Do AMD provide any benefit to the retail GPU segment.

[RatmanGB]

It's a shame OCUK's Sapphire 7900XT price went back up, this thread is enough to have me buy one at £780.

I use cards from both AMD and Nvidia and the prospect of Nvidia owning the market without any competition whatsoever doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[humbug]

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.

The 6600XT has always been a better and cheaper card than the RTX 3060, right now the 6650XT is £270 while the 3060 is £320 while the former is a solid 15% faster, its been that sort of price to performance difference, at least for the life of those cards, about 15% faster and 20% cheaper.
This is AMD competing on price, the 6600XT is one of AMD's best selling cards.
So get this, there are 20X more RTX 3060 GPU's on Steam Hardware Survey than 6600XT.

AMD can see this, what they can see is that competing on price just doesn't work. Just being cheaper is no guarantee of market share gain.

There is a guy asking about used 3090 vs new 7900XT, the former is £100 cheaper, personally i think the answer to that is obvious, to get a 2+ year old card of unknown origin and treatment with little if any warranty vs a brand new faster card for a 15% difference in price seems bonkers to me.

But he seems like he's made his mind up and wants DLSS.

What Nvidia sell now is DLSS, and AMD don't have DLSS so they are not what people want.

 

[danlightbulb]

So get this, there are 20X more RTX 3060 GPU's on Steam Hardware Survey than 6600XT.

AMD can see this, what they can see is that competing on price just doesn't work. Just being cheaper is no guarantee of market share gain.

Isn't this just because nvidia got the 30 series out first, and pre-scalping, it was good value for money for the performance.

Why can't AMD be the ones getting their next series out first instead of lagging 3 months behind Nvidia on release schedule?

Why don't they make the fastest card for a change?

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Isn't this just because nvidia got the 30 series out first, and pre-scalping, it was good value for money for the performance.

Why can't AMD be the ones getting their next series out first instead of lagging 3 months behind Nvidia on release schedule?

Why don't they make the fastest card for a change?

How are AMD going to beat Nvidia on price/performance if they release first? Lisa Su doesn't have a crystal ball.

The company with the smallest market share needs to react to the company with the biggest market share.

 

[danlightbulb]

How are AMD going to beat Nvidia on price/performance if they release first? Lisa Su doesn't have a crystal ball.

The company with the smallest market share needs to react to the company with the biggest market share.

On that basis they'll never gain market share. If Nvidia release first and people are waiting with their money, by the time amd release 3 months later everyone has already upgraded.

 

[Zarax]

How are AMD going to beat Nvidia on price/performance if they release first? Lisa Su doesn't have a crystal ball.

The company with the smallest market share needs to react to the company with the biggest market share.

Ironically if you count the Steam Deck AMD is the one with the bigger market share.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

On that basis they'll never gain market share. If Nvidia release first and people are waiting with their money, by the time amd release 3 months later everyone has already upgraded.

Only idiots who suffer from FOMO. I waited for the RX 6600 and I'll wait for the RX 7600 as well. Nvidia isn't getting a penny out of me.

 

[KompuKare]

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.

While that is true, the huge and important part missing from that argument, is that Nvidia play dirty going back decades. On terms of underhand PR, focus groups, bribery to developers, bribery to reviewers, cover-up of millions of failed solder parts, etc.

Should that matter to consumers?
Maybe yes, maybe not.
I'm not suggesting people should buy AMD as an act of charity, nor that if AMD got big enough they too wouldn't try market lockout, however Nvidia's underhand tactics should not be encouraged.

Similarly, Intel. The have done most of the same things and even more obvious bribery. That doesn't make their CPUs bad (although their current ones are a bit like a P4 brute force furnace), but it does mean that as long as AMD's CPUs are competitive then in the long list of reasons to buy one brand over the other it would be foolish to ignore Intel's past behaviour.

If AMD do get to big for their boots and start doing more anti costumer things, that too will figure in my purchase decisions.

As regards the current gen of GPUs, I think someone made a very risky decision to have both of the two larger RDNA2 chip as chiplets. In terms of simple risk management, IMO that was a failure.

Far saner would have been to have kept Navi32 as a monolith, and made Navi32 bigger. A 500mm² + IO chiplet part able to get the halo position might have been far better.

If they'd added even more redundancy in a 500mm² chiplet they should have been able to use the salvaged parts down the stack. And for the full part, keep them clocks lower and hence power around the 4090 part.

I know, halo parts sell in miniscule numbers especially for AMD, but most consumers if they glance at reviews at all seem to be massively influenced by who is at the top. Witness the 3050 still being a similar price to the far faster 6600.

 

[danlightbulb]

Only idiots who suffer from FOMO. I waited for the RX 6600 and I'll wait for the RX 7600 as well. Nvidia isn't getting a penny out of me.

Those cards aren't fast enough for vr/4k performance. Hardly anything is really. We need a 4090 beater for £650, like the 3080 Fe was a generational leap for that price and in huge demand even without mining boom because people had been waiting years for a leap of that size.

Maybe in two or three generations time we'll get that power at the mid price segment.

 

[humbug]

Isn't this just because nvidia got the 30 series out first, and pre-scalping, it was good value for money for the performance.

Why can't AMD be the ones getting their next series out first instead of lagging 3 months behind Nvidia on release schedule?

Why don't they make the fastest card for a change?

No, i don't think that's the reason. they have both been out for very much longer than the gap in release dates.

 

[rare]

Why don't they make the fastest card for a change?

It isn’t that simple surely. These things are crazy complex. I’m sure AMD could do it but at what cost to the rest of their business? It’s pointless if you start to impact other areas of the business in a negative way. These things aren’t easy to develop, they take years and huge amounts of engineers and resources. And AMD isn’t a GPU centric business like Nvidia is.

Plus having the out and out fastest card doesn’t by default equal success. If AMD launched a £1800-2000 GPU that beat the 4090, would people buy it? And how many would they sell? They’ve obviously decided it isn’t worth the invest to do it. That said, I still think the XTX is a brilliant card. A bit power hungry, but it’s fast. It’s about 50% faster than a 6950xt and that was a card that was already troubling the 3090ti in plenty of scenarios.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Those cards aren't fast enough for vr/4k performance. Hardly anything is really. We need a 4090 beater for £650, like the 3080 Fe was a generational leap for that price and in huge demand even without mining boom because people had been waiting years for a leap of that size.

Maybe in two or three generations time we'll get that power at the mid price segment.

I use the 6600 with VR and it runs Half-Life Alyx beautifully. I was sensible and bought a Rift S because it has a manageable resolution of 2560×1440 at 80Hz.

A lot of people seem to buy these VR headsets with ultra high Res displays and then they find their GPU isn't good enough

 

[humbug]

Nvidia sold more 3090's than AMD sold anything RDNA2, despite being $500 more expensive than anything RDNA2.

The more "money is no object" the less competitive AMD get.

 

[humbug]

The RX 5700XT was $399.
RTX 2070 was $499.

Guess which one has 7X more on Steam.

 

[Nexus18]

The RX 5700XT was $399.
RTX 2070 was $499.

Guess which one has 7X more on Steam.

Aren't you one of them with a 2070? Wait, make that the 2070 super..... after having bought a 5700xt and returning it due to all the problems.

Get posting in here please humbug

For those who dislike nvidia, why do you keep buying nvidia and not amd?

Lets keep all the nvidia vs amd BS out so no baiting/trolling at all and keep purely to the thread title question. Context: Genuinely find this fascinating lately, the amount of threads that just end up with nvidia bashing is crazy now i.e. "rt/rtx is ****", "dlss is fake/crap", "frame...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

 

[danlightbulb]

I use the 6600 with VR and it runs Half-Life Alyx beautifully. I was sensible and bought a Rift S because it has a manageable resolution of 2560×1440 at 80Hz.

A lot of people seem to buy these VR headsets with ultra high Res displays and then they find their GPU isn't good enough

Agreed, HLA and other games of that nature run great on my 3070 with quest 2 as well.

The problem is the driving and flight sims, which at the moment I don't think look beautiful enough in vr compared to on monitors (I've yet to try msfs though because it's quite expensive, so maybe that one will).

 

[Calin Banc]

The 6600XT has always been a better and cheaper card than the RTX 3060, right now the 6650XT is £270 while the 3060 is £320 while the former is a solid 15% faster, its been that sort of price to performance difference, at least for the life of those cards, about 15% faster and 20% cheaper.
This is AMD competing on price, the 6600XT is one of AMD's best selling cards.
So get this, there are 20X more RTX 3060 GPU's on Steam Hardware Survey than 6600XT.

AMD can see this, what they can see is that competing on price just doesn't work. Just being cheaper is no guarantee of market share gain.

There is a guy asking about used 3090 vs new 7900XT, the former is £100 cheaper, personally i think the answer to that is obvious, to get a 2+ year old card of unknown origin and treatment with little if any warranty vs a brand new faster card for a 15% difference in price seems bonkers to me.

But he seems like he's made his mind up and wants DLSS.

What Nvidia sell now is DLSS, and AMD don't have DLSS so they are not what people want.

Is DLSS plus RT. 6600xt is weaker in RT and on top is worse at upscaling. You could say people are voting with there wallets in regards of what matters to them.

 

[Calin Banc]

Nvidia sold more 3090's than AMD sold anything RDNA2, despite being $500 more expensive than anything RDNA2.

The more "money is no object" the less competitive AMD get.

Wasn't the 3090 better at mining and perhaps available in higher numbers?

 

[Bencher]

Is DLSS plus RT. 6600xt is weaker in RT and on top is worse at upscaling. You could say people are voting with there wallets in regards of what matters to them.

It also has less VRAM and it already starts to struggle playing these new games with ultra textures, while the 3060 doesn't

 

[humbug]

Is DLSS plus RT. 6600xt is weaker in RT and on top is worse at upscaling. You could say people are voting with there wallets in regards of what matters to them.

So you would prescribe to the idea that despite the 6650XT being 15% faster in raster than a 3060 its right that it is 20% more expensive?