AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and 56 Reviews [*UPDATED* Aug 28]

[PeterScott]

Seriously, wccftech?
Scraping the bottom of the barrel to find one of the worst reliable rumor sites there is?

There have been multiple sources all saying the same thing, and all you do is attack the sources.

With multiple independent sources all saying the same thing, chances are this was what AMD's actually doing.

 

[PeterScott]

i'm still trying to wrap my head around exactly why the rebates are horrible. amd can't force retailers to sell the things at $499. that's illegal. it's not even the entity selling to the retailers/distributors; the board partners are. amd also can't force retailers to accept the rebates to sell at $499. again, that's illegal. amd can't force retailers to sell 1 board to 1 person. a) implementing that would be a technical nightmare - shopping cart and account software would need revisions, at the minimum. b) it's also probably illegal.

so, what is amd to do? it can't set prices at the retailer level. it probably can't sell boards directly into this segment under its contracts with its board partners. it also knows that all graphics cards are getting bid up to what miners think they're worth. (case in point: 1080 is better from an FPS/$ standpoint than the 1070 is right now, when is that ever the case?). and end-user rebate for $100? i don't know that that would bring the effective price down for a consumer to where amd wants it, but maybe the optics would be better. although, again, i don't know why the optics of the retailer rebate are so bad, anyway.

The optics are bad, because it is small number of rebates to a small number of selected retailers.

It looks like AMD is trying to create the appearance of lower prices to sell their claimed prices to reviewers, when in reality it is essentially a lottery win, to luck out and get one of the rebated cards.

They would have been much better off to just let the pricing sort itself out.

RTG is teaching a master class in what not to do.

 

[Elixer]

There have been multiple sources all saying the same thing, and all you do is attack the sources.

With multiple independent sources all saying the same thing, chances are this was what AMD's actually doing.

If they were reliable sources, that is one thing, but so far the only sources there have been have not been reliable at all.
Why do you trust this source, and not the other source that Jay talked about in his vid?

All I have ever said is just wait and see, it isn't hard to do that, but yet, we go from one rumor to another rumor.

 

[PeterScott]

If they were reliable sources, that is one thing, but so far the only sources there have been have not been reliable at all.
Why do you trust this source, and not the other source that Jay talked about in his vid?

All I have ever said is just wait and see, it isn't hard to do that, but yet, we go from one rumor to another rumor.

As I said, you have to talk to a retailer that was offered the rebate, not all were. So if Jay talks to a retailer and they say: "We didn't get a rebate", that doesn't mean no one did. We have heard from retailers, first hand (Gibbo) that did receive the rebate.

 

[ElFenix]

The optics are bad, because it is small number of rebates to a small number of selected retailers.

It looks like AMD is trying to create the appearance of lower prices to sell their claimed prices to reviewers, when in reality it is essentially a lottery win, to luck out and get one of the rebated cards.

They would have been much better off to just let the pricing sort itself out.

RTG is teaching a master class in what not to do.

are the reviewers not able to write their conclusions to basically say: "if you get one at or less than the price of a 1080 (and they are out there), then it's an ok buy, but otherwise it's a hard pass"? are the reviewers unable to distill a little common sense?

 

[tential]

i'm still trying to wrap my head around exactly why the rebates are horrible. amd can't force retailers to sell the things at $499. that's illegal. it's not even the entity selling to the retailers/distributors; the board partners are. amd also can't force retailers to accept the rebates to sell at $499. again, that's illegal. amd can't force retailers to sell 1 board to 1 person. a) implementing that would be a technical nightmare - shopping cart and account software would need revisions, at the minimum. b) it's also probably illegal.

so, what is amd to do? it can't set prices at the retailer level. it probably can't sell boards directly into this segment under its contracts with its board partners. it also knows that all graphics cards are getting bid up to what miners think they're worth. (case in point: 1080 is better from an FPS/$ standpoint than the 1070 is right now, when is that ever the case?). and end-user rebate for $100? i don't know that that would bring the effective price down for a consumer to where amd wants it, but maybe the optics would be better. although, again, i don't know why the optics of the retailer rebate are so bad, anyway.

They set the MSRP based on rebate prices that they weren't able to maintain.
Rebate went away, retailers are unable to hold the MSRP.
Prices go up.

are the reviewers not able to write their conclusions to basically say: "if you get one at or less than the price of a 1080 (and they are out there), then it's an ok buy, but otherwise it's a hard pass"? are the reviewers unable to distill a little common sense?

Has this been done a lot in the past?

 

[Elixer]

As I said, you have to talk to a retailer that was offered the rebate, not all were. So if Jay talks to a retailer and they say: "We didn't get a rebate", that doesn't mean no one did. We have heard from retailers, first hand (Gibbo) that did receive the rebate.

Jay talked to someone at AMD, they are the ones that said they didn't offer any rebates.
Everything goes back to Gibbo, and he hasn't yet produced the paperwork about the rebates, so, until he backs up what he says, it is another "Vega does 70-100Mh/s" moment.

 

[maddie]

i'm still trying to wrap my head around exactly why the rebates are horrible. amd can't force retailers to sell the things at $499. that's illegal. it's not even the entity selling to the retailers/distributors; the board partners are. amd also can't force retailers to accept the rebates to sell at $499. again, that's illegal. amd can't force retailers to sell 1 board to 1 person. a) implementing that would be a technical nightmare - shopping cart and account software would need revisions, at the minimum. b) it's also probably illegal.

so, what is amd to do? it can't set prices at the retailer level. it probably can't sell boards directly into this segment under its contracts with its board partners. it also knows that all graphics cards are getting bid up to what miners think they're worth. (case in point: 1080 is better from an FPS/$ standpoint than the 1070 is right now, when is that ever the case?). and end-user rebate for $100? i don't know that that would bring the effective price down for a consumer to where amd wants it, but maybe the optics would be better. although, again, i don't know why the optics of the retailer rebate are so bad, anyway.

You have to get with the meme. AMD incompetent, Vega a dog, etc, etc. Sheesh, why are you trying to reason this?

 

[ElFenix]

They set the MSRP based on rebate prices that they weren't able to maintain.
Rebate went away, retailers are unable to hold the MSRP.
Prices go up.

amd can't actually enforce MSRP though (again, that's illegal price fixing).* amd can shout from the rooftops all it wants, it won't change the fact that the market will find the proper relative pricing, and, at this time, that's set by miners. not amd. not nvidia. not gamers. it kinda goes back to the old saying about wishes in one hand.

maybe not understanding that MSRP can't be enforced is where the disconnect with certain reviewers is coming from


edit: the law may have changed since i got out of school, i'm doing some reading

Has this been done a lot in the past?

isn't that why anandtech usually has a chart of competitive landscape at the start of reviews with actual prices from newegg?




*amd isn't even in the position that MS, sony, and nintendo are, because AMD isn't selling the boards into retail, so they can't do that minimum advertised price trick you get on game consoles.

 

[tential]

Is the competitive landscape the same thing as showing which prices to buy a gpu and which ones are not good?


Amd not being able to control msrp is a different issue than amd giving an msrp that was only obtainable by rebate, and then removing the rebate and giving a permanent price hike to the product.

From Anandtech Vega review :
"The catch for AMD is that what they need to price RX Vega at to be competitive and what it should be able to do are at odds with each other."

Pretty sure lots of people have said this. Thing is, between demand, supply, and there supposedly being a rebate from amd that won't be there any longer it will be quite hard for Vega to be at that competitive price.

 

[PeterScott]

Jay talked to someone at AMD, they are the ones that said they didn't offer any rebates.
Everything goes back to Gibbo, and he hasn't yet produced the paperwork about the rebates, so, until he backs up what he says, it is another "Vega does 70-100Mh/s" moment.

