Do nvidia downgrade performance on older card

Dave2150 · 9 Oct 2016 at 21:36

Gregster said:
@Dave I post facts and get that. Pathetic.

Facts?

You link a graph to AMD's total research budget, and compare it to NVIDIA's?

Are you aware AMD produce CPU's, which are also extremely expensive? Someone your age should have been around long enough to know things like this.

Once again, if you believe AMD has a higher R&D budget for it's Radeon group, compared to NVIDA's, Geforce group, you need help.

arc@css · 9 Oct 2016 at 21:37

I can remember a time when after upgrading, not only were fps higher, but there was also a noticeable difference in image quality too. That seems to be something you don't see so much now (over the last few years or more, imo). Why is that?

Gregster · 9 Oct 2016 at 21:59

Dave2150 said:
Facts?

You link a graph to AMD's total research budget, and compare it to NVIDIA's?

Are you aware AMD produce CPU's, which are also extremely expensive? Someone your age should have been around long enough to know things like this.

Once again, if you believe AMD has a higher R&D budget for it's Radeon group, compared to NVIDA's, Geforce group, you need help.

Gregster said:
AMD had a bigger R&D budget than NVidia a couple of years ago and a few years further back, NVidia were struggling.

That is what I said before you got all narky and chucking in silly fanboy comments, which I backed up with facts. You didn't like it and are now making yourself look silly. Did AMD have a bigger R&D budget than NVidia a couple of years ago (remember I showed the graph which proved they did)? And was NVidia suffering financially a few years further back?

My actual point was that it shows that a company can do well, even when things don't look that good with the right releases but nope, you wanted to bring stupid oneupmanship into it and all you had to say was "Yer, fair" or even ignore it if it bothered you to admit I was right. So childish it is pathetic.

TheRealDeal · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:15

Gregster said:
That is what I said before you got all narky and chucking in silly fanboy comments, which I backed up with facts. You didn't like it and are now making yourself look silly. Did AMD have a bigger R&D budget than NVidia a couple of years ago (remember I showed the graph which proved they did)? And was NVidia suffering financially a few years further back?

My actual point was that it shows that a company can do well, even when things don't look that good with the right releases but nope, you wanted to bring stupid oneupmanship into it and all you had to say was "Yer, fair" or even ignore it if it bothered you to admit I was right. So childish it is pathetic.

The point is at it's highest AMD were spending 375m in R and D. You would assume more than half of that is for Cpu's. Even if half of it was on Graphics that's 187.5m. Nvidia at there lowest is around 200 mil so they probably still had a bigger R and D budget on Graphics alone. Pretty sure i am being overly generous on the 187.5 mil as the cpu business is bigger i would imagine.

Any how strictly speaking they did have a bigger overall R and D budget as you said.

Gregster · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:20

TheRealDeal said:
The point is at it's highest AMD were spending 375m in R and D. You would assume more than half of that is for Cpu's. Even if half of it was on Graphics that's 187.5m. Nvidia at there lowest is around 200 mil so they probably still had a bigger R and D budget on Graphics alone. Pretty sure i am being overly generous on the 187.5 mil as the cpu business is bigger i would imagine.

Any how strictly speaking they did have a bigger overall R and D budget as you said.

What point? Didn't NVidia spend any money on Tegra research? My point which seems to be missed, ignored or just plain picked apart was that AMD spent more than NVidia on R&D a couple of years ago. That is it, end of!

TheRealDeal · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:22

Gregster said:
What point? Didn't NVidia spend any money on Tegra research? My point which seems to be missed, ignored or just plain picked apart was that AMD spent more than NVidia on R&D a couple of years ago. That is it, end of!

Without knowing what each of them spent on there gpu designs the numbers don't matter at all end of story.

chroniclard · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:28

h4rm0ny said:
But if you're interested in comparative assessments, Nvidia "degrades" with time.

No, they dont.

Gregster · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:29

TheRealDeal said:
Without knowing what each of them spent on there gpu designs the numbers don't matter at all end of story.

Sigh, go with whatever. I find it comical that I said that and I got accused of being a fanboy lol. Proper left me smiling and then I get told I am wrong and I don't have a point at all. Christ, some seriously weird notions in this subsection at times

TheRealDeal · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:41

Gregster said:
Sigh, go with whatever. I find it comical that I said that and I got accused of being a fanboy lol. Proper left me smiling and then I get told I am wrong and I don't have a point at all. Christ, some seriously weird notions in this subsection at times

I am only voicing my opinion and have not reached for the Fan boy button. I only read what was on this page so haven't seen you voicing the same opinion as me but if you have then we agree then

Gregster · 9 Oct 2016 at 22:50

TheRealDeal said:
I am only voicing my opinion and have not reached for the Fan boy button. I only read what was on this page so haven't seen you voicing the same opinion as me but if you have then we agree then

I was actually defending AMD by saying that even with small R&D budgets and things are not the best financially, they can still get back in the black. No idea why I got trolled so badly for it but like I said, this subsection is weird at times and no idea what goes through some of the posters heads

NVidia didn't have the R&D or financials and now look at them. AMD can easily do the same with some decent releases.

TheRealDeal · 9 Oct 2016 at 23:04

Gregster said:
I was actually defending AMD by saying that even with small R&D budgets and things are not the best financially, they can still get back in the black. No idea why I got trolled so badly for it but like I said, this subsection is weird at times and no idea what goes through some of the posters heads

NVidia didn't have the R&D or financials and now look at them. AMD can easily do the same with some decent releases.

Agreed there is no reason with the right products AMD can't bounce back. They are already on the right path this year with there share price nearly tripling. I feel if Zen is up to scratch and Vega is half decent things will look much rosier.

Gregster · 9 Oct 2016 at 23:12

TheRealDeal said:
Agreed there is no reason with the right products AMD can't bounce back. They are already on the right path this year with there share price nearly tripling. I feel if Zen is up to scratch and Vega is half decent things will look much rosier.

Yer, a decent priced CPU that offers some of Intel performance and Vega does the business, it could well be a healthy AMD.

nashathedog · 10 Oct 2016 at 07:17

Gregster said:
AMD can easily do the same with some decent releases.

TheRealDeal said:
I feel if Zen is up to scratch and Vega is half decent things will look much rosier.

All they need to do is offer a good product at a good price and not screw up the release.

Hawaii was a good product but it got a name for being hot so they got negative publicity, They solved it by doing Grenada on partner boards only. The cards still got as hot and hotter but they had coolers built to handle it, It was a good release but it was out gunned at the time by Maxwell so it couldn't turn things around, Fiji came out overpriced with the flagship model using faulty pumps, Another screw up, The reason I'm not using a Fury X is because for the first 6 to 8 weeks you couldn't trust that you wouldn't get a faulty model, Why they never made air cooled Fury X's in the first place is another example of management making bad decisions. Polaris releases and immediately gets targeted over using a poor reference cooler and drawing too much power from the pcie slot. Didn't they recognise the difference not having reference coolers made for Grenada's release? It seems not.

Somewhere along the chain of command there's a weak link that holds too much sway over the decisions that are made. They are consistently tripped up and held back.

When they release Vega if it out guns a 1080 they mustn't turn around and play the "We do not want to be seen as the cheaper alternative" card. The flagship needs a price that will let it sell and it needs to be made available as board partners see fit to release it, no limitations made by AMD on what they offer us.

SiDeards73 · 10 Oct 2016 at 07:34

nashathedog said:
All they need to do is offer a good product at a good price and not screw up the release.

Hawaii was a good product but it got a name for being hot so they got negative publicity, They solved it by doing Grenada on partner boards only. The cards still got as hot and hotter but they had coolers built to handle it, It was a good release but it was out gunned at the time by Maxwell so it couldn't turn things around, Fiji came out overpriced with the flagship model using faulty pumps, Another screw up, The reason I'm not using a Fury X is because for the first 6 to 8 weeks you couldn't trust that you wouldn't get a faulty model, Why they never made air cooled Fury X's in the first place is another example of management making bad decisions. Polaris releases and immediately gets targeted over using a poor reference cooler and drawing too much power from the pcie slot. Didn't they recognise the difference not having reference coolers made for Grenada's release? It seems not.

Somewhere along the chain of command there's a weak link that holds too much sway over the decisions that are made. They are consistently tripped up and held back.

When they release Vega if it out guns a 1080 they mustn't turn around and play the "We do not want to be seen as the cheaper alternative" card. The flagship needs a price that will let it sell and it needs to be made available as board partners see fit to release it, no limitations made by AMD on what they offer us.

+1

AMD need to release atleast 3 generations of cards going forward that are on par or beat Nvidia cards in performance and price, people will excuse rubbish reference coolers if the performance and price are there.

They need to build a reputation that Nvidia currently has, top end cards with excellent performance, but they need to do it cheaper to take the market share back. They have grabbed some at the lower end for sure, but a lot of what their problem is right now is the brand image, the mindset of the average joe believe that Nvidia is either the only option are just better etc.

You are also correct about the design flaws holding them back, ive been saying this for ages, all the past releases had atleast 1 thing wrong, often times it was more than 1 thing it was multiple.. Somewhere at AMD there is someone making these decisions that needs to either be sacked or moved to a different department lol.

If there is no confidence in your brand then you will lose sales and struggle to win potential customers, AMD need to probably take a small profit hit on a few generation of cards to establish themselves back in the game, come out swinging with a few powerful cards at undercut the opposition, show people you mean business, give them an option and show them its not just Nvidias game and you will bring in customers.

Nasher · 10 Oct 2016 at 09:01

Thing with AMD though is they continue to improve performance on old cards. Nvidia dont. If something doesn't run well on a previous gen card, it never will.

DarkMatter · 10 Oct 2016 at 09:01

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that AMD/Nvidia team up with game developers which allow them to get access early to optimise there drivers etc. I always got the feeling that Nvidia have managed to capture more developers and hence have better performance day one... AMD have to wait until the game is nearer release until they can optimise.

The other way of looking at it is AMD has always gone for raw power, and Nvidia rely more heavily on clever optimisation. Eventually the drivers are optimised for AMD so the power can do its job?

Rezident · 10 Oct 2016 at 13:18

Nasher said:
Thing with AMD though is they continue to improve performance on old cards. Nvidia dont. If something doesn't run well on a previous gen card, it never will.

Yes I do find that AMD drivers get faster in games but I don’t think this will win them many sales. Nvidia’s strategy appears to be more successful.

Griffildur · 10 Oct 2016 at 20:10

Rezident said:
Yes I do find that AMD drivers get faster in games but I don’t think this will win them many sales. Nvidia’s strategy appears to be more successful.

of course it's more successful, you buy a card which runs great straight away not one where the drivers might make it better in 3 years from when you actually buy it.

Steveocee · 10 Oct 2016 at 20:14

Nvidia has the wallet behind them though to get into bed with the big game developers to make those relationships. AMD being in the slight ditch they are in can't put the money up to get the relationship to be a day 1 performance leader.

I think it was Far Cry 4 AMD had huge problems with even well after its release, not what you want as a graphics card developer when your opposition has cards performing at similar levels for similar cash from the off.

Nexus18 · 10 Oct 2016 at 20:28

Far cry 4 and 3 were both stuttery messes for me (wasn't a huge issue and most people aren't as sensitive to stutter as I am) although I put that more down to ubisofts incompetence to make bug free games as well as nvidia's involvement.... at least back then. With the division etc. it looks like they have turned things around for the better...

AMD should have quite a few big sponsorships over the next year or so since they have DICE and generally most of EA games in their back pocket and they now have ubisoft too.

The only game which I had a huge issue with where AMD took quite a while to fix it was in battlefront with lighting/textures being messed up on certain maps.

Griffildur said:
of course it's more successful, you buy a card which runs great straight away not one where the drivers might make it better in 3 years from when you actually buy it.

My 290 ran great at the time I bought it, neck in neck with a 780 and over the last year with more recent games, it is now matching/beating a 780ti and leaving it in the dust with dx 12/vulkan :cool: