Anyone excited for AMD's Polaris GPU's?

[The Salt Is REAL]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Ask if you should get a 970 or 390. Both cards are equal buy the majority of post would state otherwise. Ask about a 960 verses 380, driver overhead is ignored. And this topic has someone saying the Fury X is equal to a 980ti  so not true. 

 

This is forum is the most biased forum I have personally ever witnessed, and I've worked for forums. 

I was never trying to bias anything but okay

[givegomezthegun]

2 hours ago, Riki the Legendary Heropon said:

I suppose you're right, but without at least a minor competition then the other company can raise their prices to whatever they feel like

Also.. have we forgotten when the gtx970 was released it set a whole new lower price standard for that performance level, and was the price to performance king for a while.. the 3.5gb ram controversy(even though it didnt change the fact that the card was still great) slowed momentum a bit but.. it forced amd to lower their prices.

[App4that]

Just now, Riki the Legendary Heropon said:

I suppose you're right, but without at least a minor competition then the other company can raise their prices to whatever they feel like

Not how economics works. Place the price too high and no one buys it. Just as much pressure for price/performance in a monopoly. The issue with a monopoly is worker protection. But that's another topic.

 

To answer yours both companies will have ridiculous memory to deal with resolutions at 4K and higher. Is 1080p peasants will notice little change. 

[killcomic]

26 minutes ago, App4that said:

Not how economics works. Place the price too high and no one buys it. Just as much pressure for price/performance in a monopoly. The issue with a monopoly is worker protection. But that's another topic.

Please enlighten by explaining how a monopoly is not going to gouge everyone since they are the only players in town.

[The Salt Is REAL]

I highly regret creating this forum post now 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, killcomic said:

Please enlighten by explaining how a monopoly is not going to gouge everyone since they are the only players in town.

Because competition doesn't set pricing. If I'm selling soap, and I'm the only person selling soap, and everyone needs soap, then I can set the price as high as I know people will pay reliably. BUT, I also have to remember that if I lower the price, more people will buy soap, and I'll make more money.

 

Also, because graphics cards compete with consoles, the competition will always be there.

[vanished]

18 minutes ago, App4that said:

Because competition doesn't set pricing. If I'm selling soap, and I'm the only person selling soap, and everyone needs soap, then I can set the price as high as I know people will pay reliably. BUT, I also have to remember that if I lower the price, more people will buy soap, and I'll make more money.

 

Also, because graphics cards compete with consoles, the competition will always be there.

To add on/clarify/add my own take on this:

 

First, remember GPUs are not a "need" like water or fuel (for heating).  Thus, there is a finite amount of demand, and thus, companies cannot just charge any amount because at some point people will just say "forget it" and not buy them.

Next, for this same reason, the price is going to affect how often people upgrade.  If the company jacks up prices too much, they may sell sufficiently fewer cards to make no net increase in profit.

[killcomic]

38 minutes ago, App4that said:

Also, because graphics cards compete with consoles, the competition will always be there.

That's a damn good point, although if they are the only GPU makers, they would be competing with themselves (if AMD dies before the next console gen).

[killcomic]

17 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

To add on/clarify/add my own take on this:

 

First, remember GPUs are not a "need" like water or fuel (for heating).  Thus, there is a finite amount of demand, and thus, companies cannot just charge any amount because at some point people will just say "forget it" and not buy them.

Next, for this same reason, the price is going to affect how often people upgrade.  If the company jacks up prices too much, they may sell sufficiently fewer cards to make no net increase in profit.

Yes, but capitalism works on the principle of charging as much as possible while delivering as little as possible.

Sure, there's a set limit where people would simply not buy a product due to its price, however, with competition, the price of a product will be lower than a monopoly as they do not want to be undercut by the competition. Remove the competition and you'll simply do not have that pressure to reduce prices, only how much people are willing to pay.

We would get higher prices for marginal performance increases.

[vanished]

9 minutes ago, killcomic said:

Yes, but capitalism works on the principle of charging as much as possible while delivering as little as possible.

Sure, there's a set limit where people would simply not buy a product due to its price, however, with competition, the price of a product will be lower than a monopoly as they do not want to be undercut by the competition. Remove the competition and you'll simply do not have that pressure to reduce prices, only how much people are willing to pay.

We would get higher prices for marginal performance increases.

They would be higher, certainly, but it's capped by the total demand for that item, currently spread across all existing companies that make it (nvidia and amd in this case)

@patrickjp93 can explain this better I think... if he's willing after the number of times this has come up

[patrickjp93]

24 minutes ago, killcomic said:

Yes, but capitalism works on the principle of charging as much as possible while delivering as little as possible.

Sure, there's a set limit where people would simply not buy a product due to its price, however, with competition, the price of a product will be lower than a monopoly as they do not want to be undercut by the competition. Remove the competition and you'll simply do not have that pressure to reduce prices, only how much people are willing to pay.

We would get higher prices for marginal performance increases.

That's actually not Captialism but a central pillar of microeconomics itself. There's no way around it other than to introduce inefficiency into the economy which either produces higher raw consumer cost or higher external costs (environmental damage and others). Actually compeition can be detrimental to price in the case of diseconomies of scale. Mind you these cases are rare, but mass production of hip replacements is hardly helpful when the # needed per year is far below the # produced. Capitalism is all about free enterprise. True capitalism doesn't even have IP protection laws. Capitalism has led to the highest growths in economy and the greatest movement of those in lower classes to higher. This is undeniable by all but the disingenuous. The problem is cronyism, not capitalism.

[Big-G]

2 hours ago, ArmswieldTheHero said:

Its all about price for performance with me, power consumption and heat aren't issues when I game. 

Hell already froze over?

[killcomic]

16 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's actually not Captialism but a central pillar of microeconomics itself. There's no way around it other than to introduce inefficiency into the economy which either produces higher raw consumer cost or higher external costs (environmental damage and others). Actually compeition can be detrimental to price in the case of diseconomies of scale. Mind you these cases are rare, but mass production of hip replacements is hardly helpful when the # needed per year is far below the # produced. Capitalism is all about free enterprise. True capitalism doesn't even have IP protection laws. Capitalism has led to the highest growths in economy and the greatest movement of those in lower classes to higher. This is undeniable by all but the disingenuous. The problem is cronyism, not capitalism.

Um, no. What has brought the greatest movement of classes has been socialism's wealth distribution. Real capitalism keeps the money in the pockets of the few.

You're talking about capitalism like communist talk about communism. All great in theory and how great things are with real capitalism/communism.

But I digress as this topic is about GPUs. And no. A monopoly would not keep prices down.

[App4that]

Just now, killcomic said:

Um, no. What has brought the greatest movement of classes has been socialism's wealth distribution. Real capitalism keeps the money in the pockets of the few.

You're talking about capitalism like communist talk about communism. All great in theory and how great things are with real capitalism/communism.

But I digress as this topic is about GPUs. And no. A monopoly would not keep prices down.

You're missing that even IF AMD or Nvidia went under, which won't happen. The remaining company still has to compete with consoles. So your fears will never be realized.

[Conan1600]

it is to far away for me to get too excited but i dearly hope amd pulls one out with Polaris and Zen this time. i am not a fan boy but i am a fan of competition and we could really use some in the gpu and cpu market.

[killcomic]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're missing that even IF AMD or Nvidia went under, which won't happen. The remaining company still has to compete with consoles. So your fears will never be realized.

But who will supply the GPUs for the consoles then?

Unless Sony, MS or Nintendo develop their own GPUs, they would need to go with whoever is left standing.

Not much in the way of competition then, is there?

[patrickjp93]

4 minutes ago, killcomic said:

Um, no. What has brought the greatest movement of classes has been socialism's wealth distribution. Real capitalism keeps the money in the pockets of the few.

You're talking about capitalism like communist talk about communism. All great in theory and how great things are with real capitalism/communism.

But I digress as this topic is about GPUs. And no. A monopoly would not keep prices down.

I'm afraid the numbers do not agree with you anywhere from the U.S. to China to Germany to Russia. Free market principles and the principles of Captialism have moved more poor to middle class and middle class to upper than any other economic model has. Of course the rich get richer. They didn't get rich by being stupid. The best get ahead. That is the essence of both evolution and economics. It doesn't matter what system you are under. However, in the freest system, those with little resources but great ideas can still get ahead. No amount of money can buy all the agents in a truly free-market system. That is why capitalism has outlasted any other economic model.

[App4that]

Just now, killcomic said:

But who will supply the GPUs for the consoles then?

In this fantasy reality, the lowest bidder.

 

The problem here is a misunderstanding of the industry. So I'll use an analogy. Auto manufacturers.

 

What drivers automotive advancement? Competition? Regulation? They play a part. But nothing like roads. I'm an engineer, say I design a engine with 2000hp that weighs 50lbs and get 100 miles to the gallon.  What's the result for you? Not a 2000hp Civic The technology I created is scaled down to match the roads we currently have.

 

Same goes for graphics cards. Their "roads" are games. As it is graphics cards are way past where consoles are and games like The Division are OPENLY nerfed to keeps things balanced. So the competition between AMD and Nvidia does not have as much effect on graphics card development than game development and the strength of consoles.

[Virtual01]

I am, and I'm excited to see AMD do well but I own a $700 G-sync monitor so...

[AresKrieger]

In short I am never excited until I see product reviews (so no I'm apathetic to it's release), another thing the hype train makes me less likely to like something and more likely to hate it so apparently I must be alone on that view since everyone else seems to love fueling the train while I prefer derailing it.

[patrickjp93]

5 minutes ago, Conan1600 said:

it is to far away for me to get too excited but i dearly hope amd pulls one out with Polaris and Zen this time. i am not a fan boy but i am a fan of competition and we could really use some in the gpu and cpu market.

Let me lose another scenario. Say AMD goes down and the FTC has to decide how the bankruptcy unfolds. If Radeon went to Intel and all of AMD's CPU IP went to Nvidia (including exclusive ownership of x86_64), would this not produce the hottest competition on both sides? Where Intel lacks experience in dGPUs, it has the superior nose to make up for it. Where Nvidia lacks the CPU experience, it does have the Denver designs to pair with Zen IP (and AMD's engineers if it had to buy AMD's assets out of debt) to give Intel a solid kick in the nads.

[patrickjp93]

9 minutes ago, killcomic said:

But who will supply the GPUs for the consoles then?

Unless Sony, MS or Nintendo develop their own GPUs, they would need to go with whoever is left standing.

Not much in the way of competition then, is there?

You forget Intel and Nvidia are fiercely competing in iGPU.

[killcomic]

19 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I'm afraid the numbers do not agree with you anywhere from the U.S. to China to Germany to Russia. Free market principles and the principles of Captialism have moved more poor to middle class and middle class to upper than any other economic model has. Of course the rich get richer. They didn't get rich by being stupid. The best get ahead. That is the essence of both evolution and economics. It doesn't matter what system you are under. However, in the freest system, those with little resources but great ideas can still get ahead. No amount of money can buy all the agents in a truly free-market system. That is why capitalism has outlasted any other economic model.

But countries where people have been lifted from poverty has happened so thanks to socialist policies (even in the US, back when there was some sanity left in that country).

Don't forget that they are not mutually exclusive systems, as they can, and do, coexist quite nicely together. Some may even say that having them together is the best system there is. Free market brings the money in, socialism distributes it fairly.

 

But to say it's all thanks to the free market is a fallacy. Look at the Chicago Boys and their market reform in Chile. Massive increase in the poverty even if the country began to bring in more money than ever. That was because a free market policy was implemented with no wealth distribution system in place.

Once the socialist moved in, they kept the free market system and implemented social policies. Only then was there an actual decrease in poverty and propelled the country to developed status with highest living standard in Latin America.

[Big-G]

I don't GAF...

[ivan134]

2 hours ago, killcomic said:

But countries where people have been lifted from poverty has happened so thanks to socialist policies (even in the US, back when there was some sanity left in that country).

Don't forget that they are not mutually exclusive systems, as they can, and do, coexist quite nicely together. Some may even say that having them together is the best system there is. Free market brings the money in, socialism distributes it fairly.

 

But to say it's all thanks to the free market is a fallacy. Look at the Chicago Boys and their market reform in Chile. Massive increase in the poverty even if the country began to bring in more money than ever. That was because a free market policy was implemented with no wealth distribution system in place.

Once the socialist moved in, they kept the free market system and implemented social policies. Only then was there an actual decrease in poverty and propelled the country to developed status with highest living standard in Latin America.

You are talking to someone who thinks the reason people are poor is because they are stupid and lazy and believe in eugenics. You're wasting your time.