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

[tajoh111]

RX5700XT limited edition was rx690
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/radeon-rx-5700-xt-690-graphics-card-e3
So they changed names before launch.
RX690-RX5700XT limited ed(rx590 replacement)
RX680-RX5700XT(rx480/580 replacement)
RX670-RX5700(rx470/570 replacement)
Another proof that this is just polaris replacement with doubled price.

The irony is if rx5700 xt was designed to be a VEGA64 successor, they are even greedier priced than Nvidia's series. Why?

The increase in BOM vs last gen street pricing vs the selling price.

The RTX 2060 had a 120 dollar price increase over the street pricing of the GTX 1060 which was selling for 230 at the time but there atleast some reason for the price increase( $30 increase in memory for the shift to GDDR6 plus a die size more than twice the size, along with the need for a stronger cooler and stronger power circuitry.

Same goes for the RTX 2070. It had memory cost premium over the GTX 1080/GTX 1070 of about 40 dollars. Has a die 42% larger than GP104 which was selling for 500/450(GTX 1080) or 350/400(gtx 1070 or GTX 1070 ti) at the time. Same goes for the GTX 2080 and 2080 ti. BOM over last gen is a valid reason for the price increase(doesn't completely justify the magnitude of the increase) and partially excuses it.

If the RX5700xt was designed as a vega64 replacement, your looking at about 80 dollars savings from the switch to GDDR6 from HBM2, and another $10-20 from the die(10.3 billion transistors for Navi vs the 12.5 billion transistors for Vega 64) on top of the power circuitry savings because the card is not a 300watt+ tbp card but a 225watt TDP. Not to mention Vega Came with 3 games, rather than this subscription garbage. A considerable $100+ dollar savings over Vega64.

So your looking at a savings of $100+ dollars in manufacturing cost over a Vega 64. What is Vega's pricing today $350 dollars. So what is AMD excuse for the $100 dollar increase in pricing, when the previous generation of the card costs over $100 dollars more to manufacture? Nvidia has the excuse that every card that obtained a price increase had an increase in BOM vs the last generation. AMD is raising the price of their card while costs are going down for them in a big way.

If a 5700xt cost 100 less to manufacture than a Vega 64, why is its selling price $100 dollars more? Trying to frame this as a Vega 64 successor makes AMD look even greedier than Nvidia because on top of the above, they don't have the mining overstock as an excuse or the lack of competition for 9 months as an excuse.

You haven't seen any reviews of those GPUs, and yet, you are ready to claim RTX 2070 is more efficient than Navi. What does that tell?

Brand perception, maybe?

It has nothing to do with brand perception. AMD slides show a 6-7% increase over an RTX 2070 for 12.5% more power. For the same efficiency, AMD slides would need to show a 12.5% increase in performance for 12.5% power consumption increase. Considering AMD slides are likely to inflate the difference in performance it is not much of a stretch to say Turing is more efficiency than Navi because even AMD evidence points to it(which is likely biased in their favor).

 

[railven]

I wonder if someone internally realized "if we price the RX 690 more than $400, we're going to be crucified!" Whomever chimed (if not the same person) with "Let's completely re-brand it using the 50th anniversary as a reset!"

This person(s) should get a promotion! Give them the fool's that coined RDNA's pay and benefits.

 

[railven]

You do.RX590 is 200mhz more than RX580.the 50th has 75mhz more than XT version.even RX5700 with OC can reach 2150Mhz on watercooling. RX580 will never able to beat RX590 OC.RX580 chip is 14nm , while RX590 Chip is 12nm

Oye, do we got anything to validate this or just personal opinion?

 

[PhonakV30]

Oye, do we got anything to validate this or just personal opinion?

You're telling me that VII can't Reach 2150mhz ? you can read VII's owners forum.also some REDDIT users were able to reach max stable OC on golden sample.

 

[railven]

You're telling me that VII can't Reach 2150mhz ? you can read VII's owners forum.also some REDDIT users were able to reach max stable OC on golden sample.

Ah, gotcha. Was wondering if I missed any new Navi info.

 

[PhonakV30]

i'm just thinking does it matter if Navi with less CU gets better OC or not ( compare to VII ) , If Navi OC is same VII then it's GCN issue.

 

[Glo.]

It has nothing to do with brand perception. AMD slides show a 6-7% increase over an RTX 2070 for 12.5% more power. For the same efficiency, AMD slides would need to show a 12.5% increase in performance for 12.5% power consumption increase.

You still haven't seen any official reviews of Navi GPUs.

 

[mohit9206]

$380 launch price of 5700 can be justified if one gets 2 AMD branded t shirts, 1 AMD branded cap and 1 AMD branded backpack free with the card. It would be a decent deal.

 

[Head1985]

I wonder if someone internally realized "if we price the RX 690 more than $400, we're going to be crucified!" Whomever chimed (if not the same person) with "Let's completely re-brand it using the 50th anniversary as a reset!"

This person(s) should get a promotion! Give them the fool's that coined RDNA's pay and benefits.

Oh they learned this from nvidia.Nvidia did same thing with GTX660TI.They saw that their x60 card is faster than fastest AMD card and renamed it from GTX660TI to GTX680 and also doubled price.And since then Nvidia continue selling x04 die as high-end instead midrange.Another trick is release crazy overpriced card like TITAN because then rest of the stack will look better(even if its still crazy overpriced) and reviewers can say:well its almost ast fast as titan but "cheaper"(yeah its cheaper but its still overpriced garbage).
But AMD was stuck with GCN since 7970 and they didnt have performance gain to do it just like Nvidia.But now with navi they finally make some changes to GCN and they achieved 2x perf gain and their midrange is faster than last gen high-end.
So they did pretty much same thing like Nvidia did with gtx680.I am expecting Vega64 replacement/big navi cost also double(1000usd) and if its faster than 2080TI it will cost probably same or more.

 

[Glo.]

$380 launch price of 5700 can be justified if one gets 2 AMD branded t shirts, 1 AMD branded cap and 1 AMD branded backpack free with the card. It would be a decent deal.

When was last time when you were able to buy midrange GPU for 380$?

 

[fleshconsumed]

I hope that AMD follows up NAVI with NAVI+ that'll be faster and cheaper just like Zen+ was in comparison to Zen.

Or am I being a hopeless optimist here?

 

[swilli89]

Semantics are going round and round in this thread. Yes, NVIDIA upped the price of their typical "mid-range" chip back in 2012! Kepler's 104 chip, 294 mm² large was released at flagship pricing, back then occupying the $499 price bracket.

Definitions are loose in an industry like this. Price points aren't.

Where NVIDIA released the similar sized Geforce 560 at $249, the 680 doubled the price! And since then it has continued to reduce relative performance in given price brackets.

Now we are seeing AMD simply follow suit. A 251 mm² die (Navi 10) with a traditional memory interface would be nicely profitable for AMD even at $299. However, AMD lags well behind both Intel and NVIDIA in margins.. now we are seeing the company attempt to fix that.

So yes AMD is charging more for a "mid-range" sized die.

But no it isn't a market replacement for Polaris.

 

[alexruiz]

If a 5700xt cost 100 less to manufacture than a Vega 64, why is its selling price $100 dollars more?

Because it will be FASTER, and regardless of design approach, performance talks.
It is also more expensive because the product from the competition at comparable performance is even MORE expensive than the announced msrp of the RX 5700 series.

 

[Kenmitch]

Because it will be FASTER, and regardless of design approach, performance talks.
It is also more expensive because the product from the competition at comparable performance is even MORE expensive than the announced msrp of the RX 5700 series.

The competing products use more silicon so it justifies the cost /s

 

[DrMrLordX]

ster wondering if Navi would replace Vega

This is all I got from multiquote. Ugh.

Two points:

1). In terms of board cost, Navi is much closer to Polaris than Vega10. So consider that before assuming what replaces what.
2). Stadia will probably stream more than 1080P if not initially, then within a year of launch. Also, 1Gbps up/down is $68/month where I live. I have that regardless of what hardware or services I buy.

I hope that AMD follows up NAVI with NAVI+ that'll be faster and cheaper just like Zen+ was in comparison to Zen.

Or am I being a hopeless optimist here?

Should be next year. Faster? Sure. Cheaper . . . ? We'll get back to you on that one.

 

[kawi6rr]

I've never purchased a card over $300 but I'm only a mild gamer who still only plays some older games like AOE II, AOM, and Mechwarrior Online. The only thing AMD and Nvidia have done is make me wait until a new card in the sub $300 level is twice as fast as my current one and even then it's questionable if I even need it. I refuse to be pushed into spending that much on something I don't really need.

 

[Stuka87]

This is all I got from multiquote. Ugh.

Two points:

1). In terms of board cost, Navi is much closer to Polaris than Vega10. So consider that before assuming what replaces what.
2). Stadia will probably stream more than 1080P if not initially, then within a year of launch. Also, 1Gbps up/down is $68/month where I live. I have that regardless of what hardware or services I buy.



Should be next year. Faster? Sure. Cheaper . . . ? We'll get back to you on that one.

Stadia supports 4k streaming. However, if you do, you can consume 1 TERABYTE of data in just 3 days. Meaning data caps will be a major issue.

 

[Glo.]

Stadia supports 4k streaming. However, if you do, you can consume 1 TERABYTE of data in just 3 days. Meaning data caps will be a major issue.

In my Country, for 10€ you can get 120 Mb/s Down/ 20 Mb/s Up, on cable. And it has limit of 400 GB/month of data downloaded. Way to much for "typical" users. But if you will be streaming games - you will get into a lot of trouble.

 

[ozzy702]

I live in a metro area with ~ 2 million people. I pay $120/month for ~ 250 down, 10 up, and a 1TB data cap. It's the best available here. Stadia simply isn't viable in many places and likely won't be for quite a long time and that's before discussing the the latency issues.

 

[railven]

Oh they learned this from nvidia.Nvidia did same thing with GTX660TI.They saw that their x60 card is faster than fastest AMD card and renamed it from GTX660TI to GTX680 and also doubled price.And since then Nvidia continue selling x04 die as high-end instead midrange.Another trick is release crazy overpriced card like TITAN because then rest of the stack will look better(even if its still crazy overpriced) and reviewers can say:well its almost ast fast as titan but "cheaper"(yeah its cheaper but its still overpriced garbage).
But AMD was stuck with GCN since 7970 and they didnt have performance gain to do it just like Nvidia.But now with navi they finally make some changes to GCN and they achieved 2x perf gain and their midrange is faster than last gen high-end.
So they did pretty much same thing like Nvidia did with gtx680.I am expecting Vega64 replacement/big navi cost also double(1000usd) and if its faster than 2080TI it will cost probably same or more.

There was a reason I mentioned earlier in this thread I was getting HD 7970 vs GTX 680 vibes. Not all the pieces are in place for me to official say this is 2012: Redux!

The issue with all this is market perception. Most people don't follow this stuff like we do. They only see something like this:

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-hd-7970/images/perfrel_2560.gif

That's HD 7970. Compare it to the other competition, it's barely 40% faster then it's previous top card and barely 20% faster than NV's top card. But it cost 48% more than AMD's own last card and the same price as NV's current then top card (580 3GB). This is why I'm saying it's a repeat of 2012. It feels like AMD is targeting the wrong target. NV doesn't have a true successor to their previous cards, they have a band aid fix. Since I know NV doesn't have another card ready (beside the SUPERs) this is why I can't say it's a 1:1 redux of 2012. But this is what I'm seeing.

AMD jacked up the price again, pissing off it's user base, and citing NV's greed as the reason (I also fully understand they need to make money, why I wasn't so bothered during HD 7970 and why I haven't been bothered with RX 5700). While I don't believe SUPER is going to blow Navi away, it's definitely has the potential to leave them holding the bag. If NV wanted to they can easily shift their prices down more so, and then use their brand recognition to cause damage to AMD while not having to sacrifice as much on margins. AMD probably is expecting this why they gave themselves SO MUCH wiggle room.

I don't have any real background info, but I'm sure these companies are just playing their 4D chess with us as pawns. I don't know exact margins on RTX, but I already know NV can make non-RT core GPUs. Throw a few into the product stack and suddenly you give the audience what they want. non-RT products at reasonable prices, and RT products for people willing to pay a premium. The console makers basically did all the marketing for them, and one of the biggest things now on console forums is ray-tracing. AMD can't compete there, not even for a while. So back they go to bargain bin with NV's non-RT products since they are (whether you agree or not) already considered "inferior" products.

It's really interesting to me. I've watched mostly as a gamer. I just want to play my games. But seeing how these companies perform, I'm constantly left with my mouth open at how poorly AMD tackles NV. They are doing a super job against Intel, but every time they bring something new out to compete with NV, they get sucker punched - by their rivals and/or, worse to me, by their fans.


Case in point: this thread. It's over 70 pages long. From all the technical stuff we know, most are already unimpressed. But the major battle (from my perspective) is getting people to swallow these price points. NV did it buy having the best product on the table (for consumers) when they mucked up their price points. AMD doesn't have this advantage. And they probably are well aware if NV wanted to they can just do what they did with Pascal - shift the whole product stack down. GTX 1080 Ti had no reason to be $700 at launch, but NV did it - because they could (and it basically destroyed Vega in the process).

 

[Tup3x]

In my Country, for 10€ you can get 120 Mb/s Down/ 20 Mb/s Up, on cable. And it has limit of 400 GB/month of data downloaded. Way to much for "typical" users. But if you will be streaming games - you will get into a lot of trouble.

I currently pay 16,90 € month for 100/50 Mbit mobile phone subscription (includes unlimited text & calls). I have wired 1000/100 Mbit FTTH connection for 29,90 €/month. No data caps (even on phone).

I don't like the idea of streaming games though. The image quality can't be anywhere near as good. While FTTH has ~1ms latency, all the compressing and decompressing will add latency.

Also there's some things I don't quite understand. Don't they basically need whole PC worth of stuff per user? I don't know how well these things will actually work if they become popular...

 

[crisium]

Interesting video from AdoredTV on Navi.

Some interesting things he mentions / made me think of...

Navi cannot stand with historical AMD mid-range chips of a similar size (~220mm2 to 250mm2). 7870 matched GTX 580 for less money and way less power usage. RX 480/580 ended up essentially matching GTX 980 performance and power consumption, but for half the price (GTX 980 launched at $550, and was reduced to $500 later... while RX 480/580 were $240-$250 MSRP even if mining inflated that a lot). Then he mentions how Polaris had to push the wattage. 480 -> 580 -> 590. 590 even has worse performance-per-watt than 580 even though it's 12nm because it's clocked so high. And then Navi arrives and pushes 225W TDP. And it's not way less money than the old Nvidia x80. The 1080 was $500 at it's lowest official price cut - same as the GTX 980. But while the RX 480 launched at $240, the 5700XT launches at $450. While to be fair the 5700XT looks to be a bit faster than the 1080, it still essentially costs the same. So yeah, uses way more power than it should and costs more money than it should. Pitcairn was amazing, while Navi is just RTX 2070 with no Raytracing for a 10% discount.

He also talks about the price creep that AMD played a part in. I know it's controversial still, but the 7970 $550 price launch helped setup Nvidia price creep. 7970 in the long run was an amazing chip and superior to the GTX 680, but it was embarrassed bythe 680 launch and gave Nvidia confidence to charge $500+ for midrange chips.

And he gets into the node / die size argument. Yes 7nm costs a lot more. But just like Nvidia's super fat chips using die size as an excuse (yes the 2080 Ti is the fattest chip ever... no, it does not cost $500 more to make that fat die than the GTX 1080 Ti die... not even close), AMD is using 7nm as an excuse. AdoredTV estimates $50 more for Navi vs Polaris to make the die + more expensive GDDR6. $240 Polaris would then be ~$300 Navi for the same profit margins. But AMD is charging $450. AMD could charge $350 for the fullfat chip and still make bigger margins than Polaris... but no, $450. In the end, AMD is willing to abandon an upgrade path for 7870->480->5700XT users by not offeringing them a reasonably priced product and instead chase margins to make a few tens of millions $ extra revenue while Ryzen will rake in a billion $+ revenue. He says that Navi is just to milk AMD fanboys for their money at the expense of winning mainstream gamer price points that they once did. Not sure I 100% agree, since for non-raytracing the 5700XT looks to offer (slightly) better performance-per-dollar than the 2060/2070, but he's right about one thing: from a historical standard for AMD midrange chips, Navi has failed. Too much power consumption, for too high a price.

 

[Glo.]

And he gets into the node / die size argument. Yes 7nm costs a lot more. But just like Nvidia's super fat chips using die size as an excuse (yes the 2080 Ti is the fattest chip ever... no, it does not cost $500 more to make that fat die than the GTX 1080 Ti die... not even close), AMD is using 7nm as an excuse. AdoredTV estimates $50 more for Navi vs Polaris to make the die + more expensive GDDR6. $240 Polaris would then be $290 Navi for the same profit margins. But AMD is charging $450. AMD could charge $350 for the fullfat chip and still make bigger margins than Polaris... but no, $450. In the end, he says, AMD is willing to abandon an upgrade path for 7870->480->5700XT users by not offeringing them a reasonably priced product and instead chase margins to make a few tens of millions $ extra revenue while Ryzen will rake in a billion $+ revenue. He says that Navi is just to milk AMD fanboys for their money at the expense of winning mainstream gamer price points that they once did. Not sure I 100% agree, since for non-raytracing the 5700XT looks to offer (slightly) better performance-per-dollar than the 2060/2070, but he's right about one thing: from a historical standard for AMD midrange chips, Navi has failed. Too much power consumption, for too high a price.

In all of those anylysis's about manufacturing costs, not once I have heard anything about GDDR6 costs.

What if it is around 10$ per GDDR6 chip? What if it is part of the price creep of Nvidia GPUs?

 

[lobz]

Why not? the Navi 10 50th edition is a overclocked Navi 10, very similar to the RX590.

You and mockingbird are the only 2 people I must put on ignore on this forum... so arrogant.

 

[soresu]

7nm turing/amphere is guaranteed to be more efficient than navi because even with AMD performance slides(which are likely inflated), 12nm turing is already slightly more efficient than 7nm navi.

I'd wait until a comprehensive round of undervolting tests have been made on Navi before making that claim.

Depending on how far 1750/1905 is up the bell curve for the chip, they could be leaving alot of performance per watt on the table in order to match RTX 2070 with that single die package.

Albeit its extremely unlikely that AMD would come out with a dual gpu package (dual gpu package, not dual gpu card) with this generation, I wouldn't put it past them to have it waiting, even if it only benefits mGPU enabled games and compute (hint, RT is a great parallel scaling compute workload).