AMD Radeon RX 3080 XT "Navi" to Challenge RTX 2070 at $330

[Super XP]

Only 8GB?
I was just convinced in another thread that this is not enough and future proof cards should have 16GB.

Forget about Future Proof Cards, this methodology has been proven wrong many times over again. In 5 years time, for example, todays 16GB won't be able to play PC Games of the future, the way they are meant to be played.

Leave the 16GB to the high end, what this industry needs is cost effective 8GB GPUs with some solid horsepower. Navi may not be perfect but it just might give the gaming industry what is badly needs till AMD finished up its new GPU design. That is Price / Performance.

The RTX 2070 when released was about $700. Well overpriced lol, ya no Thank You,

It seems AMD is stuck on GCN, the Age Old Design that single handedly disabled AMD's ability to properly compete in Performance per Watt. Hopefully there new GPU design dumps GCN in the garbage once and for all.

 

[medi01]

First of all, I was talking about GPUs, this news is only about GPUs so I don't understand why you had to bring up CPUs.

Because the argument went "AMD is a company" and it "never undercut by so much", not "AMD is company only when selling GPUs".

 

[THANATOS]

The RTX 2070 when released was about $700. Well overpriced lol, ya no Thank You,

Next time check the actual price.
RTX 2070 $499
RTX 2070FE $599
The price you mentioned was for RTX2080 non FE.

 

[Super XP]

Does It?
1. So because they ditched HBM for GDDR6 the price is right? HBM is costlier, but then they can have higher margins thanks to lower production cost from a single card.
2. So because Navi doesn't have specialized cores for RT It should be priced under a much weaker RTX2060? RT is not a great selling point at this point.
3. Why should Nvidia have a hard time? Nvidia can cut prices on Turing no problem, It's not like RTX2070 is much costlier to make than Navi. Vram is the same and even though RTX2070 has bigger die size It's built on a much cheaper manufacturing process.
I don't see here anything to justify such a low price If the performance is comparable to RTX2070.

You are assuming Nvidia priced its GPUs correctly. That is a wrong assumption.

 

[medi01]

Ryzen 7 1800X
Price: US $499
Release date: March 2, 2017

Core i7 7820X
Price: US $599
Release date: June 19, 2017

Not sure if trolling or simply stupid.
At the moment AMD dropped 8 core Ryzen, cheapest 8 core Intel was above 1k$.

 

[Super XP]

Next time check the actual price.
RTX 2070 $499
RTX 2070FE $599
The price you mentioned was for RTX2080 non FE.

I am quoting Canadian Pricing. lol,
I'll quote usd from now on.

 

[medi01]

non FE.

At this very moment, from NV site, non Fools Edition:

 

[zo0lykas]

Look guys what I found

 

[Ibotibo01]

The competitor for 470/570 was(is) 1060 3GB and not 1050Ti

I wanna say that When GTX 1050 Ti released in 2016, it's price was 140 Dollars. RX 470 costed 180 Dollars and it only pass %30 GTX 1050 Ti. GTX 1050 Ti is only 75W. Well, how much power RX 470 spends?
R9 390X-390=RX 580 for 2 years. I think that Nvidia defeats AMD. GTX 980 is same with GTX 1060 6GB.
AMD builts Ryzen for 4 years because of the fact that Jim Keller helps AMD and he left AMD. So what will we see in 2021?
In the same way, Raja koduri left AMD. I don't expect these GPUs are as good as RTX 2070 for 330 Dollars. Maybe it will same with GTX 1660 Ti(RX3080 non XT).




Why do you defend AMD?
Everyone is right for Nvidia's pricing method. I think that GTX 1650 should costs 130 Dollars.

 

[THANATOS]

Because the argument went "AMD is a company" and it "never undercut by so much", not "AMD is company only when selling GPUs".

You were quoting Assimilator as shown in your link and he was only talking about GPUs, he even mentioned competitor and not competitors as he should have If he was talking about both CPUs(Intel) and GPUs(Nvidia).

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Interesting. I wonder how power efficiency will play out on this though. Hopefully AMD doesn't squeeze things way above the sweetspot efficiency curve.

Yeah, power efficiency is super important because at an average cost of $0.12 - $0.15 per kWHr for electricity, an additional 100 watts consumed by a videocard could end up costing you an egregious $30/year extra...and we can't have that

 

[Manu_PT]

Yeah, power efficiency is super important because at an average cost of $0.12 - $0.15 per kWHr for electricity, an additional 100 watts consumed by a videocard could end up costing you an egregious $30/year extra...and we can't have that

Nice prices over there on US! Try again on EU countries now and you might aswell save enough for a new GPU in 3 years. Also I love my hardware to be ultra silent while maintaining good temps and not overspending on watercooling.

 

[Assimilator]

Intel CPUs, when Ryzen have come. Note the cheapest 8 core.

AMD Ryzen 1800x released at $499, half the price.

Good job comparing Ryzen (mainstream) with -E series (HEDT)!

 

[ensabrenoir]

.....the "I'm name my thing +1 higher than your thing" is getting lame to me. Have we become that gullible? Why is the whole "my new thing is just as good/ almost as good as your current thing" the norm? Where did the leap frogging each other each generation go? -- grumpy old man who hasn't had a cup of coffee.

 

[THANATOS]

Yeah, power efficiency is super important because at an average cost of $0.12 - $0.15 per kWHr for electricity, an additional 100 watts consumed by a videocard could end up costing you an egregious $30/year extra...and we can't have that

You have 2 similarly performing gpus: gpu A and gpu B. GPU A is $50 cheaper so you will buy It because It has better performance/price ratio so you get better worth for your money, but on the other hand after 2 years you have to to pay $60 more on bills than If you had chosen gpu B. So now which is the better card?
If you are not the one paying the bills then It's still GPU A, but If you pay them then It should be GPU B.

 

[spnidel]

So you're assuming the rumor is true then that also means you must assume the other part about the cost is true or is it just the bits that suit you? And if so then 1080/2070 performance for $330 is pretty darn good and better value /performance that anything nvidia has to offer, not to mention that navi 10 was always slated to be a midrange part from initial press statements going back as much as 2 years. So what is exactly is trash about a card that costs $330 that competes with a $500 one? Nothing to me.

according to the rumor, the top-end part doesn't beat the 2080, I don't care about the price.

So what is exactly is trash about a card that costs $330 that competes with a $500 one?

the efficiency. learn to read. if they need 2 8-pin power connectors with a god damn 7nm NODE ADVANTAGE to be on par with a 2070, then what is there to say about the efficiency of a potential higher-end card? nothing. it's going to suck even more ass unless they bump up the budget for their R&D department big time.

Anyway lets hope for the consumers sake that AMD has a decent product. And if someone wish AMD to fail just because he is an nVidia "follower", he is a complete R _ _ _ _ D!

good job calling a person that has R7 1700, a vega 64 with a fury x, a R9 290, and a HD6950 prior to it a "retard" for wanting better performance from AMD LOL

 

[Midland Dog]

Inb4 Nvidia GTX 10000

You get a free Dragonball Z sticker with it.



The price/perf was not his point, it was efficiency, and yes, that is pretty meh for 7nm, wouldn't you agree? Navi really needs that shrink to keep it somewhat reasonable, but this can't really last long on 7nm in the current state.

But... we haven't seen the actual numbers yet

unwise to piss off a sleeping giant, cant wait to see them bring out RTX4___ series and skull rape RTG on 7nm EUV

 

[BorgOvermind]

Is the “performs competitively with NVIDIA's $499 GeForce RTX 2070” the same as Radeon VII comparison to the 2080? Because to me it looks like the VII needs water-cooling to actually get close to the 2080.
One can hope that it’s the case. Having 93 % of the compute units of the Radon VII (if frequencies stays the same) it shuld place it on par with the 2070. But I am not holding my breath.

Depends on what you look at. In direct computing power the VII beats the 2080 by 30%.

 

[spnidel]

Depends on what you look at. In direct computing power the VII beats the 2080 by 30%.

come now, we all know what people mean when they say "performs competitively with [another graphics card]"

 

[Ruru]

Reminds me of Polaris in many ways. Well, in a good way.

 

[THANATOS]

the efficiency. learn to read. if they need 2 8-pin power connectors with a god damn 7nm NODE ADVANTAGE to be on par with a 2070, then what is there to say about the efficiency of a potential higher-end card? nothing. it's going to suck even more ass unless they bump up the budget for their R&D department big time.

They don't really need 2 8-pin connectors(375W including PCI express slot) for Navi. Radeon VII has 300W TBP so this should be under 250W at worst. If they have a brain then they won't clock It too high so It will be at the level of Vega56 which is 210W. That wouldn't be so bad.

 

[bug]

They don't really need 2 8-pin connectors(375W including PCI express slot) for Navi. Radeon VII has 300W TBP so this should be under 250W at worst. If they have a brain then they won't clock It too high so It will be at the level of Vega56 which is 210W. That wouldn't be so bad.

But there are two connectors in the picture. I can't tell what type, but even if they're both 6 pin, it's still more than what the RTX 2070 reference design needs.

 

[AltCapwn]

It's always the same hype; great performance for great price. Unfortunately, it always end up the same; sold at higher price, no availability, performance not that good.

Well, in canadian price.

 

[THANATOS]

I am quoting Canadian Pricing. lol,
I'll quote usd from now on.

Please do, so there won't be any misunderstanding next time.

 

[Space Lynx]

I thought I read somewhere we are getting some official AMD announcements today, May 7th? Am I remember wrong? Maybe I was thinking June 7th and just got the dates wrong, eh...