Nvidia now at 90% market share.

humbug · Tuesday at 13:18

humbug said:
Is that due to a CPU bottleneck with the Nvidia driver causing it to run in power saving mode? Because if what he's saying is AMD GPU's always run at maximum wattage not matter what the load on the card is he's full of ****.... they don't. As soon as they are not loaded above 95% they draw less power.

Ok... approaching the wormhole the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU, as a result its going in to a power saving mode and running at about 170 watts, as i get closer the GPU load increases and with that power consumption, in the wormhole the GPU is fully loaded and 260 watts.

The level at which the GPU saves power as its not fully loaded is infinite, it will only use as much power as it needs to a point of low single digit watt increments.

tommybhoy · Tuesday at 14:29

humbug said:
flogging your stuff at a loss just to gain marketshare isn't going to work

Was checking an old post of mine, not counting the sometimes up to 6 free games, I bought FOUR 7950s back in the day for the price of a single Titan...

Next gen, AMD almost went bust...

Dicehunter · Tuesday at 14:39

humbug said:
flogging your stuff at a loss just to gain marketshare isn't going to work

Totally agree but AMD keep pricing their equivalent cards super close to Nvidia's and as we've all seen, It aint working.

They need to come in at a noticeably cheaper price, And still profitable, To tempt people over which they only tend to do towards the latter half of a products life cycle which by that time it's a tad too late.

NZXT30 · Tuesday at 15:27

TNA said:
They were not. To busy trying to slot their cards a little under nvidia.

Premium strategy

During an Interview a couple of years ago an AMD marketing guy clearly stated that they are waiting on Nvidia so they can price their products appropriately.

I remember thinking back then how does that not violate Antitrust laws and regulation? I'm pretty sure it was linked in this forum as well.

Calin Banc · Tuesday at 15:52

NZXT30 said:
During an Interview a couple of years ago an AMD marketing guy clearly stated that they are waiting on Nvidia so they can price their products appropriately.

I remember thinking back then how does that not violate Antitrust laws and regulation? I'm pretty sure it was linked in this forum as well.

That's just a consequence of missing competition when they're too few players on the market. Is fine as long as they don't get together to set prices actively.

humbug · Tuesday at 16:03

Dicehunter said:
Totally agree but AMD keep pricing their equivalent cards super close to Nvidia's and as we've all seen, It aint working.

They need to come in at a noticeably cheaper price, And still profitable, To tempt people over which they only tend to do towards the latter half of a products life cycle which by that time it's a tad too late.

4080: $1200, 100% raster performance.
7900 XTX: $1000, 105% raster performance, 25% better value per frame. (reviewed bad)

4070 Ti: $800, 100% raster performance.
7900 XT: $900, 110% raster performance, worse value, (reviewed very bad and deservedly so)

4070: $600, 100% raster performance.
7800 XT: $500, 107% raster performance. 27% better value, (reviewed meh to bad)

4060 Ti: $400, 100% raster performance.
7700 XT, £450, 122% raster performance. 10% better value, (reviewed bad)

4060: $300, 100% raster performance.
7600: £270, 89% raster performance. (reviewed bad and deservedly so)
---------------------

4060: $250, 100% raster performance.
B580: $250, 105% raster performance, 5% better value (reviewed like the best thing since sliced bread, tech jurnoes have not been this positive about a GPU since probably something from 3DFX) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is anything AMD do really that bad or do we put too much faith in the obnoxious slop tech jurnoes put out?

Blackjack Davy · Tuesday at 16:09

humbug said:
4080: $1200, 100% raster performance.
7900 XTX: $1000, 105% raster performance, 25% better value per frame. (reviewed bad)

4070 Ti: $800, 100% raster performance.
7900 XT: $900, 110% raster performance, worse value, (reviewed very bad and deservedly so)

4070: $600, 100% raster performance.
7800 XT: $500, 107% raster performance. 27% better value, (reviewed meh to bad)

4060 Ti: $400, 100% raster performance.
7700 XT, £450, 122% raster performance. 10% better value, (reviewed bad)

4060: $300, 100% raster performance.
7600: £270, 89% raster performance. (reviewed bad and deservedly so)
---------------------

4060: $250, 100% raster performance.
B580: $250, 105% raster performance, 5% better value (reviewed like the best thing since sliced bread, tech jurnoes have not been this positive about a GPU since probably something from 3DFX)

Is anything AMD do really that bad or do we put too much faith in the obnoxious slop tech jurnoes put out? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HUB's take: "its all AMD's fault". Yeah, no bud. Don't put all your resentment at Nvidia's pricing on their back. To be fair Steve's ok, mostly, but the other guy, nope, not buying that.

humbug · Tuesday at 16:13

They are both named Steve

one Walton the other Burke, Burke is ok, Walton is an obnoxious idiot.

pete910 · Tuesday at 16:30

Blackjack Davy said:
HUB's take: "its all AMD's fault". Yeah, no bud. Don't put all your resentment at Nvidia's pricing on their back. To be fair Steve's ok, mostly, but the other guy, nope, not buying that.

It's the consumers fault, No more, No less!

If people will pay daft prices companies will charge daft prices, Simple as that!

GoogalyMoogaly · Tuesday at 16:49

humbug said:
4080: $1200, 100% raster performance.
7900 XTX: $1000, 105% raster performance, 25% better value per frame. (reviewed bad)

4070 Ti: $800, 100% raster performance.
7900 XT: $900, 110% raster performance, worse value, (reviewed very bad and deservedly so)

4070: $600, 100% raster performance.
7800 XT: $500, 107% raster performance. 27% better value, (reviewed meh to bad)

4060 Ti: $400, 100% raster performance.
7700 XT, £450, 122% raster performance. 10% better value, (reviewed bad)

4060: $300, 100% raster performance.
7600: £270, 89% raster performance. (reviewed bad and deservedly so)
---------------------

4060: $250, 100% raster performance.
B580: $250, 105% raster performance, 5% better value (reviewed like the best thing since sliced bread, tech jurnoes have not been this positive about a GPU since probably something from 3DFX) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is anything AMD do really that bad or do we put too much faith in the obnoxious slop tech jurnoes put out?

