• 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

humbug said:
The 8700K was $370, cheaper than the 1700X and way better in games.
Click to expand...

Which is a hell of a difference between the $260 i5 you quoted, and that generation of CPU from Intel didn't actually have HT to my memory. The 8700K was a 8c8t CPU, for non gaming or mixed tasks the 1700X was a better value proposition in many situations.
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
Which is a hell of a difference between the $260 i5 you quoted, and that generation of CPU from Intel didn't actually have HT to my memory. The 8700K was a 8c8t CPU, for non gaming or mixed tasks the 1700X was a better value proposition in many situations.
Click to expand...

The 8700K was a 6 core 12 thread, it was Intel's halo CPU, scored just as high in MT and way better in gamers and it was cheaper.

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.

AMD can't replicate that in GPU's because we just don't buy them, people think AMD's CPU's are really good, even when they are not that good, and AMD's GPU's really bad, even when they are good.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
The 8700K was a 6 core 12 thread, it was Intel's halo CPU, scored just as high in MT and way better in gamers and it was cheaper.

Being cheaper and better was not how AMD was successful with Ryzen, that didn't happen until Ryzen 5000, buy that point AMD had already gained a huge chunk of Intel market share.

AMD can't replicate that in GPU's because we just don't buy them, people think AMD's CPU's are really good, even when they are not that good, and AMD's GPU really bad, even when they are good.
Click to expand...

Are you factoring in motherboard costs here? In my experience Intel boards capable of running full throttle since they moved to 6 + cores on their standard platforms tend to get costly.

Most gamers weren't buying the top end either, they were buying a 1600 or 2600 which were relatively cheap with decent entry level costs to the AM4 platform Vs the unending socket changes by intel.
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
Are you factoring in motherboard costs here? In my experience Intel boards capable of running full throttle since they moved to 6 + cores on their standard platforms tend to get costly.
Click to expand...

No i'm not, you don't buy an AMD GPU because you perceive the ones you're comparing as having a better cooler or PCB than the Nvidia equivalent, it is part of what i do, a lot of the cheapest 4070's are junk compared to the cheapest 7800 XT's while also being more expensive, i've pointed that out serval times with receipts and was rejected like someone behaving like a desperate shill.

Whatever.... i give up anyway and it doesn't transfer.
 
So if cost isn't a factor, what reason is there to go with AMD? It's pretty much the only argument I see.

I had one good AMD card but forgot the name, something Tri-X, think it came in a yellow box. Was around whenever Elite came out.

However, their CPU's are not something I can see myself straying from ever unless they really mess up, but can't see it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
humbug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
You nit picking a few months, AMD kept the momentum for years. ^^^

Noxia said:
So if cost isn't a factor, what reason is there to go with AMD? It's pretty much the only argument I see.
Click to expand...

Cost was never the reason to go with Ryzen over Intel, at least not until recently.

If you are a real enthusiast, if you are a real PC nerd, if you really know you buy an AMD CPU, not Intel, Intel are for clueless office normies.

That is the mindshare AMD have, it stems from the days back when AMD's CPU's used to come in a brooding black box with "Black Edition" branding all over it.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
No i'm not, you don't buy an AMD GPU because you perceive the ones you're comparing as having a better cooler or PCB than the Nvidia equivalent, it is part of what i do, a lot of the cheapest 4070's are junk compared to the cheapest 7800 XT's while also being more expensive, i've pointed that out serval times with receipts and was rejected like someone behaving like a desperate shill.

Whatever.... i give up anyway and it doesn't transfer.
Click to expand...

You chose to start comparative debate relating to platform costs, a GPU is a one and done buy. You cannot discount the platform costs when purchasing a CPU, you need multiple separate purchases. Something that's actually becoming more profound with the fact we now have EXPO on top of XMP. I've not seen a differentiation in RAM for platforms since Rambus was a thing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, you have a lot of fantastic points. However, I feel you're finding ways to exaggerate your point, and in doing that you're acting against yourself.
 
humbug said:
Cost was never the reason to go with Ryzen over Intel, at least not until recently.

If you are a real enthusiast, if you are a real PC nerd, if you really know you buy and AMD CPU, not Intel, Intel are for clueless office normies.

that is the mindshare AMD have, it stems from the days back when AMD's CPU's used to come in a brooding back box with "Black Edition" branding all over it.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the GPU's with the cost part though. CPU was just me going offtopic in my own thoughts.

I guess one could make an easy argument that an enthusiast is going to go with Nvidia for a GPU.
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
You chose to start comparative debate relating to platform costs, a GPU is a one and done buy. You cannot discount the platform costs when purchasing a CPU, you need multiple separate purchases. Something that's actually becoming more profound with the fact we now have EXPO on top of XMP. I've not seen a differentiation in RAM for platforms since Rambus was a thing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, you have a lot of fantastic points. However, I feel you're finding ways to exaggerate your point, and in doing that you're acting against yourself.
Click to expand...

None of this transfers when you're talking about GPU's, its one neatly packaged thing that you plug in and play.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
The people responsible for making AMD more successful are AMD. Can't blame Nvidia or customers for not helping them (I'm not saying you were).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Nvidia started around 2010 to build Gameworks and their various FX libraries, People laughed at it, Nvidia kept building, Sponsoring games with some very lovely looking FX albeit very expensive performance wise. Now look where we are, AMD is behind by a literal lightyear in multiple departments and Nvidia offer an objectively better experience all around.

Nvidia are like sharks, When a new top end engineering graduates come out of MIT or other top colleges/universities in the US, UK, Japan etc... they go after them like there's blood in the water, No matter the cost. AMD on the other hand get engineers who seem to be half asleep and have a "total cool maaannnnn" attitude... that's not helpful, AMD need to become as aggressive as Nvidia in the hiring process, It's why Nvidia has some of the worlds best micro architecture engineers.

AMD needs to get it's ship together and I say this as a 7900XTX owner, It's a very nice card but way behind Nvidia's comparative offerings in various metrics.

AMD needs to do better or it might also lose the console market if Nvidia can offer better price/performance to Sony and Microsoft.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
You cannot spend the levels of R&D Nvidia do and have lower margins and be a minority marketshare holder.

AMD cannot operate in a market with all or nothing absolutles, because Nvidia will always be able to outspend them, its like we are mad at AMD for not keeping up with Nvidia spending despite Nvidia having 10X more money to spend, they can't, so they are out.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
You cannot spend the levels of R&D Nvidia do and how lower margins and by a minority marketshare holder.

AMD cannot operate in a market with all or nothing absolutles, because Nvidia will always be able to outspend them, its like we are mad at AMD for not keeping up with Nvidia spending despite Nvidia having 10X more money to spend, they can't, so they are out.
Click to expand...

I agree.

This is something AMD cannot fix unless their engineers find a magic bunny that grants wishes for super advanced hardware.

This is an issue years in the making due to AMD resting on their laurels coming up with half broken "super cool experimental" hardware like Polaris, Vega etc.... which wasted not just money but years of many engineers time and effort.
 
Last edited:
Dicehunter said:
I agree.

This is something AMD cannot fix unless their engineers find a magic bunny that grants wishes for super advanced hardware.

This is an issue years in the making due to AMD resting on their laurels coming up with half broken "super cool experimental" hardware like Polaris, Vega etc.... which wasted not just money but years of many engineers time and effort.
Click to expand...

You're right the crap that Raja Kudari vomited didn't help, i can say that now because "AMD not giving the genius enough money" was clearly not the problem, AMD managed to get his crap to work better than Intel did.

However.... it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom