Soldato
Pancake.
I hope Intel come in and trash up the place a little.
I hope Intel come in and trash up the place a little.
-
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.
Poll: Do you think AMD will be able to compete with Nvidia again during the next few years?
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,062
Tbh some games with a 3440x1440p res still need more power. 1180Ti should be v tasty for that (I'm hoping for a shrink to 7nm on that and 5000+ cores)
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,332
LOD at vast distances, supersampling, true 3d particle effects and ray tracing. We haven't seen most of the things that could improve quality used to full effect because of consoles.
Last edited:
It depends on what one means by compete. At the top end? Possibly not, and I believe they've already said a long time ago that this isn't their main aim anymore, but whether they will go down that road again, I honestly don't know, only time will tell.
Unfortunately, the price hikes haven't helped sell them as a good value for money option, well, at least in my eyes as a potential customer anyway.
Intel's position in this market is interesting and most welcome. It can only be a good thing. About bloody time.
Unfortunately, the price hikes haven't helped sell them as a good value for money option, well, at least in my eyes as a potential customer anyway.
Intel's position in this market is interesting and most welcome. It can only be a good thing. About bloody time.
That is probably a smart strategy. Why why focus a lot of resources on declining market segment.
Man of Honour
I am no fanboy and will buy whatever gets me the best for my money at the time so I don't know why you have singled me out. I have generally switched between AMD and Nvidia every other generation in the past and this time it was Nvidia because AMD had nothing as good and power efficient at the time. I have a Gsync monitor now so my next card will most certainly be from Nvidia as well but from the looks of things AMD will still be playing catchup anyway. Why on earth would I give AMD my money when they simply are not competitive? Just because they are seen as the underdog? I don't think so! They bring something decent to the market and it shall be considered. Until then they don't get my money.
Last edited:
Really……
I do not believe you think this is a sensible comment.
If AMD suddenly launched 7nm Vega and it was much faster than the Titan V, you would be singing its praises left right and centre, certainly not calling it a pointless product.
Associate
The best hope I have for AMD is competing at the mid range and coming up with another 4870, a mid range card that's fast, cheap and close enough to the high end competition to make Nvidia reconsider their position. I don't expect this soon however, 2-3 years.
Since when is resolution the only factor?
How about poly count, more objects per scene, etc?
You think somebody like Crytek couldn't come along and make an engine that kills any card at 1080p?
Sadly I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon IMHO as Crytek did that,we then had a huge performance jump with affordable cards like the 8800GT,and still many gamers moaned and also pirated the game. After that you saw less and less companies,really push the PC on the technical level like Crytek did as Crytek didn't make enough money. Outside AMD/Nvidia pushing some tech to sell new cards,its more likely consoles will be pushing technical innovations,to get around their limitations,and any big jumps in image quality are most likely going to be because of new consoles like the PS5 as the potato CPUs on the current consoles are a big problem. An example is the streaming tech we saw in Skyrim which meant a largish open world without loading screens.
Why do you think so many PC Gamers are throwing money at Star Citizen - the devs have promised a title which will only run on PC and push what it is possible which I really hope it does.Whether that happens is another thing. Most AAA titles are literally console titles but looking a bit prettier and running at higher FPS on PC. If you looked at Crysis and compared that to console games,the consoles looked utterly meh. The same with FarCry,HL2 or Unreal back in the day.
Edit!!
Then you have the whole early access crap on PC. ARK really pushed hardware and was not a bad looking game,but most of it was down to utterly rubbish optimisation especially with the early access fad(which is to save money for the devs). I would argue most of the really intensive PC games nowadays are usually just poorly optimised,or running on old engines,which are being strung along to save money. They don't look nearly as good as what hardware you are expected to use for them.
CB2077,might be another game which could push things,but they got 30FPS at 4K on a single GTX1080TI,and they want to run it on current consoles(sadly),so I expect they might have dialed down some detail to make it run better. The same happened with The Witcher 3,as the product we got looked worse than what was revealed earlier which was a shame. Still a pretty game,but it could have been the next Crysis.
Its also another issue,if AMD does not compete,the competition will string out improvements based on financials,as you can see what has happened under £300 with dGPUs.
Last edited:
The difference between Very High and Low in Crysis was so mind blowing I would play at 30fps just to enjoy the eye candy and it was one of the few games which was playable at 30fps. Then they lost their way with Crysis 2 and 3 which were lame console ports. None of the PC games today show much difference between Low and Very High. The only aspect which is most noticeable is the fps counter which halves.
Resolution is king in terms of IQ. Being stuck at 4K levels the playing field.
Caporegime
Oh yea. I love me my IQ and 4K is a must for that.
I would love to see a new game that was many years ahead of its time like Crysis was. Only people who would be whinging are those who feel they have to play with every slider on the highest because they have the best graphics card money can buy.
If the game is optimised and looks and plays about the same as games released at the time, but on the option that says normal, I do not see the problem. At least it gives people like me who are happy to play at lower fps for higher IQ an option!
If we all want AMD to compete, maybe we can help/invest in them by buying their strong products?
They still have some debt to pay but the good news is that they manage it very well: https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/sem...ces-incs-nasdaqamd-debt-level-pose-a-problem/
When will they have sufficient resources for R&D in all directions?
Well, mainly once they pay the debt back. And it depends on how the Ryzen sales improve.
They still have some debt to pay but the good news is that they manage it very well: https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/sem...ces-incs-nasdaqamd-debt-level-pose-a-problem/
When will they have sufficient resources for R&D in all directions?
Well, mainly once they pay the debt back. And it depends on how the Ryzen sales improve.
It's very good to see that AMD are certainly on the right path to be debt free and it could very well be within the next year that they make enough to do just that. Ryzen is very good and it has Intel on the back foot, maybe with 7nm GPU's coming next year for the consumer, seeing as AMD have already stated that they have 7nm chips in their labs, it will only help to increase AMD's income ability.
Overall the PC space is in good hands at the moment, with good CPU's available now and hopefully good GPU's from both the red and green teams, soon...ish.
It doesn't matter at which performance level AMD come in at, as long as they can sell them at competitive prices.
Overall the PC space is in good hands at the moment, with good CPU's available now and hopefully good GPU's from both the red and green teams, soon...ish.
It doesn't matter at which performance level AMD come in at, as long as they can sell them at competitive prices.
Caporegime
Voted no, i don't think AMD are even interested to in making proper 1080TI gaming competitors because they can't sell them no matter how good they are, instead they will do what they have in the last couple of generations, make reasonably good mid range cards but the high end cards are geared toward compute and data centre and completely under developed for gaming.
Soldato
I agree mate. Most here want AMD to compete so they would buy their Nvidia card cheaper.
The biggest market is bellow the halo products. Let alone AMD will gain tracks on the TV users. Already you see on forums discussing about the NU8000 that people shifting from NV to AMD because of Freesync TV. Give it a few months for Sony and LG to come out with Freesync TVs also and the movement will be even greater.
If NVidia persist on the "exclusivity" products marketing, they will have to charge double and triple for the GPUs. Already we see the adverse effect of the Gsync HDR module. It costs north of £500 (possibly £1K) alone, and already due to inheriting faults (massive heat generation) makes those HDR monitors using it useless and laughing stock.