Nobina
Posts: 4,508 +5,527
RX 6700 XT is what I have. Some years ago for that amount of money, I could've bought a higher-tier card. It took them years to drop prices to MSRP, not below it but where they should've been.
AMD admits to restraining chip supply to keep higher CPU and GPU prices
- Thread starter Cal Jeffrey
- Start date
You're not wrong, however, there could be a debate over whether AMD and/or Nvidia's profits are reasonable. a quick Google search shows AMD Gross profits in the 45% range, which might seem high until you see that their Net profits are 1.19% as of Sept 2022. I actually found that a little surprising. Compare that to Nvidia, 57.8% Gross and 20.8% (I did see another report that GP was closer to 11%) as of Oct 2022.
Honestly, 20% profit margin doesn't sound horrible to me. Of course we don't know what the actual GPU part of the business is doing because they mostly publish consolidated revenue and margin numbers for all divisions of the company and we know both AMD and Nvidia play in the Enterprise space where I suspect the margins are much better than commercial/gaming products.
maxxcool7421
Posts: 412 +620
lower prices would not change anything.
it sux
it is smart
it is also how the gas cartels are keeping gas +3$ a gallon
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,475 +10,275
I've argued the same thing, a sane price for the 4070ti would be closer to $650.
This is hard cope. The reason nobody bought AMD is AMD wasnt shipping products! Higher ASP is more important then actually sales volume to AMD.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
So we have seen so many times how shareholder interest in profit can cause pain for the average consumer. So these shareholders bath in money, exactly because they are going after profit.
I can only hope that there are still shareholders out there who see a future where profit and value to society meets and they will be happy with less profit but in exchange completely dominating a market.
Interestingly, in the 2000s, when PC gaming was a much smaller industry, the average person could easily get a GPU that allowed him to play the good games of that time. What happened since then? The industry boomed, now it isn't only just the nerds and geeks playing on PCs, but practically everybody. So why do we have to pay $1000 for a high end card? This is devolution. I hope it will bite these companies in the bottom really badly.
I can only hope that there are still shareholders out there who see a future where profit and value to society meets and they will be happy with less profit but in exchange completely dominating a market.
Interestingly, in the 2000s, when PC gaming was a much smaller industry, the average person could easily get a GPU that allowed him to play the good games of that time. What happened since then? The industry boomed, now it isn't only just the nerds and geeks playing on PCs, but practically everybody. So why do we have to pay $1000 for a high end card? This is devolution. I hope it will bite these companies in the bottom really badly.
It would not be good for society to have AMD and/or Nvidia dominating the market. That's why we encourage competition. Also, as an investor, making less money isn't necessarily good for society either. Sooner or later, I'll retire and need money to live on. The more money I make now, while I can work and have money to invest, will be much better for society down the road because I won't be dependent upon society to take care of me when I can no longer work. You also have to consider the number of people a company hires and putting those people to work is a good thing for society. Make less money and you might have to lay people off. Last but not least, cheap GPUs aren't going to help society in any way (it won't hurt either). In fact, if you consider these large corporations and their donations to charity, it might be worse for society if the company makes lower profits. That's less money going to charitable organizations.
mrvco
Posts: 280 +291
I can't blame Nvidia and AMD for not wanting to flood the market with inventory that is only salable at a loss. I also don't expect either of them to discount these high-end cards down to mid-tier levels. My only gripe is that they seem to be holding back on launching mid-tier cards that I might actually be willing to buy hoping more people will decide to pay-up for these high-end cards.
Bamda
Posts: 522 +286
One correction; The 6950XT is NOT FASTER than a 7900XT. You can find the 7900XT review for those numbers, 7900XT beats the 6950XT at all resolutions.
yRaz
Posts: 6,456 +9,600
Which one do you plan on buying?
AlaskaGuy
Posts: 868 +848
NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, they're all the same: there's no "good guy" or "bad guy" here. They just want to squeeze the blood out of our veins to fatten shareholders ego and financial prospects.
They always did this, and they will always continue this way. But they are going too far, me thinks...
They always did this, and they will always continue this way. But they are going too far, me thinks...
Bamda
Posts: 522 +286
Currently neither. Hopefully, the prices improve later in the year, then I will decide if I will purchase anything.
Feng Lengshun
Posts: 69 +29
I'm not an AMD fanboy as much as I'm a Linux fanboy. Buying Nvidia in Linux context is kinda stupid. However, even I have been eyeing Nvidia as most AI stuff is built with Nvidia compute in mind and their Linux situation is improving (especially as new open-source NVK driver is being built). It's just that if all you care about is gaming, then AMD is basically cheaper Nvidia, and works better in Linux context... for now.
It's just that they seem to take that to heart and decide to be as cheapskate as Nvidia with their pricing now. A shame, because RX 6600 has good pricing and availability in my region. As usual, you have to wait until AMD release their bang-for-buck entry, and then wait for one more year until price and availability is good.
I guess it's not just the games that's shipped unfinished nowadays, the gaming hardwares are shipped with unfinished pricing and availability as well.
Last edited:
I agree with your mind set ,the real problem though is that people don't understand that the only solution is a zero adaption of new generations of gpu until they really give us at least honest pricing ,I also can buy a 4090 but I don't agree with stealing...and that's it ,I will survive with my 2080 without having a problem playing all the games out there with less Fps ,because that's the metric for paying and not the visual effects that are selling, most of us just don't play at ultra, so what's the point ,new games have very little difference on various lower settings ,except maybe if someone is not playing and just looking at his screen ,that's all...
yRaz
Posts: 6,456 +9,600
And that, sir, is the correct answer. I won't pay to play their game and Noone should either. If someone needs to upgrade there are upgrade options at every price point we didn't have for the last few years. The problem we have now is that people showed they were willing to pay scalper pricing and now AMD and nVidia want to "scalp" for themselves. This is why we, the "consumers" now have paid scalper pricing but it's MSRP
Guys, this is nonsense... Look, this was what was said:
"So we have been under shipping sort of the sell-through or **consumption** for the last two quarters in an attempt to renormalize that as soon as possible [the high inventories]"
AMD is shipping below the sell rate at retailers/distributors. If they were shipping above consumption, there would be so many CPUs in werehouses that many parties would be bankrupt from lack of liquidity. This is par for the course and AMD is still loosing money on non-server CPUs. What did you expect, for them to loose more money and pull out of client CPU manufacturing?!
Even though they have done this, their inventories have *doubled* in one year to almost $4 billion! Though some of that attributable to Genoa shipping right now.
These things need to balance out and if you think CPUs are too expensive down the line, that is fine, everyone needs to adjust prices in a way that is sustainable:
- TSMC lowers costs for newer nodes,
- AMD produces smaller cores,
- Consumers come back to paying less for more.
One of the problems right now is TSMC hasn't really been hit with order cuts and won't lower prices. So while this doesn't take place, there is not much to do.
"So we have been under shipping sort of the sell-through or **consumption** for the last two quarters in an attempt to renormalize that as soon as possible [the high inventories]"
AMD is shipping below the sell rate at retailers/distributors. If they were shipping above consumption, there would be so many CPUs in werehouses that many parties would be bankrupt from lack of liquidity. This is par for the course and AMD is still loosing money on non-server CPUs. What did you expect, for them to loose more money and pull out of client CPU manufacturing?!
Even though they have done this, their inventories have *doubled* in one year to almost $4 billion! Though some of that attributable to Genoa shipping right now.
These things need to balance out and if you think CPUs are too expensive down the line, that is fine, everyone needs to adjust prices in a way that is sustainable:
- TSMC lowers costs for newer nodes,
- AMD produces smaller cores,
- Consumers come back to paying less for more.
One of the problems right now is TSMC hasn't really been hit with order cuts and won't lower prices. So while this doesn't take place, there is not much to do.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
It's funny that you say that because the CBC and the Toronto Star got together and proved that Ticketmaster is not only not trying to get rid of scalping, they're actually practicing it themselves:
Ticketmaster recruits pros for secret scalper program - CBC News
They've even gone so far as to aid others who wish to become scalpers themselves:
Ticketmaster Aids Undercover "Scalpers" - Toronto Star
The story got picked up by Rolling Stone Magazine:
Ticketmaster Has Secretly Been Cheating You With Its Own Scalpers
I get what you're saying about reasonably-priced cards but as for the RX 580, it wasn't initially so reasonable. The first mining boom of 2017 saw the prices of Polaris cards absolutely skyrocket. I saw prices of the RX 580 at $700+CAD and there was not a chance in hell that I was going to pay that for a mid-range card. The profitability of Polaris is the reason that the GTX 1060 was the most popular card among gamers at the time. The Polaris cards were all being scooped up by ethereum miners. This was also the reason that I bought an R9 Fury. It was literally half the price of the RX 580 and had better performance in games. I'm guessing that the reason it was cheap was its 275W TDP which was not suitable for mining.
I don't consider $400 to fit the profile of a card that can be compared to the RX 580 as we know it. I'd say that $300 or less would be more accurate. Remember that the RX 580's MSRP was $229 and was just supposed to be a 1080p gaming card that was accessible to the masses. As for being left behind, I'd say that there are a lot of strong 1080p gaming cards being sold below $300. Just looking at newegg, I see these:
ASRock Challenger D Radeon RX 6600: $225
ASRock Challenger D Radeon RX 6600 XT: $270
ASRock Challenger D Radeon RX 6650 XT: $290
At prices like these, PC gaming is once again accessible to the many. I don't think that anyone is being left behind at those prices except maybe the ones who are foolish enough to only want GeForce cards, but who cares about them? It's like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid!" so I don't even try.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Well, one question would be "How much did you pay for your GTX 1080 Ti?" because I'm guessing that it was around $800. If you only game at 1080p, I don't think that it matters because the GTX 1080 Ti is similar in performance to the RX 6600 XT and has three extra gigabytes of VRAM.
If you were to maintain that same budget with your next card, you'd probably be looking at either an RX 7900 XT (because there's no way that price will remain where it is) or an RTX 4070 Ti. I'd be willing to bet that if you're willing to wait about six months that you'll even be able to get an RX 7900 XTX for that price. That's what I would do anyway.
You know what's funny? The GTX 1080 Ti has enough VRAM to load the HD textures of Far Cry 6 but the RTX 3080 doesn't. I still laugh my butt off about that. The GTX 1080 Ti was a great buy and I believe that its longevity will rival that of the R9 Fury.
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,774 +9,665
I've seen lots of comments saying that public companies are legally required to make/maximize profits. I was thinking that this is BS, and here's a link that basically states the same thing https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/8177
As I see it, the definition of maximizing profits is something that is tenuous at best, which the reference post concurs with.
IMO, AMD, while they may be acting to maximize their profits, are doing so in a way that serves only one thing - to control market pricing in a manner that is specious at best. I am not happy about it, but the market will respond and AMD may find themselves up sh!t's creek without a paddle.
To me, its obvious that AM5 was introduced when AM4 stocks had also not been selling up to their production levels, and they want to keep the AM5 prices high so that AM4 stock will sell. But at what cost, AMD?
As I see it, the definition of maximizing profits is something that is tenuous at best, which the reference post concurs with.
IMO, AMD, while they may be acting to maximize their profits, are doing so in a way that serves only one thing - to control market pricing in a manner that is specious at best. I am not happy about it, but the market will respond and AMD may find themselves up sh!t's creek without a paddle.
To me, its obvious that AM5 was introduced when AM4 stocks had also not been selling up to their production levels, and they want to keep the AM5 prices high so that AM4 stock will sell. But at what cost, AMD?
It's only children and *****s that claim it, but what is the point of arguing with children and *****s? Thing is they won't read what you linked anyway.
You can also reach the same conclusion just with pure logic. Intel raised prices on their CPUs. Sales were poor and they had record losses. Now they're lowering prices to try and gain revenue. So which action is maximizing profits exactly? Raising prices and losing revenue, or lowering prices to try and gain revenue? If they are legally required to get those results, should they be in jail for failing, or picking either or both options? Makes no sense to anyone that has the capability of thinking it through, and that's why you weren't able to find anything about it.
It's the same with any of these internet experts. They always come up with stupid ideas, and then the morons repeat it until it becomes accepted as "common internet sense". That is why lawyers and business executives require more education and earn more money than losers on the internet. They actually have to know and act, and they're loathe to waste time correcting stupid people for no gain to themselves.
Endymio
Posts: 2,714 +2,724
Your link is (thankfully) incorrect, or more precisely the question is phrased improperly. All corporations -- public or otherwise -- have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Most US public corporations are incorporated in Delaware, and as such, have three primary fiduciary duties: duty of loyalty, duty of care, and duty of good faith,
The legal ramifications are extensive, but in brief, a company *must* act in a shareholder's best interests -- if you intentionally reduce profits, or even miss a glaring opportunity to increase them, you better have a justification for so doing, or you risk a shareholder suit. If a corporation so much as buys a McDonald's meal for a starving orphan, their end-of-year financials will include a corresponding term for "good faith", which is the officer's attestation that the act benefitted the company's value by increasing the public's perception.
Rather than a rambling stackexchange thread, you might wish to rely on a source like this:
Directors’ Fiduciary Duties: Back to Delaware Law Basics
Read our latest post from Skadden partners Peter A. Atkins, Marc S. Gerber, and Edward B. Micheletti.
corpgov.law.harvard.edu
Good grief, man. It's a video card, not food or shelter. It's a luxury, not a necessity. No one needs a video card. No one needs to have the best visuals possible. It's a luxury, not a necessity. No one is ethically or morally obligated to get consumers cheap high-end video cards.
StrikerRocket
Posts: 227 +191
No one is ethically or morally obligated to practice price fixing, whatever the product sold either! Are you implying that, because a graphics card is a non essential product (I do agree on that BTW), one is entitled to organize a scam? That would be a little bold IMHO...
Similar threads
