Report: Amazon listing exposes GeForce RTX Super cards due July 9

A little over a month ago, Nvidia released a YouTube teaser indicating that something “super” was on the way. According to a report from Rock, Paper, Shotgun, that something super is a refresh of Nvidia’s entire GeForce RTX lineup. They’re reportedly coming soon, too—July 9th, to be exact.

Thanks to some early product listings on Amazon, several RTX 2000-series Super cards will be available in just over a week. Listings for GeForce RTX 2060, 2070, and 2080 Super editions showed up on the e-tailer earlier today but they’ve since been removed. From the screenshots captured by RPS, it seems that these cards will have just a slight clock boost from their non-Super forms, but the RTX 2060 Super’s listing also showed 8 GB of VRAM instead of the vanilla 2060’s six. In the listing for EVGA’s purportedly upcoming (and sexily-named) GeForce RTX 2070 Super XC Ultra Gaming, the GPU’s max boost tops out at 1.8 GHz, vs 1.725 GHz for the non-Super 2070.

second report from Videocardz says there’s more to these cards than minor clock speed bumps, though. According to their sources, each Super card will have more of its silicon unlocked than the non-super cards. Here’s a table of Nvidia’s current lineup vs. its purported upcoming refresh with CUDA core counts, memory size, and pricing.

RTX Card CUDA Core Count VRAM Price
RTX 2060 1920 6 GB 192-bit $349 (Amazon)
RTX 2060 Super 2176 8 GB 256-bit $399
RTX 2070 2304 8 GB 256-bit $479 (Amazon)
RTX 2070 Super 2560 8 GB 256-bit $499
RTX 2080 2944 8 GB  256-bit $699 (Amazon)
RTX 2080 Super 3072 8 GB 256-bit $699

The card that stands to benefit the most is the GeForce RTX 2060 Super. The smallest Turing has a narrower memory bus than its bigger siblings, but the rumored Super version would have a full 256-bit bus and a couple extra gigabytes of VRAM to go with it. The extra 256 CUDA cores would also be the largest gain among Super Turing Brothers cards. Videocardz says we’ll learn more on July 2, which is only a few days out. Shortly after the slip-up was fixed by Amazon, Nvidia tweeted that the wait was “almost over”.

Of course, it wasn’t too long ago that AMD promised to put Turing in its place. The red team favorably compared its Radeon RX 5700 to the RTX 2060 and claimed victory against Nvidia’s RTX 2070 with the RX 5700XT. Those cards are scheduled to launch July 7 alongside the third-generation Ryzen family of desktop CPUs. The summer is just starting to heat up, but the fight for graphics supremacy is fully ablaze already. Stay tuned.

Ben Funk

Sega nerd and guitar lover

Comments
    • K-L-Waster
    • 2 months ago

    #StillNoReasonToUpgrade

    Reply
    • freebird
    • 2 months ago

    So from those prices and specs, it looks like the RTX 2060 Super may kill off the RTX 2070 from below and the RTX Super 2070 from above. With the RTX 2060 in spitting distances of the same amount of CUDA cores as 2070 and now the same 8GB 256-bit memory bus (unless they severely reduce the memory speed)

    Reply
    • tipoo
    • 2 months ago

    I get the feeling Nvidia is still just logged into their smurf account here. Despite all of 7nm Navi’s claimed (and likely) gains, a reconjiggering of 12nm FFN parts is enough for now from their perspective. AMD may drive value in competition through 2019 but I’m guessing this plays out as Nvidia once again bounding away with total performance with 7nm Ampere, at the time of their choosing when economically favorable. Don’t seem to be scared into a rush for it for now.

    Reply
    • WaltC
    • 2 months ago

    I wonder if along with fixing the RTX 2060 bus width and onboard vram, nVidia has enabled SLI for the “super– what the 2060 should have been” version of the card…?

    Reply
    • Bensam123
    • 2 months ago

    WTF is the 2080 Super? Is it even worth making another card for a 4% increase in cuda cores? That has to be a typo.

    Reply
      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 months ago

      That’s what I thought, too. It clearly exists to not cut into the 2080 Ti’s sales, I guess.

      Reply
      • Mr Bill
      • 2 months ago

      Supersede…..
      .
      .
      The 2080 Super, supersedes the 2080.

      Reply
      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 months ago

      According to Anand it also has a small clock bump and faster VRAM speeds, but yeah, not exactly earth shaking.

      Reply
      • Krogoth
      • 2 months ago

      2080 Super is a fully enabled TU104 SKU or a “failed” TU104-based Quadro depending on how you look at it.

      It is what 2080 should have been at launch if Nvidia had competition that wasn’t old stock. The 2080 would have been a 2070Ti and the new “2070 Super” a.k.a more binned TU104 would have been the 2070.

      Reply
    • techguy
    • 2 months ago

    The only potential Turing refresh I would be even remotely interested in would include the following:
    twice the VRAM
    significantly higher RTX performance

    We’re at a point of diminishing returns on traditional rasterized performance, 4k60 is the norm, rather than the exception with TU102-powered cards anyway.

    Reply
      • Johnny Rotten
      • 2 months ago

      And here I am just wanting a card that can drive UWD or 4K @ 144hz.

      60Hz is so mediocre.

      Reply
        • auxy
        • 2 months ago

        What games are you playing? Σ( `ー´)
        Everything I play runs at >100 FPS in 4K on my 1080 Ti.

        Reply
          • Beahmont
          • 2 months ago

          Forget about what he’s playing, I want to know what monitor he’s trying to play 4k@144hz on that doesn’t cost more than a car!?

          Reply
            • auxy
            • 2 months ago

            I do it by using a high-refresh 1920×1080 monitor with AMD VSR or Nvidia DSR enabled.
            It looks like the real thing (arguably better thanks to smoothing effect of downsampling) and you still get to enjoy the benefits of high-refresh and motion blur reduction. Plus, my monitor didn’t cost me an arm and a leg! ( `ー´)Ъ

            • sweatshopking
            • 2 months ago

            Oh, so not actually playing at 4k. Ok

            • auxy
            • 2 months ago

            Game is running in 4K resolution. It even says 3840×2160 in the settings menu. As far as the game knows, it’s on a 4K monitor.

            It’s actually even MORE demanding, which serves my argument even further. You played yourself! ( *´艸`)

          • anotherengineer
          • 2 months ago

          I’m playing the game of life. Infinite fps!! 🙂 Infinite xp.

          zero time, zero moneys 🙁

          Reply
            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 months ago

            Yeah, but steal a car, run over a few grannies, get chased by police and helicopters without instant respawns.

            Sup?

            [url<]https://images.wondershare.com/filmora/article-images/roll-safe-think-about-it-upload-3.jpg[/url<]

            • freebird
            • 2 months ago

            I enjoyed using the Carmageddon Electro-blaster on the Grannies and taking on the Tank Police cars with the invulnerability power up… unfortunately it didn’t have any helicopters in the game.

