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

[lobz]

Why don't just quote the posts yourslelf instead of inviting the forum to search for them?

It is just not worth your while either way, so at the end it's my bad... although they could have read his post before they reacted to my post, it was properly quoted in there. Anyway....

 

[amenx]

Launch reviews and perceptions, something AMD is not usually good at, are of paramount importance imo. A $50 drop to $399 for XT model and $329 for vanilla, could dramatically affect reception and review conclusions. It could allow them to claw back market share significantly, especially at this point in time where they have a good opportunity to do so given the sour reception RTX cards have received since release.

 

[exquisitechar]

The Navi is fine as a gpu, the price is crap. What next? midrange gpus for 800-1000? There is no reason for the 5700XT to cost over $300, that is it.

Either AMD wants to make some big fat margins here OR Sony does not allow AMD to sell this card for less, choose your poison. I belive there will be no big margins to be had here, as no one should buy these overpriced cards.
I hope Navi is the biggest failure in AMD history, they deserve it, not because the GPU itselt is bad, because they are getting too greedy and this needs to be stop NOW, no more excuses.

Navi's margins aren't that much higher than that of Polaris. They're better than Vega, but Vega had almost no margins. 7nm wafers are much more expensive than 14nm. According to David Schor, they are 1.69x the cost, to be precise. Not to mention the R&D that went into all of Navi's improvements is probably much higher than what was spent on Polaris. You can say "there is no reason for the 5700XT to cost over $300" because that's what you're used to, but the reality of things is different...AMD isn't as greedy as you think. Although it's no secret that they will be somewhat raising margins going forward, the main reason Navi is "expensive" is that advancements in IC manufacturing aren't what they used to be. More mediocre improvements, much more expensive chips.

 

[AtenRa]

Navi's margins aren't that much higher than that of Polaris.

You DO NOT know this by only knowing the Wafer price increase.

7nm wafers are much more expensive than 14nm. According to David Schor, they are 1.69x the cost, to be precise.

According to the prices from the above link you provided,


Going from 28nm to 14nm we had a 25% increase in Wafer price

Going from 14nm to 7m we have a 69% increase in Wafer price.


Now, assuming both 14nm and 7nm have the same yields at the same time frame and because Polaris 10 and Navi 10 have almost the same die size,

MSRP for RX480 8GB (POLARIS 10) was $239
MSRP for RX 5700XT (NAVI 10) is $449

~88% increase of price

Since NAVI 10 card MSRP price has increased almost 88% over the POLARIS 10 card and Wafer price only got an increase of 69%, then Margins are higher with NAVI vs Poalris.

But this also assumes that all other BOM cost of the two cards between RX480 and RX 5700XT remained the same.

 

[AtenRa]

We know that even with AMD's own performance figures, Navi isn't as efficient in perf/w as Turing. Fact.

You mean RX 5700XT is not as efficient in perf/watt vs RTX2070.

Because if you want to check the perf/watt per Chip (NAVI 10 vs TU106) you should measure in iso Perf OR iso power (watt).

 

[DrMrLordX]

still, totally regardless of navi... why is there a reason for the 2070 to cost more than $300? Who is greedy?

nVidia, obviously. AMD's overall job is to grab marketshare while they're playing second fiddle, and you don't do it by being just as greedy.

Going from 28nm to 14nm we had a 25% increase in Wafer price

Going from 14nm to 7m we have a 69% increase in Wafer price.


Now, assuming both 14nm and 7nm have the same yields at the same time frame and because Polaris 10 and Navi 10 have almost the same die size,

MSRP for RX480 8GB (POLARIS 10) was $239
MSRP for RX 5700XT (NAVI 10) is $449

~88% increase of price

Since NAVI 10 card MSRP price has increased almost 88% over the POLARIS 10 card and Wafer price only got an increase of 69%, then Margins are higher with NAVI vs Poalris.

But this also assumes that all other BOM cost of the two cards between RX480 and RX 5700XT remained the same.

Thanks for pointing out all that. Also, 7nm prices aren't going to stay high forever. Demand for wafers is dropping in other markets. It's reasonable to conclude that AMD has some bargaining room. Furthermore, as you indicate, total BoM matters. Just because I'm paying 69% more for the die doesn't necessarily mean that I'm paying 69% more for the entire card.

Let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that the BoM of Polaris 10 was $143 (40% profit margin). How much of that would have been the die itself? If the die cost was $40, then the die cost for 5700XT is $67.60. Now your BoM is $171 and your retail price is $285, assuming identical profit margins. Anyone know what the wafer cost was for Polaris in 2016? Maybe we could better estimate the cost of a Polaris 10 die with that data.

5700XT may have more-robust power delivery than RX 480, and the GDDR6 costs are probably higher as well . . . but not by THAT much. Reference RX 480 is a 150-160W "real world" card, with a 6+2 phase VRM layout (on reference designs).

 

[tviceman]

You mean RX 5700XT is not as efficient in perf/watt vs RTX2070.

Because if you want to check the perf/watt per Chip (NAVI 10 vs TU106) you should measure in iso Perf OR iso power (watt).

No I meant exactly what I said. Navi 10 is not as efficient in perf/w as TU106 or TU116.

 

[piesquared]

NV is of course the real culprit here. We all know that. But if you as the competition show up 9 month late and offer no real advancement in performance/$ while also having less features, that is pretty disappointing. In tech it's expected that with time you get more performance for your money. Plus the RTX 2070 was already the worst priced part to begin with.

Absolutely they are which is why the onus is on them to lower prices, not AMD. AMD has had superior perf/$ since forever(?), taking the hit on margins while nvidia continues to set record high prices after record high prices for consumers. To put any blame at all on AMD for GPU prices is complete BS. That distinction lies solely with nvidia.

 

[tviceman]

Er, we do NOT know this, so its most definitely not a fact. We know that performance is similar, the TBP that AMD gave matches what a 2070 uses under gaming. But until we have actual empirical data, its most definitely not a fact that the 2070 is better at Perf:Watt.

RTX 2070 the card uses 195 watts when gaming. AMD has said that 5070 XT the card uses 225 watts. The 5070 XT has to be 18% faster on average than RTX 2070 to have the same perf/w efficiency. We all know that isn't the case.

 

[Glo.]

Okay...what is your evidence?

First: Nvidia GPUs still clock higher than AMD's. Secondly, if TSMC's process woiuld be good enough we would already see Nvidia use it.

Which is why I ignored that and just went with the TBP figure (225W) for RX 5700 XT, and the performance charts.

And you do not find it strange that AMD compared 40 CU Navi chip power draw to Vega 64 cut down to 40 CUs power draw?

That seems very unlikely. Vega 20 seems to have been a hastily done port from 14nm to 7nm, yet Radeon VII still clocks quite a bit higher than the 14nm Vega cards at the same power draw. And Nvidia generally doesn't clock their chips as close to the bleeding edge as AMD does.

You know AMD credited the process for 15% out of the 50% perf/watt gains and Radeon VII gained nicely as well?

And it still consumes almost 300W of power.

 

[beginner99]

First: Nvidia GPUs still clock higher than AMD's. Secondly, if TSMC's process woiuld be good enough we would already see Nvidia use it.

Clocks also have to to with design not just process. NV is on 12nm because NV had that node made specifically for them and GV100. It was obvious that GV100 wouldn't remain the only chip on a custom node. Plus NV probably didn't get access to 7nm due Apple &Co and AMD.

 

[maddie]

Absolutely they are which is why the onus is on them to lower prices, not AMD. AMD has had superior perf/$ since forever(?), taking the hit on margins while nvidia continues to set record high prices after record high prices for consumers. To put any blame at all on AMD for GPU prices is complete BS. That distinction lies solely with nvidia.

Come on, let's be honest and fair. The blame lies solely with us. Anybody can charge whatever they want.

 

[Shivansps]

still, totally regardless of navi... why is there a reason for the 2070 to cost more than $300? Who is greedy?

Who cares? Because Nvidia did it thats ok to you? Nvidia got a lot of crap for what they did and it was well deserved, but you know what? AMD is right now making Nvidia look good, stop for a moment and THINK, is the RX5700XT the RTX2070 competition? IS NOT, the Navi 10 is the midrange chip intended to replace Polaris 10, as such the RX5700XT/RX5700 competition should be the RTX 2060, the GTX1660TI and GTX1660. Navi 10 should have target AT MOST the RTX2060 at $350 with the RX5700 the 1660TI at $280. But if you ask me even that is bad, as to make it fair they should have target the GTX1660TI and the GTX1660, not the RTXs, this would be also fair compared to Polaris 10 RX480 that was $240 for the 8GB model. $250 and $300 is the correct price range for Navi 10, there is no way to justify how overpriced they are.

What AMD and Nvidia are doing here is price fixing, what is illegal on most countries.

 

[fleshconsumed]

What AMD and Nvidia are doing here is price fixing, what is illegal on most countries.

It's only illegal if there is an agreement in place between the two. This is most likely just a natural result of duopoly. Sucks for the consumer, but at least game devs don't push the envelope as hard as they used to so older cards tend to last longer.

 

[Mopetar]

Launch reviews and perceptions, something AMD is not usually good at, are of paramount importance imo. A $50 drop to $399 for XT model and $329 for vanilla, could dramatically affect reception and review conclusions. It could allow them to claw back market share significantly, especially at this point in time where they have a good opportunity to do so given the sour reception RTX cards have received since release.

The problem is that even with the prices AMD is charging, they're likely going to sell out at launch, so there's not a lot of incentive for them to drop prices. It just means even more demand that they'll be unable to meet. The other problem is that Navi doesn't exist in a vacuum because it competes with other products for wafers and if those are more valuable, AMD will allocate more wafers to those products. Zen 2 seems like a license to print money right now and looking at what AMD is charging for the top-end Ryzen 3000 processors suggests that they make far better margins with those products. Lowering the price on Navi makes it even less favorable to dedicate wafers towards its production when they could make more Zen 2 chiplets instead.

I honestly do think it will take Intel getting into the market and having a competitive product at some level for pricing from AMD and NVidia to come back down.

 

[coercitiv]

is the RX5700XT the RTX2070 competition? IS NOT, the Navi 10 is the midrange chip intended to replace Polaris 10, as such the RX5700XT/RX5700 competition should be the RTX 2060, the GTX1660TI and GTX1660

Agree. All info we have so far indicates Navi10 should have been poised poised to take on 2060 or whatever is around $350 price point. But to do that they would need a serious supply of chips, which takes us to the next talking point...

What AMD and Nvidia are doing here is price fixing, what is illegal on most countries.

This I completely disagree. At this moment in time we have zero info on the ability of AMD to produce Navi10 in significant numbers to meet serious demand, hence calling them out for price fixing is premature at best.

@Mopetar already did a great job explaining why supply is likely to be extremely limited for the time being.

 

[AtenRa]

No I meant exactly what I said. Navi 10 is not as efficient in perf/w as TU106 or TU116.

RTX 2070 the card uses 195 watts when gaming. AMD has said that 5070 XT the card uses 225 watts. The 5070 XT has to be 18% faster on average than RTX 2070 to have the same perf/w efficiency. We all know that isn't the case.

Again, when you comparing the Chip you have to compare it in iso perf OR iso power.

10% higher performance dosnt scale linearly with power consumption. You cannot say NAVI 10 is not as efficient as Turing 106 because RX 5700XT will have to be 18% faster than RTX 2070. Currently, We do not know the perf/watt of NAVI 10 when compared at the same performance as the Turing 106 on the RTX 2070 Graphics card.

Do you really know today without having the RX 5700 XT in your bench table how much more efficient the NAVI 10 will be at the same performance as RTX 2070 ??

 

[amrnuke]

ehhh.. fortunately? For whom exactly???

In a competitive climate, for everyone. If nvidia make a great product, it sells extremely well, then both the consumer and shareholder get benefit. If nvidia make a bad product, it sells poorly, both the consumer and shareholder are hurt. This is really basic, but the reality falls somewhere on the shades of gray of these scenarios.

In the case you and Hans Gruber are discussing, nvidia only need to lower their prices if their sales fall, because in reality, even if the AMD cards are better, nvidia has the mindshare and can overprice their cards a little more if they wish, and still make a healthy profit. Price them too high, and overall profit decreases due to sales decline. Price too low, the same happens because margin per card is too low.

However, nvidia may choose to lower prices not due to a sales decrease, but to maintain marketshare and mindshare, thus hurting AMD's efforts to gain on them. Because nvidia has a lot of capital and market cap to work with, they can take some "hypercompetitive" routes to continued success against AMD. Such a strategy might not work against Intel, but they (nvidia) may consider it easier to fight a giant (Intel) when you don't have a yippy dog (AMD) nipping at your ankles.

 

[Auer]

I honestly do think it will take Intel getting into the market and having a competitive product at some level for pricing from AMD and NVidia to come back down.

I'd be very surprised if Intel sold their cards for less than the competition if they are similar performers.
Intel has serious brand recognition, and is not usually something one thinks of first when looking for a value solution.

TBH I expect Intel to be priced high. Possibly even higher than AMD.

 

[insertcarehere]

First: Nvidia GPUs still clock higher than AMD's. Secondly, if TSMC's process woiuld be good enough we would already see Nvidia use it.

Last time I checked, it's the Navi architecture having to boost to 1.9ghz out of a stock card just to match/beat TU106 in performance. Nvidia didn't jump on the 7nm train right away because fighting with AMD, Qualcomm, Huawei and Apple for hotly contested, likely expensive early wafer volume is expensive and unnecessary when they still have a significant lead in efficiency due to their architecture and can afford to wait for the process to be cheaper and mature.

 

[tviceman]

Again, when you comparing the Chip you have to compare it in iso perf OR iso power.

10% higher performance dosnt scale linearly with power consumption. You cannot say NAVI 10 is not as efficient as Turing 106 because RX 5700XT will have to be 18% faster than RTX 2070. Currently, We do not know the perf/watt of NAVI 10 when compared at the same performance as the Turing 106 on the RTX 2070 Graphics card.

Do you really know today without having the RX 5700 XT in your bench table how much more efficient the NAVI 10 will be at the same performance as RTX 2070 ??

I really don't understand why I'm being drawn into an argument over simple math equations. Perf % divided by watts used = perf/w.

Or you can do frames per second divided watts used = frames per watt.

This is so elementary I feel like I'm insulting the forums having to explain this.

 

[Stuka87]

RTX 2070 the card uses 195 watts when gaming. AMD has said that 5070 XT the card uses 225 watts. The 5070 XT has to be 18% faster on average than RTX 2070 to have the same perf/w efficiency. We all know that isn't the case.

Most 3rd party RTX 2070's consume between 215-230W when gaming. But until we have actual reviews, we simply do not know.

So to reiterate, no, we DO NOT KNOW if that isn't the case. It may turn out to be, it may turn out to not be. But until we have actual facts, don't claim conjecture as facts.

 

[Auer]

Most 3rd party RTX 2070's consume between 215-230W when gaming. But until we have actual reviews, we simply do not know.

So to reiterate, no, we DO NOT KNOW if that isn't the case. It may turn out to be, it may turn out to not be. But until we have actual facts, don't claim conjecture as facts.

My PNY RTX2070 OC at stock from a Superposition bench run:

 

[AtenRa]

I really don't understand why I'm being drawn into an argument over simple math equations. Perf % divided by watts used = perf/w.

Or you can do frames per second divided watts used = frames per watt.

This is so elementary I feel like I'm insulting the forums having to explain this.

The problem here is that it seams you dont understand the concept of perf/watt.

You can compare Graphics cards and come up with a perf/watt but that is compering the graphics card as a product and NOT the Chip.

In that example you may compare RX 5700 XT vs RTX2070 and say that RX 5700XT Grapics Card has lower efficiency in perf/watt than RTX 2070 Graphics Card.

IF you want to compare the NAVI 10 Chip in perf/watt then you have to do it in iso perf OR at iso power.

In that example you take both cards (RX 5700XT and RTX2070) but this time you put them at the same performance (fps) OR at the same power (watt) and you come up with the Chip perf/watt efficiency.

So when you are comparing NAVI 10 to TU106 you must state a context, you either compare the Graphics Cards (RX 5700XT vs RTX2070) or you compare the chips at iso perf OR at iso power.

What you did above was comparing only the Graphics Card perf/watt since you compared the perf/TDP of the Graphics Cards and not the perf/watt at iso Perf or at iso Power of the Chip as described above.

 

[Mopetar]

I'd be very surprised if Intel sold their cards for less than the competition if they are similar performers.
Intel has serious brand recognition, and is not usually something one thinks of first when looking for a value solution.

TBH I expect Intel to be priced high. Possibly even higher than AMD.

Intel doesn't have good brand value for GPUs and their onboard graphics don't have a great reputation. Even before Zen, the AMD APUs were often favored in gaming benchmarks just because Intel's performance was so lackluster. I suppose it's possible that they can achieve parity with AMD/NVidia right out of the gate, but I just don't find it likely. Realistically though they just need a solid mid-range product at a reasonable price and they'll get plenty of people willing to try it out.

If Intel has high prices is will be because they're also wafer constrained. The transition to 10nm has been rocky to say the least so they've been stuck making products on some variation of their 14nm node long after that product should have transitioned to the new node.