WYP
News Guru
Is AMD taking the fight to Nvidia with aggressive pricing?
Read more about AMD's rumoured $330 RX 3080 XT graphics card.
Read more about AMD's rumoured $330 RX 3080 XT graphics card.
AMD's Radeon Navi RX 3080 XT is rumoured to challenge the RTX 2070 for $330
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Great price point but I have a GTX 1080, so it wouldn't offer anything to me. Shame too.
AlienALX
Well-known member
The thing is....
Basically this is supposed to be around the same as the 2070. In what? DX11? DX12? because the Vega 56 is as good as the 2070 in DX12 and you can get one now for £250. So this card is cheaper for AMD to produce and it's going to cost $330?
I almost can't believe that "mid range" is now £300+. Not only that, but low end cards are really low end now. I was looking through a PC mag from 2010 or so the other day and when the Radeon 5870 launched you could get a 4870 for £110. Which to all intents and purposes was a high end card, if you were willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of DX11 in Dirt 2.
I also now own a PS4 rookie edition (didn't get the Pro) and the graphics on it are very good indeed. Easily as good as any "mid range" card. Hell, my XB1X does things mid range PCs can't. This gap will only decrease as the next gen of consoles arrive too. It kinda makes it really very hard to even want to bother. I got my PS4 with 4 games (two of which are £50 each) for £279. What can you get for that in PC terms? a mid range GPU with nothing else.
Crazy. The world has gone mad. How is it that Sony and Microsoft can make an entire gaming system based on X86 for less than the cost of a mid range GPU? you get about four times the amount of materials, plastic, a hard drive and god knows what else.
Basically this is supposed to be around the same as the 2070. In what? DX11? DX12? because the Vega 56 is as good as the 2070 in DX12 and you can get one now for £250. So this card is cheaper for AMD to produce and it's going to cost $330?
I almost can't believe that "mid range" is now £300+. Not only that, but low end cards are really low end now. I was looking through a PC mag from 2010 or so the other day and when the Radeon 5870 launched you could get a 4870 for £110. Which to all intents and purposes was a high end card, if you were willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of DX11 in Dirt 2.
I also now own a PS4 rookie edition (didn't get the Pro) and the graphics on it are very good indeed. Easily as good as any "mid range" card. Hell, my XB1X does things mid range PCs can't. This gap will only decrease as the next gen of consoles arrive too. It kinda makes it really very hard to even want to bother. I got my PS4 with 4 games (two of which are £50 each) for £279. What can you get for that in PC terms? a mid range GPU with nothing else.
Crazy. The world has gone mad. How is it that Sony and Microsoft can make an entire gaming system based on X86 for less than the cost of a mid range GPU? you get about four times the amount of materials, plastic, a hard drive and god knows what else.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Be interesting to see how many Radeon 7 owners AMD burn if they release a higher end Navi this year to replace it only 6 or so months after its release.
The_Governour
New member
With a 1080ti since launch then I am still pretty sorted.... would maybe pick something up to replace a PC that I am selling now (7600k + 1070).
Dependes on price.
Dependes on price.
WYP
News Guru
You say that, but Intel didn't get the kind of skewering that many expected when they replaced Kaby Lake with higher clocked 6-core Coffee Lake processors less than a year later with a new socket, no upgrade options for Z270 and a similar price tag (assuming you got in early before prices increased).
Daiyus
Member
I remember when I used to get told "when you buy a PC it'll be out of date in five minutes". Progress happens.
It used to be that your hardware would be outperformed by something else very, very quickly, particularly for the price. You just had to set a budget, pull the trigger and get the best you can at that point in time. The fact that 2+ year old GPU's still pretty much offer the best performance is a really odd situation. The only reason CPU's got shaken up was Ryzen.
To be honest I just want to see price/performance increase as fast as possible. If that means getting the same performance for half the price six months later then so be it; I don't care if somebody who bought the same performance for twice the price six months ago gets annoyed.
Hardware pricing has bloated to insane levels and it needs to be brought back into check before we all get priced out of our hobby.
Well looking at stocks and general sales for 2018 and 2019. With this price escalation, we can see a noticeable drop in the PC component market. It could be consumers are finally saying enough is enough. I mean 9900k for $500 which from a gaming pov is hardly better than a 7700k.
Yeah I know 9900k is more for rendering and application workloads, but you know how weak some gamers are when they pull the trigger on a purchase. They want the best.
We now see RTX cards not selling as well as expected by analysts (although obvious to us). There needs to be a new spark in the industry to get people spending again. To me, dropping prices to reasonable levels is a great way to reignite the market.
Its like an auction. Starting with a high bid, and no one will bite. But if they drop the initial bid, the interest returns, and once again will gradually increase over time again. We need that pricepoint to fall to get us back.
I think the same for everything PC related now. Peripherals are too expensive, VR headsets are too much, games are ludicrous (up to £100 for 1 game???), CPU and GPU are the worst ever. Although thanks to AMD we have limited that a little.
