Search results

LOL

Because a lot of people say AMD has to offer more for less for them to consider buying AMD, that was the point i was making. Well thats the point i disagree, but you are taking it as if i'm disagreeing because i don't understand which it is not so yeah ill agree to disagree. And back on ignore :)

To the majority the £350 price point matters the most but many who buy above that price point maybe just be genuinely annoyed that they can only buy from NV.

I was continuing with where i left off, my comment back then was a general statement, if it does not fit with now then you should not have referenced me now. I feel the same, even if AMD do offer 100% performance for half the price it does not make AMD unreasonable in relation to NV if they...

But my point was it would not be unreasonable for AMD to charge just £50 less than whatever the Titan XP costs If the XP is still the top performance from NV. There was no mix up from my original point back in september, with people saying AMD has to offer top end performance for half the price...

£350, that would really be pushing it as i was paying £400 top tier in 2006. If its £350 then it will be unlikely be there top end card.

While you are right i got my dates mixed up, the point does not change, AMD are in there right to charge £50 less for the same relative performance to what the competition is offering at the top end, the point was not whether we would like it or not. I have not been following closely lately...

+1 But i think it would be more around the £400 mark.

If AMD want to do well then they will not price it around 1080ti at all, sell it for 1080 price max even if its equal to NV current top end in performance, just like what AMD have done with there current top end Ryzen.

Well thats the thing only the 1080 was around when i started the convo, that's the price i have been currently looking at hence i said the price is half that because i was talking about 1080 prices and that was the card AMD had to beat or match if AMD card matches the XP or TI it changes nothing...

I was going off the price of the 1080 which was when i originally started this convo with TNA. But that does not change anything As its still about price to relative performance XP or 1080 TI, it does not matter, which ever AMD is closest to then undercut them by a minimum of £50.

£1150 was not my price, i quoted someone else saying that price, the titan XP is not £1150 is it so clearly that cant be my point, and just as you say the 1080TI is out so the price of the XP has dropped as well, so the point is charge £50 less than what the XP costs now, not when the XP was...

Indeed AMD would have more to gain with a reasonable price even if its the fastest than to price for the few extremists.

So AMD cant charge £50 less than what the XP is going for now if they match xp performance ? Its always about current prices not original prices in the context of undercutting a product.

Not many go out and buy a £800 card period. And my point is about relative performance at any time. If AMD latest matches NVs £800 card then selling for £750 or even £700 would not be unreasonable in comparison, if AMD brings that performance 6 months late then AMD will undercut to whatever...

AMD wont charge more.

They can charge £50 less than whatever the Titan XP is going for at the time so if its going for £500 £450 a year later then AMD can charge £450-400 so no i did not imply what you are saying. You are saying AMD charging Titan XP launch prices a year later i never implied that hence prices at the...

I didn't say anything of the sort even after i said that would be silly, so you lack reading comprehension and you can't count £1150- £50=1100. Thank god i only read ignored members post once in a blue moon.

That would be silly and no one was implying anything of the sort so why even make such a comment, yes tech gets cheaper with time so undercut Titan XP by £50 of whatever the price of the Titan XP is at the time if its relative in performance.

I went from XP to Vista to W7 to W10 very happy.