Poll: AMD Keeps Screwing Up (HUB video) - do they?

[jokerguv]

Voted no because I think people are getting way too emotional over this (especially that terrible video thumbnail ).

Suggesting a company keeps screwing up launches because they don't launch their products according to one's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed doesn't really mean anything.

All companies have their marketing dept. saying better performance, better value etc. etc. Its not like everyone bases their buying decisions on first party marketing claims, though I could see the point of the poll if that were the case.

As things stand in the PC DIY space, a company releases a product, all the information about how it performs is already available via numerous independent third parties and the consumers make buying decisions based on the results of those third parties and not how the company marketed it. Or at least that's how I suppose people usually buy their stuff.

So don't really see where the keep screwing up launches bit comes in all of this.

 

[ICDP]

I voted no because the 7800, 7900GRE and even some of the previous launches went perfectly well. Last time it was the chip shortages, the pandemic driven demand and of course crypto that were the problems for both AMD and Nvidia.

Their biggest issue recently was the joke prices of the 7900XT(X) range. Though can we exclusively call out AMD considering Nvidia were even worse for pricing and comedy value this round (4080 12GB says hold my pint AMD).

So by all means HUB are right to call out AMD but not for all their releases. Though they have also called out Nvidia in the past. So at least they are fair.

 

[Rogueywon]

I don't think it's quite right to say that AMD keep screwing up their launches. It's more that Nvidia made a successful long-term play that has handed them an advantage AMD have struggled to erode.

Go back to the early '10s and Nvidia were getting some very strange looks for that money they were putting into AI. When the 2000 series launched in 2018, it was branded a damp squib by a good chunk of the gaming press and didn't sell brilliantly. But what Nvidia had done was gamble that simply increasing traditional GPU performance metrics wasn't the way to go. They put serious research funding into RT and upscaling and took a "dump generation" of consumer GPUs to get the technology out there and get developers using it. When RT and DLSS actually became properly usable with the 3000-series, they had killer features and AMD were a long way behind them.

And in some ways, that's capitalism working correctly. Nvidia took a risk on long-term investment (with no short-term reward) and get a reward now in terms of increased market-share in the consumer space and absolute megabucks in the corporate AI space. The problem is that it's proving so hard for AMD to close the gap that we're now left without much competition at the top end of the consumer market.

 

[TNA]

Suggesting a company keeps screwing up launches because they don't launch their products according to one's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed doesn't really mean anything.

Their continual dip in market share says otherwise

Makes me laugh when people suggest it is not AMD's problem/fault.

 

[Nexus18]

Probably should have made the poll a bit clearer, somewhat set the tone in my OP but not in the thread poll title..... it's not so much a question about amds marketing screwing up but amd and what they are delivering to their customers both hardware and software front. Safe to say marketing is a complete mess but what amd are delivering is also considered to be scoring own goals regardless of marketing.

So reasons I voted yes:

- the 7900xt(x) launch disaster with the vapour chamber and cards catching fire, more notworthy this given the comments amd amd made about the 4090 fire hazard
- each new fsr version being hailed as the dlss killer only to take 1 step forward then 2 steps back and intel being able to get their version on par with dlss in comparison despite being new to the dGPU market
- anti lag getting people banned, major oversight by amd this
- pricing their gpus at launch in same bracket as nvidia counterparts despite not offering the same complete overall package as their competition
- the claims of how efficient rdna 3 was going to be and better than ada yet come launch, power guzzling like mad and issues with idle power consumption with dual monitors, amd quickly removed some of their slides from the website as well to hide these false claims (also, this wasn't pr marketing but comments direct from Lisa too)
- knee jerk reaction to DLSS frame gen and making it out like it was in the works for months/years only to release in 2 awful titles and with a lot of missing features
- lack of RT focus with rdna 2, could be excused at launch but as shown, the cards are aging pretty poorly now with all the RT games coming out and even with the writing on the wall, they didn't properly address this with rdna 3 so now we have rdna 3 matching 4 year nvidia gpus in RT games

Those are the main things that come to mind for me.

I don't think it's quite right to say that AMD keep screwing up their launches. It's more that Nvidia made a successful long-term play that has handed them an advantage AMD have struggled to erode.

Go back to the early '10s and Nvidia were getting some very strange looks for that money they were putting into AI. When the 2000 series launched in 2018, it was branded a damp squib by a good chunk of the gaming press and didn't sell brilliantly. But what Nvidia had done was gamble that simply increasing traditional GPU performance metrics wasn't the way to go. They put serious research funding into RT and upscaling and took a "dump generation" of consumer GPUs to get the technology out there and get developers using it. When RT and DLSS actually became properly usable with the 3000-series, they had killer features and AMD were a long way behind them.

And in some ways, that's capitalism working correctly. Nvidia took a risk on long-term investment (with no short-term reward) and get a reward now in terms of increased market-share in the consumer space and absolute megabucks in the corporate AI space. The problem is that it's proving so hard for AMD to close the gap that we're now left without much competition at the top end of the consumer market.

Yup that's exactly it and noted similar in my OP, nvidia have simply excelled further and in a shorter space of time, essentially they invested in the right areas which are paying of big time.

 

[sparkymark75]

Would it not be just easier if AMD got it right though? People are not about to change because AMD's marketing department are not up to the job.

Better they price cards competitively from release and avoid own goals.

What does "getting it right" mean? In their eyes, they may be "getting it right". Or do they have to copy everything nVidia does?

 

[TNA]

What does "getting it right" mean? In their eyes, they may be "getting it right". Or do they have to copy everything nVidia does?

Market share going up would be an indicator no?

 

[Jay85]

Missing open goals use to be bad luck or bad timing... but now i just think it's a trait for AMD.

 

[sparkymark75]

At least we now have the trifecta of super fanboys. Dave2150 for Intel, LtMatt for AMD (although to be fair to Matt, he doesn't do free marketing on here, just continually buys all their products...at once! ) and Nexus18 for nVidia

 

[alec]

remember RDNA2 launch, promising plentiful supply that turned out to be tiny
making such bold claims immediately following nvidia rtx 3000 scalping and shortages was so stupid

 

[Nexus18]

What does "getting it right" mean? In their eyes, they may be "getting it right". Or do they have to copy everything nVidia does?

Well they are competing with nvidia on features which are now considered a must have by many users and tech press so yeah they kind of need to match nvidia if they want to be considered a premium brand and charge in the same bracket as nvidia gpus or better yet, beat nvidia to the punch rather than following behind by months/years.

They right now have one big advantage with AFMF but alas, their marketing capabilities have let them down on capitalising on this front, nvidia will no doubt have frame gen injection via drivers with 50xx/dlss 4 and shout about it from the rooftops so the main advantage amd have right now to go amd over nvidia will be gone.

remember RDNA2 launch, promising plentiful supply that turned out to be tiny
making such bold claims immediately following nvidia rtx 3000 scalping and shortages was so stupid

Ah yes, forgot to list this one.

I was wanting rdna 2 i.e. the 6800xt at the time but the lack of stock and 0% chance of getting one for MSRP in UK pushed me to the 3080, looking back and how things have ended up, amd did me a favour by giving 80% of their supply to consoles though. Was signed up on part alerts and 6800/6800xt hardly ever came into stock compared to the 3080 (even compared to the FE)

 

[sparkymark75]

remember RDNA2 launch, promising plentiful supply that turned out to be tiny
making such bold claims immediately following nvidia rtx 3000 scalping and shortages was so stupid

Maybe supply was plentiful, worldwide, just the UK got a limited supply? Who knows. One thing that was quantifiable was the nVidia pricing, but somehow AMD is equally as bad because some people couldn't get a card at launch?

I don't know why we even have these threads because its just used as an excuse for people that don't buy AMD GPUs and never will to have a go at them and claim they would buy them if they were 50% faster and 50% cheaper than nVidia!

 

[Nexus18]

Maybe supply was plentiful, worldwide, just the UK got a limited supply? Who knows. One thing that was quantifiable was the nVidia pricing, but somehow AMD is equally as bad because some people couldn't get a card at launch?

I don't know why we even have these threads because its just used as an excuse for people that don't buy AMD GPUs and never will to have a go at them and claim they would buy them if they were 50% faster and 50% cheaper than nVidia!

It was stated ages ago that amd were supplying 80% of their rdna 2 stock to consoles at the time so it wasn't just a UK thing. What UK didn't have was the access to amd store in order to secure a gpu at MSRP so if people in the UK wanted a MSRP RDNA 2 gpu, they had to buy elsewhere and import or pay the inflated prices from etailers and AIBs.

With this post and your fanboy comment above, seems like you're the one who maybe is wearing rose tinted glasses and not liking some valid points being raised about amd?

How is a company going to improve if flaws/issues aren't pointed out? If AMD fans keep on sweeping things under the rug, amd will lose all market share and then we'll be left with only nvidia, not exactly a good thing for anyone. AMD are no longer the underdog, they are worth billions, they even admitted themselves their flaws around software feature set hence again, the huge investment, if they and their customers thought they were delivering products on par with the competition, they would not be doing this....

Are you saying that everyone who has voted yes doesn't buy amd gpus? I can see plenty of amd gpu owners voting yes..... And as noted, I have owned more amd hardware than intel and nvidia combined, probably more than most people on this forum too.

