AMD weighs in on Radeon RX Vega pricing controversy

AMD's Radeon RX Vega graphics cards have a rather unusual pricing structure. While the Radeon RX Vega 56 lists for $399 and the RX Vega 64 for $499, the company is also selling those cards as part of more expensive "Radeon Packs" that offer the buyer bundled games and discounts on other AMD hardware.

In the wake of the RX Vega launch, there has been considerable controversy stirred up regarding the availability and pricing of un-Packed RX Vega 64s. Those cards vanished from e-tail in a flash, leaving only the much more expensive Radeon Packs available before those, too, sold out. Some sources proposed that only a limited quantity of RX Vega 64 cards would ever be available at AMD's suggested pricing, and that a $100 markup over those prices would be the order of things going forward.

Although it didn't acknowledge this controversy directly, AMD has begun issuing official statements to the press regarding this matter. Here's what the company had to say:

Radeon RX Vega64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand.  Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days.

While this statement would appear to indicate that no changes are planned for the suggested pricing of RX Vega 64 cards, it's worth noting that AMD can't control the actual sale price of RX Vega cards to begin with. Those decisions are ultimately in retailers' hands. Witness the prices of Polaris 10 and Polaris 20 parts, which are in insatiable demand thanks to the cryptocurrency boom. We'll just have to see whether AMD can provide enough stock of RX Vega 64s to meet demand and keep the cards moving near their suggested prices going forward.

Comments closed
    • Bensam123
    • 2 years ago

    Mining. All mining demand.

    AMD actually priced things accordingly. They made ‘packs’ as a deterrent for miners to snatch them up and still made them lucrative for gamers. It is a good idea. Right now Vega isnt performing all that well in Cryptos, but that’s expected to change as devs become more familiar with the architecture. IF it performs well enough even the packs will be gobbled up.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Unless another ETH/BC comes along soon. It will unlikely be the case. The low-hanging fruit from ETH is gone and it is about to hit the “difficulty wall”.

        • Bensam123
        • 2 years ago

        They pushed that back yet again. There are plenty of other high volume cryptos that depends on the algo, dagger, besides ethereum. In addition to that hasj always gravitate towards the strongest coin, in the case of ethereum sounding down hill it will take other coins with it as people move off to more fertile pastures. It all equalizes. That means dagger will always be relevant.

    • DavidC1
    • 2 years ago

    “Radeon RX Vega64 demand continues to exceed expectations.”

    Of course that comment would be irrelevant if they knew the card would be uncompetitive and would not sell well. Low expectations = easily exceeded

    By the way guys. Vega sucks at mining too. RX 470/480/570/580 gets Vega performance at 1/2 the price and 1/2 the TDP.

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 2 years ago

    What? Me worry? nVidia, here I come.

    • cynan
    • 2 years ago

    Entitled GPU Customers circa 2016: “Grumble.. Grumble..”

    AMD Marketing circa 2016: “Gee, Nvidia seems to be taking some flack for charging $50-$100 more over AIB MSRP for their [b<]new hotness[/b<] Founder Edition Pascal cards". AMD Marketing circa 2017: "Sigh. HBM2 yields are killing us, let's get our [b<]hot newness[/b<] out the door in quantity already! Well at least we can avoid Nvidia's FE money grab mistake. I know! Let's do one better and discount a few hundred launch cards!". Entitled GPU Customers circa 2017: "Grumble.. Grumble.." Some things never change.

    • NeoForever
    • 2 years ago

    I hope Jeff updates the price/performance charts.

      • Freon
      • 2 years ago

      Came here to say that. Add another $100 to the horizontal axis to the 56 and 64 and the picture changes quite a bit from “ehhh” to “nope!”

    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    It is 5850/5870 launch all over again. :sigh:

      • brucethemoose
      • 2 years ago

      Except the cards are basically Fermi.

        • Krogoth
        • 2 years ago

        Pretty much

        The architecture favors workstation-tier and general compute workloads more than gaming. The power consumption is considerably higher then competition.

