AMD to cut R9 290x prices

[Plasma]

i need a 290 to cf so cant wait to see this happen before summer

[PopReference]

Yes, I hold a less than controlling interest in chipzilla. That doesn't mean I want AMD gone. In fact I wish it would freaking wake up! The profit margins on my Intel stock are going nowhere for the next decade. If AMD can pull out of its tail spin and show some growth, I'll buy in at $2.80 a share, because that has huge growth potential by comparison.

 

I vote with my feet. AMD has made so many stupid business decisions of late I have little more than disappointment in them. You really think my opinions are BS with AMD struggling with investor trust right now?

Even if that is true(which is not at all what I was implying, just a in case) then it's reason enough discredit all the unimpressive posts you've been making since I started following the LTT forums in earnest.

 

Because, although you say you're interest is completely unbiased, you still have potential to gain(in this case financially) from the positive/negative of either company. Basically this is what's know as a "conflict of interest," although I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, right?

[nicehat]

Even if that is true(which is not at all what I was implying, just a in case) then it's reason enough discredit all the unimpressive posts you've been making since I started following the LTT forums in earnest.

 

Because, although you say you're interest is completely unbiased, you still have potential to gain(in this case financially) from the positive/negative of either company. Basically this is what's know as a "conflict of interest," although I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, right?

 

Its not like when he speaks, hospitals close, the internet stops and people drop what they are doing and listen. He is some guy talking out of his ass who happens to own intel stock. Basically, he isnt important enough to have a conflict of interest disclaimer. Judging by his post count, he's discredited himself and reality almost 2500 times. He can say whatever he wants. Its not like the 4 AMD sharholders on the LTT forums that he's targeting are going to sell because of what he says  :lol:

[NuclearPeace]

Its not like when he speaks, hospitals close, the internet stops and people drop what they are doing and listen. He is some guy talking out of his ass who happens to own intel stock. Basically, he isnt important enough to have a conflict of interest disclaimer. Judging by his post count, he's discredited himself and reality almost 2500 times. He can say whatever he wants. Its not like the 4 AMD sharholders on the LTT forums that he's targeting are going to sell because of what he says  :lol:

 

 

The fanboy/shill witchunting is ridiculous. Discrediting what is being said because who said it is pretty fallacious thinking.

[Sintezza]

Well basicly if you concidered the price of a R9-290.

Then a 780 was allready an pointless buy.

If you look pure at price to performance.

[PopReference]

Its not like when he speaks, hospitals close, the internet stops and people drop what they are doing and listen. He is some guy talking out of his ass who happens to own intel stock. Basically, he isnt important enough to have a conflict of interest disclaimer. Judging by his post count, he's discredited himself and reality almost 2500 times. He can say whatever he wants. Its not like the 4 AMD sharholders on the LTT forums that he's targeting are going to sell because of what he says  :lol:

Frankly I wouldn't give a shit if he was Barrack Obama, a bum of the streets*, or Linus himself. I at least credit him the dignity of any human that he had an opinion that was worth as much as mine. Now it seems that his are not so honest, at least on paper.

 

*that can buy stocks and post on forums

[Blackserbian23]

Damn poornes ; _ ;

[Vaub]

Oh, GPU price wars!!!

 

I want to get a GTX 980 as my next card after near 3 year of 79xx, but if I can get that Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-X "cheap", who knows what will happen...

[patrickjp93]

Even if that is true(which is not at all what I was implying, just a in case) then it's reason enough discredit all the unimpressive posts you've been making since I started following the LTT forums in earnest.

 

Because, although you say you're interest is completely unbiased, you still have potential to gain(in this case financially) from the positive/negative of either company. Basically this is what's know as a "conflict of interest," although I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, right?

Unimpressive? Exactly how? I break 90% of the Intel news here and I tend to bring pretty good discussions. Notional is just a troll who likes to nitpick every post I make, so ignore my dismissal of him. I refuse to waste neurons on him anymore.

 

I stand to gain MORE from AMD succeeding. Intel's revenues can't double, and its market share can't double. Its glory has ripened on the vine. I can be brutal but fair to AMD even as an Intel investor (never bought more shares, and I'd recommend no one else to if they want competition in the market).

 

If I thought Intel could grow like it has since 1998 I'd keep buying shares, but it can't. It's basically plateaued. All my posts regarding doubt for AMD's ability to compete are pretty substantive. They have every disadvantage and a clock running on borrowed time to break into new markets. I don't think anyone here would really disagree with that.

