The GPU War is Over - AdoredTV

ManofGod said:
I am not really sure why you would think this since mind share effects ever industry around. Sorry but, Nvidia often works on mind share, even if their particular card is better or not. Also, I agree with the person that spoke of the cards that were available on shelf at Best Buy and up until now, nothing really good was available. (Used to be you could get 4890's but that was then.)

Ever since the big box stores like Compusa went out of business, finding cards in a local store on shelves is difficult. I can walk in a buy a 1070 or 1080 right now, if I wanted too but I could never buy a Fury or Fury X, ever.
Click to expand...


It has a limited effect, and we can see that with market share figures.

And guess what, the buyers for big retail companies knows what sells off the shelves, that is why they are buying Pascal. Fury was a bad selling card period, you can't tell me it would have sold if it was on the shelf. Online sales tells us that. Market share figures tells us that. OEM's buy products that help their bottom line and sell, we can see that in Dell, HP, Lenovo, what graphics cards they put into their system? More systems have nV cards or more types of nV cards than AMD. Simple, they know they will sell and it drops the cost of their systems with power and dissipating the heat.

You can't tell me people don't look into things like these because they do. Why do you think Fiji is an option now in some HP/Dell systems (started in the past quarter and half)? Because AMD is giving them away, even though they don't hold a candle to Pascal....
 
razor1 said:
It has a limited effect, and we can see that with market share figures.

And guess what, the buyers for big retail companies knows what sells off the shelves, that is why they are buying Pascal. Fury was a bad selling card period, you can't tell me it would have sold if it was on the shelf. Online sales tells us that. Market share figures tells us that. OEM's buy products that help their bottom line and sell, we can see that in Dell, HP, Lenovo, what graphics cards they put into their system? More systems have nV cards or more types of nV cards than AMD. Simple, they know they will sell and it drops the cost of their systems with power and dissipating the heat.

You can't tell me people don't look into things like these because they do. Why do you think Fiji is an option now in some HP/Dell systems (started in the past quarter and half)? Because AMD is giving them away, even though they don't hold a candle to Pascal....
Click to expand...

Hey, way to cherry pick my point. The fact is, I also could not get previous high end cards either from AMD and I remember looking often. If companies like Compusa where still around, that would be a really big difference but, alas, they are not and I do not live near a Microcenter either.
 
razor1 said:
It has a limited effect, and we can see that with market share figures.

And guess what, the buyers for big retail companies knows what sells off the shelves, that is why they are buying Pascal. Fury was a bad selling card period, you can't tell me it would have sold if it was on the shelf. Online sales tells us that. Market share figures tells us that. OEM's buy products that help their bottom line and sell, we can see that in Dell, HP, Lenovo, what graphics cards they put into their system? More systems have nV cards or more types of nV cards than AMD. Simple, they know they will sell and it drops the cost of their systems with power and dissipating the heat.

You can't tell me people don't look into things like these because they do. Why do you think Fiji is an option now in some HP/Dell systems (started in the past quarter and half)? Because AMD is giving them away, even though they don't hold a candle to Pascal....
Click to expand...
Alot of what you said about OEMs goes so far to prove mindshare not against it. They put in what sales...

As far as brick an mortar stores, the highest Best buy had 4-5 years ago for GCN was the 7770. One year later they got the 7870, never had the 7970, but all along they had the 680/670. They never had the 280x/290 but did have the 270. Just 6 mths ago they finally had the 390/x and this past weekend the 480/470/460. Unfortunately they wind up semi hidden on the bottom shelf, where as Nvidia has the 1080/1070/1060 all on the top 2 shelves. Usually vendors, in this case EVGA and XFX, pay for their location but can't be sure here. At any rate I can easily speak to availability towards sales in BestBuy stores. Not a complaint but an observation of the facts.
 
ManofGod said:
Hey, way to cherry pick my point. The fact is, I also could not get previous high end cards either from AMD and I remember looking often. If companies like Compusa where still around, that would be a really big difference but, alas, they are not and I do not live near a Microcenter either.
Click to expand...
micro center is definitely better stocked than best buy. I love finally finding one I could get to, huge difference from what I found at best buy.
 
JustReason said:
Alot of what you said about OEMs goes so far to prove mindshare not against it. They put in what sales...

As far as brick an mortar stores, the highest Best buy had 4-5 years ago for GCN was the 7770. One year later they got the 7870, never had the 7970, but all along they had the 680/670. They never had the 280x/290 but did have the 270. Just 6 mths ago they finally had the 390/x and this past weekend the 480/470/460. Unfortunately they wind up semi hidden on the bottom shelf, where as Nvidia has the 1080/1070/1060 all on the top 2 shelves. Usually vendors, in this case EVGA and XFX, pay for their location but can't be sure here. At any rate I can easily speak to availability towards sales in BestBuy stores. Not a complaint but an observation of the facts.
Click to expand...


That is not mindshare why would they have the Fiji as viable product now? Does that speak to mind share? Why are they now selling 3xx line now?

No they are thinking about their bottom line.......

If you can't see that just go over to Dell and see why FuryX costs more than a gtx 1080 (systems)
 
ManofGod said:
Hey, way to cherry pick my point. The fact is, I also could not get previous high end cards either from AMD and I remember looking often. If companies like Compusa where still around, that would be a really big difference but, alas, they are not and I do not live near a Microcenter either.
Click to expand...


That is not cherry picking dude, retailers buy things they know they can sell,OEM's buy things they know they can sell. 60% of the market is owned by OEM's when it comes to graphics cards, the other 40% is retailers (online and local store). Buying habits for them are going to remain relatively the same.

If it was purely mind share that held up nV's success as you guys are trying to portray it as, AMD would never have GOTTEN to 45% with their 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx lines!

Simple. How do you factor in they did that? Magic? That means more people were buying AMD products and less people were buying nV cards for a certain amount of time.

again, look at the market share figures, when ever AMD or nV had close products market share figures change respectively to the medium. Just as when AMD had better products it was in their favor all the while taking into account when cards were launched (delayed respectively to each IHV is an important view) You can't throw out historic data like that because you feel like they weren't available to you at a certain time from a certain store.

Nvidia-AMD.png


You guys do the same shit Adorned does, think with whats in your head not the appendage in the lower body. If investors are following Adorned to buy stock god help them cause the devil is in the details which Adorned and both of you guys are totally missing.

If you can't read this chart or correlate with the correct quarter and monetary equivalence like Adorned, please ask, I will be more then happy to explain.

Added to that, did Adorned even mention nV made a net loss with the 2xx line of cards? The first (and only) loss they had since the FX series? No (he stated quite the opposite) because he was looking at the wrong quarters and looking at steam figures! He should have been analyzing when the cards were launched and what quarter was impacted, not when steam's numbers change vs that quarter where the steam numbers came from. You can't even correlate (what adorned used) those numbers in any meaningful way because they are two different time slices that have no data that can be parallelized in a qualitative or quantitative way.
 
Last edited:
JustReason said:
micro center is definitely better stocked than best buy. I love finally finding one I could get to, huge difference from what I found at best buy.
Click to expand...

Yep, I will usually drive down to the Northeast Ohio location twice a year just to look around. However, the last time I was there 6 weeks ago or so, I bought a Sapphire R9 Fury Tri X and a Cooler Master Master 5 case.
 
Arguing mind share is just an easy way to ignore Nvidia has a much better product pipeline than AMD does right now and into the foreseeable future.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You meant the foreseeable DX11 future.
Click to expand...
Not at all nvidia GPU perform fine in Gears of War 4 one of the few DX12 optimized games. In fact Nvidia cards overall performances surpass their AMD counterparts at every price point in that game.
 
Presbytier said:
Not at all nvidia GPU perform fine in Gears of War 4 one of the few DX12 optimized games. In fact Nvidia cards overall performances surpass their AMD counterparts at every price point in that game.
Click to expand...

Depends on the benchmarks. DX12 is such a large container that claiming anything is optimized for DX12 says truly nothing unless you want to check mark features? Features are exclusive under DX12 which allow more performance (example optimizing/supporting 8+ cores). Some engines as Nitrous allow this.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Depends on the benchmarks. DX12 is such a large container that claiming anything is optimized for DX12 says truly nothing unless you want to check mark features? Features are exclusive under DX12 which allow more performance (example optimizing/supporting 8+ cores). Some engines as Nitrous allow this.
Click to expand...


Err even nitrous doesn't seem to scale that well above 6 cores......
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Depends on the benchmarks. DX12 is such a large container that claiming anything is optimized for DX12 says truly nothing unless you want to check mark features? Features are exclusive under DX12 which allow more performance (example optimizing/supporting 8+ cores). Some engines as Nitrous allow this.
Click to expand...
I am not entirely sure what your point is. As of now there is no verifiable information that would lead one to believe nvidia cards will perform worse in DX12 games than AMD cards the best one can say is that AMD cards see more performance gains from async vs nvidia but even then the nvidia card still outperforms its AMD counterpart in most scenarios.
 
The main knock against AMD cards was their poor DX11 performance. Almost all games were based on DX11 until recently. Now that games are starting to move to DX12 and Vulcan, APIs which AMD cards excel at, I think it is now safe again to buy an AMD card. I just bought one yesterday after having NVIDIa cards for the last 8 years.
 
His best line was "good enough for Apple, Sony & MS but not the PC Master Race". :D Gotta hand it to him for that one. I've been a PC gamer for decades, and I've really started winding down the last 7 years or so. My next build is going to just be a simple KabyLake without any GPU for work and such, with the capability for GPU expansion if I ever need it- which I won't.

But it's a good time or will be soon to get into console gaming. Biggest snag that happened to PC gaming are the graphics vendors, mostly NV, gimping the games with unnecessary tessellation and other "ultra" or "extreme" settings. Then many sites benchmarking at those. Just skewed, unrealistic results when most people cant tell the difference between medium/high and ultra settings. Most also are at 1080P. Very unrealistic charts result that don't apply to people, and don't even give you any bang for buck on FPS per IQ.

In defense of Nvidia though on Apple/Sony/MS using AMD, it's mostly because AMD has x86 and can be slapped around due to their desperation.

I also disagree on the point that hardware > all. Many people buy NV because of the generally more solid software support, it's not a ruse or lie. It's been true for quite a while. NV has most of the time, delivered a pretty solid overall product. ATI/AMD has had generally superior hardware engineering, but I'd say a worse product overall.

To solve all these problems about getting "bent over a barrel", and get the most out of your hardware investment, just buy a PS4 Pro or whatever you prefer. Guaranteed to get optimized, maxed out FPS per your hardware with that.
The financial incentives on PC dictate the goal to get you to upgrade your hardware before you need to. Hence stuff like the tessellation tricks, the ultra settings and the benchmark sites essentially putting up misleading results that aren't relevant to most people.
On console, the incentive is to always extract the most out of your hardware. It makes more sense to me as a business model for gamers. I'm sure some dork will attack me for saying that, but I'm as big of a fan of PC gaming as anyone here.

Yeah, there's probably a big part of mindshare playing a role, but NV has actually done a lot of hard work too. He discounts them too easily IMO. Making a good product is only one small part of running a business, ATI never figured that out, that's why NV ran them out of business (almost twice now).

His hopes on Zen are misguided. It'll be a decent chip for the money, but it won't beat a 7700K at games, which Intel will be peddling for $350. Many won't upgrade to it but it will be decently priced and games will run faster on it than Zen. The biggest oversight is that Zen will be a new platform and likely far buggier and problematic than how rock solid Kabylake will be thanks to its Skylake testbed roots.
 
Last edited:
housecat said:
His best line was "good enough for Apple, Sony & MS but not the PC Master Race". :D Gotta hand it to him for that one. I've been a PC gamer for decades, and I've really started winding down the last 7 years or so. My next build is going to just be a simple KabyLake without any GPU for work and such, with the capability for GPU expansion if I ever need it- which I won't.

But it's a good time or will be soon to get into console gaming. Biggest snag that happened to PC gaming are the graphics vendors, mostly NV, gimping the games with unnecessary tessellation and other "ultra" or "extreme" settings. Then many sites benchmarking at those. Just skewed, unrealistic results when most people cant tell the difference between medium/high and ultra settings. Most also are at 1080P. Very unrealistic charts result that don't apply to people, and don't even give you any bang for buck on FPS per IQ.

