AMD Annual Net Income
(Millions of US $)
2020 $609
2019 $341
2018 $337
2017 $-33
2016 $-498
2015 $-660
NVIDIA Annual Net Income
(Millions of US $)
2020 $2,796
2019 $4,141
2018 $3,047
2017 $1,666
2016 $614
2015 $631
Where's this money AMD have to spend?
They are competing against other companies so can't keep expecting sympathy from buyers for the failures.
You need to spend money to make money,or should they have just done what you are implying and not bother spending on Zen R and D?? That is what AMD was doing since 2015 to 2017 when they had no money. AMD CPUs were criticised for years as being subpar and rubbish,and people stopped buying them. AMD ended up having to find money,and improve their CPUs to get more sales.
The same Intel with massive brand recognition like Nvidia,who played much dirtier than Nvidia did.
Now they are hitting record revenues,and are profitable,so there is no excuse to not get their GPU house in order if they want sales. They have the money to actually have more refined launches,better coolers,etc. Half the problems are not even the GPUs themselves,but the launches and the way the reference models are implemented.
Highest cash reserves for 14 years.
Lowest debt since 2012.
Highest yearly revenues. Highest net revenues since 2011.
AMD revenues and profits are at highs which have not been seen for nearly a decade,and before 2015 they did better with GPUs WITH LESS MONEY.
They have more than enough money to spend on making launches better,better coolers and drivers. Poor launches,poor coolers and other idiot moves which have seem more down to poor communications between engineering and marketing.
Most of the money is developing the uarchs,etc. Yet repeatedly the launches are dogged by one problem after another.
If they don't improve then they will end up with 10% marketshare. They have zero excuse now to not improve in these areas. If not they are literally throwing away potential sales. Vega and Polaris together had more sales share it appear.
ATI also had less money than Nvidia,yet consistently kept over 30% sales marketshare.
So 80% are encouraging price rises.
20%
Exactly, Nvidia are just reacting to demand.
If Nvidia lowered their prices by the amount that people are asking, their market share would rise, approaching 100%. That would be devastating for the market. Absolutely devastating. Why can't people see that?
Not only do we need competing products from AMD and Intel, but we also need people to buy thrm. That's the answer to sort this mess.
ATI had 30~50% sales share of the GPU market since the 9700 PRO days,and yet under AMD,their graphics division hit 17% at one point and looks like it will again dip under 20% it appears.
Ever since the R9 290 and its crap cooler,AMD hasn't had many launches without had some big problem.
Lets look at it then:
1.)R9 290 had a crap cooler which made it run hot,etc.
2.)R9 285,didn't improve on R9 280X and had same performance/watt when Maxwell was beating it
3.)R7 260X didn't achieve anything,when the R7 265 was faster and better performance/watt
4.)Fury X had cooler problems due to no QC/QA. Fury was better,but wasn't barely better price/performance than a GTX980
5.)R9 380/R9 380X was OK but didn't add much over R9 280/280X and performance/watt stagnated
6.)RX470/RX480 had crap reference cooler and PCI-E problems,even though it was decent GPU
5.)RX460 was OK but lack of bus powered models affected its value against GTX1050
6.)RX570/RX580/RX590 for a few percent extra performance drank power
7.)RX560/RX550 was OK
9.)Vega56 and Vega64 post launch prices were fail,as it was uneconomical to make. Stock coolers again were rubbish. Vega64 consumed way too much power.
10.)RX5700/RX5700XT had mediocre stock coolers. Drivers had bugs. Was meant to be RX680 but AMD saw what Nvidia did and did a Rebrandeon.
11.)RX5600XT BIOS fiasco. Even now not all RX5600XT cards can run the faster RAM.
12/)RX5500XT was overpriced. 4GB model had problems and costs more than GTX1650 Super.
Some of the models launched hardly improved on the ones they replaced,but instead competed with them. If it was about resources one has to question the point of GPUs such as the R7 260X,RX5500XT,etc.
Navi is OK,but as usual AMD screws up all three launches in some stupid way,either with horrible stock coolers,driver bugs,PCI-E issues,etc.
Nvidia screws up too,but they are far more consistent in getting stuff out,and most of their launches seem less problematic.
But even with one of the most problematic launches Nvidia had in years with Turing,with RTX2080TI failures,lack of proper RT/DLSS support for ages,high prices,and mediocre performance jumps,RTG still found some way to make Navi look unappealing.
20% marketshare is less than what RTG had with Polaris and Vega...! So Pascal is relatively less of a success for Nvidia(vs AMD),than Turing was.
If you listen to Jim from AdoredTV and other tech reviewers,they have tried their best to give AMD some feedback,but it appears AMD never listens,and again the same problems repeat themselves.
This is not just money,but something is not working very well,for them to not fix blatant problems. The reference coolers are one of them.
Deluded.