Nvidia's Domination of the Market - This is Bad

[Mihle]

if you look at what you should look at when you buy a gpu, Price/performance/features, Nvidia should not have so much market share. I blame media and people that dont know what they talk about when it comes to pcs, the fact is that many of the classmates I have, that dont know that much about computers, just say that Nvidia is best because they have heard others say it. when I ask why, they cant say why.

[MariusJS]

Except for the 770 none of those are non budget cards.   

 

If you go back and read my post you will see that I specified that they had done it with budget cards.  

 

Also lets not forget that at this point AMD has rebadged a rebadge and jacked up the price again.   

 

It is bad business and it is bad for the industry.  If they would bother to come up with something new maybe they could help push things forward.   Instead they are warming things over again.  The fury is nice but lacking.  The entire 3XX series should have been new.  

Every card is a budget card if you look up what the word budget means...

Those cards are much more mainstream than a 780/980...

 

I agree it is bad for the business and confusing for the consumers, but my point is that it is not only AMD doing it, so if you are going to mention it don't angle it towards AMD...

 

 

if you look at what you should look at when you buy a gpu, Price/performance/features, Nvidia should not have so much market share. I blame media and people that dont know what they talk about when it comes to pcs, the fact is that many of the classmates I have, that dont know that much about computers, just say that Nvidia is best because they have heard others say it. when I ask why, they cant say why.

The fanboys are absolutely a part of the problem, especially those who recommend stuff only based on brand...

[Dabombinable]

Except for the 770 none of those are non budget cards.   

 

If you go back and read my post you will see that I specified that they had done it with budget cards.  

 

Also lets not forget that at this point AMD has rebadged a rebadge and jacked up the price again.   

 

It is bad business and it is bad for the industry.  If they would bother to come up with something new maybe they could help push things forward.   Instead they are warming things over again.  The fury is nice but lacking.  The entire 3XX series should have been new.  

Also, note how the GTX 680 became the GTX 770. Instead of the R9 290X becoming the R9 390X.

 

510 -> 605 (Fermi GF119)

GT520 -> GT610, GT620 (OEM), 705 (Fermi GF119)

GT530 -> GT620 (retail) (Fermi GF119)

GT440 (DDR3) -> GT630 (DDR3), GT730 (DDR3, 128-bit) (Fermi GF108)

GT440 (GDDR5) -> GT630 (GDDR5) (Fermi GF108)

GT545 (DDR3) -> GT640 (OEM) (Fermi GF116)

GTX560 SE (OEM) -> GT645 (Fermi GF114-400-A1)

GT630 (Kepler) -> GT740 (Kepler GK107)

GT630 (Kepler rev 2) -> GT710, GT720, GT730 (128-bit & GDDR5) (Kepler GK208)

210 -> 405 (OEM) (Tesla GT218)

GTX680 -> GTX770 (Kepler GK104)

960 -> 760

 

 

I probably missed some aswel...

 

Are you high? The GTX 960 isn't a rebadge.

[Masada02]

Also, note how the GTX 680 became the GTX 770. Instead of the R9 290X becoming the R9 390X.

But isn't the 390X priced a tier below where the 290X was priced a couple years ago? Ya AMD kept the same name, but they shifted the whole line down a tier to make room for the Fury's in the top end where the 290X used to sit.

 

As long as they are still competitive performance and price wise, why does it matter that it's the same chip? In fact, one could pretty easily argue that keeping that 290 chip around was a pretty good idea judging by recent benchmarks.

[Dabombinable]

But isn't the 390X priced a tier below where the 290X was priced a couple years ago? Ya AMD kept the same name, but they shifted the whole line down a tier to make room for the Fury's in the top end where the 290X used to sit.

 

As long as they are still competitive performance and price wise, why does it matter that it's the same chip? In fact, one could pretty easily argue that keeping that 290 chip around was a pretty good idea judging by recent benchmarks.

That was a couple of years ago, AMD is still selling the same old R9 290X with a price bump after the rebadging to a 390X.

[Masada02]

That was a couple of years ago, AMD is still selling the same old R9 290X with a price bump after the rebadging to a 390X.

I didn't know that you could still get 290's new. Maybe that's just retailers trying to get rid of old stock? Even so, its only a $50 difference between a 290x and 390x and with the 390 you get double the memory and more efficient energy usage (even if it is just slightly better). Seems worth it to me.

 

Regardless, the current lineup of AMD cards is very competitive and it boggles my mind why so many people still flock to Nvidia... unless you own a laptop, then there's not really a choice.

[Dabombinable]

I didn't know that you could still get 290's new. Maybe that's just retailers trying to get rid of old stock? Even so, its only a $50 difference between a 290x and 390x and with the 390 you get double the memory and more efficient energy usage (even if it is just slightly better). Seems worth it to me.

 

Regardless, the current lineup of AMD cards is very competitive and it boggles my mind why so many people still flock to Nvidia... unless you own a laptop, then there's not really a choice.

You get the new 290/290X as an R9 390/390X. And think of it this way, Nvidia keeps releasing new ranges of entry level to high end graphics cards, while AMD only releases a new one here, and a tweaked one there. People want to buy something new not something that they either bought a year or 2 ago or could buy 2 years ago.

[MariusJS]

Also, note how the GTX 680 became the GTX 770. Instead of the R9 290X becoming the R9 390X.

 

 

Are you high? The GTX 960 isn't a rebadge.

Mad much? ^^

 

That was a mistake, anyways your arguments are mostly false as I have proven...

 

 

 

Nvidia keeps releasing new ranges of entry level to high end graphics cards

Also, have none of u noticed that R9 390 and R9 390X has 8GB VRAM? lol

 

Can u nvidia fanboys also answear my why u can only use 3 or 4 monitors on Nvidia cards? Even cards that have more outputs...

[Helly]

I just can't understand why people get so hung up on a few more watts and rebadges from AMD when Nvidia has done far worse things (they are to me at least) for the industry. They RUINED ANY chance of EVER having GPU driven physics in games by making physx proprietary and locked down to they're own cards. The ONLY reason Nvidia will get my money would be because of physx. I absolutely loved physx in mirrors edge and batman arkham asylum and city. In fact i bought a 450GTS so i got to have hybrid physx in those titles. Physx is also a big reason why i don't buy nvidia. Because they blocked hybrid physx every chance they got....

 

Screwing over people who bought they're older cards by making games run worse on them so those people buy newer cards is also something i will not forget. This i also consider when buying a new card.

 

It just blows my mind people forget about these things and keep buying nvidia cards without complaining. Don't say people ARE complaining please, because complaining and STILL buying their cards is WORSE. Nvidia almost looks like the apple of videocards to me... they can do whatever they want and screw people over, nobody cares and buys their crap anyway... in that way i perfectly understand them. Who wouldn't do this crap when people buy their cards anyway.....

 

All of this is proven by the fact their market share keeps growing btw...

[Dabombinable]

Mad much? ^^

 

That was a mistake, anyways your arguments are mostly false as I have proven...

 

Also, have none of u noticed that R9 390 and R9 390X has 8GB VRAM? lol

 

Can u nvidia fanboys also answear my why u can only use 3 or 4 monitors on Nvidia cards? Even cards that have more outputs...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202129

Change the GPU to the cut down Hawaii chip for an 8GB R9 290

What arguments are false hmmm? BTW, your calling me a fanboy, me who is selling their GTX 970 for an R9 390X as I'm finding 4GB of vRAM to be too limiting. And Nvidia is realistic about display setups. My Mobility Radeon HD 5650 supports 6 displays, however even if the laptop had 6 connectors, its not powerful enough to actually power them all unless your doing only very basic tasks.

[Dabombinable]

I just can't understand why people get so hung up on a few more watts and rebadges from AMD when Nvidia has done far worse things (they are to me at least) for the industry. They RUINED ANY chance of EVER having GPU driven physics in games by making physx proprietary and locked down to they're own cards. The ONLY reason Nvidia will get my money would be because of physx. I absolutely loved physx in mirrors edge and batman arkham asylum and city. In fact i bought a 450GTS so i got to have hybrid physx in those titles. Physx is also a big reason why i don't buy nvidia. Because they blocked hybrid physx every chance they got....

 

Screwing over people who bought they're older cards by making games run worse on them so those people buy newer cards is also something i will not forget. This i also consider when buying a new card.

 

It just blows my mind people forget about these things and keep buying nvidia cards without complaining. Don't say people ARE complaining please, because complaining and STILL buying their cards is WORSE. Nvidia almost looks like the apple of videocards to me... they can do whatever they want and screw people over, nobody cares and buys their crap anyway... in that way i perfectly understand them. Who wouldn't do this crap when people buy their cards anyway.....

 

All of this is proven by the fact their market share keeps growing btw...

