How about 'We restrain our money supply so we have more to spend elsewhere'... ... ...
AMD admits to restraining chip supply to keep higher CPU and GPU prices
- Thread starter Cal Jeffrey
- Start date
GoldenGoat
Posts: 319 +327
It's going to take them a couple quarters to figure out that the pandemic isn't coming back I guess.
Given that a 3070Ti was $599, the inflation adjusted price would be closer to $677 and the 4070Ti performs between a 3080Ti and a 3090Ti so I would say a comparable price is closer to $750. It's too expensive either way, but $650 just seems low for the level of performance compared to last gen 70 series.
Restricting the money supply would actually help prices come down because fewer people would be throwing money out the window and companies would be forced to reduce prices.
Well there you go talking common sense. Yeah, there is a sense of entitlement surrounding GPUs these days. People need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,822
Unfortunately, executives get the boot if they don't bring the shareholders the highest return possible on their investments so they're kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. This whole NeoLiberal Capitalist system is a failed experiment. Give me back the days of Keynesian Economics because that was a capitalist system that at least worked.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,822
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
Allow me to clear things up for you.
Selling you a $1000 video card - not a scam.
Selling you a $1000 video card but shipping you lead weights instead -- scam.
Any more questions?
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system-- except for everything else we've ever tried.
I think there's a difference between "maximizing" profits and being financially healthy. Now someone may say (and I did say this in a post some time ago) that a company (like AMD) will want to maximize profits on their products but that doesn't necessarily mean they will price for maximum profit per product sale. For example, AMD might use the rationale that the 7900XTX performs like a 4080 and therefore price it at $1200. However, they may realize that people do not want to pay $1200 for a 4080 and then price at $1000 to maximize their profits. Meaning, they think they will sell more at $1000 than $1200 and therefore profits will be maximized.
It's a bit of a nuance and I don't think any company has a legal obligation to "maximize" profits but I do believe that officers of a publicly traded company are obligated to attempt to make the company profitable and sustainable. AMD is walking a fine line between making money and giving up the GPU market to Nvidia. Right now, they would not pass a field sobriety test walking that line.
Pandemic sales have nothing to do with the now. If they (AMD, Nvidia and Intel) were that simple minded they would not be in business.
She never said it was for maintaining the prices artificially higher. Like in any business facing a downturn, you don't flood the market over stuff you can't sell, and that's what AMD did.
But yeah, let's SPECULATE that it is market manipulation without any proof of any kind... /sarcasm
In the meantime, the 4080 is 1200+$, the 13900ks is 700$ and the 4090 is 1600+$.
BAD AMD BAD AMD!!!! /sarcasm
But yeah, let's SPECULATE that it is market manipulation without any proof of any kind... /sarcasm
In the meantime, the 4080 is 1200+$, the 13900ks is 700$ and the 4090 is 1600+$.
BAD AMD BAD AMD!!!! /sarcasm
There is a difference between sales and shipment to retailers... I guess you don't understand JPR numbers then.
Nvidia hit that threshold because they were desperate to sell their oversupply of Ampere cards.
Having the second fastest GPU out there with 15% performances over a 4080 is not enough for 1050$?
Ah yeah, nah, let's deny that an AIB card cost 50$ more than MSRP and can OC 10% over the reference model easily.
Last edited:
And they will not since they are also manufacturing the automotive industry chips... and they are still 2 years late in orders for their current lineup of cars. There is a reason why Warren Buffett is betting on TSMC.
Beerfloat
Posts: 995 +1,902
Not sure what handpicked benchmarks you're looking at to arrive at that interesting performance estimate.
Regardless, feature for feature the 4080 is the better GPU. 'Almost as good for cheaper' is quite typical for the GPU sales pitch that AMD has branded throughout most of its history, and I can see how it is compelling for many people (though lately, really not that many..). It's just not something that excites me personally.
Last edited:
Beerfloat
Posts: 995 +1,902
Speaking of moaning, please allow me a moment to reflect on what I consider to be poor phrasing in your post.
As an Nvidia shill, I feel 'moaning' is not a particularly effective characterization. I prefer the term 'gloating'.
In other words, lets keep doing the same things over and over again and expect different results.
You do understand, I assume, that you added nothing to the argument. If you had actually read that stackexchange link, instead of pretending you understand what you are talking about, you just might have gathered that taking an exec to court to try to prove that they were not acting in the best interests of the company would be a challenging task due to having to prove they willfully acted in a manner that was in their own self interest, or was deliberately intended to harm the company.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
Now consider fiduciary responsibility. Any legal argument made against a company leader for acting in a manner that is not consistent with fiduciary responsibility would likely take a similar form To win such a legal argument, it would have to be proven that the fiduciary acted in self-interest, or deliberately acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the fiduciary responsibility such that the company was harmed.
The legal argument would be much the same. All you did was deflect the discussion to a topic that you believe was more suitable to your position. Tell me, what's the "deflection fallacy"?
Endymio
Posts: 3,599 +3,492
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Proving otherwise is often difficult, but the legal duty to act in a company's best interest still exists. Your argument is like claiming that, because some people are found innocent of murder, that murder must be legal. Shareholder suits are brought to trial every year, and many are won. The stackexchange link was wrong, plain and simple.
Here is just one of thousands of examples:
"SCANA Shareholders Score Settlement Worth $63 Million...the lawsuit was filed by investors, which claimed that the SCANA executive team and board owed the shareholders damages for destroying the value of the utility company..."
Eh? We've tried your alternatives; they didn't work. Perhaps you missed the whole USSR thing? And the US itself experimented heavily with Keynes failed ideas-- that led to the disastrous "stagflation" of the 1970s. And when China converted from its statist government-dictated economy to even just a partially capitalist model, the average citizen went from earning $200/year to $12,000 a year literally overnight.
The most ironic and hypocritical aspect of this argument is that capitalism's worst detractors are those benefitting from it the most. You yourself criticize it incessantly, but I don't see you emigrating to a consumer paradise like Cuba or North Korea. Why not?
the moment you admit that 650 is "normal" is the moment you already lost
Peter Farkas
Posts: 688 +566
I agree it is luxury goods.
Just saying it was cheaper in the past when it was an even bigger luxury given it was much much smaller market. At the moment, most of the gamers can't upgrade to the new generations due to absolutely insane prices. Luxury or not, the current market is ****ed up and it's because of shareholder interest.
Pastuch
Posts: 155 +169
I own an RTX 3080 that I bought at launch and ordered a 7900xtx (non-reference because I’m not an *****, this applies to both vendors). I cancelled my order yesterday because the asking price (after waiting 60 days!) is $1700 cad, that’s just ridiculous and I’m not paying 50% more for minimal gains. This was AMDs chance to eat some marketshare but their focus is on keeping shareholders happy in the short term. I’m a wealthy guy that has owned 6 graphics cards from each vendor, this isn’t a cost issue, it’s a value for money issue. The last two cards I bought, 1080ti and RTX3080 were genuine performance per dollar improvements, the Rtx 4000 series and the 7000 series from AMD are ridiculously expensive. I’m 41 years old, my wifes about to turn 30, we’re going to go party in Tulum tonight and I’m going to spend money on my life instead of overpriced gpus. Their loss, not mine.
Similar threads
- Locked
