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

#51
nemesis.ie
Agreed and indeed it does do that and is also faster in compute tasks. Is it even faster than the ti in compute? I think it might be.

And yes, some of us want both.

Getting one at a good price is the real sticking point.
Posted on Reply
#52
efikkan
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 ;)
As a note; The primary concern for GPUs in datacenters is energy consumption. This is why Vega10 could never be suited for datacenters. Datacenters typically put 8 GPUs in a rack, so those extra watts becomes a huge cost in terms of cooling. Vega FE is a workstation card for development and content creation, a few extra watts there matters less.
Posted on Reply
#53
bug
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...
In all honesty, if you're not Apple, you can't dictate pricing anyway. You can gouge supply, but the price is always in the hands of sellers.
Posted on Reply
#54
EarthDog
Except where on day one you say price a, then two weeks later price b which is +100...

To me, this dwarfs the 970 shenanigans...
efikkanAs a note; The primary concern for GPUs in datacenters is energy consumption. This is why Vega10 could never be suited for datacenters. Datacenters typically put 8 GPUs in a rack, so those extra watts becomes a huge cost in terms of cooling. Vega FE is a workstation card for development and content creation, a few extra watts there matters less.
it can be a lot more than that, actually... 8 gpus can fit in 8u of rackspace... there is still 34u left (cooling dependent of course)
Posted on Reply
#55
vega22
EarthDogExcept where on day one you say price a, then two weeks later price b which is +100...

To me, this dwarfs the 970 shenanigans...
the longer amd take to come out and say what is happening the worse it looks too :|
Posted on Reply
#56
Vya Domus
What is happening is that they are trying to sell something that cost a lot more to make than the price would suggest. Retailers weren't happy that they tried to force them to sell these things at a price that would've yielded them little or close to no profit. Retailers don't give a shit that you want to see your product being sold at the price you want , they only care if they can make a profit from it.
Posted on Reply
#57
EarthDog
This isnt a retailer price hike...
Posted on Reply
#58
bug
Vya DomusWhat is happening is that they are trying to sell something that cost a lot more to make than the price would suggest. Retailers weren't happy that they tried to force them to sell these things at a price that would've yielded them little or close to no profit. Retailers don't give a shit that you want to see your product being sold at the price you want , they only care if they can make a profit from it.
Retailers' margins have nothing to do with the MSRP covering or not the manufacturing price.
Retailers simply look at how much inventory they have and how many people are asking for a specific SKU. If you have 2 SKU and 4 people asking for them, you can still price gouge even in the absence of overwhelming demand.

Now, if your SRP does not cover your manufacturing costs, that puts you a tight spot. You don't actually want to sell many SKUs, because that will incur significant losses. But if you limit stock, you allow retailers to price gouge (see above) and you still suffer from the public backlash.
Posted on Reply
#59
Vya Domus
EarthDogThis isnt a retailer price hike...
It kind of is , no retailer on this planet will happily sell your product for say 500$ if they get it for the exact same price or even more. AMD simply cannot get these to a low enough cost in order to reach MSRP , hence the retailer will just price them at whatever the hell they want.
OcUK's Andrew Gibson went on to say that AMD's launch price of £449 "(...) is not possible, $499 is below what they cost us direct from the board partners by a large chunk of cash
This is both AMD's fault and retailer's fault. AMD, that they try to sell something in a way that yields no profit to anyone. And retailers for astronomical price gouging , you don't seriously think the 1300$ liquid cooled Vega 64s are AMD's fault ?
Posted on Reply
#60
EarthDog
It kind of isnt... at all. AMD said price is going up. What was the launch price, retailers were told is actually a sale.

I dont care about the retailers and how they jack the price up. Im stritcly talking about the amd price hike.
Posted on Reply
#61
Vya Domus
EarthDogI dont care about the retailers and how they jack the price up. Im stritcly talking about the amd price hike.
So tell me how much of that price hike comes from AMD and how much comes from retailer price gouging ?

At the end of the day it's simple : AMD is selling an expensive piece of silicon for less than it's worth. They thought they can do that , well , they can't. There's a reason why Nvidia's comparable silicon , P100 , is priced 5000$ a minimum. ( yes I know it's not the same market , but I am talking strictly from a manufacturing cost point of view)
Posted on Reply
#62
EarthDog
It is simple... they mislead reviewers and jacked prices up $100. Due to lack of inventory, retailers are jacking that up even further.

I really don't care much about profits, etc... just saying AMD was shady as hell NOT telling any reviewer the launch price was a sale. Misleading... period... no matter what profits are made/not, and no matter what retailers are doing on top of it. AMD's action is an entirely different level of shady IMO.
Posted on Reply
#63
bug
Vya DomusSo tell me how much of that price hike comes from AMD and how much comes from retailer price gouging ?

