Monday, August 21st 2017

AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes

Update: Related to this story, feast your eyes on Newegg's deal of the day, with a reference, standard Sapphire RX Vega 64 for $689.99 with two "free" games. I don't think I've ever seen such a conturbated launch as this. Also, considering the scope and content of the article, I will be updating the tag for this piece as an Editorial.

There has been somewhat of an uproar in recent times regarding AMD's lack of clarity on pricing of their newly-launched Vega 64. While AMD themselves told reviewers and consumers that their RX Vega graphics cards would be available for $399 (Vega 56) and $499 (Vega 64), recent events have, at the very least, cast some doubts on Vega's supposedly clean-cut pricing. Some popular reviewers and YouTubers have even gone so far as to say they won't be accepting any more samples from AMD due to a perceived slight at the erroneous information provided by the company; when someone reviews and analyses a product based on a fixed price-point advanced by a company, and then that pricing seems to have turned out nothing more than smoke and mirrors... People's work is put out the window.

Now, AMD has come out to put rumors of false Vega pricing announcements to rest. Except the skeptic in me remains, well... skeptic. Here's what AMD has said: "Radeon RX Vega 64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand. Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega 64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega 64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega 64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega 64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days."
Do you agree with me when I say that AMD isn't committing to a base $499 pricing for RX Vega 64? Expressions like "limited launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega 64 at SEP of $499" don't really clear the air as to when (if) such pricing will be restocked. At best, AMD seems to only be saying that they'll restock some token offerings for their RX Vega graphics cards, if nothing else, simply looking to curb doubts on RX Vega's MSRP. Yes, it does start at $499 - but there is no true availability at that pricing, because AMD only restocks limited quantities at that pricing through (apparently) rebates and other offerings to retailers. And AMD left a crystal clear sentence of "we'll be restocking Vega SKUs at the announced $499 pricing" conspicuously absent.

The issue is that multiple retailers have come out, one way or another, to say that AMD have, in fact, issued changes to the RX Vega 64's retail pricing. OC UK's Andrew Gibson (Gibbo), the source we quoted in our first story that put forward some doubts on AMD's real RX Vega pricing intentions, gave KitGuru some clarifications on his initial claims on OC UK's forums: "Launch price was $499 with NO games for the Black card, as outlined to us by AMD as a launch only price. AMD allowed us to sell a set amount at this price, which was several hundred, clearly not enough as they were sold out in approximately 15 minutes. After this the regular price was $599 with FREE games for both the black and silver cards, $699 for the aqua card plus taxes." Another retailer, this time Norwegian komplett.no, also said that AMD's RX Vega 64 stock to be sold at MSRP $499 was limited to 275, as the company was "allowed to sell at a favorable price at launch. The RX Vega 64 version we had for sale was in a limited edition of this price and will unfortunately not be put up for sale again."

OcUK's Andrew Gibson went on to say that AMD's launch price of £449 "(...) is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units. As such $599 is now the minimum." The retailer representative also went on to say that "Unfortunately AMD did not make the launch pricing plan clear at all to the press or the consumer, which has caused a lot of confusion, if we could sell cards at £449 and make money, they'd be at that price. If that was the case we probably would have sold around 5,000 units now at OcUK, whereas the reality is we've sold a little over 1000."

Over at Gamers Nexus, Steve Burke has voiced what sources inside the retailer family have been quietly putting out: that AMD did allow retailers to sell limited quantities of the RX Vega 64 SKU at $499 through time and quantity-limited rebates so as to allow retailers to sell part of their Vega 64 cards at AMD's announced pricing. AMD's Radeon Packs have apparently seen the highest alocation of Vega graphics cards on AMD's part, because this allows the company to recoup their losses at selling RX Vega 64 - and soon, RX Vega 56 - at their announced MSRP. It seems that AMD's BOM for their monolithic, 484 mm² dies and exotic HBM2 memory (as well as R&D expenses, naturally) have increased RX Vega's manufacturing cost to the point where (sources are claiming; take this with a grain of salt) AMD loses more than $100 on each RX Vega consumer card sold. Perhaps it's only a coincidence that Vega's retailer pricing increase covers both AMD's estimated manufacturing costs, as well as retailer's margins. Perhaps not. But there has been enough smoke dotting the aftermath of Vega's rise that it's likely there is fire.
Sources: IO Tech, via Videocardz, JayzTeoCents @ Twitter via Reddit user wickedplayer494, KitGuru, Tek.No, Gamers Nexus
Add your own comment

153 Comments on AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes

#26
bug
Vya DomusI don't think I am missing anything.

Every time I say Vega is not for gaming but for datacenters everyone loses their minds. There you have it , this situation is the ultimate argument for that.

AMD didn't have to beat anyone , more precisely they cannot afford to beat anyone this round , they don't have the resources. RX Vega fulfilled it's purpose as far as AMD is concerned , and that is to make people know they are still in the game. Not top dog but still alive. What they'll do next remains to be seen.
Because it's the excuse you make for Vega. If that was true and it was indeed made for datacenters, AMD would have stopped at Vega FE.
And if you really want to see how a piece of silicon aimed squarely at datacenters looks like, take a look at Volta today ;)
Posted on Reply
#27
Vya Domus
bugBecause it's the excuse you make for Vega. If that was true and it was indeed made for datacenters, AMD would have stopped at Vega FE.
And if you really want to see how a piece of silicon aimed squarely at datacenters looks like, take a look at Volta today ;)
Spare me the BS , I have seen these void of any substance comments a million times.
Posted on Reply
#28
bug
Vya DomusSpare me the BS , I have seen these void of any substance comments a million times.
Yes, because when you say "Vega is not for gaming" it reeks of substance. My bad.
Posted on Reply
#29
Vya Domus
bugMy bad.
Good thing it's all cleared up now. :)
Posted on Reply
#30
arbiter
OcUK's Andrew Gibson went on to say that AMD's launch price of £449 "(...) is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash, AMD rebated us to hit $499 on a set amount of units.
FordGT90ConceptI certainly hope they're not losing $100 per card @ $500. If it is, no wonder NVIDIA is avoiding HBM2 like the plague and AMD did an epic stupid.
They are pretty much doing everything to run the company in to the ground it seems at this point.
DeathtoGnomeswww.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202300
price listed is $689.99
so according to the article thats $100 for the games, games I dont want have no interest in playing. That leaves $90 for price gouging or whatever excuse there is for Newegg to tack on, or is this AMD's aggressive price "structuring"?
Even with the 1070/1080 launch and little to no stock i didn't seem newegg ever sell and ship a card over MSRP. So even though you say they are gouging that could be the real price they are from them. Amazon is known to gouge bad with their 3rd party selling they try to sucker you in to using.
dozenfuryI'd give AMD more benefit of the doubt, if not for the fact that they specifically explained that their reason for the long Vega delay (and over a year after the NV 1070/1080 release) was to make sure that there was plenty of inventory so this would not be an issue.
The long delay 15+months was cause to build inventory becomes total load after 3-6 month's. Everyone knew HBM2 chips got massively delayed to start with so it wasn't cause of inventory but cause they couldn't release them but i doubt lack of HBM2 chips were the main reason.
Posted on Reply
#31
sweet
arbiterEven with the 1070/1080 launch and little to no stock i didn't seem newegg ever sell and ship a card over MSRP. So even though you say they are gouging that could be the real price they are from them. Amazon is known to gouge bad with their 3rd party selling they try to sucker you in to using.
I beg your pardon?

1070/1080 is infamous for their FE price scheme. For at least 2 months after released, it was still difficult to get a card at FE price, not to mention their "MSRP" price.

So while blaming AMD, let's not pretend that the same thing didn't happen with nVidia.
Posted on Reply
#32
arbiter
sweetI beg your pardon?

1070/1080 is infamous for their FE price scheme. For at least 2 months after released, it was still difficult to get a card at FE price, not to mention their "MSRP" price.

So while blaming AMD, let's not pretend that the same thing didn't happen with nVidia.
nvidia was up front about price of them before launch, and i didn't say gouging didn't happen. I said i didn't see it really on newegg shipped and sold cards. I bought my evga card for MSRP off newegg whewn i happen to catch new stock coming in which was gone within an half an hour.
Posted on Reply
#33
EarthDog
sweetI beg your pardon?

1070/1080 is infamous for their FE price scheme. For at least 2 months after released, it was still difficult to get a card at FE price, not to mention their "MSRP" price.

So while blaming AMD, let's not pretend that the same thing didn't happen with nVidia.
that was inflated prices from vendors.

This is waaay different and pretty misleading. They didnt tell a soul these were sale prices out of the gate, but msrp. so everyone went with it. Now, they say it was on sale at that price...
Posted on Reply
#34
LogitechFan
lel, AMD took a page from apple's book I see -- undersupply a shitty product and claim "shortages" = higher prices, higher profits, more publicity.

AMD is a mining company now almost entirely and is at a mercy of coin gods, the stock has stopped reacting to anything but coin prices months ago, as every investor knows AMD has no appealing offers in any segment: epyc is a failure that had no chance to begin with, ryzen will get crushed by 8th gen and is a so-so product in and of itself, TR - niche product with super low volume and even lower margins, vega... well, we all know how it has ended. Watch abysmal Q3 and Q4. Hopefully it will be the end of the amd's failed gambit and things will get back to normal, which is about $7 a share.
Posted on Reply
#35
Dave65
gdallskBy sacrificing themselves for the greater good in the process? I don't think I have heard anyone doing this before.
AMD won't be sacrificing anything..
Posted on Reply
#36
sweet
EarthDogthat was inflated prices from vendors.

This is waaay different and pretty misleading. They didnt tell a soul these were sale prices out of the gate, but msrp. so everyone went with it. Now, they say it was on sale at that price...
I don't understand why people blame AMD for the price-jacking. AMD never said that their price was changed. Actually "their price" is just MSRP = suggested price. In real life, the retailers can sell at whatever price they want, as long as there are people buying at that price, and AMD can't do anything about it. Given the current profitable mining scene, I don't think the retailers will lower the price in the near future.
Posted on Reply
#37
DeathtoGnomes
arbiterEven with the 1070/1080 launch and little to no stock i didn't seem newegg ever sell and ship a card over MSRP. So even though you say they are gouging that could be the real price they are from them. Amazon is known to gouge bad with their 3rd party selling they try to sucker you in to using.
I called Newegg several times about trying to get a card and they never said anything about that being the normal price or without the rebate. IF the rumors are true and that is normal pricing, only miners will be willing to pay those prices. IF its just newegg with their new Chinese bosses inflating prices just for profits, guess I wont be making any major buys from them.

As far as Nvidia sales goes, you should do more research, they have pulled this same crap before, infact, they are still overpricingfleecing you on many cards.
sweetI don't understand why people blame AMD for the price-jacking. AMD never said that their price was changed. Actually "their price" is just MSRP = suggested price. In real life, the retailers can sell at whatever price they want, as long as there are people buying at that price, and AMD can't do anything about it. Given the current profitable mining scene, I don't think the retailers will lower the price in the near future.
Etailers are setting their own pricing now that the so called rebate period is over. I agree that if people are still buying at inflated prices, the price tags might even go up more.
Posted on Reply
#38
SKD007
today I got a notification from NewEgg that Vega 64 is available and when i checked, it was $599 with 2 games and as soon as i placed order, it jumped to 699 :/

anyways I am happy as I got mine placed and it says packing now.. should get it in 3 days. :)
Posted on Reply
#39
RadFX
Vega is a miners card and they are welcome to it at that price.

I need a RX570x2 or RX580x2 for $500 Canadian. That will never happen though I'm sure.

Also, if AMD was serious about getting their cards in the hands of gamers which seems doubtful, they are going to have to do something such as making their gaming cards impossible to mine with.
Posted on Reply
#40
Fluffmeister
I definitely want Wolfenstein II, so hopefully thanks to the money grabbing mining bastards gobbling up the mighty Vega I'll be able to pickup a cheap key from eBay.

Every cloud and all that... :P
Posted on Reply
#41
Divide Overflow
LogitechFanlel, AMD took a page from apple's book I see -- undersupply a shitty product and claim "shortages" = higher prices, higher profits, more publicity.
Evidently you don't realize that by US law, AMD can have very little to do with the final retail price of their product. They set a Manufactures Retail Suggested Price (MRSP) and sell their chips to licensed vendors. The vendors sell their product to distributors and retailers who ultimately set their own pricing. Any profits from higher prices is scooped up mainly by the retail side.

I'm a bit puzzled by this article. Surely the staff realize the above as well?
Posted on Reply
#42
NC37
Overpriced is overpriced. This reeks of Fury all over again. This is not how to release GPUs and expect to make any ground on nVidia.
Posted on Reply
#43
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Especially considering the fact they didn't have a DDR5X chip in the works in parallel. They put all of their eggs into one basket and proceeded to throw said basket off of a cliff.
Posted on Reply
#44
Basard
I dunno, feels like diesel vs gasoline... nVidia being the gasoline, of course. Sure, diesel gets the job done and can haul a lot of shit, but who's really got all that shit to haul--give us a gas real gas-powered sports car if we wanna go fast.
FordGT90ConceptEspecially considering the fact they didn't have a DDR5X chip in the works in parallel. They put all of their eggs into one basket and proceeded to throw said basket off of a cliff.
Wasn't there some issue with DDR5X being that the card would have used even more power than it does now?
Posted on Reply
#45
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
It would have yes, but they could at least sell it for reasonable prices and in volumes.
Posted on Reply
#46
Athlonite
Ha you bitches are tripping over a tiny price increase come to New Zealand and buy one (Vega 64) for the lowly price of $1,147.36 NZD ($828.97 USD) then you can bitch n moan about cost
Posted on Reply
#47
Kohl Baas
TBH, I'm quite sceptical about everything Gibbo says after all the BS he drained down the pipes to higher the demands of Vega. I cluding the notorious 70-100 Eth. heshrate...

I wouldn't be surprised if all of this would be to put the blame on AMD, because they can bear it.

And the idea of reviewers boycotting AMD is just stupid. Like anyone would harm their own businnes (ie:money) for a non-existent morality. If paying customers/reviewers would act by morality, nVidia would never aquire such a high marketshare after all they done harming both the industry and their users...
Posted on Reply
#48
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
A lot of other retailers are mirroring what Gibbo has said, including Newegg. That said, Gibbo was completely wrong on the hashrate.
Posted on Reply
#49
Totally
EarthDogthat was inflated prices from vendors.

This is waaay different and pretty misleading. They didnt tell a soul these were sale prices out of the gate, but msrp. so everyone went with it. Now, they say it was on sale at that price...
How I understand it is that was and is stated MSRP, but the the $499 sku atm doesn't really exist and was only created to make the barrier of entry to Vega appear to be at that price and be reviewed accordingly, which is just fucking dishonest, as it seems according to the they're all but abandoning black sku in favor of the other two higher priced skus. Since the black vega will not be in stock for the time being and until future notice Vega's real MSRP starts at whatever Vega 64 LE was quoted at.
Divide OverflowEvidently you don't realize that by US law, AMD can have very little to do with the final retail price of their product. They set a Manufactures Retail Suggested Price (MRSP) and sell their chips to licensed vendors. The vendors sell their product to distributors and retailers who ultimately set their own pricing. Any profits from higher prices is scooped up mainly by the retail side.

I'm a bit puzzled by this article. Surely the staff realize the above as well?
See above.
Posted on Reply
#50
ratirt
efikkanNo, Vega is nowhere near what AMD intended. And where is the 4× in performance per watt they promised?
Vega was intended to be the gaming king, but it turns out the performance per clock is worse than Fiji. Those who have been following it closely noticed a change in narrative around the demo at the end of last year, when AMD realized Vega10 would be in the GP104 league. Ever since then they've tried to focus on the "value" of Vega (with FreeSync) and it being "good enough".
The perf per clock maybe it's worse but the actual performance is better than Fiji's. I think that is what matters here. With that perf per watt I agree. It's a bummer for AMD and it's nowhere near what they have promised.
I remember that when AMD announced vega it was hitting on the best GPU that was back then which is 1080. If TPU had a wish list of Vega competing with 1080 TI ( a lot people hoped it would) That's great but it wasn't built for that puprpose and AMD stated that very clear. Vega competing with top tier card which was GTX 1080.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 21st, 2024 12:34 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts