An interesting look on the history of AMD VS NVIDIA

[Space Reptile]

pretty interesting how it was a few years ago  , worth a watch 

 

(inb4 red v green salt, please watch it before you comment) 

[Lawliet93]

AdoredTV has made a long video about the GPU market starting with the year 2008 (the fight between cores like G80/G92 and RV670) and going up to 2016. He came to the conclusion, that even when AMD had a massive technological advantage (in the years 2008-2012 AMD had GPU, that offered 95% of nvidias performance while using half the power and being way smaller than their nvidia counterpart), they simply were not making any money or barely any money at all. This may be due to the fact, that Nvidia has become synonymous with the word Graphics card and people simply don´t buy AMDs stuff. Even if the Vega 10 core would be twice as fast as the Titan X (P), people will simply not buy it  (it has happened in the past, for example the gtx 550ti vs HD 6850).

 

[Guest]

That's not Tech News

[Connor McJesus]

To be honest, AMD graphics are on a cycle of death right now. Sure, he may have some valid points but if he wants AMD to be great again, they would have to push out some seriously competitive GPUs as compared to Nvidia which is pretty much impossible since they are earning so little money as compared to Nvidia which is reinvested in GPU research.

[Bananasplit_00]

people will buy AMD if  its way more powerfull, just not everyone

[Lawliet93]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

That's not Tech News

It is.. .or wait, why is it not Tech news?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lawliet93 said:

It is.. .or wait, why is it not Tech news?

Some guy did a research on how a company does. Sure let me do a research on how aweseme Linus is and claim it as a news when everybody already knows that

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Very interesting watch. Long, but not needlessly so.

[zMeul]

not this shit again ...

 

why is AMD losing money? because AMD stopped competing

their Polaris GPUs aren't better than their previous generations plus they have no contender against GTX1070, GTX1080 and Titan X

[Guest]

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, Lawliet93 said:

It is.. .or wait, why is it not Tech news?

To begin with, it covers 2008-2012. Not exactly "new".

 

It's an interesting analysis, it just lacks the "news part", i.e., it isn't time sensitive information. Just like a Tech Quickie video can be very informative, yet it isn't "news".

 

Also:

 

 

[Misanthrope]

13 minutes ago, Lawliet93 said:

(in the years 2008-2012 AMD had GPU, that offered 95% of nvidias performance while using half the power and being way smaller than their nvidia counterpart)

I know they where better but that seems way off I'd like a citation on that. (If it's on the video I apologize I cannot watch most videos at work due to their firewall)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I know they where better but that seems way off I'd like a citation on that. (If it's on the video I apologize I cannot watch most videos at work due to their firewall)

I think the video has at most one such case  But it has several examples of same performance at half the price and die size, or same performance several months later, with same launch prices, and still selling...

So, you will find evidence of the overall message: for a while, Nvidia outsold AMD with worse performance, or with the same performance and much lower performance per dollar. Eventually Nvidia caught up, and right now it is alone at the highest end of the market.

Then there is some discussion of the reasons why this happened, but I think that deserves further research. The video uncovers (or documents) a phenomenon, and it would be interesting to rigorously look for an explanation of said phenomenon.

 

From a statistics point of view, the most important point the author made was how sample selection makes Steam an unreliable source of data if you go back enough in time, although its exponential increase in user count probably makes it a reasonably representative sample for more recent times.

 

I think it also works as a general reminder when thinking about AMD, Nvidia, Intel, and anyone, that performance crowns, technological achievements, and financial success are three different things, which don't necessarily imply each other.

[DarkBlade2117]

34 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

people will buy AMD if  its way more powerfull, just not everyone

You have to look into EVERYONE who buys GPUs.

How many of the people back then who got a 550Ti or 280 even knew AMD existed? How many people that got the GTX 970 even knew AMD Existed? Because I bet many of them just seen the GPU from Green team in their price range, and got it. I legit met someone like this, he had no fucking clue who AMD was. He got a 960 when the 380 was a thing.

