• 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.

have AMD stopped competing

Lets look at there current stack of products,

Low end, sub 570 area... ok - all competitive with there nvidia counterparts.
mid range - 570/580 both very competative with nvidias offerings however they are outsold hugely.
high end - vega 56 does very well against the 1070(ti) and 1080, it is very competitive there. V64 is not quite as good vfm but still is able to go toe to toe with the 1080 in most titles.
Enthusiast Vega water is not as good as the 1080ti or various Titans. This is really the only part of the stack they struggle in.
They also have intel hammered with the APUs - at least until intel drops the vega based one they are working on ... but its still vega lol.
Finally of course the big consoles are AMD and likely to continue to be next round.

So... really only the very highest end of the market are they struggling with competing - however this has a big knock on effect to the rest of there product stack for some reason... It shouldnt but... big egos and short memories run rampant in the PC games sector so thats what you get.
 
sideways14a said:
Lets look at there current stack of products,

Low end, sub 570 area... ok - all competitive with there nvidia counterparts.
mid range - 570/580 both very competative with nvidias offerings however they are outsold hugely.
high end - vega 56 does very well against the 1070(ti) and 1080, it is very competitive there. V64 is not quite as good vfm but still is able to go toe to toe with the 1080 in most titles.
Enthusiast Vega water is not as good as the 1080ti or various Titans. This is really the only part of the stack they struggle in.
They also have intel hammered with the APUs - at least until intel drops the vega based one they are working on ... but its still vega lol.
Finally of course the big consoles are AMD and likely to continue to be next round.

So... really only the very highest end of the market are they struggling with competing - however this has a big knock on effect to the rest of there product stack for some reason... It shouldnt but... big egos and short memories run rampant in the PC games sector so thats what you get.
Click to expand...



Let's be honest, when Nvidia's GPU revenue is equivalent to the entirety of AMD (both CPU and GPU) then its clear how far behind AMD are.
 
sideways14a said:
Lets look at there current stack of products,

Low end, sub 570 area... ok - all competitive with there nvidia counterparts.
mid range - 570/580 both very competative with nvidias offerings however they are outsold hugely.
high end - vega 56 does very well against the 1070(ti) and 1080, it is very competitive there. V64 is not quite as good vfm but still is able to go toe to toe with the 1080 in most titles.
Enthusiast Vega water is not as good as the 1080ti or various Titans. This is really the only part of the stack they struggle in.
They also have intel hammered with the APUs - at least until intel drops the vega based one they are working on ... but its still vega lol.
Finally of course the big consoles are AMD and likely to continue to be next round.

So... really only the very highest end of the market are they struggling with competing - however this has a big knock on effect to the rest of there product stack for some reason... It shouldnt but... big egos and short memories run rampant in the PC games sector so thats what you get.
Click to expand...

Their mid-range parts (Vega 56 & 64) are a lot more power hungry though and 1.5 years too late.

Any enthusiast who waited for Vega either wasn't looking to buy while the 1080 was available or has already bought a 1080 or is just an AMD fanboy...
 
crinkleshoes said:
Their mid-range parts (Vega 56 & 64) are a lot more power hungry though and 1.5 years too late.

Any enthusiast who waited for Vega either wasn't looking to buy while the 1080 was available or has already bought a 1080 or is just an AMD fanboy...
Click to expand...

Good point; a year and a half later, more power hungry and only roughly on par is a poor showing no matter what way you spin it.
 
Needles said:
Good point; a year and a half later, more power hungry and only roughly on par is a poor showing no matter what way you spin it.
Click to expand...

Yup... it disappointing.

I'm happy to buy what's best... but the last AMD cards I bought were a pair of 5770s when I was more budget conscious. Nothing since then has been worth buying, Nvidia keep winning.

My first GPU upgrade was the 9700, bought it solely to play C&C Generals... loved that card and game.

Then upgraded to X800XT... another great card.

They've been great in the past and I really want them to compete again... they have just failed so many times in a row it's really disappointing... and that's why we're seeing £1200 Titan X cards when if AMD were still competing... that card would have been half the price.
 
I would not say they are that competitive, they are pretty much consistently slower and use more power, the Nvidia cards are a better option in all of the segments. Nothing against AMD but Nvidia for the last few generations are just better. One advantage of AMD though is that they support freesync which is good. Not sure why Nvidia do not support it really, I would think it would be better for Nvidia to support freesync.
 
crinkleshoes said:
Their mid-range parts (Vega 56 & 64) are a lot more power hungry though and 1.5 years too late.

Any enthusiast who waited for Vega either wasn't looking to buy while the 1080 was available or has already bought a 1080 or is just an AMD fanboy...
Click to expand...

Or didn't want another DX11 card without Freesync support/ had an R9 or Maxwell card.
 
AMD are competing on some planes, but not others. Right now, doesn't really make any difference how you cut it. When it comes to gaming, NVIDIA's Pascal is a better architecture in almost every way that matters.
 
Silent_Scone said:
AMD are competing on some planes, but not others. Right now, doesn't really make any difference how you cut it. When it comes to gaming, NVIDIA's Pascal is a better architecture in almost every way that matters.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't matter.
Because when you compare 8GB RX 580 to 6GB GTX 1060, the former is the clear winner in every single metric. Especially in longevity.
 
While i agree they do seem a little power hungry and of course late, comparing what we have right now AMD is doing ok. Might not be in 3 months if nvidia gets there next chip out.
Lets face it, they are selling everyone of there chips to the miners - nvidia is also likely selling out as well.
 
Silent_Scone said:
AMD are competing on some planes, but not others. Right now, doesn't really make any difference how you cut it. When it comes to gaming, NVIDIA's Pascal is a better architecture in almost every way that matters.
Click to expand...

As before in the areas they are still competitive it is overshadowed by the mentality of consumers both in brand perception of nVidia and the association perception. Its been so long since AMD had a properly competitive card at the top end that to many consumers comparing say a 1060 to a 580 its like AMD is selling say a mid-range Volvo and the alternative even if its a little worse car has a BMW badge slapped on it - if the consumer can afford both guess which many will be going for :s
 
4K8KW10 said:
Actually, it doesn't matter.
Because when you compare 8GB RX 580 to 6GB GTX 1060, the former is the clear winner in every single metric. Especially in longevity.
Click to expand...

Graph wars suggests otherwise, but we know what a slippery slope that one is. Not that I'd consider either personally. Also, VRAM as a metric for longevity, do people still use that for GPU years? lol
 
Silent_Scone said:
Graph wars suggests otherwise, but we know what a slippery slope that one is. Not that I'd consider either personally. Also, VRAM as a metric for longevity, do people still use that for GPU years? lol
Click to expand...

Seems to depend if Nvidia have more.

RX580>GTX1060.

AMD>Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
AMD have done well on the Ryzen front and great to see. Intel had it so good for so long but now it appears to be NVidia's turn. AMD are not really competing and a real shame. Competition is good for all of us.
 
When was the last time AMD actually had the fastest card? 280x and 290x were good but behind Nvidia by few %. The 5870 was good and I think faster than anything from Nvidia, but that was 8 years ago.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Graph wars suggests otherwise, but we know what a slippery slope that one is. Not that I'd consider either personally. Also, VRAM as a metric for longevity, do people still use that for GPU years?
Click to expand...

VRAM is important when games use it. What are you trying to prove? That 3GB is better than 8GB?! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom