This is more of the same.. Nvidia is leveraging their commanding lead to force AMD into price cuts on products they are trying to bring to market. Profit for companies is like Oxygen for athletes. Nvidia is suffocating AMD's Radeon "Technology" Group.
With the CPU side fixed AMD is going to take back market share in laptops giving them plenty reason and breathing room to fund further Radeon development. Obviously nVidia is going to rake in profits where AMD lacks a competing product and dump prices when they make one, but the danger of AMD suffocating seems over. They're not losing money anymore.
AMD should easily tripple it's GPU market share within 2020 and 2021 as RDNA2 is looking really great. FYI, AMD's APU's are stronger than ever, AMD ain't going to go anywhere but UP.
Radeon isn't going anywhere. Especially with Sony and Microsoft paying the R&D for the next-gen consoles, it's only natural this R&D will migrate towards the PC side. They managed to claw back some marketshare from Nvidia too with the RDNA cards. At least AMD isn't on life support anymore, and lets be candid, the market NEEDS an AMD to counter Nvidia.
GreenReaper doesnt understand what would happen if there was only one video card maker, or for that matter, one cpu maker... but in some ways we had just that before AMD released Zen, intel got lazy, stagnated the cpu market, and wasnt innovating, and only increasing performance by less then 10% i think it was year over year, all while charging more for each new generation. zen comes out, and look what happened, 10xxx series DROPPED by 1k at the top end over the 99xx series... if intel can do that, then it is a little obvious, they were over charging...
remember that 12nm process turing is manufactured is highly refined 16nm which by it self exits since 2014 meaning it an iteration of 6 yo process node and for companies like TSMC this mean ages so costs are down and yields are up, by now Turing sold enough to cover investment they can cut the prices even more. I don't think they are low-balling with this price drop but the margins are quite thin by now. overall I'm glad to see competition in price point where most gamers would probably spend, but for me I need the reduction in the high-end that where I've been buying cards in the last few years and that where competition is truly lacking.
nVidia might find themselves in the unfortunate position where their GPU are being replaced with Intel's XE on the OEM side.
Just look at Intel powered laptops and even desktop / AIO systems from OEM. Most of those have an nVidia GPU and rarely on the higher end. If Intel's XE GPU is good enough to replace those and Intel makes the OEM a compelling bundle offer (which I am sure they will), then nVidia's air supply will dwindle.
AMD does not really need to care since their GPU are usually not in any Intel based systems in the first place and if they continue to take market share away from Intel then they gain.
For Intel this would also not be that bad even if they continue to lose market share on desktop and mobile because their part of each system's BOM would increase and that is actually their new strategy.
I don't see how AMD is forced to cut the price of the 5600 xt when it only sits a few dollars below the 5700, truth is Nvidia already got caught with their pants down on the 5700 prices changing at the last minute.
All super branding hype not withstanding, stopping the original 2070 was a bit of a surprise in the first place; since it left them without a product for 0 defect TU106 dies.
They may not have had any 0-defect dies. It depends on the complexity of the GPU and how it was manufactured. The 2070 series may have also had little demand due to price. As I stated above, If the rumors are true, then they are re-aligning the 2xxx series in preparation for the 1xxx series to be phased out and the next gen to be introduced.
If they indeed restarted 2070 production, I believe I have a pretty solid idea on NVIDIA's plans for 2020. I suspect sometime in Q4 of this year we'll see a 7nm refresh of the 2000 series, likely with improved RT performance. I do not expect to see the massive performance uplift that many seem to expect. We'll see some performance uplift if they drop to 7nm, but I expect the majority of 7nm to focus on RT cores. The 2000 series will then be price-adjusted to reflect the current 1000 series, and the 1000 series will EOL. I also expect NVIDIA to price cards a bit more carefully this time around.
The next RTX series cards MAY arrive before Q4, but given the fact they are making changes this late in the game tells me that we are still a ways off from seeing a new product launch. There have also been zero leaks regarding a new NVIDIA card thus far. This tells me that we should expect things in Q4 at minimum, with 2021 being a possibility.