I used to splash the cash without a care and buy 2 GPU always. While I could still do it now, with the pricing as it is, even I feel a little self concious on my finances vs worthwhile.
I think my days of flagship GPU purchases are long gone. So the moment I see a product that will surpass my 1080ti cards and is a great deal, mid range or not, Ill opt for that.
Yeah I know 9900k is more for rendering and application workloads, but you know how weak some gamers are when they pull the trigger on a purchase. They want the best.
We now see RTX cards not selling as well as expected by analysts (although obvious to us). There needs to be a new spark in the industry to get people spending again. To me, dropping prices to reasonable levels is a great way to reignite the market.
Its like an auction. Starting with a high bid, and no one will bite. But if they drop the initial bid, the interest returns, and once again will gradually increase over time again. We need that pricepoint to fall to get us back.
I think the same for everything PC related now. Peripherals are too expensive, VR headsets are too much, games are ludicrous (up to £100 for 1 game???), CPU and GPU are the worst ever. Although thanks to AMD we have limited that a little.
I used to splash the cash without a care and buy 2 GPU always. While I could still do it now, with the pricing as it is, even I feel a little self concious on my finances vs worthwhile.
I think my days of flagship GPU purchases are long gone. So the moment I see a product that will surpass my 1080ti cards and is a great deal, mid range or not, Ill opt for that.
Last edited:
The PC gaming market has continued to grow despite the wider computer sales, including laptops, tablets & smartphones, continuing in their descent, so I don't think it's much of an issue. In many ways what we call the top end has just increased, we now have cards & chips whos primary purposes are for enterprise use being sold in consumer spaces, built on several orders of magnitude more research, development & investment (Thanks to these new major industries using GPUs that have a lot more money thrown at them than PC gaming, which is still 25% of the largest media industry), it's inevitable they'd carry over a bit of enterprise pricing, how well you price the higher end parts becomes less relevant with each step up you go and now the top end is so many rungs above the mainstream it barely matters to most people.
NVidia's price to perf follows a neat exponential curve, you get the best value with the GTX1660Ti, and every step up from there results in a more or less equal drop in price/perf.
NVidia's price to perf follows a neat exponential curve, you get the best value with the GTX1660Ti, and every step up from there results in a more or less equal drop in price/perf.
Actually that's almost the same level of price/performance as Vega56 at the moment. You can find them about 15% cheaper(just under 300usd) and they perform about 15% worse than the cheaper non-FE spec RTX2070's. In fact, it's not far off the price/perf of RTX2060.
Has Nvidia's pricing in the high end really been normalised this quickly for some? I think we can take Turing as an exception given the circumstances NVidia were in(No new node but new arch resulting in HUGE die sizes & miscalculation of gaming market size as a result of their lack of accurate crypto segregation in sales analysis) rather than a new rule.
Last edited:
according to Hardware Unboxed,RTX 2060 is 7% faster than Vega 56. Also, RTX 2060 is 11% slower than RTX 2070. This shows a clear picture: Vega 56 should be around 18% slower than the cheapest RTX 2070. Also consider that RTX 2070 are generally more power efficient and they overclock far better, specially with the new chipset they are building right now.
RTX prices are expensive. That's obvious.
Let's closely look at the prices. At launch, VEGA 56 (399$) was around 5% faster than GTX 1070 (379$ FE). GTX 1070 Gaming X for MSI was just about 1% slower for almost same price (but more overcloackable and more power efficient than VEGA 56. Also temps were far better. Probably that's why VEGA 56 was ignored by gaming community. it was only accepted in mining ETH.
GTX 1070ti was 399$ at launch (FE edition). it was something around 6% faster than VEGA 56 for the same price.
Also , GTX 1070 launched June 2016. The best AMD could do was to pull out VEGA 56 more than 1 year later, more expensive with just negligible performance gain.
And this goes on and on. GTX 1080 launched May 2016 at 600$ with no competition on the table. AMD got VEGA 64 1 year and 3 months later at 500$ being at that time like 5% slower (which could validate the price cut).
Now, the situation is that you think AMD will take RX 3080 XT for 330$ when the "equivalent" card on Nvidia is around 480$. Mate, i don't AMD is willing to lose so much money on that. I can accept 429$ for that. But not 330$. Amd will not give us that. no way.
Vega56/64 was a HBM2 card that was out of stock pretty much everywhere for months because of crypto though, their launch competitiveness is clearly incomparable when it comes to gaming. Going from the leaked PCB, Navi10 is essentially a Polaris10 config(256-bit GDDR, mid size die) on 7nm with a core count bump, but even so the die size should be below 250mm^2, or around half that of RTX2070 or Vega1.
Does the word "Ryzen" ring any bells?
Last edited:
ImprovizoR
Active member
It is insane. Remember how well Maxwell cards were priced? But if gamers were willing to pay $100 for 1x8gb of RAM, you can be sure they'll pay for a shiny new GPU as well.
are you trying to tell me that, because AMD is doing pretty good with Ryzen, they are willing to lose money on the GPU side even if their operative costs are lower due to 7nm process??
good luck trying to convince people on that.
