Soldato
Sure, so you want to take the blind test? Ill upload 5 images, you try to find the native one. Deal?
-
Competitor rules
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.
Do AMD provide any benefit to the retail GPU segment.
cos you do a rubbish job at listing games, you can list almost any game on PC, almost any and has issues.
You are searching hard when it comes to current gen games on consoles.
you mean the ps4 and xbox one? yes they ran it bad, I am talking about the PS5 and Xbox series X which ran actually decent for a broken game
Soldato
What do you mean im searching hard, I already said every single game that is problematic on PC is also problematic on consoles. The heck are you talking about
Caporegime
I really don't understand why people believe all the marketing from Nvidia that they didn't want consoles. Yet they provided hardware for a lot of them,including the Switch. The reality is that once the CPU efforts of Nvidia didn't work out so well,they were stuck. Even the Switch is a repurposed automative SOC IIRC.
Last edited:
You listed a few games that have issues on PC, but fact is almost any game you will list ever will have issues on PC.
List most of the games released on consoles with the PS5 and so few have issues.
hogwarts is fine on PS5, wasnt on PC and thats a much bigger title as well.
Last edited:
Mate, just get your eyes tested, seriously you old gits just need to accept you have crap vision.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,153
Of course they would want in. Extra money never hurts, plus it could have been good for them to push their tech in console space as well.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 56
AMD existing in the dGPU space is preventing regulators coming in and splitting nvidia. 
Caporegime
Exactly. When it comes to consoles it's more likely Intel has a shot at them,if they get their GPU uarch working properly. The problem with AMD is that they need to just focus on less SKUs and do them well. Even in the case of Navi 31 it really needed some extra time in the oven IMHO. But this is the same company which had an amazing dGPU in AMD Hawaii and fluffed the launch by releasing it with economy brand reference cooler. If they had spent more on a decent reference cooler or launched it with AIB models from the start,even at a higher price it would have probably sold better. They really need to just release the products when they are ready.
AMD existing in the dGPU space is preventing regulators coming in and splitting nvidia.
It wouldn't surprise me.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,153
AMD existing in the dGPU space is preventing regulators coming in and splitting nvidia.
Yeah, imagine AMD throwing a tantrum and all its toys out of the sandbox and wanting to get out while nvidia pets it on the back and tries to sweet talk it back in while Intel is sipping a cocktail enjoying the show.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,153
Exactly that! Even when they have a good product are unable to have a good launch! That's what happens when the book keeping guys are making the cards, not the engineers!
Soldato
So you cant tell the difference in a blind test. As expected
Hogwarts was a mess on next gen consoles 1440p and could not hold steady 60 fps full of stutters and dropped frames according to Digital Foundry.
Meanwhile it was smooth as butter at 4k on my PC.
Caporegime
It was only one in name only. It had half the memory bandwidth IIRC.
clickbait video really.Given the current state of the GPU market i have been thinking a lot about this lately.
I'm inspired to some extent to make this post by this video, which makes many good and valid points but its conclusion seems to be born out of complete denial of what's been happening for at least a decade.
I will try to condense this down as much as i can as i don't want people to be put off by a wall of text. So please excuse the short handed nature of it.
He is right, IMO, that AMD have no interest in competing for market share, or rather perhaps they lack the confidence to try, they have no reason to believe it would work for them, but plenty of reasons to believe it wouldn't, they have been steadily loosing market share for a decade + despite during that time having tried to compete for that market share.
These are not exacting figures, so without watching the video again to get those this is close enough.
AMD segment their revenue result reports, one of those is gaming, it consist of GPU's and Consoles.
AMD's 2022 revenue for the "Gaming" segment was about $6.5 Billion, $3.5 Billion of that was from Sony, consoles like the PS5, about $2 Billion of that was from Microsoft, the XBox, the remaining $1.5 Billion was from GPU's and other assorted consoles, like the Steam Deck and its clones, so probably about $1 Billion revenue for the whole of 2022 for GPU's.