When in recent times has NVIDIA moved an already released architecture to an entirely new node? The only thing I can think of is them moving the TX1 SoC from 20 nm to 16 for the Switch revisions.
Almost certainly something will come out this year. During 2020 we will mark 2 years since Turing was released. It is time for a new architecture. If anything comes out on 7 nm this year it will be a new architecture, not Turing.
Regarding NVIDIA's prices, they didn't have any problems with them. They were priced high due to larger die sizes and expensive memory. When memory prices came down they strategically timed price reductions with AMD's releases. Sales of Turing have been good and NVIDIA's gaming revenue is high and has recovered from the post-crypto hangover.
Turing's main focus was RT cores. You can expect an improvement in the performance of those cores, but the next generation focus will have significant shader enhancements.
We have seen leaks/rumors about a launch of a new NVIDIA architecture in 2020. Why would we see any more than we have 6+ months in advance of the release? I don't know exactly when the first next-generation NVIDIA gaming card will come out, but I'd say June at the earliest, October at the latest.
GeForce 10 series cards were released in May and June 2016. GeForce 20 series were released in September 2018 GeForce 30 series might be released in June 2020 at Computex - the most optimistic scenario. The RTX 3080 willl have a MSRP(USD) of $899 but of course the partner cards, the good ones, will sell for $1000+
Especially since the 2060 is "RTX that's too slow to actually be used" - unless you truly enjoy gaming at 720p. But those eSports folks usually turn off all the eye candy for FPS anyway.
IMO, that is because developers are pushing the RTX hardware too hard. AMD hardware will soon have RT hardware as well, but we don't yet know how it will perform. For now the RT functionality should be used sparingly. A subtle effect here or there vs ray tracing all the things.
Especially considering there are 3 additional Navi models rumored to be remaining to be released (based on multiple sources, as well as AMD themselves stating that we will see 'Big Navi'.)
I expect the GPU market to see at least a brief shakeup this year.
Big Navi will add some life, but the GPU market will see a big shakeup this year because NVIDIA will be launching a new architecture during the second half of the year.
But who says Turing sales are bad? How can their latest quarterly (Q3) gaming revenue be higher than it was in Q3 2 years ago and 3 years ago if Turing is doing so badly? And that while 2 years ago there was appreciable crypto demand unlike now, in addition to there now being a slowdown in the China gaming market due to the government choosing to slow down the approval of new titles.
I'm guessing the idea that Turing is not selling well is just something that people have been repeating over and over so people assume it must be true.
Company financial results are much more accurate measures than the Steam survey.
Firstly, there's no SEC penalty or shareholder/creditor lawsuit at stake over the Steam survey, unlike financial results.
Secondly, Steam is a usage survey and not a sales survey. We are talking about sales, not usage, so the Steam survey is not really the appropriate tool.
Thirdly, the Pascal roll-out was much faster than the Turing roll-out, likely due to the crypto hangover.
Fourthly, Steam has a problem with how it counts gaming cafe systems. They know about this problem and have tried to mitigate it recently, but that only makes the comparisons with Pascal era surveys more problematic because it was during that era where the problem wasn't mitigated. Chinese gaming cafes are filled with GTX 1060s and GTX 1050 Tis.
Fifthly, also related to the way survey counts, any miscounting that is still happening from the gaming cafes (notice how the last results jumped with respect to Windows 7 systems, again) are likely to lead to inaccurate comparisons of Pascal and Turing because of the Chinese slowdown I mentioned in my previous post.
Sixthly, There are many more cards in the Turing lineup than the Pascal lineup, so it's possible that people are not properly adding up all the SUPER variants when making comparisons. Similarly, you must go back and compare Pascal percentages X months after launch with Turing percentages X months after launch, not Pascal now with Turing now.
Seventhly, there are most certainly more total cards in the survey now than during the Pascal launch, so percentages must be considered accordingly when comparing historical Pascal percentages with today's Turing percentages.
1) Financial results can be tampered with are are tampered with and cant be detailed like a Steam survey. They never cared about lawsuits in the past. They lied many times to their customers and continue to do so.
2) It shows what the gamers use. Plain and simple. Its compared to previous generations (plural, not just Pascal like you think) and thus it says quite a lot.
3) The Pascal rollout wasnt faster. It also had more problems, like the Micron issue, 3 GB versions and DPC latency issues, which held back sales. Also I am talking about Maxwell as well (which also had its issues, like the 3.5 GB 970 scandal - and yet the 970 still became the most sold GPU).
4) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx.
5) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx and the same issues where present then, too.
6) They are all there. A few of them didnt show up early (also much worse than other generations before), but they are all there now. If you cant even read statistics, then you shouldnt try to argue about them.
7) I did. Doesnt change anything about how quickly the cards were adapted by Steam users (GAMERS) and how the numbers and percentage were after and during 1+ years. Turing looks bad compared to the last 2 generations. And I am not even talking about the total numbers right now, like you claim I do, but about the numbers WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. AKA the times when Maxwell and Pascal were released and compare those time frames (1+ year starting from their release) to Turing. That data is still available, if you know how to use the Internet and put one and one together.
And its no wonder, because in every tech forum you can read how experts say all day long how crappy Turing really is. Its too overpriced, its too slow, it doesnt have enough VRAM, its RTX features are mostly useless.
But we talked about this before and you chose to ignore it and just repeat your crap. You didnt learn anything.
Nvidia's revenue is higher and will get higher and higher for at least 10 more years because they are selling their expensive products less to the "traditional" North-American and European Consumer and more to the East-Asian Consumer.
They are. To offer the same price /performance that RX 470 did when it was released @$170, the 5600XT would need to be where the 5500XT 8 GB is right now price-wise.
They overpriced it by $100 at launch because they could get away with it, so it's still $50 too high. By now it's old tech, so $250 would still be too much.
yes!!! THANK YOU COMPETITION!!! Nvidia's graphics cards prices were getting ridiculous year after year without AMD competing. Now we're back to competitive pricing as it should be!
No need o do a price cut with the 1160 Ti. Thanks to the higher memory bandwidth, the performance of the 1660 Super is identical. So the price differential between 1660 Super and the 5600 XT is $50, for 10% faster performance.
The 2060 should be about 20% faster than the 1660 Super, so that's 10% faster than the claimed performance of the 5600 XT (plus RTX).
With the 1660 super available for 240 amd can't charge more than 250 for the 5600xt. Even that is hi for what it is really. These Gpu prices are nuts!
Good thing the most recent game I play was released in 2013. Ultimately if game Devs can't make something decent I don't need to replace my gpu until it physically dies.
It's called Nvidia truing to saturate the market as much as possible as to cause choice confusion on purpose. Hopefully AMD overcomes this nonsense and sees its GPU market share grow in the next 2+ years, as RDNA2 (New uArch) should really bring some much needed wrecking to Nvidia.
The point of the 1660 Ti is it was released when the 2060 was much more expensive. Its relevance now certainly is worth the discussion. Even if you use zero RT on the 2060, it outperforms the 1660 Ti by a fair margin at gaming and compute.
The 1660 line was released when Nvidia realized that people arent willing to buy their overpriced and under-RAMmed RTX cards and experts pointing out the issues with Turing in forums and honest reviews. They also axed production of the 1080ti instantly because of that, because the 1080ti was the much better (and logical) deal than any other of their Turing cards in that performance bracket, while the others continued to be produced.
Now that purpose has outserved itself, because the prices have dropped a bit and the Super cards were introduced. And thus the 1660 line is becoming obsolete. But we all know Nvidia only stops sale of pointless cards if the sales drop too low or of their hinder sales of other cards.
mehhh this back and forth about AMD not having Ray Tracing (though they had for non consumer use many many years ago) is getting old.
much like Tessellation was before Nv "decided" to jump on the band wagon making sure MSFT did it for THEM at AMD cost (as Radeon had many years prior, though unused because MSFT did not want to directly support it...then when MSFT hinted they will, of course NV threw a fit "unfair unfair it will give them an advantage, instead they should have to scrap their version, and in effect work around OUR way of wanting to do it, i.e less for them (after sinking much into it) more for us (after sinking far far less overall, oh and we can emulate it via CUDA others cannot)
now is RTX crud, where if it does not have Nv version of it "it is not worth buying"
amazes me how many truly like to kiss the toes (to be nice) of these greedy multi-national multi-billion $ "behemoths" so they can work out the cobwebs FOR THEM instead of the other way around...you want to slap something new and shiny in there not at all ready for EVERYONE to have access to it...keep the pricing reasonable at least....for Intel or Nvidia they KNOW it will sell, even if it turns into POS that should not have been released (enough history shows such)
but folks still line up and buy them by the dozen, best thing since sliced bread... AMD taking their time, fighting multi-fronts, but overall, when they finally do release, it is done very well OVERALL, not usually minimum spec but high asf pricing on top of it...unlike the other 2 in this case.
they are all business to make money, no doubts, but seriously, these things while high tech are "by design" want to be sold every 1-3 years then go where....the garbage?...they all need to do better in this regard, there is valuable metals and stuff they can make in a way to make salvaging to save the world so much better for everyone (themselves included)
Three thoughts on this: 1. Nvidia likely had/has plenty of Turing inventory left that they want sold & off their books before Ampere launches. Nvidia was caught holding the GPU bag after the crypto market cratered, hence unsold inventory. Also, even though Ampere will probably start at the high end, most of us hold off buying previous-gen GPUs once they launch until we know what's what, so now is the time to sell them. 2. If moving that inventory at lower prices helps them keep market share vs. AMD, it makes that move look more strategic. 3. Last, but not least: price war on dGPUs? Yes, please!
How much extra money Nvidia already made from these overpriced cards. And unlike intel, Nvidia is in a much less desperate position against AMD. Launch days gonna be scripted: 5950XT release at $699, beating 2080 super and close to 2080Ti. A month later NVidia release RTX 3080 with 30% performance lead at $799
But who says Turing sales are bad? How can their latest quarterly (Q3) gaming revenue be higher than it was in Q3 2 years ago and 3 years ago if Turing is doing so badly? And that while 2 years ago there was appreciable crypto demand unlike now, in addition to there now being a slowdown in the China gaming market due to the government choosing to slow down the approval of new titles https://sexcam.bar/ .
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
Back to Article
0ldman79 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
I've been waiting on the GPU price war.Looks like the first volley has been fired.
TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
This is more of the same.. Nvidia is leveraging their commanding lead to force AMD into price cuts on products they are trying to bring to market. Profit for companies is like Oxygen for athletes. Nvidia is suffocating AMD's Radeon "Technology" Group.Kjella - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
With the CPU side fixed AMD is going to take back market share in laptops giving them plenty reason and breathing room to fund further Radeon development. Obviously nVidia is going to rake in profits where AMD lacks a competing product and dump prices when they make one, but the danger of AMD suffocating seems over. They're not losing money anymore.neblogai - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
2060 is made out of a large 445mm2 die- so if they try to suffocate AMD with it, they will also suffocate themselves.GreenReaper - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Worth it to take out AMD. Red vs. Green comes to its inevitable conclusion.nt300 - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
AMD should easily tripple it's GPU market share within 2020 and 2021 as RDNA2 is looking really great.FYI, AMD's APU's are stronger than ever, AMD ain't going to go anywhere but UP.
ZipSpeed - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Radeon isn't going anywhere. Especially with Sony and Microsoft paying the R&D for the next-gen consoles, it's only natural this R&D will migrate towards the PC side. They managed to claw back some marketshare from Nvidia too with the RDNA cards. At least AMD isn't on life support anymore, and lets be candid, the market NEEDS an AMD to counter Nvidia.Gastec - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
You are looking forward to Nvidia's monopoly? Perhaps a few more wars and natural disasters to go with it?Korguz - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
GreenReaper doesnt understand what would happen if there was only one video card maker, or for that matter, one cpu maker... but in some ways we had just that before AMD released Zen, intel got lazy, stagnated the cpu market, and wasnt innovating, and only increasing performance by less then 10% i think it was year over year, all while charging more for each new generation. zen comes out, and look what happened, 10xxx series DROPPED by 1k at the top end over the 99xx series... if intel can do that, then it is a little obvious, they were over charging...Irata - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
But that die is on a cheap mature process and all R&D, marketing... costs long since amortized.Why do you think AMD keeps Ryzen 2000 (and even 1000) series around ?
The question here is who can afford to hold their breath longer.
scineram - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Maybe AMD keeps those around for the WSA?Eliadbu - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
remember that 12nm process turing is manufactured is highly refined 16nm which by it self exits since 2014 meaning it an iteration of 6 yo process node and for companies like TSMC this mean ages so costs are down and yields are up, by now Turing sold enough to cover investment they can cut the prices even more. I don't think they are low-balling with this price drop but the margins are quite thin by now. overall I'm glad to see competition in price point where most gamers would probably spend, but for me I need the reduction in the high-end that where I've been buying cards in the last few years and that where competition is truly lacking.Irata - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
nVidia might find themselves in the unfortunate position where their GPU are being replaced with Intel's XE on the OEM side.Just look at Intel powered laptops and even desktop / AIO systems from OEM. Most of those have an nVidia GPU and rarely on the higher end. If Intel's XE GPU is good enough to replace those and Intel makes the OEM a compelling bundle offer (which I am sure they will), then nVidia's air supply will dwindle.
AMD does not really need to care since their GPU are usually not in any Intel based systems in the first place and if they continue to take market share away from Intel then they gain.
For Intel this would also not be that bad even if they continue to lose market share on desktop and mobile because their part of each system's BOM would increase and that is actually their new strategy.
sullami - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
I don't see how AMD is forced to cut the price of the 5600 xt when it only sits a few dollars below the 5700, truth is Nvidia already got caught with their pants down on the 5700 prices changing at the last minute.drexnx - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
meshes well with the rumor they restarted 2070 production - maybe a theoretical realignment to be 2060 - 2992060S - 369
2070 - 399
2070S - 469?
DanNeely - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
All super branding hype not withstanding, stopping the original 2070 was a bit of a surprise in the first place; since it left them without a product for 0 defect TU106 dies.jabbadap - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Laptop RTX 2070 and Quadro RTX 4000 have full die.eek2121 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
They may not have had any 0-defect dies. It depends on the complexity of the GPU and how it was manufactured. The 2070 series may have also had little demand due to price. As I stated above, If the rumors are true, then they are re-aligning the 2xxx series in preparation for the 1xxx series to be phased out and the next gen to be introduced.Bulat Ziganshin - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
If the don't had undefective days, then 2070 were supplied for year by a miracle? )))DanNeely - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
The original 2070 was a zero defect model; every one of them came with all the cores activated.Gastec - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
And a lot of faulty GDDR6 modules.eek2121 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
If they indeed restarted 2070 production, I believe I have a pretty solid idea on NVIDIA's plans for 2020. I suspect sometime in Q4 of this year we'll see a 7nm refresh of the 2000 series, likely with improved RT performance. I do not expect to see the massive performance uplift that many seem to expect. We'll see some performance uplift if they drop to 7nm, but I expect the majority of 7nm to focus on RT cores. The 2000 series will then be price-adjusted to reflect the current 1000 series, and the 1000 series will EOL. I also expect NVIDIA to price cards a bit more carefully this time around.The next RTX series cards MAY arrive before Q4, but given the fact they are making changes this late in the game tells me that we are still a ways off from seeing a new product launch. There have also been zero leaks regarding a new NVIDIA card thus far. This tells me that we should expect things in Q4 at minimum, with 2021 being a possibility.
Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
When in recent times has NVIDIA moved an already released architecture to an entirely new node? The only thing I can think of is them moving the TX1 SoC from 20 nm to 16 for the Switch revisions.Almost certainly something will come out this year. During 2020 we will mark 2 years since Turing was released. It is time for a new architecture. If anything comes out on 7 nm this year it will be a new architecture, not Turing.
Regarding NVIDIA's prices, they didn't have any problems with them. They were priced high due to larger die sizes and expensive memory. When memory prices came down they strategically timed price reductions with AMD's releases. Sales of Turing have been good and NVIDIA's gaming revenue is high and has recovered from the post-crypto hangover.
Turing's main focus was RT cores. You can expect an improvement in the performance of those cores, but the next generation focus will have significant shader enhancements.
We have seen leaks/rumors about a launch of a new NVIDIA architecture in 2020. Why would we see any more than we have 6+ months in advance of the release? I don't know exactly when the first next-generation NVIDIA gaming card will come out, but I'd say June at the earliest, October at the latest.
poohbear - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
huh? Ampere is expected this year, probably before the summer. Just google Ampere "release date" and you'll see.Gastec - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
GeForce 10 series cards were released in May and June 2016.GeForce 20 series were released in September 2018
GeForce 30 series might be released in June 2020 at Computex - the most optimistic scenario. The RTX 3080 willl have a MSRP(USD) of $899 but of course the partner cards, the good ones, will sell for $1000+
p1esk - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Where do you see 2060S for $369?Beaver M. - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Still far too expensive.It should be $200 to 250.
The 2070 should be $350 to 400.
The 2080 should be $450 to 500.
If they dont fix that next gen, the sales will be as bad as with Turing, if not worse.
xrror - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Especially since the 2060 is "RTX that's too slow to actually be used" - unless you truly enjoy gaming at 720p. But those eSports folks usually turn off all the eye candy for FPS anyway.eek2121 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
IMO, that is because developers are pushing the RTX hardware too hard. AMD hardware will soon have RT hardware as well, but we don't yet know how it will perform. For now the RT functionality should be used sparingly. A subtle effect here or there vs ray tracing all the things.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
This myth was debunked a year ago..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2pMxJV4xr4&t=...
Alistair - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Your link is proof, not debunking. You can't make this up (I don't know about you, but I like to pay $400 to play shooter games at 900p...).Daironhorse - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
People just dont understand that new technology takes time to be implemented and probably think it's the same as it was at releaseeek2121 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Especially considering there are 3 additional Navi models rumored to be remaining to be released (based on multiple sources, as well as AMD themselves stating that we will see 'Big Navi'.)I expect the GPU market to see at least a brief shakeup this year.
Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Big Navi will add some life, but the GPU market will see a big shakeup this year because NVIDIA will be launching a new architecture during the second half of the year.Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
It should be $50 if you ask me.But who says Turing sales are bad? How can their latest quarterly (Q3) gaming revenue be higher than it was in Q3 2 years ago and 3 years ago if Turing is doing so badly? And that while 2 years ago there was appreciable crypto demand unlike now, in addition to there now being a slowdown in the China gaming market due to the government choosing to slow down the approval of new titles.
I'm guessing the idea that Turing is not selling well is just something that people have been repeating over and over so people assume it must be true.
Beaver M. - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Check the Steam surveys. Compare their numbers to last generations.They are selling horribly.
Yojimbo - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
Company financial results are much more accurate measures than the Steam survey.Firstly, there's no SEC penalty or shareholder/creditor lawsuit at stake over the Steam survey, unlike financial results.
Secondly, Steam is a usage survey and not a sales survey. We are talking about sales, not usage, so the Steam survey is not really the appropriate tool.
Thirdly, the Pascal roll-out was much faster than the Turing roll-out, likely due to the crypto hangover.
Fourthly, Steam has a problem with how it counts gaming cafe systems. They know about this problem and have tried to mitigate it recently, but that only makes the comparisons with Pascal era surveys more problematic because it was during that era where the problem wasn't mitigated. Chinese gaming cafes are filled with GTX 1060s and GTX 1050 Tis.
Fifthly, also related to the way survey counts, any miscounting that is still happening from the gaming cafes (notice how the last results jumped with respect to Windows 7 systems, again) are likely to lead to inaccurate comparisons of Pascal and Turing because of the Chinese slowdown I mentioned in my previous post.
Sixthly, There are many more cards in the Turing lineup than the Pascal lineup, so it's possible that people are not properly adding up all the SUPER variants when making comparisons. Similarly, you must go back and compare Pascal percentages X months after launch with Turing percentages X months after launch, not Pascal now with Turing now.
Seventhly, there are most certainly more total cards in the survey now than during the Pascal launch, so percentages must be considered accordingly when comparing historical Pascal percentages with today's Turing percentages.
Beaver M. - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
1) Financial results can be tampered with are are tampered with and cant be detailed like a Steam survey. They never cared about lawsuits in the past. They lied many times to their customers and continue to do so.2) It shows what the gamers use. Plain and simple. Its compared to previous generations (plural, not just Pascal like you think) and thus it says quite a lot.
3) The Pascal rollout wasnt faster. It also had more problems, like the Micron issue, 3 GB versions and DPC latency issues, which held back sales. Also I am talking about Maxwell as well (which also had its issues, like the 3.5 GB 970 scandal - and yet the 970 still became the most sold GPU).
4) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx.
5) Irrelevant, because I talked about other generations that were there before the Chinese influx and the same issues where present then, too.
6) They are all there. A few of them didnt show up early (also much worse than other generations before), but they are all there now. If you cant even read statistics, then you shouldnt try to argue about them.
7) I did. Doesnt change anything about how quickly the cards were adapted by Steam users (GAMERS) and how the numbers and percentage were after and during 1+ years. Turing looks bad compared to the last 2 generations. And I am not even talking about the total numbers right now, like you claim I do, but about the numbers WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. AKA the times when Maxwell and Pascal were released and compare those time frames (1+ year starting from their release) to Turing. That data is still available, if you know how to use the Internet and put one and one together.
And its no wonder, because in every tech forum you can read how experts say all day long how crappy Turing really is. Its too overpriced, its too slow, it doesnt have enough VRAM, its RTX features are mostly useless.
But we talked about this before and you chose to ignore it and just repeat your crap.
You didnt learn anything.
Gastec - Tuesday, January 21, 2020 - link
Nvidia's revenue is higher and will get higher and higher for at least 10 more years because they are selling their expensive products less to the "traditional" North-American and European Consumer and more to the East-Asian Consumer.maroon1 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
If these prices are expensive then that means 5600XT and 5500XT 8GB are also expensive.Irata - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
They are. To offer the same price /performance that RX 470 did when it was released @$170, the 5600XT would need to be where the 5500XT 8 GB is right now price-wise.0siris - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
They overpriced it by $100 at launch because they could get away with it, so it's still $50 too high. By now it's old tech, so $250 would still be too much.TheNorthRemembers - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Bingo. I'd buy a 2070 for $125. Anything more just seems like tossing money away.Retycint - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Yeah, RTX2080Ti for $50 or nothing, it's just "old overpriced" tech anywaypoohbear - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
yes!!! THANK YOU COMPETITION!!! Nvidia's graphics cards prices were getting ridiculous year after year without AMD competing. Now we're back to competitive pricing as it should be!Yojimbo - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Is that sarcastic? We're back to the same prices we were at when AMD was less competitive, maybe a little higher.defaultluser - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
No need o do a price cut with the 1160 Ti. Thanks to the higher memory bandwidth, the performance of the 1660 Super is identical. So the price differential between 1660 Super and the 5600 XT is $50, for 10% faster performance.The 2060 should be about 20% faster than the 1660 Super, so that's 10% faster than the claimed performance of the 5600 XT (plus RTX).
That's a hard sell for a card without RT.
Nagorak - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
I wouldn't pay much for the RTX unit of the 2060. It's too weak to be of much use. Even the 2080 TI's RTX unit leaves much to be desired.Hectandan - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Can you actually bear the large ray tracing performance penalty? A disabled feature worth exactly $0, period.Valantar - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
Now if AMD counters this with a $30-50 cut for their entire RX 5xxx series we'd suddenly be seeing some good gpu prices again. Let's go price war!Hrel - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
With the 1660 super available for 240 amd can't charge more than 250 for the 5600xt. Even that is hi for what it is really. These Gpu prices are nuts!Good thing the most recent game I play was released in 2013. Ultimately if game Devs can't make something decent I don't need to replace my gpu until it physically dies.
maroon1 - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
So what is the point of 1660 Ti ??FOr 20 dollar more you can get RTX 2060 which is faster and has more features
Or for 50 dollar less you can get 1660 Super which almost equal to Ti version
nt300 - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
It's called Nvidia truing to saturate the market as much as possible as to cause choice confusion on purpose.Hopefully AMD overcomes this nonsense and sees its GPU market share grow in the next 2+ years, as RDNA2 (New uArch) should really bring some much needed wrecking to Nvidia.
catavalon21 - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
The point of the 1660 Ti is it was released when the 2060 was much more expensive. Its relevance now certainly is worth the discussion. Even if you use zero RT on the 2060, it outperforms the 1660 Ti by a fair margin at gaming and compute.Beaver M. - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
The 1660 line was released when Nvidia realized that people arent willing to buy their overpriced and under-RAMmed RTX cards and experts pointing out the issues with Turing in forums and honest reviews. They also axed production of the 1080ti instantly because of that, because the 1080ti was the much better (and logical) deal than any other of their Turing cards in that performance bracket, while the others continued to be produced.Now that purpose has outserved itself, because the prices have dropped a bit and the Super cards were introduced. And thus the 1660 line is becoming obsolete. But we all know Nvidia only stops sale of pointless cards if the sales drop too low or of their hinder sales of other cards.
Dragonstongue - Thursday, January 16, 2020 - link
mehhh this back and forth about AMD not having Ray Tracing (though they had for non consumer use many many years ago) is getting old.much like Tessellation was before Nv "decided" to jump on the band wagon making sure MSFT did it for THEM at AMD cost (as Radeon had many years prior, though unused because MSFT did not want to directly support it...then when MSFT hinted they will, of course NV threw a fit "unfair unfair it will give them an advantage, instead they should have to scrap their version, and in effect work around OUR way of wanting to do it, i.e less for them (after sinking much into it) more for us (after sinking far far less overall, oh and we can emulate it via CUDA others cannot)
now is RTX crud, where if it does not have Nv version of it "it is not worth buying"
amazes me how many truly like to kiss the toes (to be nice) of these greedy multi-national multi-billion $ "behemoths" so they can work out the cobwebs FOR THEM instead of the other way around...you want to slap something new and shiny in there not at all ready for EVERYONE to have access to it...keep the pricing reasonable at least....for Intel or Nvidia they KNOW it will sell, even if it turns into POS that should not have been released (enough history shows such)
but folks still line up and buy them by the dozen, best thing since sliced bread... AMD taking their time, fighting multi-fronts, but overall, when they finally do release, it is done very well OVERALL, not usually minimum spec but high asf pricing on top of it...unlike the other 2 in this case.
they are all business to make money, no doubts, but seriously, these things while high tech are "by design" want to be sold every 1-3 years then go where....the garbage?...they all need to do better in this regard, there is valuable metals and stuff they can make in a way to make salvaging to save the world so much better for everyone (themselves included)
catavalon21 - Saturday, January 18, 2020 - link
"...EVGA, Gigabyte, and others have already begun releasing new cards and shifting the pricing of other cards to reach the new $299 level."There are no 2060s on EVGA's website for $299, even with mail-in rebates.
eastcoast_pete - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
Three thoughts on this: 1. Nvidia likely had/has plenty of Turing inventory left that they want sold & off their books before Ampere launches. Nvidia was caught holding the GPU bag after the crypto market cratered, hence unsold inventory. Also, even though Ampere will probably start at the high end, most of us hold off buying previous-gen GPUs once they launch until we know what's what, so now is the time to sell them.2. If moving that inventory at lower prices helps them keep market share vs. AMD, it makes that move look more strategic.
3. Last, but not least: price war on dGPUs? Yes, please!
FakThisShttyGame - Monday, January 20, 2020 - link
How much extra money Nvidia already made from these overpriced cards. And unlike intel, Nvidia is in a much less desperate position against AMD. Launch days gonna be scripted: 5950XT release at $699, beating 2080 super and close to 2080Ti. A month later NVidia release RTX 3080 with 30% performance lead at $799favemogi - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link
But who says Turing sales are bad? How can their latest quarterly (Q3) gaming revenue be higher than it was in Q3 2 years ago and 3 years ago if Turing is doing so badly? And that while 2 years ago there was appreciable crypto demand unlike now, in addition to there now being a slowdown in the China gaming market due to the government choosing to slow down the approval of new titles https://sexcam.bar/ .