medi018 core Zen CPUs.
290/290x.
1050Ti vs 470/570.

Intel 8(16T) cpus are much costlier than the ones form AMD but also noticeably faster and we are talking about similar performance for only 2/3 of price!
The competitor for 470/570 was(is) 1060 3GB and not 1050Ti! We are talking about similar performance once again.

So I ask for some example where the performance was the same but It cost 2/3 of the competitors price!

As always I'll hang on and wait to see what is going to be released but I would like to hope that something better is coming :) Hopefully....

I do genuinely think that given the rumored performance, a 330$ is a very reasonable and competitive price. Lets not forget an RTX 2070 will have completed a year by the time this is released, and lets not forget an RTX 2070 comes with a larger die (hence more expensive to manufacture), and with the bells and whistles of RTX and DLSS. Now, RTX and DLSS have divided people a lot, I personally enjoy Metro with the Ray Traced AO/HDR, but I know not everybody would be willing to chill and extra amount of money for that.

I still do see two major problems with this card. 1st, make no mistake, this is a 1440p card. Nobody would be gaming 4k on this card, but the problem is, there are a number of cards that already perform this job (barring DXR/DLSS) at similar price points (1070 ti is a prime example). The second problem is, it took AMD so much time (almost 2 years), and a two-nodes advantage to provide a worthy competitor that still grants them some profits (barring the mining craze, Vega 56 wasn't that profitable at msrp, given the HBM memory, and the limited quantities it was manufactured at).

Nvidia can easily counter this card. There are the stop-gap solutions, like lower the price of an RTX 2070, or introduce a 2060 ti at a similar price point. And in no more 6 months after the release of the RX 3080XT, Nvidia would be ready with the RTX 3xxx generation on a 7nm.

Caring1Probably run hotter and use a lot more power too.

3 fans and two PCIe power connectors as pictured ;)

medi01Remind me, why 570 (3 years old) ivs slower 1050Ti/1650 works.

I don't understand what you wrote(meant).

THANATOSIntel 8(16T) cpus are much costlier than the ones form AMD but also noticeably faster and we are talking about similar performance for only 2/3 of price!
The competitor for 470/570 was(is) 1060 3GB and not 1050Ti! We are talking about similar performance once again.

So I ask for some example where the performance was the same but It cost 2/3 of the competitors price!

The 480/580 was the card pitted against the 1060 not the 1050. Iirc the 1050 wasn't even announced when Polaris was released at $200/$229 vs the 1060 $249/$299. So am I confused now as such an obvious example is what you are asking for. The 470 came later and the 1050 was released as a response to that. 580/570 same thing all over again 1060 variant/1050ti

THANATOSIntel 8(16T) cpus are much costlier than the ones form AMD but also noticeably faster and we are talking about similar performance for only 2/3 of price!

Intel CPUs, when Ryzen have come. Note the cheapest 8 core.



AMD Ryzen 1800x released at $499, half the price.

Only 8GB?
I was just convinced in another thread that this is not enough and future proof cards should have 16GB.

medi01How much was the cheapest Intel 8 Core, before AMD had ryzen?

$599. But Intel didn't have plain 8 cores, they had 8c/16t.

bug$599

In your face, fanboi:

$330 sounds quite right since 1. they ditched HBM to save cost, 2. putting it under RTX2060 pricing minus specialized cores means this may be AMD's return in spicing up the GPU market space & 3. IF $330 is the MSRP, Nvidia is going to have a hard time keeping up with the heat since they've been dominating the GPU market.

TotallyThe 480/580 was the card pitted against the 1060 not the 1050. Iirc the 1050 wasn't even announced when Polaris was released at $200/$229 vs the 1060 $249/$299. So am I confused now as such an obvious example is what you are asking for.

Did I mention in that quotation that 480/580 was pitted against 1050? I don't think so.
Is It really such an obvious example?
RX480 4GB($199) vs GTX1060FE 6GB($299) -> 50%
RX480 8GB($229) vs GTX1060FE 6GB($299) -> 31%
RX480 4GB($199) vs GTX1060 6GB($249) -> 25%
RX480 8GB($229) vs GTX1060 6GB($249) -> 9%
As you can see at best It was 50% and at worst 9% difference.
I am inclined to ignore GTX1060FE because for lower price you could have the same GPU with the same amount of Vram and better cooling to boot, It was just Nvidia's attempt to sell the same card at a premium.

the54thvoidIf naming conventions are true, they've done this to piss off Nvidia. Unlikely, Nvidia can make their next gen line 3080 etc.