That's nothing, for a total revenue for that year of about $24 Billion, its about 4% of AMD's revenue, and that's revenue, not profit, this matters because developing GPU's is very expensive, the profit margins for that $6.5 Billion on the Gaming segment was less than $1 Billion, about 16%, if those are the margins for the GPU's that is $160 Million profit on GPU's for 2022.
If it costs $500 Million per year to keep up development for your GPU's then AMD are losing $350 Million per year to stay in this game, Intel spent $3.5 Billion over 3 or 4 years on ARC, and it is under developed, so i don't know how much AMD spend on GPU R&D but i'm willing to bet the consoles and Ryzen are propping it up heavily.
How much longer are AMD willing to go on with that and can they even invest more to fight Nvidia harder? AND do not want to take away R&D from where they are successful, they can't do it all and they have to stay ahead of the curve in the segments they are winning.
Its also about volume, the irony is that if AMD had 25 or 30% market share they would be better placed to fight Nvidia, because they would be selling a lot more GPU's than they actually are, so brining in more money and with that the task would be less extreme and difficult than it actually is.
That low volume also presents another problem, because it costs so much to develop them, and you sell so few you have no room to reduce your margins, you almost have to make it low volume high margin or you're just burning money keeping up with the R&D cycle.
So its no good saying AMD have to be 30% cheaper than Nvidia because RT isn't as good and they don't have DLSS, if that's how you see it good luck to you as Nvidia have you right where they want you, at that there is no point in AMD being in this game at all as they don't have the market share for low margins,
So, its up to us, it always has been, and tech tubers need to get angry at Nvidia instead of sighing and moaning that AMD aren't cheaper to make Nvidia cheaper, that being your reason for existing is exactly what did ATI in and it was AMD who bailed them out, so they aren't going to go down that road, if you don't buy them they will just stop making them and probably be glad of it.
AMD are a business, they will make decisions that are best for them, if they think they can get from 8% to 50% market share by being significantly cheaper than Nvidia, that is what they will do. In the same way that if Nvidia think they can maintain 90% market share with £1300 ##80 class cards that are really ##70 class cards.... that is exactly what they will do.
As for Intel, IMO they have realised they do not want to get tied up like AMD have in this massive mindshare monster that is Nvidia, and that is something we created. Yes putting someone on a very very high pedestal just gives them grater hight to spit on you, Nvidia feel absolutely untouchable, like they can do no wrong, because where else are you going to go? AMD? Yeah didn't think so...
Honestly i don't know why AMD don't just throw in the towel, i think if it wasn't for the consoles they would, irronically, but the fact that they are still in this game, despite everything perhaps indicated that on some level they do care.
A slight digression from this but i have noticed inexplicable frustration from a lot of reviewers reviewing AMD latest CPU's, ranting about things that have been going on for years just to put a negative slant on what should be a positive for AMD. complaining about existing trends that AMD are only starting to follow because no one has ever complained about it when AMD wasn't competitive, now that AMD are they seem upset about that, perhaps because while AMD's boot is on Intel's neck they are not helping reign Nvidia in, as if that's AMD's job, not these same tech journalists who seem to go out of their way as to not upset Nvidia too much.
When you farm out your own responsibilities what you get is what we now have. My own rant over, sorry
amd is a cpu company and have gpus that rival and are better than nvidia so not sure how he can make that video.
Less ROPS, but faster memory clocks and faster core clock speeds and on a 90nm process compared to the PC 7800GTX on 110nm.
Now which aged better PS3 or PC version ? Even Crysis a game famous for PC looked better on PS3 and the games in general that were first party games destroyed any game that was usable on the PC 7800GTX. PCMR lost that round and the "console peasants" for sure won that round on the very similar GPU hardware and actually really slightly weaker GPU on the PS3.
Soldato
WHAT? No it didn't. Both consoles got a cut down version compared to the original PC one. Crytek fought hard to actually make it work on consoles, and they ended up with a completely different version,, it's not even the same game, lol