Poll: Do you think AMD will be able to compete with Nvidia again during the next few years?

[LePhuronn]

I hold no hope in them competing at the 4k price front for a long time.

Nobody ever said they would, not even AMD.

By the time they are competitive, we'll probably see 4k/60fps consoles.

Which, conveniently, will be powered by AMD.

 

[ubersonic]

AMD's pricing over the past generation of cards has hardly been competitive at the same price/performance ratio (apart from the 20 series).

You mean like when they released the Vega 64 delivering the performance of a GTX1080 for the price of a GTX1080? Or when they released the Vega 56 delivering better performance than the GTX1070 for the price of the GTX1070? (prompting the launch of the GTX1070ti).

If peoples definition of "competitive" is 1080ti performance for 1080 money then it explains why AMD have the problems they do...

 

[LoadsaMoney]

They were only around the same price on launch, for so many units, then they shot right up.

 

[Gerard]

They were only around the same price on launch, for so many units, then they shot right up.

Yup which was a total farce, wasn't mentioned by amd at all in the vega presentation just before launch. And less said about the "free games" the better.

 

[0h_no_not_again]

but I wouldn't put my faith in a word from these sources if I was you, WCCF built their reader base by either making news up or using what others have made up knowing full well it had no real merit, as for the second site, Sentences like "AMD execs too to the YouTubes yesterday to discuss how the last twelve months of Zen has been ahead of the imminent launch of Ryzen 2" just don't read right, I presume they meant ''''AMD execs took to Youtube yesterday to discuss blah blah'''' but does that sound like something an exec would be doing? I'd put money on it being fake news, I'm not saying AMD aren't exploring the possibility just that sites like these use guesswork more than facts from genuine sources.

I thought the same thing when I found the links...

My internal biases are showing, sadly without being conscious of them. I was certain I had seen this in trustworthy print.

Oh well, as someone who works in and out of the semiconductor industry, I believe Lisa Su will wrangle something special out of Radeon in the next 4 years or so. She is too good at semiconductors and business to not succeed, despite the obvious issues she's has inherited.

 

[V F]

Anyone promoting xfire/sli likely hasn't used them... I was xfired on 7970s and then Fury X's because I was an early 4k adopter and there wasn't a single GPU solution to even come close to powering that - and even that experience wasn't exactly great.. to the point where I'm never using a multi-GPU set up again.

Funny isn't it. Back then I used to worry is this game going to break with x1950xtx CrossFire or 5870 CrossFire. The best games I remember enjoying it was Battlefield 3 and 4. Everything else was mostly up in the air.

Now most games I worry about is how crappy the lag compensation will be. Multi-GPU was not fun with the limited supported games.

 

[nashathedog]

I thought the same thing when I found the links...

My internal biases are showing, sadly without being conscious of them. I was certain I had seen this in trustworthy print.

Oh well, as someone who works in and out of the semiconductor industry, I believe Lisa Su will wrangle something special out of Radeon in the next 4 years or so. She is too good at semiconductors and business to not succeed, despite the obvious issues she's has inherited.

I think she will too, AMD needed someone with vision to play the long game & they found Lisa Su who's only real mistake that I can see so far was trusting Raj Koduri with the reigns at RTG, now he's gone & the cpu side of things is picking up pace she can work on getting RTG back in the game as well. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes after Navi, as you said it takes a few years for the changes to make a difference.

 

[aoaaron]

Nobody ever said they would, not even AMD.



Which, conveniently, will be powered by AMD.

Isn't the whole topic about them releasing a 2080/2080ti equivalent, which would compete at 4k... this thread is all hypotheticals.

 

[aoaaron]

You mean like when they released the Vega 64 delivering the performance of a GTX1080 for the price of a GTX1080? Or when they released the Vega 56 delivering better performance than the GTX1070 for the price of the GTX1070? (prompting the launch of the GTX1070ti).

If peoples definition of "competitive" is 1080ti performance for 1080 money then it explains why AMD have the problems they do...

Yes, both of those releases came a while after the 1080 and 1070 releases so I would have expected a much better product released from AMD and a better price point. Otherwise why wait a couple of months for AMD to (maybe) release that crap for a small discount when I can just by NVIDIA.

I think if you arrive late to the party; then yes, you should be a lot more competitively priced product than your opposition or a product which performs much better.

 

[LePhuronn]

Isn't the whole topic about them releasing a 2080/2080ti equivalent...

No, the thread is about AMD competing in general. Of which they do already, but for some unless AMD can beat a 2080 Ti in the next 5 minutes they're automatically worthless.

 

[aoaaron]

No, the thread is about AMD competing in general. Of which they do already, but for some unless AMD can beat a 2080 Ti in the next 5 minutes they're automatically worthless.

Ah my mistake. There is a thread on here asking the hypothetical "If AMD released a 700£ 2080ti would you buy it".. I thought it was that thread.

 

[LePhuronn]

I think if you arrive 6 months to 1 year later to the party; then yes, you should be a lot more competitive than matching your opposition or offering a very slight performance advantage.

Well feel free to give AMD your design expertise and spare tens of millions of dollars to sort out their financials and build them an Nvidia-crushing architecture. You are aware of the sorry state AMD have been in for years, yeah?

Ah my mistake. There is a thread on here asking the hypothetical "If AMD released a 700£ 2080ti would you buy it".. I thought it was that thread.

There are so many similar threads it's easy to cross the streams. I have no idea what I'm posting on half the time

 

[aoaaron]

Well feel free to give AMD your design expertise and spare tens of millions of dollars to sort out their financials and build them an Nvidia-crushing architecture. You are aware of the sorry state AMD have been in for years, yeah?

I'd rather just give Nvidia my money as they seem to be delivering a product which I want.

 

[LePhuronn]

I'd rather just give Nvidia my money as they seem to be delivering a product which I want.

You actually want half-assed ray tracing, marginal performance uplift on the raster side for double the price? Fair enough, more power to you.

I personally want to game at 1080p glitch-free without selling a kidney. Which funnily enough is what AMD offer.

 

[aoaaron]

You actually want half-assed ray tracing, marginal performance uplift on the raster side for double the price? Fair enough, more power to you.

I personally want to game at 1080p glitch-free without selling a kidney. Which funnily enough is what AMD offer.

I want a card which can power my 4K 65 inch TV lol. I used to not be a fan of 4k [especially films] but in gaming it makes a big difference.

If I was 1080p gaming, then sure AMD definitely is a very very good option. I'm not going to debate that... as their freesync + samsung TV support alone makes them a league above Nvidia.

Also I'm not defending NVIDIA at all. Ray tracing is a silly gimick which is in the BETA stages of development basically, the performance uplift on last gen is laughable, the price to dollar performance is at its worst its ever been... but for anyone that wants to go 4k, or ultrawide 60fps+, a 2080/1080ti/2080ti are the only ways to go. I only got a 2080 because I was upgrading from a GTX 670 and had a 4k TV and I can't give up my 5.1 home surround with a subwoofer which shakes the house.

I'm not a user who is waiting for AMD to fail. I WANT to have faith in them. I WANT them to deliver. I WANT 4k gaming and high hz ultrawide gaming to become the norm because it really should be by now and I want AMD or someone to challenge Nvidia to stop ripping off consumers like myself.

I just don't think AMD are some holy angel that people seem to think they are on the GPU front. On the Processor front, sure they are. They toppled the monster which was Intel who had basically been toying with us for years and my next rig will surely be an AMD one on the processor side of things.

 

[pete910]

just don't think AMD are some holy angel that people seem to think they are on the GPU front. On the Processor front, sure they are.

To be fair up until 2 years(ish) ago people would have said the same in the CPU space too.

 

[ubersonic]

I think if you arrive late to the party; then yes, you should be a lot more competitively priced product than your opposition or a product which performs much better.

So when Nvidia show up late and offer the same performance for a higher price that's cool, but when AMD show up late and offer equal/better performance for the same price you think that's terrible because they should be more competitive to force Nvidia to sell you stuff cheaper?

 

[Dicehunter]

If Ryzen is anything to go by, If they keep going the way they are now and their GPU's follow the same trend i.e giving 95% of the performance of Intels top end "Z" chip but at half the price, Yes they will compete with Nvidia at the high end, Maybe not the Halo products such as the Titan but I think we will see Radeon being competitive again as we do desperately need it otherwise Nvidia's 3070 next year is going to cost £800 as they can charge what they want and people will still give them money.

 

[aoaaron]

So when Nvidia show up late and offer the same performance for a higher price that's cool, but when AMD show up late and offer equal/better performance for the same price you think that's terrible because they should be more competitive to force Nvidia to sell you stuff cheaper?

When have NVIDIA arrived late? Do you mean, NVIDIA's hypothetical response to the AMD's hypothetical price cut?

I'm not an NVIDIA fan at all but in the recent times where I've wanted to buy a GPU (2 years ago, I wanted 1080 level performance) and now (I wanted to game at 4k so 1080ti level performance) sadly AMD were useless.

And no, I'm just saying in an ideal world AMD being competitve would force NVIDIA to be competitive. AMD should price their stuff better because they arrive 6 months late to the party. Arriving that late and offering very little tangible benefit FPS wise, with more heat and more noise.. it just makes me think, why not pay a small premium [as the savings aren't great with AMD in the last year or so] and enjoy playing the latest games earlier.

 

[DELETED_195422]

Well, AMD are already competing, just not at the ultra high-end. In the next few years they'll also be competing with both Intel/Nvidia.

Having three manufactures in the GPU market can only be good for the consumer.

Going forward AMD need to drop the Radeon brand for their next gen GPU's as it's still seen as a budget brand by many.

From 2020 onwards the GPU market will be in a much better place than it is currently.