Why is nVIDIA always last on the wagon of GPU memory?

[hex4]

For example ATi went with DDR4 which did not last long, then they were the first to use GDDR5 with 4870, then nVIDIA went GDDR5 with GTX 400 series.

AMD again go to HBM first, nVIDIA uses GDDR5X but it's still basically GDDR5 just higher clocked.

 

Never made sense since nVIDIA have a huge amount of money vs AMD.

[Castdeath97]

Because memory compression algorithms.

[Imakuni]

Probably because AMD has to innovate in order to get market attention. Nvidia is just "we don't care, if it ain't amazing, we ain't using it".

[awesomeness10120]

Actually, Nvidia's now first in line for GDDR5X. But that's an exception, as throughout history AMD is always first to new memory technologies.

[Lord_Karango17]

Considering memory overclocks dont yield much benefit in terms of performance, I guess we are not held back by memory enough for widespread adoption of new memory tech.

[DXMember]

AMD has already announced next gen memory technology for NAVI architecture

nVidia doesn't have the IP to innovate, most of their assets are bought

they also don't have the ballz

[DXMember]

2 minutes ago, awesomeness10120 said:

Actually, Nvidia's now first in line for GDDR5X. But that's an exception, as throughout history AMD is always first to new memory technologies.

GDDR5X is just higher clocked GDDR5...

[Joegeddon]

It's probably because NVIDIA can cruise on their marketing and market share. Not saying they do, their technology is great it's just they have more room to do that.

[Delicieuxz]

AMD pioneers a lot of good technology that becomes mainstream:

 

GDDR

HBM

APUs

Tessellation

Mantle (-> Vulkan / DX12)

multi-core CPUs

on-die memory controllers

DisplayPort

64-bit x86 CPUs (post edited to add)

 

...

 

AMD also is committed to an open standard, which has allowed their tech to benefit the world, including their rival companies, like Intel, and Nvidia.

[Cela1]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

AMD pioneers a lot of good technology that becomes mainstream:

 

GDDR

HBM

APUs

Tessellation

Mantle (-> Vulkan / DX12)

multi-core CPUs

on-die memory controllers

DisplayPort

 

...

64 bit instruction set and CPUs also...

[manikyath]

and xerox was the first one to have a GUI desktop.

 

EDIT: should clarify my post *before* someone takes the reference down the wrong way and turns it into a fanboy flamewar:

its not who's first or last that matters, its the person that implements it best that gets to remain.

[Cela1]

Yea, AMD are good guys and great pioneers but always seem to get screwed over by other companies for doing the right thing.

[Dackzy]

Because Nvidia is not a company that pushes new tech. They like to milk the same cow as much as they can and still make money, because fanboys.

[Bhav]

12 minutes ago, DXMember said:

GDDR5X is just higher clocked GDDR5...

No its not just that, its also 64 bit wide memory access, vs GDDR5 32 bit.

[DXMember]

2 minutes ago, Bhav said:

No its not just that, its also 64 bit wide memory access, vs GDDR5 32 bit.

blah blah blah...

doesn't change the fact

 

if it was so different they would've called it GDDR6 or something, am I right?

[Bhav]

3 minutes ago, DXMember said:

blah blah blah...

doesn't change the fact

 

if it was so different they would've called it GDDR6 or something, am I right?

You made no factual statement. The whole difference between GDDR5 and GDDR5x is the double bit access, which theoretically offers double the bandwidth at the same clocks.

 

Clock speed was never simply the difference between the two, and Im pretty sure any clock speed achievable on one is also doable on the other.

[Notional]

Because their customers buy whatever they make anyways. When did NVidia really innovate anything on their graphics cards? The 600, 700 and some of the 900 series all had too little VRAM (except 980ti I guess). So why do anything?

[AMICLG]

Not really, they've never been last so to speak.

 

Like most companies they have a roadmap/set release date so they can't just throw out everything and say they won't be coming to market for another 6 months just to integrate a new technology. 

 

 

The real question should be why hasn't Nvidia release proper multi monitor support in their drivers.

[BuckGup]

21 minutes ago, awesomeness10120 said:

Actually, Nvidia's now first in line for GDDR5X. But that's an exception, as throughout history AMD is always first to new memory technologies.

Except AMD had HBM first which is way more impressive then GDDR5X. Like miles ahead. I do agree OP as AMD had the first 64 bit CPU too

[Altecice]

Nvidia could have went down the HBM2 route but why? 

Almost 0 performance gains at the moment

+$500 to the cost of the card.

 

It made sense to jump to the 'in between' technology that is GDDR5X.

[TheRandomness]

22 minutes ago, DXMember said:

GDDR5X is just higher clocked GDDR5...

With 20 more solder points. I wonder what they're for?

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Altecice said:

Nvidia could have went down the HBM2 route but why? 

Almost 0 performance gains at the moment

+$500 to the cost of the card.

 

It made sense to jump to the 'in between' technology that is GDDR5X.

nvidia doesnt need HBM to have a great performing card, thats why

[stconquest]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

nvidia doesnt need HBM to have a great performing card, thats why

No.  Probably more of an availability issue.  Too much risk for little reward.  HBM2 is coming to Nvidia GPUs soon, why would they adopt the faster/broader RAM?

[Zyndo]

they are "last" because they know how little difference that makes in the performance of a GPU. AMD needs the new eye-popping or "WOW" technologies to get attention. Nvidia doesn't need that. Nvidia will make better GPU's without all that pizazz simply because it isn't needed. If you notice, AMD likes to pump a disproportionately high amount of VRAM onto its cards compared to Nvidia. So when you look at its specs and if two cards have similar stats, but one has more VRAM, you would be more inclined to go with that one, whereas Nvidia tends to better know how much VRAM they ACTUALLY need for any given card. For example the R9 390. 8 GB of VRAM. thats the kind of scale running into 4k. theres NO WAY a 390 could do 4k with any reasonable amount of efficiency (you could argue crossfire setups, but you should just buy a better card before you start crossifring or SLIing)

lets use a metaphor for how I feel about Nvidia vs AMD GPU's. Lets say you (Nvidia) take your little brother (AMD) out for a mountain hike. The goal is the top of the mountain. You understand this. That's where you're headed. but your little cousin doesn't have the same goal. His goal is to just be higher on this mountain than you are. He will sprint up to a big rock and climb that one and proclaim "HA! look how much higher I am than you!" but you just shrug that off and keep on trekking, after all, your goal is the top of the mountain not the top of the nearest rock. Your little brother has expended so much energy, reaching an irrelevant goal, that he needs to take a rest upon that rock. You catch up to and surpass him in no time at all, and at the end of the day, you climbed the mountain, whilst your brother lags behind because he was distracted by all the irrelevant rocks and slight plateaus that he thought we're the mountains.

To me, it feels like Nvidia goes where they want to go, does what they want to do, because they believe that's the best way to do it... and AMD is always just trying to stay one step ahead of them. You could argue that's simply because Nvidia has the market control right now and you may be (partially) right about that, but if your business model is simply to follow the competition and come out with gimmicks that sound better, but are irrelevant at the moment, it sounds very.... shady. In this comparison, HBM vs DDR5.

You are absolutely right that HBM is better than DDR5; BUT HBM is irrelevant. the performance difference of that innovation in current GPU's is almost nothing. Its just a badge for them to say "HA! look how much higher I am than you!"

That's just my two cents anyway... Not trying to fanboy, I'll buy whichever card is best, but Nvidia's dictation of what is needed vs what is flashy just seems to be better (at least for now)

[Bhav]

From a price / performance aspect, I suppose that HBM doesnt make enough improvement compared to GDDR5x. HBM costs a lot more and GPUs dont yet seem to gain much from it, judging by AMD's cards.