this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

9065 readers
936 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grofit 6 points 5 days ago

The consensus seems to be that AMD priced their cards higher expecting Nvidia to price higher than they did.

Then Nvidia priced lower than they expected (still too expensive imo) and AMD needed to react and price their card cheaper. Problem is retailers already paid for shipments so AMD needed to settle some sort of reimbursement process for the soon to be out of pocket retailers.

This was a big issue for them, but also they realised they could generate more frames if they wanted to, and match Nvidia so they would be able to also claim crazy high FPS figures (it's all nonsense, we care about raster performance).

To be able to do this they needed a couple of months to dev and test it before reviewers get it.

So delaying launch let's them solve both problems with the extra time, but in reality they are missing a window to gain market advantage while also being able to align the narrative with what gamers care about (pure raster performance).