 

[TNA]

I don't know why we even have these threads because its just used as an excuse for people that don't buy AMD GPUs and never will to have a go at them and claim they would buy them if they were 50% faster and 50% cheaper than nVidia!

Name and shame please

Do you mean Nexus, the guy who before his 3080 had AMD cards only for like a decade?

I still remember him being a AMD boy. All the posts are there to see if you don't take my word for it.

 

[alec]

voted yes as potential buyer

I was ready to get a 6800XT at launch, bad supply, bad price, went for 3070
Was ready to get 7900XT/XTX, but pricing was stupid (still is for xtx), performance and power wasn't quite there, features too. Ended up going 4080 Super later.

 

[TNA]

voted yes as potential buyer

I was ready to get a 6800XT at launch, bad supply, bad price, went for 3070
Was ready to get 7900XT/XTX, but pricing was stupid (still is for xtx), performance and power wasn't quite there, features too. Ended up going 4080 Super later.

Bet there are many people like you.

You have people painting the picture that the reason they don't sell well is because no one wants AMD. That is simply not true.

Sure Nvidia have a bigger mind share. But if AMD were to bring it I can't see why they could not at least increase their market share to 30%.

 

[Nexus18]

Name and shame please

Do you mean Nexus, the guy who before his 3080 had AMD cards only for like a decade?

I still remember him being a AMD boy. All the posts are there to see if you don't take my word for it.

Yup amd/ati were fantastic before rdna 2, nvidia didn't have enough advantages to warrant going with them (I don't care for cuda, shadowplay and physx [was nice but only in a handful of games] and didn't have a gsync module based display). Back in the day so to speak, it was very much just hardware/sheer perf and efficiency and pricing, nothing else mattered and amd always couldn't be matched on bang per buck especially when they did so many game bundles too.... now there are so many factors at play, more valuable/worthwhile feature sets to consider.

The one thing which I loved and kept me with amd in those days was mantle, it was a god send on bf 4 (my main game back then) and also the start of dx 12 where amd had the lead over nvidia, being in consoles and dx 12, expected to see bigger differences as time went on but alas that never really happened, at least not a substantial enough anyway and nvidia have now resolved their dx 12 shortcomings where in certain games like assassins creed, the lead was massive with amd.

 

[Murphy]

Voted no because I think people are getting way too emotional over this (especially that terrible video thumbnail ).

Suggesting a company keeps screwing up launches because they don't launch their products according to one's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed doesn't really mean anything.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've probably not watched the video and/or picked up on the general opinion of AMD marketing practices. Because we're not talking about one's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed, we're talking about AMD's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed.

If your marketing sets unreasonable exceptions for an upcoming product people will be disappointed if/when the product doesn't meet the expectations your marketing department set.

All companies have their marketing dept. saying better performance, better value etc. etc. Its not like everyone bases their buying decisions on first party marketing claims, though I could see the point of the poll if that were the case.

As things stand in the PC DIY space, a company releases a product, all the information about how it performs is already available via numerous independent third parties and the consumers make buying decisions based on the results of those third parties and not how the company marketed it. Or at least that's how I suppose people usually buy their stuff.

So don't really see where the keep screwing up launches bit comes in all of this.

You said it yourself, consumers make buying decisions based on the results. They make decisions based on the price of the product vs the performance. If your marketing gives consumers high expectations and your product doesn't meet those expectations you'll have issues because people are expecting to pay £900 for £900 worth of performance.

That's bourn out of the facts, it's not "emotional". AMD themselves end up dropping prices across a wide range of products at times only 3-4 months after the product has launched.

 

[humbug]

Voted no because I think people are getting way too emotional over this (especially that terrible video thumbnail ).

Suggesting a company keeps screwing up launches because they don't launch their products according to one's interpretation/understanding of how those products should be marketed doesn't really mean anything.

All companies have their marketing dept. saying better performance, better value etc. etc. Its not like everyone bases their buying decisions on first party marketing claims, though I could see the point of the poll if that were the case.

As things stand in the PC DIY space, a company releases a product, all the information about how it performs is already available via numerous independent third parties and the consumers make buying decisions based on the results of those third parties and not how the company marketed it. Or at least that's how I suppose people usually buy their stuff.

So don't really see where the keep screwing up launches bit comes in all of this.

They use thumbnails like that to get people emotionally riled up for clicks, they are like Reddit trolls throwing troll grenades farming the reactions with a monetised platform. The worst kind of people....

Anyway.... you're right IMO, i voted yes not because their pricing doesn't meet a Reddit trolls expectations, or even that they don't match Nvidia's feature sets, i voted yes because they do _____ up in the communication constantly, their marketing material is too often different from reality.

