Damage wrote:Don't try to game the requirements by posting everywhere, guys, or I'll nuke you from space.
clone wrote:why is any of this funny?
it's a pre-release price, I'm still hoping for $650.00... or less.
NovusBogus wrote:To be fair, nvidia's flagship card still costs a thousand bucks...
Airmantharp wrote:Waco wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:My concern with this card is that it's brute-forcing the lead with an expensive 512-bit design and physically huge GPU, rather than architectural or process improvements that increase performance/cost.
I'm not really concerned about the top SKU, that's for the 1% of people who are interested in performance, no matter the cost.
I'm interested in the sweet spot where you get 80% of the performance for 50% of the cost, and that's unlikely to be cheap given how large these dies are, and how 512-bit PCBs are likely to be more expensive to produce than 256-bit or 384-bit.
I'm having flashbacks to buying my 1 GB GDDR4 2900XT...for $550.
That's your own damn fault- anyone in the know knew better! :-p
Prestige Worldwide wrote:"Radeon R9 290X hits Newegg.com at US $729.99"
http://fudzilla.com/home/item/32716-rad ... -us-$72999
Jigar wrote:Prestige Worldwide wrote:"Radeon R9 290X hits Newegg.com at US $729.99"
http://fudzilla.com/home/item/32716-rad ... -us-$72999
Why i don't remember seeing HAHAHAHA from you when TITAN was launched at $999 ?
Am i missing something ? Do you have all the bench results of R9 290X, is it slower than $650 GTX 780 ?
Fighterpilot wrote:I agree...even diehard ATi fans saw 2900XT as overpriced and underperforming.
Worst card they have produced since I started using ATi cards with 9600XT
clone wrote:you are forgetting Geforce 8800 ultra platinum's retailed for $830.00
clone wrote:given the word is the card will be faster while costing 35% less I can't agree with this quote, their is a high end market for video cards, I may or may not buy into it but it does exist and it carries a price premium. AMD undercutting that premium by 25% to 35% is a good thing not a bad, I don't understand why the expectations are on AMD to undercut Nvidia by 25% to 35% while also producing superior product..... it's unrealistic and more than a little flawed.
clone wrote:Nvidia's high end is $1000, AMD's might be faster and looks to be at worst selling for 25% less to possibly 35% less..... it's not funny and given 35% less is still $650 it's not cheap either.given the word is the card will be faster while costing 35% less I can't agree with this quote, their is a high end market for video cards, I may or may not buy into it but it does exist and it carries a price premium. AMD undercutting that premium by 25% to 35% is a good thing not a bad, I don't understand why the expectations are on AMD to undercut Nvidia by 25% to 35% while also producing superior product..... it's unrealistic and more than a little flawed.AMD has gone green and is overpricing their cards like one could argue nvidia always has.
Prestige Worldwide wrote:clone wrote:
AMD gouged us with the Tahiti launch price, Nvidia gouged us by selling GK104 in the price range of a high-end card because it could get away with it, launched Titan at a ridiculous price and now we've come full circle and AMD is launching their card at nearly twice of what the HD 5870 launched at.
A new product should replace the previous top product in the same price range, not inflate it's prices just because it's faster than the previous generation.
cynan wrote:Your argument that just because Nvidia didn't increases prices between the GTX 480 and GTX 580 (even though the GTX 580 ended up selling for a bit more retail), it was fine for the GTX 580 to cost >$500 before the HD 7970 was released. This is a logical perspective for someone who only buys AMD or only buys Nvidia, but in reality, these brands coexist in the same market.
cynan wrote:In 2008, AMD was desperate for market share, so they released their new HD 4000 architecture as somewhat of a loss leader to claw back market share. Sure this made their cards exceptionally good value compared to Nvidia at the time, but such a move is risky, as it entrenches future similar products as being worth less in the eyes of the public. This probably explains some of the reason why AMD cards that perform as well as Nvidia cards (ie HD 7970 vs GTX 480) would only sell when priced $50-$100 less, even today.
Bottom line is that pricing of a product, relative to other existing products, all else being equal, is a strong factor by which people valuate them. It's a critical mass thing. AMD's bargain basement pricing of the HD 4800 cards was a long-term marketing tactic: Claw back market share, then eventually be able to sell future generations at market parity. Any other strategy is just not realistic for a business.
This is all to say that if the R9 290x really does perform as well or better than a GTX 780, then why shouldn't it sell for approximately as much. I think, due to AMD's recent reputation and market share, it would behoove them to attempt to at least slightly undercut GTX 780 prices ( and t's still too early to say that this isn't the case), but calling their top cards overpriced because they don't sell for $299 (HD 4870 launch price) is not really a perspective that is based on reality.
Prestige Worldwide wrote:$599 would have been realistic in my eyes as a launch day price. Not a reasonable price to me, but realistic given the current market pricing.
This reaks of price fixing all over again. I'm just frustrated by the trend we have been seeing in terms of GPU prices over the last 20 months.... Tahiti, GK110, Hawaii... they're all asking for too much and we're starting to look too much like Fall 2006 / Spring 2007 again.
Airmantharp wrote:The main reason that we aren't getting more performance for our dollars has already been detailed- it's because AMD refocused GCN considerably on compute without really pushing the die sizes, meaning that their top-end part had far better compute than AMD's mid-range part (but not Nvidia's top-end part), yet didn't have any more gaming potential than Nvidia's mid-range part. It was a boon for bitcoiners, but because Nvidia had the compute market locked up with CUDA (which isn't a bad thing, either), and AMD only supported the relatively infantile OpenCL, AMD's gamble didn't really pay off, while Nvidia laughed all the way to the bank and the shareholder parties.
killadark wrote:not meaning to go off toic but dint want to start another thread but is discussion related to NSA banned?
asking cuz my thread was deleted when i mentioned about xbox being able to recognise what we speak through kinect :/
clone wrote:while pooping on AMD's drivers is fashionable in the media their drivers are the least of my concerns, especially when Nvidia just released a new driver that comes across very much like AMD driver releases albeit with much more vague admissions in it's release notes.
But they have that marketshare and mindshare back- they've rebuilt the value of their brand, and they've since begun pushing for returns that are in line with the market and their primary market competitor- Nvidia.
JohnC wrote:Speaking of "Red Camp":
Origin PC Now Dealing Exclusively with Nvidia Graphics
"Alvaro Masis, a Technical Support Manager for Origin PC, issued the following statement to Maximum PC:
"Primarily the overall issues have been stability of the cards, overheating, performance, scaling, and the amount of time to receive new drivers on both desktop and mobile GPUs.We’ve also seen a high percentage of failures on AMD cards in the field within the first few months. Even after replacing with multiple AMD cards the failures continued. Switching these same exact customers to Nvidia resulted in fixing these failures and therefore obviously a much more positive customer experience."
This statement may sound like an intentionally false accusations BUT I do not believe they would be lying - after all AMD can always sue them for libel...
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests