Saturday, April 29th 2023
AMD Marketing Highlights Sub-$500 Pricing of 16 GB Radeon GPUs
AMD's marketing department this week continued its battle to outwit arch rival NVIDIA in GPU VRAM pricing wars - Sasa Marinkovic, a senior director at Team Red's gaming promotion department, tweeted out a simple and concise statement yesterday: "Our @amdradeon 16 GB gaming experience starts at $499." He included a helpful chart that lines up part of the AMD Radeon GPU range against a couple of hand-picked NVIDIA GeForce RTX cards, with emphasis on comparing pricing and respective allotments of VRAM. The infographic indicates AMD's first official declaration of the (last generation "Big Navi" architecture) RX 6800 GPU bottoming out at $499, an all time low, as well as hefty cut affecting the old range topping RX 6950 XT - now available for $649 (an ASRock version is going for $599 at the moment). The RX 6800 XT sits in-between at $579, but it is curious that the RX 6900 XT did not get a slot on the chart.
AMD's latest play against NVIDIA in the video memory size stake is nothing really new - earlier this month it encouraged potential customers to select one of its pricey current generation RX 7900 XT or XTX GPUs. The main reason being that the hefty Radeon cards pack more onboard VRAM than equivalent GeForce RTX models - namely the 4070 Ti and 4080 - therefore future-proofed for increasingly memory hungry games. The latest batch of marketing did not account for board partner variants of the (RDNA3-based) RX 7900 XT GPU selling for as low as $762 this week.
AMD's senior marketeer did not bother to include any of Intel's offerings in the comparison chart - Team Blue's Arc A770 16 GB graphics card can be purchased for $350, but this range-topper cannot trade blows performance-wise with the $499 RX 6800 GPU. AMD is currently busy working on lower specification cards in the Radeon RX-7000 family - set for tentative release windows in the coming months. It will be interesting to find out about intended memory allocations for the cheaper models, as well as a different marketing angle - how will Team Red address the fitting of smaller pools of VRAM to upcoming low and mid-range cards?
Source:
Sasa Marinkovic Tweet
AMD's latest play against NVIDIA in the video memory size stake is nothing really new - earlier this month it encouraged potential customers to select one of its pricey current generation RX 7900 XT or XTX GPUs. The main reason being that the hefty Radeon cards pack more onboard VRAM than equivalent GeForce RTX models - namely the 4070 Ti and 4080 - therefore future-proofed for increasingly memory hungry games. The latest batch of marketing did not account for board partner variants of the (RDNA3-based) RX 7900 XT GPU selling for as low as $762 this week.
64 Comments on AMD Marketing Highlights Sub-$500 Pricing of 16 GB Radeon GPUs
Of course, if you like 50 fps average and 25 fps low even in 1440p, it is possible. And you can be proud of that memory surplus.
One thing though, AMD bound themselves to release any new card with at least 12GB, if not 16GB, starting at the upcoming RX7600. Anything else and the memory boomerang will hit them harder than to NV.
The not-enough-memory issues, although without any good reason (broken and un-optimized games are not an example), touch a very weak spot at many people's belly.
AMD have a very good opportunity to exploit it, set 16GB as the new minimum, and undercut NV's RT advantage while charging the same high $ as NV.
Double the memory for the same level of raster preformance and cost will be a winner.
Now it can be found at 600-700 euros, depending on the implementation, a little more expensive than the 6700XT. But these old cards are no longer useful because 4070 is still there with the price. For 900-1000 euros you buy a 4070 Ti.
It looks like not 15 but 1.5years in the trade. Also the boot process, everyone and their dog forgets the third player. It not only AMD and the board vendor. It the modular nature of AMI ALASKA and their toolset where you compile the BIOS, so it is actually a communication in between these 3 to fix some sort of BIOS issues. I've had core BIOS problems in past, where the solution was to recompile the BIOS is newer, more bugfixed ALASKA base. It was untested, thus it explains why they are not so hasty doing it, as you simply can break more.
Well the morale of the day... AUTO does not mean stock. It has never been like that actually. You have know your stuff and dial in the needed values.
Regarding GPU's... a 500$ GPU for FHD gaming? Get a console for that. It should cost 300$.
The vanilla 6600 isn't really fast enough to need more than 8GB, but I'm 100% certain it's not going to be enough for something rumoured to be as fast as a 3070 for exactly the same reasons 8GB isn't enough for a 3070.
We could run 1440p on a GTX 1080 already. The core doesn't run out of juice quite so fast as your perception tells you when you're sitting with 8GB ;) But you keep repeating yourself, so maybe one day it might be true, despite the overwhelming majority experiencing the opposite. The GTX 1080 played Darktide on High at 40 FPS minimums with FSR @ 3440x1440. Close to 7GB VRAM, on 2016-age 'core'.
Its funny to see you now on the anti VRAM quest, repeating ad nauseam gpu core will run out before VRAM for everyone and how all cards have sufficient vram by default. Especially when you run one of the absolute worst balanced core-to-VRAM cards of the moment, its hilarious. Keep coping buddy. You order that blazing fast 4060ti yet? Its mighty efficient without its memory surplus.
Edit: And I'm afraid AMD will follow Nvidia (4060, 4060 ti) with the same 128 bit memory bus :banghead:
Hardware U? They have no peace since AMD ordered the sheep to focus on the amount of vRAM. What matters CUDA, NVENC, DLSS, Content Creation and others where AMD does not equal nVidia. Everyone must focus on vRAM because they will play in 10 years at 30 fps and the others, "greens", at 15 fps. :peace:
Did you get the idea?
If not, add to the result of the capture any game you want in which the 6900XT outputs 100 fps in 4K and you will have an average of 70+ fps. Great, right? Or not, if your favorite game is The Last of US.
You have an example above. All the games in which the 4090 does not reach 100 fps in 4k cause big problems for middle-mainstream video cards, and the older ones are totally outdated. To brag about a lot of memory on the video card, demonstrating with 50 fps in titles that require a minimum of 100 fps, is snobbery.