As I pointed out the last time you trotted this out.
Gibbo just said he heard the 70-100Mh/s from someone else. His exact quote on the source:
"Guy internally from one of the AIB's, maybe he is smoking the BS pipe."

That is pretty damn obvious he is just relaying potentially unreliable information. There is no reason to slander his character because this second hand information didn't pan out.

OTOH, Gibbo is reporting direct first knowledge in his personal experience as a retailer. This time he is not reporting second hand knowledge, he is reporting something he has direct experience with.

There is no reason to doubt his veracity on this.

 

[Magee_MC]

I haven't see it, but is the $499 MSRP tied to the rebates (if they exist) such that if the retailers want the rebates, they have to sell at $499? If so, then it might be a back door way for AMD to try to enforce the MSRP for at least some consumers.

As it stands, AMD has no other way to enforce MSRP. They can set MSRP, but retailers can, and do, ignore it. If they are able to tie it to rebates, then they can at least get some into the hands of gamers in a way that still allows the retailers to make a decent profit.

The key point to all of this is going to be how many of the $499 cards end up being available, and we won't know that until a few months down the road.

 

[rgallant]

As I pointed out the last time you trotted this out.
Gibbo just said he heard the 70-100Mh/s from someone else. His exact quote on the source:
"Guy internally from one of the AIB's, maybe he is smoking the BS pipe."

That is pretty damn obvious he [[[YOU]]]]] is just relaying potentially unreliable information. There is no reason to slander his character because this second hand information didn't pan out.

OTOH, Gibbo is reporting direct first knowledge in his personal experience as a retailer. This time he is not reporting second hand knowledge, he is reporting something he has direct experience with.

There is no reason to doubt his veracity on this.

the way I see it
no invoice copies no facts.

"That is pretty damn obvious he [[[YOU]]]]] is just relaying potentially unreliable information"

but either way who cares

 

[Crumpet]

Jay talked to someone at AMD, they are the ones that said they didn't offer any rebates.
Everything goes back to Gibbo, and he hasn't yet produced the paperwork about the rebates, so, until he backs up what he says, it is another "Vega does 70-100Mh/s" moment.

Scan.co.uk, another leading UK e-tailer confirmed the rebates (for what we understand to be 275 units)

(plus Komplett in Norway confirmed it too - https://www.tek.no/artikler/amds-rx-vega-64-oker-med-1000-kroner-i-norge/403711)

(Sweclockers too - http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/24297-amd-kor-fult-spel-med-prissattningen-av-radeon-rx-vega-64)

 

[thilanliyan]

I don't blame AMD for setting aside more cards for the more profitable packs. It is annoying that cards by themselves are hard to come by, but once supply gets better, I'm sure they will be easier to get at MSRP.

 

[dlerious]

so, what is amd to do? it can't set prices at the retailer level. it probably can't sell boards directly into this segment under its contracts with its board partners. it also knows that all graphics cards are getting bid up to what miners think they're worth. (case in point: 1080 is better from an FPS/$ standpoint than the 1070 is right now, when is that ever the case?). and end-user rebate for $100? i don't know that that would bring the effective price down for a consumer to where amd wants it, but maybe the optics would be better. although, again, i don't know why the optics of the retailer rebate are so bad, anyway.

Are you saying the rebates are $100? That's the same as the difference between the bare card and the Black pack. So AMD has to make up the difference the retailer loses by selling the standalone card instead of the pack?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

AMD knows how much the retailers are going to pay for a Vega card. If retailers can't make money selling the cards at MSRP, given what AMD is selling it to them for, it should be given a different MSRP.

