I'm lazily using TDP as kinda a catchall for power used and heat generated. I recognize that in reality there are lots of factors influencing heat such as using hotter HBM2 vs GDDR5 or 6, etc. I'm curious how hot Navi (the chip) will actually be. Two GPU's may both use 200W, but one chip is 300mm^2 while the other is 250mm^2. That makes the smaller chip hotter per mm^2 which in turn requires the heatsink to work harder since it has less area for heat exchange.When you say it runs hotter it doesnt mean it has a higher TDP.
You can actually have a card with higher TDP that can run at lower temperature than another card which has a lower TDP.
There is not one single Navi GPU that has higher TDP than 180W.I'm lazily using TDP as kinda a catchall for power used and heat generated. I recognize that in reality there are lots of factors influencing heat such as using hotter HBM2 vs GDDR5 or 6, etc. I'm curious how hot Navi (the chip) will actually be. Two GPU's may both use 200W, but one chip is 300mm^2 while the other is 250mm^2. That makes the smaller chip hotter per mm^2 which in turn requires the heatsink to work harder since it has less area for heat exchange.
But remember, my argument on price is based on buyers perception. IF (big if because they may not actually be so) Navi is officially 225W while 2070 is officially 175W, then the perception of value is that 2070 is cooler and therefore better.
I accept that maybe I should just say Navi appears to be hotter than 2070 based on certain rumors.
There is not one single Navi GPU that has higher TDP than 180W.
And that 225W TBP GPu has what TDP?What ?
1.st You CANT know that for sure.
2.The rumour is the XT one has 225 TBP.
3.2070`s have TWO TDP`s, cheap ones 175W and FE+OCed 185W. In reality they can do like 200W.
All this doesnt change the fact that navi is probably gonna eat more even tho it has node advantage.
HOWEVER.
People, chill.
This is from article at videocardz.
"Other journalists, who were present at the Computex floor, have confirmed that AMD partners have no final pricing on Navi. "
There is no price set.Its all smoke and mirrors, amd and nvidia are trying to feel themselves out on this to land on good price.But its not set as of yet, which is logical because nv is gonna retaliate.
Nothing is set in stone never XD , amd lands at a 499, nvidia counters with a 399 than what ? amd does nothing ?And that 225W TBP GPu has what TDP?
180W. If we are going by this, 175W TDP RTX 2070 is correct. If you will add 40W for board power consumption, it fits perfectly with 215W power draw, you get on RTX 2070.
P.S. The prices are already set in stone.
If you are using TDP metric, then use 180W TDP for Navi GPUs also, and not 225W.Nothing is set in stone never XD , amd lands at a 499, nvidia counters with a 399 than what ? amd does nothing ?
And if you KNOW. Then, tell us, what is that price that is set in stone ? You know.
As for cards , nobody is quoting gpu power only on cards, besides reviews and technical analysis.
Nvidia claims 185W board power.How much are they lying i dont know, but they are claiming that.
Just like polaris 480 150W , was in reality a 170W card, with 200W aib models.
You are trying havin it both ways dude!If you are using TDP metric, then use 180W TDP for Navi GPUs also, and not 225W.
You are trying havin it both ways dude!
NVIDIA`s TDP is of the CARD
AMD`s GPU TDP is of only GPU!
Reality is, if 5700 has 225W "TBP" it will chew betwen 30-40W more than 2070, and im talking total power consumption .
To illustrate this.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-test/4/
Vega 56 has 210W TBP, pretty much spot on.
Look on the graph if 2070 is below or above it.
Than understand that navi XT wil have higher power draw than the vega 56.
Profit.
Here is 175 TDP Nvidia GPU. Oh, hey. You even have 210W TDP AMD GPU on this chart, that you quoted!
If we go by this, GPU with 180W TDP, and 225W TBP will draw around 200-225W of power, because that is what is its board power draw.Im not sure what are you so happy about , because relation between these two cards is still the same.So vega 56 with TBP draws 230W (20 more than TBP) and 2070 draws 195W (10-20W more than tdp).
So in essence it does not invalidate my claim but validates it...
If you really want to know how, than please understand that in this metric 5700 would draw about 245W.
They are most probably measuring with psu inefficiency.
Either way. 2070 will consume less power than the 5700.With a older node.
I agree AMD can't have fixed a price yet. I just did a Google shopping search for RTX 2070 and it came up with $479.99. By the time Navi comes out I'm sure that price will have fluctuated again. At some point in time AMD must pin down the MSRP, I just don't think they've done it yet. And if they have, they can change it....HOWEVER.
People, chill.
This is from article at videocardz.
"Other journalists, who were present at the Computex floor, have confirmed that AMD partners have no final pricing on Navi."...
Board, or GPU, only?
So I will repeat it. How stupid would have to Dr Lisa Su be, to price better performing GPU at lower price than RTX 2070? How big the blunt would have to be, for CEO of AMD to decide that pricing Navi GPU, that is 10-15% faster than RTX 2070, at 300-350$ is a good business decision.
How stupid was Dr. Lisa Su, to price a CPU that performed on par with the $1089 i7-6900K at only $499?
The truth is that, while Ryzen was and is a great technological success, its market share in the consumer market comes in large part from beating Intel on perf/$. (In terms of raw single-thread performance, Intel's top Coffee Lake chips still have the edge, though the Ryzen 3000 release on 7/7 will bring AMD much closer.) Now that AMD has proven its success, they are starting to increase the prices a bit with Zen 2, but are still being careful to maintain a perf/$ lead over Intel.
If AMD wants to gain market share in the GPU realm, they need to do the same thing. Everyone is tired of failure after failure, so if they're not going to take the performance crown outright (and we're pretty sure they won't) then they have to come in with a good, competitive product at truly game-changing prices - just like they did with Ryzen.
We're not talking about blowout sales at unrealistically low prices. In the past, AMD has sold big, expensive cards like Hawaii and Vega at prices so low that profits were probably minimal. But Navi is supposed to be a smaller, Pitcairn/Polaris-sized chip, with a moderate 256-bit memory bus. It shouldn't be that expensive to make. Polaris debuted at only $239 for the top SKU, despite the fact that it used the then-new 14nm process. We had heard all kinds of stuff about how FinFET was insanely expensive, but it turned out that was all grossly exaggerated.
A lot of this comes down to whether AMD is supply-constrained or not. With Apple's iPhone sales not living up to expectations recently, AMD might well be able to grab some extra wafer starts. And if they aren't supply-constrained, then it might well be more profitable to sell at $329 or even less if it meant selling twice as many cards as if they priced it at $399. That's not counting the strategic advantage of increasing market share so that game vendors are more willing to optimize for AMD cards.
T Why would Nvidia release brand new GPU arch, when the last one hasn't payed for itself, yet?
Either way, AMD needs the money. At this point the only real thing people can do is support them. But let's not forget, for years AMD was pushed to be a value brand by some of the same posters who are now changing their tune. Which is another red flag to me that Navi isn't going to be anything special, so just prime the consumers for a price hike.
Personally if I had NAVI 10 and was 10% faster than RTX2070 but didnt had RayTracing, I would launch it with a MSRP of $399.
There are people for whom FPS is the only thing that matter, these are the folks that run quad SLI setup and such.
How stupid was Dr. Lisa Su, to price a CPU that performed on par with the $1089 i7-6900K at only $499?
Based on the current rumors the $499 Navi is at 225W vs 175W for 2070. If it turns out that is not true then that obviously alters the equation.
It was brilliant move. Because that way AMD could have jacked up the price point for MAINSTREAM platform from 350$ for top end SKU to 500$. NOBODY cared, because the CPU was neck and neck with Intel's HEDT platform. Even tho, it was just mainstream platform.How stupid was Dr. Lisa Su, to price a CPU that performed on par with the $1089 i7-6900K at only $499?
Do you think Nvidia got back 150 mln USD for every single one design they made for Turing GPUs? They have designed GT102, GT104, GT106, GT116, GT107. 5 designs. Do you think they recouped all of those design costs, already?You think Turing hasn't paid for itself?
I have NEVER owned anything else, than Nvidia GPU. Riva TNT2, GF FX5200, GF660, GF 8800GT, GF 650M. That is my GPU history.Another element of the discussion I haven't seen discussed fully (maybe it has but I just missed it) is not just brand recognition but the kind of brand loyalty NV has built up.
Marketshare numbers dictate that many people who have purchased AMD/ATI products in the past likely have also purchased an NV product at some point, but we're getting far enough along in NV market dominance that there is likely a whole generation of NV users who simply have never had to consider a brand other than NV given that they have not had a tripple threat (Power/Performance/Price) flop in recent memory. The last time NV had a straight flop was ages ago with the FX 5xxx series and the last time AMD had a co-equal generation performance lead was with the 1900XTX.
You need only look at Radeon VII and rx 590 for that answer. If the forums are to be believed lots of people have been able to do it. A few were even able to both undervolt and give it a small overclock.What do you think the possibility is of AMD overvolting these such that you could lower the voltage and save 10-30 watts and lose little to no performance?
I'd put it at about 100%, myself.