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
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."
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.
153 Comments on AMD Issues Official Statement on RX Vega 64 Pricing Woes
Why would anyone even raise A point about price fixing when there IS competition, by your logic?
AMD didn't lie about 399/499. An MSRP is not a random number that can be set casually.
The common conclusion now is that at that price the retailers have almost no margin. That's why the retailers are unhappy about it and are selling at much higher price.
If AMD had pulled an nVidia move and released only the silver card at $599, they would have avoided all these shits. But at least they are offering some $499, so I don't understand why ppl are pointing at AMD. It's not like you are buying the cards directly from AMD anyway.
In this case, the claim was AMD knowingly lowered the MSRP (presumably to "trick" reviewers into touting a better price:performance), but intended to raise MSRP once the initial batch was sold out. AMD has stepped in since than and clarified that was never the intention. Case closed, let's put this to rest now.
Edit: Unless you like the Streisand effect.
Nvidia at the time announced two prices. A FE and a MSRP. Was the MSRP even available at launch. Take a guess. NO. It was up-to the AIBs if they wanted to make it available and at what quantities. How many reviewers even benchmarked one of the MSRP cards when they became available? Havent found one in the TPU review database. Most reviewers reference the MSRP price pointing to it instead of the FE price of the card they actually reviewed.
What would that have to do with this where essentially, reviewers were duped??? They were told a price, but were not told it was only for a limited availability.
Also, FE price was for reference cards (now called FE), while the second price was for AIB cards. I really cant find the association between those two situations...
(Also edited that post a bit, note...)
I heard it as a single card and two packs. Nothing stopping a distro or retailer to shift stock from the lower price one to a higher one just to do what they do and say stock on the low one has run out look at what Newegg did with the 64 and bundles.
Aside from rumors has there been official word on it?
This isn't at the distro level, at least the out of the gate statements. Not ONE review mentions it was a temporary launch price, because we were not told such. AMD has said that was a launch price. They have also said they would be restocking that queue, however, I doubt it. NOW is where you get a lot of distro/retail price hikes, but not out of the gate... which skewed perception on the card in reviews. ;)
Official word on what?
Because you have AMD saying this..
From this I gather that the same reviewers that are now up in arms have proven to be incapable of doing their job properly in the past.
So at this point what are we even talking about anymore ? Reviewers and their incompetence or shady marketing tactics used by companies ? Because either way it looks like no one can be trusted.
AMD has said the rebates are in limited quantities. This piece of information, reviewers were not told.
It would have been easy to add a part in there saying 'get it while its hot as this price is limited to launch time and a set quantity'. Sadly, we sit here today, currently without anything close to MSRP. Between the rebates of a untold to reviewers - limited supply, a lack of available profits, and the stores NOW raising the price to compensate, the whole landscape is jacked up. While it is the store's choice to carry it or not, AMD not leaving squat on the bone, only after this "limited supply of rebates" leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Really, I have no idea what to believe. I have never seen a pricing structure like this, and my mind leads to dubious activities to deceive. Be it intentional or not, it is confusing at best and out right lies at worst.
They had 2 prices and SKUs about which they have been informed from day one. Failing to properly convey that through their reviews counts as incompetence in my book.
I know you as a level-headed guy but this time around it looks like you are trying to find excuses for the crap that Nvidia has done. I urge you take a better look and realize that what they did is on the same level as to what AMD has supposedly done now.
Again, NVIDIA has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. Please leave the straw man arguments at the door as it is NOT relevant. Nobody is turning a blind eye to the things NVIDIA has done in the past (you said that DAYS ago and was already addressed.. why are you deflecting, AGAIN?!!), but it really has nothing to do with NVIDIA. NOTHING. :)So do I...Where is the truth guys??????? Somewhere between my take and yours!!! :)
AIB over charged.
AMD rebated
OCUK now wants rebates FOREVER!!!
Has anyone outside of OCUK said anything similar?