Not necessarily, I believe the main reason is to help unsavvy customer to better identify their product with the other brand range, as they did with CPUs Ryzen 3 - 5 - 7... it makes it easier to compare prices too.

its gcn dont get your hopes up, 250w furnace just to beat a card that performs the same/better, has more features, is far more efficient (even being a node behind) and will be LOUD, looking at you v7

medi01In your face, fanboi:

In my face, what? Why fanboy? Why do you have to make a fuss about Intel CPUs in a thread about an upcoming AMD GPU?

well, all i know is we all have to wait it out & see if the supposedly "RX3080 XT" is as good or better than the RTX2070 for $330 or this is all just a fluke from Tweaktown & other "leak sites".

Remember people, IT IS A RUMOR. Not word from AMD.

IceShroomRemember people, IT IS A RUMOR. Not word from AMD.

You don't have to be mean about it. For years, people that rooted for AMD only had rumors to live on. Because once AMD released their GPUs, the disappointment quickly settled in.

bugYou don't have to be mean about it. For years, people that rooted for AMD only had rumors to live on. Because once AMD released their GPUs, the disappointment quickly settled in.

Not only rumours, but people sucks at managing their expectations. See No Man's Sky.

Again with the "inferiority complex naming scheme" I totally expect this from AMD, after what they've done with CPUs naming and Chipset naming, maybe this time AdoredTV is kinda right...

medi01Intel CPUs, when Ryzen have come. Note the cheapest 8 core.



AMD Ryzen 1800x released at $499, half the price.

First of all, I was talking about GPUs, this news is only about GPUs so I don't understand why you had to bring up CPUs.
Let's see what did Intel do to counter 8C Zen.
Ryzen 7 1800X
Price: US $499
Release date: March 2, 2017

Core i7 7820X
Price: US $599
Release date: June 19, 2017
Difference in price "only" 25% after 3 months of Zen's release and Intel being 15% faster.

Well, this is an interesting name...

Cant say I believe that performance and pricing but if so, seems like a winner. I wonder what power consumption will be? Computex, please get here already.:)



Lol @ TPU being TPU again. Same clowns, different tent (thread). :(

I believe when I see it. Every new AMD GPU comes surrounded with a lot of hype, and looking back, usually does not materialize.

Personally, I don´t expect anything faster than the Vega 64 for mid-end Navi this year. And that would be already a 60% improvement in performance compared to RX580. That´s a perfectly fine job for a Polaris successor.

But, we will see... It would be good if the rumors came true for a change.

Tsukiyomi91$330 sounds quite right since 1. they ditched HBM to save cost, 2. putting it under RTX2060 pricing minus specialized cores means this may be AMD's return in spicing up the GPU market space & 3. IF $330 is the MSRP, Nvidia is going to have a hard time keeping up with the heat since they've been dominating the GPU market.

Does It?
1. So because they ditched HBM for GDDR6 the price is right? HBM is costlier, but then they can have higher margins thanks to lower production cost from a single card.
2. So because Navi doesn't have specialized cores for RT It should be priced under a much weaker RTX2060? RT is not a great selling point at this point.
3. Why should Nvidia have a hard time? Nvidia can cut prices on Turing no problem, It's not like RTX2070 is much costlier to make than Navi. Vram is the same and even though RTX2070 has bigger die size It's built on a much cheaper manufacturing process.
I don't see here anything to justify such a low price If the performance is comparable to RTX2070.

notbOnly 8GB?
I was just convinced in another thread that this is not enough and future proof cards should have 16GB.

Forget about Future Proof Cards, this methodology has been proven wrong many times over again. In 5 years time, for example, todays 16GB won't be able to play PC Games of the future, the way they are meant to be played.

Leave the 16GB to the high end, what this industry needs is cost effective 8GB GPUs with some solid horsepower. Navi may not be perfect but it just might give the gaming industry what is badly needs till AMD finished up its new GPU design. That is Price / Performance.

The RTX 2070 when released was about $700. Well overpriced lol, ya no Thank You,

It seems AMD is stuck on GCN, the Age Old Design that single handedly disabled AMD's ability to properly compete in Performance per Watt. Hopefully there new GPU design dumps GCN in the garbage once and for all.