It does not favor AMD. Currently RTX 2080 is 5% faster in Strange Brigade than Radeon VII, while release drivers for R7 were giving 10% advantage for AMD's GPU.
It does not favor AMD. Currently RTX 2080 is 5% faster in Strange Brigade than Radeon VII, while release drivers for R7 were giving 10% advantage for AMD's GPU.No, we've got one demo on a cherry-picked title that heavily favors AMD showing Navi as being ~10% faster than RTX 2070. (In contrast, the CPU demos showcased titles in which Ryzen had previously experienced worse performance than Intel's chips.) It would have been much more impressive if they had picked, say, GTA V.
Yeah. Not much more expensive. Apart from design costs being 2.5(around 250-300 mln USD, per one design) times higher than for 16/14/12 nm process and first silicon wafers going for 12-14K USD, compared to 6.5K for 16/14/12 nm processes. Yeah. Not much bloody higher.I think the problem with your assumption is that 7nm is far more expensive than the 12nm process that NVidia is using as well as much less mature. NVidia likely isn't getting too many chips that are complete junk, and even some of ones with a lot of defects are probably going into a special bin that will be released later like the GP104 versions of the 1060. You can already tell that TU104 dies are being saved up for a 2070 Ti.
Keep in mind that AMD may well have to price at $500 just to justify using the wafers to make GPUs instead of more Zen 2 chiplets. Those things are only about 80 mm^2 and AMD can slap two defective ones together and sell that for $500.
If 7nm would have been more economical, NVidia would have gone that route and you know that they have more than enough money to afford it. I doubt that AMD making out like a bandit at $500, especially once you factor in the more expensive GDDR6 (at least it's not HBM2 though) and board costs, it doesn't seem like such a sweet deal.
AMD is free to price their GPUs however they wish. However, if say Hyundai makes a Camry competitor a year late with the same performance and the same price, why would anyone buy Hyundai when Hyundai is priced the same, doesn't bring anything new to the table, and Toyota is a proven brand?Yeah. Not much more expensive. Apart from design costs being 2.5(around 250-300 mln USD, per one design) times higher than for 16/14/12 nm process and first silicon wafers going for 12-14K USD, compared to 6.5K for 16/14/12 nm processes. Yeah. Not much bloody higher.
You all guys are trying to justify low prices for AMD(brand recognition, technology, features, etc), but you forget that only one thing counts for prices. Performance. If Radeon RX 5700 is faster than RTX 2070, which it is, AMD will price it accordingly.
This assumes that everyone who wanted the Camry, at that price for that performance, last year, went and got the Camry. Big assumption.AMD is free to price their GPUs however they wish. However, if say Hyundai makes a Camry competitor a year late with the same performance and the same price, why would anyone buy Hyundai when Hyundai is priced the same, doesn't bring anything new to the table, and Toyota is a proven brand?
AMD has done a really good job with Ryzen arguably finally besting intel with 3000 series, however it took them 2.5 years to finally shift the CPU perception among enthusiasts, mainstream users still buy Intel. It is unreasonable to assume that AMD GPU division can do 0-60 with a single release that simply matches nVidia.
And almost no one will buy it.If Radeon RX 5700 is faster than RTX 2070, which it is, AMD will price it accordingly.
You assume that everybody bought Nvidia GPUs in the first place. There is a very good reason why Nvidia's sales growth stopped in gaming.AMD is free to price their GPUs however they wish. However, if say Hyundai makes a Camry competitor a year late with the same performance and the same price, why would anyone buy Hyundai when Hyundai is priced the same, doesn't bring anything new to the table, and Toyota is a proven brand?
AMD has done a really good job with Ryzen arguably finally besting intel with 3000 series, however it took them 2.5 years to finally shift the CPU perception among enthusiasts, mainstream users still buy Intel. It is unreasonable to assume that AMD GPU division can do 0-60 with a single release that simply matches nVidia.
Only in the minds people like you, who expect AMD to be the value brand.And almost no one will buy it.
The GTX 1080 is a 314mm2 die on 16nm. If it got shrunk down to 7nm TSMC it would be around 30% smaller than this the RX 5700 card, and a TDP of around 100W, at the same performance class. This is a card that came out 3 years ago, and Navi is the best AMD could come up with even after substantial funding from Sony.
When Nvidia refreshes launches their 7nm GPUs it's going to be brutal for AMD.
Yeah it will be pretty much vega all over again.How good did vega sell to gamers?And almost no one will buy it.
It's not what's in my mind, it's almost everybody else's. People won't buy a card that has equivalent value to its nV, and Turing of all things. People clearly didn't even like Turing prices from nV itself. You can think that it's irrational, the pricing expectations they have of AMD, but that's the reality of the situation. Especially now that AMD has been putting out mediocre cards and flops one after the other in recent years. If AMD prices a card with 2070+10% performance at $500, it will be a sign to me that they have mostly given up on desktop dGPUs, not that I would blame them. Their opportunities in the CPU market are much bigger anyway.Only in the minds people like you, who expect AMD to be the value brand.
When Nvidia will start lowering their prices, AMD will also lower them.
I know it's faster, but so what? An RTX 2070ti would be equivalent and completely bury Navi in sales.I have a question to you all, believing Navi is slower than RTX 2070? Why, the bloody hell, Is Nvidia going to release RTX 2070 Ti, then?
Because standard RTX 2070 is not able to compete with it. End of the story.
Yes yes yes 7nm is far more expensive.But 16/14nm was also far more expensive than 28nm and 28nm was far more expensive than 40nm.
Radeon VII wasn't a big deal; it was a low-key release with minimal hype, and probably the only reason it even happened was that Nvidia blew up the prices on Turing.
If Navi is only marginally faster than the RTX 2070, how are consumers winners?
It does not favor AMD. Currently RTX 2080 is 5% faster in Strange Brigade than Radeon VII, while release drivers for R7 were giving 10% advantage for AMD's GPU.
499$ for a low reference point ,just DOES NOT MAKE ANY sense.
Don't expect consumer 7/6 nm products from Nvidia till at least 2021. Next year is going to be Ampere, and that is HPC only product.
So, the only way for any tech fan out there as a sign that AMD did not gave up on GPUs is by selling competitive product to Nvidia GPUs, at a fraction of a cost?It's not what's in my mind, it's almost everybody else's. People won't buy a card that has equivalent value to its nV, and Turing of all things. People clearly didn't even like Turing prices from nV itself. You can think that it's irrational, the pricing expectations they have of AMD, but that's the reality of the situation. Especially now that AMD has been putting out mediocre cards and flops one after the other in recent years. If AMD prices a card with 2070+10% performance at $500, it will be a sign to me that they have mostly given up on desktop dGPUs, not that I would blame them. Their opportunities in the CPU market are much bigger anyway.
I know it's faster, but so what? An RTX 2070ti would be equivalent and completely bury Navi in sales.
I don't have ridiculous expectations like 2070+ perf at $250, but there's a middle ground between that and offering zero advantages over Turing, in value or otherwise. And whether you care about it or not, having a disadvantage in the lack of hardware accelerated RTRT counts too.
Like I said, nothing ridiculous like $250 for RTX 2070 performance. But, they do need to undercut them to sell well. Not match nV on value while offering less features.So, the only way for any tech fan out there as a sign that AMD did not gave up on GPUs is by selling competitive product to Nvidia GPUs, at a fraction of a cost?
Yes, I agree. It's reasonable, but "doing that" with prices means that they will have given up on gaining ground in the market. They have bigger opportunities and that's fine, I'm just disappointed as a consumer too.But I perfectly understand AMD why would they do this with prices.
It is not 2015 anymore. GPUs are not selling.
Because if they're both equivalent, but Toyota has a brand image behind it, people will go with Toyota. Brand and value perception is a real thing. AMD has done a great job changing that perception in the CPU space with Ryzen, but they got a big uphill in the GPU segment.This assumes that everyone who wanted the Camry, at that price for that performance, last year, went and got the Camry. Big assumption.
How about someone who wants that level of performance now, coming from say 1060/580?? Why wouldn't they want the "Hyundai"?
I do not expect AMD to be a value brand, but I think GPU prices are out of control so I want A value brand, and I don't care if it's AMD or nVidia. Normally I don't mind supporting the underdog so long as they make a compelling case, I purchased RX480 instead of 1060 because it was priced about the same, performed about the same, but was a tad cheaper and had 2GB extra RAM. However, if Navi performs the same, costs the same, and has worse power consumption than nVidia, then I have zero reason to buy AMD. This is what I'm afraid is going to happen here.Tell me, why 200$ cheaper AMD GPU that is just 15% slower than RTX 2080 is a bad deal?
Secondly. Who cares about brand perception? As has been proven in this very thread, People WANT AMD to be the value brand. They cannot comprehend the concept of AMD pricing their GPUs accordingly to Nvidia, when they have equally performing, or faster GPU. So who cares?
Only in the minds people like you, who expect AMD to be the value brand.
So . . . more Turing in 2019/2020? What exactly ARE they going to release?
So . . . more Turing in 2019/2020? What exactly ARE they going to release?
There is no growth in GPUs. Why would they flush the money in the toilet, for 4-5 designs? That is 1.5 Bln just in design costs, alone. Also, remember that we have 3-4 process nodes left for GPUs. Why would Nvidia release brand new GPU arch, when the last one hasn't payed for itself, yet?GPU cycles are getting longer. Pascal lasted what, three years?
i wonder why gpus not selling...maybe something with 2080Ti at 1300euro?But I perfectly understand AMD why would they do this with prices.
It is not 2015 anymore. GPUs are not selling.
RTX 2070 Ti, based on cut down GT104.So . . . more Turing in 2019/2020? What exactly ARE they going to release?
Have you checked the die sizes? You want GTX 1080 Ti performance, but you forget, that on 12 nm process it was achievable with bigger die size, than it was required for GTX 1080 Ti(RTX 2080 - 545 mm2, GTX 1080 Ti - 470 mm2). Why do you expect that Nvidia would sell you something like this, for 300-350$ when smaller die they sold for 700$?i wonder why gpus not selling...maybe something with 2080Ti at 1300euro?
or something with RTX cards have worse price/perf than 3years old pacal?
or something with turing only brings +30-40% performance for more money...
if AMD/NV relased card similar to pretty much all old x70 cards except 1070(that was 450usd at launch and didnt sell well compared GTX970).1080TI performance for 330-350usd you can be sure GPUs will be selling alot more.Also people are just tired of constant price increases every generation.
You're conflating comments on the GPU landscape with a direct attack on the RTX 2070/nvidia. A critique of the usefulness of RT technology and a comment on a possible angle for AMD competitiveness /= attack on nvidia
People are just pointing out best case scenarios for AMD in the hopes that it'll reintroduce competition in the mainstream segment
The HD7970 was a superior card long term, but it got stomped by the 680 out of the gate because initially the 680 was faster, cheaper, quieter, and more efficient at release. And it came out only 12 weeks after the HD7970.
Do you see Navi being faster, cheaper, quieter, more efficient, and right on the heels of Turing's release? Nope. As you've argued, Navi has to absolutely be cheaper. The card demonstrated last week is probably 10% slower than RTX 2070 overall. If it's $379-399 then that will be a big win for AMD. If it's $450-499 then they lose.
Man why you deffending price increases?I dont care how big die size is.This is how things works.You get old TOP card performance for 300-400usd with new generation.Have you checked the die sizes? You want GTX 1080 Ti performance, but you forget, that on 12 nm process it was achievable with bigger die size, than it was required for GTX 1080 Ti(RTX 2080 - 545 mm2, GTX 1080 Ti - 470 mm2). Why do you expect that Nvidia would sell you something like this, for 300-350$ when smaller die they sold for 700$?
As for pushing the boundaries. Explain to me in plain english. What AMD has to benefit from, if they have faster product than RTX 2070, and they have to price it, according to forum experts, lower than Nvidia's competitive product?
I still haven't got a REALISTIC answer for this question, from business point of view. Companies want to make money. Lets say RX 5700 is 10-15% faster than RTX 2070 across the board. How many cigar sized blunts AMD's CEO would have to smoke in order to decide that 300-350$ price tag for that product is good for them, from business point of view?