SAPPHIRE Radeon RX 6800 XT NITRO gets listed at a price of 732 and 839 euros

Sorry, wut?

Check Zen 3 performance first, than compare a 5600X to a 10600K with a B450 or B550 mobo against a Z490, where you are able to use faster RAMs than 2666 MHz, and buy a cooler for 10600K. Same for 10700K and 10900K except for the cooler: AMD offers significantly better performance for less (5600X) or ~same (5800X, 5900X) price as the Intel system.

And what exactly did you want to say with this? Have you checked Guru3Ds articles about 3070 and 3080/90 stocks regarding a store's orders? They ordered 300 Inno3D, got NONE and NONE was on the way. They ordered 2000 ASUS TUF 3080s, they got ~55 and 53 more was on the way.

 

I've heard rumblings of a grand total of 1200 units for the ENTIRE UK!!!! (thats BOTH the 6800 and 6800XT combined!)

I've also seen reports of a grand total of 16...... yes SIXTEEN!!!! units for the entire of Australia!!!!! (6800 and XT combined!)

Apparently 5000 series CPU's, two of the top UK retailers for PC parts had a combined total of 80 units SINCE launch day!!!!!

Some people are now getting emails from retailers like Scan (UK) to say that their CPU preorder won't be fulfilled until MARCH 2021!!!!

I am still currently 701 in the queue for a 5900X at OCUK....... Snuggle down boys, its going to be a long wait.

 

You're crystal ball seems to preclude anything of the sort happening to AMD.

 

1 more thing:
"According to the very early listing at ComputerSalg, the next-generation NITRO+ based on Radeon RX 6800 non-XT will cost 6178 DKK, which is less than ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3070, considered the most expensive RTX 3070, currently listed at 6289 DKK."
https://videocardz.com/newz/sapphir...-less-than-asus-rog-stirx-rtx-3070-in-denmark

Did I say it couldn't happen to AMD as well? I just said that NV stocks were terrible to say at least. I checked some sites in my country and haven't seen any available 3080, 3090 or 3070.

 

80 units of 5000 series CPUs for UK biggest retailers I would dare to call nonsense...We had more units of 5950x in Czech republic with 5800x and 5600x selling in thousands.
Also, all 4 CPUs made it to the top 4-16 CPU list on amazon.

5900x seemed to have the lowest stock of them all.

 

CPUs are OK, prices are not. A 5600X is 6 cores in 2020 and costs almost the same (a bit cheaper) my 8700K costed in 2017 - which I can OC to 5.1GHz with ease, and 5.2 for games.
After 3 years, I expect at least 2 more cores at the same price, given the competition.
No worries, Intel's offerings are even worse, so it's not a partisan thing.

 

I was planning to buy 6800xt but That much for a Radeon? No thx, I rather wait few months and buy nvidia 3080

 

Hi - why is it "that much for a radeon" - is it the same "for a ryzen?" I mean, that much for a geforce is also absurd.

 

3080 will be slower and weaker than 6800xt. Get a life. Only 3080ti worths more than 6800xt. And even that is under discussion if you consider 6900xt.

 

There are other things at play, too. For example, a colleague from when I was working on imports, used to work for a Sony distributor. They told retailers they have to buy Sony car stereos if they wanted to have Playstations allocated to them. Sony car stereos wouldn't sell well, so the retailers would drop the car stereo well bellow MSRP just to get rid of the stock.
Apple is another story, they're practically a cult. The products themselves don't have good margins for retailers, but they profit from accessories (this is also true for TVs). By the way, Apple charges manufacturers a substantial amount to allow them to brand their product as "Made for iPhone".

 

Radeon has effectively less capable drivers, this isn't an opinion its a fact.

They could have better hardware, but it doesn't matter for crap if you can't even use it in the majority of D3D games (11) available because core 1 is pegged at 100% and can't feed the api.

The saving grace is that you can use dxvk now to avoid their terrible D3D9 and 11 capabilitles.

 

Can you explain? What is less capable in the drivers?

You're saying that in the majority of Direct3D games you can't use Radeon cards? How is it that I've never heard of this before?

Is it because ... you're one of the 2 people using Linux to play Windows titles?

 

It would seem you're completely uninformed about how poorly Radeons run in Dx11 compared to specwise equivalent Geforce parts, where less capable CPU's are used.

 

Obviously. I've never experienced any problems over the last 3ish years of being back to using an AMD GPU.
I just see that benchmarks put the cards in the same performance bracket and I'm running at satisfying performance in everything. Can you give anything but a reddit thread? Like a G4mersN3xus (seriously Guru3d, this "we don't allow other peers to be mentioned is ridiculous) article or something like it where the issue is tested and benchmarked? Or perhaps titles where it's a problem in? I don't own any Assassin's Creed games, but I do have a lower spec CPU.

If this is so well known and common, Iwould imagine that it would be well documented? Other than people talking about it in forums... but I don't experience any issues?

I see people are mostly talking about Assassin's Creed games when googling it, can't really find a lot of titles where it seems to be an issue. But obviously is an issue in some games, I see that. But just not a big issue, it would seem. Also seems to be fixed by driver updates in some cases of other Assassin's Creed games. But I don't think I own any of them.. haven't played any at least.

 

history tells a radeon = pathetic drivers, blackscreens, crashesh, not working freesync
RT weaker on radeon, no dlls, no extra benefits for streamers that nvidia offers

so yeah THAT much for a radeon

 

OK. Not really something I experienced, but sure, I guess some people do.


Streamers are the worst, though. Should not be supported or encouraged.

None of the other stuff matters though, too expensive to be practical.

 

RT and DLSS not practical?

 

RT obviously is very practical. However the expense makes it impractical at the moment. A 1000€+ GPU required to get decent performance at 1440p makes it a no-go.
DLSS is fine, but not very useful if you didn't buy a super expensive 4k monitor.

 

I don't particularly fancy these high prices as much as the next guy but... what did people expect?

Scenario A: Nvidia keeps it's advantage, dictating higher and higher prices. Basically what we had above the 5700XT, or above €400. Prices increase.
Scenario B: AMD takes the pole position or competing, meaning AMD prices increase because they will orient at the competition's prices (Nvidia's "established" range, or at least in some relation to it). Prices increase.
Scenario C: Prices drop with both lineups. Companies earn less money than the generation before, lowering their stock value. Can't do that because both Nvidia and AMD have acquired companies lately and they need the money of stock value to keep the balance. But ultimately they make less money, thus failing the business target and will have to earn back that money in some way. Like increasing prices next chance they get. Prices increase.

Now we have competition in terms of performance, and the price we get is what the companies think we will buy it. Unless we don't buy cards, the prices won't lower. And even if we do not buy cards, how do you guys think it will make the prices work?
Do people expect a XX80TI of a future generation will magically cost 750€ again? Or a X900XTX of any future generation will come for 600€? If so, you're very, very, very, very optimistic or hands down unrealistic, to stay politely.

 

It would naturally not make sense to deliver a product that performs the same as the competitor and price it at 60% of the competitor. You lose credibility when the competition has priced their solution so high.