Soldato
Im not talking about other people, im talking about you. WIll you find out native vs dlss in a blind test?
-
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.
Associate
What I find depressing is that AMD have the ability to compete. Sure they might not have a 4090 class... but going by recent interviews they easily could have had a card like that. At every other price point they they easily compete in performance the problem is like Nvidia they saw the value increasing and decided to join them rather than keep things consistent.
They also market the 7900xtx as $1000 because they "didn't want to go above $1000" I personally don't buy that at all I think that's *********. They simply couldn't compete, if the 7900xtx was matching 4090 peformance then they definatly would go above $1000 after all the only people they answer to and care about are their investers regardless of the public image they try to put out.
Personally I think they should go for market share and massivly undercut not because of Nvidia but because of what it will do to the market. If they gain marketshare rapidly as consumers we all benefit from that competition. Look at GSync vs FreeSync as soon as FS started taking of and being successful it forced Nvidia to open up GSync on monitors without the GSync chip and more monitors became compatable, that was due to the success of FreeSync not becuase Nvidia was being nice. The same would happen in the GPU space, more support for open source software like FSR and open up the market to a more consumer friendly space.
Unfortionatly I can't figure out what AMDs game plan is, it just doesn't make sense the $1000 price point for the 7900xtx was just too high to drive demand, it's been a few generations since i've seen the current situation where there's ample stock on all cards on day one especially with such short supply, normally they would sell out and trickle in over time but this time never a shortage.
There's also in my view a delusion among businesss as a whole not just in the computer component but as a whole, you hear them complaining no one is buying products (due to the well known massive inflation going around and peoples spending power being reduced) then they complain they don't make enough profit so put prices up even more then complain people don't like the new prices.... if people were penny pinching at the lower prices putting them up isn't going to make them suddenly be able to afford the new prices, it's ridiculous. (At least SSDs are crashing in price!)
There's a habbit of companies putting prices up when times are bad, but they don't put them back down when times are good and in my view thanks to recent world events people are starting to wake up to this as a whole and are putting up their collective middle finders.
For me it's not so much AMD has given up in the GPU space, it's that they are targeting the wrong things, are oblivious to lets call it the "financial awakining" consumers are going through while simultainsly trying to position themselves as the saviours of the space. When in reality, they should go for market share and go for the revenue to really push their software, because lets face it while some people have issue with it, their software is far superior than the "Nvidia Experience" they could really drive that as it's far more consumer friendly than Nvidias which looks like it's stuck in 2002. They should also be more aware of the current global situation and place their products so they compete where they should not rebrand them as a higher model than their current chip is you can't call out the competition on their BS then do the same damn thing. (7900xt that should be a 7800xt)
My conclusion is that AMD could EASILY compete and grow and they are delusional, the fact is they already know what to do, they can do it, and they have already done it, why they don't simply mimic the Ryzen Gen 1 launch success and apply that same stategy to the new GPUs? it actually bewilders me.
They also market the 7900xtx as $1000 because they "didn't want to go above $1000" I personally don't buy that at all I think that's *********. They simply couldn't compete, if the 7900xtx was matching 4090 peformance then they definatly would go above $1000 after all the only people they answer to and care about are their investers regardless of the public image they try to put out.
Personally I think they should go for market share and massivly undercut not because of Nvidia but because of what it will do to the market. If they gain marketshare rapidly as consumers we all benefit from that competition. Look at GSync vs FreeSync as soon as FS started taking of and being successful it forced Nvidia to open up GSync on monitors without the GSync chip and more monitors became compatable, that was due to the success of FreeSync not becuase Nvidia was being nice. The same would happen in the GPU space, more support for open source software like FSR and open up the market to a more consumer friendly space.
Unfortionatly I can't figure out what AMDs game plan is, it just doesn't make sense the $1000 price point for the 7900xtx was just too high to drive demand, it's been a few generations since i've seen the current situation where there's ample stock on all cards on day one especially with such short supply, normally they would sell out and trickle in over time but this time never a shortage.
There's also in my view a delusion among businesss as a whole not just in the computer component but as a whole, you hear them complaining no one is buying products (due to the well known massive inflation going around and peoples spending power being reduced) then they complain they don't make enough profit so put prices up even more then complain people don't like the new prices.... if people were penny pinching at the lower prices putting them up isn't going to make them suddenly be able to afford the new prices, it's ridiculous. (At least SSDs are crashing in price!)
