AMD's F U to Nvidia

Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by lowdog, Dec 7, 2018.

  1. .Spada.

    .Spada. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Location:
    Pandora's Box
    Compute would help with stuff like smoke effects, fog, etc, right? Cause I think nvidia only handles it well if it has a lot of power to spare, but otherwise the hit is quite significant. Whereas the hit on AMD is not that much.
     
  2. Sipheren

    Sipheren Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,281
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Yeah, kind of. It's more complicated than that though, the difference between AMD and NVIDIA currently in dx11 titles (and some badly programmed dx12 ones) is more about how well the game is coded to use gcn and how well amds drivers are made to work the specific game.

    There are some here that can explain it really well, but it seems it's hard to utilise all the cores effectively on gcn which tends to leave the cards not performing as well as they should.
     
  3. .Spada.

    .Spada. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Location:
    Pandora's Box
    Getting there slowly. 1/10th at a time.
     
  4. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    56,675
    Location:
    brisbane
    got any examples of this happening?
     
  5. .Spada.

    .Spada. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Location:
    Pandora's Box
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  6. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,767
    Location:
    Canberra
    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
     
  7. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    12,216
    Location:
    Brisbane
  8. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    103,000
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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)
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  9. Franc

    Franc Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,702
    Location:
    Melbourne North Sub
    Exactly, gamers arent exactly lining up to spend 700+ on a 1080 or equivalent for financial reasons (Though some do of course).
     
  10. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,767
    Location:
    Canberra
    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.
     
  11. havabeer

    havabeer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    4,314
    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.
     
  12. Sipheren

    Sipheren Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,281
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    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.
     
  13. maxrig

    maxrig Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    511
  14. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    56,675
    Location:
    brisbane
    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.
     
  15. Court Jester

    Court Jester Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    what are you smoking amd are not beating intel in anything.

    intel are still the top performing cpu across the board.
     
  16. maxrig

    maxrig Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    511
    Yeah , I would imagine a large part of the grow comes from the 32million switches.
     
  17. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    56,675
    Location:
    brisbane
    maybe read what I quoted.

    it'll be all low margin, but volume and low margin is worth something - ie it's alllll money.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  18. maxrig

    maxrig Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    511
    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.
     
  19. mAJORD

    mAJORD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9,405
    Location:
    Griffin , Brisbane
    Tegra costs peanuts and is worth penuts though compared with the latest SoCs in the two 'big' consoles
     
  20. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    56,675
    Location:
    brisbane
    maybe, without seeing some facts i assume that those old tegra soc's can't be worth much.
     

Share This Page