AMD confirm Navi will launch Q3

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

He probably means Pro and whatever is the XBone equivalent. They have Polaris chips. 

Yeah, maybe. That being said, I'm getting really tired of his mightier-than-thou attitude.

[IAmAndre]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not strictly from top ends sales, but they would certainly be enjoying overall more sales and higher company net worth when the industry (everyone from investors to consumUoeers) saw their products as top of the range, and when they aren't specifically in that category they are viewed as intentionally limited to sell to a lower market.

Does this mean that Nintendo would be enjoying more sales and higher company net worth if they had released a console to compete with the Xbox One X? I'm not sure.

[MageTank]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

Still doing builds?

I do still tinker, but it's been a long time since I've posted any of my recent work. Mostly waiting on new hardware to release, hence my presence in this thread.

[IAmAndre]

8 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

The PS4 and Xbox One have GPUs that perform similarly to the RX 580? Or are you garbling words because you want to win an argument?

He's maybe referring to the One X and PS4 Pro, if you consider software optimization and all that.

[Hellion]

7 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Or idk, the fact that NV outsells AMD in ratio of 4:1 in consumer market.

 

Let's see what happened in the last 10 months or so. Well, NV gained market share. Coincidentally they gained about 8-ish% when they launched the RTX cards. You know, the high end. Must be coincidence. 

 

 

This is irony at it's finest. Huge part of their marketing is constantly having the best card out there. Put it in top of every benchmarking chart in every single media format, sponsor every overclocking event, get featured in every single high end build since AMD can't compete, shove into peoples heads that you are the best and build yourself a brand, hence why NV is widely more recognized and peoples first choice. You go look up marketing 101.

 

Ignorance doesn't equate to "marketing is entirely based around what is the best". In an era of online social interaction hype sadly carries more weight then logic because most people will buy something based on a past tense experiance rather then take the time to research.

 

The newest 1650 nvidia card will sell well despite it being a piece of trash for the MSRP simply because it says nvidia on it.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Just like you did here with your one line response to a concept that disproves your agenda, right?

 

 

No, that analogy just doesn't work.  In fact the cars analogy only works if you ignore 90% of market trends and target consumer practices.

Are you honestly going to try and argue that AMD intentionally don't want to beat NVIDIA for the top end market?

 

3 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

Does this mean that Nintendo would be enjoying more sales and higher company net worth if they had released a console to compete with the Xbox One X? I'm not sure.

Probably, although I don't know how that relates to this discussion.  

[IAmAndre]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Probably, although I don't know how that relates to this discussion.  

The point is that Nintendo is an important actor of the industry while not even trying to compete with more technologically advanced products. They might even release an even lower end product but I'm not sure if they would be doing better had they released top end products.

[Hellion]

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

While I understand the premise of your argument, it's important that we do not forget to factor in gross margin. In your example, Ford may outsell Lamborghini through sheer volume, but if the gross margin on Lamborghini's is higher, they wouldn't have to match the sheer volume of sales to maintain high profitability.

 

Price:Performance is a great metric for most consumers, but it's also not the be-all, end all. At the high end, companies would pay twice as much for a product if it can make their workload finish 10% faster, because ultimately time is money. From a Price:Performance perspective, this would be a terrible investment, but over time it would save them money in the long run. This is why the HPC market is so lucrative. They can move less volume while still maintaining a high profit margin. There is also the aforementioned market presence that is gained by having "the best of the best" hardware. AMD is no stranger to this marketing strategy either. It was not long ago that AMD released a statement saying they did not want to be known as the "budget brand". They understand the importance of taking that performance crown, and they are never going to stop aiming for it.

Which isn't the case at all.

 

Lamborghini has gone bankrupt in the past and been sold several times because the company bleeds money year after year.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, IAmAndre said:

The point is that Nintendo is an important actor of the industry while not even trying to compete with more technologically advanced products. They might even release an even lower end product but I'm not sure if they would be doing better had they released top end products.

 

They also have a different market.  they have the whole mario brothers franchise which people still pay an arm and leg for new content.  Although I think if we look at their sales figures, it probably looks like ass.  Given how many people jumped on the wii when it first entered the market versus the slow decline over the years from then it paints a pretty ordinary picture.   I guess having thought about it for a bit I would say yes, if Nintendo had a decent platform out there and all the AAA releases performed exceptionally well on it their market would look a lot better.

[Trixanity]

Nvidia has moved more units than AMD for the last 10 years regardless of who had the performance crown.

[Bouzoo]

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Ignorance doesn't equate to "marketing is entirely based around what is the best". In an era of online social interaction hype sadly carries more weight then logic because most people will buy something based on a past tense experiance rather then take the time to research.

 

The newest 1650 nvidia card will sell well despite it being a piece of trash for the MSRP simply because it says nvidia on it.

And why do you think people that it says nvidia on the 1650? Because they are on top every year and people have in their heads that since it's nvidia it must be better. It's such a basic concept it boggles the mind how you are unable to comprehend it. You say it's all about marketing but you fail to notice that most of NV appearance and marketing is exactly in that high end where AMD has 0 spotlight. Go to any 3D Mark HoF board and show me a single AMD card in freaking top 1000 I'd dare say. NV has all the important marketing because it has most the extreme cards. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia has moved more units than AMD for the last 10 years regardless of who had the performance crown.

Genuinely curious because I couldn't be arsed looking it up, which AMD card took the crown since 2009?

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Genuinely curious because I couldn't be arsed looking it up, which AMD card took the crown since 2009?

the 290x had it for a while, 

[Trixanity]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Genuinely curious because I couldn't be arsed looking it up, which AMD card took the crown since 2009?

When the 5870 launched it was like 40% faster. It helped their market share a little bit but not to the degree you'd think. 

[Bouzoo]

11 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia has moved more units than AMD for the last 10 years regardless of who had the performance crown.

And that is because they had better marketing for god knows how long. For as far as I can remember, they got the big glory back in 2006 with 8800/9800 and have lived for years on that hype, even while they had 200 series. AMD never came close even with 3000 and 4000 series. Everything rest is history. It's even more so important nowadays due to internet and hardcore fanboyism. 

 

EDIT: Actually this shows that NV took the market share back in 2006 so that was 7000 series? 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/07/nvidia-continues-to-take-graphics-market-share-from-amd-intel/

[Paparachipupopep]

Speaking of crowns, when was the last time AMD had one in laptops? Or even decent dGPU market share in general in that space? Hopefully AMD's new stuff can attract some design wins in laptops. Nvidia's power efficiency advantages are killing AMD there, but there's still plenty of room for improvement in laptop GPUs relative to the form factor. In the desktop space, frankly I'm afraid that if Intel doesn't get things moving, Nvidia could just say this whole RTX thing was a mistake. Then fart out 7nm Pascal parts in August, beat AMD at every price point (if they wanted), then sit on their ass for another few years because I just don't see anything on the horizon that looks promising from AMD.

[RejZoR]

8 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia has moved more units than AMD for the last 10 years regardless of who had the performance crown.

People are generally dumb™

 

I knew bunch of people who were buying trash Pentium 4's, the Preshots just because it said "INTEL" on it, despite AMD having vastly superior AthlonXP processors at the time. Not much different was during GeForceFX era and during Fermi era. But when you reverse, AMD gets absolutely trashed when things aren't absolutely spotless for them. Which is just hilarious given NVIDIA doesn't really have any PR shit being thrown around. I mean in terms of shilling their stuff around in a big swing so that general public would be aware of it.

[Trixanity]

16 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

And that is because they had better marketing for god knows how long. For as far as I can remember, they got the big glory back in 2006 with 8800/9800 and have lived for years on that hype, even while they had 200 series. AMD never came close even with 3000 and 4000 series. Everything rest is history. It's even more so important nowadays due to internet and hardcore fanboyism. 

 

EDIT: Actually this shows that NV took the market share back in 2006 so that was 7000 series? 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/07/nvidia-continues-to-take-graphics-market-share-from-amd-intel/

When the 4870 launched it was trading blows with Nvidia's best yet it stood out. Why? It was half the price and was actually more efficient. It was like twice the performance per mm^2. 

[Bouzoo]

Just now, Trixanity said:

When the 4870 launched it was trading blows with Nvidia's best yet it stood out. Why? It was half the price and was actually more efficient. It was like twice the performance per mm^2. 

And it never got the love it was supposed to get. AMD was never able to catch up after NV released 7k-9k series. I remember 4870 being better though. Don't forget that GTX 280 iirc (the top dog) was a rebranded GTX 9800. NV sucked at that period yet they were still there.

[Bouzoo]

9 minutes ago, Paparachipupopep said:

Speaking of crowns, when was the last time AMD had one in laptops? 

I am gonna go on a limb and say 6990M which fought with NV 580M. I might be wrong though.  

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Hellion said:

Which is completely irrelevant.

 

Look at sales figures for a focus vs a limited production GT.

 

Try harder again.

Just keep moving the goal posts.

 

No one is saying that AMD would make all their money on the high end -- they certainly wouldn't. But having a strong high end brings in attention and drives sales at the mid-tier. There's a reason why most major car companies (Ford included -- as much as you want to forget about that) have a performance division and produce a performance car of some kind. It draws in attention that leads to people becoming excited about the brand and thus buying their products.

 

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia has moved more units than AMD for the last 10 years regardless of who had the performance crown.

Part of the problem was that AMD's drivers were garbage at launch of all those products and it wasn't until years later that they actually started to outpace Nvidia. AMD's drivers for the last 5 years or so have been solid, but before that, they just got trashed on review day.

[Paparachipupopep]

AMD can't always be counted on for good drivers if they want to get something out the door within a certain timeframe. Most recent example: Vega Frontier. AMD has come a long way with their drivers, but ultimately I'd say they're at a place where they trade blows with Nvidia, versus one or the other being consistently better.

[BuckGup]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

sorry but cherry picky some minute conditions does not change what I said or why I said it.  A company is only as good at making products as it's best product.  I'm sorry this upsets some people but that is a fact.

 

See the logic in that is skewed as if we were only using Vulkan than Nvidia would suck and you would say AMD makes the better product. It's relative to what application you are doing to. If it's AI than Nvidia all the way. If it's video editing and/or on Linux AMD all the way. The "best" refers to windows gaming. There are a lot of other things people use GPUs for

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, Hellion said:

Which isn't the case at all.

 

Lamborghini has gone bankrupt in the past and been sold several times because the company bleeds money year after year.

I think you are taking your car analogy a little too seriously, however I'll humor it nonetheless. Lamborghini did not have the luxury of receiving multiple billion dollar loans from the government. You are also comparing a private subsidiary of Volkswagen to Ford. That's not exactly a direct comparison. If you compare Lamborghini's parent company to Ford, your analogy falls apart pretty quickly.

 

I understand your intent. You wanted to paint the picture that just because something is faster and flashier, doesn't mean it's going to sell as well, or improve ones market presence. I am not going to disagree with this statement because there is some truth to it. That being said, having a faster and flashier product does serve a purpose in marketing, and if the product itself can return a higher profit margin because of the branding premium, then it's important to offer that option to consumers.

 

I would advise stepping back to take an objective look at both sides of this argument. I think it's getting to a point where people are forgetting exactly what their point was, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. 

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

a bit confused here, is Navi a series of cards or a single card...?