 

[Firegod]

Probably should have made the poll a bit clearer, somewhat set the tone in my OP but not in the thread poll title..... it's not so much a question about amds marketing screwing up but amd and what they are delivering to their customers both hardware and software front. Safe to say marketing is a complete mess but what amd are delivering is also considered to be scoring own goals regardless of marketing.

So reasons I voted yes:

- the 7900xt(x) launch disaster with the vapour chamber and cards catching fire, more notworthy this given the comments amd amd made about the 4090 fire hazard
- each new fsr version being hailed as the dlss killer only to take 1 step forward then 2 steps back and intel being able to get their version on par with dlss in comparison despite being new to the dGPU market
- anti lag getting people banned, major oversight by amd this
- pricing their gpus at launch in same bracket as nvidia counterparts despite not offering the same complete overall package as their competition
- the claims of how efficient rdna 3 was going to be and better than ada yet come launch, power guzzling like mad and issues with idle power consumption with dual monitors, amd quickly removed some of their slides from the website as well to hide these false claims (also, this wasn't pr marketing but comments direct from Lisa too)
- knee jerk reaction to DLSS frame gen and making it out like it was in the works for months/years only to release in 2 awful titles and with a lot of missing features
- lack of RT focus with rdna 2, could be excused at launch but as shown, the cards are aging pretty poorly now with all the RT games coming out and even with the writing on the wall, they didn't properly address this with rdna 3 so now we have rdna 3 matching 4 year nvidia gpus in RT games

Those are the main things that come to mind for me.



Yup that's exactly it and noted similar in my OP, nvidia have simply excelled further and in a shorter space of time, essentially they invested in the right areas which are paying of big time.

My thoughts

- the 7900xt(x) launch disaster with the vapour chamber and cards catching fire, more notworthy this given the comments amd amd made about the 4090 fire hazard.
I don't remember, but sorry if it was the case, but I thought the vapour chamber issue just caused throttling. I don't think they caught fire did they? And it only impacted the reference model. Whereas the 4090 and cable issue were melting across the board. I think we can probably say the 4090 issue in comparison, from a safety pov, is/was worse.

- each new fsr version being hailed as the dlss killer only to take 1 step forward then 2 steps back and intel being able to get their version on par with dlss in comparison despite being new to the dGPU market
It's taken a while yes, but FSR 3.1 is probably where AMD want to be (finally). And lets not forget that this works on all makes of cards, so it also benefits Nvidia users with older cards. Personally I'd be saying thanks AMD!

- anti lag getting people banned, major oversight by amd this
Tricky one. But can we fully lay this on AMD? I bet AMD and likewise Nvidia can't test every single driver change with every game and involve every dev team. I personally think some blame lies with VAC system. I mean, did Nvidia not know about Windows 11 22H2 and do any internal testing in advance before release? https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows_11_22H2_nvidia_GPU_woes - I'd think this was a bigger oversight, impacting more people and more games than just CS2.

- pricing their gpus at launch in same bracket as nvidia counterparts despite not offering the same complete overall package as their competition
Nvidia stuff is overpriced, and usually Nvidia launch lesser cards first before the "proper" cards come out later - so no way AMD should be trying to emulate any of this. However, I don't know if general costs have gone up so hence price rises. Could all be fixed for all we know lol.

- the claims of how efficient rdna 3 was going to be and better than ada yet come launch, power guzzling like mad and issues with idle power consumption with dual monitors, amd quickly removed some of their slides from the website as well to hide these false claims (also, this wasn't pr marketing but comments direct from Lisa too)
Again I think the dual monitor issue was quite specific to high resolutions and high refresh rates. I'm not 100%, but, I think it is now under control (or at least improved). RDNA 3 performance per watt vs previous AMD cards (not Nvidia here) is actually an improvement. Toms Hardware did a comparison, "...the RX 7700 XT ultimately ends up delivering about a 20% improvement in performance per watt over the 6700 XT, and a 30% increase compared to the RX 6750 XT." Neat!

- knee jerk reaction to DLSS frame gen and making it out like it was in the works for months/years only to release in 2 awful titles and with a lot of missing features
Not sure what you mean on this one. lol.

- lack of RT focus with rdna 2, could be excused at launch but as shown, the cards are aging pretty poorly now with all the RT games coming out and even with the writing on the wall, they didn't properly address this with rdna 3 so now we have rdna 3 matching 4 year nvidia gpus in RT games
To me, that is probably the only downside at the moment - if RT is important to you. However, I just ran the Black Myth Wukong benchmark, which mrk informed me is using RT (Lumen), and my RDNA 2 card still managed respectable FPS at 1440p.