News AMD Announces 16-Core 32-Thread Ryzen 9 3950X for $749, 4.7 GHz boost, Launches in September

[jimmysmitty]

believe it

I don't believe any non third party unverified benchmarks. The problem with them is you have no idea what hardware and system settings they were run on. Was the CPU stock or overclocked? Was the Intel system setup similarly?

Its all just hype junk and the only people who believe them are hardcore fanboys who no matter what want their favorite company to win.

I can agree with it being on the same level IPC wise. Intel hit a wall a long time ago and AMD is finally catching up to that wall. But 2 less cores and 4 less threads winning multicore benchmarks? That seems like a stretch. Especially by such a large margin.

 

[Redneck5439]

No we have an unverified leaked benchmark with no information on the system setup at all. It is akin to a rumor. Take it with a grain of salt.

Its also synthetic benchmark results. I doubt that real world performance would have a 16 core beating an 18 core in a highly threaded optimized program much like Intels 8700K wouldn't beat AMDs 2700X in the same scenario.

The tru performance will be revealed when third parties get the processors to test and we have more than just a screen from an unverified source.

I do totally agree with you, we need the independent benchmarks and reviews. From all early accounts though Zen 2 and processors like the R9 3900X and 3950X seem to be very impressive. I know that AMD is more than likely cherry picking what they want to get out, but it still gives us a glimpse and probably best case scenario of what the new processors will be capable of.

While I am most interested in the upcoming R9 3900X, I am also interested in seeing how the new 8 core R7 3700X and 3800X compare head to head with the i9 9900K and 9900KS (the 9900K @ 5.0Ghz).

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Im most interested in seeing if ryzen overclocks well.
If so, I would like to see an 8 core 3700x @5ghz vs an 8 core 9900k @5ghz. I would like to see the performance and how much power each CPU consumes.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I do totally agree with you, we need the independent benchmarks and reviews. From all early accounts though Zen 2 and processors like the R9 3900X and 3950X seem to be very impressive. I know that AMD is more than likely cherry picking what they want to get out, but it still gives us a glimpse and probably best case scenario of what the new processors will be capable of.

While I am most interested in the upcoming R9 3900X, I am also interested in seeing how the new 8 core R7 3700X and 3800X compare head to head with the i9 9900K and 9900KS (the 9900K @ 5.0Ghz).

They absolutely are cherry picking. I was looking at their slides and they only compare to the 9900K in some areas and then to the 9920X for power numbers. Its similar to the Bulldozer marketing slides. The only difference is that this CPU won't fall flat.

And if the claims are correct, matching Intels IPC, then up to 8 cores, 16 threads Intels 9900KS should be the fastest mainstream desktop chip due to the clock speed advantage. After that I would expect AMD to have an advantage in high thread count optimized programs.

Im most interested in seeing if ryzen overclocks well.
If so, I would like to see an 8 core 3700x @5ghz vs an 8 core 9900k @5ghz. I would like to see the performance and how much power each CPU consumes.

I too want to see if Zen 2 can overclock well. At least better than Zen/Zen+, which I attribute to the 14nm LPP process.

Either AMD set a certain TDP to stay in or they maxed the process out again.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Unfortunately, AMD RX5700 and 5700xt aren't going to overclock well. AMD set strict power limits.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Unfortunately, AMD RX5700 and 5700xt aren't going to overclock well. AMD set strict power limits.

I had read that AMD was having clock issues with Navi which makes me fear that Zen 2 will be another pushed to the wall CPU with almost no OCing headroom.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

The 5700xt 50th boost clock is nearly 2ghz while the 2080ti is around 1600mhz.
Clocks dont seem like much of an issue to me.

I'm aware these GPUs are priced differently and perform differently tho.

 

[cryoburner]

I doubt that real world performance would have a 16 core beating an 18 core in a highly threaded optimized program much like Intels 8700K wouldn't beat AMDs 2700X in the same scenario.

One big difference worth pointing out here is that 8 cores vs 6 cores equals 33.3% more cores, whereas 18 cores vs 16 cores only equals 12.5% more cores, so we're talking about a much smaller relative difference in core count.

Also, while I don't think it's known for certain what the multi-core boost clocks of the Ryzen 3950X will be when all cores are active, the i9-9980XE only boosts to 3.8GHz under those conditions. With it's greater efficiency, it's very possible that the 16-core Ryzen might be able to maintain higher boost clocks, as it will likely be drawing less power and in turn producing less heat than the i9. It also seems like Zen 2's IPC might be a bit ahead of Intel's, and even AMD's existing processors have been shown to get a bit more performance out of their implementation of SMT than Intel's get out of Hyperthreading.

So sure, I could definitely see AMD's $750 processor pulling ahead of Intel's $2000 processor in many heavily-threaded workloads, and since its announced single core boost is higher than what the 9980XE has to offer, it will likely outperform it in many lightly-threaded workloads as well. Of course, this could certainly vary depending on the task at hand, as I could see some things about the i9's architecture and its access to quad-channel memory allowing it to retain an edge in some software. But again, that's a huge price difference any way you look at it. It also seems likely that it won't be long before new Threadripper processors are offering even greater multi-core performance.

Im most interested in seeing if ryzen overclocks well.
If so, I would like to see an 8 core 3700x @5ghz vs an 8 core 9900k @5ghz. I would like to see the performance and how much power each CPU consumes.

5Ghz overclocks seem pretty unlikely. If Zen 2 could do 5Ghz, I'm pretty sure AMD would have pushed at least their single-core boosts closer to that level. At E3, they had some overclockers push the 16-core 3950X to an all-core 5Ghz overclock, but that was on liquid nitrogen. Perhaps there were some power limitations or something at play due to the high core count, but I find it unlikely that an 8-core 3700X is going to hit 5Ghz without exotic cooling. Of course, if the IPC manages to be a bit better than Coffee Lake, that might not matter, since you may not need to hit the same clocks for a similar level of performance.

 

[jimmysmitty]

One big difference worth pointing out here is that 8 cores vs 6 cores equals 33.3% more cores, whereas 18 cores vs 16 cores only equals 12.5% more cores, so we're talking about a much smaller relative difference in core count.

Also, while I don't think it's known for certain what the multi-core boost clocks of the Ryzen 3950X will be when all cores are active, the i9-9980XE only boosts to 3.8GHz under those conditions. With it's greater efficiency, it's very possible that the 16-core Ryzen might be able to maintain higher boost clocks, as it will likely be drawing less power and in turn producing less heat than the i9. It also seems like Zen 2's IPC might be a bit ahead of Intel's, and even AMD's existing processors have been shown to get a bit more performance out of their implementation of SMT than Intel's get out of Hyperthreading.

So sure, I could definitely see AMD's $750 processor pulling ahead of Intel's $2000 processor in many heavily-threaded workloads, and since its announced single core boost is higher than what the 9980XE has to offer, it will likely outperform it in many lightly-threaded workloads as well. Of course, this could certainly vary depending on the task at hand, as I could see some things about the i9's architecture and its access to quad-channel memory allowing it to retain an edge in some software. But again, that's a huge price difference any way you look at it. It also seems likely that it won't be long before new Threadripper processors are offering even greater multi-core performance.


5Ghz overclocks seem pretty unlikely. If Zen 2 could do 5Ghz, I'm pretty sure AMD would have pushed at least their single-core boosts closer to that level. At E3, they had some overclockers push the 16-core 3950X to an all-core 5Ghz overclock, but that was on liquid nitrogen. Perhaps there were some power limitations or something at play due to the high core count, but I find it unlikely that an 8-core 3700X is going to hit 5Ghz without exotic cooling. Of course, if the IPC manages to be a bit better than Coffee Lake, that might not matter, since you may not need to hit the same clocks for a similar level of performance.

Except Lisa said they should be on level IPC wise. And even if its only 12.5% more cores it still is an entire core plus the SMT threads.

I have no doubt their boost is probably higher for 16 cores on 7nm process but still beating a higher core and thread count CPU in multicore performance by 33%? That seems a bit overkill. If AMD had better IPC and was killing Intels $2000 dollar HEDT CPU, they absolutely would have priced it way higher than $750.

Most people don't remember but AMD prices where they think it lays with Intel. The Athlon 64 series was priced to match and in some cases almost more than Intel was during their day. Made sense as it performed better, well until Core 2 came. Remember the QuadFX setup? It was in no way cheaper than a Q6600 yet used more than double the power, created way more heat and performed overall worse. The FX 9590? Came out as a $900 CPU yet much cheaper CPUs of the time were either matching or beating it.

If AMD is putting it at $750 then I beleive they know it lands above the 9900K overall, mainly multicore, but below the 9980XE in heavily threaded workloads. Otherwise they would have priced it higher. No company is going to lose revenue. No matter what people think AMD is a company first. Always have been and always will be.

 

[Redneck5439]

One big difference worth pointing out here is that 8 cores vs 6 cores equals 33.3% more cores, whereas 18 cores vs 16 cores only equals 12.5% more cores, so we're talking about a much smaller relative difference in core count.

Also, while I don't think it's known for certain what the multi-core boost clocks of the Ryzen 3950X will be when all cores are active, the i9-9980XE only boosts to 3.8GHz under those conditions. With it's greater efficiency, it's very possible that the 16-core Ryzen might be able to maintain higher boost clocks, as it will likely be drawing less power and in turn producing less heat than the i9. It also seems like Zen 2's IPC might be a bit ahead of Intel's, and even AMD's existing processors have been shown to get a bit more performance out of their implementation of SMT than Intel's get out of Hyperthreading.

So sure, I could definitely see AMD's $750 processor pulling ahead of Intel's $2000 processor in many heavily-threaded workloads, and since its announced single core boost is higher than what the 9980XE has to offer, it will likely outperform it in many lightly-threaded workloads as well. Of course, this could certainly vary depending on the task at hand, as I could see some things about the i9's architecture and its access to quad-channel memory allowing it to retain an edge in some software. But again, that's a huge price difference any way you look at it. It also seems likely that it won't be long before new Threadripper processors are offering even greater multi-core performance.


5Ghz overclocks seem pretty unlikely. If Zen 2 could do 5Ghz, I'm pretty sure AMD would have pushed at least their single-core boosts closer to that level. At E3, they had some overclockers push the 16-core 3950X to an all-core 5Ghz overclock, but that was on liquid nitrogen. Perhaps there were some power limitations or something at play due to the high core count, but I find it unlikely that an 8-core 3700X is going to hit 5Ghz without exotic cooling. Of course, if the IPC manages to be a bit better than Coffee Lake, that might not matter, since you may not need to hit the same clocks for a similar level of performance.

There was an article I read a little while back detailing a leak from an engineering sample 8 core Ryzen 3000 that detailed the Ryzen processor could outperform the Intel i9 9900K @ 5Ghz when it was at 4.4Ghz. I think that was an all core Cinebench test, and we have seen that Ryzen processors tend to scale much better in muli-threaded workloards. Now Cinebench is a synthetic benchmark, and its not "gaming performance" but there is a lot more to a high end build than just gaming. I expect to see the new Ryzen's IPC nearly equal to or slightly better than Intel's in gaming, but take a lead when it comes to productivity. If this holds true then we will see the i9 9900KS hold the "gaming crown" as it will be able to hit 5Ghz out of the box and possibly 5.2, 5.3Ghz overclocked. This will give the 9900KS a "gaming edge" due to extremely high clock speeds, however the 9900KS will run extrememly hot (high end cooling stacked onto the cost of an already overpriced processor) and consume more power.

Productivity is where you may just see the Ryzen 8 core processors outperform even the i9 9900KS as Ryzen processors scale very well and there are doubtless improvements that have been made to make them scale even better. Then there is fact that the i9 9900KS will more than likely be a $500 component and that places it in the category of the R9 3900X, and the 12 core 24 thread processor will just thump the 9000KS in productivity and if you enjoy streaming game play. AMD has "set the stage" very much in their favor.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I dont know what to believe and what not to. Just waiting on 7/7.

 

[Redneck5439]

Except Lisa said they should be on level IPC wise. And even if its only 12.5% more cores it still is an entire core plus the SMT threads.

I have no doubt their boost is probably higher for 16 cores on 7nm process but still beating a higher core and thread count CPU in multicore performance by 33%? That seems a bit overkill. If AMD had better IPC and was killing Intels $2000 dollar HEDT CPU, they absolutely would have priced it way higher than $750.

Most people don't remember but AMD prices where they think it lays with Intel. The Athlon 64 series was priced to match and in some cases almost more than Intel was during their day. Made sense as it performed better, well until Core 2 came. Remember the QuadFX setup? It was in no way cheaper than a Q6600 yet used more than double the power, created way more heat and performed overall worse. The FX 9590? Came out as a $900 CPU yet much cheaper CPUs of the time were either matching or beating it.

If AMD is putting it at $750 then I beleive they know it lands above the 9900K overall, mainly multicore, but below the 9980XE in heavily threaded workloads. Otherwise they would have priced it higher. No company is going to lose revenue. No matter what people think AMD is a company first. Always have been and always will be.

While it is true that all companies are in business to make money some gouge the "living sh*t" out of their loyal "just take my money" fan base. It is true that under different management AMD has released some overpriced processors that just made no sense at all (ie FX 9590 @ $900, which left us all just open jawed saying WTF). However AMD since the launch of Ryzen has constantly released high performance processors that both undercut the competition form Intel and in many situations outperformed said competition. Now this is due to the fact that AMD is playing catch up and are trying to gain market share parity (or at least come close to it) and undercutting the competition is a good way of gaining market share. Then there is the fact that for many years Intel has overpriced their processors and bled their consumers dry. I think it would also be interesting to see just how much it costs Intel to produce a finished processor as compared to AMD. AMD seems to have a much more cost effective method, which would also aide in their ability to undercut Intel. Taking all that into consideration I can see AMD releasing a processor that undercuts Intel's processors while equaling or even beating their performance.

 

[Redneck5439]

I dont know what to believe and what not to. Just waiting on 7/7.

That is what is best. Who knows what leaks are true and which are totally bogus. We won't truly know anything till 7/7 which is getting so very close now. The only thing that I have ever tried to "push back" on is the idea that no matter what AMD does and no matter what they release they can never equal, or God forbid, beat Intel. While no one but true insiders know for sure if the new Ryzen can or can't to just have the position of "they are AMD, they suck, and can never equal or outperform Intel" is just beyond absurd. Some people are ignoring the fact that AMD is now on 7nm while Intel is releasing yet another 14nm refresh. There is no reason not to believe that AMD (on 7nm) now has the IPC advantage and can equal or even outperform Intel (14nm) while at lower clock speeds. I for one can't wait for the independent reviews, however I got to say that I am going to buy 12 cores and 24 threads for $500 even if it only had the same IPC as Zen+ (12nm) as it would still be an insane value. Saying that the IPC is without a doubt better than Zen+ its simply a "no brainer".

 

[NightHawkRMX]

It might actually take a week or so later untill all of the testing is complete.

I wonder if anyone has the chips now and can verify these tests? Guess we wont know thanks to stupid ndas.

 

[jimmysmitty]

While it is true that all companies are in business to make money some gouge the "living sh*t" out of their loyal "just take my money" fan base. It is true that under different management AMD has released some overpriced processors that just made no sense at all (ie FX 9590 @ $900, which left us all just open jawed saying WTF). However AMD since the launch of Ryzen has constantly released high performance processors that both undercut the competition form Intel and in many situations outperformed said competition. Now this is due to the fact that AMD is playing catch up and are trying to gain market share parity (or at least come close to it) and undercutting the competition is a good way of gaining market share. Then there is the fact that for many years Intel has overpriced their processors and bled their consumers dry. I think it would also be interesting to see just how much it costs Intel to produce a finished processor as compared to AMD. AMD seems to have a much more cost effective method, which would also aide in their ability to undercut Intel. Taking all that into consideration I can see AMD releasing a processor that undercuts Intel's processors while equaling or even beating their performance.

Undercut, yes. Undercut by less than half? No. There is no way they would undercut Intel by that much.

However they have at times made bad pricing judgements now too. The 5700XT is aiming for the RTX 2070 with an MSRP of $499. You can get a Gigabyte Windforce RTX 2070 for $479. The RX 5700XT will have some initial markup, especially the aftermarket versions and while it will do ray tracing it wont have the dedicated hardware. Yes RT is not a major thing but it would be hard to argue paying $20 more (or more for aftermarket style ones) for less. Then take into account the RTX Supers will be launching soon and are supposed to take the current MSRP slots while pushing the others down its a DoA part. If these came out around the same time sure. But they are a badly timed launch and MSRP.

Still if AMD priced the 3950X I believe they think it will better compete with the i9 9920X, which is MSRP much closer than the 9980XE. Just my thoughts. Will wait till TH has the parts to truly test them.

 

[Redneck5439]

It might actually take a week or so later untill all of the testing is complete.

I wonder if anyone has the chips now and can verify these tests? Guess we wont know thanks to stupid ndas.

I would assume that the reviewers will receive the chips at least 3, 4 days ahead of launch. That way we can have day one reviews, which make for a much smoother launch. Unfortunately, for all we know they could have the chips now and because of the ndas they can't tell us a thing.

 

[Redneck5439]

Undercut, yes. Undercut by less than half? No. There is no way they would undercut Intel by that much.

However they have at times made bad pricing judgements now too. The 5700XT is aiming for the RTX 2070 with an MSRP of $499. You can get a Gigabyte Windforce RTX 2070 for $479. The RX 5700XT will have some initial markup, especially the aftermarket versions and while it will do ray tracing it wont have the dedicated hardware. Yes RT is not a major thing but it would be hard to argue paying $20 more (or more for aftermarket style ones) for less. Then take into account the RTX Supers will be launching soon and are supposed to take the current MSRP slots while pushing the others down its a DoA part. If these came out around the same time sure. But they are a badly timed launch and MSRP.

Still if AMD priced the 3950X I believe they think it will better compete with the i9 9920X, which is MSRP much closer than the 9980XE. Just my thoughts. Will wait till TH has the parts to truly test them.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what AMD is doing with the 5700XT. It will be priced too closely to the RTX 2070 and from the current information we have doesn't outperform it enough to make it a compelling purchase over the RTX 2070 saying that it lacks ray tracing. The RTX 2070 has ray tracing and it may become the next "shadow effects" in games. Ray tracing may never catch on, however if it does I would opt for the card that supports it while having slightly less overall performance at the same price point. Just my two cents, but I think the 5700XT was a failed attempt to match the RTX 2080 or 2080Ti and when they fell short AMD just tried to make the best of it. One thing is for sure AMD's processors are much more compelling and much more competitive than their GPU line at this time.

As far as pricing goes, AMD has done such pricing in the past, ie the R9 290X when it released with better performance than the GTX Titan at half the cost. For a while it was the best purchase that could be made, it ran hotter and consumed more power but could match and even beat the best Nvidia had to offer at half the cost. Again AMD was playing catch up and wanted to "make waves" and gain market share. A processor that outperforms its Intel counterpart for half the cost, AMD has done it before and wouldn't surprise me if they did it again. They still have a lot of ground to make up if they are going to come close to market share parity.

I think that the R9 3900X was designed to compete against both the i9 9900K and the i9 9920X while the R9 3950X was designed to compete against the i9 9900K and the i9 9960X. AMD is approaching the marketplace with the statement we can game with the best and then we can turn around and with the same processor match and beat the high core count extreme Intel line in productivity. Both processors are comparing gaming benchmarks vs the 9900K and then they compare productivity benchmarks to their Intel high core count counterparts. What AMD is marketing is basically saying we do it all with one processor while Intel has a specific processor for gaming and one for extreme creativity, we can do both on one AMD processor at an incredible price.

 

[cryoburner]

However they have at times made bad pricing judgements now too. The 5700XT is aiming for the RTX 2070 with an MSRP of $499. You can get a Gigabyte Windforce RTX 2070 for $479.

Except the 5700 XT actually has a $449 MSRP. You are looking at the price of the special "50th Anniversary Edition", which is priced higher, and in turn clocked a bit higher. And of course, we still don't know exactly how these cards will perform. If it outperforms the 2070 by a bit in most games, some might consider that as being more worthwhile than paying slightly more for raytracing hardware that is only currently supported in a few titles, and has a tendency to kill performance at resolutions higher than 1080p.

Your argument might make a bit more sense for the 5700 (non-XT), which has 10% of it's cores disabled. It's meant to compete more with the 2060, and although its supposed to be faster than that card, with an MSRP of $379 it's also priced higher, so it's less clear whether the value will be there. Again though, we'll have to see reviews to know for sure.

And sure, Nvidia may be releasing some updated cards as well, but details for them are not yet known for certain, and are still just rumors at this point. It's certainly possible that their cards could potentially offer better value though, at least until prices get adjusted. AMD wasn't exactly all that aggressive with their launch pricing for these cards. I would have liked to see both of them priced around $50 less, though again, perhaps reviews might show them in a better light.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Hopefully these updated cards drop the pricrs of the 2060 to something affordable.
The 2060 is already dropping price.

 

[Redneck5439]

Except the 5700 XT actually has a $449 MSRP. You are looking at the price of the special "50th Anniversary Edition", which is priced higher, and in turn clocked a bit higher. And of course, we still don't know exactly how these cards will perform. If it outperforms the 2070 by a bit in most games, some might consider that as being more worthwhile than paying slightly more for raytracing hardware that is only currently supported in a few titles, and has a tendency to kill performance at resolutions higher than 1080p.

Your argument might make a bit more sense for the 5700 (non-XT), which has 10% of it's cores disabled. It's meant to compete more with the 2060, and although its supposed to be faster than that card, with an MSRP of $379 it's also priced higher, so it's less clear whether the value will be there. Again though, we'll have to see reviews to know for sure.

And sure, Nvidia may be releasing some updated cards as well, but details for them are not yet known for certain, and are still just rumors at this point. It's certainly possible that their cards could potentially offer better value though, at least until prices get adjusted. AMD wasn't exactly all that aggressive with their launch pricing for these cards. I would have liked to see both of them priced around $50 less, though again, perhaps reviews might show them in a better light.

No I was actually talking about the 5700XT as compared to the RTX 2070. I bought my RTX 2070 shortly after launch, it cost $499 and I got Battlefield V with it, which is a $60 value and I was going to purchase anyway. That basically made the price of the GPU $439 and it has ray tracing capabilities if that technology in the next couple of years "comes into its own". I typically upgrade my CPU and GPU "as needed" -for my purposes that means I upgrade my CPU when there is a worthy upgrade and I upgrade my GPU when my current one is getting bogged down and can no longer handle "modern gaming". I do content creation (a lot of video and picture editing and rendering) and I also game. I have been very happy with my 2700X, but am now planning on a 3900X upgrade. I won't upgrade my GPU till it has trouble with my editing needs or can no longer handle the modern game titles. The GPU I have should be good for the next two years, maybe three and who knows a year from now ray tracing in games might be just as important as shadow effects are now. When shadow effects first came out it was a technology a lot like ray tracing, neat but kills performance and not very many titles supported it. Now shadow effects are common place and don't kill performance in most titles. If ray tracing progresses like shadow effects then I'll have a GPU that can handle it for basically the same price as the 5700XT that will be launching in a month, yet I've enjoyed the performance of my 2070 for the past several months. That is why I think the 5700XT isn't very compelling, it doesn't undercut the competition enough given it has no ray tracing and is launching months after the RTX line. The new AMD GPUs also have no new entry into the high end enthusiast 2080, 2080Ti range. I was expecting more from AMD, however their GPU line isn't as competitive right now as their CPU line.

Like the CPUs we will have to wait for the independent reviews to fully judge the new GPUs, but as it stands now the new 5700XT just doesn't seem like a compelling product. I probably have this opinion as I have been using my RTX 2070 for several months, easily overclocked to 2115Mhz on the core clock and 8000Mhz on the memory clock which gives it performance nearly equal to the GTX 1080Ti. I will be very interested to see how the 5700XT and the 2070 "super" compare to my current card in its overclocked state.

 

[cryoburner]

No I was actually talking about the 5700XT as compared to the RTX 2070.

I was actually quoting jimmysmitty there, but this forum software sometimes fails to match the correct name with the quoted text when you select a quote within a post that has quotes of its own. I'll fix that tag now.

That post listed a $499 MSRP for the XT, and claimed it cost "$20 more" than what you could get a particular model of 2070 for on sale, while offering less, but that isn't particularly accurate, especially if it ends up being slightly faster. At least, unless Nvidia releases some updated cards and adjusts the pricing of their existing models, which may be happening. AMD could have avoided such a situation and created more buzz for their cards had they gone with more aggressive pricing to begin with. Most seemed to consider Nvidia's 20-series cards as being somewhat overpriced at launch, or at least not bringing much additional value to the table over the previous generation, and AMD appears to have missed an opportunity to build hype around the pricing for their new cards.

As for bundled software, while that may be relevant to some, many undoubtedly won't be looking to buy the game in question at the same time as a graphics card upgrade, so the value will vary from one person to the next. To some, the game might be worth $60, but others might consider it worth far less if they didn't plan to buy it right at launch anyway. And in fact, a couple retailers put Battlefield V on sale for $40 a little over a week after it launched, likely due to them being concerned about offloading copies due to the game's relatively lukewarm reception compared to what had been anticipated. And now, the game can be had for even less direct from EA.

When shadow effects first came out it was a technology a lot like ray tracing, neat but kills performance and not very many titles supported it. Now shadow effects are common place and don't kill performance in most titles.

However, a big part of not killing performance is down to newer cards handling such effects better, and it remains to be seen how well first-generation raytracing hardware will hold up in future games. It seems very likely that the cards coming out a year or two from now will have more RT cores at their disposal.

 

[Redneck5439]

I was actually quoting jimmysmitty there, but this forum software sometimes fails to match the correct name with the quoted text when you select a quote within a post that has quotes of its own. I'll fix that tag now.

That post listed a $499 MSRP for the XT, and claimed it cost "$20 more" than what you could get a particular model of 2070 for on sale, while offering less, but that isn't particularly accurate, especially if it ends up being slightly faster. At least, unless Nvidia releases some updated cards and adjusts the pricing of their existing models, which may be happening. AMD could have avoided such a situation and created more buzz for their cards had they gone with more aggressive pricing to begin with. Most seemed to consider Nvidia's 20-series cards as being somewhat overpriced at launch, or at least not bringing much additional value to the table over the previous generation, and AMD appears to have missed an opportunity to build hype around the pricing for their new cards.

As for bundled software, while that may be relevant to some, many undoubtedly won't be looking to buy the game in question at the same time as a graphics card upgrade, so the value will vary from one person to the next. To some, the game might be worth $60, but others might consider it worth far less if they didn't plan to buy it right at launch anyway. And in fact, a couple retailers put Battlefield V on sale for $40 a little over a week after it launched, likely due to them being concerned about offloading copies due to the game's relatively lukewarm reception compared to what had been anticipated. And now, the game can be had for even less direct from EA.


However, a big part of not killing performance is down to newer cards handling such effects better, and it remains to be seen how well first-generation raytracing hardware will hold up in future games. It seems very likely that the cards coming out a year or two from now will have more RT cores at their disposal.

Totally agree with you on the ray tracing (and needing more RT cores in the future), however I can also remember back in the day when shadow effects first came out it totally tanked my gaming experience with the effects enabled. I kept on with that card (can't remember which one I had now as I have owned both AMD and Nvidia GPUs) and in subsequent titles I was able to enable shadow effects without a huge hit to performance. Sometimes software optimizations can have huge impacts. We will have to see how it plays out, but at some point needing a bigger badder card is just a fact. At some point my current 2070 won't be able to keep up with the new standard of modern gaming and it will be retired, I just hope by then the competition is tight enough we aren't looking at ~$500 mid range and ~$1200 high end GPUs. It would be nice to see AMD really give Nvidia tight competition and have mid range cards ~$300 and high end cards ~$600... One can always dream

 

[jimmysmitty]

Except the 5700 XT actually has a $449 MSRP. You are looking at the price of the special "50th Anniversary Edition", which is priced higher, and in turn clocked a bit higher. And of course, we still don't know exactly how these cards will perform. If it outperforms the 2070 by a bit in most games, some might consider that as being more worthwhile than paying slightly more for raytracing hardware that is only currently supported in a few titles, and has a tendency to kill performance at resolutions higher than 1080p.

Your argument might make a bit more sense for the 5700 (non-XT), which has 10% of it's cores disabled. It's meant to compete more with the 2060, and although its supposed to be faster than that card, with an MSRP of $379 it's also priced higher, so it's less clear whether the value will be there. Again though, we'll have to see reviews to know for sure.

And sure, Nvidia may be releasing some updated cards as well, but details for them are not yet known for certain, and are still just rumors at this point. It's certainly possible that their cards could potentially offer better value though, at least until prices get adjusted. AMD wasn't exactly all that aggressive with their launch pricing for these cards. I would have liked to see both of them priced around $50 less, though again, perhaps reviews might show them in a better light.

The current rumor is that the RTX Supers will take the current MSRP brackets for nVidia and the others will drop by about $100 in MSRP. That would put the RTX 2070 at a MSRP of $399 and I am sure some will be cheaper. That would undercut the RX 5700XT and will still boast additional features the 5700XT does not have.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Even though I use a machine with an AMD CPU daily and recently purchased a Polaris GPU as an upgrade, I will not purchase NAVI unless they offer better value products at lower prices. Maybe GDDR5 or something.
If super drops the prices of RTX 2060 no supers, I may consider that as an upgrade later on.

 

[Redneck5439]

Even though I use a machine with an AMD CPU daily and recently purchased a Polaris GPU as an upgrade, I will not purchase NAVI unless they offer better value products at lower prices. Maybe GDDR5 or something.
If super drops the prices of RTX 2060 no supers, I may consider that as an upgrade later on.

I'm not sure if the "Super" Nvidia GPUs will drop the cost of the existing lineup by much. I can see Nvidia dropping the cost a little, say the RTX 2070 dropping to $450 - $470, but I think it more likely Nvidia will charge a premium for the new Super line rather than drastically cut the MSRP on their existing lineup. Nvidia will likely only drop the MSRP on the RTX 2060 and 2070 slightly because will will continue to stress that these GPUs support ray tracing and Nvidia has the only GPUs that have ray tracing capabilities. They will use that as an excuse to keep their existing 2060 and 2070 at either the same MSRP or slightly above the MSRP of the new 5700 and 5700XT.

Nvidia and Intel are two companies with very similar approaches to doing business. They very simply hate to lower the costs of their products especially if they still hold an edge somewhere no matter how small of an edge that may be. They also have no issues with charging way more than they need to for their flagship products. Its not to say that their products aren't good, because they are, however they are overpriced. Both companies try their level best to soak every dime out of us that they possibly can, which is why we should all be praying AMD can keep up the pressure on both companies. Competition results in lower costs and better products, lets hope we never go back to overpriced processors offering a whopping 4, 5% IPC gain over the previous generation with the same core count as the previous generation...