[Notional]

The RFCs were provided, and as an Intel investor I keep very strong track of AMD as well given they are Intel's only serious competitor. Since all earnings reports are public by law and are vetted by the SEC, I would think you be a little more intelligent than to challenge me on that front in particular.

 

As per SLI vs a 2-in one card that uses 2 available slots (triple slot card), it makes no difference physically, though your point stands on the price.

 

Also, AMD, like every other company, must show the source of all its revenue streams. The only ambiguity are its APUs which are managed by both the CPU and graphics teams simultaneously and technically fall into an inter-department black hole where revenue can be split between them or pushed to one side. In order to make AMD's CPUs look to be worthwhile, it takes its APU revenues and puts them in as well, but we all know the GPUs are the only thing keeping AMD afloat long-term currently, as its console APU sales are not guaranteed to continue (Tegra K1/2).

 

I understand the economics of scale, but do you understand TSMC has only one other public foundry competitor (GloFo) which hasn't made a GPU for anyone except Apple and Samsung for ARM chips due to their rudimentary designs? TSMC can screw over whoever it wants. GloFo can't make GPUs and like Hell would Intel give its 22nm and 14nm space to AMD and Nvidia.

 

TSMC is pretty much a 1 size fits all operation, which is why Samsung left them and started building their own foundries which are not available to anyone else.

The RFC's where not provided in the thread it was discussed. Please link them here thank you (also an RFC at ISOC still is not anymore legally binding than anything VESA themselves publicate, which was the discussion).

 

All earnings an revenue is to be publicated, sure, but does not seem to require, whom or what the revenue comes from. Here's AMD's lates annual report, for anyone interested.http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1892414&highlight I dare you to find, how much revenue comes from 295x2, let alone any graphicscard from the graphics division. It is simply not there as all revenue, by all AMD products are summed in one number. What intelligence has to do with knowledge, I do not understand?

 

As for the highlighted part, I am a bit unsure. There seems to be something in the US called a "CFO Commentary" which comments about the state of AMD and the future, which does indeed specify the GPU/Visual part of AMD's revenue stream. Whether this is obligatory in an annual report or not (it is standalone after all), I do not know. I am not american. If the CFO commentary IS obligatory, then I can acknowledge your point, that it is in annual reports. However I cannot find any legal definition of a CFO commentary. None the less, even the CFO commentary, does not specify cost, breakeven, revenue per product or profit per product, which makes it irrelevant in this discussion, as it still does not shed light on the profitability of the 295x2.

 

295x2 is a dual slot card, not sure what you mean by tripple slot?

 

As we discussed in another thread, Samsung and Glofo are starting a collaboration for 14 nm finfet to counter TSMC http://globalfoundries.com/newsroom/press-releases/2014/04/17/samsung-and-globalfoundries-forge-strategic-collaboration-to-deliver-multi-sourced-offering-of-14nm-finfet-semiconductor-technology. But you are right, that they manufacture all GPU's atm, which is why AMD and Nvidia both run 28nm. However, that does not mean TSMC can just act like a monopoly and set their prices as they see fit. Although the recent Samsung/glofo collab, does indicate that TSMC are not living up to their customers demands (this seems to be more focused on 20Nm debacle, than pricing, but I'm not sure). However even if TSMC abused their position, there are limits to this power in a pricing agreement.

 

Back to the 298x2. 2x 290x stock cards, are still cheaper than one 295x2 http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/215065-amd-to-cut-r9-290x-prices/ . No way AMD would lower the prices of their standard 290x' if they where taking a loss or just barely breaking even. That makes no sense.

[Notional]

Unimpressive? Exactly how? I break 90% of the Intel news here and I tend to bring pretty good discussions. Notional is just a troll who likes to nitpick every post I make, so ignore my dismissal of him. I refuse to waste neurons on him anymore.

 

 *Sigh* I'm a troll? I argue all my points, and try to support them with as many sources possible. You have by me and others, been caught outright lying and inventing sources to "prove" your points. And I'm the troll?

As a supposed masters student, you really should tone down the arrogance, and remember, you do not have the data/information to conclude as absolute as you seem to do in here. That is inherently unscientific.

