"You want AMD to beat Nvidia so you can buy an Nvidia GPU cheaper"

[diegoaccord]

I read this quote on a video just now, and dammit, I agree. All the hope on AMD to finally answer Nvidia is so that those people can get their 70 class card at $500, and whatever else market check would be had by AMD 'winning' a generation. Like if the 7900 XT comes out ultra competitive, (or better) and cheaper, you wouldn't even buy it, you'd hope the market checks Nvidia into lowering it's prices, then buy that. 

 

Does anyone else think this is the case?

 

 

[Middcore]

Been saying essentially this for a while. 

 

There are a lot of people who don't really want competition in the sense of having lots of good options on the market so they can weigh the pros and cons of each and choose the one that works best for them. What they want is for competing products to nominally exist and for someone else to buy just enough of them to prevent the deleterious consequences of the leading brand gaining a total monopoly, while they personally continue to buy the leading brand's offerings without question. 

 

This mindset isn't unique to PC graphics cards. You see it with various types of products, and in the realm of media as well. 

 

 

[Eigenvektor]

The same was true of their CPUs when Ryzen first appeared. I remember people saying they wanted a credible competitor to Intel, so they could finally afford a high-end Intel CPU at normal prices. Guess many don't realize that companies can't stay competitive if you just want them around to make another company's offering more affordable. Thankfully their offering was good enough for people to actually start buying it. Let's hope the same is true of their GPUs this time around.

[xg32]

2 hours ago, diegoaccord said:

.

 

 

I think i just want the card that "makes the most sense" for me at the time of purchase. I just didn't want a card that's 15% faster but draws 50% more power (3090 ti) or a card with ram on the back (3090),

 

this time i just don't want an adapter or a new psu yet. Though if everything is equal, nvidia drivers edges out amd

[TheDankKoosh]

I would wholeheartedly invest in a high end AMD GPU if it is sufficiently better than Nvidia hardware, just got a 3080 recently so I'm not in the market for new hardware, but if RDNA 4 turns out to be a slam dunk on value then I won't hesitate to buy. Features are starting to mature now that AMD has the capital to incorporate better stuff into their hardware, honestly CUDA is Nvidia's last saving grace as a stranglehold for market share.  

[Aragorn-]

1 hour ago, TheDankKoosh said:

I would wholeheartedly invest in a high end AMD GPU if it is sufficiently better than Nvidia hardware, just got a 3080 recently so I'm not in the market for new hardware, but if RDNA 4 turns out to be a slam dunk on value then I won't hesitate to buy. Features are starting to mature now that AMD has the capital to incorporate better stuff into their hardware, honestly CUDA is Nvidia's last saving grace as a stranglehold for market share.  

TBH though, this is also the problem. I bought a 6900xt because it was close enough to top end performance and WASNT an nvidia card. I dislike nvidias scummy practices and the last two gens of AMD products have been perfectly viable alternatives. The 5700xt was a "slam dunk", to use your expression, with 2070 perf for 2060 money, for instance. The 6000 series across the board has beaten nvidia on value. And yet people still avoid them, including yourself.

 

Your reply at first sounds like its supporting AMD (or any competitor), but actually your saying "i'll buy AMD if its <insert value> faster than an equivalent nvidia card". Where that value is undefined and vague. If its the same speed, or only a little bit faster, you'll buy nvidia anyway and we're back to the original point by the OP.

 

You bought a 3080, despite the equivalent AMD card being cheaper.

[ewitte]

7 hours ago, diegoaccord said:

I read this quote on a video just now, and dammit, I agree. All the hope on AMD to finally answer Nvidia is so that those people can get their 70 class card at $500, and whatever else market check would be had by AMD 'winning' a generation. Like if the 7900 XT comes out ultra competitive, (or better) and cheaper, you wouldn't even buy it, you'd hope the market checks Nvidia into lowering it's prices, then buy that. 

 

Does anyone else think this is the case?

 

 

I believe the only people 100% dead set on Nvidia are people that want something that is the best.  Best performance or best features.  It doesn't make sense for someone not interested in top performance and doesn't care about ray tracing to not go AMD when it is much cheaper (unless your using it for a purpose and need nvenc, etc).

 

Sadly its not just about price AMD needs to catch up on features (or have better features) to really be competitive.  Having decent FSR will help tremendously but they are still behind DLSS and raytracing.  Its also not helping being so far behind on the launch they are losing out on the impatient buyers.

[Whichmotherboard]

I agree with the first post, the only reason I would root for AMD is to put pressure on Nvidia, so that I would be able to buy Nvidia. AMD just doesn't have an "all-action" card, they don't have acceleration for Adobe Premiere for example, their encoders from what I've heard is bad too. AMD GPUs don't have support for rendering softwares like V-Ray.

Nvidia makes 'all-weather' gpus, AMD doesn't. Only reason to consider AMD is if its $100-$150 (or equivalent currency) lower than the Nvidia card.

[Mister Woof]

I've got no loyalties...I buy whatever makes the most sense and has price to performance.

 

Last gen it was 5700XT, then this gen was 3080 because it was available at MSRP and I just grabbed in back in 2020. Next time is gonna be.....who knows.

[Whichmotherboard]

10 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

The same was true of their CPUs when Ryzen first appeared. I remember people saying they wanted a credible competitor to Intel, so they could finally afford a high-end Intel CPU at normal prices. Guess many don't realize that companies can't stay competitive if you just want them around to make another company's offering more affordable. Thankfully their offering was good enough for people to actually start buying it. Let's hope the same is true of their GPUs this time around.

Zen2 won a lot of Intel users like me to AMD. Plus that B450 boards were so cheap it was so easy to enter AMD's market. 3600, 3700X were all-action cards and decent for both gaming and applications just decompression.

[ewitte]

34 minutes ago, Whichmotherboard said:

Zen2 won a lot of Intel users like me to AMD. Plus that B450 boards were so cheap it was so easy to enter AMD's market. 3600, 3700X were all-action cards and decent for both gaming and applications just decompression.

I was on about 6-8 different Zen processors it wasn't until the 5900x that my biggest issue was resolved (could run 4 chips and still hit 3600).

[HeyYouOK?]

1 hour ago, Whichmotherboard said:

I agree with the first post, the only reason I would root for AMD is to put pressure on Nvidia, so that I would be able to buy Nvidia. AMD just doesn't have an "all-action" card, they don't have acceleration for Adobe Premiere for example, their encoders from what I've heard is bad too. AMD GPUs don't have support for rendering softwares like V-Ray.

Nvidia makes 'all-weather' gpus, AMD doesn't. Only reason to consider AMD is if its $100-$150 (or equivalent currency) lower than the Nvidia card.

This is my reasoning as well. Featureset and support for production is weak. I love to game but i also love it when my card can do more than just push its gaming performance.

[IPD]

Brand loyalty is irrelevant and fanboi-ish.  I keep my GPUs around long enough that EITHER brand's offerings are going to be a bump in performance--and that's how it should be (currently 1080Ti).  I will happily spend 30% of the cost of the top-end offering from one MFG, and live with 75% of the total performance capacity of said offering--simply by switching teams.  And it would still be a massive performance boost over whatever I have currently.

 

Same thing applies to AMD vs Intel CPU's.  I'm not loyal.  I have concerns with compatibility issues that may drive me to Intel occasionally--but I'd rather go bang for the buck.  Granted, early looks at AMD's 7000's are a bit concerning...but far less fuckery than NVidia's 40 series by comparison.  So I may well end up with a 13th gen Intel and a 7000/8000 RX GPU.  Time will tell.

[Mister Woof]

When the announcements came out I actually wanted the 6800XT - it was "$649" and I thought that it seemed to perform better for the money than the "$699" 3080.

 

But we all know how those MSRP's played out and availability. I got the first MSRP card that I could find in that class, lol

[TheDankKoosh]

18 hours ago, Aragorn- said:

TBH though, this is also the problem. I bought a 6900xt because it was close enough to top end performance and WASNT an nvidia card. I dislike nvidias scummy practices and the last two gens of AMD products have been perfectly viable alternatives. The 5700xt was a "slam dunk", to use your expression, with 2070 perf for 2060 money, for instance. The 6000 series across the board has beaten nvidia on value. And yet people still avoid them, including yourself.

 

Your reply at first sounds like its supporting AMD (or any competitor), but actually your saying "i'll buy AMD if its <insert value> faster than an equivalent nvidia card". Where that value is undefined and vague. If its the same speed, or only a little bit faster, you'll buy nvidia anyway and we're back to the original point by the OP.

 

You bought a 3080, despite the equivalent AMD card being cheaper.

I can assure you that you could not find a 6800xt for $600 brand new 2 and a half months ago, this was also before the updates to encoder quality on AMD which had mattered to me, but I'll bite. AMD has had some catching up to do, but they've been making changes where it counts and will likely be my recommendation as long as they deliver suitable raster and RT upgrades with RX 7000, nvidia housefire tier power consumption and turn toward AI frame insertion is honestly a regression in many ways, not to mention the "4080 12gb". Even if a 7800xt turns out to be slower than a 4080 16gb it will still be a better buy around $800 which is what AMD will try to target and undercut nvidia.

[NaClKnight]

23 hours ago, diegoaccord said:

I read this quote on a video just now, and dammit, I agree. All the hope on AMD to finally answer Nvidia is so that those people can get their 70 class card at $500, and whatever else market check would be had by AMD 'winning' a generation. Like if the 7900 XT comes out ultra competitive, (or better) and cheaper, you wouldn't even buy it, you'd hope the market checks Nvidia into lowering it's prices, then buy that. 

 

Does anyone else think this is the case?

 

 

I built a full AMD build (5600x + 6800 xt) in part because they were the underdogs with smaller market share. 

 

NVidia's prices and marketing about Raytracing were both unpalatable to me as well, and i really wanted to try a Ryzen CPU after years of running my 4790k

[porina]

I guess I'm kinda in that category, but it is with reason.

