Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
So because AMD *only* owe $500M now instead of $1.5B - this means they can instantly compete with nVidia making $12B PROFIT (!!!!!!!) next to AMD's $200M profit, and that's over the last 6 years... If I went back to 2010, the numbers become even starker as AMD was regularly losing around $1B per year...
Yeah, AMD should totally be kicking nVidia's ass -- just utter laziness, I mean they've clearly got the money
That's not to say AMD didn't make mistakes... but your point that somehow they magically have money so mistakes are unacceptable are just not based in reality. It's not only a miracle they even stay competitive in the high end (just not the top end), it's a miracle they can even compete in the mid range with how pitiful their finances have been.
So because AMD *only* owe $500M now instead of $1.5B - this means they can instantly compete with nVidia making $12B PROFIT (!!!!!!!) next to AMD's $200M profit, and that's over the last 6 years... If I went back to 2010, the numbers become even starker as AMD was regularly losing around $1B per year...
Yeah, AMD should totally be kicking nVidia's ass -- just utter laziness, I mean they've clearly got the money
If they don't/aren't able to compete with each other as a duopoly then its clearly not a free market and both arms should be globalised as that's where humanity would see the most benefit? How's it work?
If they don't/aren't able to compete with each other as a duopoly then its clearly not a free market and both arms should be globalised as that's where humanity would see the most benefit? How's it work?
So AMD should have not bothered with Zen,as for nearly 10 years Intel was kicking AMD's arse with mega revenue,etc. Intel trying every trick in the 90s and 2000s to bankrupt AMD. They should have just not bothered and given up,because Intel is evil and rich and all the AMD uber fans,will just throw pity money at them. It didn't work,and AMD had to fix it.
People should read up about AMD founder Jerry Saunders. He didn't give two damns about Intel being bigger and dirtier,he was determined to compete with them. The guy was like Nvidia's JHH,quite cocky and flamboyant but he put the company on the map. ATI was cut from the same cloth,a Canadian company who was fighting against US companies like Matrox,3dfx and Nvidia.
With GPUs,only uber AMD fans in their own reality distortion sphere will put up with rubbish launches,poor drivers,poor coolers,and wonder why Nvidia in the last 5 years,has managed to actually increase sales share. But ATI also made much less money,but had between 30% to 50% of the sales share,and Nvidia were pegged in. ATI didn't rely on sympathy votes.
So if they are not willing to fix their problems,and improve their products and their launches,they will end up moving to irrelevance in desktop graphics. If you are not willing to invest funds,and fix problems,then its not going to sustain desktop graphics. They are literally throwing sales away,by not fixing problems.
Most gamers are not going to care about background. Just like most car owners won't care if Ford is smaller than Toyota. People care about the end products.
AMD RTG is not providing end products which the market wants enough off,hence their sales are crashing.
Vega+Polaris had more sales share than Navi+Polaris.
Of course AMD are willing to fix their problems and improve their products. If they weren't we wouldn't have received the Polaris line, then the Vega line, then the Navi line. Just because they can't/don't compete at the very top does not mean they are not trying to fix their cards and improve their products.
There are talented chip designers and electrical engineers working at both companies, if GPU's are vital to human development and a binary choice is the only thing on offer maybe it would be better to combine minds?
So AMD should have not bothered with Zen,as for nearly 10 years Intel was kicking AMD's arse with mega revenue,etc. Intel trying every trick in the 90s and 2000s to bankrupt AMD. They should have just not bothered and given up,because Intel is evil and rich and all the AMD uber fans,will just throw pity money at them. It didn't work,and AMD had to fix it.
People should read up about AMD founder Jerry Saunders. He didn't give two damns about Intel being bigger and dirtier,he was determined to compete with them.
The same goes with GPUs,only uber AMD fans in their own reality distortion sphere will put up with rubbish launches,poor drivers,poor coolers,and wonder why Nvidia in the last 5 years,has manage to actually increase sales share. But ATI also made much less money,but had between 30% to 50% of the sales share,and Nvidia were pegged in. ATI didn't rely on sympathy votes.
So if they are not willing to fix their problems,and improve their products,they will end up moving to irrelevance in desktop graphics.
You're making some odd logical leaps... AMD has been trying - they've never stopped. Of course AMD should have bothered with Zen.. but Zen was successful not because AMD succeeded (think that needs rephrasing somehow) but because Intel FAILED -- Intel weren't even trying - I think SandyBridge was their last good CPU, and if they were trying - even more shame on them.. AMD vs Intel is a different scenario to AMD vs nVidia.
Unlike Intel, nVidia have kept developing and not sat on their asses. Although given the vast differences in income - nVidia *should* be decades ahead of AMD, but that's neither here nor there..
Your initial point, which I was countering, was: "They have no excuse now,with the positive PR of Zen as a brand,and actually having more money to spend" -- they have MORE money to spend, you're correct. But my counter point was next to nVidia they're not even a blip. Just because AMD are starting to be a little profitable these last 2 years doesn't mean they even compare to the hand over fist money that nVidia's been making... Literally, a MIRACLE that AMD are still in the conversation - let alone remotely competitive.
There are talented chip designers and electrical engineers working at both companies, if GPU's are vital to human development and a binary choice is the only thing on offer maybe it would be better to combine minds?
Actually I think the opposite would be better, instead of reducing to just 1 company I think there should be more companies involved. Intel started working on dGPUs but I've heard they've pretty much ditched that, not sure how true it is... Ideally more companies operating in this space is what's needed though - if anyone knows Jeff Bezos, perhaps mention the idea of starting a GPU business to him?
Ivy Bridge-E(P) - still hold in there with a good overclock (though only the Q/16xx Xeons can be overclocked) against the latest and greatest despite their age and can be tuned for very low total system latency. Lots of RAM bandwidth and PCI-e lanes, etc.
Of course AMD are willing to fix their problems and improve their products. If they weren't we wouldn't have received the Polaris line, then the Vega line, then the Navi line. Just because they can't/don't compete at the very top does not mean they are not trying to fix their cards and improve their products.
Its not about the top its about doing the best with what you have.Its about the fact they spend so much on developing these GPUs anyway but miss on details. However,at the last metre of the race they screw up every launch. Things like the coolers being crap,the GPUs being pushed too far,etc.
A prime example is the R9 290X. Who in their right mind,would pass such a crap cooler to be used with it. Literally spending another £20 on a better cooler,would have made it look so much better in reviews. What was the R9 390 series? What the R9 290X should have been at launch. Then they repeated the same crap coolers with Polaris(which throttled a lot),then with Vega and then with Navi.
People were excuse making for years,AMD has no money,etc. Well now they have some money,they can actually fix these problems. Not sure why people are saying,but AMD has no money,so they shouldn't fix any problems. If that is the case,they shouldn't bother making dGPUs as they are not maximising their R and D spend.
Just making a nice GPU isn't enough,if you don't implement the designs properly,or make sure the drivers are up to scratch. Nvidia gaining sales with Turing is really telling,if Polaris which barely competed above £250 could hold as much share(maybe more) against a stronger Pascal line-up.
Lots of the tech press keep telling AMD about these problems,but they are oblivious to it all. People are voting with their pockets,and its upto AMD to fix it IF they want more sales. All this David and Goliath stuff is all nice but unfortunately most people don't care.
Not sure why people are saying,but AMD has no money,so they shouldn't fix any problems. If that is the case,they shouldn't bother as they are not maximising their R and D 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.
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.
I can see where you are coming from and I wouldn't necessarily say that you are wrong either. You have some solid points. To me though, it all depends on what kind of glasses you are wearing when looking at either brand. To me, AMD has been more enthusiast-friendly, less locked down, and with more tinkering possible. All sorts of cool and odd community contributions has been made. Whereas Nvidia is just a black box. Some don't mind this about Nvidia and it certainly helps with the uninitiated who have a harder time messing up their system to a degree.
Let's take the black sheep in the family, Vega. So many people hate it, citing a power draw of 400 watts and it's true, out of the box experience back when it launched wasn't very good. Today, however, is a different beast. Vega is still putting out some solid numbers and with tweaking, it's even better. My power draw with a monitor and a complete system is 350-400 watts and that's with an overclocked Vega.
To me, AMD has some solid products once they are viewed in the right light, and while they all have their flaws, it's usually flaws that can be fixed yourself. Now you can argue that you shouldn't have to and as a regular consumer I would agree, but I'm not one of those, I'm an enthusiast.
I think it's rather simple, don't buy the first week of release. Wait and let other's be the guinea pig. This goes for both red and green. Once a week has gone by you should have a rough and crude idea of where the potential is(what kind of issues are there, are these fixable, or is it just bad hardware) and what not to touch. Dodged the 295x2 this way .
I prefer AMD more than Nvidia. The reason is, I prefer open software, I don't like the anti-consumer tendencies of Nvidia(Jensen and Co., and no, AMD isn't a saint in this regard but the lesser of two evils) and I like AMD's hardware solutions. That said, If Nvidia releases something with the price/performance and efficiency and it fits what I need then I'm certainly considering them. I prefer New Castle Brown Ale over Heineken but if Heineken is all that is there then I'm certainly not gonna say no .
I can see where you are coming from and I wouldn't necessarily say that you are wrong either. You have some solid points. To me though, it all depends on what kind of glasses you are wearing when looking at either brand.
This. Unfortunately no other brand is there, and intel with their clout struggles to get a look in so that tells you in itself its a space not worth scrapping in. You have to really crack the stigma associated with AMD, or somehow educate the masses that have been brainwashed by the nvidia mindshare that you can in some generations get away with an AMD card and be no worse off. If occasionally you do support the underdog, your giving them a lifeline. If you dont deviate from the status quo, then dont complain when the only competitor goes out of business or is bottom feeding on a monopolised market.
It's all smoke and mirrors whenever Nvidia screw up and is quickly forgotten under the torrent of AMD hate sent to distract.
Remember 'bumpgate' when Nvidia basically destroyed millions of laptops because they sold mobile chips that didn't meet the specs they gave to laptops makers? Forgotten.
What about the drivers Nvidia released that actually set graphics cards on fire because it disabled the fans? Forgotten.
GTX970 that had odd memory limitations labelled by Nvidia fans as 'a feature' rather than admit it was a fault? Forgotten.
And now, the 20 series space invaders? Forgotten.
The hypocrisy in these forums is hilarious to watch and the way any criticism of Nvidia is immediately labelled as AMD fanboyism shows the mentality of many commentators in here.
The ONLY reason they want AMD to 'compete' is the hope that it will force Nvidia to lower prices so that they can save money on their Nvidia card.
They have ZERO intention of buying any competing card from AMD, regardless of any performance/price/features of those cards.
Its not about the top its about doing the best with what you have.Its about the fact they spend so much on developing these GPUs anyway but miss on details. However,at the last metre of the race they screw up every launch. Things like the coolers being crap,the GPUs being pushed too far,etc.
A prime example is the R9 290X. Who in their right mind,would pass such a crap cooler to be used with it. Literally spending another £20 on a better cooler,would have made it look so much better in reviews. What was the R9 390 series? What the R9 290X should have been at launch. Then they repeated the same crap coolers with Polaris(which throttled a lot),then with Vega and then with Navi.
People were excuse making for years,AMD has no money,etc. Well now they have some money,they can actually fix these problems. Not sure why people are saying,but AMD has no money,so they shouldn't fix any problems. If that is the case,they shouldn't bother making dGPUs as they are not maximising their R and D spend.
Just making a nice GPU isn't enough,if you don't implement the designs properly,or make sure the drivers are up to scratch. Nvidia gaining sales with Turing is really telling,if Polaris which barely competed above £250 could hold as much share(maybe more) against a stronger Pascal line-up.
Lots of the tech press keep telling AMD about these problems,but they are oblivious to it all. People are voting with their pockets,and its upto AMD to fix it IF they want more sales. All this David and Goliath stuff is all nice but unfortunately most people don't care.
You are right, the issue is however, that until very recently AMd have had no ability to spend more money on better coolers. You may believe it's "only another £20" but when you are buying 250,000 of them it's suddenly a large amount that AMD may have not been able to afford. Remember just how close to the bankruptcy line they were, personally I am amazed they still managed to put products out in 2 extremely competitive markets.
When they starter getting money they tried better cooling too like the Radeon VII and there has been a lot of rumour about this generation not being blower coolers too so we will wait and see.
The hypocrisy in these forums is hilarious to watch and the way any criticism of Nvidia is immediately labelled as AMD fanboyism shows the mentality of many commentators in here.
The ONLY reason they want AMD to 'compete' is the hope that it will force Nvidia to lower prices so that they can save money on their Nvidia card.
Bull****, even a blind man can see that short-term spending on a better cooler would reap longer-term benefits. If they can't budget an extra few quid on a better cooler then they really shouldn't be in this game! Same with having a decent driver team. AMD/RTG have always had issues doing this it seems.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Deluded.
.