        • the
        • 2 months ago

        I think the delays on that are mainly on the monitor technology side. DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.1 enabled models are exceedingly rare right now which enable 4K120 or more.

        Reply
      • jihadjoe
      • 2 months ago

      You’d probably have to wait until Nvidia gets on 7nm or even 5nm. Current Turing die sizes indicate those features really do take up a bunch of space, and if the goal is to move RTX ON performance to high refresh rates then it will need more of everything, including traditional graphics cores.

      Reply
        • Johnny Rotten
        • 2 months ago

        Yea I pretty much figure it wont be until the 7nm 2080Ti equivalent that will get me there (and to be clear I’m not looking for 4K, Im eyeballing 3840×1600 or 3440×1440… High refresh rate monitors are evil, if you’ve never experienced one I recommend DO NOT because it will make you hate your 60hz monitor…

        Reply
          • Spunjji
          • 2 months ago

          Can verify this perspective. I was happy with 60Hz for so, so long.

          I made the mistake of trying both independently – 4K and 120Hz+ – and now my next monitor is going to have to be painfully expensive. Luckily I’m broke now, so it’s purely academic.

          Reply
    • Airmantharp
    • 2 months ago

    Given the outrage-for-clicks debacle at Rock Paper Shotgun concerning Cyberpunk 2077, which were rebuffed directly by the creator of the property, please do not link to RPS in the future. I understand using their reporting to corroborate stories and do appreciate the work on the part of TR editors, but at the same time RPS’ editorial support of toxicity in the gaming industry needs to be checked.

    Reply
      • NTMBK
      • 2 months ago

      [quote<]which were rebuffed directly by the creator of the property, [/quote<] Woah, the guy with a financial stake in the game being a success defended the game! Inconceivable!

      Reply
        • Airmantharp
        • 2 months ago

        It’s his art.

        Reply
          • Ninjitsu
          • 2 months ago

          it’s also his business lol

          Reply
            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            The outrage artist has a financial stake too. I’m all for good investigative journalism, and I’m one hundred percent opposed to hit pieces that are designed to generate revenue through outrage, as well as organizations that publish such material.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 2 months ago

            There is no “outrage artist”. You’re dragging your own personal outrage and politics into this, but want to pretend like there’s some holy cause you’re fighting for. People flagged the possible transphobia in the screenshot pretty much the day it was out, a while before RPS wrote that. The toxicity is in the people that materialise in droves to silence valid criticism of things, not the people doing the criticism.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            There are no politics in my statement above. It’s shoddy journalism taking something out of context and attacking the content blindly.

            And it’s shoddy because they didn’t bother to ask themselves, the creator of Cyberpunk, or CDProjeckt what the context was before publishing.

            I don’t want to see a reputable site like TR support shoddy journalists.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 2 months ago

            It’s only ever “politics” when it’s someone elses views that run contrary to your own, isn’t it?
            Your own views are never politics, you’re just… telling it like it is.

            Try to realise, every time you lament people bringing politics into things, that’s your own personal politics speaking – they’re saying “But I consider the thing you’re criticising to be reasonable/normal/unremarkable, and it is an afront to my world-view that you’re suggesting otherwise”.

            Views should be examined, criticised, discussed and often changed. All views, including yours, whether you think they’re views or just accept them to be “the way normal people think”.
            Be welcoming of discussion and criticism, even if you disagree with it. Without it, the world crumbles.

            • Spunjji
            • 2 months ago

            Going through your posts here, as best I can gather, your argument is this:

            (1) The RPS article covers a contentious topic relating to a highly anticipated game.
            (2) The creator disagrees with RPS’ take on their work.
            (3) (2) means that the opinion expressed in the RPS article is inaccurate.
            (4) RPS being wrong means that we must question their motivations for publishing.
            (5) Given (1), (3), and (4), you conclude that RPS posted something they knew was wrong in order to generate outrage for profit.

            If that’s an unfair summary, I would be happy to be corrected.

            As it stands, (3) does not logically follow from (2) in the way you imply – both parties have personal stakes in the discussion, the subject area is complex and nuanced, and the judgments being made are inherently subjective and subject to flaws in perspective – the simplest explanation is that they simply disagree. That utterly torpedoes (4), but even if it didn’t, coming to the conclusion in (5) still requires a bunch of extra assumptions – that RPS think they can profit directly from outrage in a sustainable way, that they have chosen to do so, and that there is not a simpler explanation.

            Which is more likely: a decision by RPS to sabotage their hard-won reputation of journalistic integrity for the dubious potential payoff of more clicks, or a genuine difference of opinion between creator and critic? Do you have a reason for positing the former even though it requires more assumptions?

            To that latter question, your answer seems to be that you think the topic they chose (and their position on it) is unnecessarily political. That’s a subjective value judgement that carries no argumentative weight. I’m afraid that without substantial modification, I will remain utterly unconvinced by your narrative.

            A key theme running throughout your claims here is that “outrage” is the intended response. I see this theme online a lot, usually from sources claiming centrism but assuming a degree of shared conservativism with the reader.

            Why must generating outrage be the presumed intent of robust social criticism? At no point does the article *tell* me I should be outraged – neither was it my response, and I am a disgusting SJW. So why are you making this bold claim about how other people were supposed to respond? What was your response? What motivates your actions here, if not a degree of umbrage?

          • Beahmont
          • 2 months ago

          Creators lie about their art all the time.

          Also intention isn’t magic. The creator may or may not mean to send the message the general public receives from any given piece of art. It is entirely possible for an artist to not intend to create a piece of art that is racist, sexist, homophobic, or expresses some other form of bigotry and yet the piece of art may still actually be racist, sexist, homophobic, or expresses some other form of bigotry.

          It’s also possible for an artist to intend to express a racist, sexist, homophobic, or other bigoted message and lie about their intent.

          Just because the creator of a work of art says something about their art, it doesn’t make that thing true.

          Reply
            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            It also doesn’t make it false.

            You’re going to have to go to significant lengths to prove that an artist is not telling the truth about their art, and that some outrage artist is.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 months ago

            So I should just ignore the conversation altogether and believe only what I want to believe. This is art, so it’s all opinion and nobody knows any more about it than anyone else, right? That’s exactly the kind of isolationist thinking that can create the kind of “toxicity” about which you seem to be so concerned.

            There are transgender people in the world today. There are exploitative corporations in the world today. Good fantasy/science fiction has always been about investigating issues in our world today by creating a world that’s not quite the same as our own. If seeing something in that makes you stop and think or makes you uncomfortable, then I guess that’s the point.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            You’re posting here as an anonymous commentator, and there is no editor approving your content, so no, the comparison doesn’t apply.

            I’m highlighting irresponsible journalism by a tech site.

            • Beahmont
            • 2 months ago

            That’s not how burdens of proof work. The artist doesn’t just get the benefit of the doubt. First Mover statements being given more validity is a logical fallacy. The artist’s interpretation of their work is not more valid than anyone else’s interpretation.

            The standard you are advocating would have us believe that people who had Obama Effigies strung up by a rope were not racist with the word ‘N***** Traitor’ because the artist said they were not. And that’s simply bullshit.

            You’re essentially trying to make people disprove the Artist’s claims about their work. And that’s an illogical and irrational standard for review of a work. A work should be evaluated on the nature of the work itself and the Artist should have to present evidence why their interpretation is more valid than their critics. And the critics should have to present evidence on why their interpretation is more valid than the artists.

            Giving the artist First Mover status implies that it’s uncommon for Artists to lie about their work and that’s something that is provably false. Indeed, Artist are usually more likely to lie about their work than tell the truth.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            This isn’t a new property. You would have to show that both the image being commented on and the creator of the work are inconsistent with the property as it has existed for decades.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 2 months ago

      there is so much BS in this comment i don’t know where to start

      Reply
      • thedosbox
      • 2 months ago

      BS – if there is one site that has a consistent track record against toxicity, it’s RPS.

      Reply
        • Airmantharp
        • 2 months ago

        And yet they published it.

        Reply
          • thedosbox
          • 2 months ago

          Assuming you’re referring to this:

          [url<]https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/06/14/cyberpunk-2077s-in-game-context-doesnt-matter-if-its-marketing-contributes-to-transphobia-right-now/[/url<] I guess you were too busy being outraged to actually read the article, which linked the developers response to criticism on eurogamer and provided context for that criticism: [quote<]This image is out there now, without challenge, without context, in its worst form. It contributes to a climate in which trans folks are already under attack, and it will continue to do so for months and months before the game finally releases. [/quote<]

          Reply
            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            And yet the context of the image is of celebration and normalization of trans folks.

            The journalist failed to understand the context, the publisher failed to enforce due diligence, and then allowed the journalist to double-down on their mistake.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 months ago

            Dude, it’s an advertisement. Ads are about the product. In this case that’s some fictional brand of cola. The person in it is secondary, and that’s the whole point, but they’re the ones who have misunderstood?

            I’ll be honest and say I haven’t read the article, but if your case here is that they made a knee jerk reaction that was ill conceived and foolish, then maybe their reaction and yours wasn’t so different as you seem to think.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            If you have not read the article and the response from the creator, you shouldn’t be commenting.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 months ago

            At least I’m not alone in that, but hey, good job on being one tiny spoke in the wheel of useless Internet drama. You’re much better at that than I am.

            I often wish there was a better way of openly, publicly discussing some things without it all turning into a huge mess. The number of topics subject to that seems to be growing, and the number of people who want to talk with you instead of talking at you seems to be shrinking.

            • thedosbox
            • 2 months ago

            The point is that *no context* was provided by the trailer, and this would have remained the case until people raising their concerns. Most people seeing that trailer would not be aware of the developers “explanation”.

            Even the title makes this clear – “Cyberpunk 2077’s in-game context doesn’t matter if its marketing contributes to transphobia right now”. That’s a reasonable concern given CDPR’s checkered history on transphobia:

            [url<]https://kotaku.com/cyberpunk-2077-tweets-transphobic-joke-studio-apologiz-1828502562[/url<]

            • GrimDanfango
            • 2 months ago

            That’s the key to RPS’s criticism – they’re not jumping on CDPR out of the blue. They’re a company that has displayed on a few occasions an inability to rein in some questionable views held by people working there.

            It’s not exactly undeserved that they have to endure some scrutiny when they delve into a fiction dealing in part with various issues of human identity, and a projection of where they might end up in the future.

            That has the potential to be insightful and thought-provoking, but it also has the potential to be ignorant and damaging if all it does is reflect or even amplify current prejudices. To do it well will require a lot of work and care to do the matter justice… slapping it in there just to add flavour to a skin-deep neon-lit aesthetic, will probably come back to bite them in the ass, and rightly so.
            If they do manage to do it well, great – the best sci-fi is all about exploring the future of society, and I hope they pull it off.

            But they’re not even starting off from the most ideal position when they’ve exhibited difficulty even keeping their Twitter PR account from being insensitive about the matter on occasion.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 2 months ago

            Seems you’re the one who failed to understand the context.
            The whole point of such a poster would presumably be that “an in-fiction corporation is exploiting gender identity issues to create edgy marketing material” – nothing to do with “celebration and normalization”.
            And the issue being criticised is that, so far, we’ve seen a lot of flashy graphics and edgy art design and atmosphere, and very little suggestion of how they intend to actually handle the nuance of the social commentary aspect of Cyberpunk such as this.

            So, the only real context that’s available at this time is – a real-world game dev appears to be mining modern-day identity issues to create edgy marketing material.
            – that’s worthy of examination and criticism. Everyone hopes that Cyberpunk turns out a good game, with more depth to its social commentary than a cosmetic veneer that boils down to “isn’t transhumanism weird?”… but so far, that’s about all we’ve been shown, even after several long videos showing supposedly uninterrupted gameplay.

    • willmore
    • 2 months ago

    …thanks for asking!

    Reply
      • The Egg
      • 2 months ago

      [i<]*whoosh*[/i<]

      Reply
        • willmore
        • 2 months ago

        Did I whoosh or did you? I can explain the joke if you want it completely ruined. 🙂

        Reply
          • The Egg
          • 2 months ago

          Na, if you gotta explain it, it’s ruined. Maybe if you posted the whole line.

          Reply
            • JustAnEngineer
            • 2 months ago

            “I’m so sorry…. but I just can’t feel too bad for you right now, because I’m feeling so insanely SUPER, that even the fact that you can’t walk can’t bring me down!”

            • willmore
            • 2 months ago

            Kids: “How are you doing Big Gay Al?”
            BGA: “Super, thanks for asking!”

            –South Park

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 months ago

    If only Gainward were still in the business:

    Gainward Super Mega Ultra RTX 2070 Super Turbo Golden Sample Championship Edition II Turbo+ (Max-Q Super)

    Reply
      • Evan
      • 2 months ago

      Did they just go out of business? Their site is still up and I see new cards on there. Their current RTX 2080 Ti flagship is the Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Phoenix “Golden Sample”, so they do still rock that Golden Sample moniker, at least.

      Reply
        • Chrispy_
        • 2 months ago

        Hmm, their site appears to be live but I haven’t heard a squeak out of them or seen a product of theirs on sale in Europe for years – the better part of a decade, in fact.

        Reply
          • jihadjoe
          • 2 months ago

          They should come back to the non-asian markets they moved out of. R.Kelly would make a great endorser!

          Reply
    • Chrispy_
    • 2 months ago

    Competition is great.

    Reply
      • DoomGuy64
      • 2 months ago

      Competition would be a 2070 @ $399. This is price fixing, and no there doesn’t have to be direct collusion for that. They’re watching each other’s prices and deliberately matching prices at an inflationary rate. How much did a 680, or even 1080 cost in comparison to a 2080? Even with inflation, the math doesn’t add up without price gouging.

      Anyone who wants an affordable 1440p card nowadays has to buy either last gen, or a new low end model that is priced at last gen’s upper mid-range with nearly the same performance. Combine that with Epic’s exclusive shenanigans, and it’s now better to just buy a console. Ryzen is the only PC hardware exception that is basically the sole value holdout that is keeping PC gaming viable.

      Yeah, the prices are equalizing to be more sane, but they’re not dropping to the level of previous generation cards either.

      Reply
        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 months ago

        Price fixing is collusion. What you’re describing is the market extracting the highest price people are willing to pay. It’s a subtle difference but the latter happens all the time.

        Reply
          • DoomGuy64
          • 2 months ago

          Sure dude. People are “willing to pay” RTX prices, which is why their desktop sales have dropped, and there have been so many complaints about it. No. The prices are that high because they could get away with it, and there was no alternative. Even so, people are not “willing to pay” for those products outside of enthusiasts with disposable income in the thousands of dollars.

          Then we have AMD with a wink and a nod match the RTX prices to keep them inflated. *cough* collusion / price fixing *cough* No retail prices today are “set by the market”, they’re being fixed to the maximum price that can be set.

          You wanna know what TRULY is market prices? Go on ebay and search for used cards, preferably ones that aren’t supply limited. That’s what the market is really willing to pay, because people are setting the price instead of some calculated MSRP based on niche features like raytracing.

          Polaris cards are selling well under $200. That’s market price, and those cards are strong 1080p, and compromised 1440p hardware. How the hell is real 1440p hardware worth $399+? It’s not. Vega and Pascal cards are also selling under $399. That’s what people are willing to pay, not $399 – $479. These prices are a scam, and were never this expensive before for mid-range hardware. Generations ago, you got the FULL high end model for that price.

          This mentality is why sites like these are dying in favor of youtube channels that tell the truth. You all are brainwashed and sitting in an echo chamber. The people who recognize the echo chamber have all left for alternative review sources that don’t peer pressure their audience into overpaying for price gouged ripoff products. That’s what you are doing. Bullying people into following your mentality, and most people just say enough and leave.

          For example of this obvious gouging, I saw this video exposing the Gsync BFGD vs a superior OLED panel. [url<]https://youtu.be/Bx-EApuuMDE[/url<] You're paying more money for worse tech, and this is the general state of the entire PC ecosystem at this point. I'm not falling for it, and you people eating the marketing do it at the expense of your wallet and minimizing the credibility of your rapidly diminishing clique community. This website won't exist in 5 years if it continues to reject reality. Hell, it shouldn't exist NOW, but it is being kept afloat with donations, since the readers who brought in ad revenue already left. Wake up.

          Reply
            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            To be clear, you’re accusing these companies of colluding. Right? Otherwise this is just over the top

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            Semantics. They’re not actively competing, but trying to maximize their profit margins via inflated MSRP.

            Navi isn’t a high end GPU. It’s a 4870 level card. There are unreleased high end cards on the roadmap. The name has a SEVEN in it. 5700! The 5800 hasn’t been released, and that is the high end card, while AMD is selling the mid-range part for RTX prices WITHOUT RAYTRACING. HBM? Nope. 512-bit memory bus? Nope. Nothing about the 5700 deserves it’s MSRP. The RAW SPECS are at the 290/Hawaii level.

            I’m not saying AMD is directly talking with Nvidia for this. I’m saying AMD simply LOOKED at Nvidia’s RTX prices, told themselves they could get away with RTX pricing, and set their card prices to match. Then Nvidia told themselves that AMD wasn’t competing, dropped their slower RTX cards slightly under Navi, and released a Super Edition at the original price point.

            They’re NOT COMPETING. These are NOT market prices. They are both setting prices to an arbitrary number that they prefer to maximize their profits, instead of actively competing and giving value to the consumer. There is NO “competition” here, and both companies are fixing their GPU prices. They don’t need to directly “collude” to do this, and it IS what they are doing.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            What are the facts? The market is paying these prices. You don’t like them and neither do I, but nobody seems to be boycotting right now.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            What are you smoking? Neither the 5700 or the Super are available yet. We already know consumers aren’t heavily purchasing RTX, and the ones that are buying, are buying the cheaper models. The “enthusiasts” are skipping the 2080 for the Ti, since the 1080 Ti was better than the 2080, and nobody is buying the 2080 Ti like the 1080 Ti. Most people purchase cards at the $300 and below range. Selling a mid-range $300 card for $500 is insane.

            “The market is paying these prices”, is a blatant lie. Especially when the cards aren’t even on the market yet. People may indeed buy some of these cards when they come out, but they’re not going to sell like Pascal did. That’s pretty obvious. At best, the cheaper models will sell, as anyone with half a brain can see that AMD’s cards aren’t the high end Navi, and Nvidia is just price gouging because they have a lock on the high end, and their current cards are lacking Vram.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            Imma need some proof. If the market wasn’t paying these prices, they’d have dropped precipitously.

            I mean, I’ve already given you too much credit after you claimed TR is (and as the author of this post, me) a liar. I mean, need I remind you of your own words:

            [quote<]This mentality is why sites like these are dying in favor of youtube channels that tell the truth. [/quote<] So we're a bunch of liars. I need proof.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            Lol, neither AMD nor Nvidia need to care about the “market” at this point. They have diversified into business and compute, and are completely focused on that. They don’t care about offering anything of value to consumers. Also, you still haven’t addressed the fact that no consumer is buying a product not on the market.

            The sole scenario where either side is selling products at a fair price, is on the consoles. PC users aren’t a monolith that these guys care about offering anything of value, especially when the idiots buy Ti models and Gsync BFGD panels. They can just gouge the market so bad that it forces the value consumers onto console, and sell Ti’s to the “enthusiasts”. Doesn’t matter how much they sell, it’s no longer their main business. IMO, the true goal is to eliminate all PCs and go cloud gaming.

            Microsoft was in the same situation with Windows 8. They were too far removed from the customer to care about making a decent product, shills were everywhere defending it, it eventually failed, but it took years to fix. Windows 10 still isn’t on the level of 7, and Microsoft has no major incentive to fix it further. If they don’t have to, they’re not going to. Same with these prices. AMD and Nvidia don’t need to price their products for the market, and therefore they’re NOT. None of this is market driven, because none of these companies care about the market anymore. They’ve diversified past it, and want consumers to either pay the premium, or go cloud/console. Making drivers and directly supporting massive amounts of individual customers is too much hassle, when they can instead make big bucks selling to cloud farms and other one size fits all business deals.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            [quote<]The sole scenario where either side is selling products at a fair price, is on the consoles.[/quote<] Because they're sold at a loss?