Havok FX was supposed to have hardware accelerated physics that were supposed to work on AMD's cards, but that didn't come to fruition. Also Nvidia offered AMD the chance to use CUDA, which is used for PhysX. AMD pursued Havok instead and they got left out in the cold as a result.

[KWelz]

 

Screwing over people who bought they're older cards by making games run worse on them so those people buy newer cards is also something i will not forget. This i also consider when buying a new card.

 

 

 

This was thoroughly debunked. 

[Dabombinable]

Also, summoning the "my favourite brand is X, don't like it your a fanboy" club.

[Masada02]

You get the new 290/290X as an R9 390/390X. And think of it this way, Nvidia keeps releasing new ranges of entry level to high end graphics cards, while AMD only releases a new one here, and a tweaked one there. People want to buy something new not something that they either bought a year or 2 ago or could buy 2 years ago.

Ya but who cares? Does it really matter if a card uses the same chip as an older, more expensive, card? As long as you are getting the right performance for the price and the same features as the competitor, why does any of this matter?

 

Like really, what are the downsides of a 390 over a 970? The 390 performs better, and is cheaper. It may use a little more energy, and for people(snobs) that care about that in a mid-range card I guess that could make a difference. But really, the 2 year old chip in the 390 is still kicking ass. So besides the superficial "oh it's just a rebadge of a 290" there is no argument against it.

 

I'm not trying to be mean, hopefully it didn't come off that way. I just don't understand why the whole rebadge thing was such a big deal.

[Centurius]

And here we have the big paradox of the free market. Can we allow a company to become a monopoly if that's what the market wants?

 

Honestly, if NVidia were ever to become the sole participant on the consumer graphics card market, and they were jacking up their prices, there are potential player that could enter the field.

Companies like Samsung, Toshiba and potentially GlobalFoundries could all enter the GPU market if they saw a potential.

That's doubtful, it isn't just the capacity to produce hardware but you also need experienced teams to work on the drivers. A company like Intel is already struggling with this and for many considering to enter the field the initial cost may just be too much to even bother.

[Dabombinable]

Ya but who cares? Does it really matter if a card uses the same chip as an older, more expensive, card? As long as you are getting the right performance for the price and the same features as the competitor, why does any of this matter?

 

Like really, what are the downsides of a 390 over a 970? The 390 performs better, and is cheaper. It may use a little more energy, and for people(snobs) that care about that in a mid-range card I guess that could make a difference. But really, the 2 year old chip in the 390 is still kicking ass. So besides the superficial "oh it's just a rebadge of a 290" there is no argument against it.

 

I'm not trying to be mean, hopefully it didn't come off that way. I just don't understand why the whole rebadge thing was such a big deal.

1. It ties at 1440p, and pulls ahead at 4K.

2. Rebadging=conning people. Nvidia got caught out doing it before and got in as much shit as AMD.

[Helly]

Nvidia offered AMD the chance to use CUDA, which is used for PhysX. AMD pursued Havok instead and they got left out in the cold as a result.

 

With very good reason actually. Physx on cuda SUCKS. It is massively inefficient and the same tasks can be done MUCH quicker even on a CPU. Read this a long time ago in an article. Can't remember where. It is also a massive pain in the ass to code. So i completely understand AMD when not wanting to use it. They would have to use it as nvidia wants it to be used and be unable to change things. Havok was just a much better alternative which did basically the same thing.

[Helly]

This was thoroughly debunked. 

 

perhaps somewhat fixed and/or explained... it still happened.

[Masada02]

1. It ties at 1440p, and pulls ahead at 4K.

2. Rebadging=conning people. Nvidia got caught out doing it before and got in as much shit as AMD.

Technically it's not a rebadge because some parts of the board are different along with the extra 4GB of memory. Regardless, the launch price was $100 cheaper than the 200 series so why does any of this matter? If it was the same price I could understand, but it isn't. The 300 series is now the mainstream cards, and the Fury's are the high end. In the current setup, the Fury replaces the old 290x and the 390x replaces the old 290. 

 

The 300 series are not being touted as the same performance class, they are now a step below the previous series.

 

I get why they are doing it though. They put their eggs in the "Fury and HBM" basket. With what little resources they have left this was the right call. Hopefully next year we will see HBM coming to the high-end of the mainstream cards, and then they can move the old chips down a few more pegs thus saving shitloads of R&D cost and still providing competitive products. This is like "Running a business efficiently 101".

 

And like I said before, the AMD cards are very competitive, which is why I don't understand why they aren't doing better than is being reported.

[Elapo]

is it really innovation if you make something brand new that does the exact same thing as the old one? Not to mention and did improve. With the proof of the 390 competing with the 970 and the 390x competing with the 980

 

I'd say Innovation is also about finding new ways for doing the same thing.

 

So you are eating vegan aswell, then?

 

If you eat meat you can just do all the other stuff, because if you research it animal products pollute way more than any of that other stuff you do saves...

Nope. I eat meat. I make an effort to eat less of it, which should be enough if enough people did it.

 

We can all go live in caves as well, that would be the best solution, practically no pollution at all!

 

As I said though, even small bits help, especially when looking at a bigger scale.

 

If my entire country (Belgium, 11m people) saved ~60Wh on their computer, that'd be 660MWh of power savings. If everyone ate 5g of meat less, that'd be 55.000 tonnes of meat. Small changes can make a big impact if they're widespread. That's why unplugging chargers and the like is so important. IF it happens en masse, it can have a big impact.

[thekeemo]

I'd say Innovation is also about finding new ways for doing the same thing.

 

Nope. I eat meat. I make an effort to eat less of it, which should be enough if enough people did it.

 

We can all go live in caves as well, that would be the best solution, practically no pollution at all!

 

As I said though, even small bits help, especially when looking at a bigger scale.

 

If my entire country (Belgium, 11m people) saved ~60Wh on their computer, that'd be 660MWh of power savings. If everyone ate 5g of meat less, that'd be 55.000 tonnes of meat. Small changes can make a big impact if they're widespread. That's why unplugging chargers and the like is so important. IF it happens en masse, it can have a big impact.

I would say innovation is doing the same thing better or doing new things

[Dabombinable]

With very good reason actually. Physx on cuda SUCKS. It is massively inefficient and the same tasks can be done MUCH quicker even on a CPU. Read this a long time ago in an article. Can't remember where. It is also a massive pain in the ass to code. So i completely understand AMD when not wanting to use it. They would have to use it as nvidia wants it to be used and be unable to change things. Havok was just a much better alternative which did basically the same thing.

CPU have far less computational power than any dGPU, so I don't know why you even think that physics runs faster on a CPU. And the thing that was a PITA to code for was OpenGL.

[themaniac]

And here we have the big paradox of the free market. Can we allow a company to become a monopoly if that's what the market wants?

 

Honestly, if NVidia were ever to become the sole participant on the consumer graphics card market, and they were jacking up their prices, there are potential player that could enter the field.

Companies like Samsung, Toshiba and potentially GlobalFoundries could all enter the GPU market if they saw a potential.

even Intel could enter if they wanted too

[MariusJS]

I'd say Innovation is also about finding new ways for doing the same thing.

 

Nope. I eat meat. I make an effort to eat less of it, which should be enough if enough people did it.

 

We can all go live in caves as well, that would be the best solution, practically no pollution at all!

 

As I said though, even small bits help, especially when looking at a bigger scale.

 

If my entire country (Belgium, 11m people) saved ~60Wh on their computer, that'd be 660MWh of power savings. If everyone ate 5g of meat less, that'd be 55.000 tonnes of meat. Small changes can make a big impact if they're widespread. That's why unplugging chargers and the like is so important. IF it happens en masse, it can have a big impact.

I can mostly agree, but atm everyone in the world couldn't go live in a cage, u must remember that back when humanity was the hunterer gatherer type we were like 1/100th or less of the amount that we are now...

[Helly]

CPU have far less computational power than any dGPU, so I don't know why you even think that physics runs faster on a CPU. And the thing that was a PITA to code for was OpenGL.

 

never said physics run better on a CPU.... i said physx was said to run better on a CPU. when you say it out loud it might sound the same.. but it's not. The article i read (which was years ago when physx was more of a thing), said that developers had found a way to run the physx code on a cpu with some changes to the code. They found the CPU actually did the physx stuff more efficient and better then the GPU. That's how horrible it was (and maybe still is, i have no idea).

 

Don't come back with the argument that physx runs horrible on cpu's cuz you can check when you turn it on without having an nvidia card... I KNOW THAT. The article also said Nvidia MADE it that way. The code was MADE to ONLY run acceptable on Nvidia GPU's (or those ageia PPU's in the time) and like crap on ANYTHING else. It could easily be altered and run the same OR BETTER on a CPU. Tried looking for this article but can't find it under the mountain of crap of people asking if CPU's can handle turning on physx....

 

I suspect Nvidia can still do this but just WON'T. Because Physx is still a selling point for them.... if a CPU can do it to.. they lose that point.