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

[DrMrLordX]

@mattiasnyc oh sorry, meant 6900k. I keep getting my Broadwell-Es mixed up. Anyway:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

That was one of the reviews that had the 1800x compared against the 6900k. That it won anything was mind-boggling.

Also:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/23

To reiterate, this will NOT be happening with Navi. At least, not that I can tell.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Regardless of what the rumors/speculation say:

Man I love the build-up to a new card release. And for some reason (be it their underdog position, their wildcard status, or what) I am always especially pumped up during the lead-up to AMD card releases.

Turing was definitely a pleasant surprise from NV in terms of tech (and a less pleasant surprise in terms of pricing) but you know you sorta knew where the performance brackets would land.

AMD always has a lot of room for *drama* as they can launch some absolutely killer, market disrupting cards, good cards that leave a ton of OC potential on the table, *shrug* cards, and some straight up grade A organic non-gmo turds as well. Makes speculating on the cards themselves so much more fun.

 

[DrMrLordX]

some straight up grade A organic non-gmo turds as well.

Maybe AMD is in the wrong business. NV needs to build invasive spaceships, while AMD needs to peddle fertilizer.

 

[mattiasnyc]

@mattiasnyc oh sorry, meant 6900k. I keep getting my Broadwell-Es mixed up. Anyway:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

That was one of the reviews that had the 1800x compared against the 6900k. That it won anything was mind-boggling.

Also:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/23

To reiterate, this will NOT be happening with Navi. At least, not that I can tell.

The 6900K was an HEDT CPU with 40 PCIe lanes though, correct? And 4 DDR4 channels? So the reasonable comparison would have been to a Threadripper CPU. Either that or pick a low-lane-count Intel CPU.

 

[Mockingbird]

No, I understand that. But when AMD launched the 1800x @ $499, margins were still high on that chip - for them . Not by Intel standards, but Intel had (up to that point) a monopoly on performance and brand recognition. AMD went lower on price a year later. They didn't even have a $400 or $500 Pinnacle Ridge.

AMD had nothing competitive on the market. (AMD's best processor at the time can't even compete with a Core i3)

It had nothing to lose and everything to gain. (There was no chance that AMD would cannibalize its own products, and all of AMD's gain would come at the expense to Intel)

It's easy to disrupt the market because AMD had nothing lose.

That's not the case anymore. (AMD already have competitive products on the market)

8c isn't even the top of their stack anymore for Zen2. If AMD sells a 2700x for $330, why wouldn't they sell an 8c Zen2 for $250-$300 when it's going to be sitting in the middle of their product stack?

And why does not being the top of the stack matter?

Ryzen 9 would just be introduced at higher price points

AMD can't do all those things with Navi. A $250 (or even $300) Navi won't have the same margin as an $500 1800x (for starters), and it probably won't offer the same performance as an NV card costing twice as much, either. It'll knock off the 1660Ti and RTX 2060 - probably. So price it to compete with those and they will have a small win. If they try anything else then they will get creamed.

I never expect that anyway.

I heard 2560 shaders? The 56 CU count rumor for $330 seems unlikely. It's all leaks right now.

That's a rumor from a disreputable source, not a "leak".

The cheapest 1660Ti I can find on moment's notice is $270, and the cheapest 2060 is around $330:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=438,436&sort=price&page=1

If AMD can beat them both with 2560 shaders for, let's say, $280 as you suggest, they'll be doing alright. Especially if power draw is low. And that would not surprise me at all. A 2070 killer, though? Nahhh, I don't think they'll even launch one yet.

I calculated from retail prices, not on-sale prices.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The 6900K was an HEDT CPU with 40 PCIe lanes though, correct? And 4 DDR4 channels? So the reasonable comparison would have been to a Threadripper CPU. Either that or pick a low-lane-count Intel CPU.

TR wasn't out in March 2017 though. 6900k vs 1800x was the comparison of the day. Intel had so obviously overpriced that chip that it was easy to take a shot at it with a good core design. You did get larger RAM capacity and more PCIe from the x99 platform, making the 6900k a better buy in some circumstances. 1800x with more than 16GB of RAM can be a nightmare, and more than 32 GB? Eww.

It's easy to disrupt the market because AMD had nothing lose.

It's also easy to disrupt the market when you can (AMD couldn't before that point) and when you're raking in huge margins doing so. $500 for a die that small?

AMD doesn't have that luxury with Navi. Or at least, they probably don't . . .

That's not the case anymore. (AMD already have competitive products on the market)

AMD hasn't gotten to the point where they're competing with themselves. Definitely not in GPUs, and not even in CPUs. They didn't hesitate to launch a faster product in April 2018 at a lower price point than March 2017, despite Summit Ridge inventory still being in the channel.

And why does not being the top of the stack matter?

That defines prices, either from the bottom up or the top down. AMD's current top-of-the-stack MSRP for AM4 is: $330. Expect it to go up this year with Zen2. Stuff that is not at the top of the stack will have lower prices than the halo chips.

Ryzen 9 would just be introduced at higher price points

That is true . . . higher than $330. For the halo chip. 8c isn't halo anymore.

That's a rumor from a disreputable source, not a "leak".

I would agree on the 56CU rumour anyway.

I calculated from retail prices, not on-sale prices.

Those prices are close to MSRP. 1660TI MSRP was $279 at launch. 2060 FE was $349. AMD still has to deal with street pricing. Assuming prices on the 1660Ti and 2060 don't move much, Navi for $250-$300 gives AMD a chance at a winner, IF it beats the 2060. If it doesn't then I don't even know what to say.

 

[Head1985]

AMD have like 10-18% market share now(it was 18% in february) and are 1year late again than turing.If they dont undercut significantly nvidia, then people will not buy them simple as that.It was same with vega.Vega was 1.5year late for same money vs nvidia and it was epic fail.
If they want sell something they better undercut or it will be VEGA 2.0 + Nv have now RT and DLSS.

 

[mattiasnyc]

TR wasn't out in March 2017 though. 6900k vs 1800x was the comparison of the day.

No it wasn't. Why? Because:

You did get larger RAM capacity and more PCIe from the x99 platform, making the 6900k a better buy in some circumstances. 1800x with more than 16GB of RAM can be a nightmare, and more than 32 GB? Eww.

Look at who bought non-x99 Intel chips. Now look at who bought 1800x chips.
Look at who bought x99 chips. Look at who bought Threadripper chips.

Apples to apples is the correct comparison. AMD did not release a chip that killed the 6900K at half the price, they released a chip that was really good at a great price but offered something else. It was really never much of a choice for the majority those who picked the 6900K to pick the 1800X instead, because they belonged generally to the HEDT crowd needing more memory, more memory channels, and more PCIe lanes.

It's not half the price for about the same performance if it's Apples and Oranges.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Apples to apples is the correct comparison. AMD did not release a chip that killed the 6900K at half the price, they released a chip that was really good at a great price but offered something else.

And yet, inevitably, all the commentary (including the summary from AT's review of the 1800x) revolved around AMD's newfound ability to compete in HEDT. In March 2017. There were plenty of people who walked away from x99 and towards AM4. Those that needed all that other stuff went Threadripper or moved on to Skylake-X later on. You can't deny the inevitable value comparison between the 1800x and the 6900k. All that for half the price? It was amazing.

Not that any of this commentary has much to do with Navi, which is moving away from the point I was trying to make, and that was that AMD HAS significantly undercut a powerful competitor in the past with a mostly-equivalent product. Not that they'll do that with Navi, because Navi won't compete with anything NV is selling for $1k.

 

[Mockingbird]

AMD hasn't gotten to the point where they're competing with themselves. Definitely not in GPUs, and not even in CPUs. They didn't hesitate to launch a faster product in April 2018 at a lower price point than March 2017, despite Summit Ridge inventory still being in the channel.

If you look at sale figures from Mindfactory (since other retailers don't provide such data), AMD is easily outselling Intel in retail processor sales.

You did point out that 2rd gen Ryzen is cheaper than 1st gen Ryzen, but that's only in response to Intel, specifically Coffee Lake.

Core i7-8700K has two fewer cores, but it has higher clocks and higher IPC, which allows it come uncomfortably close to the Ryzen 7 1800X in multithreaded scenario (which is AMDs' best scenario)

Ryzen 7 2700X was only a minor step up from the Ryzen 7 1800X.

With Core i7-8700K at $359, Ryzen 7 2700X would be a tough sell at $499.

So let me make this clear, AMD didn't lower prices because it wants to, but in response to Intel.

