AMD is placing Navi as VEGA 56/64 replacement.The RX480 came out first, matching GTX970 perf at GTX960 prices, GTX1060 came out a month later or so. RX480 replacement now matches RTX2070 non RT perf at RTX2070 prices. I dont see how that is more price competitive in any way. What they did with the RX480 was normal, matching old tech perf at a lower price.
As i said if Navi 10 were at RTX2060 and GTX1660TI prices, while not perfect(it should be GTX1660TI and non TI) it would be similar to the RX480 launch, they would still have a very considerable price bump comprared to RX400 series, but it would be another thing.
Imagine Nvidia charging $449 for the GTX1050 2Gb just because it has GTX680 2GB perf +5%, that is exactly what AMD did here, saving the distances.
RTX 2070 boosts in games to 1.9-2 GHz range. Those types of clocks will not be as easily achievable on 7 nm process, as on 16/12 nm were.
At what cost they are being achieved? Increased power draw. This is what I mean not easily achievable.Why not? Navi is scheduled to have boost clocks of 1.9 GHz, and just under 2.0 GHz for the "anniversary edition". Even Vega 20 can overclock that high. Nvidia may have to make some adjustments to the layout and/or architecture to optimize clock speeds on 7nm, but that's par for the course for them - they did the same things to get clock speeds up on Pascal.
At what cost they are being achieved? Increased power draw. This is what I mean not easily achievable.
At what cost they are being achieved? Increased power draw. This is what I mean not easily achievable.
Sounds like the people claiming to be upset about the 5700XT price better high tale it over to nvidia forums or email them directly with their complaints since they are the ones setting the pricing in the GPU market currently.
Most buyers upset at AMD's prices are only upset because they wanted AMD to force nVidia to lower prices so they can buy the nVidia card they actually want cheaper.
I thought navi 10 is midrange chip same way rx480/580 was midrange? AMD have just priced it like vega replacement when it actually should be replacing Polaris 570 and 580 cards for generational improvement. They have priced it 100 more because they think they will get away with it for the time being,lets see whether that works or not.AMD is placing Navi as VEGA 56/64 replacement.
Maybe people were expecting too much out of AMD with it being generally seen as the bang for the buck manufacturer. People were not OK with 2070 pricing and Nvidia knows that, so no need for anyone to "high tail" it over there to let them know. They already know with weaker sales as a result. But many were hoping for AMD to come along and 'save the day' so to speak and all they got was more of the same and thus shattered their dream of the next mid-range killer at decent mid-range prices. Sure Nvidia is responsible for the higher prices trend, but its time to realize that both manufacturers will milk you for all you're worth if they think they can do so.Sounds like the people claiming to be upset about the 5700XT price better high tale it over to nvidia forums or email them directly with their complaints since they are the ones setting the pricing in the GPU market currently.
They're not gonna be milking anybody with these prices, haven't you payed attention to what many here on the forums have said? They'd rather buy the overpriced Nvidia product than the AMD one. And that's BEFORE Nvidia responds. If the rumors of beefed up RTX 2060 SUPER come along (256bit mem interface, higher cuda core count), Nvidia is in the position to suck up all the air around Navi just after it lands on shelves. It's like watching a scheduled public execution, Navi will hang with that shiny price tag around it's neck.They making 331mm2 vega20 die for how long?Probably close to 1year already.Navi10 is tiny 251mm2 and 7nm is not new at this point.Only reason navi cost what it cost is that AMD milking consumers just like Nvidia.
Of course its polaris replacement.By AMD numbers its only 10-15% faster than vega64.That would mean its worst architecture AMD ever made.Far worse than vega was.Because vega was how much faster than furyx?40% at launch?We've come full circle. Both sides are now milking their user base as much as possible. Haha.
I'd rather go the Navi 10 is Polaris angle because at least then you can say "listen, we're gouging you. The uarch is really THAT good." If you accept Navi 10 is Vega replacement you're left trying to defend against "Node+uarch changes and you're what percent faster?"
no, the 'old' models will get a price drop, and the super variants (faster cards) will take the original prices.The SUPER Turing cards are specced slightly better than regular ones while costing $100 less?
That seems like a winner and something we should have seen with the original Turing launch. $100 cut at the RTX 2060 level is especially significant. That's a 30% price cut. $100 cut at the RTX 2070 level also means for $50 more compared to the original RTX 2060 pricing you get the x70.
Also looks like Nvidia's response to Radeon 5700/5700XT series.
+#if defined(CONFIG_DRM_AMD_DC_DCN2_0)
+
+#define FAMILY_NV 143 /* DCN 2*/
+
+enum {
+ NV_NAVI10_P_A0 = 1,
+ NV_NAVI12_P_A0 = 10,
+ NV_NAVI14_M_A0 = 20,
+ NV_NAVI21_P_A0 = 40,
+ NV_NAVI10_LITE_P_A0 = 0x80,
+ NV_NAVI10_LITE_P_B0 = 0x81,
+ NV_NAVI12_LITE_P_A0 = 0x82,
+ NV_NAVI21_LITE_P_A0 = 0x90,
+ NV_UNKNOWN = 0xFF
+};
You say that with straight face. Knowing that AMD was able to develop Zen2 on 7 nm process node?Nvidia has much better engineering and resources compared to AMD.
If AMD was able to offer better performance with lower power, then we should expect next gen Nvidia to be better than Turing.
The power targets were lower and clock targets were higher than when they came out of bakery. AMD had a choice. Either they clock them to death, or they are not faster than RTX 2070. Power targets were not met. Clock targets were. And this is solely because of the process, because it is better than people expected it to be, on clocks front, and worse than people expected it be, on power front.Nonsense. This doesn't, and won't, happen with a node shrink. Otherwise, no one would use the new node in the first place.
However, a price-reduction war would be good for the consumers in the short-run. In the long-run, it may hurt consumers as it could result in a monopoly of sorts if one company peters out on the GPU side. I think there is enough work being done by AMD on the mobile side, as well as by Apple and Samsung etc, to power solid graphics on mobile phones, that there will always be competition in the mobile and 1080p realm, and probably even the 1440p realm.that's exactly what I tried to imply in the current environment, it's actually very unlucky for us, customers
Most buyers upset at AMD's prices are only upset because they wanted AMD to force nVidia to lower prices so they can buy the nVidia card they actually want cheaper.
AMD knows this so why play the game?
Sadly for us, AMD doesn't seem to feel comfortable enough to start an all-out war on every front against every competitor - especially since it seems it's going to be much-much easier to win ground from intel right now, I suppose they know very well, that nvidia has a lot of tricks up their sleeves, waiting for any reason to be worth revealing. Intel on the other hand, they got 10% cool advances in core- and packaging technology and 90% problems with being unable to bring it to market in any meaningful quantity in the next 2 years.However, a price-reduction war would be good for the consumers in the short-run. In the long-run, it may hurt consumers as it could result in a monopoly of sorts if one company peters out on the GPU side. I think there is enough work being done by AMD on the mobile side, as well as by Apple and Samsung etc, to power solid graphics on mobile phones, that there will always be competition in the mobile and 1080p realm, and probably even the 1440p realm.
Simply put, as long as AMD can provide better low to mid-range cards (where most of the sales are) than NV at a similar or lower price, they'll probably be in a good place.
In my opinion, however, to drive those sales, they should push out a true 2080 ti competitor, if only for a silly urination contest, because it will show consumers competitiveness, which is, surprisingly, probably of high value among people who buy dedicated GPUs. If they can do it, and especially if they can do it with Navi at a decent performance/watt rating, the price won't really matter as much - the sheer existence of the card will.
True. The question is whether a price reduction of RX5700 to $329 and RX5700XT to $399 would actually eat into AMD's margins. Without knowing the total cost of the cards, it's hard to tell.Sadly for us, AMD doesn't seem to feel comfortable enough to start an all-out war on every front against every competitor - especially since it seems it's going to be much-much easier to win ground from intel right now, I suppose they know very well, that nvidia has a lot of tricks up their sleeves, waiting for any reason to be worth revealing. Intel on the other hand, they got 10% cool advances in core- and packaging technology and 90% problems with being unable to bring it to market in any meaningful quantity in the next 2 years.
I'm not happy, but I can understand. Baby steps
AMD has CPU division which will enjoy hefty price margin, and volume. AMD has Semi-Custom business, that gives them money. AMD is everywhere: cloud, servers, gaming, consoles, mobile(with Samsung's License). Nvidia doesn't have any other source of money, than just GPUs.True. The question is whether a price reduction of RX5700 to $329 and RX5700XT to $399 would actually eat into AMD's margins. Without knowing the total cost of the cards, it's hard to tell.
But you bring up a great point. NV has the size and capital and market share to take a loss in order to undercut any AMD price reduction and maintain their market share and mind share. So if AMD know this, and they know that NV will undercut even a $329 RX5700, then why would AMD sacrifice the profits? If they make an equivalent or slightly better value card, people will split sales (AMD fanbois and NV fanbois will stay where they are, and ambivalent people will continue the 70/30 or 80/20 sales split), and both companies get a healthy profit margin. If AMD try to undercut too much, both companies see slimmer margins. It's not a concerted effort at price fixing, but rather a de facto one.
An inevitable result of expecting to increase profits annually. The great illusion of these pricing fools is that sale numbers are inflexible with regards to prices, or at least slightly correlated. Nvidia for one, even with all of their brand cachet, has seen a significant fall in sale revenue. What that means for actual card numbers is even worse.True. The question is whether a price reduction of RX5700 to $329 and RX5700XT to $399 would actually eat into AMD's margins. Without knowing the total cost of the cards, it's hard to tell.
But you bring up a great point. NV has the size and capital and market share to take a loss in order to undercut any AMD price reduction and maintain their market share and mind share. So if AMD know this, and they know that NV will undercut even a $329 RX5700, then why would AMD sacrifice the profits? If they make an equivalent or slightly better value card, people will split sales (AMD fanbois and NV fanbois will stay where they are, and ambivalent people will continue the 70/30 or 80/20 sales split), and both companies get a healthy profit margin. If AMD try to undercut too much, both companies see slimmer margins. It's not a concerted effort at price fixing, but rather a de facto one.
Nvidia. Take a look at their margins, balance sheet, etc.AMD has CPU division which will enjoy hefty price margin, and volume. AMD has Semi-Custom business, that gives them money. AMD is everywhere: cloud, servers, gaming, consoles, mobile(with Samsung's License). Nvidia doesn't have any other source of money, than just GPUs.
Who do you think is better positioned to survive price war?.
Nvidia. Take a look at their margins, balance sheet, etc.