[patrickjp93]

The RFC's where not provided in the thread it was discussed. Please link them here thank you (also an RFC at ISOC still is not anymore legally binding than anything VESA themselves publicate, which was the discussion).

 

All earnings an revenue is to be publicated, sure, but does not seem to require, whom or what the revenue comes from. Here's AMD's lates annual report, for anyone interested.http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1892414&highlight I dare you to find, how much revenue comes from 295x2, let alone any graphicscard from the graphics division. It is simply not there as all revenue, by all AMD products are summed in one number. What intelligence has to do with knowledge, I do not understand?

 

As for the highlighted part, I am a bit unsure. There seems to be something in the US called a "CFO Commentary" which comments about the state of AMD and the future, which does indeed specify the GPU/Visual part of AMD's revenue stream. Whether this is obligatory in an annual report or not (it is standalone after all), I do not know. I am not american. If the CFO commentary IS obligatory, then I can acknowledge your point, that it is in annual reports. However I cannot find any legal definition of a CFO commentary. None the less, even the CFO commentary, does not specify cost, breakeven, revenue per product or profit per product, which makes it irrelevant in this discussion, as it still does not shed light on the profitability of the 295x2.

 

295x2 is a dual slot card, not sure what you mean by tripple slot?

 

As we discussed in another thread, Samsung and Glofo are starting a collaboration for 14 nm finfet to counter TSMC http://globalfoundries.com/newsroom/press-releases/2014/04/17/samsung-and-globalfoundries-forge-strategic-collaboration-to-deliver-multi-sourced-offering-of-14nm-finfet-semiconductor-technology. But you are right, that they manufacture all GPU's atm, which is why AMD and Nvidia both run 28nm. However, that does not mean TSMC can just act like a monopoly and set their prices as they see fit. Although the recent Samsung/glofo collab, does indicate that TSMC are not living up to their customers demands (this seems to be more focused on 20Nm debacle, than pricing, but I'm not sure). However even if TSMC abused their position, there are limits to this power in a pricing agreement.

 

Back to the 298x2. 2x 290x stock cards, are still cheaper than one 295x2 http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/215065-amd-to-cut-r9-290x-prices/ . No way AMD would lower the prices of their standard 290x' if they where taking a loss or just barely breaking even. That makes no sense.

http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2014/07/17/disappointment-in-amd-earnings-but-its-turnaround-continues/

 

And yet, both there and http://quarterlyearnings.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=quarterlyearnings  <--Go to SEC filings.

You can find segmentation of revenues, as REQUIRED BY LAW. Have a nice evening reading that.

 

As per the triple slot, that was my fault. I did a lot of reading on the PowerColor Devil 13 and the specs are stuck in my head. You are right. Thank you for keeping me honest.

 

Samsung and GloFo collaborating is interesting, but there's no way to know the timeline of when that tech will be online. Intel spends 4 years building and populating fabrication plants for a new process (yes, 7nm fabs are already being built). If Samsung can pull enough tech in in 1-1.5 years, Zen could land as a 14nm chip, in which case, if Keller proves to be the genius Apple touted him as, I'm switching teams.

 

AMD has always been selling chips at low margins (until the FX 9 series). That's just historically true and is their biggest selling point in the CPU realm. When it took over ATI, GPU prices from those foundries fell too. I might be exaggerating given I'm not privy to exact figures, but I'm fairly certain the 295x2 is selling at a break-even price for volume sales. If their october earnings report and SEC filings come in with good improvement I will be floored.

[patrickjp93]

 *Sigh* I'm a troll? I argue all my points, and try to support them with as many sources possible. You have by me and others, been caught outright lying and inventing sources to "prove" your points. And I'm the troll?

As a supposed masters student, you really should tone down the arrogance, and remember, you do not have the data/information to conclude as absolute as you seem to do in here. That is inherently unscientific.

In order:

yes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA sometimes

Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, and is it arrogant if you really are better than everyone else in the room?

Economics is called the dismal science for a reason.

[BloodySinner]

Damn it! I just bought an R9 290 last Friday. Perhaps, they'll slash the prices on those at some point too; because I would like to buy another one.

 

 

I just bought an R9 290 a few days ago... Bummer. Seriously though, I do hope this gets to a point where GPUs get ridiculously cheap for what they are because I would love to see flagship cards going for $490 or less.

 

Same!

[Notional]

http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2014/07/17/disappointment-in-amd-earnings-but-its-turnaround-continues/

 

And yet, both there and http://quarterlyearnings.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=quarterlyearnings  <--Go to SEC filings.

You can find segmentation of revenues, as REQUIRED BY LAW. Have a nice evening reading that.

 

As per the triple slot, that was my fault. I did a lot of reading on the PowerColor Devil 13 and the specs are stuck in my head. You are right. Thank you for keeping me honest.

 

Samsung and GloFo collaborating is interesting, but there's no way to know the timeline of when that tech will be online. Intel spends 4 years building and populating fabrication plants for a new process (yes, 7nm fabs are already being built). If Samsung can pull enough tech in in 1-1.5 years, Zen could land as a 14nm chip, in which case, if Keller proves to be the genius Apple touted him as, I'm switching teams.

 

AMD has always been selling chips at low margins (until the FX 9 series). That's just historically true and is their biggest selling point in the CPU realm. When it took over ATI, GPU prices from those foundries fell too. I might be exaggerating given I'm not privy to exact figures, but I'm fairly certain the 295x2 is selling at a break-even price for volume sales. If their october earnings report and SEC filings come in with good improvement I will be floored.

 

Those links are essentially the CFO Commentary (directly in your second link). Ok they seem to be obligatory, but they still do not touch on the discussion at hand: They do not shed light on whether certain cards (in this case the 295x2) are profitable or sold at a loss/breakeven. That was the base discussion, that you have still not proved.

 

As for Samsung/glofo, the link I posted earlier: 

 

Mass production for the 14nm FinFET technology will begin at the end of 2014.

 

“This unprecedented collaboration will result in a global capacity footprint for 14nm FinFET technology that provides AMD with enhanced capabilities to bring our innovative IP into silicon on leading-edge technologies,” said Lisa Su, senior vice president and general manager of Global Business Units at AMD. 

 

Sure, AMD sells their chips cheaper than Nvidia. But then again, they are smaller after all, making them cheaper to produce (780ti has 900 million tranistors more than 290x). A smaller margin is not the same as selling at a loss or breakeven, which the discussion is about. If anything, it just proves that Nvidia milks their costumers.

 

In order:

yes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA sometimes

Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, and is it arrogant if you really are better than everyone else in the room?

Economics is called the dismal science for a reason.

 

Well you STILL haven't linked those infamous RFC documents, you based your entire points on in that thread. It is still a lie, you cannot get out of.

Arrogant assuming you are right about things you cannot prove. Yes. Such an approach is unacceptable on a masters degree. But you already know this, which makes it even more peculiar, that you do it.

 

Well a lot of people do not understand, that the vast majority of economics, is not mathematics, but human psychology (annual reports are only mathimatically). That is why it fails. Scientific methodology is universal, so calling economic science, dismal, is pretty retarded.

[PopReference]

Unimpressive? Exactly how? I break 90% of the Intel news here and I tend to bring pretty good discussions. Notional is just a troll who likes to nitpick every post I make, so ignore my dismissal of him. I refuse to waste neurons on him anymore.

 

I stand to gain MORE from AMD succeeding. Intel's revenues can't double, and its market share can't double. Its glory has ripened on the vine. I can be brutal but fair to AMD even as an Intel investor (never bought more shares, and I'd recommend no one else to if they want competition in the market).

 

If I thought Intel could grow like it has since 1998 I'd keep buying shares, but it can't. It's basically plateaued. All my posts regarding doubt for AMD's ability to compete are pretty substantive. They have every disadvantage and a clock running on borrowed time to break into new markets. I don't think anyone here would really disagree with that.

You know what? What you know, doesn't matter. Anyone could come by information, a news story, or "insider info" that can be posted on this forum. Whoever you want to portray yourself as, on this forum, is up to you and not up to the other poster. I've been clear enough and this is way off topic and others may not care, so.

 

On topic:

I'm not in the postion to upgrade just yet, but I hope they'll keep doing this by the time I need to.

[patrickjp93]

Those links are essentially the CFO Commentary (directly in your second link). Ok they seem to be obligatory, but they still do not touch on the discussion at hand: They do not shed light on whether certain cards (in this case the 295x2) are profitable or sold at a loss/breakeven. That was the base discussion, that you have still not proved.