In defense of Nvidia though on Apple/Sony/MS using AMD, it's mostly because AMD has x86 and can be slapped around due to their desperation.

I also disagree on the point that hardware > all. Many people buy NV because of the generally more solid software support, it's not a ruse or lie. It's been true for quite a while. NV has most of the time, delivered a pretty solid overall product. ATI/AMD has had generally superior hardware engineering, but I'd say a worse product overall.

To solve all these problems about getting "bent over a barrel", and get the most out of your hardware investment, just buy a PS4 Pro or whatever you prefer. Guaranteed to get optimized, maxed out FPS per your hardware with that.
The financial incentives on PC dictate the goal to get you to upgrade your hardware before you need to. Hence stuff like the tessellation tricks, the ultra settings and the benchmark sites essentially putting up misleading results that aren't relevant to most people.
On console, the incentive is to always extract the most out of your hardware. It makes more sense to me as a business model for gamers. I'm sure some dork will attack me for saying that, but I'm as big of a fan of PC gaming as anyone here.

Yeah, there's probably a big part of mindshare playing a role, but NV has actually done a lot of hard work too. He discounts them too easily IMO. Making a good product is only one small part of running a business, ATI never figured that out, that's why NV ran them out of business (almost twice now).

His hopes on Zen are misguided. It'll be a decent chip for the money, but it won't beat a 7700K at games, which Intel will be peddling for $350. Many won't upgrade to it but it will be decently priced and games will run faster on it than Zen. The biggest oversight is that Zen will be a new platform and likely far buggier and problematic than how rock solid Kabylake will be thanks to it's Skylake testbed roots.
Click to expand...

This is not 2007. AMD software support and overall package has been solid. They release driver updates along with every new game. That has been fixed, their hardware is where they lack. I think you missed the whole polaris and new highend chip the whole year. They need to get their shit together on the hardware side, hopefully vega fixes that for them. Software is non issue.
 
razor1 said:
That is not cherry picking dude, retailers buy things they know they can sell,OEM's buy things they know they can sell. 60% of the market is owned by OEM's when it comes to graphics cards, the other 40% is retailers (online and local store). Buying habits for them are going to remain relatively the same.

If it was purely mind share that held up nV's success as you guys are trying to portray it as, AMD would never have GOTTEN to 45% with their 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx lines!

Simple. How do you factor in they did that? Magic? That means more people were buying AMD products and less people were buying nV cards for a certain amount of time.

again, look at the market share figures, when ever AMD or nV had close products market share figures change respectively to the medium. Just as when AMD had better products it was in their favor all the while taking into account when cards were launched (delayed respectively to each IHV is an important view) You can't throw out historic data like that because you feel like they weren't available to you at a certain time from a certain store.

Nvidia-AMD.png


You guys do the same shit Adorned does, think with whats in your head not the appendage in the lower body. If investors are following Adorned to buy stock god help them cause the devil is in the details which Adorned and both of you guys are totally missing.

If you can't read this chart or correlate with the correct quarter and monetary equivalence like Adorned, please ask, I will be more then happy to explain.

Added to that, did Adorned even mention nV made a net loss with the 2xx line of cards? The first (and only) loss they had since the FX series? No (he stated quite the opposite) because he was looking at the wrong quarters and looking at steam figures! He should have been analyzing when the cards were launched and what quarter was impacted, not when steam's numbers change vs that quarter where the steam numbers came from. You can't even correlate (what adorned used) those numbers in any meaningful way because they are two different time slices that have no data that can be parallelized in a qualitative or quantitative way.
Click to expand...
Ok I see where the issue is. You seem to think we are saying ALL Nvidia sales are mindshare. No! What we are saying, well at least I am, is that a good number, say 30% is mindshare. These sales are Nvidia fanbois and those that are ignorant of what they are buying so far as against the competition. And likely 10% is the Same for AMD. So in the end splitting the rest you come to 60/40 at best assuming an even split. I dare say it would take 3 years of AMD being ahead and not the 5% ahead we have seen over the past few generations from either side, to sway the totals in AMDs favor.

You are making this far too difficult. Looking at it simply, with a far overhead view and basic marketing and trend analysis, what he is alluding to, Adorned, is somewhat correct. It is what I have seen posted from numerous individuals that actual work at the stores that sell computer components. Like I said all you have to do is look at the last generation and see the 960 numbers, crap card against AMD cards and yet outsold them easily.
 
NKD said:
This is not 2007. AMD software support and overall package has been solid. They release driver updates along with every new game. That has been fixed, their hardware is where they lack. I think you missed the whole polaris and new highend chip the whole year. They need to get their shit together on the hardware side, hopefully vega fixes that for them. Software is non issue.
Click to expand...
In actuality right now this year AMD has quite the record against Nvidia on this. Was reading a Nvidia thread elsewhere that was complaining of the last Driver, around Nov 15, blue screening and breaking SLI. A lot of the comments from owners was that for the duration of this year the drivers have been absolutely terrible.
 
JustReason said:
Ok I see where the issue is. You seem to think we are saying ALL Nvidia sales are mindshare. No! What we are saying, well at least I am, is that a good number, say 30% is mindshare. These sales are Nvidia fanbois and those that are ignorant of what they are buying so far as against the competition. And likely 10% is the Same for AMD. So in the end splitting the rest you come to 60/40 at best assuming an even split. I dare say it would take 3 years of AMD being ahead and not the 5% ahead we have seen over the past few generations from either side, to sway the totals in AMDs favor.

You are making this far too difficult. Looking at it simply, with a far overhead view and basic marketing and trend analysis, what he is alluding to, Adorned, is somewhat correct. It is what I have seen posted from numerous individuals that actual work at the stores that sell computer components. Like I said all you have to do is look at the last generation and see the 960 numbers, crap card against AMD cards and yet outsold them easily.
Click to expand...


Its not even 30% mindshare! its like at most 5% or less,

There is no way AMD would get to 45% when they have a product that is similiar to nV right?

So how did they get to 40%, and then 45% both of those market share numbers were due to the 4xxx series and 5xxx series, where they were performance wise just under their competition, but power consumption wise much less, and price wise just under nV's cards.

Adorned is totally wrong, AGAIN if you need me to explain it I will, ask me I WILL DO IT and give you links to show how wrong he is.

I have been investing in nV and AMD/ATi for over 20 years now (the reason why I have been because these companies out of all the tech companies are the easiest to read, its like everything they have done is on their shirt), I remember when I made money and when I lost money from which company and why it happened too.


You are talking about the gtx 960 right? When did it come out? What was AMD's respective card competing against it? What was the power usage differential between the two cards? what was the performance difference between the two cards? What was the time difference between launches of the two card? Yeah , something you didn't think about, something Adorned didn't think about...... I mentioned it in the second or third post in this thread and even stated he wasn't thinking about when certain cards were released.

Do you see the sophistry type analysis Adorned did now? After asking all these questions, there are more. How would OEM's value, performance when its within 15% while price is less for the 960, but power consumption is 42% less, what kind of power supply does the 960 need, cooling solutions? Now how would that impact bottom lines for them? And then so on and so forth. The 960 was released in Jan of 2015 volume was immediate, the r9 380 was released in May of 2015, but volume didn't come out till another month or two for them. You are looking at close to a 2 quarter difference, Yeah these are the reasons why the 960 outsold the r 9 380, not because of mind share. Once OEM's are locked in and have a good selling product that gives good bottom lines to them, what are the chances of switching over to a competitor's product that might drop bottom lines? None of these questions were answered by Adorned.
 
Last edited:
Pieter3dnow said:
He shows sales numbers in this video. The argument made is that even if AMD was or is faster Nvidia still keeps selling cards more then AMD does AMD ends up "losing" anyway which way you turn.

No matter what the reality of the situation is the steam numbers he uses will show that Nvidia sells a lot more and proves this by profits. Even shows a card that was behind for 14 months by Nvidia still sold more then the "better" AMD card that was ahead for more then a year.

This also confirms that AMD has piss poor marketing department and if you view the steam numbers for RX 480 it is still not good.
Click to expand...

This is and always has been AMD's problem. Even when they do succeed in the CPU or GPU arena's, brand recognition of Intel and NVIDIA products keep those products flying off the shelves at a faster rate than AMD's. Also, many people think that if NVIDIA rules on the high end, that the speed advantage of the flagship cards trickles down to the lower price points. As we all know, this isn't necessarily the case but the masses don't know that.
 
Dan_D said:
This is and always has been AMD's problem. Even when they do succeed in the CPU or GPU arena's, brand recognition of Intel and NVIDIA products keep those products flying off the shelves at a faster rate than AMD's. Also, many people think that if NVIDIA rules on the high end, that the speed advantage of the flagship cards trickles down to the lower price points. As we all know, this isn't necessarily the case but the masses don't know that.
Click to expand...
Time will tell as we need the AMD Q3 financial figures to see if they managed to hold their AIB share by selling Polaris cards or dumping cards into the OEM market.
I would had expected Nvidia to take back much more than 1% based upon their recent financial figures and sales of Pascal.

Cheers
 
razor1 said:
Its not even 30% mindshare! its like at most 5% or less,

There is no way AMD would get to 45% when they have a product that is similiar to nV right?

So how did they get to 40%, and then 45% both of those market share numbers were due to the 4xxx series and 5xxx series, where they were performance wise just under their competition, but power consumption wise much less, and price wise just under nV's cards.

Adorned is totally wrong, AGAIN if you need me to explain it I will, ask me I WILL DO IT and give you links to show how wrong he is.

I have been investing in nV and AMD/ATi for over 20 years now (the reason why I have been because these companies out of all the tech companies are the easiest to read, its like everything they have done is on their shirt), I remember when I made money and when I lost money from which company and why it happened too.


You are talking about the gtx 960 right? When did it come out? What was AMD's respective card ompete against it? What was the power usage differential between the two cards? what was the performance difference between the two cards? What was the time difference between launches of the two card? Yeah , something you didn't think about, something Adorned didn't think about...... I mentioned it in the second or third post in this thread and even stated he wasn't thinking about when certain cards were released.

Do you see the sophistry type analysis Adorned did now? After asking all these questions, there are more. How would OEM's value, performance when its within 15% while price is less for the 960, but power consumption is 42% less, what kind of power supply does the 960 need, cooling solutions? Now how would that impact bottom lines for them? And then so on and so forth. The 960 was released in Jan of 2015 volume was immediate, the r9 380 was released in May of 2015, but volume didn't come out till another month or two for them. You are looking at close to a 2 quarter difference, Yeah these are the reasons why the 960 outsold the r 9 380, not because of mind share.
Click to expand...
so let's get down to the essentials.

you are saying:

1: No one buys without complete knowledge of the product they are buying.

2: No one buys based on brand recognition or just brand preference.

Because of number 2 I know you are full of shit. I buy based on brand preference, AMD. What Nvidias prices or performance are do not influence me at all. When I first started buying GPUs it was Nvidia and honestly it was brand recognition that made me target their product. Of course I have since switched to AMD.

At any rate I am guessing you have no retail experience because if you did you would know most consumers are not knowledgeable and easily influenced by marketing and brand recognition. They likely know little to nothing of performance, power usage, nor heat output of the product they buy. there are even stories of sales persons giving that marketing material off as fact or their own bias as reason for said recommendation.

As far as OEMs, they aren't nearly as uninformed but generally speaking one can say they mirror trends, but again they add difficulty to the discussion and I prefer to speak solely on the consumers frame of reference.

At any rate, 4/5xxx series sales have little to do with case in point. You chart shows peaks of 44% but with the more general amount of 35%. You can't look at single instances but rather the whole of time in larger chunks to get an idea. look at any forum and try to garner the ownership percents. It looks like 80%-20% favoring NVidia of course. Sorry but the general consensus is against you. Trying to bury human behavior in a graph that has oems which don't generally share individual characteristics doesn't change the landscape of the buying habits of the general consumer.
 
JustReason said:
so let's get down to the essentials.

you are saying:

1: No one buys without complete knowledge of the product they are buying.

2: No one buys based on brand recognition or just brand preference.

Because of number 2 I know you are full of shit. I buy based on brand preference, AMD. What Nvidias prices or performance are do not influence me at all. When I first started buying GPUs it was Nvidia and honestly it was brand recognition that made me target their product. Of course I have since switched to AMD.