[DarkBlade2117]

31 minutes ago, zMeul said:

not this shit again ...

 

why is AMD losing money? because AMD stopped competing

their Polaris GPUs aren't better than their previous generations plus they have no contender against GTX1070, GTX1080 and Titan X

No, AMD has not stopped competing. Despite what you say, The 480 is essentially more powerful than a 1060. AMD's cards just are never released at their full potential. Look at Fury vs 980, Fury X vs 980Ti, 390 vs 970.

And despite again what people say, AMD is just releasing products ahead of their time. They are adapting early software and hardware technologies that aren't being utilized yet, and want to know who wins in games/software that supports those? AMD.

Polaris is better, no idea what brick you've had smashed into your head this time.

[Morgan Everett]

24 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

No, AMD has not stopped competing. Despite what you say, The 480 is essentially more powerful than a 1060. AMD's cards just are never released at their full potential. Look at Fury vs 980, Fury X vs 980Ti, 390 vs 970.

The evidence doesn't seem to tend towards that conclusion. That said, they're pretty close, and the 480 is cheaper (at least here in Britain), assuming we're talking about the 'proper' 1060.

[Misanthrope]

Wait...this is back at news? Ok mods can we have a little fucking consistency here? How many times will it be moved back and forth between off topic and news?

[PocketNerd]

I bought AMD because the RX 470 seemed like a better long-term choice over the 1060 due to DX12 and Vulcan... also more VRAM for the $$

Inb4 haters start crying bitch tears.

[Coaxialgamer]

47 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You have to look into EVERYONE who buys GPUs.

How many of the people back then who got a 550Ti or 280 even knew AMD existed? How many people that got the GTX 970 even knew AMD Existed? Because I bet many of them just seen the GPU from Green team in their price range, and got it. I legit met someone like this, he had no fucking clue who AMD was. He got a 960 when the 380 was a thing.

that's exactly the point of the video.

[zMeul]

17 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

that's exactly the point of the video.

the video misses the mark by a long shot:

 

 

look at the market share AMD gained at nVidia GT220's launch

 

after 2006 ATi acquisition, Radeon Market share went to shit - the culprit? AMD 

[Coaxialgamer]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the video misses the mark by a long shot:

 

 

look at the market share AMD gained at nVidia GT220's launch

market share ≠ revenue . Fact is , even with a landslide victory for AMD, they still only managed around 40% market share.  and BTW your chart has no source 

[DarkBlade2117]

9 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

market share ≠ revenue . Fact is , even with a landslide victory for AMD, they still only managed around 40% market share.  and BTW your chart has no source 

 

14 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the video misses the mark by a long shot:

 

 

look at the market share AMD gained at nVidia GT220's launch

 

after 2006 ATi acquisition, Radeon Market share went to shit - the culprit? AMD 

According to my calculations of the sin of Potato to the 5th power, nVidia is beating AMD about about 52.6%

[zMeul]

20 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

market share ≠ revenue

because AMD decided to be the cheaper alternative and priced their cards lower, thus lower margins

 

Quote

and BTW your chart has no source:

the chart was compiled based on Jon Peddie's and Mercury Research quarterly and annual reports: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/nvidia-shows-signs.43294/page-161#post-1828480

[DarkBlade2117]

29 minutes ago, zMeul said:

because AMD decided to be the cheaper alternative and priced their cards lower, thus lower margins

 

the chart was compiled based on Jon Peddie's and Mercury Research quarterly and annual reports: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/nvidia-shows-signs.43294/page-161#post-1828480

Hey, quick question? What do you do outside of your mission to ruin AMD?

[raphidy]

So...AMD marketing is a mess? Or,AMD products cost more to manufacture?

It's really sad that AMD is dying because they can't compete well without lunch money. Either they need better manager or marketing strategies or they'll slowly die a painful death. It's good that they have a strong foothold on the console market. They should put like AMD inside, powered by AMD, or something to make their brand more visible.