        • tviceman
        • 2 years ago

        You left “without the great graphics performance” part out of your sentence.

          • Krogoth
          • 2 years ago

          It is about product availability you nearsighted twit.

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]While this statement would appear to indicate that no changes are planned for the suggested pricing of RX Vega 64 cards[/quote<] Hmm... as far as I can tell, AMD's statement makes no comment whatsoever on future card MSRPs. Their statement explicitly only mentions prices for their " initial launch quantities". As far as I can tell AMD has neither officially promised consumers to maintain their current MSRP nor threatened to raise prices. What we have to go on are unofficial accounts from AIBs that their current prices are being sustained by rebates from AMD that may be discontinued in the future.

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    I feel bad for anyone who skipped Pascal last year to wait for Vega. Whoops.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    I hope the Vega56 is available. The GTX1070 is the sweet spot for 1440p gaming right now and it’s waaay too expensive and very hard to find stock because of the crypo miners buying anything hashes fast enough per dollar.

    The Vega56 seems to be a Freesync equal to the 1070 for about 200W with the power-saver profile, and I’m okay with that, provided I can find it for less than a 1070. I’m just worried that they’ll be snapped up at near Vega64 pricing because the hashrate doesn’t look that much different and with AMD’s new mining-friendly beta drivers it’s going to make them as appealing as Polaris.

    Perhaps I’ll be able to pick up a used 1080 if miners are switching to Vega. I can live with 75Hz Fastsync even if it’s not quite as nice as VRR.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Damn miners, stealin our [s<]jerbs[/s<] cerds!

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Funny, but hardly true.

      It might have been true back a few months ago, but Vega missed the ETH boat.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        What are you smoking?!
        Mining is still hurting consumer GPU prices, or are you living so far in the past that it hasn’t driven up the prices yet?

        Find me an 8GB RX480/580 at $229, new. They’re about $350 still, maybe the runts with awful cooling are down at $329, a mere $100 markup.

        Find me a GTX 1070 at $349, new. $460 seems to be the going rate for anything with even a [i<]half[/i<]-decent cooler on it.

          • Krogoth
          • 2 years ago

          In the context of Vega, this is true since it doesn’t make sense for miners to get. However, the market in general has been effected by crypto-currency craze even on GPUs that aren’t good at mining.

          Prices are massively inflated right now.

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 years ago

            Except AMD have released a mining driver for Vega that makes it superior to a Fury and more power-efficient than even the default “power-saver” profile, so it’s now [i<]very sensible[/i<] for miners to get, if not outright the best option to mine with.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            It still loses to 1070, 480 and 470 and the market is already about to hit the difficulty wall with ETH.

            Not exactly a good time to plunge $700+ on hardware plus electrical cost for ETH mining. This is assuming ETH prices are going to stay the same at moment or grow higher (not likely). You have to mine at least 2.5 to 3ETH to get a ROI at current prices of this post.

      • oldog
      • 2 years ago

      I personally witnessed a guy two days ago at the local Fry’s picking up 6 new Radeon cards at the same time.

      He was talking aloud to a watch phone (I kid you not) to someone who was coaching him on which cards to get for mining. The funniest part of the conversation was him repeatedly telling the other guy on the line that he had to hang up cause he was running low on battery life.

    • psuedonymous
    • 2 years ago

    [url=https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/vega-is-finally-here-its-in-stock-along-with-some-epic-bundles-freesync-deals.18789696/#post-31059400<]According to Gibbo (OCUK staff)[/url<] the 'non bundled' price announced as the standalone card launch price was enabled via a rebate from AMD to retailers. This was limited to the first 275 sales of this SKU, after which supply price went back up the the same as the bundled version, about [url=https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31071694/<]£534 (£580 * 0.92)[/url<]. AMD have only claimed that they would restock cards, not that they would continue to offer the rebate.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 2 years ago

    I can forgive AMD for having products that cost more than intended at launch. Supply and demand are very real.

    But the idea of rebating a couple hundred of cards from each retailer is sketchy. That reeks of the kind of positioning that enables you to go, “hey at least a few people got them at X price!”

    Overpriced GPUs at launch is not unusual. But artificially lowering a very small number at an unrealistic price feels kinda dirty.

    • wingless
    • 2 years ago

    Supply and demand! Let AMD make their money so they can stay out of the red. We need them around for competition in the future. People need to stop acting like they want them to go out of business because they’re 3FPS slower than their competition or use $150 extra in electricity bills over 5 years (referencing Gamers Nexus’s power test).

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      I have no problem with AMD charging whatever they decide for the product.

      But it would be seriously not cool to advertise at $499 but actually sell at $599. You want to sell at $599, go ahead, but don’t be misleading about it.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 2 years ago

    Gamers arent’t getting any because they don’t want them. They’re warmed over Fijis only miners care about. Let them have them.

      • Voldenuit
      • 2 years ago

      I think there’s demand for them among gamers. The (MSRP) price/performance of Vega 56 is actually pretty good, assuming you don’t care about heat and power. Unfortunately, the 56 also has better MHs/watt than the 64, so I can see mining demand for it above the 64.

      • southrncomfortjm
      • 2 years ago

      I’m interested in a Vega 56, but only once the ones with custom coolers come out.

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 2 years ago

      Vega 56 in power saver mode is very appealing for gamers, especially if you have a FreeSync display or are looking into buying one.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      Gamers who have Freesync mointors that need something more powerful then 480 and Fury want them.

      Too bad that scalpers bought them all.

        • dpaus
        • 2 years ago

        ‘sclapers’ = ‘slow clappers’??

        I can’t keep up with the lingo you punk kids use these days…

    • techguy
    • 2 years ago

    Do marketing departments think we’re all goldfish?

    What happened to “we’re delaying the launch to make sure we have enough product to meet demand”? Either that was a lie, or this is.

      • Kougar
      • 2 years ago

      Considering Vega was already delayed eight months, I can see why they wouldn’t want to delay it further.

      Assuming AMD did delay Vega another two months it could be practically launching on top of Volta, and it’s current price/performance per watt metric is already pretty skewed as it is.

        • cynan
        • 2 years ago

        Gaming Volta’s not coming out in 2017. But your point still stands.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 2 years ago

          Gaming Volta isn’t coming in 2017, but could be here in the first few months of 2018 (say March – May time frame as a scientific-wild-ass-guess). So if AMD had delayed until say October they wouldn’t have a lot of window left.

      • cynan
      • 2 years ago

      Not that I don’t take your sentiment about the lack of availability, but I think you’d be about the only one who thinks that Vega wasn’t delayed long enough as it was.

      • Redocbew
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]Do marketing departments think we're all goldfish?[/quote<] Yes. It's just that the people who are really good at it make you forget that's what they're thinking. To quote Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb.

    • Bauxite
    • 2 years ago

    Real world effect: $200 overpriced shiny turds in low supply.

    TR great launch, Vega flop.

    • fent
    • 2 years ago

    Can’t imagine I am the only one who stopped waiting after Vega and just got a GTX 1070.

      • euricog
      • 2 years ago

      Man, I definitely would too, but I’ve previously invested in a ultra-wide Freesync that I can’t afford to change right now, so this leaves me no option than either a AMD card or no Freesync 🙁

      I made the mistake of selling my RX480 just as the RX5xx arrived, as prices were “normal” at the time. But then the hype surrounding Vega made me wait and now that it (somewhat) arrived, shop prices make it a terrible option (when compared to nVidia offerings), so I’ll be forced to shell out a lot more than I should or have fun with my CPU’s integrated GPU (help…)

        • Leader952
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<]Man, I definitely would too, but I've previously invested in a ultra-wide Freesync that I can't afford to change right now, so this leaves me no option than either a AMD card or no Freesync[/quote<] For those here who criticized Nvida about "vendor locking with G-Sync" this example is the same but with AMD being the one who "vendor locked".

          • LostCat
          • 2 years ago

          Except it’s NVidia vendor locking again, since Freesync would be fairly easy for them to support.

            • psuedonymous
            • 2 years ago

            Same situation as Mantle: open in name, but vendor-only in practice.

            • sreams
            • 2 years ago

            …because nVidia chooses for it to be that way.

            • psuedonymous
            • 2 years ago

            And Intel? And ARM (Mali)? And Qualcomm (Adreno)? And Imagination (PowerVR)?

            Nobody picked up Mantle. Nobody has picked up FreeSync.

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            True, although to be pedandic, Vulkan/Mantle has limited developer support. Bethesda has it on most of their newer games (bar Dishonored 2 and Prey, which were developed by Arkane). And AOTS has promised support for it, although it doesn’t make much sense for them to do so unless they’re doing it for a Linux release*.

            intel signed on to Freesync a couple years ago but apparently the dog ate their homework or something, because we haven’t seen it in any of their IGPs yet, and it doesn’t look as if Covfefe Lake is going to buck that trend.

            * EDIT: looks like Vulkan support is now in the beta branch, and the good news is that you can get support for modern GPU features without having to sell out (or be sold out) and get Windows 10, so I guess there’s something to be said for that.

            • crystall
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<]Nobody picked up Mantle.[/quote<] Except for the fact that it essentially served as the basis for Vulkan.

            • freebird
            • 2 years ago

            Vulkan “picked up” mantle… which was donated to Kronos by AMD and is the foundation of Vulkan. In addition, every single vendor that you mentioned including Nvidia; all support Vulkan and therefore “mantle” in a sense. Only AMD had to give it away for free to a 3rd party: Kronos. So, once AMD set mantle “free” is when everyone decide to support it.

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API)[/url<]

            • renz496
            • 2 years ago

            doesn’t matter if Vulkan picked Mantle or not. the difference still that [b<]everyone[/b<] can get involved in developing the standard with Vulkan. that is not the case with Mantle at all. with Mantle AMD is clear they will be the only one developing the spec. but at the same time they will not going to stop anyone from using it. but even that actually never really happen. because back in 2014 AMD only giving Mantle access to Game developer only. intel is quite persistent to get mantle access from AMD to which AMD deny each and every time. at one point intel giving up on it when they finally have some working driver for DX12 while they don't even get to see Mantle spec (let alone any access to Mantle SDK).

            • LostCat
            • 2 years ago

            Mantle is now Vulkan.
            Freesync could be part of HDMI 2.1s VRR as well. No idea.

            • SCR250
            • 2 years ago

            AMD could support G-Sync but chose not too

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            AMD will not because they would have to pay hefty royalties to Nvidia (assuming they would agree to it).

            The love and joy of proprietary, closed standards.

            • BurntMyBacon
            • 2 years ago

            [quote=”SCR250″<]AMD could support G-Sync but chose not too[/quote<] Last I checked nVidia said no to letting other GPU designers use G-Sync. The only mention of licensing and royalties I read about are for display manufacturers in the form of the G-Sync module they are required to buy. There was no choosing to be done on AMD's part. The reverse is not true. AMD has not prevented anyone from using FreeSync (or display port adaptive sync if you prefer the unbranded name). It is nVidia who chose not to support it ... except in laptops via eDP for the built in display only (which proves there are little to no technical hurdles left to overcome). Display port adaptive sync is part of the display port standard now and, like vulcan (but not mantle), not under AMD's control. There is no reason for nVidia not to support it beyond the fact that this dividing of the market helps their bottom line. If the day ever comes that it is a liability, it will quickly be dropped.

            • renz496
            • 2 years ago

            people say this a lot but is there is any proof that nvidia can do it that easy? i know Gsync in laptop is does not need module but they were using existing eDP to make it work. some people said the spec in eDP and DP1.2a needed for adaptive sync is the same. but to my knowledge the initial spec for adaptive sync is proposed by AMD to VESA. if the spec in eDP really is the one that used in DP (for VRR) then why VESA did not implement them into initial DP spec?

            also there is a hack to make hybrid PhysX work and non SLI certified mobo to accept SLI. if Gsync in laptop is a prove that nvidia GPU can work with adaptive sync then people can look to it and hack adaptive sync monitor to work with nvidia GPU right? is there any effort on this front yet?