If AMD can make a processor that match the Core i9-9900K, it wouldn't be lowering the price. Expect it to be at least $329.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Similarly, with graphics:

Don't expect AMD to seriously slash prices, except in response to NVIDIA slashing prices.

That defines prices, either from the bottom up or the top down. AMD's current top-of-the-stack MSRP for AM4 is: $330. Expect it to go up this year with Zen2. Stuff that is not at the top of the stack will have lower prices than the halo chips.

The point still stands:

If AMD can make a processor can match the $488 Core i9-9900K, why would AMD sell if for less than $329?

That is true . . . higher than $330. For the halo chip. 8c isn't halo anymore.

...and why does that matter?

I would agree on the 56CU rumour anyway.

...and pretty much the rest of it too

Those prices are close to MSRP. 1660TI MSRP was $279 at launch. 2060 FE was $349. AMD still has to deal with street pricing. Assuming prices on the 1660Ti and 2060 don't move much, Navi for $250-$300 gives AMD a chance at a winner, IF it beats the 2060. If it doesn't then I don't even know what to say.

So what?

Those prices are still cheaper the cheapest GeForce RTX 2070, cheapest GeForce RTX 2060, and cheapest GeForce GTX 1660 Ti.

...and, of cause, at some point, Navi would go on sale and be cheaper than its MSRPs

 

[mattiasnyc]

And yet, inevitably, all the commentary (including the summary from AT's review of the 1800x) revolved around AMD's newfound ability to compete in HEDT.

"all"? Yeah, I don't think so.

There were plenty of people who walked away from x99 and towards AM4. Those that needed all that other stuff went Threadripper or moved on to Skylake-X later on.

You're talking about a fraction of a fraction, meaning HEDT people are a fraction of the CPU buying market, and out of all of those only some could do without all the lanes x99 offered.

You can't deny the inevitable value comparison between the 1800x and the 6900k. All that for half the price? It was amazing.

I'm not denying that it was amazing, but I am absolutely questioning the value comparison you're making, because you are comparing apples to oranges. Your comparison of getting about the same performance for half price means nothing if a person needs the lanes x99 supplies. As long as that's not the case, then fine. But it's like saying that Intels own non-x99 was great value because they performed in gaming much better per dollar compared to x99.

It's just not a sensible comparison as a blanket statement.

Not that any of this commentary has much to do with Navi, which is moving away from the point I was trying to make, and that was that AMD HAS significantly undercut a powerful competitor in the past with a mostly-equivalent product. Not that they'll do that with Navi, because Navi won't compete with anything NV is selling for $1k.

Well, we're speculating here, right? So speculating that AMD should or would bring out a new GPU at the same performance as Nvidia at half the price and justifying that with the discussion we just had is silly, for the reasons I stated. That's why we're having this discussion.

Nobody is disputing that AMD has brought great value on both fronts for a long time... well, more on the CPU side of course. But even Radeon VII offers really great value to workstation users in some applications like Davinci Resolve. It's not exactly half price, but it's very, very good. Again though, it's not mainstream, it's a tiny fraction of the market.

And I agree with the other poster that there's a difference between swinging for the fences having little to lose and on the other hand being in the position they're in today with something more substantial to actually lose.

But hey, we all want far more for way less, so we can at least agree that it'd be fantastic if we got that.

 

[DrMrLordX]

"all"? Yeah, I don't think so.

Fine, do away with the hyperbole then. The final page of AT's review of the 1800x was still entitled: "Conclusions: AMD is competing in HEDT again".

I'm not denying that it was amazing, but I am absolutely questioning the value comparison you're making, because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Lots of people were comparing apples to oranges. Was Cutress wrong? I agree with his conclusions.

Well, we're speculating here, right? So speculating that AMD should or would bring out a new GPU at the same performance as Nvidia at half the price and justifying that with the discussion we just had is silly, for the reasons I stated. That's why we're having this discussion.

If AMD could beat the 2080Ti today with a Navi GPU, it would cost about the same as Radeon VII, + maybe $50-$100. If Radeon VII had never come out, they'd put it at maybe $600-$700. They absolutely would. They'd EOL Radeon VII and let all the FP64 freaks buy up the remaining cards, done deal. Margins on a 2080Ti-beating Navi would still be very good (better than Radeon VII). No HBM, probably no overbuilt VRMs, none of that.

Unless, of course, it proved to be a good compute card, too. Then they'd redirect the GPU dice to enterprise, slap HBM2 on there, and neglect the consumer market (again).

But hey, we all want far more for way less, so we can at least agree that it'd be fantastic if we got that.

Oh, it would be lovely if AMD could beat the 2070 with Navi at launch. I wouldn't count on it.

If you look at sale figures from Mindfactory (since other retailers don't provide such data), AMD is easily outselling Intel in retail processor sales.

With Core i7-8700K at $359, Ryzen 7 2700X would be a tough sell at $499.

2700X was labeled the way it was for a reason. It left them the option of a 2800X if they felt they needed one (apparently they didn't, or just couldn't bin for one successfully). Assuredly it would have had a price point similar to that of the 1800X.

Yes, the 8700k did influence pricing, but it wasn't the only factor involved. And AMD lowered that price without worrying one bit about the remaining Summit Ridge chips in the channel. Like I said, they aren't really competing with themselves (yet), despite their uptick in retail sales.

If AMD can make a processor that match the Core i9-9900K, it wouldn't be lowering the price. Expect it to be at least $329.

Depends on what they have to sell to match a 9900k. I'm still confident that the top of the stack will be at around $500. If the price compression is too high between SKUs going from top to middle of the stack, AMD will have to cut prices to spread them out a bit.

Those prices are still cheaper the cheapest GeForce RTX 2070, cheapest GeForce RTX 2060, and cheapest GeForce GTX 1660 Ti.

If Navi wins up being slower than the 2060 with prices lower than the 1660Ti, NV will just dump prices on the 1660Ti, slightly lower the 2060, and ride it out until Ampere closes the door. Navi will go nowhere. Navi has to beat the 2060 to make any kind of impact.

 

[Mockingbird]

AMD have like 10-18% market share now(it was 18% in february) and are 1year late again than turing.If they dont undercut significantly nvidia, then people will not buy them simple as that.It was same with vega.Vega was 1.5year late for same money vs nvidia and it was epic fail.
If they want sell something they better undercut or it will be VEGA 2.0 + Nv have now RT and DLSS.

If AMD products are already cheaper than NVIDIA's (equivalent) products and people still buy NVIDIA's, it's because of a lack of awareness.

People are not going to buy AMD's alternatives (to NVIDIA's products) no matter how well they are priced if people aren't aware of them.

The solution is not to lower the prices any further, but rather, to invest in marketing to raise awareness.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Ok, I admit defeat.

AMD CPUs cost half of what Intel CPUs cost at equal performance, and the platform doesn't matter.

Future AMD GPUs will cost half of what Nvidia GPUs cost at equal performance, against completely disregarding things like how much VRAM is on there.

There's absolutely no reason why AMD would charge as much as it could when it could just charge less.

 

[Mockingbird]

2700X was labeled the way it was for a reason. It left them the option of a 2800X if they felt they needed one (apparently they didn't, or just couldn't bin for one successfully). Assuredly it would have had a price point similar to that of the 1800X.

There wasn't Ryzen 7 2800X because there wan't a need for one.

If Zen + could clock to, let's say, 4.7 GHz, AMD could justifiably release release another SKU, but it couldn't clock that high.

Yes, the 8700k did influence pricing, but it wasn't the only factor involved. And AMD lowered that price without worrying one bit about the remaining Summit Ridge chips in the channel. Like I said, they aren't really competing with themselves (yet), despite their uptick in retail sales.

AMD already lowered the price of Summit Ridge as a response to Coffee Lake before Pinnacle Ridge was released.

Depends on what they have to sell to match a 9900k. I'm still confident that the top of the stack will be at around $500. If the price compression is too high between SKUs going from top to middle of the stack, AMD will have to cut prices to spread them out a bit.

The 3rd gen Ryzen 16-core SKU (if AMD choose to release one) has no competition aside from the Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.

There is no reason at all why it cannot be $699, $799 or more when AMD is just competing with itself and has no real competition from Intel (Core i9-7960X is $1699)

If Navi wins up being slower than the 2060 with prices lower than the 1660Ti, NV will just dump prices on the 1660Ti, slightly lower the 2060, and ride it out until Ampere closes the door. Navi will go nowhere. Navi has to beat the 2060 to make any kind of impact.

Well, it's kind of hard to believe that Navi would regress from Radeon RX Vega 64's performance

 

[Bouowmx]

Joel Hruska (ExtremeTech):

There has been a surfeit of what Alan Greenspan might have called "irrational exuberance" surrounding AMD and 7nm technology for both Ryzen and Navi. It appears to be fed by fanboys with no concept of how over-hyping the technology cycle behind a company can lead to fans being angry and even vengeful when AMD "fails" to deliver on promises they never made. Widespread coverage of these rumors can lead to them being treated as facts or near-facts, despite AMD doing absolutely nothing to confirm them.

The basic argument is the same, and goes like this:

1). AMD is about to do something extraordinary.

2). AMD, being run by idiots, will choose to sell their extraordinary new product for roughly half the price as the competition, despite the fact that what AMD needs, more than anything, is stable, long-term profits and strong revenue gain across multiple market shares.

3). Even though the only way to establish #2 is by investing in one's own products and growing revenue, people expect that AMD will starve itself in the name of gaining market share, even though "Lose money on every product and make it up with volume," is not actually a winning move.

4). This practical issue will be solved with chiplets, because chiplets are magic, and 7nm wafers are not more expensive, and design costs have not risen, and AMD is not trying to break into markets like AI and deep learning where Nvidia has an enormous institutional advantage. AMD certainly isn't facing an entrenched competitor like Intel, whose quarterly profits dwarf AMD's by orders of magnitude.

5). The fact that 10nm has slipped so badly is proof that Intel can no longer compete and will slowly be destroyed by ARM and AMD while AMD takes over its market and rules the Earth.

The most annoying thing about all of this is that you could hit "Rewind" and turn the clock back to early 2006. They're basically the same arguments with updated product names (and, of course, the fact that AMD didn't own ATI in early 2006).

I expect AMD to take advantage of 7nm to build a much more competitive Navi than Vega or Polaris have been.I think they will offer a much higher level of performance per dollar and performance per watt. I have not made specific predictions past that because the rumor mill has done a lot of churning about Navi and most of it has been stupid. AMD will not launch an RTX 2070 killer at $250 because AMD isn't going to leave all that money on the table when it desperately needs revenue to fuel its own R&D. AMD wants to play in AI and DL. Nvidia owns those markets so completely, AMD is basically fighting to be a footnote. So clearly, the right solution is to make as much money as possible and plow that back into the business as quickly as possible, in order to build more aggressive AI-focused products on 7nm and steal a march on Nvidia.

Just kidding.

What I meant was, "The smart thing to do is to sell each GPU for one penny above cost, to make the fanboys happy."

(To be absolutely clear, I am not annoyed with you or any commenter specifically. I am tired of chasing down and debunking bad rumors based on dumb data).

I think Navi will be good. I share your concern about how good it will be because AMD has had a hard time securing a straight win against Nvidia in most market segments (the RX 570 is a blowout win against both the GTX 1050 Ti and the GTX 1650, but that's the exception that proves the rule). I think the $330 price tag on an RTX 2070 competitor is probably low, but it's not unbelievably, insanely low. The $250 rumor was.

The rumor mill all-too-often confuses “AMD will make a very competitive / superior play in terms of performance per dollar” with “AMD will gut its own profit margins in the name of offering an unsustainably good deal.”

So, that text is in comments section, not indexed by search engines: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/...challenge_rtx_2070_at_339/#comment-4453848312

 

[Dribble]

Did you just reply to my post reminding you about Bumpgate and focused only on the wood screw joke?

I guess I'll take it: nobody bought cards with wood screws, they bought cards with chip bumps that slowly cracked after repeated thermal stress, all of them. The Dell XPS 13 had it's mainboard replaced 4 times at 6 months intervals in a Dell authorized center and the Dell XPS 15 managed to die on me just outside of the "extended" warranty period. I continued to be an Nvidia customer after this, as I buy hardware on the merits of the hardware generation, not some weirdly misunderstood brand allegiance that keeps body counts on one side and cherished memories on the other.

You want to talk about Nvidia's better brand appeal? Sure go ahead, I'll agree on the spot. But don't attempt to rewrite history in front of everybody.

*shrugs*

I guess if all you can see is Nvidia failures and AMD brilliance then I'll just leave you to get back to wondering why no one is buying AMD cards, and even if Navi is eventually good why everyone is still buying Nvidia. I suppose it must be some grand conspiracy where Nvidia has brainwashed the world, and in fact there isn't a logic explanation.

 

[Arkaign]

So, that text is in comments section, not indexed by search engines: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/...challenge_rtx_2070_at_339/#comment-4453848312

LOL, it's much too sane to be understood by many, but as someone who has followed this since the 8086, 6502, and CP/M days, that guy nails it completely.

Have reasonable expectations, and be either relieved when they're met, or blown away when they're exceeded. On the flip side, how many times have we seen any of the big three (Blue/Red/Green) be late, be underwhelming to some degree, or not be priced ideally with a product release.

On the flip side of things, how many times have you seen a product series go from 'good' to 'best thing ever' by revision instead of generation? How many product releases overall have been truly staggering in relevance overall? Precious few, I think.

For GPUs (and pre-GPU, but what once slotted in as that device segment) :

Matrox Millennium
3DFX Voodoo 1
Riva TNT
Geforce 256
Radeon 9700 Pro
8800GTX

For CPUs

First credible 386/486 Clones
Athlon XP
(honorable mention to Slot A Athlon, but they were more tit for tat with iffy chipsets vs the Willamette slayers on Socket A)
(honorable mention to Northwood, which was competitive with everything up to ~3200+ levels and easy OC, but not special enough to be an 'event/paradigm' type product)
Opteron through Athlon X2 940/939/754 era
Conroe
Ryzen (slightly borderline choice here, but brought more cores to the segments, and rose their IPC from abominable to pretty competitive while offering stellar and class-leading MP/$)

Expecting Intel's umpteenth Lake or Ryzen chiplet or Navi 1x to be something amazing is probably expecting too much, from my perspective. IDK, maybe I'll be happily surprised by something But I'm tending towards expecting evolutionary vs revolutionary ekes and crawls overall.

 

[DrMrLordX]

There wasn't Ryzen 7 2800X because there wan't a need for one.

Sure there was. They needed better performance against the 8600k . . . and 9900k. And 9700k

If Zen + could clock to, let's say, 4.7 GHz, AMD could justifiably release release another SKU, but it couldn't clock that high.

Exactly. They couldn't pull it off. AMD had to retreat from the $500 price point. They'll be back. But it won't be with an 8c chip.

Well, it's kind of hard to believe that Navi would regress from Radeon RX Vega 64's performance

Why? Nobody has proven, to date, that Navi was ever meant to be a Vega64 or even Radeon VII successor. Yet. The key product AMD has to replace on the market is Polaris. If AMD bumps off Vega56 in the process then great.

RX Vega64 was a $499 dGPU at launch. It is highly-unlikely that AMD has a Navi product ready for that price point in 2019.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Nobody has proven, to date, that Navi was ever meant to be a Vega64 or even Radeon VII successor. Yet.

What other architectures are AMD planning in the near term then?

I could be confused, but my impression was that Navi was the next generation of AMD GPUs, and that IF they wanted to compete at the high end that would be the GPU to do it.

The key product AMD has to replace on the market is Polaris. If AMD bumps off Vega56 in the process then great.

RX Vega64 was a $499 dGPU at launch. It is highly-unlikely that AMD has a Navi product ready for that price point in 2019.

I think a lot of people agree with that.

 

[Stuka87]

RX Vega64 was a $499 dGPU at launch. It is highly-unlikely that AMD has a Navi product ready for that price point in 2019.

Based on what? What makes it highly unlikely? Rumors suggest there is at least two chips, possibly three.

 

[Mockingbird]

Sure there was. They needed better performance against the 8600k . . . and 9900k. And 9700k



Exactly. They couldn't pull it off. AMD had to retreat from the $500 price point. They'll be back. But it won't be with an 8c chip.

I am cutting this discussion off because this is the graphics subforum and we have been off topic for far too long.

Why? Nobody has proven, to date, that Navi was ever meant to be a Vega64

Nobody has proven otherwise either.

or even Radeon VII successor. Yet.

Lisa Su has made it pretty clear that Navi (at least initially) is going to slot below the Radeon VII

It's also implied on this image: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14352/amd-shareholders-slide-2.png

The key product AMD has to replace on the market is Polaris. If AMD bumps off Vega56 in the process then great.

RX Vega64 was a $499 dGPU at launch. It is highly-unlikely that AMD has a Navi product ready for that price point in 2019.

No. Vega is the prime candidate for replacement.

Vega is expensive to make because of expensive HBM2 memory. Meanwhile, Polaris uses the now, very cheap GDDR5.

I won't be surprise at all if AMD leave Polaris lingering around for a while longer.

 

[tajoh111]

If AMD products are already cheaper than NVIDIA's (equivalent) products and people still buy NVIDIA's, it's because of a lack of awareness.

People are not going to buy AMD's alternatives (to NVIDIA's products) no matter how well they are priced if people aren't aware of them.

The solution is not to lower the prices any further, but rather, to invest in marketing to raise awareness.

Come on Mockingbird, your one of the last people that should repeat what adoredtv even if it's coincidence.

AMD is able to move far more volume when they have a better price then Nvidia.

That is they are able to move twice as many cards(4870 and 5870 marketshare)(35-45% marketshare) vs the what they carry today at 18%.

Marketshare shifts do not happen over night and they take time. It's why companies do introductory pricing or willing to sell at cost to get marketshare(Intel atoms in the tablet market)

Any person here knows at equal price to performance to Nvidia, AMD gets clobbered for marketshare and this is true of any market leader brand over the competition. Add the stronger reviews of Nvidia products over AMD contemporaries and you have a situation where some of it is marketing, but poor pricing from AMD(pricing as the same as Nvidia), late arrival of products and poor driver performance at launch undermine sales on top of efficiency which hurts them in the prebuilt system and laptop market.

The GPU market is not nearly as hard to penetrate in terms of marketshare as the CPU market. Getting 40% marketshare(outside of the mining blips) is a tremendous success for them. Getting to 50% in one generation is an unrealistic figure until AMD can improve their efficiency to get more laptop contracts and get the performance crown.

 

[tajoh111]

If AMD products are already cheaper than NVIDIA's (equivalent) products and people still buy NVIDIA's, it's because of a lack of awareness.

People are not going to buy AMD's alternatives (to NVIDIA's products) no matter how well they are priced if people aren't aware of them.

The solution is not to lower the prices any further, but rather, to invest in marketing to raise awareness.

Come on Mockingbird, your one of the last people that should repeat what adoredtv even if it's coincidence.

AMD is able to move far more volume when they have a better price then Nvidia.

That is they are able to move twice as many cards(4870 and 5870 marketshare)(35-45% marketshare) vs the what they carry today at 18%.

Marketshare shifts do not happen over night and they take time.

THe reason why AMD is pricing their cards so high I suspect is they are secretly in collusion with Nvidia at the moment for price fixing. That is they want Nvidia to raise their prices so their products sell better at still high prices because relative to Nvidia prices, they are still better even those they are historical highs. Both companies benefit during a price fixed market and this is why AMD has been pricing the cards the same as Nvidia. It allows Nvidia to raise their prices which will inevitably allow Nvidia to raise prices which will allow them to raise prices later.

 

[Mockingbird]

Come on Mockingbird, your one of the last people that should repeat what adoredtv even if it's coincidence.

...like I give a **** what that narcissist said

The reason I even bother to watch the videos is that someone on the forum would say that I couldn't have objective opinions otherwise.

AMD is able to move far more volume when they have a better price then Nvidia.

That is they are able to move twice as many cards(4870 and 5870 marketshare)(35-45% marketshare) vs the what they carry today at 18%.

Marketshare shifts do not happen over night and they take time.

Literally the first sentence, "If AMD products are already cheaper than NVIDIA's (equivalent) products", it was already assume that AMD's products are already cheaper than NVIDIA's equivalent products.

THe reason why AMD is pricing their cards so high I suspect is they are secretly in collusion with Nvidia at the moment for price fixing. That is they want Nvidia to raise their prices so their products sell better at still high prices because relative to Nvidia prices, they are still better even those they are historical highs. Both companies benefit during a price fixed market and this is why AMD has been pricing the cards the same as Nvidia. It allows Nvidia to raise their prices which will inevitably allow Nvidia to raise prices which will allow them to raise prices later.

That's quite an accusation.

If the vendors just decided to keep prices high without actual agreements, that's not price fixing.