 

[ElFenix]

Are you saying the rebates are $100? That's the same as the difference between the bare card and the Black pack. So AMD has to make up the difference the retailer loses by selling the standalone card instead of the pack?

i have no idea what they are. i thought someone up thread mentioned $100.


anyway, "vertical price management" is per se illegal in the eu per the wikis, so amd can't tell board makers what to sell cards for, nor can board makers tell distributors and retailers what to sell cards for.

in the US such is subject to "rule of reason" in interpreting the anti-trust act since 2007. the console makers and video game publishers seem to engage in "vertical price management." i don't know if anyone in the computer component space does. i was thinking intel's processors since those barely seem to budge, but microcenter prices them fairly aggressively. but even that isn't in the same market position amd is. amd is selling to board makers who ship to distributors and then on to retailers. amd doesn't have contracts with the retailers directly. so it might come down to what amd can tell its board makers to do under their respective contracts. and considering amd might just need asus more than asus needs amd, that may be not much.

*shrug*

anyway, i still think its a mountain out of a molehill and jayz2cents maybe needs a few more sense enough to say "ok if they can keep the cards at that price but i doubt they'll be staying there as long as mining is around" rather than ragequitting on twitter.

 

[Grep_Linux]

That is good, what linux distro you on? Personally, I would wait for the custom cooled vega 56, not sure if those will be out right away or not.

Arch, I wrestle with the idea of waiting to see if there are better cards coming down the pike but if I am going to tear off the cooling and put it in a custom loop I'm not sure it matters or not. I'm pretty torn over that but you make sense.

 

[geoxile]

Very few partners seem to be mentioning the card manufacturer partners. I don't think it's impossible that they're jacking up prices to get a cut of the mining craze. Pretty sure AMD still doesn't produce any of the PCBs or do any of the card assembly themselves.

 

[Shamrock]

Nice AIB V56. But I can't see this selling for $399:
https://videocardz.com/72190/asus-shows-off-rog-strix-radeon-rx-vega-56

I would buy it at $399. Although I prefer a Sapphire version.

 

[PeterScott]

I would buy it at $399. Although I prefer a Sapphire version.

I meant it will be selling for more than $399.

 

[Elixer]

Pretty sure AMD still doesn't produce any of the PCBs or do any of the card assembly themselves.

IIRC, I believe they used Foxconn & Pine(XFX) in the past to make the reference cards, no idea for Polaris or Vega, but, I would think they would use them again.

 

[tential]

i have no idea what they are. i thought someone up thread mentioned $100.


anyway, "vertical price management" is per se illegal in the eu per the wikis, so amd can't tell board makers what to sell cards for, nor can board makers tell distributors and retailers what to sell cards for.

in the US such is subject to "rule of reason" in interpreting the anti-trust act since 2007. the console makers and video game publishers seem to engage in "vertical price management." i don't know if anyone in the computer component space does. i was thinking intel's processors since those barely seem to budge, but microcenter prices them fairly aggressively. but even that isn't in the same market position amd is. amd is selling to board makers who ship to distributors and then on to retailers. amd doesn't have contracts with the retailers directly. so it might come down to what amd can tell its board makers to do under their respective contracts. and considering amd might just need asus more than asus needs amd, that may be not much.

*shrug*

anyway, i still think its a mountain out of a molehill and jayz2cents maybe needs a few more sense enough to say "ok if they can keep the cards at that price but i doubt they'll be staying there as long as mining is around" rather than ragequitting on twitter.[/QUOTE]

The end result is the same.

To my eyes, it seems retailers don't want to take the blame for charging above MSRP, and are putting it on a nonissue and the reviewers are eating it up as more news/video content for clicks.

 

[railven]

The end result is the same.

To my eyes, it seems retailers don't want to take the blame for charging above MSRP, and are putting it on a nonissue and the reviewers are eating it up as more news/video content for clicks.

Seems to me this is possibly what is happening. I mean, this isn't the first time I've ever seen retailers gouging and then try to defend it by throwing the manufacturer under the bus. And this applies to AMD cards as well.

Something went wrong from the usual transaction that has caused some retailers to speak up. I still find it ironic that that Gibbo guy was a #1 source for the health of Polaris (he constantly cited great sales numbers) and now he's being considered unreliable.

Wonder if anyone has reached out to Newegg or Amazon? Also, wonder if retailers would just drop carrying any of the SKUs?