Actually, i was happy with the games that i was going to buy anyway, so in my case, i did save 170.
Normally, those bundles are meh, but if it is a good game that you were planning in buying anyways, then yes, it does have value, since you wont spend that extra money.
I would argue that RDNA3 competes with Ngreedias current offerings except on RT (still haven’t found a definitive reason to care for it yet), CUDA if needed (ROCm is slowly removing that), dlss (FSR is good enough, so im good there) and perhaps the 4090, which in raster and optimized code, a 7900xtx offers a compelling alternative.
So no, its not the offerings, is the mediocre marketing by AMD plus the bribed influencers that keep pushing Ngreedias gpu downs everyone’s throat on a daily basis.
So when someone not that technical see that, they inevitably think that all AMD gpus are absolute trash.
Hell, even more technically adept buyers are falling for it. See how everyone is ok with Ngreedias monopoly, crazy prices and anti consumer practices.
Either way, this will go on for ever since as many times before, you, like others in here, will simply laugh at my points.
Perhaps personal then, but buying
two games at full launch price? I'd have to be very heavily hyped to even consider that, but then, I learned buy at launch is generally not really a benefit to begin with. To be very honest I think there's a healthy load of cognitive dissonance in saying you got 170,- worth of value out of these games. Wait a few months and you'll pay 30,- per game. You can't even play both at the same time, so there's no reason not to postpone at least one. Think about this for a minute and reflect
Perhaps its really worth it to you and that's fine. But I strongly doubt this is a rational calculation here.
I won't deny there IS value. But I'd value that at perhaps 60,- for two great games, because frankly that's what you can buy them for shortly after release, more often than not.
RDNA3 competes with Ada... but not quite.
- DLSS is superior and evolves faster
- RT works better
- Cards are slightly more power efficient
- Cuda as you mentioned...
So the reality is, Nvidia simply has a better product to sell, and people throughout the years have clearly shown preference for the biggest featureset, more so than a slightly lower price. And let's not forget AMD's terrible pricing strategy, waiting far too long with undercutting Nvidia hard, and instead trying to get maximum dollar for what is essentially a lesser offering. Customers don't like that.
Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is AMD's lacking consistency. You're buying a GPU, so you're also buying into an ecosystem of patches and feature updates throughout the years. AMD is not the best partner for a long term investment that way, every gen we're left to wonder what their new stack will look like; whether they will even compete in segment X or Y... or whether they'll even release anything other than rebrands. Nvidia is a lot more consistent that way, and this inspires trust. Customers are clearly ready to pay for that assurance as well.
So yes, I would say it was, is and will always be about the actual offerings. People clearly look straight through these silly game bundles and clearly value featureset, consistency and quality of the experience higher than you think they do. Its not 'the brilliant Nvidia marketing' - its that marketing alongside
actually delivering. For that all you need to compare is the development of FSR vs DLSS. You can of course not be a fan of the proprietary approach (I'm not, anyway), but the reality is, the overall experience with DLSS is better, so if you're just gaming, what do you pick? Principles, or optimal gaming?
