Purported details of Nvidia GeForce RTX 30 launch shared

[kalniel]

For me as someone in the £700-£800 market (RTX 2080 was £749 at launch) it's concerning if Nvidia decide to push prices by another 25%, that puts me down to RTX 3070 territory, which is the point I'd start looking hard at comparable performance to my current card. Which essentially means they lose a sale as I would upgrade to the RTX 3080 if the pricing remains in the same ballpark, I'm not upgrading for the same performance (and you can forget about the fluff of ray tracing as that wasn't the sell point for me personally).

I think you'll have a lot to gain from the AMD competition in that market this round, either directly or as nVidia adjust to remain competitive.

[Tabbykatze]

It seems there is still very little discussion on the pretty much undiscussed and blindsiding new memory chip standard.

I cannot find anything anywhere.

If a new memory standard was developed and hidden from competition so they could have first dibs...

Well, that feels a little bit...

[DevDrake]

I'm surprised no-one has commented on how it looks yet, as that topic seems to dominate much of the press coverage of this!

It looks like "it doesn't matter" with some "I don't really care" ascetics
Honestly it may look as poo puked all over as I dont have window in my case. I can pay extra $10 for the look, the rest of price has to be judged by the performance vs my needs.

Maybe this is why people ignore the look of the card

[Dribble]

I disagree whilst AMD could do that if the price gap isnt big enough people will just buy Nvidia. If say you're in the market for a £700 - £800 GPU a price difference of £50
or even £100 just isn't enough especially with Nvidia doing the hard sell on features like DLSS. AMD need to price aggressively all the way up, they won't want to do that but its what they need to do to succeed.

It really depends on how many chips AMD can make and much profit AMD would make selling gpu's vs selling cpu's. Remember cpu's, gpu's and I think consoles are all coming out of the same fabs. AMD has to make enough consoles (contractually I bet) despite the very low profit. Then I guess they are more interested in cpu's as that's been the case this generation. Gpu's come third in line so if they can only make a few they can charge a lot and still sell them all. That after all is all AMD wants to do - make money.

As for RTX 30 , well Nvidia need to sell a lot of these so they can't be too expensive, but I am sure they will be as pricey as they can get away with while still having lots of people to buy them because that's what they do every generation.

[BigBANGerZ]

They haven't been disruptive with the current releases have they... all they've done with the current releases is make sure that bang per buck is better on their products, so essentially cheaper than nvidia but not 'as cheap as we would like'.

Basically AMD is not trying to be the number 1 seller of items in the 'consumer' market, they don't have the money to do that, they're essentially making the most money they can for the least investment.

Sure but what I'm saying is that sweet spot for AMD is not slightly under cutting Nvidia once you are into the higher tiers, cos hardly anyone will buy into that they will pay the Nvidia tax and go for there products instead. For AMD to win back market share and mindshare they need to significantly undercut Nvidia like a shift back in tier pricing prior to the Turing ripoff

[3dcandy]

It really depends on how many chips AMD can make and much profit AMD would make selling gpu's vs selling cpu's. Remember cpu's, gpu's and I think consoles are all coming out of the same fabs. AMD has to make enough consoles (contractually I bet) despite the very low profit. Then I guess they are more interested in cpu's as that's been the case this generation. Gpu's come third in line so if they can only make a few they can charge a lot and still sell them all. That after all is all AMD wants to do - make money.

As for RTX 30 , well Nvidia need to sell a lot of these so they can't be too expensive, but I am sure they will be as pricey as they can get away with while still having lots of people to buy them because that's what they do every generation.

AMD are taking the lions share of HiSilicons allotment as TSMC says they cannot fab them anymore which is a fair amount of chips...

[Jace007]

With Big navi coming out soon and Next gen Consoles. I would say Ampere £960 to £1200. Anything higher then they pushing customers away and I think they are aware of that (lets hope so). I think I've come to the point I've had enough of these expensive GPUs to justify spending that amount on a graphics card. My 1080ti still got life in it. I'll be going for a Next gen console.

[Iota]

I think you'll have a lot to gain from the AMD competition in that market this round, either directly or as nVidia adjust to remain competitive.

I'm not particularly tied to any specific GPU maker, however I have found Nvidia drivers generally more reliable than the AMD equivalent. I'd be wary of swapping back, even with solid performance gains. Hopefully "Big Navi" will be competitive this time around and AMD release a halo product that competes heavily on performance without the Nvidia tax, pushing Nvidia to adopt sensible pricing.

We can all hope I guess.

[LSG501]

Sure but what I'm saying is that sweet spot for AMD is not slightly under cutting Nvidia once you are into the higher tiers, cos hardly anyone will buy into that they will pay the Nvidia tax and go for there products instead. For AMD to win back market share and mindshare they need to significantly undercut Nvidia like a shift back in tier pricing prior to the Turing ripoff

We can all agree prices need to go down in general for GPU's, but if AMD had any intention of being disruptive with pricing they'd have already done it with current gpu's, which while not top of the line fast they are faster at their respective price points. You're literally expecting AMD to do something because you want them to do it, rather than looking at the current approaches they're taking.

