AMD May Not Be Trying To Compete With Nvidia

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

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

Good luck to whichever lawyer tries to argue that in court.

[Atmos]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Good luck to whichever lawyer tries to argue that in court.

what, arguing that both companies willfully made moves to split up and divide the market, actively avoiding competition with each other when it was not neccisary? 

AMD is not hemoraging money because of their high end gpus. there are a plethora of other reasons. for them to sacrafice a large portion of their market share to avoid competition is 100% shady business. 

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

what, arguing that both companies willfully made moves to split up and divide the market, actively avoiding competition with each other when it was not neccisary? 

AMD is not hemoraging money because of their high end gpus. there are a plethora of other reasons. for them to sacrafice a large portion of their market share to avoid competition is 100% shady business. 

That is exactly why I said good luck arguing that in court. High end cards do not make up a large portion of AMD's shares. The 390 and 380 are their best selling products.

[Atmos]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

That is exactly why I said good luck arguing that in court. High end cards do not make up a large portion of AMD's shares. The 390 and 380 are their best selling products.

both companies willfully made moves to split up and divide the market, actively avoiding competition with each other when it served no other purpose than to AVOID COMPETITION AND DIVIDE THE MARKET. 

Case closed, lawsuit over. 

[Adored]

Why would Nvidia want to divide a market they already own the lions share of?

[Shahnewaz]

Oh look who's here! The legendary @Adored himself!

Welcome to the forums.

[awesomeness10120]

53 minutes ago, Adored said:

Why would Nvidia want to divide a market they already own the lions share of?

Welcome to the forum! And get ready for more flame wars...

[Nena Trinity]

Best Polaris chip is gonna be a 480X like I predicted myself, not to brag or anything but now since I was right about that I am sure there will be Vega 10 & 11 in late 2016 or early 2017!

[WhiteSkyMage]

Things have gone quite confusing now for those that are planning future upgrades like me - especially monitor upgrades and VR.

1) Is Nvidia going to gimp the Maxwell cards (900 series) when the new Pascal cards come out?

2) Is it safe to assume that AMD's master plan would take on soon (like after 2-3 years), so that means, let's just jump on AMD's Vega or stay along with Nvidia until that time comes? 

3) And following on that, is the question of the variable refresh monitors (G-Sync or Free-Sync) and whoever will deliver better VR experience with this generation cards. The thing is, Nvidia does not support Free-Sync, so if you are buying a high end monitor, you are stuck with one or the other - risky!

 

What do you guys think? Situation is really dire. I wish I could move on from that 1080p 60Hz monitor, but I have no idea what to buy.

[samcool55]

Well if you look at AMD's past it makes perfect sense.

Most GPU's sold are in the 300-400 dollar range, and if AMD want market share back, that's the place to compete.

And this might work out fine, they have nice tech for that price range, and they don't have to push themself too hard.

It's 14nm or whatever and Finfet, and not going full out now gives them the chance to refine and perfection the manufacturing and make it possible to make vega compete in the high-end market.

 

They did this in the past with a mid-range 4000-series card that had actually a newer chip than the high-end 4000 cards, but as a result they got knowledge to make the 5000 series amazing, and they did.

 

This tactic worked before and i believe they are doing the right thing.

High-end cards are nice, but in the end most of us drop down a tier or 2 and get that.

[Jahramika]

Bad news for high end GPU's = Nivida will charge a lot more for high end

[Misanthrope]

Not trying or unable to? 

 

 

[Phoenix721]

Obviously, as AdoredTV said, Nvidia's marketing is too powerful to compete against.

[FirstArmada]

9 hours ago, FratStar said:

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.

 

I meant Vega could be high end but not at the same price point as Nvidia's card maybe in between 1080 and 1080 Ti or something like that or it might even be more power full but i doubt AMD will be making top tier card like 980 Ti or Titan X until Navi, once again this is just a guess.

[MilkJugg24]

This is all Youtuber nonsense. The facts seem to add up, but it's not proven nor falsified.

 

Perhaps their marketing technique is that they don't need to acknowledge Nvidia simply due to the fact that they're better at producing everything else.

[patrickjp93]

9 hours ago, Atmos said:

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

I think AMD may be trying to leave the high end to Intel based on the apparent licensing talks of late. Given Intel has the node advantage, it would stick in Nvidia's craw quite harshly.

[Prysin]

28 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I think AMD may be trying to leave the high end to Intel based on the apparent licensing talks of late. Given Intel has the node advantage, it would stick in Nvidia's craw quite harshly.

given that Nvidia is pushing their high end stuff first and AMD is holding back VEGA (their next Fury replacement), i'd say AMD is simply trying to grab the "cash cow" of the market before trying to seduce ethusiasts which get pissy and salty over meaningless numbers.

 

Intel wouldnt be able to make a high end GPU atm, mostly because they lack board partners to help spread out sales.

Intel isnt known for high performance GPUs, so it isnt a given that the consumer market would even look at them twice when it came to choosing a GPU. The consumers would get the "GTX" or the "Radeon" long before getting a "Intel". 

If Intel had deals with the board partners, especially XFX or Powercolor, we would have known it by now. As those two companies arent known to be specially tight lipped when it comes to new things.

[Atmos]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

I think AMD may be trying to leave the high end to Intel based on the apparent licensing talks of late. Given Intel has the node advantage, it would stick in Nvidia's craw quite harshly.

intel still is in no place at all to produce dedicated gpus. they have no legacy of drivers, updates, software or firmware there to help them.  Even if they got ahold of amds patents, them jumping into the gpu market would be like throwing a canoe into the open ocean. they simply are not prepared. 

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, Prysin said:

given that Nvidia is pushing their high end stuff first and AMD is holding back VEGA (their next Fury replacement), i'd say AMD is simply trying to grab the "cash cow" of the market before trying to seduce ethusiasts which get pissy and salty over meaningless numbers.

Hmm? AFAIK, Nvidia isn't releasing GP100 this year either. They're going midrange first, just like AMD.

[awesomeness10120]

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Hmm? AFAIK, Nvidia isn't releasing GP100 this year either. They're going midrange first, just like AMD.

Some people think that GP100's yields are to low to be sold to consumers and will stay with Tesla. The conclusion of this article explains it:

http://techreport.com/review/30048/exploring-nvidia-pascal-architecture

[Notional]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

I think AMD may be trying to leave the high end to Intel based on the apparent licensing talks of late. Given Intel has the node advantage, it would stick in Nvidia's craw quite harshly.

You are overestimating Intel's 14nm node a LOT. The difference between that and Samsung's 14nm FF LPP is quite small. Architecture and chip size would make a much larger difference than that.

As for the high end market, Intel has no competence in professional graphics what so ever. Things like ACE's, geometry processors and advanced things like freesync, etc. is something Intel has no competence in what so ever. There is 0% chance of this happening.

AMD already has their high end Vega on the way at the same time as NVidia's high end Pascal, so that makes no sense.

7 hours ago, Prysin said:

given that Nvidia is pushing their high end stuff first and AMD is holding back VEGA (their next Fury replacement), i'd say AMD is simply trying to grab the "cash cow" of the market before trying to seduce ethusiasts which get pissy and salty over meaningless numbers.

 

Intel wouldnt be able to make a high end GPU atm, mostly because they lack board partners to help spread out sales.

Intel isnt known for high performance GPUs, so it isnt a given that the consumer market would even look at them twice when it came to choosing a GPU. The consumers would get the "GTX" or the "Radeon" long before getting a "Intel". 

If Intel had deals with the board partners, especially XFX or Powercolor, we would have known it by now. As those two companies arent known to be specially tight lipped when it comes to new things.

As said above, Big Pascal (GP100) will launch at the same time as AMD's Vega, so both high end products will arrive about the same time. P100, as in their professional series), might launch first, but has no consequence on the gaming consumer market. In fact it might push back GP100, as yields are very low (P100 is a cut down chip), and p100 taking up all the chips, as the profit is a lot higher on the professional chips than consumer chips.

 

Yeah it makes no sense to think Intel would enter the high end graphics market. Those chips are extremely difficult to design. Intel can only do simple integrated graphics (that sucks hard) and compute cards that only does floating point data processing. Intel is more than 10 years behind and there is no way they can catch up, even with some patent licensing deal with AMD. After all Intel is already licensing from Nvidia.

