Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The price cut is a lie.

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,127
Last month, AMD announced that they would launch the Radeon RX 5600 XT for $280.  It would be a further cut down Navi 10 die as used in the Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 5700.

Nvidia responded by having a GeForce RTX 2060 show up for $280 on New Egg, but officially not yet launched, so that you couldn't buy it yet.  That would keep it from going out of stock and falling off of search results.  Eventually, Nvidia raised the price to $300, but claimed that they had cut the MSRP of the GeForce RTX 2060 to $300.

A little over a month later, the cheapest RTX 2060 on New Egg is $300.  It's also refurbished.  The cheapest new RTX 2060 on New Egg is $316.  Even if you're willing to count rebates, the cheapest is $304 after rebate if you include shipping.  So much for that $300 MSRP.  The prices look about the same as they did when the MSRP was $350.  The price cut was a lie.

So what about the Radeon RX 5600 XT that the RTX 2060 price cut was supposed to counter?  That has an MSRP of $280, right?  Well, New Egg does have one in stock at $280.  It's $284 if you include shipping.  With shipping, the next cheapest is $297, and then the rest are $300 and up.  So much for a $280 MSRP.

Of course, neither of the cards are really all that relevant when you can get a faster Radeon RX 5700 for $325, or $295 after rebate.  On the AMD side, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the RX 5600 XT isn't a great deal, as third bins of GPUs are typically low volume parts, especially when the second bin is already a salvage part.  AMD doesn't need to make the RX 5600 XT a great deal to sell off their inventory, and they aren't terribly keen on crippling more Navi 10 dies that work right in order to sell them as a lower bin.

Meanwhile, Nvidia doesn't really have anything to counter at a little higher price tag.  An overpriced RTX 2060 is it.  The next bin up, the GeForce RTX 2060 Super, starts at $400.  Or $384 after rebate, if you want to go that route.  That's a very different price tier from $280.  It's also slower than a Radeon RX 5700 XT that you can have for $359 after rebate.

It shouldn't really be that surprising that Nvidia isn't inclined to start a price war in a tier where their dies are nearly double the size of their competitor's.  People sometimes scoff when I say that the price tag at retail depends heavily on the cost of production, but it's true.

The nearest Nvidia card that actually is interesting is a GeForce GTX 1660 Super, available for $214, or $204 after rebate.  Not coincidentally, that's based on a much smaller die.  It's only slightly larger than AMD's Navi 10 die, and on an older process node, it might well be cheaper to produce.  That makes it a lot easier to cut prices and offer an interesting deal.
maskedweasel

Comments

  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,526
    Both companies decided that consumers have to pay to get what will be considered decent performance and that mid-range is now $400 in the new normal.  I don't see this changing except potentially in the upward direction if the market will bear it.  I mean it isn't like people have much of a choice if AMD/NVidia decide not to compete.  With the current status of the AMD drivers, I don't see a fiscal reason for NV to do anything other than choke out as much money as they can out of the market.
    RidelynnOzmodanAsm0deus
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    I don’t think drivers have much to do with it, but neither company wants a race to the bottom. AMD is happy to let nV take the lead on driving the price up, I’m sure.
    OzmodanAsm0deus
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,127
    centkin said:
    Both companies decided that consumers have to pay to get what will be considered decent performance and that mid-range is now $400 in the new normal.  I don't see this changing except potentially in the upward direction if the market will bear it.  I mean it isn't like people have much of a choice if AMD/NVidia decide not to compete.  With the current status of the AMD drivers, I don't see a fiscal reason for NV to do anything other than choke out as much money as they can out of the market.
    AMD's flagship gaming card is widely available at retail for under $400.  I really don't see that as outrageous.

    Nvidia does have a couple of performance tiers above what AMD can offer.  The RTX 2080 Super for $700 is in line with what dies of that size have cost ever since the GeForce 8800 GTX way back in 2006.  The RTX 2080 Ti might be the cheapest commercial product ever made with a die size over 700 mm^2.

    I get the impression that what people really want is for the TU102 die to not exist, so that the RTX 2080 (named 2080 Ti instead) at $700 would be the top of the line.  I think it was a mistake for Nvidia to make a 754 mm^2 die, considering how well it hasn't sold, but I don't think that it's outrageous.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    I think the problem that people have with GPUs is they do not realize how expensive it is to produce the current die sizes needed for modern GPUs.   As to drivers I have had as many issues with Nvidia drivers as AMD. 

    Personally my issue with Nvidia is their dumb G-Sync.  They should give it away instead of charging for it and support Freesync at the same time.  I would never waste money on a G-Sync monitor, there are far more important options for a monitor. 

    This silly excitement over Nvidia's upcoming 3000 series is just dumb.  They are going to be even bigger die size GPUs and the price will be eye-opening to say the least.  Especially ridiculous when you consider that most of these modern GPUs already run most things on high now.  Unless you are into ray tracing there is just no need for faster GPUs at present.

    I currently run an older 1000 series GPU on my main system and run my games at 2k.  I just see no reason for 4k.  When you are sitting 2 feet from the screen you notice little difference in most games.  I still see no real reason to upgrade my GPU at this point in time.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,437
    Ozmodan said:

    This silly excitement over Nvidia's upcoming 3000 series is just dumb.  They are going to be even bigger die size GPUs and the price will be eye-opening to say the least.  Especially ridiculous when you consider that most of these modern GPUs already run most things on high now.  Unless you are into ray tracing there is just no need for faster GPUs at present....
    There's a good chance NVidia's 3000 series will be smaller dies size than current 2000 series. Even if NVidia wants to sell expensive GPUs, I think even more they might want to lower RTX entry-price and sell more units so that game-makers would offer better support for their ray-tracing implementation.
    Asm0deus
     
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Vrika said:
    Ozmodan said:

    This silly excitement over Nvidia's upcoming 3000 series is just dumb.  They are going to be even bigger die size GPUs and the price will be eye-opening to say the least.  Especially ridiculous when you consider that most of these modern GPUs already run most things on high now.  Unless you are into ray tracing there is just no need for faster GPUs at present....
    There's a good chance NVidia's 3000 series will be smaller dies size than current 2000 series. Even if NVidia wants to sell expensive GPUs, I think even more they might want to lower RTX entry-price and sell more units so that game-makers would offer better support for their ray-tracing implementation.
    I am going to have to disagree with that considering they are claiming a big jump in performance.  A smaller die size is just not in the cards if that are doing that.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,127
    Ozmodan said:
    Vrika said:
    Ozmodan said:

    This silly excitement over Nvidia's upcoming 3000 series is just dumb.  They are going to be even bigger die size GPUs and the price will be eye-opening to say the least.  Especially ridiculous when you consider that most of these modern GPUs already run most things on high now.  Unless you are into ray tracing there is just no need for faster GPUs at present....
    There's a good chance NVidia's 3000 series will be smaller dies size than current 2000 series. Even if NVidia wants to sell expensive GPUs, I think even more they might want to lower RTX entry-price and sell more units so that game-makers would offer better support for their ray-tracing implementation.
    I am going to have to disagree with that considering they are claiming a big jump in performance.  A smaller die size is just not in the cards if that are doing that.
    A die shrink allows more transistors in a smaller die, as well as lower energy usage per transistor.  That's how you increase performance over the long run.  It's also why many new generations have managed to increase performance while keeping the die size about the same as before.

    My best guess is that Nvidia's next flagship gaming card will have a die size around 550 mm^2, which is in line with what they've historically done.  On a 7 nm EUV process node, that could offer quite a bit more performance than an RTX 2080 Ti.  It's going to cost at least $700 at retail, though, and we'll see how much Nvidia wants to push for higher prices.  How well the higher end Turing cards didn't sell is likely to constrain them somewhat.
Sign In or Register to comment.