Are Nvidia shooting themselves in the foot with G-Sync?

[jasonvp]

5 hours ago, Praesi said:

"I like Apples. Round and tasty."]

Incorrect, sir.  The proper argument has raged since 1951.

 

"Wabbit season!"

[Energycore]

10 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Yeah, that point being when AMD actually manages to get some fucking GPU market share and that point is coming errr.....

Would you rather AMD did not have any marketshare and went under?

 

And we were left with the company that's been gimping the shit out of old cards, putting telemetry in their drivers, and charging for every bit that they can? (not just Gsync, SLI motherboards, SLI bridges, etc)

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Would you rather AMD did not have any marketshare and went under?

 

And we were left with the company that's been gimping the shit out of old cards, putting telemetry in their drivers, and charging for every bit that they can? (not just Gsync, SLI motherboards, SLI bridges, etc)

That's not what he said at all, nor was that the point he was trying to make. His entire point is, AMD's marketshare is so low compared to Nvidia, that Nvidia won't need to adopt Freesync, since the majority of users use their product. They have a stranglehold on the market, and can charge for tech like this because of it. If AMD had a larger marketshare, then the number of Freesync monitors sold (and therefore, manufactured) would also increase. You yourself used Steam's hardware survey as an example before, so I'll use it now: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

Nvidia's marketshare in just steam gaming, more than doubles AMD's. Until that changes dramatically, Nvidia won't be forced to adopt anything outside of their proprietary ecosystem. 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Would you rather AMD did not have any marketshare and went under?

If someone else like Intel would take over, yes. 

[Energycore]

Just now, MageTank said:

That's not what he said at all, nor was that the point he was trying to make. His entire point is, AMD's marketshare is so low compared to Nvidia, that Nvidia won't need to adopt Freesync, since the majority of users use their product. They have a stranglehold on the market, and can charge for tech like this because of it. If AMD had a larger marketshare, then the number of Freesync monitors sold (and therefore, manufactured) would also increase. You yourself used Steam's hardware survey as an example before, so I'll use it now: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

Nvidia's marketshare in just steam gaming, more than doubles AMD's. Until that changes dramatically, Nvidia won't be forced to adopt anything outside of their proprietary ecosystem. 

I think you're right. It's unfortunate but at least Crimson Relive helps their marketing side, I also thought about why they don't just put their logo on all PS4 and Xbox one games, since they own the hardware IP for them. Just something like "optimized by AMD" or "built for Radeon hardware".

 

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

If someone else like Intel would take over, yes. 

My dream is that Samsung takes over some portion, be it the CPU division or RTG. Can't exactly tell why.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

My dream is that Samsung takes over some portion, be it the CPU division or RTG. Can't exactly tell why.

That'd be an explosive change of pace for sure. 

[Luke]

13 hours ago, Paradine Sage said:

No, nVidia aren't shooting themselves in the foot with G-Sync.

 

At least not until and unless someone else actually produces a card that can compete in the mid to high end market. Yeah, if you are a 1060/480 level customer then G-Sync isn't worth it and you should buy the 480 (it is a better value for money proposition at that performance point). But do you want to game at 4K? Do you want to use VR? Do you want to run multiple 1440p monitors? That entire area of the market is totally owned by nVidia and these are the people who are willing to shell out for the G-Sync displays.

 

When you are already dropping 1500 to 2500 USD between your graphics card and monitor, an extra hundred or two bucks just doesn't matter that much. At those price levels you are targeting a performance level, not a price point, and unless someone else offers performance that is substantially the same then a few hundred bucks higher or lower just isn't much of a deal breaker.

In the meantime i know they're not but i mean in the long run it seems like it could be a bad decision. FreeSync monitors can sell AMD GPU's because it's a great feature with a low price premium but i can't imagine people buying Nvidia GPU's specifically for G-Sync monitors but rather G-Sync monitors.

 

Basically what i'm saying is if Nvidia and AMD were on equal playing fields with their high end GPU's i can see Freesync playing a role in a buyers decision. If AMD has a counterpart to every Nvidia GPU (They only do for 1060 and below at the moment) Freesync could play a small role in helping regain marketshare where as Nvidia is basically just netting a bit more profit for for each G-Sync monitor sale. It doesn't seem like a good decision to not compete with AMD on the price-performance side of things when it comes to monitors in the long run but who knows.

 

[Swiftfeather]

Perhaps if AMD were to release a quality high end GPU worth a damn, more would be happy going to FreeSync.