and nvidia will price most of their cards out of reach of most people.. like a large chuck of then are now.... do they need to charge that ?? probably not.. but they do... cause they can.. just like intel before zen...
Not quite. Before, in the early 2000-2005 period the Internet was not as accessible and pronounced as it is today. And to add to that, when it came to "perception" things like marketing were very effective. So despite AMD producing some of the best CPUs and GPUs at the time, they weren't winning. Intel and Nvidia had the mindshare, thanks to their large marketing departments.
Now? There's Facebook and YouTube. Information is much more accessible, anyone can find more details about a product from more trusted third-party professionals. And on top of that, the past few years has changed the public's mindshare about AMD. They're now seen as the better CPU company, so that trickle downs to their perception of GPUs as well. It is no longer a "poor mans Nvidia".
So what am I saying? The more things change, the more they stay the same. The market will always have winners and losers. However, this time AMD is under new management and heading a new direction, and they have seized a real opportunity to turn things around. That might mean AMD only releasing a few cards, and instead focusing their attention to things that make money: servers and consoles. I'm fine with that, and if things kind of sour, well it was the (sheep) public's fault for allowing the monopoly to arise by not being more critical and skeptical (think pre-1950's attitude). However, I should also add that just because there is a monopoly does not mean the market isn't healthy or competitive or that it's bad for the consumer; it is likely to be the case but not a certainty.
nvidia had the mindshare.. but intel has its bribes and threats....
either way.. unless amd can make a zen2 equivalent for radeon, nvidia will still over charge and price some of their cards out of reach of most people, like they already have done
I'd argue that it wasn't AMD selling RX 570 and RX 580 for cheap that has distorted the market, rather it was the consumer's acceptance of the higher pricing across the board. Price/perf needle has barely moved up after three years. It is the new norm. We're never going back to those days, are we?
Price/performance has moved up since 3 years ago. 3 years ago a 1060 cost about what a 1660 Ti costs now, and a 1660 Ti is about 36% faster than a 1060. You are getting over 30% increase in performance per price, even if you throw out what happened to 1060 prices because of the crypto craze and spike in DRAM prices. The gain in performance per dollar from the 960 to the 1060 was about 44%. So it's lesser this generation but I don't think the difference qualifies as "barely moved up" and you can't take one example and call it a trend. As for the RTX cards, of course with NVIDIA taking up die space on new features that don't go into price/performance calculations there is going to be a drag on the numbers that get spit out.
AMD were selling the 570 and 580 for cheap because they had a bunch of them in inventory from the crypto hangover and they needed to get as much revenue for them as they could. If it took too long they would lose more value and they'd have to delay the 5500.
gtx1060 FE 6GB msrp was $299 same as gtx1660ti. While gtx 1060 6GB has "msrp" of $250, finding AIB sku priced as such was near to non-existent. Norm was $299 and more like gtx1660tis.
1660 Super is $229, which is lower than any official price point nvidia gave to gtx1060 6GB cards.
Had one of my 24" 1920x1200 monitors fail the other day, and the other has a few lines. Therefore, I purchased 2 32" 4K monitors. Should arrive in days.
Thinking about purchasing a discreet video card as my current I7-3770K with its IGP won't drive these new moniros to 4K resolutions.
I don't game, so I would imagine I'd received satisfactory performance with an inexpensive 5500XT card to drive both these monitors at 4K for really good size/readability of text?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Korguz - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link
and nvidia will price most of their cards out of reach of most people.. like a large chuck of then are now.... do they need to charge that ?? probably not.. but they do... cause they can.. just like intel before zen...Kangal - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link
Not quite.Before, in the early 2000-2005 period the Internet was not as accessible and pronounced as it is today. And to add to that, when it came to "perception" things like marketing were very effective. So despite AMD producing some of the best CPUs and GPUs at the time, they weren't winning. Intel and Nvidia had the mindshare, thanks to their large marketing departments.
Now?
There's Facebook and YouTube. Information is much more accessible, anyone can find more details about a product from more trusted third-party professionals. And on top of that, the past few years has changed the public's mindshare about AMD. They're now seen as the better CPU company, so that trickle downs to their perception of GPUs as well. It is no longer a "poor mans Nvidia".
So what am I saying?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The market will always have winners and losers. However, this time AMD is under new management and heading a new direction, and they have seized a real opportunity to turn things around. That might mean AMD only releasing a few cards, and instead focusing their attention to things that make money: servers and consoles. I'm fine with that, and if things kind of sour, well it was the (sheep) public's fault for allowing the monopoly to arise by not being more critical and skeptical (think pre-1950's attitude). However, I should also add that just because there is a monopoly does not mean the market isn't healthy or competitive or that it's bad for the consumer; it is likely to be the case but not a certainty.
Korguz - Friday, December 20, 2019 - link
nvidia had the mindshare.. but intel has its bribes and threats....either way.. unless amd can make a zen2 equivalent for radeon, nvidia will still over charge and price some of their cards out of reach of most people, like they already have done
Gemuk - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
I'd argue that it wasn't AMD selling RX 570 and RX 580 for cheap that has distorted the market, rather it was the consumer's acceptance of the higher pricing across the board. Price/perf needle has barely moved up after three years. It is the new norm. We're never going back to those days, are we?Yojimbo - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Price/performance has moved up since 3 years ago. 3 years ago a 1060 cost about what a 1660 Ti costs now, and a 1660 Ti is about 36% faster than a 1060. You are getting over 30% increase in performance per price, even if you throw out what happened to 1060 prices because of the crypto craze and spike in DRAM prices. The gain in performance per dollar from the 960 to the 1060 was about 44%. So it's lesser this generation but I don't think the difference qualifies as "barely moved up" and you can't take one example and call it a trend. As for the RTX cards, of course with NVIDIA taking up die space on new features that don't go into price/performance calculations there is going to be a drag on the numbers that get spit out.AMD were selling the 570 and 580 for cheap because they had a bunch of them in inventory from the crypto hangover and they needed to get as much revenue for them as they could. If it took too long they would lose more value and they'd have to delay the 5500.
Alistair - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
you mean 1660 super is the same price as the 1060, the 1660 ti is still more expensive than the old 1060 from years agojabbadap - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
gtx1060 FE 6GB msrp was $299 same as gtx1660ti. While gtx 1060 6GB has "msrp" of $250, finding AIB sku priced as such was near to non-existent. Norm was $299 and more like gtx1660tis.1660 Super is $229, which is lower than any official price point nvidia gave to gtx1060 6GB cards.
HardwareDufus - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
Had one of my 24" 1920x1200 monitors fail the other day, and the other has a few lines. Therefore, I purchased 2 32" 4K monitors. Should arrive in days.Thinking about purchasing a discreet video card as my current I7-3770K with its IGP won't drive these new moniros to 4K resolutions.
I don't game, so I would imagine I'd received satisfactory performance with an inexpensive 5500XT card to drive both these monitors at 4K for really good size/readability of text?
Comments?
haukionkannel - Thursday, December 12, 2019 - link
For that usage... sure. But no Gaming unles you use 50% scaling. With 50% scaling and amd sharpening, even Gaming is good.Zoomer - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link
Don't need sharpening with 50% scaling. Pixels will just be 4 times as big and map perfectly.