![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Yes, both AMD & Nvidia have responsibilities to their share holders & board partners. So they can't price too low.
From reports I’ve been reading AMD and Nvidia have stopped making them when they cut their orders substantially at TSMC and Samsung over the months, there is just that much extra stock out there. I recall reading from a Korean site last year that silicon from AMD and Nvidia wasn’t the limiting factor in Board production and that TSMC and Samsung had doubled down to supply them, it was other board components be it memory, voltage regulators, capacitors, … , that held up production.
AMD makes more money from selling consoles than they do from selling GPUs to consumers, I'm not sure that teaches them anything other than their strategy works.
They can and they will. The reason they aren't pricing low now is because AMD has other sources of revenue for their GPU hardware besides PC, and Nvidia is preaching about AI. We know sales are down, but as long as AMD and Nvidia beat expectations then the shareholders will stick around.
Intel won't leave the GPU business because it can't turn a profit. They realize they need good graphics to compete against AMD and Apple, as well as Nvidia in the server market. They only reason they make graphic cards is because they need beta testers. Also Intel isn't the only other one who's looking to compete in the GPU business.
Yep but AMD still has to pretend to care in the graphics card market.
Yes but customers right now just buy Nvidia unanimously. Buying a PS5/Xbox is just enforcing AMD's lack of interest in the PC graphics card market. Buying used just means AMD and Nvidia will only release high end $1k+ GPU's and then the poor buying older generation where they have no updated drivers or warranty. What we need is competition from Intel and buy those. You buy nothing and suddenly you don't matter. You buy AMD then Nvidia will just make a faster GPU for $1,600. You buy a PS5 or Xbox and you'll make AMD happy and they'll continue to sell you $1k XTX graphic cards. Buy Intel then AMD and Nvidia will realize they're losing potential sales and will have to actually care.
This right here, GPUs are the hill Intel will die on. The workstation, server, and supercomputer market only get Intel so far with no viable GPU. For basic compute tasks Intel has more than enough CPU options, yeah you can go back and forth on Intel vs AMD there for aspects but in reality, they are pretty minor differences. But more GPUs get sold for workstations, servers, and especially supercomputers now than CPUs do. The latest supercomputers which used to be Intel's bread and butter, now have 6 physical GPUs for every 1 physical CPU, Intel doesn't have an option to not compete for that market, servers and workstations aren't going to get any better either especially as specialized compute becomes more of a thing. Intel is not in a position to ignore the GPU market anymore, they absolutely must compete here or are dooming themselves to irrelevance.
In defense of buying Nvidia, they sell a more complete product especially if you do things with your PC other than just game, AMD splitting their RDNA and CDNA architectures has some benefits sure but also drawbacks if you need a single box to do your work from, also CUDA... I hate that it is so good.
They did. It's up to the consumer to make that clear. Don't allow them to just reap in huge margins for bare minimal effort.
Geforce 4 blasted ATI's offerings at the time. And had longevity in terms of usable performance. Trying to say otherwise, is revisionist.
I remember the ATi 9000 series being very competitive, especially the 9800 Pro. I had a Geforce 4 ti 4200 though.
Oh yeah, The 9700 pro conquered all in the Fall of that year(02) But up until the fall it had been a Geforce 3/4 world.
I would like to see evidence of this.
I believe that Sony and Microsoft funded RNDA2's development. It just seemed like AMD didn't want to sell RDNA2 GPU's for anything but high end graphic cards for a while to give PS5/Xbox the edge in graphics for mainstream buyers. Just my tin foil hat theory.
I think it goes together. Considering how much better Intel is at Ray-Tracing and this is their first graphic cards, it does seem like AMD is too lazy in improving it. It's really lucky for AMD that no game still requires Ray-Tracing hardware, because that day will come.
The VRAM issue is because we're starting to see games make use of the PS5 and Xbox Series S's hardware, which means more VRAM. It's also because these games are terribly optimized for PC.
I'm more interested in seeing how shareholders react to a loss in GPU sales for Nvidia. GPU sales for AMD doesn't matter since they were always terrible, but their CPU sales might show up as a problem with their crazy motherboard prices. AMD's and Nvidia's lack of care this generation is more their problem than consumer. I'm surprised how well my Vega 56 is holding up with current generation games at 1080P, and I play games on Linux so I take a good 10% loss in performance in most games. I'm still not compelled to upgrade.
I don't think you remember much of that time period. The Radeon 8500 was worse in every way to the Geforce 4 Ti, until driver bugs were found and fixed. John Carmack found so many bugs in ATI's drivers for the 8500 that by the time the Radeon 9000 was out, the 8500 was faster. So ATI of course rebranded the 8500 as the 9200, and clever people like myself would flash the firmware of their 8500 to the 9200 to get the benefits of new features and better performance. When the Geforce FX was relevant, a lot of new games required DX8.1 minimum, which the Radeon 8500 was capable of using, but not the Geforce 4 Ti's. Even with the superior performance of the Geforce 4 Ti's, it doesn't matter if you can't run the games.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-Gravity-NBody-GPU-benchmark/88
It has the same amount of VRAM as my Vega 56?
That still isn't cheap.
Really, Userbenchmark? For shits and giggles I ran the benchmark on my Vega 56 using Linux Mint and I can't tell how my PC did. How does this show the Nvidia cards have some sort of hidden advantage that applies to gaming?
There were/are rumours circulating that TSMC is giving Nvidia a deal for the AD106-360-A1 dies. Apparently TSMC is facing pressure from investors because of all the cancelled orders and wants to stay ahead of Intel from their upcoming 3’rd party fabs.
Chance for Nvidia to do a $400 8gb 4060ti & a $500 16gb 4060ti
Big IF, on that. AMD pulled a lot of fab time at TSMC too, they might be happier selling off the 6000 series parts.
Man remember when next gen cards were 1.5 tiers maybe grasping at 2 tier advancements over prior cards... well at least that's what that one meme everyone has been posting in the 4070 threads has been saying. Now they're content with 0.5 to 1 tier improvements, we already saw it with the 4070 as it's equivalent to the 3080... maybe.
I don’t know if content is the right word…
Fine instead of "content" how about "this is what we're giving you, the consumer, and you're going to smile and take it!"
Yes… we are very much paying for a dominatrix at this point.
Geforce 4 and Radeon 9000 series are different generations, released at very different times.
There weren't any DX 8.1 games which wouldn't run on Gerforce 4. You would simply be missing a graphical feature. So, Max Payne 2 would be missing the shiny/sheen effect, on character models. Morrowind's water didn't have the really nice, shiny ripples and rain drop effects. However, Geforce 4 still delivered better framerates. And I don't remember many 8.1 games, really.
Not so tinfoil hatty at all, it was a timed exclusivity thing which is why RDNA 2 never really got pushed out to an APU and also why AMD physically disabled the GPU silicon in their Cardinal packages.
This is a fun issue, Intel and Nvidia do incredibly well at reduced precision 8-bit and 4-bit calculations, AMD removed those functions from their silicon a long time ago and only really do 16-bit and up.
So terribly ported, but the PS5 and Xbox do some really complicated things with how they manage textures and memory pointers which are fundamentally incompatible with PCs as a whole despite the graphics and CPU architectures being the same as on a PC how they interact with memory is so fundamentally different porting is surprisingly hard. This is going to become a problem for the next couple of years, I fully expect developers not to bother with cleaning up and optimizing for the PC in most cases, and they will instead balloon the absolute crap out of RAM, VRAM, and storage installs. Why will they spend a few million optimizing for PC when they can shift those costs to us and require us to instead buy more ram, uninstall a different game, play on lower settings (which will still look better than the console), or buy bigger/faster GPUs?
AI sales are inflating their numbers, but Shareholders are angry at Nvidia's smaller margins. Despite all this shit pricing that is too high, and revenue remaining relatively flat (even after the boost by AI stuff), Nvidia's margins are down to where they were back in 2016, Nvidia says they are eating a lot of costs and not passing them down the channel because their board partners couldn't handle it while still managing to meet their needs. Nvidia might be a bully but they do know they can't exist without their AIB, so they aren't blind to their serious plights just indifferent to the small ones.
They were both released in 2002