Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 2 Jul 2019.
I haven't got to the end of the review yet, as I started watching the video on the page, and then again on you tube, but it seems the audio and video are out of sync wherever I watch it. I am returning to read the article instead, as my brain can't deal with unsynced videos.
Just skipped through the embedded YouTube version, and it's perfectly in sync for me. Dunno if that'd change if I watched it all the way through, though.
Why did Nvidia bring forward the NDA? Because NAVI is better than expected and they hope to steal some sales, because NAVI is worse than expected and there's no thunder to steal, or maybe some other reason.
Interesting times ahead - If the 5700 launches for $20-30 less than a 2060S, and performance is around the same (averaged over a bunch of games), I suspect Nvidia will EOL the standard 2060 like it has/will with the 2070 and 2080... Then, instead of more performance for the same money, they would have just successfully moved everything even more out of reach for a lot of people.
Source on a change to NDA? It was "we can't mention any NDAs, but something something 2nd July" for a couple of weeks now.
They would still need a SKU to handle the TU106 dies that can't be binned to the new higher enabled core count.
Didn't Matt mention in the video that Nvidia decided to bring forward the launch by a week, maybe saying it was the NDA was a poor choice of words (by me) but considering you can only buy them direct from Nvidia and they don't have any stock (currently) it may as well have been a lifting of the NDA.
It was a very rushed launch. The timeline about a phone call outlined in the video is 100% accurate. They phoned us telling us we had a week to get reviews out as we were getting ready to start Navi testing. Very busy week and it's not over yet.
They had to release now to make sure every Navi review was done vs the super cards not the original ones. These first reviews tend to be the ones that stick. Those Navi conclusions would obviously have been better if there had just been a 2060 and 2070, instead of a 2060S and 2070S.
They could've done that anyway, it just would've been the other way around, it would've been the Super's being compared to the Navi's.
That way Navi may get good reviews compared to RTX then be beaten by super. Nvidia want Navi seen as bad from the start.
If you're launching a product that's better, you always want to be first. Going second means that your competitor gets, say, a week of "wow, this product is great" coverage until yours comes out; going first means your competitor gets "well, it's not as good as Company X's" instead.
It's especially important in an effective duopoly where you'll always be compared directly to the same competitor.
Ninja'd by @MLyons!
That's assuming Navi is bad, obviously you don't know that yet.
*cough. Wouldn't know anyone with that info . What you would expect is all I'll say
I wouldn't have thought it would've mattered much as (afaik) your only talking about two days before everyone would go...well Navi seems a bit naff now the Super's have come along (why is it every time i say Super's i think of The Incredibles).
Doesn't matter if it's two days or two hours, because once the reviews are done they're done. If you DuckDuckGo "GTX 780 Ti Review" you'll find absolutely loads of glowing reviews telling you to run out and buy it, despite the fact that it's six years old and has long been surpassed. If, say, the GTX 980 Ti (I know it's from the same company, bear with me here) had launched first, those reviews would all have said "don't bother, the GTX 980 Ti is better."
Always launch first. If your product is better, you rob your competitor of positive reviews. If your product is worse, you win yourself positive reviews. The only way you'll lose is if you rush the thing out of the door before it's ready (see Samsung's foldable phone, rushed to beat Huawei to the punch.)
Separate names with a comma.