At any rate I am guessing you have no retail experience because if you did you would know most consumers are not knowledgeable and easily influenced by marketing and brand recognition. They likely know little to nothing of performance, power usage, nor heat output of the product they buy. there are even stories of sales persons giving that marketing material off as fact or their own bias as reason for said recommendation.

As far as OEMs, they aren't nearly as uninformed but generally speaking one can say they mirror trends, but again they add difficulty to the discussion and I prefer to speak solely on the consumers frame of reference.

At any rate, 4/5xxx series sales have little to do with case in point. You chart shows peaks of 44% but with the more general amount of 35%. You can't look at single instances but rather the whole of time in larger chunks to get an idea. look at any forum and try to garner the ownership percents. It looks like 80%-20% favoring NVidia of course. Sorry but the general consensus is against you. Trying to bury human behavior in a graph that has oems which don't generally share individual characteristics doesn't change the landscape of the buying habits of the general consumer.
Click to expand...


I did not say that, I stated it has very little to do with it!

keep that in mind

And I killed your example of the 960 so how do you factor that in with me not knowing my shit? Yeah I don't know shit, I know graphics cards and the graphics market. You definitely know shit, probably play around it too.

The rest of it, you didn't look at what nV did at those points where share went back down, they dropped prices of their product stack! Again not understanding what is going on to influence those numbers. Not only did they drop prices they gave money back to early adopters of the 2xx line.

Do you want me to write out a timeline and correlate all this information into one picture? Damn dude, its literally like you want me to do that, just to show you how wrong you are? If you want me to do it I can do it, can't do it today, maybe tonight, but most likely this weekend.
 
NKD said:
This is not 2007. AMD software support and overall package has been solid. They release driver updates along with every new game. That has been fixed, their hardware is where they lack. I think you missed the whole polaris and new highend chip the whole year. They need to get their shit together on the hardware side, hopefully vega fixes that for them. Software is non issue.
Click to expand...

Is that why the new Macbook Pro Radeon 450/455/460 have graphics bugs?
 
Last edited:
I am just going to repeat myself mind-share arguments are meant to distract from the fact AMD has a lousy product pipeline right now and has for the last couple of years. Marketing and brand loyalty can certainly carry a distance, but it does not put you in the lead the way Nvidia is in the lead right now. High quality and high performing products that their competitor can not match at this time does that. If AMD could bring to market competing products and not do stupid marketing campaigns like the ill advised occupy wall-street based 1% marketing campaign they could actually compete with nvidia.
 
Presbytier said:
I am just going to repeat myself mind-share arguments are meant to distract from the fact AMD has a lousy product pipeline right now and has for the last couple of years. Marketing and brand loyalty can certainly carry a distance, but it does not put you in the lead the way Nvidia is in the lead right now. High quality and high performing products that their competitor can not match at this time does that. If AMD could bring to market competing products and not do stupid marketing campaigns like the ill advised occupy wall-street based 1% marketing campaign they could actually compete with nvidia.
Click to expand...

AMD should release a founders edition. That worked out great!
 
THUMPer said:
AMD should release a founders edition. That worked out great!
Click to expand...
That was certainly bad PR and even with bad PR like that the product quality pushed nvidia to make more money then all of AMD this last quarter that is quite literally how bad AMD is doing right now that they could not capitalize on a bungled PR move.
 
Presbytier said:
That was certainly bad PR and even with bad PR like that the product quality pushed nvidia to make more money then all of AMD this last quarter that is quite literally how bad AMD is doing right now that they could not capitalize on a bungled PR move.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, AMD is doing awful. i can't believe it.:nailbiting:
 
Presbytier said:
Less than 20% market share in discrete cards is pretty bad, and don't try to bring up stocks as stock evaluation does not equate to company health.
Click to expand...

True but you have to admit, they are in a much better position now than a year ago with some liability clean up.
 
Chimpee said:
True but you have to admit, they are in a much better position now than a year ago with some liability clean up.
Click to expand...
All they did was house cleaning now they have to show they can sell competitive products. I have very little confidence in the Radeon team, but on the CPU side they may have a winner with Zen.
 
I noticed about a month ago at Microcenter that they had an absolute ass-ton of returned 480's marked down into the very low $200 range. I was again there over the weekend getting parts for my Retropie console build and they had not only the same 480's but that more had been returned. Now, I don't know much 480's or for that matter, AMD anymore, they simply aren't on my radar but for whatever reasons, no one is keeping these things from what I saw at Microcenter.
 
Presbytier said:
I am just going to repeat myself mind-share arguments are meant to distract from the fact AMD has a lousy product pipeline right now and has for the last couple of years. Marketing and brand loyalty can certainly carry a distance, but it does not put you in the lead the way Nvidia is in the lead right now. High quality and high performing products that their competitor can not match at this time does that. If AMD could bring to market competing products and not do stupid marketing campaigns like the ill advised occupy wall-street based 1% marketing campaign they could actually compete with nvidia.
Click to expand...

Mind share is not an argument meant to distract but a statement of fact. Otherwise, you seem to be claiming it is either this or that and nothing else.
 
Presbytier said:
All they did was house cleaning now they have to show they can sell competitive products. I have very little confidence in the Radeon team, but on the CPU side they may have a winner with Zen.
Click to expand...

That is certainly true, but the house cleaning did help their expense payment on their loan. Reducing debt is always a good thing for AMD, I am hopeful they will have positive cashflow next year but I am cautious regarding the product line will really make a big dent in their financials.
 
ManofGod said:
Mind share is not an argument meant to distract but a statement of fact. Otherwise, you seem to be claiming it is either this or that and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I never said mind share does not play a role, but the conversation here is that it is somehow the only reason Nvidia is absolutely killing AMD right now in the discrete GPU space, and frankly that is a ridiculous proposition.
 
I think it is clear at present Nvidia is killing AMD because they have a whole current generation top to bottom. How that will change depends on what AMD has available for folks to buy. Mind share presently makes very little difference is what I see.
 
noko said:
I think it is clear at present Nvidia is killing AMD because they have a whole current generation top to bottom. How that will change depends on what AMD has available for folks to buy. Mind share presently makes very little difference is what I see.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Vega can bring a bit of balance to the force.
 
noko said:
I think it is clear at present Nvidia is killing AMD because they have a whole current generation top to bottom. How that will change depends on what AMD has available for folks to buy. Mind share presently makes very little difference is what I see.
Click to expand...

There is little to no change over all these years.
 
Spoonie_G said:
Not true for the high-end. Folks are buying Nvidia now because the FuryX isn't cutting it right now.
Click to expand...
Where and why?

I just bought a second Fury X so I could crossfire on three 1440p screens in an eyefinity setup. With driver improvements the Fury X is quite equitable to the 1070 on dx12 and vulcan and plenty fast enough for dx11 games as well. That is biased info you spewed, and inaccurate.

Fury X works quite well.

Proof in point: (2) Fury X in crossfire vs Nvidia cards in SLI on three 4K monitors.

Including a 12GB Titan X pair.

Think the Titan with 3x the RAM would destroy the Fury at 11,520 x 2160? Think again.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html

AMD is more than holding its own with the 1.5 year old Fury X card.

I'd had nothing but Nvidia cards since about 1998 until 2014 it 2015. I bought a 285 from a GTX 670 and then went to a Fury X this year. The Fury X is a fantastic card especially at its current sale price point of about $330 new! Free sync being the new option on monitors like 5:1 helps make it easier to match a new display to the AMD cards too. Look for Nvidia profits and market share to continue to drop from this point forward until they begin to support free sync. Nobody desires to pay the $200 gsync tax and many people just won't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Presbytier said:
I never said mind share does not play a role, but the conversation here is that it is somehow the only reason Nvidia is absolutely killing AMD right now in the discrete GPU space, and frankly that is a ridiculous proposition.
Click to expand...
The only ones claiming it plays the whole role are you and the rest of the Nvidia-defense group. I even stated it plays a large role but not the only one. Even looking at Razors chart you see it. When they were dead even AMD at best hit 44% but seemed to hover around 35% ( 7xxx series forward, 4xxx and 5xxx are too close to ATI that I leave them out, I think ~5 years is good enough to make the case.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top