It wasn't actually too bad!Of course you do, you're already ******* deaf from it
Was watercooled and with the granddaddy gentle typhoons mounted on alphacool UT60 rads.
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.
It wasn't actually too bad!Of course you do, you're already ******* deaf from it
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.
....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.
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
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%)
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Yep, so much so they had to reduce production!Totaly Wrong buddy. Last time I checked - nVidias GPU's are flying of the shelves, and you Know that to!
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%+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%+
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.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.
When the only saving grace was “still not as bad as Nvidia”
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).
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 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
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?
Why is Intel not beating Nvidia's GPUs?
AMD's evolving infamy of RDNA3 (by missing apparent target performance by 50-100%)
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.