            • BurntMyBacon
            • 2 years ago

            [quote=”renz496″<]some people said the spec in eDP and DP1.2a needed for adaptive sync is the same. but to my knowledge the initial spec for adaptive sync is proposed by AMD to VESA. if the spec in eDP really is the one that used in DP (for VRR) then why VESA did not implement them into initial DP spec?[/quote<] I believe the key technologies were variable VBLANK and panel self refresh. These were implemented in eDP as a power saving feature. They were not included in DP because they were considered of limited use to non-portable devices. If I understand the situation correctly, AMD did not so much propose the initial adaptive sync spec as suggest that they add the already existing technologies present in eDP to the DP line. Subsequently, AMD branded the collection of technology FreeSync for their products, DP branded it display port adaptive sync, and monitor manufacturers (unfortunately) branded it FreeSync for their products. While in the current market only FreeSync products can make full use of their Adaptive Sync capable monitors, using this branding belies the fact that they are not tied to FreeSync products and will work with any standards compliant adaptive sync implementation just as soon as Intel/Qualcomm/Apple/Samsung/nVidia/etc. decide to implement it. [quote="renz496"<]also there is a hack to make hybrid PhysX work and non SLI certified mobo to accept SLI. if Gsync in laptop is a prove that nvidia GPU can work with adaptive sync then people can look to it and hack adaptive sync monitor to work with nvidia GPU right? is there any effort on this front yet?[/quote<] Yes, there has been some effort here. Some even claim to have gotten it working. Others claim its a big steaming pile of $#!+ . I haven't tried it out myself as I have a G-Sync setup, but as I understand it, you need one of a specific set of mobile chips to even make the attempt. Feel free to delve into the details and see you can get it working. This is a reasonable place to start: [url<]http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/nvidia-g-sync-hack-it-works-on-every-display-supporting-displayport-1-2.770187/[/url<]

          • Kretschmer
          • 2 years ago

          I went with GSync myself, but this isn’t accurate. NVidia could support FreeSync tomorrow if they wanted to. AMD cannot interface with proprietary GSync.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 years ago

            Nvidia has no incentive or reason to use Freesync. Vega’s lackluster launch pretty much seal it. Nvidia has more of a reason to keep GSync 1.0 on going and lock their users to it.

          • Billstevens
          • 2 years ago

          I think there is some distinction to be made. AMD I doubt could freely chose to support Gsync. Not even sure they could pay Nvidia to let them utilize it.

          Freesync is license and royalty free so Nvidia could just support it and kill the vendor lock. So technically AMD is not locking anything. In practice it is effectively a lock out because Nvidia would be undercutting their own tech and R&D by adopting a free standard.

          To my mind neither company has done anything wrong. I think companies often can hurt openness by making the best buisness decision for their bottom line. But in operating in their own best interest Nvidia has created an environment that is vendor locking people. I put that blame on Nvidia because if they had made support for Gsync open and free, then AMD would be forced to freely support their tech or try to compete or vendor lock to their own version. By making the move they did, they left AMD no choice.

          The only hope to escape the vendor lock, will be when Nvidia gives up on gsync, it becomes cheap enough that most monitors support both techs, or Nvidia allows AMD to freely support Gsync in the hopes that more monitors will be sold with the tech. I don’t see any of those happening any time soon sadly.

          Its a true shame because adaptive sync tech is a fix for a really stupid problem that should have been fixed years before the first gsync module.

        • SHOES
        • 2 years ago

        1080ti looks acceptable on my freesync…

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 2 years ago

          If you can consistently peg the frame rate to meet the max refresh rate of the monitor, then G-Sync/FreeSync distill back down to V-Sync and you don’t really need either variable refresh rate technology to do V-Sync. I sincerely wish you good luck keeping up with that as games get harder to render. Enjoy it while you have it.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 2 years ago

      Vega 56 competes really well with the 1070 and supports freesync. If you were waiting this long, it doesn’t make sense to go with a 1070 unless you are one of those people who complain about the power difference of a light bulb.

      I’d rather wait for the aftermarket 56 and get the new features and dx12/vulkan performance. Especially since I already own a freesync monitor.

        • brucethemoose
        • 2 years ago

        The 1070 does OC better than Vega.

          • DoomGuy64
          • 2 years ago

          STOCK. You don’t know how the aftermarket 56 will clock, and it could potentially reach Vega 64 clocks with a decent cooler.

          edit:
          I was right. Vega 56 is a great overclocker, but only if you raise the power limit and undervolt at the same time. The VRMs/board is the same as Vega 64, but the powerlimit is somewhat limited by the bios to keep people from hitting Vega 64 clocks. You can compensate for that with raising the powerlimit and undervolting, and if aftermarket cards remove the powerlimits Vega 56 should be a monster Overclocker.

          Also, neither wattman or DSBR is working 100% in current drivers, as well as mining performance. AMD has a way to go to get Vega fully functional, and as DSBR is not fully functional current benchmarks are not representative of actual performance. Even with that, stock Vega 56 is already matching the 1070, so newer drivers should boost performance even further.

          Conclusion: Aftermarket Vega 56 with an unlocked bios should be an absolute monster.

        • fent
        • 2 years ago

        More like I have zero confidence with the Vega 56 being available anywhere close to MSRP. If you go the the reviews last page and slide the dot of the 56 +$100 on the x-axis it looks a lot worse.

        • tviceman
        • 2 years ago

        “I’d rather wait” seems to be the mantra of AMD fans these days. Personally I’m done waiting and will just buy whatever is best in the price range when I am ready to purchase.

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 2 years ago

          [quote=”tviceman”<]Personally I'm done waiting and will just buy whatever is best in the price range when I am ready to purchase.[/quote<] This is great advice in general, particularly when the release of the next product is uncertain and/or a ways out. It doesn't make sense to wait for months based on a hope unless you are satisfied with your current setup while doing so. However, it seems a little short sighted with a hard launch date less than two weeks out. Even hardcore nVidia only buyers stand to benefit for their patience as AMD bringing a new card to the market often times brings down the price of the competing nVidia cards. If the VEGA56 can mine well, it may bring some pricing relief to the 1070 without nVidia changing a thing. Unless it is mission critical that you get a new card this very instant, you are better off at this point having a little patience.

        • freebird
        • 2 years ago

        Bashing Vega seems to be pretty popular… and its initial release is more than a little disappointing, since availability and pricing are currently not good. However, if they do ship quantity that comes out at MSRP pricing in the next month or two it should be fine going forward… It may be a little power hungry, but it will support FreeSync2 and performs very well against Nvidia currently in DX12 and will probably get better as AMD produces better drivers. So looking to the “future” and “future proofing” as so many on here like to claim for a purchase reason; Vega is an excellent choice.

        • stefem
        • 2 years ago

        Must be a pretty big light bulb…

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 2 years ago

          It’s a halogen bulb (or possibly incandescent). Certainly not LED or compact florescent bulb.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah but Vega 56 will never be available at MSRP. Add an extra $100-150 and it’s a failure.

      • Dysthymia
      • 2 years ago

      Yeah, my GTX 1080 is set to arrive Wednesday next week. I wanted to support AMD but I also wanted a video card upgrade months ago.

      • brucethemoose
      • 2 years ago

      Or a 980 TI…

      • SHOES
      • 2 years ago

      You’re not.. I even already had a freesync monitor and went with a 1080ti… Just as soon as I heard about Vegas performance..

    • kvndoom
    • 2 years ago

    Money is money… a sale is a sale… Dang cards are better at mining and worse at gaming than Nvidia so let the miners buy em! Everyone wins!

    If Vega’s gaming chops were better than the green team then I’d actually feel bad for gamers not being able to buy them.

