Next Gen GPU's will be even more expensive

[HuLkY]

There are no bad products, only bad prices​

A bad price can make a good product a bad one. RTX 4080 for 1199USD wasn't swallowable at all, couple of months later the 4080 Super for 999 was so many times out of stock...at this level it's just a monopoly game, no one is winning except for nV, or if you can land an epic deal on a card through some system of points, rewards, cash-back, you name i.t

 

[AusWolf]

what does focusing mean? why couldn't they have the 7900xtx (their most sold card according to steam) and focus on the "market where people actually buy things", they just had to price the cards better, that's were they failed.

i don't get this focus argument at all. If priced better they could even outsell Nvidia.

There are no bad products, only bad prices​

It's all about costs vs profit. Just because the 7900 XTX is their most sold product, it doesn't mean it's profitable. Midrange is always the most profitable sector, that's where you sell good enough volumes and with a low enough development cost to earn a living. Making a halo product for the select few is something that Nvidia can afford (because people will buy it no matter what, based purely on brand reputation), but AMD can't.

 

[HuLkY]

It's all about costs vs profit. Just because the 7900 XTX is their most sold product, it doesn't mean it's profitable. Midrange is always the most profitable sector, that's where you sell good enough volumes and with a low enough development cost to earn a living. Making a halo product for the select few is something that Nvidia can afford (because people will buy it no matter what, based purely on brand reputation), but AMD can't.

I am so freaking tempted to drop the ball on nV - I am having a GT730 ffs - and trying to snag an Intel B580 for 249USD... even though it won't fit my usage but for what nV is practicing now, they can keep that fancy 5080 16GB for 1500USD!!

 

[Bomby569]

It's all about costs vs profit. Just because the 7900 XTX is their most sold product, it doesn't mean it's profitable. Midrange is always the most profitable sector, that's where you sell good enough volumes and with a low enough development cost to earn a living. Making a halo product for the select few is something that Nvidia can afford (because people will buy it no matter what, based purely on brand reputation), but AMD can't.

again that argument doesn't make sense. What does the cost of development on the 7900xtx has to do with them not selling all the other cards?
They are just making excuses.

Them not wanting to lose money or whatever on a 9999xtx has nothing to do with the low market share.

 

[AusWolf]

I am so freaking tempted to drop the ball on nV - I am having a GT730 ffs - and trying to snag an Intel B580 for 249USD... even though it won't fit my usage but for what nV is practicing now, they can keep that fancy 5080 16GB for 1500USD!!

I buy way more PC parts that I need because I'm curious, but I haven't bought a single Nvidia product since the 2070. Ampere was scalped, Ada came overpriced by default, and I'm not expecting anything different from Blackwell, either. Not to mention, I'm on Linux now, where AMD's support is much better (the driver comes in the kernel), which limits my options.

I'm happy with my 6750 XT for now, but when the 9070 XT comes out, I'll get one to satisfy my curiosity, unless it ends up being a complete turd, in which case, I might settle with a 7800 XT, which I've had one before, but had to sell because of financial reasons.

 

[HuLkY]

I buy way more PC parts that I need because I'm curious, but I haven't bought a single Nvidia product since the 2070. Ampere was scalped, Ada came overpriced by default, and I'm not expecting anything different from Blackwell, either. Not to mention, I'm on Linux now, where AMD's support is much better (the driver comes in the kernel), which limits my options.

I'm happy with my 6750 XT for now, but when the 9070 XT comes out, I'll get one to satisfy my curiosity, unless it ends up being a complete turd, in which case, I might settle with a 7800 XT, which I've had one before, but had to sell because of financial reasons.

I regret selling my EVGA 3080 FTW3 that I got from EVGA queue system for 799USD, the last card from nV that had some value in it....
I will wait to see what nV has for us, then decide I miss gaming on my PC and nV just made it harder for gamers..

 

[AusWolf]

again that argument doesn't make sense. What does the cost of development on the 7900xtx has to do with them not selling all the other cards?
They are just making excuses.

Them not wanting to lose money or whatever on a 9999xtx has nothing to do with the low market share.

There are three RDNA 3 chips: a huge one, a relatively large one, and a small-medium-ish one. That's three times the development costs. If only one of them is selling, that's not very good. Not to mention, I think AMD intended the 7900 series to sell for a higher price, only that it didn't end up being fast enough.

Making only two chips is cheaper, so even if the product ends up not selling well, at least the losses are somewhat minimised. It's the safe approach, if you will.

I regret selling my EVGA 3080 FTW3 that I got from EVGA queue system for 799USD, the last card from nV that had some value in it....
I will wait to see what nV has for us, then decide I miss gaming on my PC and nV just made it harder for gamers..

I don't think the situation is so dark. You can game even on a 6600 XT or 3060 if you don't expect the highest settings and a million FPS. Highest-end cards in 2004 ran Doom 3 at maybe 40 FPS. It's only our expectations that changed, Nvidia is only catering to our new (and unrealistic) expectations.

 

[Vayra86]

And we now have leaks that show the $1200-1500 RTX 5080 will only have a measly 16GB of VRAM in 2025. Let that sink in, in 2025 for a $1200-1500 GPU we only get 16GB of VRAM. To get more than that you have to likely pay $2500 per all of the rumors and leaks and get a 5090.

Its insane that even a RTX 4080 struggles in new games at 1080p and you freaking need DLSS or some other upscaling bullshit in order to properly run games. In 2025 we are playing 720p games just upscaled at 1080p, its RETARDATION!

Vote. With. Your. Wallet.

Its that simple.

I play indies, and I sail the high seas for new stuff only to uninstall it several hours later, and if I haven't uninstalled it at that point, I'm buying it on a sale a year later when it is feature complete. Perfect MO. I failed once on Cyberpunk buying that at launch at full price. Later, I somehow got triggered by the Black Myth Wukong hype. Luckily in the end they both kinda do/did pay off, but I might as well have waited. Still haven't finished BMW though. It does look pretty. Gameplay wise though? There's not much game, there's just a lot of bosses.

Graphics are really not the gaming thing to chase. Once the novelty wears off of whatever new graphics level you reach, its whateverland and the gameplay starts to count again.

Yesterday after finishing the LOTR trilogy with my wife (movies) I got totally triggered to get back into Shadow of War again. Discovered I had never truly finished that game at all, not even scratched its surface entirely even. I fired it up... and you suddenly get reminded of how a real game is supposed to work. An open-ish kind of gameplay where stuff just happens and responds to you all the time. Combat that manages to keep itself interesting and keeps inviting you to find more of it. Its moments like that when you realize gaming never was about graphics; good graphics just don't get in the way of your gaming. And on top of that, crisp high quality texturing, insane view distances, fully interactive environments with dynamic elements... running at 144 FPS fixed at maxed out settings, while the 7900XT barely breaks a sweat. Its moments like that when you know we're getting screwed hard in 2024 and all the excuses for it are just that: lame excuses.

Gaming has regressed - don't support it. Play something else instead. There have been major layoffs already, apparently the gaming industry needs many more to figure it out again. They need us to help them get there.

 

[Bomby569]

There are three RDNA 3 chips: a huge one, a relatively large one, and a small-medium-ish one. That's three times the development costs. If only one of them is selling, that's not very good. Not to mention, I think AMD intended the 7900 series to sell for a higher price, only that it didn't end up being fast enough.

Making only two chips is cheaper, so even if the product ends up not selling well, at least the losses are somewhat minimised. It's the safe approach, if you will.

I'm not arguing there aren't costs, they could avoid the high end not to lose money, that's fair. But that is not relevant to why they didn't sell more gpus.
Coping

 

[AusWolf]

I'm not arguing there aren't costs, they could avoid the high end not to lose money, that's fair. But that is not relevant to why they didn't sell more gpus.
Coping

Personally, I think it's because the 7600 is just a clone of the 6600 XT, and the 7800 XT got the wrong name which made people assume that it's the replacement of the 6800 XT, when in fact, the 6700 XT is much closer to it in both die size and starting price. It should have been called the 7700 XT and the real 7700 XT the 7700 non-XT, and they would have sold a lot more of both, imo.

 

[Bomby569]

Personally, I think it's because the 7600 is just a clone of the 6600 XT, and the 7800 XT got the wrong name which made people assume that it's the replacement of the 6800 XT, when in fact, the 6700 XT is much closer to it in both die size and starting price. It should have been called the 7700 XT and the real 7700 XT the 7700 non-XT, and they would have sold a lot more of both, imo.

AMD is notorious bad with naming (attempts to sell more with shenanigans) but with the right pricing at launch it could have overcome that, at least in part.

 

[AusWolf]

AMD is notorious bad with naming (attempts to sell more with shenanigans) but with the right pricing at launch it could have overcome that, at least in part.

AMD is just as bad with naming as consumers are with seeing past model names and taking things at face value without being influenced by marketing.

 

[Bomby569]

AMD is just as bad with naming as consumers are with seeing past model names and taking things at face value without being influenced by marketing.

to me the all "consumers are idiots" doesn't stick, people decide what they want based on quality vs pricing.
AMD has as much space on online and retail as Nvidia and they even have the added bonus that many already have a AMD cpu inside their machines.

 

[dgianstefani]

to me the all "consumers are idiots" doesn't stick, people decide what they want based on quality vs pricing.
AMD has as much space on online and retail as Nvidia and they even have the added bonus that many already have a AMD cpu inside their machines.

Ya it's often interesting to me that the same people who say "vote with your wallet" often decry the "sheep" who do exactly that.

 

[AusWolf]

to me the all "consumers are idiots" doesn't stick, people decide what they want based on quality vs pricing.
AMD has as much space on online and retail as Nvidia and they even have the added bonus that many already have a AMD cpu inside their machines.

I just remember lots of people crying that the 7800 XT wasn't much faster in reviews than the 6800 XT, completely disregarding the fact that the 6800 XT launched at a 30% higher price, and is therefore a completely different class of GPU. The card that launched for a similar price as the 7800 XT was the 6700 XT, of which the 7800 is 50% faster. So yes, consumers are idiots.

 

[Bomby569]

I just remember lots of people crying that the 7800 XT wasn't much faster in reviews than the 6800 XT, completely disregarding the fact that the 6800 XT launched at a 30% higher price, and is therefore a completely different class of GPU. The card that launched for a similar price as the 7800 XT was the 6700 XT, of which the 7800 is 50% faster. So yes, consumers are idiots.

Probably you saw the AMD crowd talking about it. The reality is no one bought the 6800, the 6700, the 7700 or the 7800. Those are not the complaints you are looking for.

The original RDNA cards got some traction, after that it was just no one cared.

 

[AusWolf]

Probably you saw the AMD crowd talking about it. The reality is no one bought the 6800, the 6700, the 7700 or the 7800. Those are not the complaints you are looking for.

The original RDNA cards got some traction, after that it was just no one cared.

I don't know where you got that from. As far as I recall, the 6700 and 6800 series were relatively popular (of course not as popular as the 3070 or 3080, but that's not my point). The 7700 and 7800 XT aren't even popular in the AMD crowd, most probably for the above reason (bad naming).

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

Price to performance ratio.

It doesn't realistically beat a 4090, it's more between a 4080 and a 4090, but... it costs nearly half what the 4090 costs.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't been very pleased with mine, and that's coming from a 3090ti not long before.

Same here.

Then assume that... doesn't mean I will do it... and wishful thinking a GPU with 4080 like performance is gonna cost 300 bucks, you're setting yourself up for a disappointment

Thats the thing, i’m not assuming anything until a non biased real review is published.

I assume reviewers will do the same and not even talk about price to performance, its what most people consider when buying a GPU, at least those buying in the mid range.
And I wouldn't even be disappointed if AMD does leave the dGPU market at this point, it doesn't make any financial sense to keep trying, then the media and the loud Nvidia fans keep influencing gamers to buy the Ngreedia card.

Exactly.
Perfect example, AMD said the 7900xtx was targeting the 4080, yet everyone and their mother ignored that and keep the bs of the 4090 and of course, price didn’t matter, neither raster. Only MaH RT and PT mattered.

With stupid bias like that, they simply cant win.

 

[gffermari]

The market showed that RT mattered.

btw it will be interesting to see how the 5080 is going to perform against the 4090 when the actual bump in cores is 10%.

 

[freeagent]

I don't understand all the dislike for RT either. Looks great. Same with all the talk of DLSS.. you don't have to use it.. its just there if you want. Like how I can use the AMD version.. but I don't.

People will buy what they buy, on both sides. Does it really matter?

It doesn't bother me that people use AMD GPUs, but it bothers some people that I use an Nvidia GPU?

That's crazy man.

I don't even have a leather jacket.

 

[igormp]

Not to mention, I'm on Linux now, where AMD's support is much better (the driver comes in the kernel), which limits my options.

I can understand your point and it does make sense, but I've always found this argument a bit weird given that users who were on Windows were always used to having to install the drivers from the manufacturer's website (no matter which brand).

 

[AusWolf]

I can understand your point and it does make sense, but I've always found this argument a bit weird given that users who were on Windows were always used to having to install the drivers from the manufacturer's website (no matter which brand).

It doesn't exactly work like that on Linux - there is no executable that you just click to install. I'm not exactly experienced with package managers, and with AMD, I don't even need to be.

 

[nguyen]

I don't understand all the dislike for RT either. Looks great. Same with all the talk of DLSS.. you don't have to use it.. its just there if you want. Like how I can use the AMD version.. but I don't.

People will buy what they buy, on both sides. Does it really matter?

It doesn't bother me that people use AMD GPUs, but it bothers some people that I use an Nvidia GPU?

That's crazy man.

I don't even have a leather jacket.

Hey man you are not supposed to show your love for technology in a tech forum, only money matters

 

[AusWolf]

I don't understand all the dislike for RT either. Looks great. Same with all the talk of DLSS.. you don't have to use it.. its just there if you want. Like how I can use the AMD version.. but I don't.

What I dislike in RT is the performance impact on both Nvidia and AMD. It's not worth it. I also don't think it looks that great. In most games, I can't see much difference, if any. If Nvidia and AMD can improve performance enough for developers to make really good use of the tech, I'll welcome it. But as long as a little sheen in a puddle tanks my FPS from 80 to 25, I'll say it's a gimmick.

I'm not against DLSS/FSR either. People with lower end GPUs, or those with 4K screens can make good use of it. I'm only against the hype, and the statement that it's outright better than native, which is highly dependent on what you consider native.

 

[freeagent]

What I dislike in RT is the performance impact on both Nvidia and AMD.

You had a 2070, it just does not compare to what we have now.