 

As for Samsung/glofo, the link I posted earlier: 

 

 

Sure, AMD sells their chips cheaper than Nvidia. But then again, they are smaller after all, making them cheaper to produce (780ti has 900 million tranistors more than 290x). A smaller margin is not the same as selling at a loss or breakeven, which the discussion is about. If anything, it just proves that Nvidia milks their costumers.

 

 

Well you STILL haven't linked those infamous RFC documents, you based your entire points on in that thread. It is still a lie, you cannot get out of.

Arrogant assuming you are right about things you cannot prove. Yes. Such an approach is unacceptable on a masters degree. But you already know this, which makes it even more peculiar, that you do it.

 

Well a lot of people do not understand, that the vast majority of economics, is not mathematics, but human psychology (annual reports are only mathimatically). That is why it fails. Scientific methodology is universal, so calling economic science, dismal, is pretty retarded.

Did you read the SEC filing? It's (more or less) segmented by card generation (because they're made in different foundries all under TSMC's umbrella).

 

And even though we don't see individual cards, my point remains that AMD has been selling at low margins, and these price drops don't leave much room beyond a full recoup from the volume production, unless these cuts really get a lot of fence-sitters to move.

 

That 14nm FinFet is not going to happen by December. No flipping way. Samsung has only ever used that tech for making NAND flash, not something super dense. I'm going to maintain healthy skepticism.

 

If psychology is a science, then so is economics. Just because people apply it poorly doesn't make it unscientific.

 

Adaptive Sync is built on this: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.2477

ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/library/ncstrl.ustuttgart_fi/ART-1996-03/ART-1996-03.pdf

And this summation is the proof of that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/12/amds-project-freesync-gets-momentum-as-adaptive-sync-gets-added-to-displayport-spec/

 

Feel free to use a similarity search engine, because I'm not doing all of your homework twice.

[MEC-777]

So, the new GTX 970 and 980 is about to drop and AMD also has a new big gun coming on the horizon...

 

The GPU wars are really heating up and its great for us gamers because it means competative pricing...

[felixthemaster1]

I can finally grab another one!

[shawno]

I'd also like to see the price reduce on cards in general. There is absolutely no reason why the cards need to be super expensive.

I mean of they can afford to cut the prices of the r295 by 600 dollars then they're just price gouging and should have just released it at that price to begin with. Same with nvidia and that ridiculous titan z.

[Tonylu1595]

Great, now if only my case supported cards over 6 inches...

[Notional]

Did you read the SEC filing? It's (more or less) segmented by card generation (because they're made in different foundries all under TSMC's umbrella).

 

And even though we don't see individual cards, my point remains that AMD has been selling at low margins, and these price drops don't leave much room beyond a full recoup from the volume production, unless these cuts really get a lot of fence-sitters to move.

 

That 14nm FinFet is not going to happen by December. No flipping way. Samsung has only ever used that tech for making NAND flash, not something super dense. I'm going to maintain healthy skepticism.

 

If psychology is a science, then so is economics. Just because people apply it poorly doesn't make it unscientific.

 

Adaptive Sync is built on this: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.2477

ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/library/ncstrl.ustuttgart_fi/ART-1996-03/ART-1996-03.pdf

And this summation is the proof of that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/12/amds-project-freesync-gets-momentum-as-adaptive-sync-gets-added-to-displayport-spec/

 

Feel free to use a similarity search engine, because I'm not doing all of your homework twice.

 

Yes I read (well skimmed) the SEC filing. AMD has had a massive increase in video revenue (primarely because of the console SOC's), but an increase on all graphics products (all models included, combined). Now the main discussion here, was whether or not, AMD sold the 295x2 at a loss, breakeven or profit. Nothing in their annual reports or SEC filings, give any information of any loss or lack of profit. On the contrary, all figures point to an over all profit increase for visual products. Your claim that AMD is not making a profit on the 295x2 is STILL just speculation, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

 

Like I wrote further up, AMD does seem to sell at a lower margin than Nvidia. But the full GK110 is larger than Hawaii, thus costing more to manufacture. Selling at a lower margin, does not necessarily men selling at a low margin (it's all relative). You just cannot conclude, that they are cutting off all profit on certain products. The price cut of 290x, should in itself prove, that the 295x2 is not sold without profit.

 

I don't know when Samsung/glofo will spit out 14nm CPU/APU/GPU whatever. We will see. Either way, AMD should be very close to Intel's CPU's when it comes to similar nodes. This is VERY good news for AMD.