There's a habbit of companies putting prices up when times are bad, but they don't put them back down when times are good and in my view thanks to recent world events people are starting to wake up to this as a whole and are putting up their collective middle finders.
For me it's not so much AMD has given up in the GPU space, it's that they are targeting the wrong things, are oblivious to lets call it the "financial awakining" consumers are going through while simultainsly trying to position themselves as the saviours of the space. When in reality, they should go for market share and go for the revenue to really push their software, because lets face it while some people have issue with it, their software is far superior than the "Nvidia Experience" they could really drive that as it's far more consumer friendly than Nvidias which looks like it's stuck in 2002. They should also be more aware of the current global situation and place their products so they compete where they should not rebrand them as a higher model than their current chip is you can't call out the competition on their BS then do the same damn thing. (7900xt that should be a 7800xt)
My conclusion is that AMD could EASILY compete and grow and they are delusional, the fact is they already know what to do, they can do it, and they have already done it, why they don't simply mimic the Ryzen Gen 1 launch success and apply that same stategy to the new GPUs? it actually bewilders me.
Last edited:
I think it’s a combination of things. I don’t think AMD have given up or that they could ‘easily’ do anything and have decided not to.
Firstly you have to give Nvidia credit, their engineers are obviously incredible at what they do. The 4090 is something like 76 billion transistors? These are some of the most complex consumer products in the world to design and engineer. It’s not a given that a company even like AMD can make a product like the 4090, it takes huge amounts of resources. Nvidia are happy to invest that resource in to a product like the 4090 because firstly they have the capability and secondly because it helps maintain their brand image as the pinnacle GPU company, which also helps them sell cards lower down the stack.
Nvidia’s products are all GPU centric so their business is built around it.
Perhaps AMD could make a true 4090 competitor - but at what cost? Not just to the consumer, but the resource they would have to throw at it to deliver it. As a business they’ve obviously decided that isn’t very feasible for them, they don’t have unlimited resources and these products aren’t easy to design or make. It’s not like GPU engineers grow on trees.
We haven’t had products this competent from AMD for years. I remember quite vividly not that long ago when we got rebrands for ages, like the 280x being a 7970 and subsequent products like the 480 which weren’t capable at the high end. The 7900xtx isn’t perfect, but it’s a pretty solid alternative to a card like a 4080.
Firstly you have to give Nvidia credit, their engineers are obviously incredible at what they do. The 4090 is something like 76 billion transistors? These are some of the most complex consumer products in the world to design and engineer. It’s not a given that a company even like AMD can make a product like the 4090, it takes huge amounts of resources. Nvidia are happy to invest that resource in to a product like the 4090 because firstly they have the capability and secondly because it helps maintain their brand image as the pinnacle GPU company, which also helps them sell cards lower down the stack.
Nvidia’s products are all GPU centric so their business is built around it.
Perhaps AMD could make a true 4090 competitor - but at what cost? Not just to the consumer, but the resource they would have to throw at it to deliver it. As a business they’ve obviously decided that isn’t very feasible for them, they don’t have unlimited resources and these products aren’t easy to design or make. It’s not like GPU engineers grow on trees.
We haven’t had products this competent from AMD for years. I remember quite vividly not that long ago when we got rebrands for ages, like the 280x being a 7970 and subsequent products like the 480 which weren’t capable at the high end. The 7900xtx isn’t perfect, but it’s a pretty solid alternative to a card like a 4080.
Associate
I'm not saying AMD doesn't make competent products the issue is they are poorly priced and poorly positioned.
I also don't take issue with AMD not competing in the high end, that's a fair position to take, but they have joined the high end prices whilst not competing. I had a RX480 it was a brilliant card I was one of the lucky few who managed to buy it for £250 at RRP before the mining boom took off then they started going for £400 plus, I actually managed to sell mine for the same price I bought it when I upgraded to a 1080ti 2 years later. The difference was though is that the 480 was positioned perfectly an excellent price with excellent performance for that tier of card.
The current issue is AMD has simply lost their positioning.