At the end of the day it's simple : AMD is selling an expensive piece of silicon for less than it's worth. They thought they can do that , well , they can't. There's a reason why Nvidia's comparable silicon , P100 , is priced 5000$ a minimum. ( yes I know it's not the same market , but I am talking strictly from a manufacturing cost point of view)
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
Posted on Reply
#64
Vya Domus
EarthDogIt is simple... they mislead reviewers and jacked prices up $100. Due to lack of inventory, retailers are jacking that up even further.

I really don't care much about profits, etc... just saying AMD was shady as hell NOT telling any reviewer the launch price was a sale. Misleading... period... no matter what profits are made/not, and no matter what retailers are doing on top of it. AMD's action is an entirely different level of shady IMO.
Now I understand why you are all pissed. You don't care that prices are jacked up at all , you just care that part of the reason is AMD's failure. Cool , in general , I for one couldn't care less who screws me over , I just care that I get screwed over. Seems like not everyone thinks that way though.
Posted on Reply
#65
medi01
EarthDogt is simple... they mislead reviewers and jacked prices up $100.
I'm not buying into "reviewers drama", who checks reviews for card pricing, ffs?
Posted on Reply
#66
Vya Domus
medi01I'm not buying into "reviewers drama", who checks reviews for card pricing, ffs?
Yeah , I agree , people look at reviews for information with regards to performance , not price , that's always subject to changes.

It's not like anyone just presses the order button without looking at the god damn price tag just because of a review.
bugBwahahahahahahaha!!!
Back with the intelligent comments I see. Keep it up.
Posted on Reply
#67
EarthDog
  • Prices being jacked up from retailers are normal... supply and demand. AMD misleading reviewers and the public about the actual msrp is different level shit.
medi01I'm not buying into "reviewers drama", who checks reviews for card pricing, ffs?
lol, msrp is msrp.

Seemingly denying the fact they lied through their teeth, or minimizing it because retailers dont have stock amd raised prices, blows my mind... :)

Conclusions in reviews were based off that price for god sakes...

How you two are seemingly absolving them of fault by deflecting is disappointing.
Posted on Reply
#68
bug
medi01I'm not buying into "reviewers drama", who checks reviews for card pricing, ffs?
Probably nobody. But people do tend to skip over reviews and consider only the conclusion and/or the final score. Surely you can see how adding $100 to the cost will change those.
Posted on Reply
#69
medi01
bugBut people do tend to skip over reviews and consider only the conclusion and/or the final score. Surely you can see how adding $100 to the cost will change those.
EarthDoglol, msrp is msrp.
Oh, really?
Remind me, in how many months did 1070/1080 hit announced (non FE) MSRP?

Oh, and jay2shitstorm's shitstorm about it.
Posted on Reply
#70
EarthDog
But nvidia didnt lie about it medi... that was a retailers price hike, not a bait and switch msrp + retailer hike like we are seeing here.
Posted on Reply
#71
Vya Domus
EarthDogHow you two are seemingly absolving them of fault by deflecting is disappointing.
Read back my comments , I most certainly agreed that AMD failed hard on this. But just as usual this is blown way out of proportion.
Posted on Reply
#72
EarthDog
Sorry, not absolving, minimizing. The scope is farther reaching than price. They manipulated review resuots because of this. Yoy have reviews based on this price and now it's different... making review conclusions different...

You feel it is blown out of proportion because its hidden under natural new card/no stock price hikes...

I guess a wolf in sheepskin is a sheep...or, just dont care because we cant tell its a wolf under the blanket of retailer/new card/availability...
Posted on Reply
#73
bug
medi01Oh, really?
Remind me, in how many months did 1070/1080 hit announced (non FE) MSRP?

Oh, and jay2shitstorm's shitstorm about it.
1080 and 1070 didn't have any competition, why would you expect them to stick to MSRP? FE was Nvidia's way of telling resellers: this is what we think you can really charge. Still a crappy move, but nothing unexpected given the circumstances.
Posted on Reply
#74
Vya Domus
Jacked up prices are jacked up prices. Whether it is AMD or retailers behind it , I as a user don't care and don't have control over it anyway , I only get to see the final price tag. If it fits my needs I'll buy it , if it doesn't I wont. For something this basic ,yes , it is blown way out of proportion I am not minimizing anything.

Now if you have any expectations beyond that , then yes it might matter to you.
Posted on Reply
#75
EarthDog
Oh but you are minimizing it...the fact they lied to reviewers and because of that, you have dozens of reviews painting the cards in a particular light when the reality is conclusions could be dramtically different because of price.

Again, wolf in sheepskin is a sheep...??

Oh well, agree to disagree on this. :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 21st, 2024 11:29 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts