And how AMD's RDNA3 chiplets could seriously undercut Nvidia
AMD likely
could undercut Nvidia, but I'm not sure they will, at least not by much. Maybe the AMD of a few years ago would have, but lately they seem to be reducing costs, but not actually passing those savings on to consumers. If they have a card roughly as fast as the 4090, then it wouldn't be surprising to see them price it similarly. And if they have anything notably faster, it might even be priced higher. I would like to see them undercut Nvidia by a decent amount, but I have some doubts that's going to happen, considering the not-so-competitive pricing of their new Ryzen lineup.
A decade ago, the GTX Titan released at $1,000 MSRP
Today, the RTX 4080 at $1,200.
Bringing multiple times the performance, for 20% higher price.
That's not a great example though, seeing as the Titan was generally considered a terrible value at the time, and was barely any faster than the GTX 780 that launched around the same time. Most sites didn't even bother reviewing Titan cards, and Nvidia generally didn't send out review samples. Of course, the 3090 was much the same relative to the 3080, or at least would have been if it weren't for crypto-shortages pushing the 3080's pricing up to a similar level.
And while the Titan was the top-end consumer card, meant for those willing to spend an exorbitant amount to get leading performance even if it only meant a few extra frames, that doesn't apply to the 4080 16GB, which is going to be well behind the 4090 in terms of performance. Though even there, the 4090 doesn't seem to be as far ahead of the 4080 cards as it probably should be, considering it has nearly double the hardware resources. The scaling seems really bad in Nvidia's charts, perhaps due to power and heat limitations.
And the 4080 12GB and 4080 16GB are weird. They are totally different cards, but given the same name. Not only do they have different VRAM amounts, but they use entirely different graphics chips. The 16GB card has 27% more shader cores, 33% more cache, 40% more TMUs, and 46% higher memory bandwidth. The "4080 12GB" was probably meant to be more of a "4070", but the marketing department likely decided that people would be up in arms if the "x80" card cost $1200 and the "x70" cost $900, so they did some shenanigans with model names once again to make the price hikes not look quite as bad. So now we have two different cards with the same name, and people will see reviews about how fast the 4080 16GB is, and buy the 12GB model not realizing its actually a different card at a lower performance level.
People needs to remember the Radeon HD4870.
I wish AMD went back to that time in how they did things instead of trying to blow up their cards for a few extra frames. Same with nVidia, mind you.
That was more ATI though. AMD had already bought the company prior to the launch of that series, but owned it less than two years at that point, and the companies were likely still operating mostly separate from one-another. The cards were still branded as "ATI" cards, and no doubt were designed by the same crew that had been designing ATI's prior cards up to that point. By now, the Radeon division has undoubtedly been integrated more into AMD, so it's arguably a different company.
not brand loyalty for me. It's the terrible review at gpubench which made me choose nvidia. Fighter 6600XT and Asus RTX 3050 are both priced at around 18,500 pesos (approx 320 usd) brand new with warranty, in the local store I went to a few months ago. Purchased the RTX 3050 without a second thought, even though I knew the 6600XT is the stronger gpu.
Userbench is so bad. Their writeups for hardware can hardly be considered "reviews", and are more like the factually incorrect rantings of a 12 year old fanboy in some tech forum. : P And their benchmarks are synthetic, often okay for getting a rough idea of the relative performance of hardware released years apart, and generally decent at comparing cards using identical architecture, but often inaccurate when comparing different architectures. And they clearly have an agenda against AMD, perhaps for stock manipulation, if not getting paid off directly by their competitors. When comparing cards currently on the market, it's a much better idea to look at actual reviews that test performance in real games and make at least some attempt to be objective with their recommendations.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram