I think the point is nVidia is still getting sales... AMD has to slash the price to move RDNA 2.
LOL, no. We constantly see that businesses prefer to sit on stock, rather than make a loss. I'm definitely not just going to assume that they are making a loss.
Highly doubt that. Remember that RDNA2 took the safe, cheap route with memory, and used GDDR6. /the RX 6600 has slower, lesser-binned and cheaper memory than the RX 6600 XT.When it comes to RDNA 2, you have to assume that the retailer/AMD/AIB is losing money at current prices.
Highly doubt that. Remember that RDNA2 took the safe, cheap route with memory, and used GDDR6. /the RX 6600 has slower, lesser-binned and cheaper memory than the RX 6600 XT.
Right. I mean, AMD provides and entire Zen 2/RDNA 2 SOC for the Series S and while that is a subsidized system is has far more components than a 6600 for example. Who knows what the BoM on that card is, but it's probably $100 or less.
Video card prices as a whole are slowly adjusting. Used market is somewhat in lala land still due to all the people who paid mining prices for GPUs.
Where are the decent budget $150 cards?
Just the Navi 23 die is $50+ by itself. The margins would have been okay... not great but okay... at it's original $329 MSRP. But not at $250 and more expensive wafers to boot.
I never said they didn‘t increase the margins. They certainly did. I said I think this strategy makes sense from the perspective of the companies and I expect it will stay.Yes, those supply chain problems that the companies blamed when they increased the prices a lot during the mining boom and that then suddenly didn't stop them from lowering the prices a ton once that demand dried up. Color me skeptical. There has also always been a large second hand market, but plenty of people only want new cards.
The problem with all of these explanations is that we can just tell they are nonsense because the prices are simply not consistent with any of these explanations, which should give a certain pattern. For example, I can get a 6600 for 270 euros, but a 6600 XT for 360 euros. Yet these should have pretty much the same BOM cost. Same chip, same memory. The entire card is the same except the binning. So common sense is that the 90 euro difference is not because the 6600 XT costs more to make, but is purely more profit. And quite excessive too. They could easily sell it for 300 euro or so.
The 3060 has 4 GB more of memory, which should cost less than 40 euros. The chip is a little bigger than the N32 chip, but should be cheaper per mm2, so it probably isn't more expensive. So common sense says that they could sell the 3060 for 270+40 = 310 euros and have no worse profit margin than AMD has for the 6600. Yet the cheapest is 383 euros. So either you have to believe that a company with more volume that could logically work more efficiently, is actually less efficient, or you can believe that the extra 73 euros are profit. I believe the latter.
Companies are not gods. Nvidia has already proven that they make mistakes like with the 4080 12 GB. I don't get all these fantasies that these companies are some godlike entities that never make misjudgements.
Remember when all the “good” GPUs under $100 went away when every CPU had a GPU? I think that point is moving north. It might have migrated to $150z
That's true, and for our latest build, I ended up using an AMD cpu with built in graphics to essentially replace a RX 550 video card. So for those of us who are casual gamers, I guess no real video card is needed.....
nice. ya patient gamers / hardware upgraders is the way to goAbout a month ago I got a 2060S for a friend of my sons refresh for $150. It came from someone I know so I knew the history, which is more important than ever.
nice. ya patient gamers and hardware upgraders is the way to go
2 months ago I found a new/openbox RX 5700 reference on Ebay for $175. I've been very happy with it so far. upgraded from an RX 470. would have kept the 470 a while longer but one game came out that month I wanted to play it just couldnt handle.
I still play at 1080p and dont mind playing on medium, heck even low settings nowadays dont look much different from high so this 5700 will suit me fine for many years to come.
I still play at 1080p and dont mind playing on medium, heck even low settings nowadays dont look much different from high so this 5700 will suit me fine for many years to come.
I'm glad that the RX 5700 counts as "relatively modest hardware" these days.Add FSR/DLSS and even relatively modest hardware will run most games.
I'm glad that the RX 5700 counts as "relatively modest hardware" these days.
Isn't progress nice?
The 5700 is about equal to the 6600. Which I'd consider the minimum viable gaming card today. So, yeah. Relatively modest.
I'm still on 1080p because I just can't muster to pay >$700 for a gpu needed to play 1440p 120 hz. In fact I would probably go ultrawide for non gaming tasks.
Isn't progress nice?
The 5700 is about equal to the 6600. Which I'd consider the minimum viable gaming card today. So, yeah. Relatively modest.
Nah 5700 is quite a bit more powerful than the 6600. Techpowerup has the 5700 up 13% at 4k on the 6600 in their testsuite from the 6600's release, though they're the same performance at 1080p there.
Quite a bit? 13%? That's not going to help much if you're already on the edge of playability.
4K performance is kind of irrelevant in this segment. If you run 4K on either, it'll be a sub-60Hz affair in most cases. Of course, 30Hz gaming can be perfectly viable, but I'd rather use upscaling from 1080 if I really had to run a 4K monitor.
Isn't progress nice?
The 5700 is about equal to the 6600. Which I'd consider the minimum viable gaming card today. So, yeah. Relatively modest.
While likely correct it’s still a REDACTED move to make.Hard to see how we paid a foundry all this money for nothing, looks better than, we paid for wafers we sold at a profit.
While likely correct it’s still a REDACTED move to make.
Assuming you can make approximately the same money by cutting price and increasing volume vs reducing volume and floating higher prices.
Doing the latter is basically preying on the person or business that absolutely must have a better than average card. You are relying on those who don’t have a choice to float your margins. Pretty heartless thing to do even if it’s effective.
Assuming you can make approximately the same money by cutting price and increasing volume vs reducing volume and floating higher prices.
Doing the latter is basically preying on the person or business that absolutely must have a better than average card.
They are also cannibalizing the future and setting Intel up for success.