DOA for sure. The -$50 strategy just doesn't work. And it doesn't matter if they made huge improvements in their RT cores, the memory bandwidth will severely handicap it in most games and at 4k compared to the 5070s. The 5070 has more memory bandwidth than these cards.
DOA? Maybe not, but I do agree the -$50 strategy
and then cut it down later strategy sucks. Most of AMD's bulk sales should be
ON LAUNCH but instead AMD seems complacent in releasing a GPU that's barely cheaper than NVIDIA's without the features people want (even if they don't realize they don't really need them) and when they realize for the howmanyith time that this strategy ain't working, they finally start cutting down the price to
where it should of been in the first place but by then its already too late and they lost most of their sales opportunities.
You think after AMD has done this TWICE, they would realize this strategy doesn't work. But they still do it anyway..
AMD cards have been priced a "tier" down many times before. The 6700 XT offered "4060-Ti performance for 4060 price" for a long time. 7800 XT had "4070 performance for 4060-Ti (16GB) price."
I wouldn't really use these examples as these are very much after the fact; but I do agree. The 6700XT was a standout GPU from RDNA2, offering great value but that was only after it dropped in price, compared to the 3070 anyway.
The fundamental issue is the general public doesn't see AMD cards as simply worse than Nvidia (and thus needing to be discounted), they actually see them as lacking features. It's like if you tried to sell a car without airbags. Even if you sold it at a 50% discount compared to other cars with airbags, your potential market is still tiny. A few people will see it as a "good deal" and buy it, but most people will say "I will never buy a car without airbags, no matter how cheap it is."
If you were to ask me their fundamental problem is that AMD failed to market to gamers back when gaming was hitting its peak (the early / mid 2010's), and now they're paying the price for it. Every gamer, every parent of that gamer, etc know what NVIDIA is, but hardly anyone outside of the tech sphere knows what AMD is. And that, while doesn't seem like it hurts, does. Especially for Gaming GPU's; something that is sold to the general public. NVIDIA has made a name for itself by being the GAMER brand (while also simultaneously straying further away from gamers every single year.), where as AMD is treated like an awkward middle child who people acknowledge exists but don't associate with gaming, or the general public at all.
I think AMD should invest its next steps forward into investing a lot more into marketing, as its pretty clear that AMD isn't cutting it in that department. Make people associate AMD GPU's with GAMING for gods sake, instead of 'oh my grandma bought me a cheap prebuilts with a RX 6600.. yay...'
Of course, were just talking their gaming GPU's here. Everywhere else AMD is fine (Imo)
And remember, most people don't buy discrete GPUs. They buy prebuilts and laptops, which are far more sensitive to marketing and public perception. That's why lots of prebuilts are still sold with i7s and i9s, even though AMD is the clear choice for most tech enthusiasts. The marketing power of "Core i9" is strong.
Marketing is big part of prebuilts (which is why you still see many prebuilts rocking the new intel chips, despite the fact many people do not like them.) so I definitely agree with that part. But in that regard, AMD's Ryzen chips also still sell well with prebuilts. As for laptops.. yea, intel dominates that. There's an elaborate story about the ins and outs of why AMD is seemingly behind in laptops but it's alot to get into, probably worth a whole separate discussion honestly.