[patrickjp93]

7 hours ago, Prysin said:

given that Nvidia is pushing their high end stuff first and AMD is holding back VEGA (their next Fury replacement), i'd say AMD is simply trying to grab the "cash cow" of the market before trying to seduce ethusiasts which get pissy and salty over meaningless numbers.

 

Intel wouldnt be able to make a high end GPU atm, mostly because they lack board partners to help spread out sales.

Intel isnt known for high performance GPUs, so it isnt a given that the consumer market would even look at them twice when it came to choosing a GPU. The consumers would get the "GTX" or the "Radeon" long before getting a "Intel". 

If Intel had deals with the board partners, especially XFX or Powercolor, we would have known it by now. As those two companies arent known to be specially tight lipped when it comes to new things.

All Intel has to do to market new cards is admit it uses Radeon and then get plenty of samples out to reviewers. And Intel is certainly capable of making a high end GPU. It builds the largest dies in the entire industry with little issue (662mm sq. for the 2699 V3). As for board partners, ASUS, MSI, and EVGA all make graphics cards and graphics cards. I'm sure getting their partnership wouldn't be so difficult. And they are tight-lipped.

[patrickjp93]

4 hours ago, Atmos said:

intel still is in no place at all to produce dedicated gpus. they have no legacy of drivers, updates, software or firmware there to help them.  Even if they got ahold of amds patents, them jumping into the gpu market would be like throwing a canoe into the open ocean. they simply are not prepared. 

Have you missed the last 6 months? Driver update rates have doubled. And Intel has been making GPUs since Nehalem. Ita S been making larger-die processors than anyone else for 2 years now (2699 V3 is 662 mm sq.). Intel is very well prepared. Its issue is precisely IP.

[Prysin]

22 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

All Intel has to do to market new cards is admit it uses Radeon and then get plenty of samples out to reviewers. And Intel is certainly capable of making a high end GPU. It builds the largest dies in the entire industry with little issue (662mm sq. for the 2699 V3). As for board partners, ASUS, MSI, and EVGA all make graphics cards and graphics cards. I'm sure getting their partnership wouldn't be so difficult. And they are tight-lipped.

EVGA given Radeon tech. Nvidia wouldnt stand for that for even a moment. We know what happened when XFX tried to do that.

MSI and ASUS, sure, but both of these companies would have put out teasers by now. They are tight lipped, but both ASUS and MSI loves to tease.

 

To be honest, the only tight lipped companies in this industry is probably PNY and Sapphire, and even they doesnt keep everything under a tight lid.

 

Intel entering the dGPU market in any segment is but a farfetched dream. They are nowhere near ready and wont be for YEARS. Remember, they are not battling their ability to produce, they are battling ESTABLISHED BRAND NAMES.

 

By admitting to use Radeon tech, the market would be in turmoil and consumers would be confused. If Intel made "better"products then Radeon, it would sink the RTG, if they made worse, it would cause Intels project to flop.

 

Honestly, i think Intels usage of Radeon technology is going to be in HPC or atleast not outside of SoC stuff.

[FirstArmada]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

EVGA given Radeon tech. Nvidia wouldnt stand for that for even a moment. We know what happened when XFX tried to do that.

MSI and ASUS, sure, but both of these companies would have put out teasers by now. They are tight lipped, but both ASUS and MSI loves to tease.

 

To be honest, the only tight lipped companies in this industry is probably PNY and Sapphire, and even they doesnt keep everything under a tight lid.

 

Intel entering the dGPU market in any segment is but a farfetched dream. They are nowhere near ready and wont be for YEARS. Remember, they are not battling their ability to produce, they are battling ESTABLISHED BRAND NAMES.

 

By admitting to use Radeon tech, the market would be in turmoil and consumers would be confused. If Intel made "better"products then Radeon, it would sink the RTG, if they made worse, it would cause Intels project to flop.

 

Honestly, i think Intels usage of Radeon technology is going to be in HPC or atleast not outside of SoC stuff.

 

Or maybe AMD rapes Nvidia market share , Nvidia goes bankrupt , Intel buys them out and voila

 

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)