ATI's Missed Opportunity..

[tp4tissue]

Seems like AMD is not doing the fabled Shakeup..

Sigh....

They're maintaining the price tier ~$700 mark

No new performance/price crowns announced..

[Carcharocles]

Actually, the rumored price is about 500 USD, and performance would be on par with the RTX 2080/GTX 1080 Ti. Not a bad price for that much performance, if true. Then again, there's always too much hype and too many fake rumors floating around in regards to AMD products, and this would for the most part be a tweak and die shrink of existing Polaris Vega architecture. Nvidia killer? Not sure, but it would definitely put AMD back on the map GPU-wise.

Again though, in regards to rumors, never trust them. Especially when the rumors involve AMD.

[Leslieann]

Actually, the rumored price is about 500 USD, and performance would be on par with the RTX 2080/GTX 1080 Ti. Not a bad price for that much performance, if true. Then again, there's always too much hype and too many fake rumors floating around in regards to AMD products, and this would for the most part be a tweak and die shrink of existing Polaris Vega architecture. Nvidia killer? Not sure, but it would definitely put AMD back on the map GPU-wise.

Again though, in regards to rumors, never trust them. Especially when the rumors involve AMD.

This is closer to what I've been hearing.
Never trust marketers in general.

Also keep in mind, it won't be a one for one equal, AMD always does some things better while Nvidia does some things better.

[tp4tissue]

Vega 7 has already been announced though.. and it will nearly match 2080 's performance..

I'm talking about  the Budget card Killer. !!!

[Leslieann]

Gamers Nexus reporting from the AMD booth at CES:

X570 -  $700    (2080/1180/1080ti competitor)
RX Vega 64 -  $600 (2070/1170/1080 competitor)
RX590 - $279 (2060/1160/1070 competitor)

R9 Fury X $750  (workstation card)

[Carcharocles]

The RX590 is out already and has been benchmarked (https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/radeon-rx-590-powercolor-red-devil-review,1.html). It's faster than the GTX 1060 in most games, but not much faster than the RX580 (which is also faster than the 1060 in games that aren't optimized for Nvidia, at least as far as DirectX 10 goes). It's just a more aggressively clocked 580, and it's not quite fast enough to compete with the 2060/1070 in most games (https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_rx_590_powercolor_red_devil_review,29.html).

[tp4tissue]

Well, if anyone's gonna buy a used mining card..

Prolllly now-ish...

[tp4tissue]

Hrrrrm.. miner 580s gone up by ~$10

[HotRoderX]

Honestly TP4 always felt like AMD's buying of ATI was a mistake they never made there money back and have even hemorrhage money from it. I am not shocked the card came in at the same performance  as a 2080 with the same price tag. The biggest downside to the ATI is it doesn't have all that fancy Nvidia marketing hype called Raytrace. The only thing I could see AMD/ATI doing at this stage would be having the memory on the card to something more reasonable like 8 gigs and toning the price down by like 200 bucks.

Could you see a 400-500 dollar ATI card that could go toe to toe with Nvidia's 2080.. That would  hurt Nvidia pretty badly and would most likely stun or even kill ray tracing in its infancy. Thats one thing Nvidia needs early adoption to show gaming manufacture ray tracing is worth optimizing and designing for.

[pixelpusher]

AMD won't ever strongly undercut Nvidia.  Have you ever seen Charmin and Angle Soft toilet paper priced several dollars apart?  Have you ever made the easy choice between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter because one was $3 less?   If AMD were to price the 2080 competitor card at $400 or $500, we would have ourselves a price war.  Guess who would lose that one?  AMD.  Guess who would most likely have to go out of the GPU business?  AMD.

The only company I've ever seen to buck this system was SpaceX

[tp4tissue]

Honestly TP4 always felt like AMD's buying of ATI was a mistake they never made there money back and have even hemorrhage money from it. I am not shocked the card came in at the same performance  as a 2080 with the same price tag. The biggest downside to the ATI is it doesn't have all that fancy Nvidia marketing hype called Raytrace. The only thing I could see AMD/ATI doing at this stage would be having the memory on the card to something more reasonable like 8 gigs and toning the price down by like 200 bucks.

Could you see a 400-500 dollar ATI card that could go toe to toe with Nvidia's 2080.. That would  hurt Nvidia pretty badly and would most likely stun or even kill ray tracing in its infancy. Thats one thing Nvidia needs early adoption to show gaming manufacture ray tracing is worth optimizing and designing for.

Well, tp4 thought matrix, prior to more concrete announcements, definitely posited that a $300-400 card is possible  AS LONG AS they didn't go with HBM,  which for the most part is unnecessary.

The latest AMD $700 is released under the gaming badge, but with all that HBM, it's more of a compute card designed to dethrone titans.

So.... we could very well see a $300-400   2080-Killer sometime in the future WITHOUT HBM..


They probably just didn't have the time to do it all at once..

As,  Compute is the long-game,  and we've seen that a long-reach strategy is definitely working as with the ryzen design grounds up for server application

[Leslieann]

Honestly TP4 always felt like AMD's buying of ATI was a mistake they never made there money back and have even hemorrhage money from it. I am not shocked the card came in at the same performance  as a 2080 with the same price tag.
{cut}

Could you see a 400-500 dollar ATI card that could go toe to toe with Nvidia's 2080.. That would  hurt Nvidia pretty badly and would most likely stun or even kill ray tracing in its infancy. Thats one thing Nvidia needs early adoption to show gaming manufacture ray tracing is worth optimizing and designing for.

Are you sure they didn't get their money back?
You are assuming that based on GPU card sales but forgetting all of the APU and other processors they sold with Radeons built into them. I don't think you realize how many low end laptops and thin clients are running around with those in them and that would not have happened without buying ATI.

This is something many people misunderstand about AMD and Intel. Intel doesn't actually build desktop CPUs, they build server cpus and desktop cpus are built using the same technology as a way to pad the coffers. AMD is not really into enthusiast built desktops either, they've catered to it and used it to their advantage over the years, but it really wasn't their focus for many years. They went after thin clients and low watt/low cost computing instead. This was why their GPUs were so valued in mining.

As for them undercutting Nvidia,  why undercut them and lose that profit?
Like pixelpusher said, Nvidia has the benefit of scale and deep pockets, if they really wanted to, they could further undercut AMD and drive them out of the industry ewntirely. They have an absolute ton of unsold 10 series gpus they are trying to pawn off to card manufacturers due to them over estimating mining and if they were to gut the price it could destroy AMD. It would trigger a monopoly investigation and some other things, but they could. Nvidia and Intel are both heavy handed giants who are not afraid to flex their muscle if need be. Better to slightly undercut and build a following while making money and not angering those in the high tower.

Also, AMD has a long history of ups and downs,  I'm not sure if it's their business practices or what but they continuously go from feast to famine. Give it 5 years or so and they will go lean again, it's just how their cycle goes.

[Leslieann]

The only company I've ever seen to buck this system was SpaceX

That's because they are trying to break into an industry, not operate in one they helped establish.

This is called being disruptive, startups love pitching this to investors and it's a genuine way to push your way into an industry. Amazon did it, Makerbot did it, Space X is trying to do it.
The problem with doing this is that while you will probably change the market, you need to be careful how you make out in the end. Makerbot who led the 3d printer revolution, bringing 3d printing to the mainstream, was bought out by the giant Stratasys. Instead of being beneficial, it  was consumed by them and ultimately all but a shell of it's former self. They sell fewer Makerbot printers today than they did when Makerbot was merely 6 months old and still being built by hand.

[HotRoderX]

I guess I am at the point were things are just getting to expensive for what ya get. I mean I remember when a good cutting edge GPU would put ya back 250-300 bucks. Now day's if you want top of the line your looking at 600-700 dollar's easily. I really think we need to see some number crunching or some substantial increases. I would say one thing that could be in AMD's favor is yields. Hasn't the yields on the 2k series from Nvidia been pretty lack luster. AMD can not only beat Nvidia in the price but also in availability.  Then it won't matter how cheap Nvidia prices things. They could give the cards away for free but if they can't produce enough to meet demand people will go else were.

[Leslieann]

That's not true at all.
What has become more expensive is Youtube glorified bleeding edge parts.

Ram is about the lowest it's ever been, drives are at the lowest they have ever been, ssd's are cheap (and rapidly falling), and processors? You can get insane power for prices similar to what they have always been, meaning they are cheaper than ever for so much power. Even in the case of GPUs, as always you can get a pretty good card for under $300. So long as you are not using high refresh, 1440(3k) or 4k, a GTX 1060, 2060, 580 or 590 will run just about anything quite well. You don't really need a 1080 unless you're using this stuff and if you are, then the rest of your system needs to be equally high end. They call it bleeding edge because it hurts to buy it and you will be able to get the same performance next year for half the price and it may need revisions before it works like you expect (*cough* RTX).

As pretty much always, today is pretty much the best we have ever had it in computing.
It's only gotten more expensive at the bleeding edge because companies realized people will pay for pretty much anything they offer if only for bragging rights (look how many bought the Core I7 8086k processor, which was a factory overclocked 8700k), the normal stuff is cheaper than ever and in many cases I'd even argue that the higher end isn't even really much if any more expensive. When I first got 16gigs of ram 6 years ago, I spent $300 for it, I bought 32gigs for about the same price recently. My 8700k, cost exactly the same as much as my 2600k, both high end core I7 processors, 6 years apart. One thing that has changed is Youtubers getting free parts and acting like everyone has a GTX 1080. They don't.


