You know AMD could have bundled AAA games with the 50th anniversary edition to make the $500 version with blower more appealing. The Microsoft Game Pass is a trial offer.
They could have made a better cooling solution (if you recall fermi had heatpipes and a bigger fin area) as well for it.
AMD is doing is what is smart though, they have the Apple Mac market (people would buy it if it had a toaster instead of a GPU because it's Apple), console market (nobody cares about the brand of CPU/GPU it's identified by Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo branding), Google Stadia, and also partnered up with Samsung on mobile devices. If they can break into mobile devices it's better for them than breaking into the gaming PC market. A console sale always gets them profit whereas a GPU might not make MSRP after a few months. Lisa Su stated she is aiming for 45%+ margin.
There's really no incentive for AMD to compete with consoles, it's self defeating. I'm pretty sure most of the funding for Navi came from consoles. Nvidia is pressured into competing because they thrive on the gaming PC
market and the workstation / compute space. The self driving cars DGX stuff and deep learning emphasis would count as compute. Nvidia shield doesn't have as much of a market presence. If someone is not gaming , using their GPU for render/compute, or using graphically intensive applications, then they don't need more than Intel graphics or AMD Ryzen APU for graphics (most decent $500 laptops are coming with Ryzen APUs instead of i3 s or i5s). Nvidia needs to peddle RTX because other than for compute there's no major reason to get it over Pascal (perf/watt hasn't changed much when Tensor cores or concurrent float+int aren't used) short of if you have cash to blow on RTX 2080 Ti / RTX TITAN.
--> "Q1 2019 Results• Revenue was $1.27 billion, down 23 percent year-over-year primarily due to lower revenue in the Computing and Graphics segment. Revenue was down 10 percent quarter-over-quarter primarily due to lower client processor sales. ...The year-over-year decline was primarily due to lower revenue and operating income in the Computing and Graphics segment."- http://ir.amd.com/static-files/a84df...f-f35149030e4d
--> "AMD showed a 21% gain in desktop discrete GPU shipments in Q1’19. Overall GPU shipments decreased -18.62% from last quarter, AMD shipments decreased -4.6% Nvidia decreased -12.7% .. Discrete GPUs were in 28.95% of PCs" https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-rele...eddie-research
I really don't anticipate an early price cut if Nvidia's Super cards are 10% more CUDA cores for the RTX 2070 / RTX 2060 with faster VRAM, it would probably end up being a game bundle as it isn't massive performance uplift. RX 590 didn't get an unofficial price cut until $220 GTX 1660 hit the shelves ; Vega56 competed with $280 MSRP GTX 1660 Ti. RX 5700 is likely the better of the two Navi cards for performance per dollar as this time it's only a shader difference : the memory speed is the same. RX 5700 XT seems a bit gouged due to TU106
RTX 2070 being baseline. The TU104 RTX 2070 Super isn't likely to change that much though.
--> "We are in the process of confirming the pricing details, but it appears that RTX 20 Super will basically get RTX 20 Non-Super MSRP’s
while the former will receive a price cut." https://videocardz.com/81046/nvidia-...aunch-mid-july
(sectors highlighted are: Data center /cloud, Gaming, Pro visualization, Automotive - deep learning, edge computing)
It's all just another slap in the face for RTX buyers. Someone who bought into "6GB VRAM on 192-bit bus is enough" is going to regret their purchase now that the TU104 chip is going into RTX 2070 and the RTX 2060 Super is supposed to be getting 8GB VRAM.