AMD's F U to Nvidia

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

  1. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,220
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Shhhhh, you'll attract them.
    To be fair to Nvidia, it's not across their entire range, and they actually have the performance to back it up.

    One thing. This will be great for people who are traditionally budget conscious and don't have a G-Sync monitor, but for people at the mid-high to high end that do, it's less attractive when there will be 1080Ti cards on the second hand market that are still dropping in price. The cost of Freesync is lower, but it's not zero, and losing money on a G-Sync panel to buy a Freesync one is still added cost.

    That's without retail market BS if the demand spikes, or Nvidia either competing or full on dumping to neuter the impact.

    I see this as the problem that AMD has at the high end going forward. A lot of people moved to frame sync at a time when AMD was pretty much non-existent in that market, and G-Sync was a timebomb that Nvidia laid partially in that knowledge.

    The best thing for AMD and Freesync at this point would be for Intel to implement it in their iGPU drivers and in the new discrete line they're apparently working on.
     
  2. havabeer

    havabeer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    4,383
    So are we book marking this thread for a years time?

    Love a good one or two year on finger point/name and shame
     
  3. Luke212

    Luke212 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,477
    Location:
    Sydney
    profit driven company in near monopoly makes decisions to maximise profit.

    endthread/
     
  4. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,124
    Location:
    brisbane
    company charges what market will bear for product.

    more news at 11!
     
  5. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Brisbane
    The last competitive card from AMD was the Radeon R9 290X released October 24, 2013

    R9 390X - June 2015 - Rebadged and overpriced.
    R9 Fury X - June 2015 - Overpriced, not competitive
    RX 480 - June 2016 - released a rebadged R9 290x for a cheap price, competitive on price but poor performing
    RX Vega 64 - August 14, 2017 - Overpriced, poor performing - Lacks many things including Nvidia game tech important for VR etc.
    Nvidia 1080 - May 27, 2016. 1 year 2 months before the RX Vega 64.


    Now you guys think AMD can produce anything competitive?

    They haven't been competitive for 5 years.

    Their business plan is to sell cards based on freesync, not sell a graphics card that is competitive with nvidia.

    Problem is, freesync is always behind gsync.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2018
  6. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,124
    Location:
    brisbane
    their business pivoted away from going after the high end YEARS ago. They are happy atm in the paddling pool. It's not a terrible place to be but #gloriouspcmasterrace needs MOAR!
     
  7. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,638
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    lol. the 580 is the only one i considered...only since the price has settled a bit. and im not buying it. there are some really sweet looking bewdiful grfx games coming next year though. being poor ill just have to wait much longer than usual to enjoy them. the bottom of the barrel card ive got suffices me for now. noway am i moving above 1080p. i dont miss what ive never had :D
     
    museumman likes this.
  8. Nian

    Nian Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    879
    Yeah nah!
     
  9. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Typical AMD fanboy reply though.

    You can't argue with facts.

    AMD know it themselves, when they were teasing Vega pricing, they didn't tease card pricing, but card + freesync monitor pricing, because they knew the card alone is a rip off.


    If both cards were equal I would choose AMD every time.

    And before my 1080, every card I've ever owned was an AMD card.
     
  10. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,124
    Location:
    brisbane
    Most of us just want AMD's shit to pay off. We all love frames and pretties.
     
  11. asho444

    asho444 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Messages:
    752
    Location:
    Sunny Coast
    To be fair tho, the mining completely fucked an resembelence of normal! The vega 56 I was just playing with was beating my 1080 with a moderate overclock! Vega is a good card just needs more power engineering
     
    museumman likes this.
  12. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,124
    Location:
    brisbane
    Vega gambled bigtime with HBM that was a mistake.
     
  13. cmi83

    cmi83 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    488
    Location:
    SE Bris
    I just enjoy buying something where I don't feel completely shafted, which is why i'm excited/hopeful for AMD to get something out ~1080Ti levels with a decent discount from 2080 pricing
     
  14. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,220
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Definitely, my point was that it happened at a time when the gamer segment was really starting to take up frame sync tech, and the result was that G-Sync ended up getting the boost because AMD was uncompetitive in that user/buyer space because of the retail market.

    The why and the market response/result is what matters, not the emotion of brand fanbois. I don't think that there are a whole lot of people in the real world who are as crazy about Nvidia as, say there are people who go gaga for Apple. If AMD had a compelling product in perf/price as a stand alone, and again in conjunction with a Freesync monitor, people would buy it, but it's still going to be measured against Nvidia, like for like, at the moment of purchase, not for some nebulous future "grand plan" payoff.
     
  15. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Brisbane
    There are four problems right now

    1. Freesync is outdated compared to gsync, can't do HDR etc
    2. AMD cards are slower
    3. AMD competing cards are released well after nvidia cards, why wait 1 year for a discount?
    4. AMD lack a lot of important gaming tech, if you use VR, AMD is bad for both performance alone, and then lacks all the VR features as well.
     
  16. Luke212

    Luke212 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,477
    Location:
    Sydney
    They seem to be kicking goals in cpu, so I have hope in competition soon.

    Anyone know where amd lets itself down? Since 7970 era, They had higher ram performance. And higher flops. Why didn’t it translate to FPS?
     
  17. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I"m not exactly sure, but funnily enough both AMD and ATI even before the merge both liked to create products under the idea of "What if we did things like this, and all developers change their code overnight"

    Then only a few developers did and the product was disappointing.

    The only reason ATI/AMD was given a free pass on this, is the 290x and cards before were priced very cheap.

    A lot these GPU's are just as powerful as Nvidia on paper but the power is focused in areas where few games take advantage of it.

    A lot of their cards for a very long time were built around what the many principles around DX12.

    Even today most DX12 game implementations are terrible which is really unfortunate for these GPU's basically built for it.


    AMD had an insane lead on nvidia for dx12, however this was all a waste of time as we are still years away from real DX12 in the average game and nvidia are quickly catching up.


    on the CPU side of things its not that different.

    AMD focused on more cores and lower speed per core, which has been terrible for many games and even applications for a very long time.

    Its only more recently that you could get away with 6-8 slower cores.

    However even today its bad, many games still use a main thread for a lot of the game which performs poorly on AMD

    Then you have Virtual Reality which AMD also performs poorly with.

    Although their recent CPU's have improved it a lot.
     
  18. PsychoSmiley

    PsychoSmiley Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,701
    Location:
    Taranaki, New Zealand
    Meanwhile I'll be slipping away a few bucks each week to buy a Vega56/64 next time I'm in Aus to replace my R9 390 which I'm sure will last me another 4 years happily. Got a Freesync screen so that kind of puts me in that direction anyway.

    If I want HDR content I'll just sit on my couch. Consoles seem to have this worked out much better honestly meanwhile PC's are still arsing around and not able to implement it correctly.
     
  19. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Brisbane
    To be fair the PC experience is miles ahead of what consoles/cheap televisions offer.

    There is real HDR, and what is basically simulated HDR or a very poor version of it
     
  20. PsychoSmiley

    PsychoSmiley Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,701
    Location:
    Taranaki, New Zealand
    Everything reading wise points in the other direction. Consoles are implemented on a per title basis leaving it to the developers where as the PC is at the mercy of the OS/drivers/developers.

    I have seen zero compelling reason to even bother with it on PC so far. Maybe things have changed and I could be wrong but I'll let my OLED do the heavy HDR lifting for the moment.
     

Share This Page