By the way, if you don't think things have progressed... It used to take several minutes to boot Windows or Linux. My current system cold boots to desktop in about 12 seconds, all but 4 of that is bios and the OS ensuring a dependency that preceded it was running. You may be thinking that is Windows Fast Booting, nope, that only takes 6-8 seconds 4 or 5 of which is bios and dependencies. Compare that to the average desktop from 5 years ago without an SSD, which took 45 seconds to 3 minutes depending on hardware and software installed. Even installing it used to take 45 minutes to install Windows, even on a high end system, today I can do it in about 10 minutes. 

[tp4tissue]

That's not true at all.
What has become more expensive is Youtube glorified bleeding edge parts.

Ram is about the lowest it's ever been, drives are at the lowest they have ever been, ssd's are cheap (and rapidly falling), and processors? You can get insane power for prices similar to what they have always been, meaning they are cheaper than ever for so much power. Even in the case of GPUs, as always you can get a pretty good card for under $300. So long as you are not using high refresh, 1440(3k) or 4k, a GTX 1060, 2060, 580 or 590 will run just about anything quite well. You don't really need a 1080 unless you're using this stuff and if you are, then the rest of your system needs to be equally high end. They call it bleeding edge because it hurts to buy it and you will be able to get the same performance next year for half the price and it may need revisions before it works like you expect (*cough* RTX).

As pretty much always, today is pretty much the best we have ever had it in computing.
It's only gotten more expensive at the bleeding edge because companies realized people will pay for pretty much anything they offer if only for bragging rights (look how many bought the Core I7 8086k processor, which was a factory overclocked 8700k), the normal stuff is cheaper than ever and in many cases I'd even argue that the higher end isn't even really much if any more expensive. When I first got 16gigs of ram 6 years ago, I spent $300 for it, I bought 32gigs for about the same price recently. My 8700k, cost exactly the same as much as my 2600k, both high end core I7 processors, 6 years apart. One thing that has changed is Youtubers getting free parts and acting like everyone has a GTX 1080. They don't.


By the way, if you don't think things have progressed... It used to take several minutes to boot Windows or Linux. My current system cold boots to desktop in about 12 seconds, all but 4 of that is bios and the OS ensuring a dependency that preceded it was running. You may be thinking that is Windows Fast Booting, nope, that only takes 6-8 seconds 4 or 5 of which is bios and dependencies. Compare that to the average desktop from 5 years ago without an SSD, which took 45 seconds to 3 minutes depending on hardware and software installed. Even installing it used to take 45 minutes to install Windows, even on a high end system, today I can do it in about 10 minutes. 

Cough..

Buhhh......  N0 m0ar CRT .. !!!

1 step forward, 99 steps back

[pixelpusher]

That's not true at all.
What has become more expensive is Youtube glorified bleeding edge parts.

Ram is about the lowest it's ever been, drives are at the lowest they have ever been, ssd's are cheap (and rapidly falling), and processors? You can get insane power for prices similar to what they have always been, meaning they are cheaper than ever for so much power. Even in the case of GPUs, as always you can get a pretty good card for under $300. So long as you are not using high refresh, 1440(3k) or 4k, a GTX 1060, 2060, 580 or 590 will run just about anything quite well. You don't really need a 1080 unless you're using this stuff and if you are, then the rest of your system needs to be equally high end. They call it bleeding edge because it hurts to buy it and you will be able to get the same performance next year for half the price and it may need revisions before it works like you expect (*cough* RTX).

As pretty much always, today is pretty much the best we have ever had it in computing.
It's only gotten more expensive at the bleeding edge because companies realized people will pay for pretty much anything they offer if only for bragging rights (look how many bought the Core I7 8086k processor, which was a factory overclocked 8700k), the normal stuff is cheaper than ever and in many cases I'd even argue that the higher end isn't even really much if any more expensive. When I first got 16gigs of ram 6 years ago, I spent $300 for it, I bought 32gigs for about the same price recently. My 8700k, cost exactly the same as much as my 2600k, both high end core I7 processors, 6 years apart. One thing that has changed is Youtubers getting free parts and acting like everyone has a GTX 1080. They don't.


By the way, if you don't think things have progressed... It used to take several minutes to boot Windows or Linux. My current system cold boots to desktop in about 12 seconds, all but 4 of that is bios and the OS ensuring a dependency that preceded it was running. You may be thinking that is Windows Fast Booting, nope, that only takes 6-8 seconds 4 or 5 of which is bios and dependencies. Compare that to the average desktop from 5 years ago without an SSD, which took 45 seconds to 3 minutes depending on hardware and software installed. Even installing it used to take 45 minutes to install Windows, even on a high end system, today I can do it in about 10 minutes. 

Cough..

Buhhh......  N0 m0ar CRT .. !!!

1 step forward, 99 steps back

but we do have 240Hz monitors and higher refresh rates are on the horizon.  It's a step in the right direction

[tp4tissue]

but we do have 240Hz monitors and higher refresh rates are on the horizon.  It's a step in the right direction

Idk man... CRT slippery slick electron gun.. !!  I concur the 240hz TN is very smooth, but image persistence on lcd is still higher/blurrier than phosphor decay on crt.