I think the Nvidiashills in this forum are going to be sent home with their tails between their legs once RDNA2 benchmarks and pricing are up - there's a reason for Nvidia's 3070/80 pricing 😉
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
The article only arrived at better than 3070 performance by assuming that it runs at boost the whole time. Actual, sustained performance will be much lower.
Lol @chung, your Nvpaymasters will be pleased, though saying "Actual, sustained performance will be much lower" places a giant, flashing Nvidiashill self-pointing arrow above your head. Rest assured, we'll get back to you once benchmarks are out 😉
Last edited:
- Sep 15, 2020
- 17
- 3
- 15
If nVidia were so confident regarding the 30XX, they wouldn't price them so attractively... I am pretty sure AMD's top card will pass the current 3080 10G and will be priced around $700 (say close to 3090 performance). But we are all just playing a guessing game, nobody has any solid info. Also, nobody mentions the huge cache (128 mb) Navi21 has.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,873
- 5,312
- 108,890
They aren't that attractive, the 2000-series was just a failure for not delivering much tangible benefit over the 1000-series (DLSS and RT that aren't really usable) and the 3000-series is here to correct that.
Releasing new products do you little good if most of your would-be customers cannot find sufficient value per dollar to bother upgrading.
I sure hope this time is different but every flippin' GPU that comes out its 2-3-4X faster that before until you bench a sweet of games and it's the bare minimum to sort of justify an upgrade. Unless you have money to burn its 2 to 3 gens before you can upgrade a GPU let alone a CPU.
They should cost $300-$400 tops anyway. More is just a money grab as too many people are willing to pay another $500-$1000-$2000 more for a few percent in performance.
I think they are more worried about the COVID economy and the fact that their performance bump is just a bump regardless of their 3090 is gaming card nonsense.
Last edited:
spongiemaster
Dignified
- Dec 12, 2019
- 2,578
- 1,582
- 16,060
3070 is going to be out in October, and we know the 3060ti ($400?) is on the way as well, probably just in time to compete with RDNA2 in November. Nothing AMD is going to be announcing on October 28th is going to go into a $700 build.
jeremyj_83
Glorious
- Aug 23, 2017
- 5,335
- 1,867
- 44,440
spongiemaster
Dignified
- Dec 12, 2019
- 2,578
- 1,582
- 16,060
It's going to be a while before Nvidia or AMD release a card in the $200-$250 range. The point was that Nvidia is releasing cheaper cards than the 3080 in the next month or two. Will anyone be able to buy them? Who knows.
RodroX
Dignified
- Aug 4, 2019
- 3,435
- 1,125
- 16,290
I never said or wrote that whatever AMD was bringing would make its way into a U$699 build.
If you read my post carefully you will see there are this little dot " . " at the end of each sentence, and each sentence is also in a diferent line.
drinking12many
Distinguished
- Apr 8, 2011
- 32
- 4
- 18,545
I rarely spent much over 350 for a video card, most of the games I play aren't super FPS dependent such as CIV6, EVE online, GTAV and some older games which even my RX580 8GB still performs mostly fine for. I do have a 4K and 2K monitor so I really just want a good uplift for those and obviously the RX580/480 (I actually have one of each, one per monitor) is getting long in the tooth. I am ready for a new generation card and chances are AMD will get my money again depending on pricing when I am ready to buy. I am not poor and could buy anything I want really, but for me, anything much over 300-400 is still too high vs other real-life responsibilities I have. Most people are probably the same as me hence why most sales are in that area. It is not a matter of could I afford more but do I really need too? At this point Big Navi MIGHT convince me to pay around 500 for my 4K monitor and then maybe the 580 will be moved just to my 2K monitor, and I will sell the 480 or put in kids computer or something) who knows, but I think many people are like me who sure they want things to run a bit better but also do not want to pay a ton...let the "elite" at the top end pay a crazy amount I will stay on the mid to lower end and enjoy the new architecture though.
yea, IF you are in the US, maybe, but else where, like Canada for example, the 3080s, START @ $960 cdn, that is NOT attractive as far as price is concerned. 3090? thats a 2k card minimum here.
and that is the same situation 90% or so of the people i know are in, they would love to get a 3080+ but, they cant justify the cost to get them cause of other financial responsibilities. out of about 10 people i know that play games, only 1 of them has something above a 2070, the most ended up having to get a 2060 or less. myself, im still on a 1060 strix. who ever thinks the 3000 series is priced attractively, should consider the prices they sell for out side the USA.
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
I don't think AMD has much of a choice though but to accelerate the release of the lower end parts. The higher end parts look sort of DOA. It looks like the 80-CU card is going to cost a fortune to make but still trail the 3070. The 40-CU card will be no match for the 3060. Got to maintain market share somehow.
Lol - you're certainly trying hard to pigeon hole yourself as the village idiot. Got to post what you've been paid to post.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,873
- 5,312
- 108,890
Nobody should care that AMD isn't matching Nvidia's performance tier-for-tier. What really matters is performance per dollar. As long as they are priced right for what they deliver relative to the next nearest best thing available, they will sell.
jeremyj_83
Glorious
- Aug 23, 2017
- 5,335
- 1,867
- 44,440
Just because a rumor has the Navi 21 with ~23 tflops vs 3080 ~28 tflops doesn't mean anything. Sure the 3080 has 30% more compute power in theory but that doesn't equate to actual performance. The 5700XT had 30% less compute power than Vega 64 but out preformed Vega 64 by about 15%. RTX 3080 has double the tflops as 2080Ti, but is only ~30% faster.
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
Performance per dollar looked good vis-a-vis Turing. A $700 card delivering better than 2080 Ti performance would have sounded pretty good a few months ago. Selling a card with 16 GB VRAM at prices that undercut the 3070 is going to be rough. Wouldn't surprise me if zero third-party manufacturers go along.
spongiemaster
Dignified
- Dec 12, 2019
- 2,578
- 1,582
- 16,060
If the 6900XT trails the 3070, AMD's driver team screwed up again. That said, people expecting it to compete with the 3090 are equally out of their mind. The 3080 is legitimately on average twice as fast as the 5700XT at 4k. So there is no way the 6900XT would even equal the 3080 if all AMD did was double the CU's to 80 since we know performance won't scale linearly, and not all specs, most importantly memory speeds, have not doubled with the CU count. We know there is an IPC improvement with RDNA2, and it will have to be pretty significant just to bring it inline with a 3080 on average.
People think because the 3090 is only 10-15% faster than the 3080, that AMD might even be able to compete with the 3090. Problem with that is that they are using the wrong math. AMD isn't working from a 3080 base, they're working from a 5700XT base. AMD has to double the performance of the 5700XT to equal the 3080, but from there isn't an additional 10-15%. Because AMD is starting from half the performance, the additional improvement to get to the 3090 is twice as much at 20-30%. There is no way RDNA2 has the IPC improvement to overcome the scaling deficiencies to match the 3080 plus another 20-30% more to match the 3090. This isn't a case of wait for the reviews before making assumptions, that IPC improvement just isn't going to happen.
cryoburner
Judicious
- Oct 8, 2011
- 5,778
- 1,398
- 34,840
That's actually within a few percent of the US MSRP. At the current exchange rate, $960 CAD = $717 USD and $2000 CAD = 1494 USD.
Of course, even in the US, most would not consider $700+ to be "attractive" pricing for a graphics card. When people say the 3080 is attractively priced, they are speaking in relative terms compared to the 20-series. The 3080 tends to be over 30% faster than the 2080 Ti, a card that was priced over $1000, with most models upward of $1200. And it can be over 50% faster than the 2080 Super, that came out just a little over a year ago at the same price point, or over 60% faster than the original 2080 from two years back. So, it's a pretty decent performance bump over the 20-series offerings, bringing performance more in line with were it should be at this point relative to the 10-series.
And that's likely to work it's way down the stack as well. The 3070 is expected to provide somewhere around 2080 Ti-level performance for around $500 USD, and there will likely be a 3060 or 3060 Ti with around 2080-level performance for around $350-$400, which would also make for a decent generational performance increase.
Does anyone really care about competing with the 3090 though? It's a terrible value for gaming, as Titan cards typically are, and few people who know how the hardware actually performs are going to consider it as a viable option. The 3080 is the enthusiast card to compete with, not the card that gets you 10% more performance for double the price.
Last edited:
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
The 6900 XT would have to beat the 3070 through a higher clock. That just ain't going to work when your main constraint is heat dissipation.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,873
- 5,312
- 108,890
Depends on the price. If AMD released something that performed on par with the 3090 but was priced linearly over the 3080 at $900-1000, it'd be perfectly fine - pricing lines up with performance, not much to complain about that you wouldn't already be complaining about on the next card down.
spongiemaster
Dignified
- Dec 12, 2019
- 2,578
- 1,582
- 16,060
Yes, plenty of people do. The size of the gap between the 3080 and 3090 defies logic even when adjusting for the halo tax. A 20GB 3080 isn't the answer. Paying more for no more performance is not an attractive answer. If AMD could release a 16GB card that performs within single digits of the 3090 and costs $850-900, there would definitely be a market for it that would basically kill off the 3090 as a gamer's option. The problem with anything AMD releases is that it is likely going to be way slower in ray tracing, which actually matters now, and they don't have any known competitor to DLSS which looks like a killer feature going into next generation.
still, starting at $950 for the 3080, no one i know that has more important financial responsibilities are even considering it now, they might go for the 3070, but the majority of them are also waiting to see what RDNA2 does, performs and is priced at.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti review: A proper high-end GPU- Started by Admin
- Replies: 47
-
-
News Intel principal engineer bemoans potential TSMC takeover, touts company's 18A tech advantage
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 41
-
News 12VHPWR adapters sporting heatsinks and thermal pads show how problematic the connector is
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 44
-
News Intel 8th, 9th and 10th Gen processors absent from Microsoft's Windows 11 24H2 CPU support list
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 46
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram