AMD May Not Be Trying To Compete With Nvidia

[FirstArmada]

1 minute ago, Revinval said:

The fanboyism in this thread is insane. When has Nvidia or AMD said they are making big chips? Yup that is right early 2017. Guess what neither is going to own the other from what we know now. Stop it with the fanboyism and see we have no real info yet outside of a little bit of early polaris. Its anyones game right now.

 

Its speculation hence the word "May" in the title

 

Watch the master plan video if you dont understand why this might be happening makes much more sense as it addresses some of the things he references in the video in the OP

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, Adored said:

It would have been faster, but most of you would still have bought the 1080 instead.  This has been seen time and time again in the past with cards like the 560 Ti vs the 6950 and the 460 vs the 6850.  

Funny how you stopped responding all of a sudden when I was severely questioning your "mindshare" argument. I still disagree. 

Again, people upgrade in waves. There is no conclusive evidence to be found that mere marketing is all that drives nvidia's sales.

 

As for this video, i'll refer to my previous comment. Going for the 'affordable' solution isn't going to bode well for them (it certainly hasn't up to this point). Only with decent margin will there be budget for proper R&D. You can't make bank on affordable solutions.

[Adored]

33 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Funny how you stopped responding all of a sudden when I was severely questioning your "mindshare" argument. I still disagree. 

Again, people upgrade in waves. There is no conclusive evidence to be found that mere marketing is all that drives nvidia's sales.[/quote]

You do realise I get hundreds of comments every day right?  What was your response to the 560 Ti vs 6950 and 460 vs 6850 again?  Oh yeah, nothing.  That's why you didn't get any further response.  AMD just getting unlucky because people upgrade in "waves" you say?  Right, unlucky, sure.  Check the gaps between those cards and you'll see that your "wave upgrade" idea is a joke.

 

[Thony]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, it's still crossfire.

Well that just doesn't make much sense to get just one of those if it's just a matter of saving one PCI-E slot.

[Majestic]

15 minutes ago, Adored said:

You do realise I get hundreds of comments every day right?  What was your response to the 560 Ti vs 6950 and 460 vs 6850 again?  Oh yeah, nothing.  That's why you didn't get any further response.  AMD just getting unlucky because people upgrade in "waves" you say?  Right, unlucky, sure.  Check the gaps between those cards and you'll see that your "wave upgrade" idea is a joke.

 

You're really the worst kind of youtuber. Making conspiracy theories and then get salty when someone objects. You base your argument on speculation and circumstantial facts whilst claiming the other person has to emperically prove their point for it to be worthy.

 

Here is the transcript, and the latest comment I made;

 

 

 

Reacties verbergen

 

 

 

AdoredTV

 

24 apr. 2016

 

 

 

+That Dutch Guy Well, what is "performing better" to you? From DX10 to the start of DX11 AMD was a mile ahead in perf/Watt. Sure Nvidia had the fastest card at some points (not including duals), but they were massive space heaters and power hogs too, not to mention a lot more expensive to boot.

 

 

 

Minder weergeven  ·  Vertalen

 

 

 

That Dutch Guy

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+AdoredTV I think many consumers don't care about power consumption. The Hawaii chips and Bulldozer chips got sold nontheless. I mean I do, i'm running ITX so it's important, but I don't represent the majority vote.

Many people care about the performance they're buying. And as I've said, certainly the tail-end of DX11, AMD was really, really struggling to provide proper drivers. The Fury X was usually butting heads with the 980 and 970 in new releases (1080/1440, not 4k). Which is abysmal, since the Fury X is most definitely the superior hardware.

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/11/game_f4/charts5/f41_1920u.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/03/game_needforspeed/charts/nfs_1080p_ultra.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/game_rtr/charts2/rtr_1920vh1.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/game_jc3/charts1/jc3_1920vh.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/12/game_r6siege/charts2/r6s_1920u.png

And that all had to do with their driver overhead. As demonstrated by these results.

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/c3r_1920vh.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/f4b_1920u.png

From the i5 to the overclocked i7-6700K, Nvidia has a much smaller delta. Meaning CPU is less of an influence. This bigger driver overhead has also been confirmed multiple times by DigitalFoundry. Have a look at their 2500K video they recently put out. Where they run Rise of the Tomb raider on a 390X with a 2500K. It nearly halved the framerate compared to their OC'ed 6700K.

Now, with DX12 around the corner driver overhead should be less of an issue. And recent showings put AMD back into a competing position. 

But to say all this time mere mind-share was the reason people were buying Nvidia is disingenuous tbh.

 

Minder weergeven

 

 

 

AdoredTV

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+That Dutch Guy The Hawaii chips and Bulldozer chips sold much less even though they were far cheaper. Remember the 290X vs the 780 Ti? Or what about the 970 vs the 290X, when AMD continued to lose market share even with the 290X around the $220 mark compared to $300 for the 970?

Compare the 560 Ti and the 6950, which one outsold the other by 4-1? Compare the GTX 460 to the 6850, which one outsold the other by 4-1? How can that happen unless it's pure mindshare?

 

 

 

Minder weergeven  ·  Vertalen

 

 

 

That Dutch Guy

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+AdoredTV Well I explained that twice but you seem to omit half the comment. Nvidia just provided a more consistently performing product at that time.

The Bulldozer chips sold poorly because they performed poorly. Cheaper does not equate to better sales. AMD's reputation was 'cheap alternative', and that doesn't inspire consumer confidence. Their marketing wasn't the only reason they were selling poorly. They just simply didn't perform.

 

Minder weergeven

 

 

 

AdoredTV

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+That Dutch Guy Right so you're going to completely ignore my point on the direct card comparisons? Why does Nvidia outsell AMD 4-1 in key market areas when AMD is faster, more efficient? It's been happening for years. I'm talking pre GCN here, not GCN and later.

Also how many of those titles you linked are GameWorks, not to mention from a very dubious source. Seriously now.

 

Minder weergeven  ·  Vertalen

 

 

 

That Dutch Guy

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+AdoredTV I'm not omitting, i'm giving an alternative to your mindshare theory. Perf/watt didn't matter to anyone. And whilst the 480 was a hothead, it was beating the 5870 in the vast majority of games, by a significant margin. It was just simply faster, much faster.

And actually PClab.pl is the most consistent to outlets like DigitalFoundry (really, go ahead and compare them). Outlets like Techspot and Anandtech are the dubious ones now, they pander too hard to the vocal minority of loud and obnoxious tribalistic fanboys to not upset them. They show AMD and Nviida competing in perfect harmony in games that are reknown to plague one or the other. Or show CPU results that don't make sense like these ones;

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1128/bench/CPU_01.png

I thought the point of making these video's was to put out a theory and have it challenged. You have to a agree that whilst you use facts, you coat them with your personal interpretation.

There's a lot of guessing and subjectivity involved. Which is fine, but don't get mad please when someone challenges them. Especially theories like 'mindshare'.

 

Minder weergeven

 

 

 

AdoredTV

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+That Dutch Guy It really wasn't that much faster than the 5870. According to techpowerup it was 11% faster -https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The 5870 was 23% faster than the 285 at launch -https://tpucdn.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_5870/images/perfrel_1920.gif

So for 6 months AMD had the clear first and 2nd fastest cards, yet people waited 6 months for a 10-15% faster 480 which was much more power hungry and $120 more expensive.

What is that if it's not mindshare? Why did the 560 Ti massively outsell the faster 6950? Why did the 460 outsell the superior 6850 if not mindshare? I would even wager that the 550 Ti outsold the 5770 even though the latter was the same performance at around half the power draw 18 months previous to it.

 

Minder weergeven  ·  Vertalen

 

 

 

 

 

That Dutch Guy

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+AdoredTV Because people don't buy new hardware every generation. The 5870 was released very shortly after the introduction of the GTX 200 series, which was very succesful. I think it's just simply down to a matter of bad luck and timing. 

It's not uncommon for superior tech to fade, simply because they were released at a bad time, or that the competitor was ealier to the market. Upgrades happen in waves, most people want to keep their GPU for atleast 3-5 years, only a minority buys new every release. That means if you time your releases with those waves, you hit succes. Regardless of how the product stacks up shortly after. Many people who just bought themselves a new shiny 285 weren't going to already buy a new 5870, eventhough it was superior. 

No need to oversimplify it by using made-up terms like "mindshare" to blank slate everything. It becomes your go-to argument and stiffles debate. It also demonizes everyone who simply looked at benchmarks at the time, and bought the product that suited them best. You're labelling nvidia customers as mindless drones to Nvidia's marketing.

Sorry, I realise Nvidia's marketing is good. But you are really broadstroking with your mindshare argument.

 

Minder weergeven

 

 

 

AdoredTV

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+That Dutch Guy Well for me it's pretty bizarre. Look at the 4870, remember when Nvidia was forced to massively chop the price of the 280 and 260 a week or two after launch? The point here is that this wasn't a 1-off for AMD, they had built up to Cypress over a few good years, first of all the 3870 helped them to get serious, then the 4870 was an amazing chip for the size and price. Did they just get unlucky all that time or is it a bit more fundamental ie people aren't looking at AMD cards, they are only looking at Nvidia cards?

It's not meant to be taken as an insult, listen to what I said at the beginning of the video. I was only buying Nvidia cards to start with. When I paid closer attention to the tech it was clear to me who was ahead, and by how far, but I still saw the majority going with Nvidia.

 

 

 

Minder weergeven  ·  Vertalen

 

 

 

That Dutch Guy

 

24 apr. 2016

 

+AdoredTV I don't know, that's why throwing everything under a easy pseudonym like mindshare is so dangerous, and why i'm harping you about it

You looked at the tech, as a techy. But most people simply look at the performance. The fact of the matter is, the G92 series drew on for ages. With the 8800GTS being released in 2006, derrivatives were still being released 3 years later (9600GT, 250GTS). That release of the 8800 GTS also wrecked AMD's competition at the time. So 3-4 years later down the line, and people were waiting to upgrade their G92 card (which also were reknown for failing, so mostly out of pure necessity), and the relase of the 3870 wasn't that exciting in the meantime. It traded blows with the G92 cards, but nothing worth buying a new card over. And here was the GTX 200 series, boosting performance to significant degrees. Everyone had already jumped the gun. AMD was either too late, or too early to the party with their 5870. Which was, as you say, superior tech.

I'm not insulted per-se, it's just the broadstroking which can lead to disingenuous and oversimplified conclusions. It's also fuel to the fire to the tribalistic discourse taking place right now. With everyone already being labelled fanboys and zealots. Making terms like mindshare only makes it easier. 

I'm glad AMD is making a bit of a return. I do not applaud companies owning vast market shares (microsoft, Intel cough). But AMD users shouldn't applaud the dawn of simply a new company filling the market share as something inherently positive. Nvidia dissappearing wouldn't usher in an age of peace. I don't think AMD is going to be any more friendly about it than Nvidia or Intel is.

Also, the tribalism in tech is abysmal. You can obviously debate someone with contrary opinion, but most can't..

 

Minder weergeven

 

 

 

 

I wasn't being mean, unfair or unfounded. Yet you simply stopped responding and now again make the same mindsharing argument. Labelling every Nvidia constumer a drone to Nvidia's marketing.

 

You're adding fuel to the already blazing fire of tech tribalism. Stop. It.

[Mr.Meerkat]

16 hours ago, FirstArmada said:

I said since about Kepler ....

 

the 780 Ti beats the 290x?

 

2 years ago...yes the 780ti was slightly faster than the 290x in some but with Nvidia boycotting kepler and AMD continuing to optimise their hawaii chips, the 290x is actually now faster than the 780ti 2 years later  

[Adored]

23 minutes ago, Majestic said:

You're really the worst kind of youtuber. Making conspiracy theories and then get salty when someone objects. You base your argument on speculation and circumstantial facts whilst claiming the other person has to emperically prove their point for it to be worthy.

 

I wasn't being mean, unfair or unfounded. Yet you simply stopped responding and now again make the same mindsharing argument. Labelling every Nvidia constumer a drone to Nvidia's marketing.

 

You're adding fuel to the already blazing fire of tech tribalism. Stop. It.

What I object to is you dismissing that mindshare actually exists based on your laughable notion that people "upgrade in waves".

 

Simple question - Do you think that people buy up all the cards on day 1, or do you think that these cards are sold over many months and years?

 

2nd simple question - Why do you think people continue to buy the 970 over the 390 by a huge factor?  Because it's getting destroyed in every DX12 benchmark and even most DX11 ones today?

 

Just use logic and you'll understand how utterly ridiculous your argument is that AMD "just got unlucky."

You seem to have gotten your panties in a twist because you failed to understand that at that VERY moment I was being told about your "wave theory", I was also in discussion with other people on other subjects.  My comments section does not revolve around you and your "theories".
 

[TheMissxu]

Pretty sure that is just an interpretation of AMD's current plans...

 

It is true that they aren't going to release a $500+ GPU until 2017, while <$400 will be released this year (2016). That doesn't really mean they aren't going to be competitive in the higher end GPU market, but nVidia are probably going to dominate in 2016.

[grayperview]

@adored welcome to linus "fanboy" tips, run while you can.

 

Love your videos, the amount of research you do on these vids and somehow manage to put them together in a coherent manner is very impressive...

 

The "master plan" video ticks all the boxes, from the beginning with Mantel with the end goal of multi "mini" GPU's, if this comes true Nvidia will go the way of 3DFX, has AMD are way ahead in terms of R & D in this department and fabrication capabilities. 

[FirstArmada]

53 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

2 years ago...yes the 780ti was slightly faster than the 290x in some but with Nvidia boycotting kepler and AMD continuing to optimise their hawaii chips, the 290x is actually now faster than the 780ti 2 years later  

 

Oh yes i forgot about gimping ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, FirstArmada said:

 

Oh yes i forgot about gimping ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And I'm still happy with my 2 290x...good thing they were on sale...cheaper than 770s at the time...(got them for like 230 pounds each in 2014...not bad eh?)

[grayperview]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

And I'm still happy with my 2 290x...good thing they were on sale...cheaper than 770s at the time...(got them for like 230 pounds each in 2014...not bad eh?)

and they have the added bonus of not having to turn the heating on in winter, whilst gaming

[Majestic]

1 hour ago, Adored said:

What I object to is you dismissing that mindshare actually exists based on your laughable notion that people "upgrade in waves".

 

Simple question - Do you think that people buy up all the cards on day 1, or do you think that these cards are sold over many months and years?

 

2nd simple question - Why do you think people continue to buy the 970 over the 390 by a huge factor?  Because it's getting destroyed in every DX12 benchmark and even most DX11 ones today?

 

Just use logic and you'll understand how utterly ridiculous your argument is that AMD "just got unlucky."

You seem to have gotten your panties in a twist because you failed to understand that at that VERY moment I was being told about your "wave theory", I was also in discussion with other people on other subjects.  My comments section does not revolve around you and your "theories".
 

And yours is based on the laughable notion of your personal projection and correlation. How is yours somehow more objective?

 

Question 1; no, but there was a few months between the GTX 200 series and the 5000 series from AMD. Easily enough time to ship a vast quantity. Especially after a lousy 3-4 years of releases. Just like the 970 sales were quite substantial in a short period of time.

 

Question 2; Because it wasn't being "destroyed". In fact, AMD's day-one performance has been abysmal for a good portion of a year (screenshots in the transcript). They've only recently began showing improvement. And if you seriously think DX12 is on the average person's mind, you really are projecting too hard. 

 

It's not ridiculous, timing your release on the market is a vital part of the strategy. Your product's succes can depend on it. The same formula or strategy can be a succes, what flopped just a month earlier. 

 

It's not a "wave theory". My whole argument doesn't revolve around it, because i'm not trying to sell a story. You do. "Mind share" is a lazy broadstroking term. And since your entire theory revolves around it, it's pretty disingenuous. 

 

Take a look in the mirror, it is you who is having severe cognitive bias issues. You're just adding to the problem if you try and sell mere observations and personal interpretations as more than it is.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, super_skank said:

and they have the added bonus of not having to turn the heating on in winter, whilst gaming

Yup, although with a h70 push/pull (lowest speeds on both fans) on one and a arctic accelero 3 on the other one at 40%, they don't get past 65c gaming with an OC of 1200/1350mhz. (I must have been one of the people who didn't mind the reference coolers...40% fans for 70c at a constant 1030mhz...)

[FirstArmada]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

And I'm still happy with my 2 290x...good thing they were on sale...cheaper than 770s at the time...(got them for like 230 pounds each in 2014...not bad eh?)

I really hope devs implement DX12 multi gpu into their games it would really help everyone by helping squeeze out every little bit of performance possible 

[grayperview]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Yup, although with a h70 push/pull (lowest speeds on both fans) on one and a arctic accelero 3 on the other one at 40%, they don't get past 65c gaming with an OC of 1200/1350mhz. (I must have been one of the people who didn't mind the reference coolers...40% fans for 70c at a constant 1030mhz...)

Thats not bad, my 7970's hit 75c under load, it didn't half warm the room up....

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 minutes ago, FirstArmada said:

I really hope devs implement DX12 multi gpu into their games it would really help everyone by helping squeeze out every little bit of performance possible 

...Zen CPU (and hopefully 28+ PCI-e lanes) and a mobo that supports 3 cards...2x290x's and something polaris or something anyone? 

[FirstArmada]

Plus the integrated GPU   @Mr.Meerkat

Quote

...Zen CPU (and hopefully 28+ PCI-e lanes) and a mobo that supports 3 cards...2x290x's and something polaris or something anyone? 

 

[grayperview]

8 minutes ago, FirstArmada said:

I really hope devs implement DX12 multi gpu into their games it would really help everyone by helping squeeze out every little bit of performance possible 

This will come in time, it won't be fully adopted until the consoles have multi GPU's in them, once they do expect it to become the norm...

[Adored]

28 minutes ago, Majestic said:

And yours is based on the laughable notion of your personal projection and correlation. How is yours somehow more objective?

 

Question 1; no, but there was a few months between the GTX 200 series and the 5000 series from AMD. Easily enough time to ship a vast quantity. Especially after a lousy 3-4 years of releases. Just like the 970 sales were quite substantial in a short period of time.

 

Question 2; Because it wasn't being "destroyed". In fact, AMD's day-one performance has been abysmal for a good portion of a year (screenshots in the transcript). They've only recently began showing improvement. And if you seriously think DX12 is on the average person's mind, you really are projecting too hard. 

 

It's not ridiculous, timing your release on the market is a vital part of the strategy. Your product's succes can depend on it. The same formula or strategy can be a succes, what flopped just a month earlier. 

 

It's not a "wave theory". My whole argument doesn't revolve around it, because i'm not trying to sell a story. You do. "Mind share" is a lazy broadstroking term. And since your entire theory revolves around it, it's pretty disingenuous. 

 

Take a look in the mirror, it is you who is having severe cognitive bias issues. You're just adding to the problem if you try and sell mere observations and personal interpretations as more than it is.

How about you just check the steam hardware survey stats and see how many more cards Nvidia sells compared to AMD.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Look at how these numbers are RISING on a monthly basis.

The 970 vastly outsells everything else near the midrange and high-end combined.  The 960 vastly outsells the 380 - in fact it outsells the entirety of the 200 and 300 range from AMD still.  Both of these cards have been getting pummelled by their AMD counterparts for *months* yet if anything Nvidia continues to sell even *more* cards.

That is pure mindshare right there.
 

[FratStar]

4 hours ago, FirstArmada said:

 

 

Quite possible or as mentiond earlier Vega could be another card or two that doesn't compete with Nvidia but instead another card in between what Nvidia offers much like the Fury X is now at least in Canada it is about a 100$ cheaper then a 980 Ti , but i guess we wont know until we get closer to its launch 

Why would AMD release two new architectures on on the same process within the same year? Do you know how that sounds, secondly why would they put HBM2 on it if it wasn't meant to be a high end card? Come on man stop reaching. You don't use new bleeding edge technology that is very expensive to produce and low in yields on a low or mid range card. That's just poor business.

AMD already stated that they don't want to be the value option then all of a sudden they abandon high end? That's not in line with their strategy.

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Revinval said:

The fanboyism in this thread is insane

completely agree! GPU rumour mill should get it's own subforum section and be banned from the news section imo. too much cancer

[Atmos]

18 hours ago, Bensemus said:

Seeing as that's what the american ISP's have been doing all this time I think AMD and Nvidia would be fine.

american isps have been in a grey area like most utilities. they are not applicable in the same ways to anti trust laws. 

 

two completely independant companies splitting market share down the middle for better profit would 100% land them in hot water eith anti trust laws. 

[ivan134]

9 minutes ago, Atmos said:

american isps have been in a grey area like most utilities. they are not applicable in the same ways to anti trust laws. 

 

two completely independant companies splitting market share down the middle for better profit would 100% land them in hot water eith anti trust laws. 

I don't see how this would apply to AMD and Nvidia. That implies that there is collusion going on. Exactly what law would either of them be breaking if they decide not to make products in a price bracket that isn't profitable for them?

[Atmos]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I don't see how this would apply to AMD and Nvidia. That implies that there is collusion going on. Exactly what law would either of them be breaking if they decide not to make products in a price bracket that isn't profitable for them?

them both backing out of each others markets and ceasing competition together is collusion enough. they would only be in such a posistion if BOTH companies were to retract from those respective markets.  if only amd were to move away from the high end, then it would be fine. but for both to pull out from each others markets is pushing too far. the moment when there is no more competition, is when things get iffy