above MSRP and Fiji basically had a <10 unit run (sarcasm, but I think you get me - or I hope).



You're using the wrong argument against the wrong poster.

I can also quote many stupid thing you have posted on this very forum. But want to know why I will not do this?

Because they will not have any fu***** relevance to the matter discussed. Your points also do not have any relevance to the matter.

 

[railven]

This isn't directed at me, is it?!

I don't think so... Unless the system flagged you, I didn't @You or quote you in it.

If you're a miner, and you drove the MSRP prices up, then yes, and I got a expletive laden rant I can PM you! (Joke, with truth, but only relevance I can think of between my post and you.)

 

[railven]

I can also quote many stupid thing you have posted on this very forum. But want to know why I will not do this?

Haha, sure one should be be "Railven? AMD fanboy? Why isn't he dead yet" other is ATF where I've posted FOR YEARS!!!

EDIT: Completely misread your response, leaving my original though it makes no sense! Throw it on the list of stupid things I post

Because they will not have any fu***** relevance to the matter discussed. Your points also do not have any relevance to the matter.

Gotcha. I'm only addressing your stances taken on ATF. You strongly pushed for AMD to become a value brand. Now you're singing against it. It's just odd.

 

[Glo.]

Gotcha. I'm only addressing your stances taken on ATF. You strongly pushed for AMD to become a value brand. Now you're singing against it. It's just odd.

The only thing odd is your attatchement to concepts you have about other people.