AMD GPU sales tanking

[NZXT30]

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...

They also did the same with their CPUs. Release them overpriced to try your luck and then drop prices later seems to be the current trend. However, that strategy can backfire when you're competing against Nvidia...

 

[humbug]

They also did the same with their CPUs. Release them overpriced to try your luck and then drop prices later seems to be the current trend. However, that strategy can backfire when you're competing against Nvidia...

Both the 7950X and 13900K launched at $700.

The 5950X launched at $800, yes that was pricey.
However, the best Intel had was the 10900K at $600, compare that to the Ryzen 5800X which was as good if not better in MT, better despite lower clocks in ST, better in games and far more power efficient, its why i bought it and not that at $500.

The 5950X had no competition at all... and a lot of people bought them.

 

[melmac]

I've said this so many time now but i'm going to keep saying it until it sinks in, ATI tried to combat Nvidia by spending big on R&D and then taking the hit on retail pricing by under cutting Nvidia.

You know what Nvidia did in response? Nothing, they didn't even engage in a price war, Nvidia sat on their hands and waited for ATI to run out of money, sure enough ATI went bust.

People have such fond memory's of ATI, its why veterans have a hate for AMD, they think AMD bought them and then ruined them, ATI ruined themselves, AMD bailed them out.

Rubbish. Why do you write this nonsense? In the late 90's, early 2000's Nvidia were simple making faster GPUs than ATI. While ATI were making a lot of money in OEM's they were losing out in the high end discrete market because their GPUs were slower. In the early 2000's ATI made large investments in making better GPUs by acquiring a ArtX, Appian graphics and Diamond Multimedia(Fire GL) This was a massive success. It lead to the development of the R300. Which was released in August 2002 as the Radeon 9700 Pro. For those few years between 2002 and 2006, ATI were doing really well. In 2005 they secured a deal with Microsoft for the Xbox. They generated their biggest revenues, they massively increased their share in the Discrete GPU market. And for a while had actually more market share than Nvidia. It's stupid to say that AMD bailed them out.

I don't know who is to blame for their downfall in the GPU market. But that downfall only happened when AMD took over. ATI never did what you said. They didn't take a hit on retail pricing hitting to undercut Nvidia. ATI understood the importance of having the top GPU is, that's why they invested heavily to obtain that spot. It was only when AMD took over that they started trying to undercut Nvidia's prices. It's only when AMD took over that they stopped fighting to have the best GPU. Instead they started aiming for the value for money bracket. Combine that with the fact that the first two GPU releases from AMD(the 2xxx and the 3xxx) were two of the worst GPUs ever released just at the time that Nvidia released, arguably their two best cards ever, the 8800GT and 8800GTX. That's the start of where AMD went wrong.

And since then it's been 14 years of mediocrity, poor Launches and missed opportunities. You want the prime example of AMD shooting themselves in the foot? Take the HD 7900 series cards back in 2012. They priced them wrong for a start, a massive increase over the HD 6xxx series cards. They configured them wrong at launch and the drivers were bad. When Nvidia released the GTX 680/670 cards two months later in March, despite using a mid range die, they were faster and cheaper than the AMD 7970 and 7950. AMD eventually solved all these problems, by dropping prices, releasing the Gigahertz edition and in November finally getting the performance driver out. But that's the same old story for AMD. Always late. The shame of all this, is that the 7970/7950 were amazing cards.

That continues even today. The RDNA 2 launch was really good. Solid cards, solid drivers. Then they went back to been AMD and screwed up the RDNA 3 launch, bad drivers, power issues and poor VR performance and very poor stock levels. And after all the launch troubles that Nvidia had and their rip off prices, AMD had an open goal and missed.

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.

In the beginning Ryzen CPUs weren't necessarily better or cheaper than their Intel counterparts. However they were competitive at all levels, which was something that AMD hadn't been in years. They weren't an instant success either. Yes, some people switched but there was no big swings in Market share. That didn't happen until the 3xxx series. That's when things started to shift. AMD proved they had consistency. Every generation of Ryzen CPUs is better than the last. They are also taking performance crowns. Fastest for gaming, fastest for workloads. All these things matter. Which is why they are now taking more and more market share with every CPU release.

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.

This is silly statement. People are buying AMD's CPU's now because AMD has changed the perception of their CPUs by releasing consistently good products. Products that are not just almost as good as Intel's products for a little cheaper. They aren't just aiming for the best price/performance bracket and leave it at that. On the CPU front they are trying to make the best CPU. People will pay for the best. And having the best, leads to more sales at the lower price points.

AMD aren't doing that on the GPU side of things. They have zero consistency. They aren't trying to release the top GPU. AMD have to change the perception of their GPUs, like they did with their CPUs, by been consistent for a few generations and then by going after the top spot.

All your comments about blaming tech journos and us for not buying AMD's GPUs are horse manure. Their success in the CPU market has proved that having good products consistently changes mind share.

I think you're comparing a little unfairly here.

Because it shows how disingenuous your argument is.

Classic Humbug. Disingenuous and comparing unfairly.

 

[cyclonus10]

Half of graphics card sales are in laptops. Yet,lots of AMD laptops don't sell with AMD cards

God knows what power draw a 7900 AMD gfx card would draw, my 4080 (4070T) can pull 175w consistently with my Llano laptop cooler fans at a decent speed to stop it hitting the 87c temp limit.

This is where Nvidia really kill AMD, until AMD can get their cards power efficient I would never consider getting an AMD gfx card laptop.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

God knows what power draw a 7900 AMD gfx card would draw, my 4080 (4070T) can pull 175w consistently with my Llano laptop cooler fans at a decent speed to stop it hitting the 87c temp limit.

This is where Nvidia really kill AMD, until AMD can get their cards power efficient I would never consider getting an AMD gfx card laptop.

Only this generation - people have forgotten the previous two generations. RDNA1 and RDNA2 had decent performance/watt - the RX6600/RX6800 were the most efficient dGPUs of their generation. The RX5700 and RX5600 series was efficient too. Yet,AMD saw barely any traction in laptops powered by their own CPUs.

It just shows how disjointed AMD CPU and dGPU divisions are and they really need to be thinking of selling consumer platforms. If not Intel will do so once they get more generations of their own dGPUs out.

 

[humbug]

God knows what power draw a 7900 AMD gfx card would draw, my 4080 (4070T) can pull 175w consistently with my Llano laptop cooler fans at a decent speed to stop it hitting the 87c temp limit.

This is where Nvidia really kill AMD, until AMD can get their cards power efficient I would never consider getting an AMD gfx card laptop.

Tuned and OC to RTX 4070 Ti performance 260 watts, RX 7800 XT, i think the 7900 GRE would probably do better as its a much fatter GPU, you don't really need to clock the core to get it to that level of performance, you just need to clock the memory.

Stock the 4070 Ti is 285 watts.

Also, yes, you're right.....

Frankly i can't believe how long its taken AMD to get to this point, they could have done this years ago.

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.

"Yes please, i'll have a few million of them..."

 

[TNA]

Rubbish. Why do you write this nonsense? In the late 90's, early 2000's Nvidia were simple making faster GPUs than ATI. While ATI were making a lot of money in OEM's they were losing out in the high end discrete market because their GPUs were slower. In the early 2000's ATI made large investments in making better GPUs by acquiring a ArtX, Appian graphics and Diamond Multimedia(Fire GL) This was a massive success. It lead to the development of the R300. Which was released in August 2002 as the Radeon 9700 Pro. For those few years between 2002 and 2006, ATI were doing really well. In 2005 they secured a deal with Microsoft for the Xbox. They generated their biggest revenues, they massively increased their share in the Discrete GPU market. And for a while had actually more market share than Nvidia. It's stupid to say that AMD bailed them out.

I don't know who is to blame for their downfall in the GPU market. But that downfall only happened when AMD took over. ATI never did what you said. They didn't take a hit on retail pricing hitting to undercut Nvidia. ATI understood the importance of having the top GPU is, that's why they invested heavily to obtain that spot. It was only when AMD took over that they started trying to undercut Nvidia's prices. It's only when AMD took over that they stopped fighting to have the best GPU. Instead they started aiming for the value for money bracket. Combine that with the fact that the first two GPU releases from AMD(the 2xxx and the 3xxx) were two of the worst GPUs ever released just at the time that Nvidia released, arguably their two best cards ever, the 8800GT and 8800GTX. That's the start of where AMD went wrong.

And since then it's been 14 years of mediocrity, poor Launches and missed opportunities. You want the prime example of AMD shooting themselves in the foot? Take the HD 7900 series cards back in 2012. They priced them wrong for a start, a massive increase over the HD 6xxx series cards. They configured them wrong at launch and the drivers were bad. When Nvidia released the GTX 680/670 cards two months later in March, despite using a mid range die, they were faster and cheaper than the AMD 7970 and 7950. AMD eventually solved all these problems, by dropping prices, releasing the Gigahertz edition and in November finally getting the performance driver out. But that's the same old story for AMD. Always late. The shame of all this, is that the 7970/7950 were amazing cards.

That continues even today. The RDNA 2 launch was really good. Solid cards, solid drivers. Then they went back to been AMD and screwed up the RDNA 3 launch, bad drivers, power issues and poor VR performance and very poor stock levels. And after all the launch troubles that Nvidia had and their rip off prices, AMD had an open goal and missed.



In the beginning Ryzen CPUs weren't necessarily better or cheaper than their Intel counterparts. However they were competitive at all levels, which was something that AMD hadn't been in years. They weren't an instant success either. Yes, some people switched but there was no big swings in Market share. That didn't happen until the 3xxx series. That's when things started to shift. AMD proved they had consistency. Every generation of Ryzen CPUs is better than the last. They are also taking performance crowns. Fastest for gaming, fastest for workloads. All these things matter. Which is why they are now taking more and more market share with every CPU release.



This is silly statement. People are buying AMD's CPU's now because AMD has changed the perception of their CPUs by releasing consistently good products. Products that are not just almost as good as Intel's products for a little cheaper. They aren't just aiming for the best price/performance bracket and leave it at that. On the CPU front they are trying to make the best CPU. People will pay for the best. And having the best, leads to more sales at the lower price points.

AMD aren't doing that on the GPU side of things. They have zero consistency. They aren't trying to release the top GPU. AMD have to change the perception of their GPUs, like they did with their CPUs, by been consistent for a few generations and then by going after the top spot.

All your comments about blaming tech journos and us for not buying AMD's GPUs are horse manure. Their success in the CPU market has proved that having good products consistently changes mind share.




Classic Humbug. Disingenuous and comparing unfairly.

Chances are he won't be able to deal with that post and will just stick you on ignore

 

[Joxeon]

AMD just need to go back to basics and be the budget brand that is missing from the GPU market, offer solid cards at really good prices, build a strong customer base and use that as the platform to kick on and build momentum at each release.

Right now the AMD GPU division has an identity crisis, they want to be seen as a premium brand and charge premium prices but they don’t have the premium products and this is why they are failing.

 

[Sythe79]

So..... taking all the rumours as true, the best AMD with produce next gen is roughly a 4080 in raster, with double their last gen ray tracing at around £500.

Is that enough to move units ?

 

[ICDP]

So..... taking all the rumours as true, the best AMD with produce next gen is roughly a 4080 in raster, with double their last gen ray tracing at around £500.

Is that enough to move units ?

I would say categorically yes. The 4080(s) is still a ~£1k GPU for Nvidia and they will not be providing a similar price/perf for anywhere near £500 with their 50x0 range.

Though I think AMD will idiotically price such a GPU at £650ish because Nvidia’s equivalent in raster will be £750.

 

[humbug]

AMD just need to go back to basics and be the budget brand that is missing from the GPU market, offer solid cards at really good prices, build a strong customer base and use that as the platform to kick on and build momentum at each release.

Right now the AMD GPU division has an identity crisis, they want to be seen as a premium brand and charge premium prices but they don’t have the premium products and this is why they are failing.

This i agree with, AMD don't need to ignore Nvidia completely and i don't think they will.

APU's are now an MCM design, GPU's are also an MCM design and AMD have now started making fat APU's, so far as i understand it with that APU's and dGPU's could be interchangeable, you could glue an RDNA 4 GPU to a dGPU PCB or an APU PCB, this would cut a lot of design costs, manufacturing costs and the chances of being left with an over stock situation if one or the other doesn't sell is going to be greatly reduced.

I would not be surprised if this is the master plan moving forward.

So..... taking all the rumours as true, the best AMD with produce next gen is roughly a 4080 in raster, with double their last gen ray tracing at around £500.

Is that enough to move units ?

Probably not, all Nvidia have to do is come up with a 5060 Ti that's an approximation to a 4080 for $550 and now every tech jurno is calling for the RX 8800 XT? to be $450 or its not worth it. Whatever AMD do they always have to be 20 to 30% cheaper or "they are not worth buying" Nvidia know this and with that its childs play to beat AMD down in to unprofitable oblivion.

The hard truth is Nvidia could put Radeon out of business in about 3 to 6 months if they wanted to and tech jurnoes would unwittingly help them. Because they are midwits.

 

[humbug]

Hence the contingency plan in the first part of my reply. ^^^

 

[humbug]

I think one of the reasons AMD price to about 90% of Nvidia's price is because they fear anything more Nvidia would see it as a price war and react accordingly, AMD have 0 chance in a price war with Nvidia, it would put them out of business without Nvidia even getting slightly flustered.

Its not just AMD = Greedy. But ironically don't apply the same standard to Nvidia.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

<snip>

I agree with all of this, it just doesn't wash saying that people think ATI was failing when AMD took it over. I was around then, it wasn't. It was bought in 2006 and my HD5850 and the HD5870 were still smashing NVidia in terms of performance in 2009, 3 years later. They started really doing that with the ATI 9700Pro in 2002 and were doing well in terms of offering a decent and often better alternative. So if anyone says ATI were knackered when AMD took them over, that's for the birds, it's complete fantasy and a misrepresentation of the truth. They were going gangbusters.

If anything, AMD could be blamed by some for screwing up the GPU division they bought from ATI, making it non-competitive..

 

[TNA]

I agree with all of this, it just doesn't wash saying that people think ATI was failing when AMD took it over. I was around then, it wasn't. It was bought in 2006 and my HD5850 and the HD5870 were still smashing NVidia in terms of performance in 2009, 3 years later. They started really doing that with the ATI 9700Pro in 2002 and were doing well in terms of offering a decent and often better alternative. So if anyone says ATI were knackered when AMD took them over, that's for the birds, it's complete fantasy and a misrepresentation of the truth. They were going gangbusters.

If anything, AMD could be blamed by some for screwing up the GPU division they bought from ATI, making it non-competitive..

Nah. Not AMD's fault. AMD elevated ATI to a whole new level. They even brought Raja and we remember how awesome his cards were

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree with all of this, it just doesn't wash saying that people think ATI was failing when AMD took it over. I was around then, it wasn't. It was bought in 2006 and my HD5850 and the HD5870 were still smashing NVidia in terms of performance in 2009, 3 years later. They started really doing that with the ATI 9700Pro in 2002 and were doing well in terms of offering a decent and often better alternative. So if anyone says ATI were knackered when AMD took them over, that's for the birds, it's complete fantasy and a misrepresentation of the truth. They were going gangbusters.

If anything, AMD could be blamed by some for screwing up the GPU division they bought from ATI, making it non-competitive..

The big problem was Bulldozer failed as a uarch and GlobalFoundries became a real issue as they consistently missed performance targets. AMD was on the brink of bankruptcy. The graphics card division and consoles were propping up the company for a few years.

It meant AMD actually cut their R and D spend after the HD5000/HD7000 series and pushed a lot of it towards the Zen CPU:

AMD: Development of ‘Zen’ CPUs is our largest R&D spending now - KitGuru

Advanced Micro Devices has been slashing its research and development budgets for a number of quarte

www.kitguru.net

Basically they coasted along with their dGPUs and had nothing really to take on Maxwell and used the console contracts to essentially finance their GPU division. This is where things started to really go downhill. They started to lose a lot of the important OEM sales,ATI had fought hard to get.

That worked OK a while,but during the Pandemic it bit them in the arse. They pushed so many wafers towards consoles,they were down the pecking order after CPUs. Yet,RDNA2 was their best launch since the HD5000 series and should have been in laptops,etc but it was no where. In many markets you couldn't even find an RX6000 series card. It seems like an utter waste of R an D,having taped out all those different designs. By the time they got more out,the Pandemic surge was over.

Then RDNA3 was a misfire and now AMD are back to square one. Yet,instead of KISS they went and tried to re-invent the wheel.

Nah. Not AMD's fault. AMD elevated ATI to a whole new level. They even brought Raja and we remember how awesome his cards were

People keep moaning about him,but under his leadership we got Polaris,Vega and RDNA1. Vega was not a great gaming dGPU but was the basis of the later cDNA cards and their IGPs which fought off Intel for years,whilst doing it on a shoe-string R and D budget.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

<snip>

Again, can't disagree with any of that.

 

[Gerard]

People keep moaning about him,but under his leadership we got Polaris,Vega and RDNA1. Vega was not a great gaming dGPU but was the basis of the later cDNA cards and their IGPs which fought off Intel for years,whilst doing it on a shoe-string R and D budget.

Indeed, most of the resources were shifted to the cpu division for Ryzen, so the gpu division just had to make do with whatever limited budget they had to work with.

 

[Dicehunter]

Hell I think even nexus the green warrior would have got a 7900 XTX

Now you're just talking crazy

 

[Nexus18]

Hell I think even nexus the green warrior would have got a 7900 XTX

Would have been tempted but for the moment I am locked to team green for the forseeable until amd catch up, at the time and still applies:

- FSR is and arguably still is abysmal (especially since I game more often at 3440x1440)
- lack of RT grunt (7900xt/x isn't an upgrade over a 3080 in RT )
- not being able to play RTX remix titles without artifacting or/and just awful perf.
- no reflex or dldsr competitor

And now we have RTX HDR & ray reconstruction, which is too good to lose.