 

Said it many times before, performance is only one of many factors going into a buying decision. Other product features matter. If AMD and nvidia came out with completely identical products, in performance, feature set, pricing, I'd pick nvidia without hesitation. But everyone has a price. AMD would have to offer a LOT more to tempt me to even consider their GPUs again. I've been burnt too many times by them in the past, and I don't buy the fanboy arguments they got better, which hasn't changed in years. I'd rather buy an Intel GPU than another AMD one.

 

Just to be a hypocrite of sorts, I'm much softer on AMD CPUs. In this area they've grown up and offer an ok product although I'd only consider their 8 core products to not hit design limitations with higher parts, which Intel do not suffer from. My laptop has Zen 3, but it was price that won me over rather than me choosing that CPU in particular. If the Intel model were the same price, I would have picked that. Lessons have been learnt though, probably not safe to buy a new AMD platform within a few months of launch while they get it somewhat stable, and AM5 is a particularly big jump so extra caution is probably required. 

[Blademaster91]

On 9/26/2022 at 10:30 PM, diegoaccord said:

I read this quote on a video just now, and dammit, I agree. All the hope on AMD to finally answer Nvidia is so that those people can get their 70 class card at $500, and whatever else market check would be had by AMD 'winning' a generation. Like if the 7900 XT comes out ultra competitive, (or better) and cheaper, you wouldn't even buy it, you'd hope the market checks Nvidia into lowering it's prices, then buy that. 

 

Does anyone else think this is the case?

 

 

I think its the same with CPU's, people want AMD to be cheaper so they can still buy Intel, everyone complained about AMD X670 boards being expensive, but when Intel changes the socket with every new generation of CPU and prices their boards $500+ no one complains about it.

20 hours ago, Whichmotherboard said:

I agree with the first post, the only reason I would root for AMD is to put pressure on Nvidia, so that I would be able to buy Nvidia. AMD just doesn't have an "all-action" card, they don't have acceleration for Adobe Premiere for example, their encoders from what I've heard is bad too. AMD GPUs don't have support for rendering softwares like V-Ray.

Nvidia makes 'all-weather' gpus, AMD doesn't. Only reason to consider AMD is if its $100-$150 (or equivalent currency) lower than the Nvidia card.

I think an "all weather" card doesn't matter to most people, as long as the rasterization performance is close or on par with the Nvidia card and cost is less I think AMD cards would be a better choice, especially for anyone that just plays games.

I personally don't care about ray tracing, it would be nice if AMD could improve their FSR performance, however with EVGA out of the GPU market, and Nvidia cards needing a new PSU with ridiculous power consumption, I'm more excited for an AMD card.

[Whichmotherboard]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think an "all weather" card doesn't matter to most people, as long as the rasterization performance is close or on par with the Nvidia card and cost is less I think AMD cards would be a better choice, especially for anyone that just plays games.

I personally don't care about ray tracing, it would be nice if AMD could improve their FSR performance, however with EVGA out of the GPU market, and Nvidia cards needing a new PSU with ridiculous power consumption, I'm more excited for an AMD card.

It depends on region, I don't live in a rich country either, but people are more desperate to buy 2nd hand Nvidia cards rather than brand new AMD cards. While the 5700XT did create some buzz in the gaming community and 6600 was relatively cheap when 2060 skyrocketed to $500 (equivalent currency), it didn't create a leap than Zen2 did. So AMD is not taken seriously by anyone except some anti-nvidia activists who think buying from AMD is like a protest purchase.

[DesolationGod]

I want amd to bring it this time to yes make the gpu market as a whole cheaper...and given I'm looking for an upgrade this fall, I currently got Nvidia but I'm not a fanboy either way, for me whatever card has the best price/performance at the resolution I want is what I will buy. I really do hope AMD cards step it up this time around tho, would not mind going back to AMD gpus

[Sarra]

Healthy competition makes for a healthy market; It breeds innovation, keeps prices in check, provides more variety in the market, and in general, is a really good thing.

 

I don't care if someone only buys NVidia or AMD, it's the best recipe for everyone to be happy.

[Mister Woof]

I get why people were disappointed in Polaris, Vega, hell even RNDA1. Nothing AMD had could really even touch close to what Nvidia had performance-wise in the top tier.

 

But RDNA 2? The 6000-series cards at the high end have been more than competitive, except for a novelty with Ray Tracing, and even has a platform-agnostic alternative to DLSS. The 6000-series are basically the ONLY affordable and available mid-range. This gen was a great gen for AMD.

[Sarra]

2 hours ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I get why people were disappointed in Polaris, Vega, hell even RNDA1.

I was disappointed with Vega and RDNA1, for sure, but I also was realistic about it. RDNA2 blew my mind, though, and I'm glad I got a good card.

[ewitte]

2 hours ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I get why people were disappointed in Polaris, Vega, hell even RNDA1. Nothing AMD had could really even touch close to what Nvidia had performance-wise in the top tier.

 

But RDNA 2? The 6000-series cards at the high end have been more than competitive, except for a novelty with Ray Tracing, and even has a platform-agnostic alternative to DLSS. The 6000-series are basically the ONLY affordable and available mid-range. This gen was a great gen for AMD.

There wasn't anything similar to DLSS I would use up until recently (2.0).  Unfortunately its not in many titles.