barbacot:

I don't understand AMD price politics other than pure greed or stupidity??? So they release a product with nothing new in terms of technology - only more RAM - than the direct competitor at virtually the same price at same or lower performance??? Also AMD price politics on this new generation graphic cards could be a warning sign for their price politics on ryzen 2 which people wait like the second coming of Christ.

I get the impression GPUs (especially those with HBM2) are significantly more expensive to manufacture. To my understanding, the GPU itself is still a large monolithic die, which makes manufacturing even more expensive since a single significant defect basically requires the whole chip to be downgraded. With the whole "chiplet" design, Zen 2 should actually be cheaper to manufacture than previous generations (per core, anyway) assuming there isn't a major price hike due to using 7nm. I'm not sure if Navi will use something like a chiplet design, but if it does, I imagine that would drive prices down substantially.

schmidtbag:

I get the impression GPUs (especially those with HBM2) are significantly more expensive to manufacture. To my understanding, the GPU itself is still a large monolithic die, which makes manufacturing even more expensive since a single significant defect basically requires the whole chip to be downgrade. With the whole "chiplet" design, Zen 2 should actually be cheaper to manufacture than previous generations (per core, anyway) assuming there isn't a major price hike due to using 7nm. I'm not sure if Navi will use something like a chiplet design, but if it does, I imagine that would drive prices down substantially.

I really hope that you are right...anyway I was waiting to upgrade my 980Ti but now 2080 seems a more viable option to me...I will wait for the official benchmarks though.

barbacot:

I don't understand AMD price politics other than pure greed or stupidity??? So they release a product with nothing new in terms of technology - only more RAM - than the direct competitor at virtually the same price at same or lower performance??? Also AMD price politics on this new generation graphic cards could be a warning sign for their price politics on ryzen 2 which people wait like the second coming of Christ.

I'll ask you one thing: "Do you think AMD's graphics cards are and should be cheaper alternative to nVidia?"

In DX11 Firestrike it is 6% and 7% faster than 2080 FE. In DX12 Timespy the Radeon VII is 21% slower? That doesn't seem right; it won't be that much slower on a modern API unless the drivers are really really still in infancy. Give this some time and wait for real results from the powers that be.

Fox2232:

I'll ask you one thing: "Do you think AMD's graphics cards are and should be cheaper alternative to nVidia?"

If they want to regain marketshare YES! If they sell a product with no new technology and only more ram at the same price with a card produced by a competitor with new technologies and more mature drivers since the product is on the market for some time now then why bother???

schmidtbag:

I don't recall AMD ever claiming it was their flagship; as far as I'm concerned, Vega64 still takes that rank. Regardless, it won't be the flagship. It's more like an interim flagship if anything. I agree. The problem is the excessive HBM, which cranks up the price. However, since these are binned workstation GPUs, if the memory exists on the chip and seems to be functioning fine, it would be a waste to just disable it. Hence me saying it isn't the flagship...

I guess i don't really necessarily disagree with what you're saying, i guess that comes down to a "what is flagship", because to me, flagship is all about the high-end GPUs, and can be a line-up. For instance, in general, the xx80s for nvidia are generally the flagship, but even then i guess you could say the titans are the flagship. No matter what i don't see, personally, that the radeon VII is not their current flagship. it is their best performing card on their best and most advance, released architecture. The fact that it's priced too high and seems to be a stop-gap to me, doesn't change its flagship status. It could be a $300 card, and still be their current flagship GPU, if it's their best performing, latest and greatest released architecture.

I think it will do well in most benches vs the 2080. But of course, being AMD there may be inconsistencies in some scenarios that should be corrected with their 'fine wine' driver development.

barbacot:

If they want to regain marketshare YES! If they sell a product with no new technology and only more ram at the same price with a card produced by a competitor with new technologies and more mature drivers since the product is on the market for some time now then why bother???

And large part of consumers share same sentiment as you have. AMD on other hand sees something else. Customers allow nVidia to sell weaker GPUs at same price => higher profit margins. Customers show great disrespect while AMD itself shows utmost self control and respect for their clients. And now, when their bread and butter GPU is RX-580, they release something they do not need to. Radeon 7 is not going to shape AMD's revenue, nor profit margin in any meaningful way. It is to deliver message: "We are not making 2nd grade products and 2nd grade prices." And as you wrote about CPUs. (Very agreeable.) There, we are lucky that AMD does not price CPUs to match equal intel's products. I do hope that trend continues. Not because AMD should be cheaper, but because intel delivers overpriced products. Back to Radeon 7, with those 16GB of HBM2 making unbelievably large portion of final price, AMD can't sell them much cheaper. If they could make 8GB variants... those would be winners. But 16GB cards are really aimed at people who have use for 16GB. Because at time games really need 16GB of VRAM, performance of Radeon 7 will be similar to entry level GPU.