      • drfish
      • 2 years ago

      Yow, that burns worse than a 345W TDP.

      • Cannonaire
      • 2 years ago

      The problem for AMD is that the miners will likely sell their cards later at cheaper prices to gamers who would otherwise be purchasing newly-produced cards, cutting AMD’s profits significantly.

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        Well, there will be a glut of used 1070s in the same market, too, as they are one of the better MHs/W mining cards.

        So the mining boom doesn’t really help either nv or AMD.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 2 years ago

      The cards are worse at gaming AND mining and somehow they still sell.

        • DrDominodog51
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah. Vega’s MH/s/W ratio isn’t good in comparison to Polaris 11 or 1060/1070.

        I think poachers, who thought miners would want Vega, bought all of the stock.

        • strangerguy
        • 2 years ago

        You can sell out on any product as long as you make them at quantities smaller than the number of your fanatical following aka vaporware.

          • BurntMyBacon
          • 2 years ago

          Sure, but you don’t make money that way. AMD is in business to make money. Proficiency of that task aside, they don’t make money on a product that they don’t sell. I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to intentionally limit supply to anything less than what they can eventually sell (which is anything they can produce at this point).

    • deathBOB
    • 2 years ago

    Even if the card only price remains $499, I bet that supply will continue to be very small.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    Even if AMD was charging more, there’s no way I’d blame them. So far the only parties not benefiting from the mining craze has been the GPU chip makers. As someone else pointed out in the Vega review comments, even card partners are jacking up prices on their own web stores.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]So far the only parties not benefiting from the mining craze has been the GPU chip makers.[/quote<] I'd add regular consumers to the list of people who are not benefiting from the mining craze too.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        fair enough.

        • freebird
        • 2 years ago

        or “taxed” power supplies running 24/7… and maybe power utility employees having to work some OT… 😉

      • cynan
      • 2 years ago

      To that point, I just don’t get the consumer entitlement philosophy. It’s almost as if people think AMD wants to struggle with a tight supply (of HBM2) and grant the majority of the profits that they are able to make to retailers.

      Just because the way demand has worked in the past in these markets – where the value and demand for an item gradually diminishes after launch, in line with a static, and more often declining, price model with time, it doesn’t mean that in a situation where high demand remains constant/increases and/or supply is constrained, prices can’t increase.

      AMD made a statement on what launch prices were and stuck to it. Why shouldn’t they raise them if supply/demand warrants it? They are a business, not a government-subsidized commodity supplier. People don’t seem to be as up in arms when DRAM manufacturers raise prices in the face of demand.

      Perhaps there is the argument that AMD simply shouldn’t be making any statements/promises about launch prices at all… But the baseline has to start somewhere.

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        I think ppl are sore that AMD (seemingly) prioritized OEM system builders with Polaris, to the detriment of AIB supply. Vega on the other hand is unlikely to be widely used by system integrators.

          • cynan
          • 2 years ago

          Except [url=https://techreport.com/news/32043/apple-takes-the-imac-pro-with-xeons-and-radeon-vega-graphics<]Apple,[/url<] of course. But then perhaps even Apple won't sell that many iMac Pros. Beyond that, AMD has gone through some pretty crappy AIB revenue cycles relative to Nvidia. It's still hard to blame them for resisting inking larger deals with OEMs when the opportunities arose.

            • w76
            • 2 years ago

            People need to not be short sighted with AMD, too. What’s worse, AMD raising prices today and having tight retail supply today, or an nvidia monopoly by 2020 because a more generous AMD couldn’t afford to keep it’s R&D up?

            People must remember, too, that AMD’s graphics division is probably having to subsidize to some extent the launch of their new CPU architecture, so that’s an extra burden as well that nvidia doesn’t have.

            • rahulahl
            • 2 years ago

            Except if AMD were to officially raise the prices, Nvidia would follow suit since they would basically have no competition as far as gaming customers go. Unfortunately there are simply no good options here, but raising price isn’t gonna benefit the customers.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            regular customers weren’t going to be able to buy these anyway.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This