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            Are APU’s sold at a loss? Neither AMD or Nvidia sell consoles at a loss. Sony and Microsoft sell them at a loss, and AMD/Nvidia sell them parts at a FAIR PRICE.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            Oh, I didn’t know you were privy to what AMD sells its APUs to Microsoft for. Maybe you should share that information.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            They’re not going to be much more than the APUs on Newegg. There’s no way AMD is selling them for ridiculous amounts. That’s retarded. They gave Microsoft a better deal than Nvidia, so they’re obviously cheap.

            I also know for a fact, that the exact amount doesn’t mean anything to you, and if you say otherwise you’re lying. The amount it costs could be found by professional investigators, and perhaps is already available on the internet. But that doesn’t matter. You’re using the argument as a throwaway device that you would immediately dismiss as soon as the actual prices were mentioned.

            It’s like your stupid argument that “the market is paying these prices”, when the products aren’t even for sale, and you refuse to admit it. You are completely delusional, and are making up whatever you want in your head to justify the fact that graphics companies are price gouging, and neither of them are actually competing.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            Total conjecture.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            CONJECTURE?! LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS:

            Vega 64
            Launch Price 499 USD
            Die Size 495 mm² (LARGE)
            Memory Type HBM2 (expensive)
            TMUs 256
            Shading Units 4096

            Polaris (480)
            Launch Price 229 USD
            Die Size 232 mm²
            Memory Type GDDR5
            TMUs 144
            Shading Units 2304

            Navi 10 PRO
            Launch Price 379 USD
            Die Size 251 mm²
            Memory Type GDDR6
            TMUs 144
            Shading Units 2304

            Vega 56
            Launch Price 399 USD
            Die Size 495 mm²

            Navi 10 XT
            Launch Price 449 USD
            Die Size 251 mm²

            Navi is a freaking minor upgrade to Polaris with a $150+ price hike! It doesn’t use HBM, have a large die, or support new features like raytracing. There is literally no justification for this price hike, nor is the price set by the “market”. AMD simply matched RTX prices because it performs on par with some RTX cards. That’s not competing. Competing would be selling this Navi replacement for Navi prices. Nvidia is the only one “competing” here if you can even call it that.

            OH, and here’s proof for Nvidia price gouging:
            [url<]https://youtu.be/o2fPWQQSdu4[/url<]

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            No, you changed the subject. How much is AMD getting for its semi-custom silicon to Microsoft and Sony? You said that was what’s reasonable. BTW, you’re comparing silicon prices for MS/Sony to end-user prices for complete graphics cards. Not apples-to-apples, no matter how you slice it.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 2 months ago

            The APU cost $110, which is nowhere near what Navi costs, and the total build is $471, which is close to a full Navi.
            [url<]https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171697-xbox-one-costs-more-to-make-than-the-ps4-thanks-to-esram-and-kinect[/url<] BTFO. We are being super price gouged on the PC. I'm not continuing your fake change the subject tactic. If you want to continue this discussion, stay on topic, stop making nonsense statements, and actually address the points I made in my last post.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            You’re still comparing raw parts. Console makers take a HUGE loss on every console they make because they can make it up in licensing. That iSupply report is for the BOM and nothing else. No R&D, logistics, marketing, software development, or dozens of other costs.

            This discussion is totally moronic because the only fair price to you is the price of raw materials. Never mind that in a graphics card the hardware is the entire product. Valve isn’t giving AMD or Nvidia (or Asus or Sapphire or EVGA) a cut of Steam sales. This is not a valid comparison. Your perspective is extremely shortsighted, but such is the life of a conspiracy theorist.

            • Waco
            • 2 months ago

            Just wanted to poke my head in here and say…thank you. DG64 seems to routinely go off the rails.

            His argument, best I can tell, boils down to “OMG they’re selling them for what people are willing to pay”.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            I should have bowed out long ago once he accused TR of spinning lies, but…

            [url<]https://xkcd.com/386/[/url<]

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 months ago

            He really showed his lack of understanding on many different levels and then weaponized his ignorance. He is misguided, misinformed, and doesn’t comprehend many of the arguments he makes.

            The most obvious tell is the BoM cost. To only consider BoM and not understand there other relevant fixed and variable costs consumed in the total cost to deliver the product to market, shows a primitive knowledge and lack of education.

            My second favorite argument is the die size argument. Many of those hold the position that a GPU of a certain die size should have the same price as previous generations. They assume the costs should be the same and prices should not change to the consumer. They fail to account for the higher costs related to a new manufacturing process and similar to the position above, is a faulty position. Many costs are ignored by ignorance, and the position is pushed and held by other ignorant people.

            I typed this on my phone and not proofreading!

            My position is this: DG64 is for his sake very young. Hopefully he can read some of these comments and get something out of them. His arguments are primitive and largely flawed.

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 months ago

            Economics should be a mandatory subject at school, IMO; Given that most of us spend most of our lives dealing with money and buying/selling goods, I feel anyone not taking at least econ101 is a huge educational shortfall.

            Still, the upside of people failing to grasp basic economics is that I get to read I entertaining ‘discussions’ like this one 😀

            • sweatshopking
            • 2 months ago

            I agree, but let’s not pretend there is such a thing as a right Answer in almost every inch of economics. Even “basic” concepts are not necessarily agreed upon.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 months ago

            I was an accounting major and the classes I most enjoyed were econ and stats. Microeconomics should be mandatory for highschool students before attending a University. I think stats is also very important, but one battle at a time.

            • sweatshopking
            • 2 months ago

            you get downvoted for nonsense.

            • the
            • 2 months ago

            I should start that I say I generally agree with your premise but right now I do believe that all the console manufacturers are currently making a small profit on the hardware sold for this generation. Massive losses throughout the entire generation peaked with the Xbox 360/PS3 days because well Sony went stupid with Cell and MS had the RRoD scenario play out. Both companies were wiser and more conservative this time around with how they designed and amortized component costs. What it costs to make a Xbox One today is not the same as it was when it launched. The rest of your analysis and calling out the skewed comparison is spot on though.

            • JalaleenRumi
            • 2 months ago

            Your arguments are doomed, bruh!

            • Redocbew
            • 2 months ago

            You are not cool enough to use all caps.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 2 months ago

            All caps are [i<]always[/i<] uncool.

            • sweatshopking
            • 2 months ago

            JAE GTFO I’M A BALLER

            • the
            • 2 months ago

            What is the price for a 7 nm wafer start vs. a 14 nm wafer start at TSMC?
            What are the yield rates at 7 nm and how does that compare to 14 nm?
            What is the spot pricing difference between GDDR5 and GDDR6?

            Manufacturing chips at these scales has fully hit the physics is both hard and expensive barrier. Leveraging a new process node when it comes first online is not inherently going to provide a cheaper product. Multipatterning has made manufacturing more expensive and slower due to the additional steps in the process. EUV requires new and expensive tools to be brought in for upgrades, even at the same node.

            The pricing savor was that 450 mm wafers were to enter service but no manufacturer wanted to invest the [i<]billions[/i<] to help develop the additional tools for it. Due to these costs and dealing with yields, one solution to engineer around those has been to leverage chiplets to break up the larger dies into smaller units on these cutting edge nodes. While it addresses the performance and die manufacturing costs well it does introduce additional costs in chip packaging and a yield variable on the packaging side too.

            • Spunjji
            • 2 months ago

            What’s the cost of manufacturing at 7nm when compared with 14nm?

            What’s the expected competitive position of Navi vs. Polaris?

            Were AMD happy with their pricing with Polaris – was it making enough money to keep them in the game long-term? How about Vega’s pricing, did that seem sustainable?

            Those are all questions you need to have answers to before reaching any sort of conclusion about whether or not the proposed pricing for Navi is “fair”.

            My take: Split that $150 between increased costs of manufacturing at 7nm and where AMD need to be in terms of ASP to keep the company afloat – there’s your price difference. If your competition has opened up a gap in the market for you to slot that pricing into, all the better. So yes, Nvidia are dragging prices up – and no, there is no good reason whatsoever for AMD to drag them back down when they have spent the past ~5 years slashing their margins just to stay in the game.

            • meerkt
            • 2 months ago

            Steam market share stats for 3 consecutive months, starting 5-6 months after release of the older cards…

            [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150613054547/http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard<]GTX 960+970+980[/url<] (960 is 2 months in market, other two are 6): 2.8% -> 3.4% -> 3.8% [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204151909/http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/<]GTX 1060+1070+1080[/url<] (4 months, 5, 6): 5.4% -> 6.6% -> 7.4% [url=https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/<]RTX 2060+2070+2080[/url<] (2 months, 5, 6): 1.4% -> 2.0% -> 2.3% - not an exact comparison as these are actually one price bracket up

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 months ago

            I think that has something to do with the fact that equally priced Turing cards aren’t any faster at traditional rendering than Pascal, something that the Super cards may correct somewhat (especially on the low end). Instead, they cost a lot more to produce because of the Tensor cores that have very little payoff right now.

            Nvidia must be happy, or it would have brought along a price drop. And maybe it’s not happy, which is why the Super cards exist. Either way, it’s a market correction.

            • Airmantharp
            • 2 months ago

            You’re accusing a publicly traded company of [i<][b<]trying to maximize their profit margins[/b<][/i<]? The horror!

            • cygnus1
            • 2 months ago

            Dude, just because you don’t like the price doesn’t mean it’s price fixing. The market has shifted to GPU’s being worth more dollars. That’s how the market works. If they’re coming pretty close to selling basically all they can make of the cards, which is what I believe I’ve seen, at the price they’re charging, then they’re probably under priced.

            Take an Econ class or read a book bro.

            • Spunjji
            • 2 months ago

            I was about 66% with you (high prices bad, situation worsening, collusion? not so much) up until “You all are brainwashed and sitting in an echo chamber” and all the shit that followed. Nobody here’s bullying anyone into doing anything. The rest of your analysis is flawed but arguable, but that component is outright reactionary nonsense.

            • maxxcool
            • 2 months ago

            “”The prices are that high because they could get away with it, and there was no alternative.””

            You just **LITERALLY** described supply and demand .. sorry dude.

            They wont sell them that high if OEMS and gamers would stop buying them.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 2 months ago

            As has been stated gazillions of times before, companies are free to price their products at whatever price they see fit.

            Consumers in turn are free to buy what they see fit.

            Or to keep their money in their pockets. (Which right now is probably the wisest course of action.)

        • Krogoth
        • 2 months ago

        AMD RTG isn’t interested in a price war because they got burn too many times. They are banking on die-hard AMD loyalist and rabid anti-NVIDIA types to ones be investing in desktop Navi. Desktop Navi is part of the recouping R&D cost. Consoles and next-generation APUs are where Navi is going end-up making most of its revenue and profit from via sheer volume.

        Nvidia is milking the high-end GPU market for all of its worth. The whole Super refresh is just an upselling tactic to try to get overstock of TU104 and some TU106 units moving again. 2080 is the lackluster child of its family because of its awkward positioning in the price/performance curve. It isn’t that much faster than 2070 to justify the premium for it. You can also get used 1080Tis for little more than 2070 and it manages to rival 2080. 2080Ti is much faster and you can justify the premium assuming you aren’t getting some exotic SKU. You can find a barebones 2080Ti for close to $1,000 and it blows its 1080Ti predecessor anyway.

        AMD RTG has absolutely nothing in the gaming scene that comes close. At best, Vega 64 merely rivals 2070 while costing more to make (5700XT will rectify this). Radeon VII shares the same awkward price/performance position as its 2080 rival and 2080 Super will distance itself anyway from it. Radeon VII is only worth it if you more interested in GPGPU stuff and have a use for 16GiB of VRAM.

        The current pricing paradigm is a direct result of the crypto-currency boom. It proved to both AMD RTG and Nvidia that the GPU desktop market was willing tolerate new price points. People were still buying GPUs for gaming usage patterns at the peak of the bubble. The days of $199-499 paradigm is pretty much dead unless a massive crash happens where majority of the market isn’t buying GPUs for an extended period of time.

        In the long run, discrete GPUs are going to start moving upward as demand from mainstream PC games wanes as next-generation of integrated GPUs and “cloud gaming” solutions are going to eat-up discrete GPU marketshare by being “good enough” with far less hassles. 2020s will be the decade where discrete GPUs will meet the same fate as the discrete audio and HBA cards. I wouldn’t be too shock when 2028-2029 rolls around that etailer shelf space for discrete GPUs ends-up downsizing to high-end/professional-tier SKUs only going north of $399-499.

        Reply
          • trinibwoy
          • 2 months ago

          It’ll be a long time before integrated graphics is good enough. Raytracing just reset the performance bar. If we’re lucky in 2029 mainstream cards will do rasterized 4k@120fps but certainly not raytraced.

          Cloud gaming is a much bigger threat but it’s hard to say if or when it will get off the ground.

          Reply
            • Krogoth
            • 2 months ago

            Ray-tracing/Path-tracing is a massive gimmick that nobody outside of die-hard graphical hobbyists cares about. The masses don’t care about it and at best see as a short-lived novelty like VR and 3D Vision gimmicks. It is part of Nvidia’s gambit of trying to make discrete GPUs relevant to the masses against the growing threat of integrated GPUs becoming “good enough” with less hassles.

            Until ray-tracing/path-tracing starts becoming utilized in gaming consoles. It will remain professional/hobbyist tier only.

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            Are you a keen tech hobbyist? Or one of the “masses”?

            If you look at the Steam Hardware Survey RTX cards already overwhelm AMD’s offerings in market share. In a short time they will be the only cards NVidia will produce become what PC enthusiasts game with.

            Virtual Reality rocks. It’s totally renewed by enthusiasm for gaming or just interacting with computers.

            • Krogoth
            • 2 months ago

            VR is a gimmick at best. It is in the same area as dedicated flightsticks, steering wheel + pedals etc. There are still too many limitations and hassles associated with it.

            RTX cards are a small minority and will be for some time. The overwhelming majority of Nvidia users are on board with 1060s and 1070s and will be for some time yet. RTX mode is a massive gimmick where its novelty has already faded away for the overwhelming majority of gamers. There’s currently no killer app like “Quake” to push it forward.

            The masses have been dedicating the direction of the computing/gaming market. Enthusiast haven’t mattered in years. This isn’t the 1990s and early 2000s anymore.

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            Have you even tried it? I don’t even have anything fancy – just a $20 (very comfortable) thing to put my phone (Galaxy S7) in and $10 Bluetooth game controller. With the S7’s 2560×1440 OLED display viewing is actually very nice. It may not have the graphics horsepower of a current console or graphics card but it certainly pushes lots of pixels with the quality of a PS3 or thereabouts. Lots of fun. Bought for the kids but gonna keep for myself…

            • Krogoth
            • 2 months ago

            Yep, it is gimmicky and the novelty wore off pretty quickly. VR belongs in simulator genres like flightsticks, throttles and the works. The masses and majority of gamers feel pretty much the same way.

            VR will always remain a niche but it isn’t going away.

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            You seem to have a strong opinion about “the masses” – what they want or not – which is a bit sad. So self-limiting. Exploring new things is one of the best things anyone can have a chance to do – whether it’s ray tracing features on video cards or virtual reality. I really can’t emphasise how accessible virtual reality is to anyone with a semi-decent phone. $30. Best money on tech by value I’ve ever spent. You can even get crappy cardboard glasses if you can’t even afford that.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 2 months ago

            You’re considering the hardware and software ecosystems as a single entity. VR software *is* largely gimmicky (but with plenty of very well designed exceptions already), because most developers have been trying to jump in, fast and rough, with expectations of a VR gold-rush and the intention to bag some cash before it gets busy, by trying to shoehorn existing game design language into an entirely new medium that requires an entirely new design language.

            VR itself is in no way a gimmick. It’s a very clever technology with clear and massive advantages and huge potential.

            I see people compare it to stereoscopic TV constantly… and the two technologies couldn’t be more different. Stereoscopic movies were *solely* a gimmick pushed to mass adoption in an attempt to differentiate the cinema experience, justify rising cinema ticket prices, and ultimately to sell a bunch of new TVs that otherwise had no significant new developments to convince people to replace the ones they bought five years earlier.

            Admittedly, VR is *currently* best suited to simulators, largely because the updated design language required to make the most of VR requires a much greater focus on simulation, so they’re already half way there for free… but the scope will widen (and simulators will get even better).

            • meerkt
            • 2 months ago

            Side comment: “design language” -> “design”. Don’t let PR-speak du jour leak into normal conversation. 🙂

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            I’ve generally only heard “design language” used for cars and appliances describing how a series of products from a manufacturer look the same. In the context of playing games using WASD keys, a mouse and looking at a monitor it seems so stupidly crude and primitive. We need to move on from that sooner than later.

            • meerkt
            • 2 months ago

            Really? “Design language” is the rage the last few years. There are no longer graphics designers making GUIs, there are User Experience architects crafting Design Languages and tailoring Design Vocabulary. It’s teh brave new world of flat-empty-and-monochrome.

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            I don’t work with people like that. I’m just an old-fashioned country software engineer.

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 2 months ago

            Did you begin with COBOL in the 60s?

            • Pancake
            • 2 months ago

            Wasn’t around in the 60’s. First paid work was bare to the metal Z80 assembly on embedded systems (dial-up modems). Like I said, I don’t work with young people who know nothing and sit in cubicle farms.

            • NovusBogus
            • 2 months ago

            Not gonna lie, I want to have a job like that when I grow up. At least I’ve managed to live one county away from the local lemming farm, and we have ‘real’ cubes not those terrible half-height things or the abominable open floor plan. It’s a start, eh?

            • the
            • 2 months ago

            This would explain why Windows 10 has two GUIs that are different.

            Also good thing MS no longer follows their own human interface guidelines.

            • NovusBogus
            • 2 months ago

            I have mixed feelings about the whole UI/UX thing. I’ve seen engineers write their own UIs with very little outside direction, resulting in a dysfunctional mess. I’ve seen the UX crew and their web-dev minions write front-end software with very little guidance from the engineers, resulting in a dysfunctional mess. The best case is when the artsy-fartsies do a good set of mockup screens and then the engineers take a lot of liberties on the specific implementation. When I was just starting out that seemed like a lot of wasted duplication of effort, but now I understand the reasons.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 2 months ago

            I guess the phrase got co-opted. I thought it was a fairly standard way to talk about the fundamentals of designing for a specific context with specific requirements.

            Perhaps I should be saying “design fundamentals” or something instead then.
            (Edit: on further thought, perhaps this was indeed an editor note I needed… what I mean when I say “design language” clearly can be described in clearer, more articulate ways)

            Whatever it is, my point remains, that games have a very clearly established “best practices” of design (for better or worse – I often wish they’d rip up the proverbial book and stop assuming so much to be “just how a game has to work”). Those best practices largely don’t work in VR… yet most developers are so entrenched in their use that they’re determined to make them fit one way or another.

          • the
          • 2 months ago

          The whole mining demand surge restructured the whole pricing bracket video cards used to fall into. nVidia gambled wrongly that the mining boom was heralding a new wave of demand that would continue on forever… until the mining boom went bust and they had to settle for the pervious demand level gamers provided for their cards. It is only because of this higher tier pricing structure that we saw the Vega 20 die at retail as AMD previously stated they had no plans to bring it to consumers because of its costs. Well if you can tack on a couple hundred more at retail and have plenty of partially functional dies form your HPC efforts, they were able to bring it to market at a profit.

          This is where I see nVidia really dropped the ball. RTX cards have their share of performance issues at higher resolutions but down 1080p land, they’re playable. However by pricing the fully capable hardware well outside of the traditional sweet spot and delaying the software compute based drivers well after the RTX launch, they made themselves look a bit foolish. I would have demoed the Quake 2 RTX at E3 2018 last year, doing a hardware preview of the RTX cards at the show with a launch later that year but promise gamers a software based solution for their GTX 10 years cards would ship in drivers later that month. That’d have given gamers something to look forward instead of the feature set being an open question mark at launch. Yes ray tracing is the future but nVidia’s marketing failed hard and didn’t do anything to really justify the premium.