Did a few extra comparisons of these...

RT performance:
4080 - 100%
7900XTX - 74%

4070Ti - 100%
7900XT - 82%

4070 - 100%
7800XT - 77%

4060Ti - 100%
7700XT - 94%

4060 - 100%
7600 - 62%

And then TDP:
4080 - 100%
7900XTX - 111%

4070Ti - 100%
7900XT - 105%

4070 - 100%
7800XT - 132%

4060Ti - 100%
7700XT - 153%

4060 - 100%
7600 - 143%

humbug · Tuesday at 16:58

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Did a few extra comparisons of these...

RT performance:
4080 - 100%
7900XTX - 74%

4070Ti - 100%
7900XT - 82%

4070 - 100%
7800XT - 77%

4060Ti - 100%
7700XT - 94%

4060 - 100%
7600 - 62%

And then TDP:
4080 - 100%
7900XTX - 111%

4070Ti - 100%
7900XT - 105%

4070 - 100%
7800XT - 132%

4060Ti - 100%
7700XT - 153%

4060 - 100%
7600 - 143%

If with RDNA 4 AMD sort the RT performance out do you think it will matter? I don't, people keep running polls asking if RT matters and every one of them keeps coming back that it seems most people don't, its only people who spend thousands on a GPU who care about RT, probably because those are the only people who can use it properly.

Its moot.

GoogalyMoogaly · Tuesday at 17:00

humbug said:
If with RDNA 4 AMD sort the RT performance out do you think it will matter? I don't, people keep running polls asking if RT matters and every one of them keeps coming back that it seems most people don't, its only people who spend thousands on a GPU who care about RT, probably because those are the only people who can use it properly.

Its moot.

I'm not sure raster matters either does it?

humbug · Tuesday at 17:01

GoogalyMoogaly said:
I'm not sure raster matters either does it?

Of course it does, how many frames the card can generate and how much that costs are the primary concerns for almost everyone.

GoogalyMoogaly · Tuesday at 17:02

humbug said:
Of course it does, how many frames the card can generate and how much that costs are the primary concerns for almost everyone.

Steam runs surveys too and people buy Nvidia, so it seems they don't care about the raster numbers.

Quartz · Tuesday at 17:07

humbug said:
Rumour is the B580 is being sold at a loss.

Source? That’s the first I’ve heard.

humbug · Tuesday at 17:12

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Steam runs surveys too and people buy Nvidia, so it seems they don't care about the raster numbers.

When people see the 7800 XT getting 30 FPS average in Cyberpunk RT vs 37 FPS for the 4070 do you think people look at that and it be the reason to opt for the 4070? No, they don't... they just conclude they are both useless.

Steam is not a good measure of... anything really. But yes Nvidia do outsell AMD 10:1, its mindshare, most people aren't even looking at AMD cards they just look at "which Nvidia card do i buy"?

Quartz said:
Source? That’s the first I’ve heard.

Nvidia now at 90% market share.

Unless AMD has its equivalent of Zen 2 moment in the GPU market, this trend is unlikely to change. The problem is, unlike Intel at the time, Nvidia isn't standing still for years and years.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

Quartz · Tuesday at 17:18

humbug said:
When people see the 7800 XT getting 30 FPS average in Cyberpunk RT vs 37 FPS for the 4070 do you think people look at that and it be the reason to opt for the 4070? No, they don't... they just conclude they are both useless.

Steam is not a good measure of... anything really. But yes Nvidia do outsell AMD 10:1, its mindshare, most people aren't even looking at AMD cards they just look at "which Nvidia card do i buy"?

Nvidia now at 90% market share.

Unless AMD has its equivalent of Zen 2 moment in the GPU market, this trend is unlikely to change. The problem is, unlike Intel at the time, Nvidia isn't standing still for years and years.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

That’s not a valid source for Intel selling at a loss.

humbug · Tuesday at 17:22

Quartz said:
That’s not a valid source for Intel selling at a loss.

MLID, nothing is a valid source unless its Intel themselves and the chances of them blurting that out are very slim.

It is possible for someone to say something like that which might prompt one to apply some critical thinking to that idea and draw ones own conclusions. most of us are not NPC's waiting for our next data input.

GoogalyMoogaly · Tuesday at 17:26

humbug said:
When people see the 7800 XT getting 30 FPS average in Cyberpunk RT vs 37 FPS for the 4070 do you think people look at that and it be the reason to opt for the 4070? No, they don't... they just conclude they are both useless.

Steam is not a good measure of... anything really. But yes Nvidia do outsell AMD 10:1, its mindshare, most people aren't even looking at AMD cards they just look at "which Nvidia card do i buy"?

So your raster calculations don't matter any more than my RT ones or TDP ones.
They might contribute as to why the AMD cards recieved the reception they did though.
Not to mention with Nvidia you get DLSS etc.

You may argue that RT and DLSS isn't important, but AMD seem to think it is if they're improving both with the 8000 series.

humbug · Tuesday at 17:28

GoogalyMoogaly said:
So your raster calculations don't matter any more than my RT ones or TDP ones.
They might contribute as to why the AMD cards recieved the reception they did though.
Not to mention with Nvidia you get DLSS etc.

You may argue that RT and DLSS isn't important, but AMD seem to think it is if they're improving both with the 8000 series.

These people do keep saying DLSS / RT adds 30 / 40% value, i do tho have a problem with that idea.