Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by lowdog, Dec 7, 2018.
no i'm comparing price/performance
AMD aren't aiming for the flagship card
and haven't done for some time. which is why the OP talking them up like they are is just silly. they are aiming at the mid-high budget segment.
AMD aren't ahead on the total flagship performance in the CPU market either, CJ, but they're still moving good numbers again.
I said in the CPU thread, it's never going to be their explicit aim to go for the peak product when they can capture large swathes of the market with significantly less R&D outlay, and without having to pay kickbacks to developers. Raja led them down the garden path on this shit, they were wrong to rely on their console presence and pushing standards to favour their architecture when Nvidia has the cash to run over the top of it. The latter didn't work for S3 back in the day for similar reasons.
All they need to do is be within a reasonable striking distance on performance, particularly minimum FPS, (ie heat and throttling), and really continue and enhance the focus on good drivers. From there it's all price and marketing.
They were with Vega and that fell miserably short and years behind nvidia
I have kids, mortgages and bills and give zero shits for flagship (or any gpu over $500).
2080ti/2080/1080ti is nothing to me but if AMD can sell a card for <$500au that can do 1080 level work, I'm sold.
I assume others that have been priced out of PC gaming that have forced them to be console owners, will be coming back to PC if the pricing of these gpu/cpus are correct. Exciting if true
they are really after the 1060/1070 market i think. If they can drop a SKU that outperforms both for the same money they are on a winner.
And one who wanted 1080ti performance would have bought a 1080ti years ago. They won't be much cheaper and even if they are nvidia can crush them on price with a mature high yielding lower die size product. The gpu market is nothing like the cpu market and is not a valid comparison
How did that work out with vega
It was overpriced hot used more power and slower than the nvidia counterpart
I guess we'll see. Nvidia may be able to compete on price, but like Intel, I think they're more likely to stick to their guns long enough for AMD to make a dent.
I don't actually know why you feel the need to piss on the underdog all the time, it's AT LEAST as weird as the posters who've advocated sympathy buying to help them for the last few years.
But then you have form in other matters on that, don't you?
that's it, wait and see - i envision them aiming at a segment and then pricing into that segment. Vega was over-priced at retail due to demand. No way will retailers not jump at the opportunity to make money.
That's the thing, Vega was priced out of the range of gamers due to importers, (less so retailers I would imagine), but it still sold like a motherfucker because of the miners. ie not overpriced.
Gamers are entitled shitheads, I'd imagine most here are on the main national Facebook PC Parts Buy and Sell, the hate towards miners is beyond reason.
Hey yo, $250 for 2080 power yo...
(Once again, assuming they deliver)
people realise that nvidia is basically selling "rebadged" 1080Ti AKA 2080 for $1500, card that was initially released in March 2017....there is literally 0 value in RTX at the moment. Only game that support RTX at the moment is BF5, and I'm yet to find a single person that would have RTX enabled in this game....DLSS is none existent at this stage, and by the time it will be, 20 series will be long gone, replaced with 30 series, looking at the RTX game support list, by end of 2019 we should have 11 games (Including BF5 and Tomb Raider) from the remaining 9 games only Control, Mechwarrior 5 and Metro Exodus are AAA games, rest seems to be Asian Online MMOs.
If AMD bring out 1080Ti level of performance for under $500, that would be fantastic, I got a bad feeling this wont happen, but one never know. I'm more keen on 2020 to see what Intel will bring to the table and hopefully some great competition between Intel/AMD/Nvidia
i wonder if its "1080ti performance @ 1080p"
I mean, NAH BRUH THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BOTTLENECK!!!1!! /s
1080p, the pinnacle of gaming technology.
That's basically what you're limited to atm with RTX on...
I think what people forget is that AMD want to be the flagship card.
However during development they quickly find out if thats going to happen, and at this point they are miles behind nvidia, they need a "athlon 64 3500+" miracle.
The fact that they are relying on freesync to turn a slow outdated card into a "value" card is only going to work as long as nvidia allow them to.
Excluding freesync, AMD is basically the "no frills" version of an nvidia card and flagship vs flagship for the exact same performance, AMD would still need to price it $200 cheaper.
Yet freesync is cheaper and nvidia won't implement it, and thats essentially why AMD basically rip us off, but we accept it as AMD Card + Freesync monitor helps balance it.
Battlefield 5 Ultra settings Ultra RTX with a 2080, gets 78.2fps
1440p = 64.6fps
A 2080 alone is good enough, a 2080ti isn't necessary.
RTX is new tech that is going to take a while to become worth the premium.