[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

Dirk Diggler · 16 Mar 2018 at 10:15

When it comes to buying my next GPU, I'll be looking for the best performing card available and that will probably be a Nvidia card. It won't matter to me if the card I buy doesn't have a lesser performing AMD equivalent available for me to consider and reject.

Ayahuasca · 16 Mar 2018 at 10:19

String said:
When it comes to buying my next GPU, I'll be looking for the best performing card available and that will probably be a Nvidia card. It won't matter to me if the card I buy doesn't have a lesser performing AMD equivalent available for me to consider and reject.

This pretty much sums it up, this move from nVidia is obviously anti-competitive but in the current climate it's not going to affect much until AMD create chips that can compete, then you can start worrying about whether your card has the same RGB fans and evil looking shroud.

TNA · 16 Mar 2018 at 10:43

Gregster said:
You know things are bad when Humbug starts quoting himself

lol

sideways14a · 16 Mar 2018 at 10:51

I just bought a 1080ti as my Fury died on me the other night (well started to) - my V56 is still broken from a heavy overclock attempt as well.
I didnt want to get a 1080ti, i wanted another vega but the pricing is just ridicules with all cards at the moment, this has to stop.

Gregster · 16 Mar 2018 at 10:56

String said:
When it comes to buying my next GPU, I'll be looking for the best performing card available and that will probably be a Nvidia card. It won't matter to me if the card I buy doesn't have a lesser performing AMD equivalent available for me to consider and reject.

Pretty much me. I have a GSync monitor that I love, so looking to AMD would be a bit silly. I would however love to see AMD release something that gives them the leading edge and I would have no worries switching. I don't care about politics in hardware and only want what works best for me.

TNA · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:06

Gregster said:
Pretty much me. I have a GSync monitor that I love, so looking to AMD would be a bit silly. I would however love to see AMD release something that gives them the leading edge and I would have no worries switching. I don't care about politics in hardware and only want what works best for me.

I am in the same position myself. Love my 4K GSync monitor. Took me a while to find a monitor that I am happy with and I will be keeping it a good 2-3 years before I upgrade.

What I want to see from AMD is for them to release a card that is competitive in high end gaming that can run games 4K 60fps on whatever the latest game is at the time and hopefully around that time we will have a nice Freesync 2 OLED monitor available

Gregster · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:18

TNA said:
I am in the same position myself. Love my 4K GSync monitor. Took me a while to find a monitor that I am happy with and I will be keeping it a good 2-3 years before I upgrade.

What I want to see from AMD is for them to release a card that is competitive in high end gaming that can run games 4K 60fps on whatever the latest game is at the time and hopefully around that time we will have a nice Freesync 2 OLED monitor available

Yep, a competitive market means a price war. A non competitive market means performance tax. NVidia's fault for bringing great gains to market or the buyers fault for not buying the lesser performing AMD cards I guess

sideways14a · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:38

Its not like AMD has less performing cards everywhere in the market.
The mid range 580 is easily as good as the 1060, if not arguably better yet its outsold many times over.
The v56 is more than a match for the 1070 and needed the 1070ti to come out to give nvidia a chance at that market and everyone slates vega even though the 56 is a good card.
Ok pricing is well wonkey but thats another matter, point is that amd could have the winning chips everywhere bar the very very top of the table and folk will still slate them.

KillBoY_UK · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:39

Gregster said:
Yep, a competitive market means a price war. A non competitive market means performance tax. NVidia's fault for bringing great gains to market or the buyers fault for not buying the lesser performing AMD cards I guess

I've always said I would give AMD a stab again (even with my Gsycn monitor) if the card was good, there was little point be upgrading 780 SLI to Fury X CF or from 980ti SLI to Vega 64/CF.

I do remember my fond days of my Rage 2 2mb, 9800 pro 256mb, X1950XT and 5850 CF

KillBoY_UK · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:44

sideways14a said:
Its not like AMD has less performing cards everywhere in the market.
The mid range 580 is easily as good as the 1060, if not arguably better yet its outsold many times over.
The v56 is more than a match for the 1070 and needed the 1070ti to come out to give nvidia a chance at that market and everyone slates vega even though the 56 is a good card.
Ok pricing is well wonkey but thats another matter, point is that amd could have the winning chips everywhere bar the very very top of the table and folk will still slate them.

and if Vega & Polaris had come out within 3-6 months of Pascal and not almost 18 months without the lunch day pricing situation AMD would be a FAR better position and would have had more sales. The Heat power performance issues wouldn't be highlighted so much if it was on time and well priced.

humbug · 16 Mar 2018 at 11:49

Even when AMD were competitive or had the better cards nVidia still outsold AMD 2 to 1 at least.

The fact is yes right now AMD are not competitive and its easy to point that out, but they got here while having equally good if not better products, there is tribalism in the Church of Graphics Cards and i would lay more blame at the feet of that than AMD.

Dirk Diggler · 16 Mar 2018 at 12:01

humbug said:
Even when AMD were competitive or had the better cards nVidia still outsold AMD 2 to 1 at least.

When was this? Which NV cards outsold AMD by a ratio of 2:1 when the AMD card provided better performance?

humbug · 16 Mar 2018 at 13:32

String said:
When was this? Which NV cards outsold AMD by a ratio of 2:1 when the AMD card provided better performance?

One example would be the 4780 vs the GTX 280, the 5870 vs the GTX 480, another the 290X, even as a reference card it outperformed the twice as expensive GTX Titan. its replacement the 390X ended up faster than the GTX 970 and at least as fast as the 980.

D.P. · 16 Mar 2018 at 13:39

String said:
When was this? Which NV cards outsold AMD by a ratio of 2:1 when the AMD card provided better performance?

When AMD had a clearly better card, (X800 vs FX5800), AMd took over as market leader. Since then it is hard to say whther AMD had a clearly better product stack top to bottom. E.g. Fermi was late and used a lot of power but it still had the performance including in the latest DX etc., and the lower Fermi models were decent. Plus there is always a lag between product quality andf changes in percieved market and value. The 500 series quickly followed on and Fermi's teething issues were solved. AMD have produced plenty of other good cards, but they sometiems had issues like the 290 heatsink, were around at the same time Nvidia had decent products, or the line up top to bottom wasn't a clear winner. Most market share is at he lower end and so it doesn't matter so miuch if AMD create a good Fury card if the bottom end is taken up with old cards renamed that are missing features or have outdated video codecs etc.

then there is the fact that AMD supporters normally go by value for money, which ignores a lot of other factors people care about. For example, a top NV card may well be 20% more expensive for 10% more performance, but if you want that performance it is worth paying, nothing is ever linear like that.

humbug · 16 Mar 2018 at 13:51

For anyone who really is interested in how we have got to where we are today this is a must watch.

BTW the nVidia church hate this video and its author.

KillBoY_UK · 16 Mar 2018 at 13:59

humbug said:
Oanother the 290X, even as a reference card it outperformed the twice as expensive GTX Titan. its replacement the 390X ended up faster than the GTX 970 and at least as fast as the 980.

You mean a rebrand that consumed almost twice as much power as the 970 almost not much faster but over $100 more pricey ?

humbug · 16 Mar 2018 at 14:01

KillBoY_UK said:
You mean a rebrand that consumed almost twice as much power as the 970 almost not much faster but over $100 more pricey ?

No one cared about power consumption with the GTX 480, why care so much when its AMD? ironically the GTX 480 used at least as much if not more, it still sold in sick numbers.

sideways14a · 16 Mar 2018 at 14:05

No one cares about power when they are pushing there 8700k to godknowswhatfliippingmhz to make it actually worthwhile...

humbug · 16 Mar 2018 at 14:09

sideways14a said:
No one cares about power when they are pushing there 8700k to godknowswhatfliippingmhz to make it actually worthwhile...

Or having to void the warranty by dismantling the CPU in order to replace the cheap Marmite Intel used as Die Cap to Heat Spreader conductive paste so you can get decent overclocks out of them.

I think Marmite might actually do a better job of it....

KillBoY_UK · 16 Mar 2018 at 14:10

humbug said:
No one cared about power consumption with the GTX 480, why care so much when its AMD? ironically the GTX 480 used at least as much if not more, it still sold in sick numbers.

Plenty cared it was the talk of the town at the time, plenty of Grill photo shops like the blower ones from the FX5800 days. AMD had the PPW crown for sure then but when the tables swapped it was the AMD fans who previously shouted power consumption matters, now saying it dost.