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

[Murphy]

Where did they say this, as that comes off as one of those random rumours that became *insert company name* said this or that after a few months. I remember an AMD rep saying they could have built a card to compete with 4090 on raster but power requirements would be too high, the quote in the article was via google translate as it was a foreign article in the first place.

When they claimed it was 1.7x (70%) faster than a 6950XT which would've placed it roughly around the performance of a 4090...

And it turned out to only be 35% faster which placed it closer to the 4080.

 

[eeii]

When they claimed it was 1.7x (70%) faster than a 6950XT which would've placed it roughly around the performance of a 4090...

And it turned out to only be 35% faster which placed it closer to the 4080.

would have to agree in my testing my 7900xtx was 40% faster than my 6900xt at stock.

 

[jokerguv]

You think a Youtube review channel with 3 members of staff is going to take on a multinational company that's worth in excess of $200 billion? And for what, they wouldn't get a penny because like you say they potential mislead customers not HUB.

I suspect it is a personal thing for you, most others look at it rather more objectively.

No i did not, what do you think "based on the results" and "the performance" means? You seem to be intentionally missing the salient point of what you replied to and the HUB video, the point that the performance AMD claim before launch do not typically match what the actual performance is, and the price on launch does not match the actually value of the product.

If you're saying the product page should be reflective of the actual performance then clearly you don't understand what you're talking about, if you did you would've said the product page does not reflect the actual performance, if you did you'd know that even when third-parties match the system specs in the small print exactly they often find that AMD's performance numbers are out by sometimes multiple factors.

E.g Before the 7900XTX launch AMD were saying it matched the performance of a 4090 and only cost $1k, when third-parties got their hands on it they discovered it was closer to the 4080 and after 6 months the price had fallen by $150-200.

3s aplenty. 1 is all thats needed if they really believe what they're saying about AMD misleading customers. But I don't think they really believe this. Same goes for information on product pages. If someone really believes the information there is 'not correct', they're missing out on a huge payday.

Its just another emotional breakdown/opinionated video by a tech-tube channel looking for clicks, themselves using irresponsible/gross/slandering language (based on personal preference, mine's "slandering") while accusing AMD of this.

I get the idea of the video though especially the bit about first impressions of the product, but the overall tone was certainly not the way to approach this IMO. I know some would say this is an absolutely fine way of saying this so I'm just gonna leave this at that.

 

[henson0115]

i think some of you guys forget how much AMD have to spend on marketing and RnD comparing to nvidia, its like comparing a toy car company to a real car company. nvidia spent almost 9billion in rnd this year. literally you guys are comparing them like they are on an even playing field and they arnt, amd has no where near the spending power that nvidia does. until things are even in the spending department you can wish they were better all you want, but they have there hands tied to some degree to keep up and we see it for the most part.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

i think some of you guys forget how much AMD have to spend on marketing and RnD comparing to nvidia, its like comparing a toy car company to a real car company. nvidia spent almost 9billion in rnd this year. literally you guys are comparing them like they are on an even playing field and they arnt, amd has no where near the spending power that nvidia does. until things are even in the spending department you can wish they were better all you want, but they have there hands tied to some degree to keep up and we see it for the most part.

So how come ATI had much less resources back in the day when they brought out the 9700 Pro yet remained extremely competitive and had a better product?

NVidia were still far bigger even then yet got their arses kicked by ATI. It's not necessarily how much money you have, more like how you spend it. Look at Intel nowadays.

 

[humbug]

So how come ATI had much less resources back in the day when they brought out the 9700 Pro yet remained extremely competitive and had a better product?

NVidia were still far bigger even then yet got their arses kicked by ATI. It's not necessarily how much money you have, more like how you spend it. Look at Intel nowadays.

ATI went bust.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

ATI went bust.

While also being competitive, AMD took over a company that had good products and bad finances.

 

[humbug]

While also being competitive, AMD took over a company that had good products and bad finances.

You're not competitive if you're not making any money, all Nvidia did was grab the popcorn and watch ATI to run out of money.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

You're not competitive if you're not making any money, all Nvidia did was grab the popcorn and watch ATI to run out of money.

My point is, the products were competitive and they were gaining market share, I already cited the bad financial management. They're nowhere near in the same situation now financially, they're far better off. Yet their current products don't seem anywhere near as competitive as they were back then.

 

[humbug]

My point is, the products were competitive and they were gaining market share, I already cited the bad financial management. They're nowhere near in the same situation now financially, they're far better off. Yet their current products don't seem anywhere near as competitive as they were back then.

My point is there are limits to this.

Picture this, you're AMD with $27bn annual revenue and 40% margins, you want to undercut Nvidia to gain market share, you sell your GPU's for significantly less, job done right? As easy as that....

But hold on, now you're Nvidia with $60bn annual revenue and 70% margins.

It costs AMD $300 to make a $550 GPU
It costs Nvidia $300 to make a $600 GPU

That's just BOM costs, not including R&D or cost of sales.

So...
AMD lower their GPU to $400

Nvidia sit and watch with popcorn, AMD more than triples its market share from 12% to 40%, Nvidia are on their third bucket of popcorn when they launch a GPU with all kinds of shiny features and it absolutely murders AMD's latest offering because they had no money for R&D, AMD quickly becomes irrelevant, womp womp wooomp.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

My point is there are limits to this.

Picture this, you're AMD with $27bn annual revenue and 40% margins, you want to undercut Nvidia to gain market share, you sell your GPU's for significantly less, job done right? As easy as that....

But hold on, now you're Nvidia with $60bn annual revenue and 70% margins.

It costs AMD $300 to make a $550 GPU
It costs Nvidia $300 to make a $600 GPU

That's just BOM costs, not including R&D or cost of sales.

So...
AMD lower their GPU to $400

Nvidia sit and watch with popcorn, AMD more than triples its market share from 12% to 40%, Nvidia are on their third bucket of popcorn when they launch a GPU with all kinds of shiny features and it absolutely murders AMD's latest offering because they had no money for R&D, AMD quickly becomes irrelevant, womp womp wooomp.

I think you've taken an observation I've made comparing a situation of years ago to one of now and blown it way out of any proportion, I'm not suggesting any of the above. I'm saying, with less resources they seemed to win the battle back then and I wish they would now.

 

[humbug]

I think you've taken an observation I've made comparing a situation of years ago to one of now and blown it way out of any proportion, I'm not suggesting any of the above. I'm saying, with less resources they seemed to win the battle back then and I wish they would now.

They didn't win the battle, they lost, they lost so completely they no longer exist.

If I'm Nvidia i'm not going to let you win, i'm going to destroy you, because i can, easily.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

They didn't win the battle, they lost, they lost so completely they no longer exist.

If I'm Nvidia i'm not going to let you win, i'm going to destroy you, because i can, easily.

Don't disagree with any of that, it's exactly how it is. They lost because they were financially mismanaged though, not because their products weren't good. In the case of the 9700 Pro and later stuff like the 5850 and suchlike, the products were markedly better than the Nvidia offerings. The 9700 Pro was the first real card with 'free' AA, the Nvidia cards tanked with AA switched on.

I'm not talking about finances, just days when AMD / ATI were the innovators, days it would be great to see return.

But we're in a totally different world now.

 

[TNA]

i think some of you guys forget how much AMD have to spend on marketing and RnD comparing to nvidia, its like comparing a toy car company to a real car company. nvidia spent almost 9billion in rnd this year. literally you guys are comparing them like they are on an even playing field and they arnt, amd has no where near the spending power that nvidia does. until things are even in the spending department you can wish they were better all you want, but they have there hands tied to some degree to keep up and we see it for the most part.

You don't need to spend millions to avoid making stupid mistakes they keep making. Just replace the guy running the department.

 

[humbug]

Don't disagree with any of that, it's exactly how it is. They lost because they were financially mismanaged though, not because their products weren't good. In the case of the 9700 Pro and later stuff like the 5850 and suchlike, the products were markedly better than the Nvidia offerings. The 9700 Pro was the first real card with 'free' AA, the Nvidia cards tanked with AA switched on.

I'm not talking about finances, just days when AMD / ATI were the innovators, days it would be great to see return.

But we're in a totally different world now.

Yes.... i miss those days.

 

[Calin Banc]

i think some of you guys forget how much AMD have to spend on marketing and RnD comparing to nvidia, its like comparing a toy car company to a real car company. nvidia spent almost 9billion in rnd this year. literally you guys are comparing them like they are on an even playing field and they arnt, amd has no where near the spending power that nvidia does. until things are even in the spending department you can wish they were better all you want, but they have there hands tied to some degree to keep up and we see it for the most part.

It doesn't cost that much to test your card in an actual case and see that it has cooling issues. It doesn't cost that much to have a marketing team that actually thinks a bit before making claims that can't be backed up.

 

[henson0115]

It doesn't cost that much to test your card in an actual case and see that it has cooling issues. It doesn't cost that much to have a marketing team that actually thinks a bit before making claims that can't be backed up.

how many cases are out there? even if its 3000 cases then yes it does have a cost, in terms of money and man power i see your point but nothing in business is free and I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, I'm saying they don't have the resources like nvidia do and stop comparing them.

 

[henson0115]

You don't need to spend millions to avoid making stupid mistakes they keep making. Just replace the guy running the department.

true but your missing the point, people are in here comparing amds and NVidia mistakes, NVidia make less. well that's because they have more resource available and likely bigger more refined departments due to having more money to run them. its not rocket science, i see the same issues in the small business i work in compared to being in a larger organization previously.

 

[henson0115]

So how come ATI had much less resources back in the day when they brought out the 9700 Pro yet remained extremely competitive and had a better product?

NVidia were still far bigger even then yet got their arses kicked by ATI. It's not necessarily how much money you have, more like how you spend it. Look at Intel nowadays.

you are missing the point. you dont need money to make a great product... but you do need money for resourcing, if your making mistakes then you need either more resourcing or to replace resourcing, that requires money. and as someone else mentioned ATI went bust for a reason

 

[henson0115]

My point is there are limits to this.

Picture this, you're AMD with $27bn annual revenue and 40% margins, you want to undercut Nvidia to gain market share, you sell your GPU's for significantly less, job done right? As easy as that....

But hold on, now you're Nvidia with $60bn annual revenue and 70% margins.

It costs AMD $300 to make a $550 GPU
It costs Nvidia $300 to make a $600 GPU

That's just BOM costs, not including R&D or cost of sales.

So...
AMD lower their GPU to $400

Nvidia sit and watch with popcorn, AMD more than triples its market share from 12% to 40%, Nvidia are on their third bucket of popcorn when they launch a GPU with all kinds of shiny features and it absolutely murders AMD's latest offering because they had no money for R&D, AMD quickly becomes irrelevant, womp womp wooomp.

this man gets it