In an apples to apples comparison, yes, I would agree with you. As for the gsync thing, wouldn't that make every AMD GPU less interesting to you?

At the moment, yes, AMD is kinda irrelevant to me. AMD have been on the back foot for years, that's why I paid premium for Gsync, I didn't want to save a £100 on a Freesync monitor and then be limited to sub par performance from AMD.

Although I look forward to the future of accelerated raytracing (not specifically RTX), a technology is not of any interest if it doesn't accomplish its goal well despite the increased premium. I think Nvidia has a real thing going with the RT cores but the current generation GPUs are definitely underwhelming in regards to raytracing. DLSS is nice though.

You say increased premium but the 2080 will cost the same as a RADEON VII so I don't see the increased premium argument. Having both of them performing the same, one offering something new and the other one not. If anything, AMD are offering worse value for money here.

Uh... plenty of people (gamers, specifically) care. Just read above. Most people are not going to give AMD a pass for this GPU's price.

I see... I must have missed those posts. Overall though, after Nvidia released RTX and many moaned about their pricing, I saw a lot of white knights bashing Nvidia for their "greedy" pricing. I always said that Nvidia price at whatever they want because they have no competition and if AMD was in the same boat, it would be the same. But in general, the internet seems to be full of people who are convinced that AMD are the "budget" option. When in fact, that's not even close to reality.

metagamer:

At the moment, yes, AMD is kinda irrelevant to me. AMD have been on the back foot for years, that's why I paid premium for Gsync, I didn't want to limit myself to Freesync and AMD GPUs because AMD haven't really released anything interesing in years.

That's fine; I don't criticize your decision. However, that kinda makes your lack of interest in Radeon 7 somewhat odd for you to point out. You were never a potential customer to begin with. That's kind of like someone seeing a pizza with pineapple on it and responding with "ew no thanks" even though they had no intention on eating it anyway due to being lactose intolerant, and, full from just eating moments earlier. I'm not saying the person's opinion of pineapple is invalid, but rather that person pointing out the undesirability of it is kinda moot.

You say increased premium but the 2080 will cost the same as a RADEON VII so I don't see the increased premium argument. Having both of them performing the same, one offering something new and the other one not.

They both contain excess hardware that the average user can't really take advantage of... the 2080 with the RT + tensor cores, and the R7 with an overkill amount of VRAM (overkill in the perspective of gamers). They are both overpriced because of these features.

I saw a lot of white knights bashing Nvidia for their "greedy" pricing. I always said that Nvidia price at whatever they want because they have no competition and if AMD was in the same boat, it would be the same. But in general, the internet seems to be full of people who are convinced that AMD are the "budget" option. When in fact, that's not even close to reality.

I agree; in fact I recall myself saying something very similar. I find Nvidia's prices absurd, and I would also call Nvidia somewhat greedy (not very, but there's some obvious signs that they're abusing their position, particularly with their Quadros). However, I do find their pricing justified, for one simple reason: people still buy their products. If you exclude the Vega-based GPUs (including Radeon 7), AMD is typically the budget option. But, I take your point that this GPU is not at all a more budget-friendly option.

schmidtbag:

That's fine; I don't criticize your decision. However, that kinda makes your lack of interest in Radeon 7 somewhat odd for you to point out. You were never a potential customer to begin with. That's kind of like someone seeing a pizza with pineapple on it and responding with "ew no thanks" even though they had no intention on eating it anyway due to being lactose intolerant, and, full from just eating moments earlier. I'm not saying the person's opinion of pineapple is invalid, but rather that person pointing out the undesirability of it is kinda moot.

In my case, yes, the RADEON VII is moot. But even if I didn't have a Gsync monitor, it would still be a gpu that is playing catch up, offering nothing new at the same price as a gpu that has been out for months.

schmidtbag:

I agree; in fact I recall myself saying something very similar. I find Nvidia's prices absurd, and I would also call Nvidia somewhat greedy (not very, but there's some obvious signs that they're abusing their position, particularly with their Quadros). However, I do find their pricing justified, for one simple reason: people still buy their products. If you exclude the Vega-based GPUs (including Radeon 7), AMD is typically the budget option.

I don't really see how AMD is a budget option. They haven't had anything to compete at the top end for years, sure. But even in mid range, Nvidia has a plethora of cards that offer similar price/performance.

metagamer:

In my case, yes, the RADEON VII is moot. But even if I didn't have a Gsync monitor, it would still be a gpu that is playing catch up, offering nothing new at the same price as a gpu that has been out for months. I don't really see how AMD is a budget option. They haven't had anything to compete at the top end for years, sure. But even in mid range, Nvidia has a plethora of cards that offer similar price/performance.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1781/bench/Cost1.png

metagamer:

Kinda underwhelmed by this, late to the party yet again AMD.

Not that late since it's on a different node (7nm). Hopefully the scores in the reviews will be better.

pharma:

Not that late since it's on a different node (7nm). Hopefully the scores in the reviews will be better.

Doesn't matter, if the performance is the same and costs the same, it's late.

Denial:

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1781/bench/Cost1.png

According that chart: 1070 offers same value as Vega 56 2070 offers same value as Vega 64 These charts are pointless anyway, prices vary wildly depending on where you are and how much research you do. My 2080 cost £680 but the competitor here in the UK is selling it for £770. So yeah, it's not that simple. Looking at Newegg right now, cheapest aftermarket 1080 is $439, cheapest aftermarket Vega 64 is $522. Proves my point, those charts are pointless.

metagamer:

1070 offers same value as Vega 56 2070 offers same value as Vega 64 These charts are pointless anyway, prices vary wildly depending on where you are and how much research you do. My 2080 cost £680 but the competitor here in the UK is selling it for £770. So yeah, it's not that simple. Looking at Newegg right now, cheapest aftermarket 1080 is $439, cheapest aftermarket Vega 64 is $522. Proves my point, those charts are pointless.

Idk midrange to me is definitely sub $400 and AMD has and continues to offer better value in that category.

I don't know man, the 970 was great for it's price, the 1060 also, and so is the 2060. Checking Newegg, you can get a decent 2060 for $349, cheapest Vega 56 is $10 cheaper. Overall, the 2060 matches the more expensive Vega 64.

Denial:

Idk midrange to me is definitely sub $400 and AMD has and continues to offer better value in that category.

Amd offers better value at RX-580 range and below. RX-590 is not that great. But around $400, there is RTX 2060. I think that objectively it wins over all other GPUs there. = = = = I was checking prices just now. And saw all those 1070(Ti) models on stock. All those 1080 on stock... Considering that RTX series are around for quite a few months, one would expect that most of higher GTX models would be gone. Quite troublesome... 1060 is blocked by RX-580 and RTX 2060 is perfect block to 1070(Ti). 2070 is actually better value than 1080 (with exception of ASUS Blower version which is cheaper). Kind of weird, right? At 1st All RTX cards were much more expensive than anyone would like. Then 2060 comes at reasonable price. And now even 2070 looks reasonable.

Let us wait for more serous results then a twitter post with a card running on drivers not released jet. There are more then a handfull of other things then raw timespy results, that would be important for my choice of future GPU. The compute performance have changed a couple of times already, ranging from 2080 to more then the RTX Titan, depending of what leak you look at. Remember the RTX performance boost in BF V after they fixed a RTX problem? i think it was more then 20%. I have seen a review where the game used more memory then the 2080TI had, I will look after it again, but if this gets more frequent during this year, the Radion 7 could be a good deal. Personally i am not super happy about my GTX 970 3.5GB + 0.5GB, so i am closer to a 7 then a 2080, if the pros and cons lign up perfectly.

TLD LARS:

Let us wait for more serous results then a twitter post with a card running on drivers not released jet. There are more then a handfull of other things then raw timespy results, that would be important for my choice of future GPU. The compute performance have changed a couple of times already, ranging from 2080 to more then the RTX Titan, depending of what leak you look at. Remember the RTX performance boost in BF V after they fixed a RTX problem? i think it was more then 20%. I have seen a review where the game used more memory then the 2080TI had, I will look after it again, but if this gets more frequent during this year, the Radion 7 could be a good deal. Personally i am not super happy about my GTX 970 3.5GB + 0.5GB, so i am closer to a 7 then a 2080, if the pros and cons lign up perfectly.

There is not a single game out there that will need more than 11gb of vram for a while.