You're also working on the assumption that AMD actually looking to claim back market share in the desktop gpu market.... something I'm personally quite doubtful of in all honesty considering their 'enterprise' and games console focus of late.

[kalniel]

It seems there is still very little discussion on the pretty much undiscussed and blindsiding new memory chip standard.

I cannot find anything anywhere.

If a new memory standard was developed and hidden from competition so they could have first dibs...

Well, that feels a little bit...

Didn't they also have exclusive GDDR5X? It didn't really add a lot compared to GDDR5 - 10gbps vs 8 or something, and they later clocked GDDR5 to 9gbps anyway. So at the moment I'd only view it as another speed bump on from GDDR6 rather than anything game-changing. We'll have to see.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'd be wary of swapping back, even with solid performance gains.

This is the reason Nvidia gets away with charging so much though. Nvidia also has had spells of poor drivers,but AMD always get attention for theirs. Yet,even my mate who had one of the "problematic" RX5700XT cards at launch didn't have much problems,and all my mates with Polaris cards seemed fine.

Also I know why AMD doesn't bother massively undercut Nvidia anymore. Because in the end there is no point taking a hit to their margins,so they make Nvidia cards cheaper for people to buy. So they just minimally undercut Nvidia,so those who would buy on price/performance would still have a decent chance of buying AMD,and those which want Nvidia will just buy Nvidia.

The difference why they undercut Intel so much with Ryzen is because they correctly predicted it would drive more sales to them. With GPUs,their sales probably won't increase as much as people will still buy Nvidia,and this was the case years ago,despite Nvidia having it's own set of problems(the bumps issue was a huge one).

Sure but what I'm saying is that sweet spot for AMD is not slightly under cutting Nvidia once you are into the higher tiers, cos hardly anyone will buy into that they will pay the Nvidia tax and go for there products instead. For AMD to win back market share and mindshare they need to significantly undercut Nvidia like a shift back in tier pricing prior to the Turing ripoff

We can all agree prices need to go down in general for GPU's, but if AMD had any intention of being disruptive with pricing they'd have already done it with current gpu's, which while not top of the line fast they are faster at their respective price points. You're literally expecting AMD to do something because you want them to do it, rather than looking at the current approaches they're taking.

You're also working on the assumption that AMD actually looking to claim back market share in the desktop gpu market.... something I'm personally quite doubtful of in all honesty considering their 'enterprise' and games console focus of late.

They won't as people just use it to buy cheaper Nvidia GPUs. Even the HD4000 and HD5000 series GPUs despite their keen pricing did not sell anywhere as much as ATI/AMD expected. I had cards from both series for years and their drivers were fine,but people still bought more expensive or lower performance Nvidia cards,despite the Fermi ones using much more power,etc.

The people who are responsible for the market being the way it is,are gamers. Remember all the arguments people like me said about what the Titan series would do to general GPU pricing over time,and all you had was people defending pricing. The same with people not looking at price/performance or even power consumption,when it wasn't in favour of Nvidia cards back in the Fermi days,and still buying lots of Fermi based cards.

Basically AMD said we are not the cheap brand anymore...as if they are going to sell X number of GPUs anyway,they will minimally undercut Nvidia. If they massively undercut Nvidia,the same amount of people will still buy them due to XYZ reasons why the Nvidia cards are worth more. So in the end as long as they are a bit cheaper those who value price/performance will have a higher chance of buying AMD,and those who want XYZ other reasons,will buy Nvidia.

ATI/AMD tried the strategy of releasing faster,cheaper and more efficient GPUs months before Nvidia(HD5000) and Nvidia still won with stuff like Fermi.

I would fully expect them to only massively undercut Nvidia if they expected significantly more sales.

Personally I have gotten fedup of people just throwing money silly money at high end Nvidia cards for years,as they are starting to destroy the more mainstream market over time,as it's pulling up the whole market. I honestly come to the point,I will start to stop playing more and more modern games,if the rubbish improvements in mainstream GPUs continue,and its not like most of my gaming mates would spend over £400 on a graphics cards too. So I don't have the peer pressure too much luckily,but honestly consoles are starting to look more and more enticing at this point for newer titles.

[LSG501]

They won't as people just use it to buy cheaper Nvidia GPUs. Even the HD4000 and HD5000 series GPUs despite their keen pricing did not sell anywhere as much as ATI/AMD expected. I had cards from both series for years and their drivers were fine,but people still bought more expensive or lower performance Nvidia cards,despite the Fermi ones using much more power,etc.

The people who are responsible for the market being the way it is,are gamers. Remember all the arguments people like me said about what the Titan series would do to general GPU pricing over time,and all you had was people defending pricing. The same with people not looking at price/performance or even power consumption,when it wasn't in favour of Nvidia cards back in the Fermi days,and still buying lots of Fermi based cards.