          I also don’t think we’ll see anything close from AMD that is the crazy large die size monsters that nVidia has released. The Turing 102 chip is [i]huge[/I], roughly three times the die size used in AMD’s new Navi chips just coming out. What we’ll be getting from AMD down the road for the highend is an extension of their chiplet strategy they’re just now executing on the desktop. They’ll design one base chiplet and then simply scale up the number of chiplets in a package to move higher up the product line. (Both Intel and nVidia have hinted at similar plans but my guess would be that AMD will be first to market given their current track record.). Long term this will be what help keep that sweet spot going for the discrete market as the $200 to $300 segment will only have be serviced by a single chiplet + IO and memory.

          As for discrete GPU’s, I do believe that the sweet spot from $200 to $300 isn’t going to go away due to integrated graphics unless Intel and AMD put forward a real discrete chip into the processor package a-la chiplet design. The gotcha with this exception is that such performance will come at the cost of what that sweet spot would be separately being tacked onto the commodity CPU price. Thinking of spending $200 on a CPU and $200 on a GPU? Congratulations you can now by both together as a single part for $400. This has already happened to an extend in mobile with Intel’s Iris Pro and their eDRAM offerings and were competitive around Broadwell and the first Sky Lake chips… but Intel really hasn’t moved performance on this front in several years and everyone went back to laughing at integrated graphics again. Even without improving performance, I’m still surprised that Intel didn’t do the basic things like update their display controllers for HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.3.

          In the meantime, the $200 to $300 market will continue to be satisfied by the low-end discrete chips. At this price point, consumer are fine with 1080p resolutions but have started to look at features like variable refresh rates combined with video cards fast enough at those resolutions to start feeling CPU bottlenecked. It isn’t a bad combination unless you insist on maximum fidelity regardless of frame rate.

          The game streaming side of things is interesting mainly because the problem there isn’t GPU hardware but rather one of networking. Google is probably in the best position to pull this off in the US and even them I’m pessimistic about their chances. Companies like EA and Activision are all eagerly watching to see if Google can pull this off which in turn they will then be launching their own competing services. Basically this is exactly what is happening now with ordinary streaming services as more and more is pulled from Netflix in favor of being hosted on the content creator’s own network. The problem here is that EA and Activision can’t manage or engineer themselves out of a wet paper bag (I’m pretty sure it’d cause the management team to drown and for the betterment of gamers every where). The technical problems they face won’t go away so I doubt they’d be able to pull of full exclusivity to their own streaming services right away but individual releases may end up being released only for MS/Sony/Nintendo services with the PC release no long being seen as worth it. This can get even worse as the PC streaming solution may simply be running on a Xbox One ABCD Beta Fighter Pro Turbo hardware in the data center. Oh, and if you want to your games to be streamed from a quad SLI nVidia RTX 56240 Super Deluxe Ultra Ti (TM), be prepared to up your $25/month fee to something like $99/month (which in turn will be closer to $200/month as ISP’s will also be charging $99/month so you can have the privilege of high quality gaming now that net neutrality is dead). The transition will be ugly because of corporate greed and the discrete market will survive a bit longer than expected because there will be a transition period and that period will be a long one due to corporate ineptitude and greed. Pulling the bandaid off of PC releases, and thus the discrete GPU market, can only happen if the software developers behind the streaming services have enough continued revenue to safely ditch them on their account spread sheets. The recent failure of many games-as-a-service titles should give their account department pause for going full in on this strategy right away.

          Outside of the US is a different story as countries like Korea and Japan have the networking infrastructure in place and has a culture where the desktop gaming PC is still kind of an alien concept. I see streaming services here actually being the breakout success, at least with those who have low latency hard lines. The US has ‘cord cutters’ who are just dropping cable TV for online services but in these countries there are ‘cord cutters’ where the cellular infrastructure is robust enough that hardline are simply not necessary. Still I don’t see that as being much of a deal breaker as the core infrastructure is still there.

          Reply
            • NovusBogus
            • 2 months ago

            I think we’ve reached the point of GPU diminishing returns. This is probably what CPUs would have looked like if Intel hadn’t enforced a hard line on efficiency.

        • lezmaka
        • 2 months ago

        So even though the 2060 Super and the regular 2070 have pretty much the same performance and the 2060 Super costs $399, it’s not competition because the name doesn’t have 2070 in it?

        Reply
    • Goty
    • 2 months ago

    [quote<]The red team favorably compared its Radeon RX 5700 to the RTX 2060 and claimed victory against Nvidia's RTX 2070 with the [b<]RX 5700GT[/b<]. [/quote<] If only it were an extra SKU instead of a typo. 😉

    Reply
      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 months ago

      whoops!

      Reply
    • meerkt
    • 2 months ago

    Isn’t it “GeForce RTX 2070 Super XC Ultra Gaming[i<]!!![/i<]"?

    Reply
      • willmore
      • 2 months ago

      ELEVEN

      Reply
    • WaltC
    • 2 months ago

    Well, at least nVidia was smart enough to affix a “Super” label onto the cards themselves–that’s a lot better than the “Superman” label I just knew they’d be using!….;) *cough*

    Reply
    • iatacs19
    • 2 months ago

    Nvidia’s product line-up is very tight, they have left themselves enough room between the original RTX models to be able to slot in the “super” variants. It looks like a great execution from a business perspective.

    Reply
      • swaaye
      • 2 months ago

      They have some experience.

      Reply
    • Krogoth
    • 2 months ago

    More like Superglue disappointment, but this is the consequence of having old stock being your only real competition.

    Navi isn’t going to change the landscape either.

    Reply
      • qmacpoint
      • 2 months ago

      I’m still upgrading my RX580 tho

      Reply
        • anotherengineer
        • 2 months ago

        I think I will use my RX 480 as long as my HD6850, that is until it has been in legacy support for over a year 🙂

        Longest lasting, best new card I ever had for $135 cnd.

        About May 2012 to Jan 2017.

        Reply
          • qmacpoint
          • 2 months ago

          I would too, but I use it through an eGPU, and I’ve seen that even an 1070 will outperform completely an RX580 with a similar specs setup (and because I bought Apple stuff I must go for AMD)

          Reply
          • Concupiscence
          • 2 months ago

          GCN’s driver support has been so much better than VLIW4 that I predict you could continue using it without issue for a lot longer than a year. That goes double on the Linux side of the fence.

          Reply
    • chuckula
    • 2 months ago

    How is that going to help Ngreedia when Navi will put them out of business on July 7!!??!?

    Reply
      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 months ago

      They’ve got 5 days for preorders!

      Reply
      • Krogoth
      • 2 months ago

      Leather jacket man needs his 2019 summer jacket…..

      Reply
      • Geonerd
      • 2 months ago

      Do you EVER have anything useful to contribute???

      Reply
        • Spunjji
        • 2 months ago

        Making the bar for insightful commentary deliriously easy to clear? Not necessarily useful, but gratefully accepted.

        This one did make me chuckle, mainly because it’s straight trolling without the usual burdensome strawman.

        Reply

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This