I compared this to the Ryzen 1 launch because it was played perfectly, seriously undercut Intel whilst offering a new platform, promising easy upgradeability etc they subsequently lauched the following products still significantly cheaper (albiet creeping up in price) but they controlled where they set the price, AMD dictated the price points, AMD dictated how much a chip should be worth. Intel were charging in excess of £1000 for their flagship... because of that AMD won market share and had the revenue to control the future, now you can buy Intels flagship for under £700 that's 100% thanks to AMD, and now in my circles and personally I do think AMD have the better product. But they have that because the recognised what they had with Ryzen 1, it wasn't a killer but they placed it at such a point that it made the competition seem ridiculous. I think I paid something £300 on launch for the 1700x? now it might only be 80% of what Intel was at the time but when you get get 80% for under half the price it makes the competitor look ridiculous in what they offer which is a good position.
The problem with their graphics division is they have bowed to Nvidia, Nvidia dictates the price points and AMD bows to those prices, Nvidia set such ridiculous prices where you can make the argument that the vast majority think the pricing is stupid, even those who bought the 4090 atest to that, Nvidia said a 4080 is worth £1200 to AMD said ok lets do that, sure you can call it $1000 but the reality is the launch price was well over the MSRP (at least in the UK) and the only reason it's even close $1000 now is because it completely failed to sell when it was the same price as Nvidias 4080s which it was on launch. AMD should learn from their Ryzen 1 approach, seriously aim for market share get that revenue, get that growth, get people so stop talking about driver issues and the negatives thanks to first had experience then that revenue can be used on R&D to become number one, that's exactly what they did with the Ryzen line of CPUs.
With regards to the 4090 point you make, AMD could easily make it, they have said themselves on record but they wanted to keep the price under $1000 and didn't want the power draw considering the comparisons between the 4000 series and 7000 series with power anyway they were way off in performance in that category anyway.
Truth be told i'm really hoping AMD take the Ryzen chip method to GPUs and have multi core GPUs perhaps if they can go that route they will be able to create some absolute monsters at reasonable prices it's actually an area where AMD's experience really outstrips both Intel and Nvidia in every way possible.
Currently however, until AMD makes such chips next generation of cards the really cards i'm looking forward too... and I can't believe i'm actually going to say this... is Intel...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,774
They could just make APU, they do for PS5/Xbox.
AMD could do a 4090 competitor, however it would be an huge, power consuming monster of a GPU that would not truly benefit them.
Remember how Vega was both an extremely power inefficient and a great iGPU architecture?
AMD doesn't want a replay of that, huge chips are better margins on datacenter and dirt cheap ones are better volume on semi-custom solutions.
Remember how Vega was both an extremely power inefficient and a great iGPU architecture?
AMD doesn't want a replay of that, huge chips are better margins on datacenter and dirt cheap ones are better volume on semi-custom solutions.
I read an article about and GPUs from way back when they first took over ATI.
Basically at the time they got caught in a game of cat and mouse with Nvidia, not only was it expensive but it was power hungry and started in their opinion to affect consumers.
At the time of the article the dies from both companies was getting larger and larger and became prohibitively expensive and power hungry.
They opted then to out efficiency over die size, they knew at the time it would likely not compete with the top end Nvidia but they made the decision to not be bothered about it and just went their own way.
Luck was on their side on this generation because apparently Nvidia dropped a bollock on this gen meaning that ATI were better power wise and were faster.
But then the next gen Nvidia caught up and have been marginally in front each generation since.
AMD could easily make a GPU to compete with Nvidia but they frankly just don't care, they don't want to get caught in a game of cat and mouse as ultimately they will lose money and the consumer wouldn't benefit due to the increased costs.
AMD are concentrating on making money rather than falling down a rabbit whole of always needing to be the best they realised it doesn't make sense so they just do thier own thing. They've concentrated on the console market and APU market for a reason. They do discreet GPU as they feel they need to, there are still consumers their and if they can make money still then why not. When they start losing money they'll pull the plug on it, but I don't believe they will, they also need GPUs for the data centers they are supporting and the super computer they build,
Basically they can if they want but they have chosen to not.
Why develop a 4090 competitor when that class of card is only really for the elitist gamer for which the pool is quite small
Basically at the time they got caught in a game of cat and mouse with Nvidia, not only was it expensive but it was power hungry and started in their opinion to affect consumers.
At the time of the article the dies from both companies was getting larger and larger and became prohibitively expensive and power hungry.
They opted then to out efficiency over die size, they knew at the time it would likely not compete with the top end Nvidia but they made the decision to not be bothered about it and just went their own way.
Luck was on their side on this generation because apparently Nvidia dropped a bollock on this gen meaning that ATI were better power wise and were faster.
But then the next gen Nvidia caught up and have been marginally in front each generation since.
AMD could easily make a GPU to compete with Nvidia but they frankly just don't care, they don't want to get caught in a game of cat and mouse as ultimately they will lose money and the consumer wouldn't benefit due to the increased costs.
AMD are concentrating on making money rather than falling down a rabbit whole of always needing to be the best they realised it doesn't make sense so they just do thier own thing. They've concentrated on the console market and APU market for a reason. They do discreet GPU as they feel they need to, there are still consumers their and if they can make money still then why not. When they start losing money they'll pull the plug on it, but I don't believe they will, they also need GPUs for the data centers they are supporting and the super computer they build,
Basically they can if they want but they have chosen to not.
Why develop a 4090 competitor when that class of card is only really for the elitist gamer for which the pool is quite small
as fare as im concerned, AMD used the oldest trick in retialing, bring folk in with low prices, saying they were on side of gamers, then when they thought they were on a roll, pulled the rug from under folk and jacked up prices.
AMD became Nvidia as time went on. majority of companies are no different, its all about profit, and if a company thinks it can get away with jacking up prices, they will. there nothing new here, its been happening from the beginings of business.
AMD became Nvidia as time went on. majority of companies are no different, its all about profit, and if a company thinks it can get away with jacking up prices, they will. there nothing new here, its been happening from the beginings of business.
Don't forget tsmc whacked the pricing of fabs up due to the scramble from the pandemic so it's not totally down to amd being greedy.
Nvidia are also on the latest node which pushes prices up a bit further, and was a last minute switch, this was done so they could ensure their dominance over AMD as they were worried about how good rDNA 3 night be if they stuck to the Samsung outdated node as they originally intended.
after how competitive rDNA 2 was I think people really expected more from AMD with the 3. But what AMD have done this time round is go a different route with the chiplet design which will take another generation or 2 to come perfect.
It's still competitive with some short comings but it will do as it's new and not been done before.
Nvidia are also on the latest node which pushes prices up a bit further, and was a last minute switch, this was done so they could ensure their dominance over AMD as they were worried about how good rDNA 3 night be if they stuck to the Samsung outdated node as they originally intended.
after how competitive rDNA 2 was I think people really expected more from AMD with the 3. But what AMD have done this time round is go a different route with the chiplet design which will take another generation or 2 to come perfect.
It's still competitive with some short comings but it will do as it's new and not been done before.
Soldato
Why don't either company go faster though? Even a 4090 is not enough to max out settings in some games especially sims and vr. Yeah it's more niche but still today's games require more than the current hardware can deliver.
Amd have had high priced gpus in the past, the 7990 and 295x2 on launch were around a grand before coming down in price. Neither company is "on the side of gamers" regardless of what spiel they peddle.
I don’t think it’s that straightforwards, GPU’s are insanely complex to engineer and develop. I don’t think they are holding much back but they still have to make something that’s commercially viable as well.
i remember it well, but was generally on about AMD came back from brink with all the spiel about for the gamers etc
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,975
Me personally probably wouldn't miss AMD if they exited the gpu market, and that is pretty sad in and of itself imo.
You say that, but Nvidia with no competition at all would be disastrous. You would change your mind quite quickly IMO!
They simply wouldn't get their money back, there isn't enough demand nor people willing to part with the sort of cash required.
Soldato
That's fine, but why then do developers make games that can't be played on max settings? What is the point in that? They should make games that max out the hardware but no further...Or they should make hardware that stretches the games. I don't see much point in making games that the hardware can't play.
Associate
That's true, but they also opted to brand those x80 classes as x90 classes so...
Both "sides" done renaming this gen, so..........
And by x80 i was referring to 4080 class down.
Last edited: