Ridiculous. Not a single person said the pricing of the Radeon 5700 and 5700xt were acceptable initially much like Turings.
A company should not be thanked for doing something that a company has to do to make money. That is release products. It comes down to pricing and how it moves the market forward if we are talking about consumer benefit.
At the pricing AMD launched the 5700 and 5700xt, it was basically the maximum AMD could really charge much like Nvidia with initial turing launch. Considering the AMD brand and its value, Nvidia didn't have to do anything and their brand would ensure the marketshare loss would be minimal. Additionally, there is a strong likelihood once legacy games are thrown into the mix that the 5700xt would have been the same performance as a rtx 2070. And we both know at the same performance, Nvidia can charge 10% more because of the NV brand, the game bundle and RTX. Add some nvidia marketing and Nvidia could mostly maintain the marketshare it has.
The difference between this and the super launch is Nvidia is pricing themselves below what they have to price their product. When the superior brand is purposely launching cards with better price to performance than the value brand, the value brand is near absolutely forced to drop prices or incur severe consequences. After the GTX 680 was released under 7970 pricing, AMD card stopped selling which forced AMD to drop the price of their cards 150 dollars, overclock it and toss in 2 or 3 triple AAA games. Nvidia doesn't need to act nearly as aggressively because of mindshare. There is a tremendous difference when a value product under prices their products and the premium product.
E.g if RC cola came out with a new formulation and raised the price of their product to near coca cola prices, would Coca Cola need to do anything with their prices? Probably not.
However if Coca Cola, lowered there pricing just below this new RC cola, what would RC cola have to do to make their new product a success? Drop prices.
When the premium brand does something in terms of price drops, it means much more to the market. Although not technically a price drop in naming, the RTX 2070 super is 95% of a RTX 2080 for atleast 200 less and the RTX 2060 super is effectively a RTX 2070 for 100 less.
For AMD to effectively change the market, they need to severely undercut the competition as was the case with the 4870 and 5870. Nvidia could have sat on their hand with Navi pricing but they did not. This is because they are an aggressive company unlike Intel. If AMD priced their products at say 279 and 349 initially, I would say we have AMD to thank. But with the launch of super, it was Nvidia that officially kicked off the price war. Either way we should not be thankful to either company. The launch of super was simply a strategic business decision to capitalize on the lost goodwill of Navi's high price, gain good will in the process and to cause the Navi launch to fail. Nonetheless, the latter helps consumers and could potentially start a price war. What AMD did with the Navi launch is simply what would be necessary to initiate price fixing.
Because unlike you they ray trace all their PowerPoint slides.
you are also getting RTX and i believe a couple of free games as well.
I'm happy to see NAVI price drop, however, those prices are for blowers, AIB will be $50 more and not as competitive against nVidia that'll come with a good stock cooler.
Probably. I'm going to wait for AIB Navi cards. I don't think that I've ever bought a "reference blower" design, although I did buy some VisionTek HD4850 512MB cards that were effectively reference coolers. They ran hot, like 90C during "normal" operation.The small extra for a decent AIB will quite likely be very well worth it.
Probably. I'm going to wait for AIB Navi cards. I don't think that I've ever bought a "reference blower" design, although I did buy some VisionTek HD4850 512MB cards that were effectively reference coolers. They ran hot, like 90C during "normal" operation.
Navi has absolutely zero overclocking headroom.
Huh, odd. Radeon VII can OC pretty well. It gets hot but oh well, it's a GPU, deal with it. 5700XT was supposed to be "built for overclocking".
5700 really obsoletes the 2060. Better performance, more VRAM, barely more wattage, and let's be honest - raytracing is a very limited on that card.
Interesting that it looks like the clocks for the 5700XT really take it out of the sweet spot, to where 5700 matches Turing PPW, but 5700 XT only matches Pascal PPW.
5700 XT vs 2060 Super is a tougher choice. The Super has the VRAM and extra grunt to sometimes handle raytracing at reasonable settings, and is more power efficient than the AMD competitor. We'll have to see 3rd party coolers next month to really test OCing, but I wouldn't be surprised if both cards max OC are a draw in performance (maybe the 2060S actually wins?) with the Nvidia card still winning in power consumption.
This is actually rather promising. If there is a big Navi it would be clocked lower (closer to the 5700) and that would give them decent performance per watt. A 250 to 300W 64CU Navi could be near the 2080 Ti. Albeit much later and on 7nm. But oh well.
Clockspeeds, eh...?Well, a 2304 shader 256-bit Navi at reasonable clocks for power efficiency beats a 1920 shader 192-bit Turing, and loses to a 2176 shader 256-bit Turing. So per shader, Turing is faster.
Yeah, that's a good point, I was thinking with linear scaling. Which is flawed. Because then the RTX 2080 Ti would be much faster too. But it could end up being above the 250W 2080S. On paper it doesn't look like it's worth making. R&D, validation costs, bigger die with lower yields, and they'd only get to price it at about $600-700 depending on the clock rates.Well, a 2304 shader 256-bit Navi at reasonable clocks for power efficiency beats a 1920 shader 192-bit Turing, and loses to a 2176 shader 256-bit Turing. So per shader, Turing is faster.
I don't think a 4096 shader Navi could possibly match a 4352 shader Turing unless AMD found a way to scale better than Nvidia (since Maxwell vs Fiji, Nvidia have always scaled better). And it definitely can't do it at reasonable clocks. Because even pushed way out of efficiency curves, a 2560 Navi still loses to 2560 Turing.
Clockspeeds, eh...?
Eh? How are you the most combative reflexive poster on this forum, and still miss the obvious?
Look. At. The. Context. I. Talked. About. Clocks. Read. It. Again.
5700 clocks are efficient, 5700 XT are not. And regardless of efficiency at all, AMD cannot match Nvidia shader per shader right now.