AMD GPU sales tanking

[tamzzy]

Of course you do, you're already ******* deaf from it

It wasn't actually too bad!
Was watercooled and with the granddaddy gentle typhoons mounted on alphacool UT60 rads.

 

[Grim5]

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.

It's not all about how much you spend, just cause you spend more doesn't mean you'll do better

Nvidia RnD budget: 8 billion
Intel: 16 billion
Qualcomm: 8 billion
Apple: 30 billion
AMD: 6 billion


If the dollar value was all that mattered; then why is AMD CPUs faster than Intel? Why is Apple unable break into high performance desktop and more importantly, why is Qualcomm catching up so fast to Apple? Why is Intel not beating Nvidia's GPUs?

I think sometimes things just don't work out, like Intel's infamous failure of 10nm and AMD's evolving infamy of RDNA3 (by missing apparent target performance by 50-100%)

 

[Birdseed007]

I thought that AMD made a big push a generation or so ago with the RX6700/6800/6900 series cards which competed pretty effectively with the Nvidia 3070/80/90 series. I ended up buying an RX6800XT instead of a 3080 due to its better availability and lower price for equivalent performance. It also seemed to me to be a more future proof card and that has indeed proved to be the case due to its greater on board memory. I play FS2020 in VR and regularly see over 14GB of graphics memory being used.

The card has been 100% reliable for 3 years now and is still performing well so I have no regrets. I've been so impressed that I've considered the RX7900XTX as my next upgrade but wanted to see what their next generation of 8900XTX may bring. Now it sounds as if this has been cancelled so I may be forced in time to an Nvidia card. To be honest performance of the RX6800XT is so good though that I currently feel no pressure to upgrade - of course FS2024 may change that!!

Birdseed007

 

[MartinPrince]

....The Ryzen 3700X was $330 in 2019
The Core i5 9600K was $270 in 2018 and still better in games

And yet with those products AMD had taken huge chunks of Intel's market share, the Idea that AMD was successful with Ryzen was because they were better and cheaper than Intel is a myth.

3700X should be compared to 9900K (both 8c/16t) but then that wouldn't serve your point as well.

 

[Dicehunter]

I thought that AMD made a big push a generation or so ago with the RX6700/6800/6900 series cards which competed pretty effectively with the Nvidia 3070/80/90 series. I ended up buying an RX6800XT instead of a 3080 due to its better availability and lower price for equivalent performance. It also seemed to me to be a more future proof card and that has indeed proved to be the case due to its greater on board memory. I play FS2020 in VR and regularly see over 14GB of graphics memory being used.

The card has been 100% reliable for 3 years now and is still performing well so I have no regrets. I've been so impressed that I've considered the RX7900XTX as my next upgrade but wanted to see what their next generation of 8900XTX may bring. Now it sounds as if this has been cancelled so I may be forced in time to an Nvidia card. To be honest performance of the RX6800XT is so good though that I currently feel no pressure to upgrade - of course FS2024 may change that!!

Birdseed007

From all current info, Which may all be completely false, AMD's highest end RDNA4 card will be akin to a 7900XTX plus or minus a few % but half the price and lower power consumption which by itself is good but no higher end card will have potential customers who are on the fence looking at AMD thinking they aren't a high end company so may as well go Nvidia.

It's not all about how much you spend, just cause you spend more doesn't mean you'll do better

Nvidia RnD budget: 8 billion
Intel: 16 billion
Qualcomm: 8 billion
Apple: 30 billion
AMD: 6 billion


If the dollar value was all that mattered; then why is AMD CPUs faster than Intel? Why is Apple unable break into high performance desktop and more importantly, why is Qualcomm catching up so fast to Apple? Why is Intel not beating Nvidia's GPUs?

I think sometimes things just don't work out, like Intel's infamous failure of 10nm and AMD's evolving infamy of RDNA3 (by missing apparent target performance by 50-100%)

While I largely agree, AMD's R&D is split up over CPU, GPU and AI accelerators, While AMD may "only" be 2 billion away from Nvidia's R&D budget, Nvidia's products are a lot more closely related around the GPU hence why their R&D seems to result in better products.

I know I constantly sound like an Nvidia stormtrooper but I really do want AMD to do better. I think they stretched themselves too thin over CPU and GPU, I bet if they just stayed on GPU we'd have much better cards from them right now.

 

[Murphy]

From all current info, Which may all be completely false, AMD's highest end RDNA4 card will be akin to a 7900XTX plus or minus a few % but half the price and lower power consumption which by itself is good but no higher end card will have potential customers who are on the fence looking at AMD thinking they aren't a high end company so may as well go Nvidia.

IDK how current your current info is but if rumours are to be believed RDNA4 will be a bug fix for RDNA3 so maybe something with the x800 and under class of GPUs didn't go as they expected.

 

[adidan]

IDK how current your current info is but if rumours are to be believed RDNA4 will be a bug fix for RDNA3 so maybe something with the x800 and under class of GPUs didn't go as they expected.

This is the impression I had, RDNA5 being an overhaul and with it a possible new naming convention. RDNA4 being a refresh and not having a top tier card is something they've done before.

I'm.not sure this is really as extreme as people are making out. Figures were not a surprise as they'd factored in the fact the PS5 has been out for so long (and these figures are included in the gaming component as I understand it).

 

[Dicehunter]

IDK how current your current info is but if rumours are to be believed RDNA4 will be a bug fix for RDNA3 so maybe something with the x800 and under class of GPUs didn't go as they expected.

So their highest end card being akin to a 7900XT, If they get the pricing low enough, A good chunk lower than a 7900XT, I'd say that's a win and decent stop gap until RDNA5.

 

[Murphy]

So their highest end card being akin to a 7900XT, If they get the pricing low enough, A good chunk lower than a 7900XT, I'd say that's a win and decent stop gap until RDNA5.

It's disappointing but understandable as the whole MCM thing for GPUs is very new, if they were expecting the x800 and under classes of GPUs to perform 10-15% better than they have then price/performance comparisons would've (will) be more favourable.

A £700 7900XT vs an £800-1000 4070Ti or 4080 is pretty much a no brainier (if you don't care for RT/Upscaling) so if they could bring similar price/performance disparity to the more affordable cards i guess they'd be seen in a more favourable light.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Half of graphics card sales are in laptops. Yet,lots of AMD laptops don't sell with AMD cards even in the RDNA1 and RDNA2 eras where AMD was competitive in performance per watt. That is the most baffling aspect of their lack of strategy. They are focused way to much on console and desktop. It appears now they have stated to realise laptops are more important going by recent statements. Meanwhile Nvidia has sold lots of RTX3060 and RTX4060 laptops.

 

[Raelgun]

Totaly Wrong buddy. Last time I checked - nVidias GPU's are flying of the shelves, and you Know that to!

Yep, so much so they had to reduce production!

 

[Joxeon]

This true and they eventually wised up too late IMHO. Strangely though AMDs discrete GPU market share did increase.

They still gained 5-6% simply because of how bad Nvidia was yet had they come in with decent pricing at the start instead of a year later they would probably have gained 30%+

 

[ICDP]

They still gained 5-6% simply because of how bad Nvidia was yet had they come in with decent pricing at the start instead of a year later they would probably have gained 30%+

Agreed on greed

The entire upsell to the 7900 XTX nonsense was bizarre really. £999 for an XTX and £899 for the XT was so transparent as a scam IMHO.

When the only saving grace was “still not as bad as Nvidia”, then it showed the state of the GPU market.

As I remarked at the time it’s like being asked if you preferred a kick in the balls or a punch in the face.

 

[Joxeon]

To me there is, right now, i did. But i'm in the extreme minority.
---------------

The Ryzen 1700X was $400 in 2017.
The Core i5 8600K was $260 in 2017 and much better at gaming, it also scored near as high in Cinebench.

The Ryzen 3700X was $330 in 2019
The Core i5 9600K was $270 in 2018 and still better in games

And yet with those products AMD had taken huge chunks of Intel's market share, the Idea that AMD was successful with Ryzen was because they were better and cheaper than Intel is a myth.

For gaming though you didn't need a 1700X or 3700X, a 1600 or 3600 did just fine and those were $200 and also came with a capable cooler. Even in gaming you was only getting around 9% more fps by going with an 8700k which cost 80% more than the 3600 and with the SMT on the 3600 its productivity performance wasn't far off either.

Look at the cost per frame AMD CPUs held over intel and intel wasn't even poorly priced like Nvidia is either so Ryzen looked like an absolute bargain.

Now compare this to AMD GPUs where only the ludicrous pricing of the 4080 makes the 7900XTX look decent while the more sane 4070ti although still hugely overpriced is still beating out the 7900XT and this is rasterization AMDs best case, turn on RT and Nvidia is looking far better value for money.

 

[Dicehunter]

When the only saving grace was “still not as bad as Nvidia”

It's sad that THAT is now a selling point

 

[TNA]

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).

This. If AMD either provided a better product or priced it like these cards should be rather than the greedy nvidia prices then maybe we would buy their cards.

I went from having a soft spot for Radeon GPU's and disliking Jensen and his ways withe 970 4gb rubbish to now just not giving a damn and buying whatever product that actually takes my fancy. That just happens to be nvidia cards right now.

Sitting there crying no one would buy AMD cards is a load of tripe. They could be pricing them for much lower margins for a couple of gens and that would almost certainly get their market share up.

But no.. We are a premium brand...Yeah ok, carry on, I will buy another nvidia card then.

I've owned more ATI/AMD GPU's over the years than Nvidia, but the fact they're becoming a hard sell is largely on them imo.

I used to be able to say that as had mostly Radeon cards. But with the way they have been going the past 5 years or so I just keep buying nvidia cards and I think now the amount of amd to nvidia cards I have owned over the years is similar.

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

Exactly this. The 7900 XT and XTX would have likely had the biggest margins. Had they come in at sane price points for those they would have temped me to switch over. Hell I think even nexus the green warrior would have got a 7900 XTX

 

[ICDP]

Those launch price/perf for AMD were shockingly bad and only looked good when we compared to the 4080 and 4090. It’s a case of less terrible and that should never be seen as a good selling point.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD takes way too long to release its mainstream cards. If the RX7800XT/RX7700XT had been launched at the current street prices when the RTX4070 was almost £600,AMD would have done reasonably well. But they just delayed it to the point,the RTX4070 street prices also dropped. I hope they don't do the same with the RDNA4 cards,otherwise it will be a flop if mainstream Blackwell cards are released soon afterwards!

 

[humbug]

It's not all about how much you spend, just cause you spend more doesn't mean you'll do better

Nvidia RnD budget: 8 billion
Intel: 16 billion
Qualcomm: 8 billion
Apple: 30 billion
AMD: 6 billion


If the dollar value was all that mattered; then why is AMD CPUs faster than Intel? Why is Apple unable break into high performance desktop and more importantly, why is Qualcomm catching up so fast to Apple? Why is Intel not beating Nvidia's GPUs?

I think sometimes things just don't work out, like Intel's infamous failure of 10nm and AMD's evolving infamy of RDNA3 (by missing apparent target performance by 50-100%)

If the dollar value was all that mattered; then why is AMD CPUs faster than Intel?

You're right, because Intel.

Why is Intel not beating Nvidia's GPUs?

Because Intel.

AMD's evolving infamy of RDNA3 (by missing apparent target performance by 50-100%)

If AMD missed the target performance by just 50% of that quote the 7900 XTX would be 30% faster than the 4090.

The rumour was targeting RTX 4090, its 20% faster than the 7900 XTX.

You know what the problem is with RDNA 3? And i'm simply explaining what is going on, not excusing it.
The RX 7800 XT with 60 CU's, the same number of CU's as the RX 6800 is clock for clock 30 or more % faster.
The RX 7900 GRE with 80 CU's, the same number of CU's as the RX 6950 XT is clock for clock 0% faster.

The 7900 GRE with 18 GB/s memory is 0% faster than the 7800 XT with 19.5 GB/s memory, increasing the core clocks on the 7900 GRE does nothing to fix that, increasing the memory speed does, my 7800 XT hit's a hard scaling wall at 2900 Mhz, if i increase the memory to 21 GB/s, which is as far as it goes its scales again to 3100 Mhz, which is as far as i can push it.

RDNA 3 has a memory bandwidth issue, in that it needs it or it doesn't scale, at all, the only reason the 96 CU 7900 XTX is 45% faster than the 60 CU 7800 XT is because it has 50% more memory bandwidth, it has a 384Bit Bus, IMO with a 512Bit bus it would easily match a 4090, maybe it was meant to have 8 instead of 6 MC dies but they thought better or worse of it, depending on your point of view.

If you want me to rate the technical prowess of these 3? I would rate them like this...

#1, Nvidia
#2, AMD






#3, Intel

AMD have an excuse, your own R&D number prove that out, Intel don't. Bad example...

 

[humbug]

Agreed on greed

The entire upsell to the 7900 XTX nonsense was bizarre really. £999 for an XTX and £899 for the XT was so transparent as a scam IMHO.

When the only saving grace was “still not as bad as Nvidia”, then it showed the state of the GPU market.

As I remarked at the time it’s like being asked if you preferred a kick in the balls or a punch in the face.

For sure that was an out of touch AMD trying it on, i think they regret that now...

IMO the 7900 XTX at $1000 was not bad compared with a $1200 RTX 4080, but the 7900 XT should always have been a $750 GPU, its $700 now...