• 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.

AMD GPU sales tanking

Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a 7900XT user. But am I surprised? Totally not.

Yes, AMD has to make some profit with their GPUs, but they're priced so close to their team-green alternatives that for most users, it would be better to pay the extra and get an nvidia gpu instead.
You get more VRAM with Radeon cards, but...

...Team green has better ray-tracing, DLSS is better baked compared to FSR, not to mention CUDA and NVENC
And for this gen, RTX 4k also has better (less) power draw and spikes
In general, nvidia has better resale values that negates the slightly higher up front costs

I can't see how AMD can compete without taking a massive haircut to their RRP
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
The 4060 is laughably bad
it is, but the equivalent is the RX7600

nowadays the 4060 can be had for £280 vs £250 for the RX7600 new (not wanting to go down the rabbit hole of used cards)
back when there was a £50 differential (£300 4060) the argument could be had to get the RX7600 - and I have made this argument for the RX7600 in several budget "spec-me" threads
but now when it's only £30...I'd pick the 4060 over the RX7600 any day of the week

same with the 4070 (£480) vs 7800XT (£470)
and the 4070S (£540) vs 7900GRE (£530)

it's only when we get to the more enthusiast parts where AMD has some separation in prices
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
I don't think that many would spend £250 on a 7600, or a little more on a 4060 when a 6600 can still be had for £200.
actually i would say that £250 is just about okay for a 7600. the 7600 is about 25-30% faster than the 6600, so the price/performance is perfectly linear.
(£200 x 1.25 = £250)
though would still prefer the 7600 to be around £230 :cry:
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
They have this weird thing of running their mouth when they have nothing to show for it, absolute silence when they've got something great.
Agree lol. Jaws, victory, defeat comes to mind...except for the Radeon team, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, literally every time.

While true, the people buying those cards are already budget gamers. I'd never say it's worth spending the extra £50 on an 8gb card for relatively minor uplift.
I'm not sure I would call 25-30% on a budget card minor...for a casual who only changes their computer every 5+ years it could mean soldering on for another couple of years before wanting an upgrade.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Personally I think the 4060/RX7600 is the top end of performance where 8GB is just about acceptable. It is, after all...near the performance of a 2080/2080 super.
Would I want more VRAM, of course! But I can see why both team red and green have not done so. In more demanding/future games, these cards would presumably need the settings turned down which should hopefully mean that the buffer would not overflow.

Definitely anything higher performing than the 4060/RX7600 must have more VRAM.
(We can see this played out in the 3060ti/6700XT battle, and definitely evident with the 3070 :cry: )
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Yet another click bait title, that title talks about .h264, which in their own article is meaningless as its about AV1 and in the article Toms say themselves they are all tied with AV1.

I'm starting to find click bait articles very tiering... i mean its not "Still fall behind" in your AV1 article, is it?????????? By your own conclusions!
yeah looks like AV1 is the great equaliser (tbh i haven't kept up with encoding, and until recently, as you've shown...nvenc was a superior implementation)
this would've been more important for small-time streamers as they wouldn't have needed a second pc/capture and could stream with relatively low cpu/gpu overhead
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
When talking about OEM's no one wants AMD's add-in GPU's, but they do want AMD's APU's, they like those, so make them an APU so powerful it doesn't need an add-in GPU even if you're talking about a gaming laptop.
i'd take this in a heartbeat for my laptop
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
If greed is knowing that selling a product for 10% margins means you have to sell 2X as many of those products as you do with 20% margins just to break even and the chances of one achieving that are nil then yes AMD are greedy.

But this does not make AMD foolish, it makes people angry because its doesn't stop Nvidia's pricing from spiraling out of control, that however is a you problem.
i dunno mate, i think what radeon desperately needs is marketshare and mindshare, if that means taking less % profit per gpu sold, then so be it...just as amd did for ryzen 1000/2000 series
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Oh... ATI made such good GPU's at such low prices.... right! But you still bought Nvidia!

not old enough to have bought a gpu at the time, but for what it's worth, convinced my dad to buy a radeon 9700 :cry:

It always ultimately falls back on us, whatever AMD do it means nothing if we don't buy them, and we don't.
is there a compelling reason to buy radeon compared to nvidia?
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Being cheaper and better was not how AMD was successful with Ryzen, that didn't happen until Ryzen 5000, by that point AMD had already gained a huge chunk of Intel's market share.

yes it was and i'll call you out on that right now.

amd released the ryzen 1000 series in march 2017 which directly competed with the intel 7th gen quad cores - we know how that went down, for refreshers, here it is: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
it was not until october 2017 that intel released the 8th gen in response to the ryzen 1000 series
it is also quite disingenous to use the 1700x as a basis for your argument as we all knew that the 1700 (non-x) was the obvious value part, with minimal difference in performance but a significant price difference ($329 for the 1700, $399 for the 1700x)

once intel released 8th gen, amd released zen+ in april 2018 to counter that, and the 2700x was $329 on release...taking over the 1700 in the price category whilst being even faster than intel's hedt offerings for rendering etc: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/10
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
17,040
Its an interesting thought process, i also think far too few people want to buy them, i think as a whole we just want Nvidia, the only perceived value AMD have is to kerb Nvidia, but that doesn't even work, not really, because Nvidia know their market, they know you, AMD are tokenism.
When you're asking whose fault that is you have to ask how did we get here?, Well it didn't happen over night, its happened over a couple of decades, and some fault lays on AMD themselves with this, but ultimately for us, as a whole AMD have been a token chain on Nvidia for those couple of decades.

so when amd had the chance to gain marketshare and mindshare, and missed an open goal...it's still our fault somehow?
so your darwinism does not apply for amd?
the mental gymnastics is strong in this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Back
Top Bottom