ATI/AMD tried the strategy of releasing faster,cheaper and more efficient GPUs months before Nvidia(HD5000) and Nvidia still won with stuff like Fermi.

I've got an old amd hd5xxx series gpu and it was a great gpu, also got a gtx570, which was also a good card for the money because I started to see benefits of using cuda etc.

Unfortunately these days, I have to buy nvidia, I essentially have no choice in that and is basically due to cuda being better supported. I'd happily use an AMD gpu but they just aren't the best option for me, not because of performance but because of feature support. AMD decided to support OpenCL, which I'm all for, but compared with cuda it is is so severely lacking in features it's just not worth bothering with. When you do find a program that supports both, not only does opencl usually perform slower but it also lacks features found in cuda.... AMD could make a killing with home professionals if they just got feature parity with cuda, their radeon pro line is far more fair with pricing compared with nvidia quadro's but people aren't using them essentially because of cuda.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've got an old amd hd5xxx series gpu and it was a great gpu, also got a gtx570, which was also a good card for the money because I started to see benefits of using cuda etc.

Unfortunately these days, I have to buy nvidia, I essentially have no choice in that and is basically due to cuda being better supported. I'd happily use an AMD gpu but they just aren't the best option for me, not because of performance but because of feature support. AMD decided to support OpenCL, which I'm all for, but compared with cuda it is is so severely lacking in features it's just not worth bothering with. When you do find a program that supports both, not only does opencl usually perform slower but it also lacks features found in cuda.... AMD could make a killing with home professionals if they just got feature parity with cuda, their radeon pro line is far more fair with pricing compared with nvidia quadro's but people aren't using them essentially because of cuda.

This was a problem long before CUDA - rubbish like the Nvidia FX series sold more than the ATI 9000 series which was generally better price/performance. Nvidia always gets rewarded for any of the subpar generations it releases.

Most of the people buying consumer GPUs tend to be pure gamers so don't need CUDA,so when you could get HD5850 cards for close to GTX460 money(the HD6850 was cheaper),people were still buying the Fermi based cards. Despite it being slower,consuming more power,etc. Even it's much vaunted tessellation improvements meant little in the longterm or PhysX,etc. Have you not noticed ever since the HD5000 series,ATI/AMD never undercut Nvidia that much. The same with drivers,AMD does fantastic under Linux now,so much,so many of my mates who use Linux now would rather get an AMD GPU!

The problem is again if a GPU has 100% performance for X price,instead of waiting for the Nvidia cards to drop to a similar price,people then pay,say for example,X+20% price for the equivalent Nvidia,instead of just waiting for price to be much closer. So what AMD does now is undercut Nvidia,say by 10% and probably has a bit more VRAM on their GPUs,and leaves it at that. If I buy Nvidia its always because in those instances the price/performance was better than the equivalent AMD/ATI GPUs. I won't pay more for a Nvidia GPU of similar performance.

The issue is Nvidia has Nvidia users by the privates now,as like with Apple if they know you can't switch away,then you are trapped and they will dictate to you what price you will pay.

Edit!!

BTW,have you noticed the significant part of two of AMD's HPC wins was underreported by the press:
https://www.amd.com/en/products/exascale-era

So these will be amongst the most powerful supercomputers in the world.....they have AMD Vega based compute cards,which is highly unusual. You would expect Nvidia based GPUs??

It tells me the US government is trying to actively not get locked into just using Nvidia GPUs. A bit like what they are now doing with ULA,by using companies like SpaceX as ULA had a monopoly on US space launches. They want multipler suppliers now,and are preparing to reward other companies. I expect Nvidia was trying to charge too much.

[LSG501]

Edit!!

BTW,have you noticed the significant part of two of AMD's HPC wins was underreported by the press:
https://www.amd.com/en/products/exascale-era

So these will be amongst the most powerful supercomputers in the world.....they have AMD Vega based compute cards,which is highly unusual. You would expect Nvidia based GPUs??

Actually, I wouldn't think they'd have nvidia compute cards, the compute on amd cards is actually really strong, it's just let down big time by not having an AMD version of cuda and meaning it's hamstrung by by opencl. If you're able to afford completely custom code that accesses the amd compute then you'll get really good performance.


I'm not so sure the issue was as big before the fx series, I know nvidia spent a lot more money on marketing and performance enhancements in games (I remember seeing plenty of 'made for nvidia' at the start of games) while ATI, as they were then, never really pushed their brand as much. So it's likely similar issues to intel versus amd cpu's in that the bigger budgets allow for more marketing which in turn leads to better brand recognition etc.

[[GSV]Trig]

It's going to be stupidly expensive, the only good thing is that there will be people that will want the new shiny, so at least the second-hand market will give us something nice to buy..

[kalniel]

The issue is Nvidia has Nvidia users by the privates now,as like with Apple if they know you can't switch away,then you are trapped and they will dictate to you what price you will pay.

Got any evidence for that? I've been switching between manufacturers no problem at all.