Hypothetical: NVIDIA folds and leave the GPU market.

[bru]

someone would buy their business and nothing would change

Of course someone would, but this is just a hypothetical situation.

 

[Diagro]

Its not a case of what is faster than what, it is the amount of cards AMD can make and the amount they could sell. If there was no Nvidia outselling AMD by several to one then AMD would have to make and sell that many more cards, else there would be no stock anywhere and prices would sky rocket. That is what I mean by picking up the slack.

AMD sell more GPUs than Nvidia do.

Wouldn't be a problem picking up the slack.. the foundry's would just use their allocated manufacturing line on AMD Instead

 

[gronf]

I agree with most people in here that it could be terrible. I'd guess Intel would buy them up and instantly become a major player in this sector (as it stands, I don't think Intel are going to become much of a player, at least not for 5+ years, in my opinion).

 

[ubersonic]

It would be a minor bump for a number of months during the gulf between Nvidia's demise and Intels return to the GPU market, but it would have significantly less impact on the industry than many here seem to think. AMD would reclaim ATi's crown as #1 and Intel would slide into the #2 bracket with competition being as healthy as it is today (probably healthier).

 

[D.P.]

It would be pretty dire for gamers. Nvidia are the only GPU IHV to have significantly improved performance, efficiency and features in the last 5 plus year. AMD just keep releasing the same old architecture with higher clocks and higher prices. Sure, things like RTX have some teething problems but in a years time there will be load of RTX games and a new even faster architecture.. Once devs get a handle on this new technology it will really take off, just look how much BF V improved in a few months.

Just look how little AMD have done despite heavy competition, there has been almost no innovation, no technological progress in improving performance or efficiency, and no interest in bringing new features to gamers that actually work. what have Vega64 and Polaris 590 actually achieved? Without Nvidia AMd would spend even less on GPU R&D, progress would go even slower if that was at all possible, and prices would just jump up. Conversely, if AMD went bankrupt I don;t think things would change that much with Nvidia, as they are effectively operating as if they are a monopoly anyway. Prices go a little, we have already seen this. Prices will settle on whatever value maximizes profit, we have most liekly already reached this point. In fact, if Turing really turns in to a failure then Turing prices will drop, and thiis pricing is exactly the same as if AMD were present or not. Nvidia continue to progress GPU technology because they are desperate to expand HPC, deep learning, professional, contention creation and autonomous car markets. There is a lot of overlaps on these areas and gaming. Nvidia want real-time ray tracing for both games and contention creation/pro visual artists. Tensor cores are currently used for DLSS and RTX de-noising, but in the future there could be many more uses to improve image quality, performance and even game play.

As it stands, most of Nvidia's income comes form gamers so they absolutely have to create new GPUs that are compelling enough to upgrade to. The fuss over Turing shwos they may not have quite succeeded this time. That same pressure exists with or without AMD. AMD at the moment don;t have this pressure, they are so focused on CPUs and consoles that enthusiast gamers have been completely. ignored. If you take away AMD's competition then they have even less incentive to innovate.



Not that either scenario is great. It would be much better if AMD were more competitive but they just don't want to and don't have the resources.

 

[DarrenM343]

I know it's hypothetical but I don't know why this is being considered to be honest. Other than some of the current pricing, it's a great company in many ways. Products, innovation, even as an employer apparently.
If NV folded after Intel joined the GPU party you know what will happen? Look at Intel pricing. It still makes me chuckle somewhat when I hear people saying they hope Intel given Nvidia a good kicking when they enter the GPU market, forgetting exactly what Intel have done for CPU's. If it wasn't for AMD we'd probably still be on 4 cores mainstream and a max of 10 cores x299. The Intel range IMO definitely wouldn't be what it is today without AMD giving them the hurry up.

AMD would raise their prices too if Intel entered and were only on par with what they offered (and if NV had disappeared).Forget what AMD(edited from Intel) have done in the past regarding pricing - it's a different company today and need to focus on profits. Some seem to think a market would stay the same but you can be sure if a strong competitor went bust, the market dynamics would change.
Off topic but I use contact lenses. I saw the price of my lenses rise when two competitors merged a few years back. Even if companies own their previous competitors, prices rise.

Can we have threads now for "What if AMD went bust" and "What if Intel went bust" ? . NV gets so much hate just over pricing of their superior products .

IMO NV is a better company than Intel in respect to not resting on their laurels. They'll push the technology forward regardless of what their competition is doing.

 

[TNA]

I know it's hypothetical but I don't know why this is being considered to be honest. Other than some of the current pricing, it's a great company in many ways. Products, innovation, even as an employer apparently.
If NV folded after Intel joined the GPU party you know what will happen? Look at Intel pricing. It still makes me chuckle somewhat when I hear people saying they hope Intel given Nvidia a good kicking when they enter the GPU market, forgetting exactly what Intel have done for CPU's. If it wasn't for AMD we'd probably still be on 4 cores mainstream and a max of 10 cores x299. The Intel range IMO definitely wouldn't be what it is today without AMD giving them the hurry up.

AMD would raise their prices too if Intel entered and were only on par with what they offered (and if NV had disappeared).Forget what Intel have done in the past regarding pricing - it's a different company today. Some seem to think a market would stay the same but you can be sure if a strong competitor went bust, the market dynamics would change.
Off topic but I use contact lenses. I saw the price of my lenses rise when two competitors merged a few years back. Even if companies own their previous competitors, prices rise.

Can we have threads now for "What if AMD went bust" and "What if Intel went bust" ? . NV gets so much hate just over pricing of their superior products .

IMO NV is a better company than Intel in respect to not resting on their laurels. They'll push the technology forward regardless of what their competition is doing.

Yeah. Was funny seeing @easyrider give so much flack to Nvidia recently and then going and getting a overpriced 9900K from Intel

 

[DarrenM343]

Yeah. Was funny seeing @easyrider give so much flack to Nvidia recently and then going and getting a overpriced 9900K from Intel

yeah , although I kind of get (not 100% convinced tho ) where he's coming from - for some of his uses the Ryzen CPU's are lacking in that area. Intel are to CPU's what Nvidia is to GPU's however, ie, expensive , but at least Turing does offer something the competition cannot yet do, and that matters to many. I suppose £500 for a CPU is still cheap compared to £1099+ for a GPU but not that far off in % terms.

I'm hoping for an AMD announcement soon on CPU's and availability sooner than the market is currently expecting.

 

[TNA]

yeah , although I kind of get (not 100% convinced tho ) where he's coming from - for some of his uses the Ryzen CPU's are lacking in that area. Intel are to CPU's what Nvidia is to GPU's however, ie, expensive , but at least Turing does offer something the competition cannot yet do, and that matters to many. I suppose £500 for a CPU is still cheap compared to £1099+ for a GPU but not that far off in % terms.

I'm hoping for an AMD announcement soon on CPU's and availability sooner than the market is currently expecting.

I was referring to waiting for Zen 2, which I do not think will be lacking at all. Not far away now..

 

[easyrider]

Yeah. Was funny seeing @easyrider give so much flack to Nvidia recently and then going and getting a overpriced 9900K from Intel

499 for a 8/16 chip when a ryzen is £300 is hardly overpriced considering its performance at 5ghz. Then compare a 2080ti costing 1200 compared to a 1080ti

yeah , although I kind of get (not 100% convinced tho ) where he's coming from - for some of his uses the Ryzen CPU's are lacking in that area. Intel are to CPU's what Nvidia is to GPU's however, ie, expensive , but at least Turing does offer something the competition cannot yet do, and that matters to many. I suppose £500 for a CPU is still cheap compared to £1099+ for a GPU but not that far off in % terms.

I'm hoping for an AMD announcement soon on CPU's and availability sooner than the market is currently expecting.

Well yes you would be right. Ryzen does not perform aswell in DAW environments...Intel destroys it. So unfortunately Ryzen 2700x would have been a compromise.

I was referring to waiting for Zen 2, which I do not think will be lacking at all. Not far away now..

Told you if Ryzen 2 has sorted its latency issues out and outperforms 9900K I'll get one. But waiting was not an option. I bet you didn't even know about Intels ringbus and how it handles audio latency did you? lol

 

[TNA]

499 for a 8/16 chip when a ryzen is £300 is hardly overpriced considering its performance at 5ghz. Then compare a 2080ti costing 1200 compared to a 1080ti



Well yes you would be right. Ryzen does not perform aswell in DAW environments...Intel destroys it. So unfortunately Ryzen 2700x would have been a compromise.



Told you if Ryzen 2 has sorted its latency issues out and outperforms 9900K I'll get one. But waiting was not an option. I bet you didn't even know about Intels ringbus and how it handles audio latency did you? lol

Nope, not into making music around a pond

 

[easyrider]

Nope, not into making music around a pond

 

[Pottsey]

Ok so its a what if thread.

If NVidia were to close up shop and leave the GPU scene, I'm sure some would rejoice and other would cry. But what would it mean for us the enthusiast who love to game on the PC.
Now my view is that AMD would have to step up their game somewhat to pick up the slack that NVidia leaving would create. Would we be talking about how AMD have drip fed us the same performance +5% for years just like Intel have on the CPU scene, 290/390/Fiji/480/580/Vega/590 or would they step up and bring it.

Now we all know that NVidia have priced the 2000 series at obscene levels, but AMD have priced their cards competitively before, what would they do if they were the only player in the game.

Your thoughts for a new year hypothetical thread.

Someone else would join in to try and take the market share lost from Nvidia. Any number of large companies could licence graphics IP from say Imagination Technologies or one of the others who licence out graphics IP and enter the PC market in less then a year. It wouldn't end up with just AMD and Intel.

 

[TNA]

 

[doody]

not looking good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHKDZmithRA best bit is from 23:00

 

[new boy]

It would be bad for everyone but AMD.

AMD would halt R+D and increase prices and take the money in, untill someone else say, Intel or Samsung would step in and start trying to get a piece of that pie. The new comers prices would be tempting, but chances are their drivers will suck along with their architecture, so they will be hot, power hungry, and unstable untill they get the hang of things and become a real competitor.

Or, more realisticly, someone would just buy Nvidia and use their IP as that makes a lot more sense. Can't imagine monopoly laws would allow AMD to buy it, so a second player will just pick up where Nvidia left off.

Why would Nvidia go bust? They keep seeing how far they can push prices up and people keep paying it! I imagine they a rolling around in piles of your cash drinking champagne right now...

 

[lordfletch]

It would be bad for everyone but AMD.

AMD would halt R+D and increase prices and take the money in, untill someone else say, Intel or Samsung would step in and start trying to get a piece of that pie. The new comers prices would be tempting, but chances are their drivers will suck along with their architecture, so they will be hot, power hungry, and unstable untill they get the hang of things and become a real competitor.

Or, more realisticly, someone would just buy Nvidia and use their IP as that makes a lot more sense. Can't imagine monopoly laws would allow AMD to buy it, so a second player will just pick up where Nvidia left off.

Why would Nvidia go bust? They keep seeing how far they can push prices up and people keep paying it! I imagine they a rolling around in piles of your cash drinking champagne right now...

their share price has dropped by nearly 50% in the last three months mate.

 

[BubbySoup]

I know it's hypothetical but I don't know why this is being considered to be honest. Other than some of the current pricing, it's a great company in many ways. Products, innovation, even as an employer apparently.
If NV folded after Intel joined the GPU party you know what will happen? Look at Intel pricing.

You are honestly calling nVidia a great company and then pointing at Intel's pricing when we are faced with the 2080 giving us the same performance as a 1080ti for hundreds of pounds more and a 2080ti that costs £1000+?

 

[Monkeynut]

The really annoying thing is there IS competition in mobile GPUs... if only the desktop shifted enough units to also have Mali, Adreno and PowerVR desktop GPUs fighting it out....

 

[andybird123]

But they don't really because AMD provides GPUs+CPUs for every single Xbox and PS4 and those numbers make it look like Nvidia didn't even show up. Also they supply GPUs to Apple (Apple ditched nvidia a while back, even they thought they were overpriced lol) which is probably not included in those stats either.

Apple is included in the quarterly GPU reports. Also, ps4 and xbox combined have sold a bit over 120 million units? over their lifetime (from 2013), so roughly 24m per year... desktop GPU's sell over 10 million per quarter, so over 40 million per year, so 200million in the same time frame, so not quite sure what you mean by nvidia didn't even show up? Those console chips are cheap as... well... you know.