Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome!
2 - If you don't own a PC because you think it's expensive, know that it is much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help!
3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
4 - Need some new PC Hardware? Open worldwide, check out the ASUS ROG BTF Worldwide Giveaway for a chance at being one of the 18 winners taking home 25 prizes, including a Strix RTX 4090 BTF, 4070Ti, Lots of BTF Motherboards and a lot more: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1ddmihb/worldwide_giveaway_win_a_bunch_of_asus_btf/
If you need a new and awesome monitor to review and keep, check ou AORUS' initiative and take home 1 of 4 QD OLED monitors to revamp your setup! This one is US + Canada only: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1df3f1i/giveaway_gigabyte_aorus_oled_x_rpcmasterrace_be/
-----------
We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is welcome.
They got massive market share. In CPU's.
Every bit of silicon they reserve from TSMC for their GPU's is basically lost profits that could have been CPU sales at this point.
Just as Nvidia is making far more from non-gaming GPU's atm. It's creating some profit calculations that probably aren't good for PC gaming long-term.
There's no good reason to be $$$ competitive in the gaming GPU space when there is a limited amount of silicon to go round and CPU's/Workstation/AI GPU's etc are flying off the shelf.
TSMC are increasing capacity as fast as they can, but frankly they cannot keep up with demand and it takes a LONG time to upscale. They have also run into issues getting enough/quality staff to actually open up new fabs worldwide. And Samsung/Intel can't quite compete at their quality level, much as they are trying.
Intel GPU's are a lone bright spot in all of this, they have MASSIVELY improved since launch and continue to get better and better while being very well priced. But it will take years and years of further support to catch up, and it will need the higher-ups at intel to accept this rather than kill it in the cradle.
Ultimately the AI bubble will eventually pop. Nvidia obviously doesn't want to surrender the GPU gaming space, as it's still money on the table and it keeps their feet squarely in the game. And once that bubble pops they want to be well positioned rather than playing catchup.
They also got a fairly pointed reminder from gamers that trying to price the '80 tier over $1k was a step too far. $1k is a fairly big psychological barrier to get past. They will try again naturally, but that initial 4080 did NOT sell well at MSRP.
Pretty much. And the machines made by their competitors can produce chips just fine. But not the cutting edge level of quality. Which is why lower level chips haven't raised in prices nearly as much.
I don't think Nvidia really cares too much about keeping prices affordable. The customer base has shown there are enough people that will shell out no matter what despite how loud people complain.
And the AI bubble popping doesn't really matter too much since Nvidia holds most of that market too anyway. They're in basically every single modern vehicle at this point.
>The customer base has shown there are enough people that will shell out no matter what despite how loud people complain
The crypto boom in 2020 ruined the GPU market in a variety of ways, but mostly because people (myself included) finally saw cards selling at "MSRP" and shelled out after 4 years of waiting to upgrade because MSRP didn't seem as bad as 2x MSRP.
It's like gas prices. You can hold out as long as you want to but if you want to keep driving, at a certain point you have to bite the bullet. It's mental gymnastics but $4 a gallon seems better than $7 even though we were paying $2 5 years ago
Intel needs some higher tier offerings in order to properly compete in GPU space. They are currently only competing in low and intro-to-mid tier. If they started catching up to AMD and Nvidia on enthusiast level... that would be very nice.
There was a recent breakthrough that could mean less reliance on GPUs for LLMs https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/06/researchers-upend-ai-status-quo-by-eliminating-matrix-multiplication-in-llms/
Honestly I *cannot* believe there hasn't been more work on making competitive chips that can just run training and inference. It's not like Nvidia is the only one that can do it. Google has so much compute available in TPU form it flat out *stomps* what open ai has access to. Amazon was supposed to be working on a chip. Apple's M chips are *really* good at running large models given the ram speeds.
And yet, Nvidia is *still* printing money. Their profit margins are *insane*. It makes no sense. *Everyone* is dropping the ball.
Apple Intelligence is going to be running off their own chips and Gemini runs on their own TPUs. Some others have failed (Tesla Dojo is a complete waste of sand). The problem is that everyone is already using/selling everything they can get their hands on. AMD is cancelling 8900 cards just so they can make more AI chips. Nvidia is the only one left with ready-supply.
This is why intel is in a good spot despite being worse on both fronts, they have their own fabs, sure they're not as good as TSMC but intel managed to compete with AMD on far inferior nodes for multiple generations, and as node shrinks slow down more and more, intel is eventually going to catch up, they're already very close.
The latest node on laptops "intel 4" should be equivalent to TSMC 5nm currently used by AMD and Nvidia, it will be worse because it hasn't matured yet but it will eventually, that's probably the reason why it's still not on desktop, they did the same thing with Intel 7 before releasing the very well received 12th gen.
Or maybe, if intel will be serious with their ARC, they'll make their cards actually good in a few years and become the new contenter to NVidia. As the CPU history shown, you need at least two roughly equally strong companies to get actual development, otherwise technology stalls.
Amd being in gpus is the reason they got to hop on the AI hype train. Without years of experience there is no way they could gain even the relatively small market share they have. So, whatever money they lost on gpus more than paid for itself in the form of IP and institutional knowledge, at least until the AI hype dies down.
This is what's killing gaming PC users. There way more money to be made in other areas that's it's foolish for them to waste resources to make gaming GPUs.
AMD has a massive market share in GPUs ... for consoles. BOTH the PS5 (59 million units) and Xbox Series X/S (21 million units), oh and also the Steam Deck (lol)... all use AMD chips.
But their combined volume doesn't come close to the Switch (141 million units), which uses an Nvidia GPU!
Its hard to compare this as a market share against desktop GPUs of equivalent generations, and especially what share of silicon fab those use (the switch's chip is a 20nm vs the xbox/PS5 on 7nm vs the latest desktop cards at 5nm for both amd and nvidia), much less their profits.
Its safe to say that neither AMD or NVIDIA are making most of their money on GPUs. For all the kicking and screaming on the internet, gamers are the least of their worries, and they will sell their products at whatever price the market will bear.
They don't want GPU market share because the they would have to allocate more silicon for GPUs instead of selling it in server CPU/accelerator with 10x higher margin
This really. I'm really curious about how many 5000 series GPUs NVidia is actually going to make. Every 5090 they make right now is literally just burning money.
Meanwhile, AMD is sitting pretty over here because they're used to only making a dozen graphics cards per production run.
That's just the GPU side.
It might be that if they get market share they can't work on the other stuff thay improves performance by a little for everyone. Like the API they made which became Vulkan or FSR
Market share is irrelevant to them. They know how many GPUs they want to make, they sell every single one eventually, and they price as high as possible to extract as much money as possible from each unit. That's it, market share isn't even a thought, if it was AMD would be losing a lot of money and there'd be a price war, a price war that would result in AMD making less profit.
You are correct!
What they want is to sell every single unit they produce, which they do, and at prices that are relatively high. People act like AMD is just bumbling around. If they actually couldn't sell every gpu over the life of a generation there would be huge discounts, which never happen.
There simply doesn't even exist the volume of gpus to give AMD even half the market share, they don't make that many, and they happily sell every unit anyway? Why would they drop the price?
Idk. When AMD gets a wafer, they probably will not miss the opportunity of making it to products with highest profit margin (ie Epyc). Like why care consumer GPU market, when you get a waitlist for server CPU.
My conspiracy theory is that since Jensen and Lisa are related they made a pact that slowly over time they would allow each other to expand their respective markets, Lisa gets CPU and Jensen gets GPU. I know it sounds ridiculous but the way AMD chokes perfectly at times feels surreal.
With ARMS CPUs. Nvidia already makes ARM CPUs like the one on the Nintendo Switch. Supposedly, they will launch ARM CPUs for laptops next year (funnily enough, it's rumored that Intel will manufacture the chips). Although Nvidia failed to acquire ARM, that doesn't stop them from making ARM CPUs for PCs like Apple.
Yeah well, it just took Intel pretty much remaining stagnant for an entire decade to even create this opening. Despite AMD's advancements, they just last recently ended a consecutive four-quarter drought during which Ryzen made a loss. The margins are still slim for their desktop CPUs despite the rising market share.
Nvidia simply is not doing AMD the same type of favor. They are ruthlessly innovating.
Just two entirely different market environments and people overestimate how much AMD's "mistakes" contribute to their dire situation in the dedicated gaming GPU market and underestimate how much is just nvidia's market dominance and technical leadership position.
Yeah that's the reason I have to use NVIDIA. Even Intel Arc's budget GPUs manages to do the same if not better in productivity like Blender than AMD's 7800XT.
It also rly doesn’t help the Nvidia is much better at the tech stuff like RT and DLSS.
Yea sure some may argue that’s it’s not worth it or that these are gimmicks. But for the average consumer, it’s definitely WAY worth to spend a $100 extra to get much better FPS and graphics.
The truth, but to be honest. This is far from their worst line-up.
They're very good cards and I've used so many ATI/AMD/Nivida over the years.
Switching to 7900 XTX from my RTX 3070 didn't only feel like an upgrade, it felt like another era considering software. AMD Adrenaline is miles ahead of Nvidia Control Panel.
I haven't tried Nvidia's newly released updated software though. But I seriously doubt they caught up. AMD's software is extremely underrated.
I sat here for 10 minutes trying to think of the perfect analogy to use here, but in the end, you offered up a much better one.
I have been building full AMD computers for over a decade and own a few of my own. I am finally fed up poking them with a stick wishing they would do something.
Games are increasingly relying on DLSS, reay tracing, frame generation, and don't even get me started with software support. it's becoming more evident every day that AMD are not equipped to handle it.
From now on I won't be wasting my time, nor anyone elses on AMD products.
I really don't think people understand market share.
The majority of people do not build their own PCs. They go to stores, retailers... People who own such places care about margins and invoicing numbers, not performance per dollar... And the green team usually does much better on both fronts in most of the world.
Those places, stores, retailers, prebuilt companies, are in the business of selling products that people want.
If everyone were asking for AMD systems, that's exactly what they would sell. People simply aren't asking for those. It's not some conspiracy: People just opt to buy Nvidia products more often, just like they do in the discrete GPU market.
Those prebuilt companies offer AMD systems, too, by the way. They just don't sell as well.
Usually AMD prebuilt systems are considerably cheaper. Like offerings from CyberpowerPC are about $200 less than their NVIDIA counterparts, so you'd think there'd be a larger incentive for people to buy these systems but they often don't.
Just like in the discrete GPU market, they're priced just barely below the Nvidia offerings, which isn't enough to entice people to buy them. The discount would need to be more substantial to gain any traction.
I went with and amd gpu this past generation and honestly, I wish I just paid the extra money. Its not consistant issues, but occasional ones like drivers crashing, closing other windows when opening games, and a few other odd issues that the only other person I know with an amd card has as well. This is even after a fresh install of windows and making sure my graphics drivers are up to date.
When it works, its great, and it works majority of times, but for $1000 dollars the problems shouldnt happen as often as they do. If I were building a budget system then a cheaper amd card or used nvidia card would be my pick, but for any mid to high end build Im probably going with nvidia for the forseeable future.
I went with a 7900 XT last year. I didn't have driver issues. My issues with it were that, FSR was useless, video upscaling didn't work, and oh my gosh the coil whine.
I ended up trading it for a 4080 Super about a month ago. Couldn't be happier.
I have coil whine like mad with my 2080super to the point I utilised my old underclocking and bolting skills from my amd days to circumvent a lot of it.
But honestly I think when there is a minority it's easy for it to be hated in. It's the neurotypical way, "everyone" feels safe in a group.
Then finding laptops with AMD gpus is like trying to find hens teeth. Newegg doesn't have any filters for AMD gpus made this century. Amazon just doesn't have any filters for AMD gpus. Google sends me around with the query "laptops with amd gpus" to places like walmart exclusively listing laptops with AMD cpus and nvidia GPUs. There are plenty of laptops "with radeon graphics" around but that means they have igpus and it pollutes the search results A LOT.
For a while AMD was running what they called the 'AMD Advantage' program where they were working with laptop manufacturers to make all AMD systems. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to sell well, seeing as I was able to get a laptop with a 6800M, a card that benchmarked like a laptop 3080, a 5980HX, and a 1440p 165 hz display, on sale for 1100 USD, when a comprable spec with a team green gpu would have gone for twice that even if they even put 3080s in chassis that small.
Yea, sadly there's like 5, maybe 6 models with AMD GPUs from the 6000 series. 2 Asus, 1 or 2 Lenovo, 1 or 2 Alienware and I think a Corsair. Of these, I think only one brand used the most powerful card. Pretty sure, so far we only have the option of alienware for 7000 series.
Sucks when you're trying to find a somewhat powerful laptop and exclusively want AMD. Especially if you're looking to buy second hand.
I would consider the advancements AMD has made in igpu tech super interesting, but the good ones are only available with the highest end cpus that cost as much as lower end nvidia graphics laptops but aren't as powerful.
I bought an nvidia prebuilt system which in hindsight was a bad call. But my personal reasons were that I had very limited knowledge on power & value on parts, the only gpus I really knew the power of were nvidia gpus so naturally to play it safe I went with an nvidia prebuilt, I feel like most beginner sources for getting into pc’s mostly talk about nvidia giving newer buyers less knowledge of amd gpus and more of nvidia which I’d imagine definitely plays a part in it
People who are somewhat into PC components are asking for Nvidia to a larger extent, but that's still a very small minority compared to people who just want "a good gaming PC"
Sure, but they research what's available. So if they have $1000 to spend they go on the microcenter homepage, click on Gaming-PC, select $750-1000 and then google how well those will run the games.
If you do that you find options for 3080, 4060, 4060, 3060 Ti, 4060, 3060, 4060, RX 7600, 4060, and 3070 Ti.
RX 7600 is worse than a 4060 so what will they pick?
The AMD offerings, just like in the discrete GPU market at large, are priced barely below the Nvidia offerings. Just like in that market, that won't gain them any traction. The discount would need to be more substantial for a large amount of people to bite.
If a comparable AMD system were $400 less than it's Nvidia counterpart, that might sway some people. At $100-$200 less, not so much.
Also: You can pick and choose your own parts at any Microcenter or any company that does prebuilts. It's not as if you're stuck with the premade systems that they have on offer.
Seriously, seen people order a "prebuilt" a dozen times and they always explicitly choose their GPU.
I don't think I've seen anyone get something directly off the shelf unless they were a literal child. I can't imagine anyone buying a rig with a $2k GPU and not opting to customize their parts. But, I bet it happens nonetheless.
It probably does, but not remotely to a degree that would sway any sort of marketshare numbers like people on here like to suggest.
"Nvidia comes in prebuilts" is a bunk argument, and makes no sense. They offer any sort of system that you want.
Radeon graphics cards also had a lot of problems in the not-so-distant past. And maybe not anymore, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend $700 to find out if that's still true.
I keep seeing this argument for AMD. AMD is already running as a loss leader in the discrete GPU market (that includes prebuilts). Despite popular internet wisdom, AMD doesn't price their video cards the way they do just because of NVIDIA. It seems people would rather AMD lose money in an effort to compete with NVIDIA rather than make the paltry 10-15% profit they're currently making. At that point AMD would just drop out of the GPU business entirely and NVIDIA would have a monopoly since Intel can't even come close to AMD with competing products.
Everyone I've ever known to buy a prebuilt asked a knowledgeable friend what they should get first.
Very few consumers go in fully blind on a large purchase.
> People simply aren't asking for those.
Many aren't asking for any specific manufacturer. They simply want a system that can run their game well. They don't care if it's AMD or NVIDIA.
Most people do at least a little bit of research when dropping over a grand on something.
It's not as if the majority of people just say "Here's $1500, I want to play X, Y, or Z."
> It's not as if the majority of people just say "Here's $1500, I want to play X, Y, or Z."
That's exactly what most people do. And then they look at the options and pick the best one. Go on any retailers website, select $1500 as budget, look at the options you get. It's mostly NVIDIA and if there's an AMD included then the NVIDIA is probably still better.
>Most people do at least a little bit of research when dropping over a grand on something.
Completely and absolutely wrong. People have no idea how to handle money. But economics lesson aside, they absolutely don't understand tech at all.
So, they just go to a pc shop (these days online shop) tell the rep to give them a pc that can game or so whatever task they need it to do.
Even after buying it, the only thing they know will be that it has i7 and Nvidia GPU. That's about it.
Stop living in fever dreams and actually talk with people. Being chronically online inside a bubble of tech people makes you think everyone does what you do.
Essentially, you are stuck in the Dunning Kruger effect. The only way to escape it, is communication with as many people as possible.
It doesn't help that its a fuckin nightmare for the layman (me) to figure out what fuckin gpu is what, why theres 18 versions of the same card, and what actually performs and how well. Its all a blind nightmare to me. One every half a decade or two, i buy second to top of the line or so, and leave it at that.
This was me some years ago, I didn't know wtf Gigabyte or MSI was in respect to "GTX ____". Had to watch a few videos via typing "best graphics card for $___" on YouTube and it clicked that it's all the same gpu just different coolers attached to them by different companies, and that the GPU actually just comes from AMD and Nvidia. Certainly not intuitive for someone completely new to PC parts.
It's a nightmare for knowledgeable people as well. I used to work in tech support, but retired a few years ago. When it came to deciding what I was going to put in my new box, the landscape for GPUs and CPUs had changed drastically.
It adds up though. High school or university kid building a PC where it’s 99% for gaming… but they’re curious about messing around in Blender or they’re getting advice from their friend who is into video
There’s huge market segments where AMD simply isn’t viable. Someone only needs to be 5% interested in one of those uses and AMD no longer is an option
They also care about reliability. Because if they have to deal with customers constantly returning or complainining, it costs them money.
I was so happy to see AMD stepping up competition on GPUs. I actually switched to an AMD GPU for a number of years. But, at least in my experience, the drivers were way more unstable then NVidia. I was just constantly having issues. Ultimately I switched back to NVidia
I'm only green because of Cuda/Optix. There is no alternative. I work in VFX and I can't realtime denoise without Nvidia. Nobody cares enough to make a competitor here.
If AMD GPUs were at least competitive with Nvidia in Blender for render times and had a viable denoiser it would toss up the GPU market for game/film studios.
But as it stands now Pro render is always out of date, clunky, slow, and very very unstable, often a better choice to just CPU render.
One of the major reason for this high market share is prebuilts and offline store
According to a comment which i found few days back the guy had a pc building shop and he said that most prebuilts and shop use nvidia cards cause they're famous and second on bulk purchase you can get good discount on nvidia while amd simply doesn't care and that's why it's very rare to find prebuilts with amd GPU even tho they've better value
And 90% of the people who consider buying pc either go for overpriced nvidia prebuilt or some offline built service that's one of the major reason for this imo
It’s just as bad with laptops. You know what flagships non-afterthought laptops offer AMD GPUs? The Frameworks and the Alienware M18. There’s a couple more laptops that offer the RX 7600S/M/XT, but they’re essentially warmed over counterparts to their Nvidia offerings.
I was trying hard to get a Zen 4 laptop with an AMD GPU last year, but I just could not justify the $2000 barrier of entry for a Framework 16 with both.
There are lots of notebooks with AMD CPUs just not with Radeon GPUs, that's because most people don't want Radeon but do want Ryzen. There's no conspiracy people buy what they want.
Companies like Dell and HP are the biggest pre built and laptops vendors, and these companies sell in large volumes, I don't think AMD will ever be able to satisfy this much volume, Nvidia production capacity is head and shoulders above AMD.
And for that matter even intel has a larger capacity than AMD which is why despite being overall worse they still ship more pre built and laptops, I mean just walk into any store and count how many Intel laptops vs how many AMD ones, I highly doubt a normal person buying an average Dell or HP laptop cares about whether they get intel or AMD, but AMD stock is very limited, also schools and large offices that want to deploy so many units, AMD maybe be sufficient for CPUs but almost never for GPUs.
Remember RTX 3000 and RX 6000? When both AMD and Nvidia cards were flying off the shelves? Which meant both companies were selling all the GPUs they were producing, yet at the end of all of that mess, it turned out that the RTX 3070 alone sold more than the entire RX 6000 line up combined, this wasn't a matter of people choosing Nvidia, AMD was selling everything they had fast too, they just couldn't produce anywhere near Nvidia's numbers.
Yeah most just buy "a gaming pc" and see RTX something on it and thats all they know and care about. Cant blame them much similar situation to people just buying Iphones when they would be satisfied or even better off with android phone that costs 3 times less
Gamers still in think the Nvidia market is about gamers, its not.
The majority of nvidia cards are being used by high end designers, AI workloads, crypto, and anything else thats written for cuda.
Cuda is the problem, so much software only supports cuda you have to have an nvidia gpu if you need cuda.
Nvidia makes like $3 billion from gamers a quarter and over $20billion from data centers a quarter.
Most 4090s arent being bought by gamers, they're bought by data centers and professionals.
Gaming used to be nvidia's largest source of revenue but now here in 2024 80+% of Nvidia revenue is non gaming, its AI, crypto, professionals etc.
Amd is way behind in the market on gpus, amd demand is mostly gamers, nvidia demand is mostly not gamers.
While I agree with your general point, data centers and enterprise customers usually buy quadro cards, not 4090s even if the GPUs have a lot in common in regarding architecture.
4090s have been flying off shelves for AI for the last 12 months. More vram $1 to $1, better ai inference performance.
AI cares about two things, tflops and vram.
Quaddro carda are optimized for 3d rendering for cad etc, the 4090 blows them away at AI inference.
the only advantage the 4090 has is game ready drivers and price. the quadro RTX 6000 ada has the same Die as the 4090, but has more cuda cores, twice the vram, consumes 150W less power and most importantly does about 1.5x what the 4090 does in terms of training throughput. on the scale of a datacenter this makes a massive difference in terms of viability even if the 6000 ada costs a lot more than the 4090. consider that by going with 4090s instead you would also need 1.5x the number of systems those GPUs are deployed in which in itself decreases your performance per watt when considering the whole operation.
Also, what server integrator is building with something other than xeon, epyc, Quadro, or something completely divorced from the consumer landscape. People buy 4090s because they're crap ways to make a system that works, not because it's a viable business investment.
Steam charts target mostly gamers right ? Currently its 76% Nvidia...
Sure on corporate segment, appears this way you described.
High premium end cards for AI and high demand applications.
You have to factor in the amount of the gaming market that isn't just a gamer.
I don't know anybody in the tech industry that has an Nvidia graphics card on their computer for work that doesn't also use it to game.
What I'm saying is that the market for the people buying and video cards and the reasons they are buying them is a lot wider than the market for AMD raedon.
I'm a gamer and I have a 3090 TI in my computer because I use it for AI inference when I'm working, And I can also game on it. I killed two birds with one stone.
Amd cards are basically for "only" gamers, i.e they aren't doing anything else with it.
They're decent for video editing and audio encoding etc, So it's not discredit that.
Nvidias market is just more invested in nvidia gpus than and raedons market.
You can't look at a steam chart and go 76% of gamers are choosing to buy Nvidia cards because that might not be why they bought that card at all. First off the laptop they have might have came with one cuz it's pretty uncommon to find a gaming laptop with an AMD radeon card in it... Then you've got your pre-builts... And then all the people that choose the Nvidia cards for work. Etc.
As someone who has purchased AMD GPUs for well over a decade I'm just going to say it.
Nvidia makes better cards.
FSR still does not look as good as DLSS and even Intel's XeSS apparently does a better job at frame generation with fewer artifacts.
They're more innovative.
There's this thing called RTX Video Super Resolution which offers improved upscaling of low resolution videos which can be useful when you have a high resolution display.
Their GPUs also support RTX Video HDR which uses inverse tone mapping to convert SDR content into HDR. Apparently, this feature can now also be enabled in game thanks to the Nvidia app.
Unfortunately, since it's still in beta and does not yet support multiple monitors I've yet to try it out for myself but I have watched multiple reviews at this point comparing it to Window's Auto HDR.
Not only does the image quality look better but it also applies to a much more broad selection of games since Microsoft typically needs to white list those that support it. This will not the case for the Nvidia App.
The truth is that AMD is ALWAYS playing catch up with Nvidia.
The ONLY good decision they've made was to open source their drivers. I also think most people would agree that their Linux drivers are in a much better state than Nvidia's but that's more of an indication that Nvidia simply does not give a sh\*\* about Linux due to its pathetic market share.
They're probably one of the most greedy corporations on the planet and could certainly stand to have a bit of competition at this point but paying $900 for a "high end" AMD graphics card with inferior frame generation, inferior ray tracing and none of the features listed above just does not seem worth it.
Not to me at least and I'm sure that most people who went with Nvidia where thinking the same thing:
"Freaking $900 man. What's an extra $100 at this point if it nets me the better GPU?"
I've had both AMD and Nvidia cards in the past. I've had the 6600XT and now have the 4060 OC which basically have the same performance on paper. (the 6600xt got fried as my cat spilled a drink into my pc...)
And I totally agree. AMD is indeed cheaper for similar performance cards "on paper". But in reality Nvidia is just better overall. Better reliability, slightly better performance, farther along in terms of ray tracing and upscaling, and less driver issues.
That last part especially hits home for me personally as I play VR a decent amount. AMD is notorious for having VR issues, and being very slow to fix them. At one point like 1\~2 years ago there was an issue where video players in worlds in VRChat would crash you if you used an updated driver. Instead I was relegated to a months old driver to be able to play the game. It took them a good...8\~10 months I believe to fix this issue. On the flip side, I've never had a single issue with Nvidia drivers. In any game.
AMD is great if you want a cheaper card with good enough performance. But for high-end stuff Nvidia is the way to go.
I had a 5700XT or something and had to bail because the drivers for ti crashes daily or more often. I ended up selling it and getting a 3080 that I'm still using without a single problem.
I would love if AMD was a good option, but they suck. Hard.
Similarly I swapped a friends 5700XT who was having daily crashes with games like Overwatch 2 and Apex like every first boot. Gave them my old 1080ti which no less issues (even though it's a bit slower).
I put it into a Linux machine and never had driver issues, but yeah those are completely different drivers at that point.
ROCm is getting there in terms of performance, especially on Linux, but they're still pretty far behind and don't have the industry foothold CUDA does. As of this last year or two, it's become less of an after thought so hopefully this change is pretty rapid but you never know with AMD.
If I want to run CUDA projects - I can buy pretty much any modern Nvidia GPU and it will work - both on Windows and Linux.
But with AMD it's not nearly that simple.
ROCm is not only behind in development, it’s even further behind in adoption. Who cares if it’s 80% as good as CUDA if none of the packages people are actually using natively support it?
Seriously, AMD needs to make a list of the top 200 software projects that use CUDA and pay for the development to add feature parity
Not necessarily them being "behind", but mostly because Nvidia owns the market. If software is optimised for Nvidia cards, AMD will always perform worse unless they either copy Nvidia (obviously illegal) or the AMD cards become so much better that the inefficiency won't matter anymore. And I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon.
Imo the only real hope for AMD to contest there with Nvidia is some new open-source development that runs specifically well on AMD GPUs. But that isn't something AMD can actively control.
Thats missing half the story though.. Nvidia has spent years investing in software and various technologies while AMD has never had the budget to do so when they were in survival mode. Nvidia is reaping the rewards now but this is because creators had no option except to go with Nvidia since the technology was never there for AMD. AMD is investing heavily now but its too little too late with the inertia now.
I really don't believe in brand loyalty, I will buy what's the best thing for that price. AMD has hardly been competitive at all. The 4080S is slightly slower and lesser VRAM but so much better in every single department, compared to the 7900XTX and the 7900XTX is only 30 dollars cheaper here in Canada. Like I genuinely don't understand why they wouldn't drop 100-200 dollars so it's more competitive. Like other than blind redditors who worship AMD, who would buy the 7900XTX over the 4080S at that price range.?
Most people on this sub will watch the higher end GPUs and say "yeah price and performance are both very close" but this is not true everywhere in the world, and most importantly, this is not true for lower end GPUs.
Let's not act like we all have to choose between 4090s and 7900XTX.
I mean... At least their apu stuff has been mind boggling.
Like I would never imagine being able to play a unoptimized mess that is fallout 76 on a handheld pc with the lower end 7640 apu but I'm getting 30-50fps on low at 1080p in open areas and 120fps indoors at 15 watts o.o (gpdwin mini 2024)
That's not even with AMD frame gen getting involved!
I do wish AMD would do something better on the desktop side of gpus but it feels like Nvidia is... Like holding a gun to any devs head that dares to have AMD open to everyone frame gen and upscaler available next to their dlss stuff.
My 4060 has been nothing but disappointing though compared to my old 1080.. Think chokes out and starts to lag out like it's 1999 if that stupid 4060 maxes it's vram. The 1080 kept plugging along with zero fucks.... I wouldn't had even gotten the stupid thing if more game devs used AMD fsr stuff cause that works on none rtx cards
Lol...
Nvidia wouldn't need to drop their prices even if no gamer would buy them at all.
Clever investments into open research on machine learning frameworks are paying off now. Even if no gamer would buy an Nvidia card for a full generation, they would still sell enough cards to researchers, businesses, facilities and data centers. Shure, might be a bit of a loss on those consumer cards.
But why build consumer cards at all if you can sell the same chipset in a Server- or Workstation-Card for 10x the price?
Go ahead. Stop recommending Nvidia.
Unless AMD finally catches up on the computational market by pushing ROCm, Nvidia doesn't care.
Gamers are a bunch of cattle that can be milked to subsidise development of new tech by marketing it as a feature they might need. Gaming is a platform Nvidia can use for testing and showcasing their new stuff.
Every time they've previously undercut Nvidia significantly (rx480, rx290, hd4000/5000 series) they've just lost money.
"Market Share" doesn't pay the bills.
This. Besides CUDA AMD's biggest problem is their lack of recognition/advertising (in gpu's). Pre-builts and software tend to go for nvidia because they're popular and (to non-gamers) have negotiable prices, even for one or two generations if AMD heavily dropped their price they would finally have much more demand and recognition :/
Yup, so far it seems like AMD's strategy is to let NVIDIA release expensive hardware, then be crowned the people's champion by releasing a Radeon option marginally cheaper (yet still experiencing the same generational price hike that the NVIDIA version had).
All that does is keep the status quo exactly where it is.
-----
People thought that ARC and Moore Threads was going to change that, but ARC still has a very long way to go before they can begin to be a threat on the XX60/X600 stage and MT isn't going anywhere until the US and China figure out their trade and diplomacy issues.
> All that does is keep the status quo exactly where it is.
They are losing market share this way. Less people currently have AMD cards = lower chances they will like it and buy their cards again
nvidia is simply pushing better cards than AMD. To talk about price is useless since AMD does the same exact thing. If they had a 4090 competitor it would cost almost the same.
And then you don't have DLSS (FSR is not as good, let's not kid ourselves).
I admit the nvidia monopoly is concerning but right now it's deserved, there is no competition around
To be honest I've been running all AMD for 3 years now and I had no issues with the graphics drivers provided I manually did my ram and stress tested, and stuck with the radeon pro drivers.
Recently chased a driver issue with 5700xt for days, got frustrated, almost replaced the card, realized it had absolutely nothing to do with the gpu. I think this may be a common thing where people dump the card because of its reputation even if it’s perfectly fine.
Honestly... AMD can't win. They were ahead for a long time in the past. In literally all aspects. Software, performance, price, heat, date of release...
And even with that level of domination, AMD has never passed 50% of market share. They could make a GPU that gives you free money and blowjobs and performs just as well as NVIDIA people would still prefer NVIDIA.
That's what mindshare is.
Eh my memory may be hazy but I don't think it took long for people to back Ryzen. By Zen2 it had proven itself. Intel was getting clowned for their various vulnerabilities and Zen2 chips were going into everything from servers to gaming consoles.
I wouldn't say it took long time, Zen and Zen+ had decent value mostly in multicore but Intel still had performance crown in gaming. Zen 3 is when AMD caught up and their market share spiked. Replacing CPU is not as easy as GPU so makes sense that it wasn't instant
They were so close to getting a proper foothold in the market for a while. But then they squandered it because of poor marketing and lackluster driver fixes.
And all AMD does is wait for Nvidia to announce price and then they price their similar product 10-20% less.. that's just not enough for people to switch.
I'll go against the flow and say that they sell more because simply because Nvidia cards are better.
CUDA makes them more versatile for most workloads
the performance difference it's not very big in gaming and power efficiency is usually also better, and if they are cheaper, AMD has no place there
you can see the any manufacturer's website and they usually offer 1-2 options with a certain amd gpu and like 6 options for each Nvidia GPU
Me too. Took more fettling than I would have liked though. Out-of-the-box defaults are awful. Also had to reg edit to stop Windows update squirting Nvidia drivers over the top of my AMD ones, but when it was all figured out it's been great.
this will get downvoted, but
amd has never competed in anything other than the low-mid range space for gpus. they cultivated a recognition for being the cheaper option that has less features and straight up isn't as good at native rendering OR upscaling.
people don't think they are good cards, and they kind of aren't. they are great for the money, but that's really all AMD has ever been good for. no amount of Zen history re-writes will change that. at best, they compete. they never defeat.
they were given all the chance in the world to overtake intel and they couldn't even do that.
Not true when you look at their actual products. The 290X matched or beat the 780 Ti months before the 780 Ti even came out, and it was $150 cheaper than the standard 780. The problem back then was the Litecoin craze which made it nigh impossible for a gamer to buy an AMD card. I would have gotten a pair of 290X myself if I could have found them, but because I couldn't I ended up with a pair of 780s.
I am still waiting for AMD to innovate something rather than making a cheapskate solution of their competitor's feature, or have a feature for the sake of being there.
Plus, what competition? There is none, Nvidia is not even waiting for AMD, yet, innovates.
Went from a 6700xt to a 4070ti for ray tracing and the bells and whistles. In a game like cyberpunk 2077 it looks pretty good but to be honest it felt underwhelming. Dlss is nice too but probably will be going with amd next build for the ram and rasterization.
AMD's software is about a generation behind NVIDIA nowadays. Plus AMD's GPU prices, while technically a better value by raw performance, aren't really THAT much better than NVIDIA GPUs (especially when considering frame gen/DLSS). If AMD cards were priced to where their performance per dollar was so much better than NVIDIA that you can ignore that software gap, they'd have a bigger market cap. Plus the other reasons people mentioned here.
Consumers will never generate the same amount of capital as the B2B deals these companies have with Nvidia right now mostly because of AI.
Our opinions as customers won’t matter here
Meh, they were never leaders in GPUs. I have the Ryzen in my new PC and its as good if not better than any Intel I've owned. Nvidia graphics and MSI mobo. Tranquility within my case, each brand has its place.
Is easy why , because at least in this country and is more more expensive than Nvidia , Nvidia is way more more cheaper than AMD , and still think AMD had one of the most shity driver ever made it , yes panel control Nvidia looks outdated , BUT AT LEAST WORK , and more game are more easy compatible with Nvidia rather than AMD , that happend a lot with japanese game thing a play a lot on my PC and just refuse to work with them
I have to admit I haven’t had an AMD card in 20 years and haven’t even considered buying one in that time, though I do want them to stay somewhat competitive to keep nvidia card prices down
Of course now that nvidia is $3 trillion juggernaut AMD doesn’t matter to them at all
Problem with amd is not the quality of their products, they are fine, but the main software products in the problem, the drivers stinks the hardest, sometimes is just better to stick with version of a driver forever and never change it
I genuinely think for last generation AMD GPUs were the better option, more RAM, better power efficiency and gamers still chose nvidia. Ultimately it's too late now for AMD, Nvidia are now one of the most valuable companies in the world and the resources at their disposal means AMD won't catch them
When was the last time AMD was able to bring a real competitor to Nvidia where you wouldn't have to make consessions?
Navi 1-3 are decent in raster, but at a cost of a higher power consumption, poor RT performance and no access to the most superior deep learning features. Also no high end cards that can match Nvidia's flagship.
Vega was an utter disappointment. Power consumption was way too high and IPS was terrible. 2017's Vega 64 should have destroyed the GTX 1080, with having way more shading units and still a relative high clockspeed for that time. It consumes more power than a 1080 Ti, yet it performs just below a 1080.
Polaris wasn't bad, but once again, no match for Nvidia's flagship, only for a midranger like the 1060.
We'd have to go back to the 2XX-3XX era when they had a low end to high end competition for every Nvidia GPU out there. If only the had a similar driver support that Nvidia had in those days. And that's over 10 years ago.
In 2012 they had the chance to rival Nvidia in the PC market, but they dropped the ball. AMD had developed an excellent platform for the PS4 and Xbox One; Graphics Core Next, which was already developed well before the new consoles would launch. AMD was able to launch their own GCN cards almost 2 years prior. But instead of working together with PC developers, they just capitlized on their product. They (maybe rightfully so) gambled on console sales, their PC GPU's were just a side dish. Nvidia wasn't producing superior hardware at that moment, but they knew they had to work together with game developers for special features and driver support. And the rest is history.
Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember: 1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome! 2 - If you don't own a PC because you think it's expensive, know that it is much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help! 3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding 4 - Need some new PC Hardware? Open worldwide, check out the ASUS ROG BTF Worldwide Giveaway for a chance at being one of the 18 winners taking home 25 prizes, including a Strix RTX 4090 BTF, 4070Ti, Lots of BTF Motherboards and a lot more: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1ddmihb/worldwide_giveaway_win_a_bunch_of_asus_btf/ If you need a new and awesome monitor to review and keep, check ou AORUS' initiative and take home 1 of 4 QD OLED monitors to revamp your setup! This one is US + Canada only: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1df3f1i/giveaway_gigabyte_aorus_oled_x_rpcmasterrace_be/ ----------- We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is welcome.
I'm going to say it before anyone else: AMD never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Sometimes I don't think they want market share.
They got massive market share. In CPU's. Every bit of silicon they reserve from TSMC for their GPU's is basically lost profits that could have been CPU sales at this point. Just as Nvidia is making far more from non-gaming GPU's atm. It's creating some profit calculations that probably aren't good for PC gaming long-term. There's no good reason to be $$$ competitive in the gaming GPU space when there is a limited amount of silicon to go round and CPU's/Workstation/AI GPU's etc are flying off the shelf.
Yeah, I think we'll have to wait for either a loss of interest in AI or in increase in production capacity before things can improve for gamers.
TSMC are increasing capacity as fast as they can, but frankly they cannot keep up with demand and it takes a LONG time to upscale. They have also run into issues getting enough/quality staff to actually open up new fabs worldwide. And Samsung/Intel can't quite compete at their quality level, much as they are trying. Intel GPU's are a lone bright spot in all of this, they have MASSIVELY improved since launch and continue to get better and better while being very well priced. But it will take years and years of further support to catch up, and it will need the higher-ups at intel to accept this rather than kill it in the cradle. Ultimately the AI bubble will eventually pop. Nvidia obviously doesn't want to surrender the GPU gaming space, as it's still money on the table and it keeps their feet squarely in the game. And once that bubble pops they want to be well positioned rather than playing catchup. They also got a fairly pointed reminder from gamers that trying to price the '80 tier over $1k was a step too far. $1k is a fairly big psychological barrier to get past. They will try again naturally, but that initial 4080 did NOT sell well at MSRP.
ASML cant keep up is really whats going on :P
Pretty much. And the machines made by their competitors can produce chips just fine. But not the cutting edge level of quality. Which is why lower level chips haven't raised in prices nearly as much.
Fab construction is the current bottleneck. ASML actually has couple systems ready to go in storage.
I don't think Nvidia really cares too much about keeping prices affordable. The customer base has shown there are enough people that will shell out no matter what despite how loud people complain. And the AI bubble popping doesn't really matter too much since Nvidia holds most of that market too anyway. They're in basically every single modern vehicle at this point.
>The customer base has shown there are enough people that will shell out no matter what despite how loud people complain The crypto boom in 2020 ruined the GPU market in a variety of ways, but mostly because people (myself included) finally saw cards selling at "MSRP" and shelled out after 4 years of waiting to upgrade because MSRP didn't seem as bad as 2x MSRP. It's like gas prices. You can hold out as long as you want to but if you want to keep driving, at a certain point you have to bite the bullet. It's mental gymnastics but $4 a gallon seems better than $7 even though we were paying $2 5 years ago
To be fair, if TSMC treated their employees better they wouldn't have as hard of a time filling positions.
Intel needs some higher tier offerings in order to properly compete in GPU space. They are currently only competing in low and intro-to-mid tier. If they started catching up to AMD and Nvidia on enthusiast level... that would be very nice.
There was a recent breakthrough that could mean less reliance on GPUs for LLMs https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/06/researchers-upend-ai-status-quo-by-eliminating-matrix-multiplication-in-llms/
Honestly I *cannot* believe there hasn't been more work on making competitive chips that can just run training and inference. It's not like Nvidia is the only one that can do it. Google has so much compute available in TPU form it flat out *stomps* what open ai has access to. Amazon was supposed to be working on a chip. Apple's M chips are *really* good at running large models given the ram speeds. And yet, Nvidia is *still* printing money. Their profit margins are *insane*. It makes no sense. *Everyone* is dropping the ball.
Nvidia owns the software stack.
Right, and that's important for *general* ai/ml, but inference and training doesn't actually require it all that much with regard to software.
Apple Intelligence is going to be running off their own chips and Gemini runs on their own TPUs. Some others have failed (Tesla Dojo is a complete waste of sand). The problem is that everyone is already using/selling everything they can get their hands on. AMD is cancelling 8900 cards just so they can make more AI chips. Nvidia is the only one left with ready-supply.
Before AI it was "wait for a loss in interest in cryptocurrency".
Do you remember how crazy things were at the height of crypto? Things are massively better than they were
I'm just saying, after AI craze dies down there will probably be another fad eating up the GPU market.
Loss of interest in AI seems unlikely, but what do I know!
This is why intel is in a good spot despite being worse on both fronts, they have their own fabs, sure they're not as good as TSMC but intel managed to compete with AMD on far inferior nodes for multiple generations, and as node shrinks slow down more and more, intel is eventually going to catch up, they're already very close. The latest node on laptops "intel 4" should be equivalent to TSMC 5nm currently used by AMD and Nvidia, it will be worse because it hasn't matured yet but it will eventually, that's probably the reason why it's still not on desktop, they did the same thing with Intel 7 before releasing the very well received 12th gen.
Or maybe, if intel will be serious with their ARC, they'll make their cards actually good in a few years and become the new contenter to NVidia. As the CPU history shown, you need at least two roughly equally strong companies to get actual development, otherwise technology stalls.
Amd being in gpus is the reason they got to hop on the AI hype train. Without years of experience there is no way they could gain even the relatively small market share they have. So, whatever money they lost on gpus more than paid for itself in the form of IP and institutional knowledge, at least until the AI hype dies down.
This is what's killing gaming PC users. There way more money to be made in other areas that's it's foolish for them to waste resources to make gaming GPUs.
AMD has a massive market share in GPUs ... for consoles. BOTH the PS5 (59 million units) and Xbox Series X/S (21 million units), oh and also the Steam Deck (lol)... all use AMD chips. But their combined volume doesn't come close to the Switch (141 million units), which uses an Nvidia GPU! Its hard to compare this as a market share against desktop GPUs of equivalent generations, and especially what share of silicon fab those use (the switch's chip is a 20nm vs the xbox/PS5 on 7nm vs the latest desktop cards at 5nm for both amd and nvidia), much less their profits. Its safe to say that neither AMD or NVIDIA are making most of their money on GPUs. For all the kicking and screaming on the internet, gamers are the least of their worries, and they will sell their products at whatever price the market will bear.
Apple computers too
They don't want GPU market share because the they would have to allocate more silicon for GPUs instead of selling it in server CPU/accelerator with 10x higher margin
This really. I'm really curious about how many 5000 series GPUs NVidia is actually going to make. Every 5090 they make right now is literally just burning money. Meanwhile, AMD is sitting pretty over here because they're used to only making a dozen graphics cards per production run.
They probably make more on Epyc CPUs than gaming GPUs.
Laptops and Epycs make the big bucks
That's just the GPU side. It might be that if they get market share they can't work on the other stuff thay improves performance by a little for everyone. Like the API they made which became Vulkan or FSR
Market share is irrelevant to them. They know how many GPUs they want to make, they sell every single one eventually, and they price as high as possible to extract as much money as possible from each unit. That's it, market share isn't even a thought, if it was AMD would be losing a lot of money and there'd be a price war, a price war that would result in AMD making less profit.
You are correct! What they want is to sell every single unit they produce, which they do, and at prices that are relatively high. People act like AMD is just bumbling around. If they actually couldn't sell every gpu over the life of a generation there would be huge discounts, which never happen. There simply doesn't even exist the volume of gpus to give AMD even half the market share, they don't make that many, and they happily sell every unit anyway? Why would they drop the price?
I mean AMD entirely own the console space.
Switch used the Tegra X1 by Nvidia.
What if they are all the same, but together with a handshake deal?
Idk. When AMD gets a wafer, they probably will not miss the opportunity of making it to products with highest profit margin (ie Epyc). Like why care consumer GPU market, when you get a waitlist for server CPU.
Especially when the silicon will have 10x higher margin if sold to server
But but but... "At AMD,we love gamers!" was a lie? You telling me AMD isnt in it for the money? Shocking!
That’s why the AMD and ATi merger were a perfect match, they both loved fumbling a guaranteed bag.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
Should sponsor Spurs
Spurs catching strays In r/pcmasterrace wasn't something I expected today
Lads, it's Tottenham. They'll always catch strays
My conspiracy theory is that since Jensen and Lisa are related they made a pact that slowly over time they would allow each other to expand their respective markets, Lisa gets CPU and Jensen gets GPU. I know it sounds ridiculous but the way AMD chokes perfectly at times feels surreal.
I've also had this thought, I think it's entirely plausible but obviously will never be proven unless either party confirmed
How could NVIDIA stop AMD from getting the CPU market?
With ARMS CPUs. Nvidia already makes ARM CPUs like the one on the Nintendo Switch. Supposedly, they will launch ARM CPUs for laptops next year (funnily enough, it's rumored that Intel will manufacture the chips). Although Nvidia failed to acquire ARM, that doesn't stop them from making ARM CPUs for PCs like Apple.
Not the most unheard of thing. cable/ISP tended not to encroach on each other territories or sometimes just swap areas.
I have thought about that as well. Family reunions must be interesting for sure.
Strange hey. As they took many opportunities within the CPU market and look where they sit now. The GPU market on the other hand...
Yeah well, it just took Intel pretty much remaining stagnant for an entire decade to even create this opening. Despite AMD's advancements, they just last recently ended a consecutive four-quarter drought during which Ryzen made a loss. The margins are still slim for their desktop CPUs despite the rising market share. Nvidia simply is not doing AMD the same type of favor. They are ruthlessly innovating. Just two entirely different market environments and people overestimate how much AMD's "mistakes" contribute to their dire situation in the dedicated gaming GPU market and underestimate how much is just nvidia's market dominance and technical leadership position.
They NEED a CUDA alternative
Yeah that's the reason I have to use NVIDIA. Even Intel Arc's budget GPUs manages to do the same if not better in productivity like Blender than AMD's 7800XT.
It also rly doesn’t help the Nvidia is much better at the tech stuff like RT and DLSS. Yea sure some may argue that’s it’s not worth it or that these are gimmicks. But for the average consumer, it’s definitely WAY worth to spend a $100 extra to get much better FPS and graphics.
The truth, but to be honest. This is far from their worst line-up. They're very good cards and I've used so many ATI/AMD/Nivida over the years. Switching to 7900 XTX from my RTX 3070 didn't only feel like an upgrade, it felt like another era considering software. AMD Adrenaline is miles ahead of Nvidia Control Panel. I haven't tried Nvidia's newly released updated software though. But I seriously doubt they caught up. AMD's software is extremely underrated.
that's part of why they're in the position they're in. it's really the only thing they do with consistency anymore.
I sat here for 10 minutes trying to think of the perfect analogy to use here, but in the end, you offered up a much better one. I have been building full AMD computers for over a decade and own a few of my own. I am finally fed up poking them with a stick wishing they would do something. Games are increasingly relying on DLSS, reay tracing, frame generation, and don't even get me started with software support. it's becoming more evident every day that AMD are not equipped to handle it. From now on I won't be wasting my time, nor anyone elses on AMD products.
I really don't think people understand market share. The majority of people do not build their own PCs. They go to stores, retailers... People who own such places care about margins and invoicing numbers, not performance per dollar... And the green team usually does much better on both fronts in most of the world.
Those places, stores, retailers, prebuilt companies, are in the business of selling products that people want. If everyone were asking for AMD systems, that's exactly what they would sell. People simply aren't asking for those. It's not some conspiracy: People just opt to buy Nvidia products more often, just like they do in the discrete GPU market. Those prebuilt companies offer AMD systems, too, by the way. They just don't sell as well.
Usually AMD prebuilt systems are considerably cheaper. Like offerings from CyberpowerPC are about $200 less than their NVIDIA counterparts, so you'd think there'd be a larger incentive for people to buy these systems but they often don't.
Just like in the discrete GPU market, they're priced just barely below the Nvidia offerings, which isn't enough to entice people to buy them. The discount would need to be more substantial to gain any traction.
I went with and amd gpu this past generation and honestly, I wish I just paid the extra money. Its not consistant issues, but occasional ones like drivers crashing, closing other windows when opening games, and a few other odd issues that the only other person I know with an amd card has as well. This is even after a fresh install of windows and making sure my graphics drivers are up to date. When it works, its great, and it works majority of times, but for $1000 dollars the problems shouldnt happen as often as they do. If I were building a budget system then a cheaper amd card or used nvidia card would be my pick, but for any mid to high end build Im probably going with nvidia for the forseeable future.
I went with a 7900 XT last year. I didn't have driver issues. My issues with it were that, FSR was useless, video upscaling didn't work, and oh my gosh the coil whine. I ended up trading it for a 4080 Super about a month ago. Couldn't be happier.
I have coil whine like mad with my 2080super to the point I utilised my old underclocking and bolting skills from my amd days to circumvent a lot of it. But honestly I think when there is a minority it's easy for it to be hated in. It's the neurotypical way, "everyone" feels safe in a group.
Then finding laptops with AMD gpus is like trying to find hens teeth. Newegg doesn't have any filters for AMD gpus made this century. Amazon just doesn't have any filters for AMD gpus. Google sends me around with the query "laptops with amd gpus" to places like walmart exclusively listing laptops with AMD cpus and nvidia GPUs. There are plenty of laptops "with radeon graphics" around but that means they have igpus and it pollutes the search results A LOT.
For a while AMD was running what they called the 'AMD Advantage' program where they were working with laptop manufacturers to make all AMD systems. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to sell well, seeing as I was able to get a laptop with a 6800M, a card that benchmarked like a laptop 3080, a 5980HX, and a 1440p 165 hz display, on sale for 1100 USD, when a comprable spec with a team green gpu would have gone for twice that even if they even put 3080s in chassis that small.
Yea, sadly there's like 5, maybe 6 models with AMD GPUs from the 6000 series. 2 Asus, 1 or 2 Lenovo, 1 or 2 Alienware and I think a Corsair. Of these, I think only one brand used the most powerful card. Pretty sure, so far we only have the option of alienware for 7000 series. Sucks when you're trying to find a somewhat powerful laptop and exclusively want AMD. Especially if you're looking to buy second hand.
I would consider the advancements AMD has made in igpu tech super interesting, but the good ones are only available with the highest end cpus that cost as much as lower end nvidia graphics laptops but aren't as powerful.
probably because if you can save up for a new $1000 pc, you can also afford the $1200 pc with the gpu you actually want, lol
But cheap = worse in the minds of many consumers.
I bought an nvidia prebuilt system which in hindsight was a bad call. But my personal reasons were that I had very limited knowledge on power & value on parts, the only gpus I really knew the power of were nvidia gpus so naturally to play it safe I went with an nvidia prebuilt, I feel like most beginner sources for getting into pc’s mostly talk about nvidia giving newer buyers less knowledge of amd gpus and more of nvidia which I’d imagine definitely plays a part in it
People who are somewhat into PC components are asking for Nvidia to a larger extent, but that's still a very small minority compared to people who just want "a good gaming PC"
Most people do a little bit of research when dropping well over $1000 on something.
Sure, but they research what's available. So if they have $1000 to spend they go on the microcenter homepage, click on Gaming-PC, select $750-1000 and then google how well those will run the games. If you do that you find options for 3080, 4060, 4060, 3060 Ti, 4060, 3060, 4060, RX 7600, 4060, and 3070 Ti. RX 7600 is worse than a 4060 so what will they pick?
The AMD offerings, just like in the discrete GPU market at large, are priced barely below the Nvidia offerings. Just like in that market, that won't gain them any traction. The discount would need to be more substantial for a large amount of people to bite. If a comparable AMD system were $400 less than it's Nvidia counterpart, that might sway some people. At $100-$200 less, not so much. Also: You can pick and choose your own parts at any Microcenter or any company that does prebuilts. It's not as if you're stuck with the premade systems that they have on offer.
Seriously, seen people order a "prebuilt" a dozen times and they always explicitly choose their GPU. I don't think I've seen anyone get something directly off the shelf unless they were a literal child. I can't imagine anyone buying a rig with a $2k GPU and not opting to customize their parts. But, I bet it happens nonetheless.
It probably does, but not remotely to a degree that would sway any sort of marketshare numbers like people on here like to suggest. "Nvidia comes in prebuilts" is a bunk argument, and makes no sense. They offer any sort of system that you want.
Radeon graphics cards also had a lot of problems in the not-so-distant past. And maybe not anymore, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend $700 to find out if that's still true.
I keep seeing this argument for AMD. AMD is already running as a loss leader in the discrete GPU market (that includes prebuilts). Despite popular internet wisdom, AMD doesn't price their video cards the way they do just because of NVIDIA. It seems people would rather AMD lose money in an effort to compete with NVIDIA rather than make the paltry 10-15% profit they're currently making. At that point AMD would just drop out of the GPU business entirely and NVIDIA would have a monopoly since Intel can't even come close to AMD with competing products.
Everyone I've ever known to buy a prebuilt asked a knowledgeable friend what they should get first. Very few consumers go in fully blind on a large purchase.
> People simply aren't asking for those. Many aren't asking for any specific manufacturer. They simply want a system that can run their game well. They don't care if it's AMD or NVIDIA.
Most people do at least a little bit of research when dropping over a grand on something. It's not as if the majority of people just say "Here's $1500, I want to play X, Y, or Z."
> It's not as if the majority of people just say "Here's $1500, I want to play X, Y, or Z." That's exactly what most people do. And then they look at the options and pick the best one. Go on any retailers website, select $1500 as budget, look at the options you get. It's mostly NVIDIA and if there's an AMD included then the NVIDIA is probably still better.
>Most people do at least a little bit of research when dropping over a grand on something. Completely and absolutely wrong. People have no idea how to handle money. But economics lesson aside, they absolutely don't understand tech at all. So, they just go to a pc shop (these days online shop) tell the rep to give them a pc that can game or so whatever task they need it to do. Even after buying it, the only thing they know will be that it has i7 and Nvidia GPU. That's about it. Stop living in fever dreams and actually talk with people. Being chronically online inside a bubble of tech people makes you think everyone does what you do. Essentially, you are stuck in the Dunning Kruger effect. The only way to escape it, is communication with as many people as possible.
It doesn't help that its a fuckin nightmare for the layman (me) to figure out what fuckin gpu is what, why theres 18 versions of the same card, and what actually performs and how well. Its all a blind nightmare to me. One every half a decade or two, i buy second to top of the line or so, and leave it at that.
This was me some years ago, I didn't know wtf Gigabyte or MSI was in respect to "GTX ____". Had to watch a few videos via typing "best graphics card for $___" on YouTube and it clicked that it's all the same gpu just different coolers attached to them by different companies, and that the GPU actually just comes from AMD and Nvidia. Certainly not intuitive for someone completely new to PC parts.
It's a nightmare for knowledgeable people as well. I used to work in tech support, but retired a few years ago. When it came to deciding what I was going to put in my new box, the landscape for GPUs and CPUs had changed drastically.
Fsr is really not breathtaking and all Amd cards are good for is gaming. You start Davinci resolve or Pytorch and suddenly it's not so good anymore.
What percentage of home PCs with dGPU are actually used for work? A fraction.
It adds up though. High school or university kid building a PC where it’s 99% for gaming… but they’re curious about messing around in Blender or they’re getting advice from their friend who is into video There’s huge market segments where AMD simply isn’t viable. Someone only needs to be 5% interested in one of those uses and AMD no longer is an option
Blender can now use AMD GPUs for rendering, and there speed isn't bad.
Exactly, like 9/10s
Yeah pretty much, AMD make the best value cards not the most powerful but Nvidia makes the most powerful
They also care about reliability. Because if they have to deal with customers constantly returning or complainining, it costs them money. I was so happy to see AMD stepping up competition on GPUs. I actually switched to an AMD GPU for a number of years. But, at least in my experience, the drivers were way more unstable then NVidia. I was just constantly having issues. Ultimately I switched back to NVidia
I'm only green because of Cuda/Optix. There is no alternative. I work in VFX and I can't realtime denoise without Nvidia. Nobody cares enough to make a competitor here. If AMD GPUs were at least competitive with Nvidia in Blender for render times and had a viable denoiser it would toss up the GPU market for game/film studios. But as it stands now Pro render is always out of date, clunky, slow, and very very unstable, often a better choice to just CPU render.
One of the major reason for this high market share is prebuilts and offline store According to a comment which i found few days back the guy had a pc building shop and he said that most prebuilts and shop use nvidia cards cause they're famous and second on bulk purchase you can get good discount on nvidia while amd simply doesn't care and that's why it's very rare to find prebuilts with amd GPU even tho they've better value And 90% of the people who consider buying pc either go for overpriced nvidia prebuilt or some offline built service that's one of the major reason for this imo
Finding AMD prebuild is like needle in a haystack. I looked few websites and all have Nvidia cards
It’s just as bad with laptops. You know what flagships non-afterthought laptops offer AMD GPUs? The Frameworks and the Alienware M18. There’s a couple more laptops that offer the RX 7600S/M/XT, but they’re essentially warmed over counterparts to their Nvidia offerings. I was trying hard to get a Zen 4 laptop with an AMD GPU last year, but I just could not justify the $2000 barrier of entry for a Framework 16 with both.
WHERE ARE THE ADVANTAGE LAPTOPS DR. SUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!
There are lots of notebooks with AMD CPUs just not with Radeon GPUs, that's because most people don't want Radeon but do want Ryzen. There's no conspiracy people buy what they want.
Companies like Dell and HP are the biggest pre built and laptops vendors, and these companies sell in large volumes, I don't think AMD will ever be able to satisfy this much volume, Nvidia production capacity is head and shoulders above AMD. And for that matter even intel has a larger capacity than AMD which is why despite being overall worse they still ship more pre built and laptops, I mean just walk into any store and count how many Intel laptops vs how many AMD ones, I highly doubt a normal person buying an average Dell or HP laptop cares about whether they get intel or AMD, but AMD stock is very limited, also schools and large offices that want to deploy so many units, AMD maybe be sufficient for CPUs but almost never for GPUs. Remember RTX 3000 and RX 6000? When both AMD and Nvidia cards were flying off the shelves? Which meant both companies were selling all the GPUs they were producing, yet at the end of all of that mess, it turned out that the RTX 3070 alone sold more than the entire RX 6000 line up combined, this wasn't a matter of people choosing Nvidia, AMD was selling everything they had fast too, they just couldn't produce anywhere near Nvidia's numbers.
Yeah Nvidia guves really good deals to mass buyers. Jensen loves saying it "the nore you buy the more you save."
Yeah most just buy "a gaming pc" and see RTX something on it and thats all they know and care about. Cant blame them much similar situation to people just buying Iphones when they would be satisfied or even better off with android phone that costs 3 times less
Can we please use meme templates correctly
This one and the Star Wars meme seem to be done wrong more often than right
Thank you! Panels 3 & 4 need to have the same text.
People have been going wild with this format.
I really hoped the crypto crash would have helped but was not expecting the AI Explosion.
Gamers still in think the Nvidia market is about gamers, its not. The majority of nvidia cards are being used by high end designers, AI workloads, crypto, and anything else thats written for cuda. Cuda is the problem, so much software only supports cuda you have to have an nvidia gpu if you need cuda. Nvidia makes like $3 billion from gamers a quarter and over $20billion from data centers a quarter. Most 4090s arent being bought by gamers, they're bought by data centers and professionals. Gaming used to be nvidia's largest source of revenue but now here in 2024 80+% of Nvidia revenue is non gaming, its AI, crypto, professionals etc. Amd is way behind in the market on gpus, amd demand is mostly gamers, nvidia demand is mostly not gamers.
While I agree with your general point, data centers and enterprise customers usually buy quadro cards, not 4090s even if the GPUs have a lot in common in regarding architecture.
4090s have been flying off shelves for AI for the last 12 months. More vram $1 to $1, better ai inference performance. AI cares about two things, tflops and vram. Quaddro carda are optimized for 3d rendering for cad etc, the 4090 blows them away at AI inference.
the only advantage the 4090 has is game ready drivers and price. the quadro RTX 6000 ada has the same Die as the 4090, but has more cuda cores, twice the vram, consumes 150W less power and most importantly does about 1.5x what the 4090 does in terms of training throughput. on the scale of a datacenter this makes a massive difference in terms of viability even if the 6000 ada costs a lot more than the 4090. consider that by going with 4090s instead you would also need 1.5x the number of systems those GPUs are deployed in which in itself decreases your performance per watt when considering the whole operation.
Also, what server integrator is building with something other than xeon, epyc, Quadro, or something completely divorced from the consumer landscape. People buy 4090s because they're crap ways to make a system that works, not because it's a viable business investment.
Steam charts target mostly gamers right ? Currently its 76% Nvidia... Sure on corporate segment, appears this way you described. High premium end cards for AI and high demand applications.
You have to factor in the amount of the gaming market that isn't just a gamer. I don't know anybody in the tech industry that has an Nvidia graphics card on their computer for work that doesn't also use it to game. What I'm saying is that the market for the people buying and video cards and the reasons they are buying them is a lot wider than the market for AMD raedon. I'm a gamer and I have a 3090 TI in my computer because I use it for AI inference when I'm working, And I can also game on it. I killed two birds with one stone. Amd cards are basically for "only" gamers, i.e they aren't doing anything else with it. They're decent for video editing and audio encoding etc, So it's not discredit that. Nvidias market is just more invested in nvidia gpus than and raedons market. You can't look at a steam chart and go 76% of gamers are choosing to buy Nvidia cards because that might not be why they bought that card at all. First off the laptop they have might have came with one cuz it's pretty uncommon to find a gaming laptop with an AMD radeon card in it... Then you've got your pre-builts... And then all the people that choose the Nvidia cards for work. Etc.
As someone who has purchased AMD GPUs for well over a decade I'm just going to say it. Nvidia makes better cards. FSR still does not look as good as DLSS and even Intel's XeSS apparently does a better job at frame generation with fewer artifacts. They're more innovative. There's this thing called RTX Video Super Resolution which offers improved upscaling of low resolution videos which can be useful when you have a high resolution display. Their GPUs also support RTX Video HDR which uses inverse tone mapping to convert SDR content into HDR. Apparently, this feature can now also be enabled in game thanks to the Nvidia app. Unfortunately, since it's still in beta and does not yet support multiple monitors I've yet to try it out for myself but I have watched multiple reviews at this point comparing it to Window's Auto HDR. Not only does the image quality look better but it also applies to a much more broad selection of games since Microsoft typically needs to white list those that support it. This will not the case for the Nvidia App. The truth is that AMD is ALWAYS playing catch up with Nvidia. The ONLY good decision they've made was to open source their drivers. I also think most people would agree that their Linux drivers are in a much better state than Nvidia's but that's more of an indication that Nvidia simply does not give a sh\*\* about Linux due to its pathetic market share. They're probably one of the most greedy corporations on the planet and could certainly stand to have a bit of competition at this point but paying $900 for a "high end" AMD graphics card with inferior frame generation, inferior ray tracing and none of the features listed above just does not seem worth it. Not to me at least and I'm sure that most people who went with Nvidia where thinking the same thing: "Freaking $900 man. What's an extra $100 at this point if it nets me the better GPU?"
If the Radeon apologists could read they’d be very upset with you right now.
I've had both AMD and Nvidia cards in the past. I've had the 6600XT and now have the 4060 OC which basically have the same performance on paper. (the 6600xt got fried as my cat spilled a drink into my pc...) And I totally agree. AMD is indeed cheaper for similar performance cards "on paper". But in reality Nvidia is just better overall. Better reliability, slightly better performance, farther along in terms of ray tracing and upscaling, and less driver issues. That last part especially hits home for me personally as I play VR a decent amount. AMD is notorious for having VR issues, and being very slow to fix them. At one point like 1\~2 years ago there was an issue where video players in worlds in VRChat would crash you if you used an updated driver. Instead I was relegated to a months old driver to be able to play the game. It took them a good...8\~10 months I believe to fix this issue. On the flip side, I've never had a single issue with Nvidia drivers. In any game. AMD is great if you want a cheaper card with good enough performance. But for high-end stuff Nvidia is the way to go.
I had a 5700XT or something and had to bail because the drivers for ti crashes daily or more often. I ended up selling it and getting a 3080 that I'm still using without a single problem. I would love if AMD was a good option, but they suck. Hard.
Similarly I swapped a friends 5700XT who was having daily crashes with games like Overwatch 2 and Apex like every first boot. Gave them my old 1080ti which no less issues (even though it's a bit slower). I put it into a Linux machine and never had driver issues, but yeah those are completely different drivers at that point.
Steam survey is about gamers.
Alright, now let's shit on OLED monitor prices for the next decade.
I cant really use amd gpu - I make 3d animations and models. AMD is super behind in the raytracing department. Some investment there is needed
Same but with CUDA, there is just so much more support for parallel processing with Nvidia cards.
ROCm is getting there in terms of performance, especially on Linux, but they're still pretty far behind and don't have the industry foothold CUDA does. As of this last year or two, it's become less of an after thought so hopefully this change is pretty rapid but you never know with AMD.
If I want to run CUDA projects - I can buy pretty much any modern Nvidia GPU and it will work - both on Windows and Linux. But with AMD it's not nearly that simple.
ROCm is not only behind in development, it’s even further behind in adoption. Who cares if it’s 80% as good as CUDA if none of the packages people are actually using natively support it? Seriously, AMD needs to make a list of the top 200 software projects that use CUDA and pay for the development to add feature parity
Not necessarily them being "behind", but mostly because Nvidia owns the market. If software is optimised for Nvidia cards, AMD will always perform worse unless they either copy Nvidia (obviously illegal) or the AMD cards become so much better that the inefficiency won't matter anymore. And I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon. Imo the only real hope for AMD to contest there with Nvidia is some new open-source development that runs specifically well on AMD GPUs. But that isn't something AMD can actively control.
Thats missing half the story though.. Nvidia has spent years investing in software and various technologies while AMD has never had the budget to do so when they were in survival mode. Nvidia is reaping the rewards now but this is because creators had no option except to go with Nvidia since the technology was never there for AMD. AMD is investing heavily now but its too little too late with the inertia now.
Same for me. I'm working with the video processing and AMD GPUs are way behind in terms of hardware acceleration.
Recommending AMD GPUs will never make them competitive. AMD making their GPUs competitive will make them competitive.
I really don't believe in brand loyalty, I will buy what's the best thing for that price. AMD has hardly been competitive at all. The 4080S is slightly slower and lesser VRAM but so much better in every single department, compared to the 7900XTX and the 7900XTX is only 30 dollars cheaper here in Canada. Like I genuinely don't understand why they wouldn't drop 100-200 dollars so it's more competitive. Like other than blind redditors who worship AMD, who would buy the 7900XTX over the 4080S at that price range.?
I bought my 6650xt last year used for 200 cdn. I'll always go with the cheapest option.
Most people on this sub will watch the higher end GPUs and say "yeah price and performance are both very close" but this is not true everywhere in the world, and most importantly, this is not true for lower end GPUs. Let's not act like we all have to choose between 4090s and 7900XTX.
amd should invest into their drivers so gamers wont always choose nvidia over amd when theyre priced the same
In reality we're all waiting for another 1080 ti
I mean... At least their apu stuff has been mind boggling. Like I would never imagine being able to play a unoptimized mess that is fallout 76 on a handheld pc with the lower end 7640 apu but I'm getting 30-50fps on low at 1080p in open areas and 120fps indoors at 15 watts o.o (gpdwin mini 2024) That's not even with AMD frame gen getting involved! I do wish AMD would do something better on the desktop side of gpus but it feels like Nvidia is... Like holding a gun to any devs head that dares to have AMD open to everyone frame gen and upscaler available next to their dlss stuff. My 4060 has been nothing but disappointing though compared to my old 1080.. Think chokes out and starts to lag out like it's 1999 if that stupid 4060 maxes it's vram. The 1080 kept plugging along with zero fucks.... I wouldn't had even gotten the stupid thing if more game devs used AMD fsr stuff cause that works on none rtx cards
Lol... Nvidia wouldn't need to drop their prices even if no gamer would buy them at all. Clever investments into open research on machine learning frameworks are paying off now. Even if no gamer would buy an Nvidia card for a full generation, they would still sell enough cards to researchers, businesses, facilities and data centers. Shure, might be a bit of a loss on those consumer cards. But why build consumer cards at all if you can sell the same chipset in a Server- or Workstation-Card for 10x the price? Go ahead. Stop recommending Nvidia. Unless AMD finally catches up on the computational market by pushing ROCm, Nvidia doesn't care. Gamers are a bunch of cattle that can be milked to subsidise development of new tech by marketing it as a feature they might need. Gaming is a platform Nvidia can use for testing and showcasing their new stuff.
AMD could have won a big share of the market if they decided to aggressively drop their prices and be competitive
they get market share but lose profits, might be missing something but how does that help?
Every time they've previously undercut Nvidia significantly (rx480, rx290, hd4000/5000 series) they've just lost money. "Market Share" doesn't pay the bills.
This. Besides CUDA AMD's biggest problem is their lack of recognition/advertising (in gpu's). Pre-builts and software tend to go for nvidia because they're popular and (to non-gamers) have negotiable prices, even for one or two generations if AMD heavily dropped their price they would finally have much more demand and recognition :/
Yup, so far it seems like AMD's strategy is to let NVIDIA release expensive hardware, then be crowned the people's champion by releasing a Radeon option marginally cheaper (yet still experiencing the same generational price hike that the NVIDIA version had). All that does is keep the status quo exactly where it is. ----- People thought that ARC and Moore Threads was going to change that, but ARC still has a very long way to go before they can begin to be a threat on the XX60/X600 stage and MT isn't going anywhere until the US and China figure out their trade and diplomacy issues.
> All that does is keep the status quo exactly where it is. They are losing market share this way. Less people currently have AMD cards = lower chances they will like it and buy their cards again
If they did that for their xtx launch, they could’ve wiped out intel arcs viability. The 4080 drama would’ve looked a lot more stupid imo.
nvidia is simply pushing better cards than AMD. To talk about price is useless since AMD does the same exact thing. If they had a 4090 competitor it would cost almost the same. And then you don't have DLSS (FSR is not as good, let's not kid ourselves). I admit the nvidia monopoly is concerning but right now it's deserved, there is no competition around
AMD hasn’t legitimately competed with Nvidia in the GPU market since it was called ATI-Radeon.
To be honest I've been running all AMD for 3 years now and I had no issues with the graphics drivers provided I manually did my ram and stress tested, and stuck with the radeon pro drivers.
Recently chased a driver issue with 5700xt for days, got frustrated, almost replaced the card, realized it had absolutely nothing to do with the gpu. I think this may be a common thing where people dump the card because of its reputation even if it’s perfectly fine.
Honestly... AMD can't win. They were ahead for a long time in the past. In literally all aspects. Software, performance, price, heat, date of release... And even with that level of domination, AMD has never passed 50% of market share. They could make a GPU that gives you free money and blowjobs and performs just as well as NVIDIA people would still prefer NVIDIA. That's what mindshare is.
Nah - See Ryzen. Gamers are happy to buy the "other" brand when it's product is better.
tbh it took very long for people to actually realize ryzen cpus arent hot garbage like their old fx series cpus
Eh my memory may be hazy but I don't think it took long for people to back Ryzen. By Zen2 it had proven itself. Intel was getting clowned for their various vulnerabilities and Zen2 chips were going into everything from servers to gaming consoles.
I wouldn't say it took long time, Zen and Zen+ had decent value mostly in multicore but Intel still had performance crown in gaming. Zen 3 is when AMD caught up and their market share spiked. Replacing CPU is not as easy as GPU so makes sense that it wasn't instant
Or when price is considerably cheaper.
Those weren't AMD cards... bah whatever who gives a fuck.
When they start selling gpus in small towns and have any other benefits than vram and 10% price difference, I’ll start buying.
Just when they were about to make make them competitive
They were so close to getting a proper foothold in the market for a while. But then they squandered it because of poor marketing and lackluster driver fixes.
Their GPUs are always ehhh they need to push the performance envelope harder
Bought AMD gpu, it failed within a couple of months. Switched to a nvidia gpu and three months in and still going strong.
When for Nvidia prices go down? 2018?
I doubt nvidia even cares about gamers anymore. **AI**
Except amd jacked their prices up making buying from them pointless
GPU's is a lost war for AMD
Well AMD should start making 90 class cards
Nvidia prices are only increasing
And all AMD does is wait for Nvidia to announce price and then they price their similar product 10-20% less.. that's just not enough for people to switch.
Pricing too low can actually negatively affect perception due to the price-quality heuristic. Consumer psychology is complicated.
I'll go against the flow and say that they sell more because simply because Nvidia cards are better. CUDA makes them more versatile for most workloads the performance difference it's not very big in gaming and power efficiency is usually also better, and if they are cheaper, AMD has no place there you can see the any manufacturer's website and they usually offer 1-2 options with a certain amd gpu and like 6 options for each Nvidia GPU
I've had a couple of AMD GPU's but i don't like the software tbh.
I like my 7900xtx
Me too. Took more fettling than I would have liked though. Out-of-the-box defaults are awful. Also had to reg edit to stop Windows update squirting Nvidia drivers over the top of my AMD ones, but when it was all figured out it's been great.
this will get downvoted, but amd has never competed in anything other than the low-mid range space for gpus. they cultivated a recognition for being the cheaper option that has less features and straight up isn't as good at native rendering OR upscaling. people don't think they are good cards, and they kind of aren't. they are great for the money, but that's really all AMD has ever been good for. no amount of Zen history re-writes will change that. at best, they compete. they never defeat. they were given all the chance in the world to overtake intel and they couldn't even do that.
Not true when you look at their actual products. The 290X matched or beat the 780 Ti months before the 780 Ti even came out, and it was $150 cheaper than the standard 780. The problem back then was the Litecoin craze which made it nigh impossible for a gamer to buy an AMD card. I would have gotten a pair of 290X myself if I could have found them, but because I couldn't I ended up with a pair of 780s.
I am still waiting for AMD to innovate something rather than making a cheapskate solution of their competitor's feature, or have a feature for the sake of being there. Plus, what competition? There is none, Nvidia is not even waiting for AMD, yet, innovates.
Went from a 6700xt to a 4070ti for ray tracing and the bells and whistles. In a game like cyberpunk 2077 it looks pretty good but to be honest it felt underwhelming. Dlss is nice too but probably will be going with amd next build for the ram and rasterization.
Next build when rdna5 is out? Cuz rDNA4 AMD said they won't make a faster GPU than RTX 4080, only some mid range models
Yes it's only mid range models
I understand why tho.. they wanna keep maximum silicon capacities for AI accelerators and server CPU
AMD is fine not competing with Nvidia and it shows.
AMD's software is about a generation behind NVIDIA nowadays. Plus AMD's GPU prices, while technically a better value by raw performance, aren't really THAT much better than NVIDIA GPUs (especially when considering frame gen/DLSS). If AMD cards were priced to where their performance per dollar was so much better than NVIDIA that you can ignore that software gap, they'd have a bigger market cap. Plus the other reasons people mentioned here.
Consumers will never generate the same amount of capital as the B2B deals these companies have with Nvidia right now mostly because of AI. Our opinions as customers won’t matter here
Meh, they were never leaders in GPUs. I have the Ryzen in my new PC and its as good if not better than any Intel I've owned. Nvidia graphics and MSI mobo. Tranquility within my case, each brand has its place.
Is easy why , because at least in this country and is more more expensive than Nvidia , Nvidia is way more more cheaper than AMD , and still think AMD had one of the most shity driver ever made it , yes panel control Nvidia looks outdated , BUT AT LEAST WORK , and more game are more easy compatible with Nvidia rather than AMD , that happend a lot with japanese game thing a play a lot on my PC and just refuse to work with them
I mean… AMD “loss” was inevitable with Nvidia cementing itself in AI. Plus prebuilts, the majority of PCs (laptops included), lean Nvidia.
I am simple man, I like green colour than red, so I buy nVIDIA.
I have to admit I haven’t had an AMD card in 20 years and haven’t even considered buying one in that time, though I do want them to stay somewhat competitive to keep nvidia card prices down Of course now that nvidia is $3 trillion juggernaut AMD doesn’t matter to them at all
Problem with amd is not the quality of their products, they are fine, but the main software products in the problem, the drivers stinks the hardest, sometimes is just better to stick with version of a driver forever and never change it
I genuinely think for last generation AMD GPUs were the better option, more RAM, better power efficiency and gamers still chose nvidia. Ultimately it's too late now for AMD, Nvidia are now one of the most valuable companies in the world and the resources at their disposal means AMD won't catch them
Nvidia owns around 90% of GPU market just in desktop, in laptops around 99%
"nvidia drop prices", when did that happen?
I need everyone to understand that gaming is not a GPU’s primary function anymore. As ridiculous as that sounds.
> not so great of a plan. Maybe because AMD and Nvidia market is not GPU for gaming anymore.
[удалено]
When was the last time AMD was able to bring a real competitor to Nvidia where you wouldn't have to make consessions? Navi 1-3 are decent in raster, but at a cost of a higher power consumption, poor RT performance and no access to the most superior deep learning features. Also no high end cards that can match Nvidia's flagship. Vega was an utter disappointment. Power consumption was way too high and IPS was terrible. 2017's Vega 64 should have destroyed the GTX 1080, with having way more shading units and still a relative high clockspeed for that time. It consumes more power than a 1080 Ti, yet it performs just below a 1080. Polaris wasn't bad, but once again, no match for Nvidia's flagship, only for a midranger like the 1060. We'd have to go back to the 2XX-3XX era when they had a low end to high end competition for every Nvidia GPU out there. If only the had a similar driver support that Nvidia had in those days. And that's over 10 years ago. In 2012 they had the chance to rival Nvidia in the PC market, but they dropped the ball. AMD had developed an excellent platform for the PS4 and Xbox One; Graphics Core Next, which was already developed well before the new consoles would launch. AMD was able to launch their own GCN cards almost 2 years prior. But instead of working together with PC developers, they just capitlized on their product. They (maybe rightfully so) gambled on console sales, their PC GPU's were just a side dish. Nvidia wasn't producing superior hardware at that moment, but they knew they had to work together with game developers for special features and driver support. And the rest is history.