Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by lowdog, Dec 7, 2018.
Getting there slowly. 1/10th at a time.
got any examples of this happening?
No. It seems like I'm speaking with a lot of authority on the subject, but I definitely do not have any proof. I do remember, however, bits and pieces of that whole "AMD Compute FTW" debacle that happened a while ago. I think it was PC Gamer that did an analysis on the games where Maxwell just got stomped on by the radeon cards games like Ashes of Singularity, that one where the guy froze time or something, Quantum Break? And they were talking about how things like dynamic smoke and fog, perhaps particle physics in general, was better with AMD because of their architecture. Also a possibility that I'm just making shit up.
E: wait, that was async stuff that they were looking it.
I honestly didn't post that graph to rub salt into the wound for AMD. It may not seem like much, but Nvidia falling in market share, while AMD is rising in market share, however small, is a positive sign for AMD. Particularly because the graph shows a stable trend line for Nvidia and AMD over 9 months. Nvidia having 74% market share is not good. They're heading into Microsoft territory
These sort of things don't pan out the way they're hyped. You could compare a potato system against a supercomputer, and if the potato is the one developers are optimizing their games for, then that's the one that will ultimately win. Believe me, Nvidia puts a huge amount of work into maintaining close developer relations, and I'm not just talking about the money. I've seen how close the developers work with Nvidia first-hand, and it literally comes down to Nvidia being involved in both pre- and post-release game development: bug fixes, code optimization, dedicated developer assistance.
I notice AMD fans all too frequently fall into the trap of assuming that the theoretically superior tech will win. Even if we accept that AMD has better tech than Nvidia or Intel, remember we live in a world where VHS killed Beta, LCD killed Plasma, and streaming beat high-bitrate disc and lossless music; where Red Dead Redemption 2 runs better on console than PC, despite the PC's technical superiority, because you can't perform well in a game that's never released on your platform.
So AMD having better hardware like HBM2 memory means diddly squat. All it does is increase costs, and given the Radeon VII doesn't clearly beat the RTX 2080, that means it just makes AMD look incompetent. AMD has the best chance of beating Nvidia if they can produce more GPUs for consoles to help them raise more revenue, then in turn they create advanced GPUs for PC gamers that actually beat the Nvidia equivalents decisively.
Also, I think people should pay more attention to Intel. If Intel ever packages a decent IGP with their CPUs, then it's bye-bye Nvidia and AMD. I haven't personally tested the Intel UHD 630 on my 9700K, but although it's awful against the Vega IGP I was surprised to see that it can run Crysis at 40FPS on medium at 720p. If and when Intel get over their internal meltdown, and if PC gaming is still a thing by then, all they need to do is bring out an IGP that has enough power to run the latest console games in some sort of CPU-assisted emulation mode, and they can leverage both markets (i.e., also sell that processor architecture to the console maker) then they can't lose. SO basically if Intel develops the next Cell chip
Some more AMD data... I'm surprised at the laptop growth... nearly doubled their market share. Seems they are making coin in the server market.
Source is https://www.techspot.com/news/78664-amd-cutting-deeply-intel-market-share-across-desktop.html
At nVidia? Hardly? Drivers are never "perfect", of course. But I can tell that over the last couple of years, I never experienced (or are aware) of any issue with nVidia drivers for the 10 series. I haven't switched to the 20 series yet, and I have heard that for a weeks after market launch some games had problems. But that has been sorted out long time ago. Let's not go into fanboy talk here, let's stay with verifiable facts, such as GPU features, benchmarks, prices, availability....
They have made considerable progress, but I doubt anything will come along that would allow you to play 4K with quality settings at 60 fps, such as with an RTX 2080 or maybe a Radeon VII (not to mention a TI)
Exactly, gamers arent exactly lining up to spend 700+ on a 1080 or equivalent for financial reasons (Though some do of course).
I agree. But just taking the top 5 popular cards on the Steam Hardware Survey:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 14.9%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 9.3%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 5.2%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 4.3%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 3.5%
They account for ~38% of the total GPUs on the survey. Excluding the 1070 which performs relatively well, that means at least one third of the gaming market right now is using cards at or below the speed of a GTX 1060, i.e. suitable for 1080p, adequate at best for 1440p, and not useful for 4K. I can't imagine it would take a huge amount of effort to capture a large portion of the gaming market with an IGP.
is that really where the money is though, in the Nvidia thread i posted a link (also on the front page) where IBM has just made the biggest super computer using nvidia gpu's for the tune of $200 million+ dollars. that's a shit load of 2080ti's (at least 200,000) to come close to that amount, i doubt that many have been sold world wide. the money isn't in PC gaming any more, its in large contracts and consoles. the hardest part is things like steam don't give actual numbers, only % of market share.
Exactly, the high end GPU market for "gaming" is not lucrative at all. High costs and low volumes. It's just great for branding and pissing rights.
This is why AMD mostly focuses on low/mid (which they need to do a better job of) and also Datacentres where the money is.
Consoles are ok as well, but not exactly big money makers for AMD.
Gaming revenue from Nvidia grew 68% Vs 71% datacenter, gaming is still the cash cow for Nvidia.
yeah you need sources if you are going to claim things like this.
SOC's will also be doing well, Tegra would have exploded over the last couple of years with 32 million Switches out there and each one rocking an old Tegra that's money for jam. People talk about AMD in the console business and conveniently forget Ninty dropped AMD for NV. I wonder if it's hidden inside gaming.
what are you smoking amd are not beating intel in anything.
intel are still the top performing cpu across the board.
Yeah , I would imagine a large part of the grow comes from the 32million switches.
maybe read what I quoted.
it'll be all low margin, but volume and low margin is worth something - ie it's alllll money.
I don't think Nvidia deals in low margins since they didn't want to deal with consoles low margin in the first place. The switch would be very lucrative for them.
Tegra costs peanuts and is worth penuts though compared with the latest SoCs in the two 'big' consoles
maybe, without seeing some facts i assume that those old tegra soc's can't be worth much.
I just don't think they're interested low margin custom soc's.. At least not anymore. The fact the switch appears to use an off rhe shelf X1 is further evidence of that. That doesn't mean theyre not selling them at low margins.. (a non quantifiable thing anyway wirhout inside info)
AMD otoh have sey themselves up to specialise in semi-custom, it's a decent chunk of there business now
Try and be more careful, he's easily triggered by the words AMD, beat and Intel if used in the wrong order