How about 'We restrain our money supply so we have more to spend elsewhere'... ... ...
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.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.
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.How about 'We restrain our money supply so we have more to spend elsewhere'... ... ...
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.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.
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.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?
You're not wrong.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.
You're not wrong either.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...
Allow me to clear things up for you.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?
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system-- except for everything else we've ever tried.This whole NeoLiberal Capitalist system is a failed experiment.
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 $1200 and therefore profits will be maximized.I've seen lots of comments saying that public companies are legally required to make/maximize profits. I was thinking that this is BS, and here's a link that basically states the same thing https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/8177
As I see it, the definition of maximizing profits is something that is tenuous at best, which the reference post concurs with.
IMO, AMD, while they may be acting to maximize their profits, are doing so in a way that serves only one thing - to control market pricing in a manner that is specious at best. I am not happy about it, but the market will respond and AMD may find themselves up sh!t's creek without a paddle.
To me, its obvious that AM5 was introduced when AM4 stocks had also not been selling up to their production levels, and they want to keep the AM5 prices high so that AM4 stock will sell. But at what cost, AMD?
Pandemic sales have nothing to do with the now. If they (AMD, Nvidia and Intel) were that simple minded they would not be in business.It's going to take them a couple quarters to figure out that the pandemic isn't coming back I guess.
Hey, you know how AMD only has 8% market share, and how people were going on about how it's nvidia mind share and AMD was being treated unfairly?
Yeah no, they did this to themselves.
Having the second fastest GPU out there with 15% performances over a 4080 is not enough for 1050$?I don't mind AMD being business smart at all.
I'm still not gonna touch their GPUs until they bring something to the table that makes them worth picking over Nvidia.
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 $4 billion! Though some of that attributable to Genoa shipping right now.
These things need to balance out and if you think CPUs are too expensive down the line, that is fine, everyone needs to adjust prices in a way that is sustainable:
- TSMC lowers costs for newer nodes,
- AMD produces smaller cores,
- Consumers come back to paying less for more.
One of the problems right now is TSMC hasn't really been hit with order cuts and won't lower prices. So while this doesn't take place, there is not much to do.
Having the second fastest GPU out there with 15% performances over a 4080 is not enough for 1050$?
For those nVidia shills moaning here, for some reason, AMD cards are under Their own MSRP, while nVidia's are above Their own MSRP, so imagine what Jensen is doing to Your wallet.
In other words, lets keep doing the same things over and over again and expect different results.To paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system-- except for everything else we've ever tried.
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
The market will ultimately make that decision.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
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.If you had actually read that link [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
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.In other words, lets keep doing the same things over and over again and expect different results.
the moment you admit that 650 is "normal" is the moment you already lostI'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.
I agree it is luxury goods.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.
Here's the part I don't get about jumping on AMD. Ok, they constrained supply to try to keep prices up, but this wasn't done in a vacuum. Nvidia has been massively jacking the prices every release for quite a few years. All AMD has done it to price theirs lower than Nvidia, but higher than previous generation to not leave any money on the table. Because of the brand loyalty, all that would happen to AMD, if they undercut Nvidia by a large margin, is make less money on exactly the same number of cards sold. Judging from all of the vitriol on here, I doubt the majority of Nvida buyers on here still wouldn't have touched and AMD card if it were half the price.
We all got excited when crypto mining became obsolete, just knowing that we were finally going to see prices come down, but for the most part, they haven't.