 

I don't see how you are not proving my point with the scientifical stuff. I assume I am misunderstanding you.

 

As for the RFC documents let's see what you wrote back then: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/208498-nvidia-slams-amd-freesync-we-cant-comment-on-pricing-of-products-that-dont-exist/

 

Nope. I've read both RFCs (Request For Comment = protocol documentation) for both FreeSync and G-Sync. FreeSync lacks dynamic refresh rate as shown by the demo being locked at 47-48 fps. It commands the GPU to stop drawing if the monitor is in the middle of a frame. Also, this happens to slow down general-purpose computations on a GPU. It's a far inferior solution, lack of cost or not.

It was proven with a high-speed camera and some basic transformative math. Also, VESA can claim whatever it wants publicly because the RFC covers their ass legally and is accessible to anyone to read. Sorry but your golden goose lays leaden eggs. I'm going to come across as a cocky bastard for saying this, but you really can't beat me when it comes to doing research and knowing the facts. When FreeSync monitors come out and Anandtech and others can give comprehensive side-by-side comparisons, and you're disappointed, just remember you were warned by a real enthusiast. Also, there is 2-way communication in DVI, HDMI, and DP. Look at the RFCs of all three protocols. There's 2-way communication in the RAM bus, in PCIe, in USB, in SATA, and in the graphics output protocols post-VGA.

 

Here is the problem. RFC is a proprietary term used by ISOC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Society, which has nothing to do with VESA, Adaptive Sync, G-sync or any other non internet based tech or standard. You further claim that VESA's own public announcements are not, as legally binding, as an RFC (where do you come up with these things?). Obviously VESA cannot announce things that are outright wrong.

 

As for your links, have you even read them? "An Adaptive Protocol for Synchronizing Media Streams" is a research paper on streaming services like google docs or twitch live streaming. The other abstract "An Adaptive Stream Synchronization Protocol (1995)" is about buffering (from what I can read), and is like the other link, very generic, to the point, that all data transport, in any and all busses in the pc could be claimed to be based on this.

These are both mid 90's papers, describing future streaming tech and the usage of those, a full decade before youtube was even launched.

 

How are any of those papers more legally binding than VESA's own announcements? How are those papers proving that Adaptive Sync cannot do variable framerates? Which was the entire discussion, that you could "prove" with these "RFC documentations". Sorry, but you still lied and you know it, as none of these links are RFC documentations on neither Adaptive Sync nor GSync.

 

Also what do you mean MY HOMEWORK? Those were YOUR claimes, that these documents existed, and proved your point. I ask for you to provide them, to prove your point. How is it in any way, my job to prove, and find your sources?

 

Adaptive Sync, is based in a proprietary tech called Variable VBlank, designed for eDP. Claiming that Adaptive Sync cannot do variable framerates, is still a claim or speculation, that you cannot prove. If you are right, that would make AS or FreeSync useless.

https://twitter.com/amd_roy/status/509513037875654657 I guess we will have to see when the real Adaptive Sync prototype monitors hit the reviewers

 

Time and time again, you come up with wild claims that you apparently believe are right, and you think you can prove with random sources, that in no way proves your claims. You really have to stop concluding absolutes, that you cannot prove or justify in any way. You can SPECULATE, and you can BELIEVE that certain things will work or unfold in certain ways, but you cannot conclude on these things, as if they are facts. They are not. Your definition of proof, is unscientific at best, outright lying at worst.

[patrickjp93]

@Notional Wow, you are hopeless. You clearly know nothing about systems programming (be it google drive, twitch, or the various components within a single computer). If you don't understand that, you are not worth discussing this with any further. The answer is staring you in the face. Abstract away from the implementation on a large scale and look at it on a component-component interaction.

As per AMD's video sales, NO! Total sales are up because of SOCs, but that margin is small, especially given the number of units sold worldwide and the prices of those consoles. AMD has stagnated on dGPU sales. Compare it to the previous year and you'll see what I mean.

You have nothing but your vendetta and a complete unwillingness to look beyond the basics.

Take those filings to your accountant and have them give you an analysis. Guarantee you they'll come back with the same basic conclusion. AMD is barely above breaking even in dGPU sales vs. Expenditures.

[ChipWoodChainSaw]

i love this because then Nvidia drops there price on the competing card and then more and more cards get in my price range

[DarrenP]