Why does Nvidia have such a strong hold on the gaming GPU market?

[MellowCream]

Can someone please explain this to me? AMD made solid cards with the 480 & 580,  Vega 56, 64 etc... Why does Nvidia seem to have this unstoppable hold, it's almost cultish.

 

AMD is making a major comeback in CPUs, and will certainly take over the datacenter within 2 years. Why can't they compete with Nvidia on the graphics side?

[chckovsky]

1 minute ago, MellowCream said:

Why can't they compete with Nvidia on the graphics side?

TLDR; Because with Polaris the performance isn't there and with Vega the price has been too high.

[HOOTSMON]

cause they make the best cards?

[Firewrath9]

becuase they took hold when amd was doing the hd series which were shit, 

hawaii and the other one was pretty HHHOOT and shitty,

then polaris wasn't really that good, and vega is too expensive.

[FunkmastaFlex]

This might give a little insight, but it won't give a solid answer

 

[Jrasero]

5 minutes ago, MellowCream said:

Can someone please explain this to me? AMD made solid cards with the 480 & 580,  Vega 56, 64 etc... Why does Nvidia seem to have this unstoppable hold, it's almost cultish.

 

AMD is making a major comeback in CPUs, and will certainly take over the datacenter within 2 years. Why can't they compete with Nvidia on the graphics side?

Well they have a shot in 2019 moving to 7nm as long as they perform well and undercuts Nvidia's insane pricing.  Also Intel coming to the party might help.  

[Sakkura]

25 minutes ago, chckovsky said:

TLDR; Because with Polaris the performance isn't there and with Vega the price has been too high.

Polaris performs just fine - 480/580 matches the 1060 6GB.

[MellowCream]

26 minutes ago, HOOTSMON said:

cause they make the best cards?

Such a bad answer, no substance 

[HOOTSMON]

1 minute ago, MellowCream said:

Such a bad answer, no substance 

performance, how about that?

[Motifator]

Not everybody needs the power of an RTX 2080, period. Most people buy Nvidia probably because they think if they make THE best cards, their cards would as well be the best choices, which isn't always true as it can clearly be seen with the RX 580.

1080p is the most selling market and some people just aren't informed properly to buy into the RX 580. It opens the way to a load of Freesync VA and IPS monitors which are much better than the TN garbage Nvidia sells with G-Sync modules for much more.

If I was buying a mid range GPU now from the ground up, it would most definitely be the RX 580.

[MellowCream]

3 minutes ago, HOOTSMON said:

performance, how about that?

but as i mentioned, amd has been good with performance, especially with the mid range cards that people buy, like the 580/70 etc

[JoostinOnline]

35 minutes ago, MellowCream said:

AMD is making a major comeback in CPUs, and will certainly take over the datacenter within 2 years. Why can't they compete with Nvidia on the graphics side?

You answered your own question.  They're a relatively small company, they can't make major innovations everywhere at once.

[HOOTSMON]

1 minute ago, MellowCream said:

but as i mentioned, amd has been good with performance, especially with the mid range cards that people buy, like the 580/70 etc

My perspective is from the high end. i want the best and thats Nvidia, this mentality shows on places like YouTube and it trickles down to people that get hyped on these cards that wouldn't necessarily buy the high end. They want to join the green team thats perceived to be the best generally speaking. If i was going to buy a 1060 but was thinking i may upgrade in the future the the highest end i would "support my team" as people do. This could be one of many contributing factors i dont thing there is a definitive answer.

[Neo-Bladewing]

7 hours ago, MellowCream said:

but as i mentioned, amd has been good with performance, especially with the mid range cards that people buy, like the 580/70 etc

7 hours ago, HOOTSMON said:

My perspective is from the high end. i want the best and thats Nvidia, this mentality shows on places like YouTube and it trickles down to people that get hyped on these cards that wouldn't necessarily buy the high end. They want to join the green team thats perceived to be the best generally speaking. If i was going to buy a 1060 but was thinking i may upgrade in the future the the highest end i would "support my team" as people do. This could be one of many contributing factors i dont thing there is a definitive answer.

Add in that Nvidia recovered their prices during the mining craze much faster, and you have your answer.

 

In the low to mid range, you can make a solid argument for AMD cards. In fact, back at launch, they were pretty much exclusively what I recommended for mid range budget builds. So long as prices are near MSRP, they do trade blows with Nvidia's offerings in the same price tier.

 

The issue is that pesky MSRP simply having been away on vacation for some time. Plus, Nvidia's top of the line options decisively crush AMD's for gaming at the moment.

 

Time will tell if AMD can catch up, or even if Intel can join in on the market. We desperately need competition right now, as evidenced by the RTX 2080 Ti FE's $1,200 price tag. Yeowch.

[Froody129]

GCN hasn't been great. Apparently soonish they'll use a different arch and then we might see competition. No word on raytracing though 

[Howitz]

Cuz you fooks only buys their products!

[xg32]

9 hours ago, MellowCream said:

Can someone please explain this to me? AMD made solid cards with the 480 & 580,  Vega 56, 64 etc... Why does Nvidia seem to have this unstoppable hold, it's almost cultish.

 

AMD is making a major comeback in CPUs, and will certainly take over the datacenter within 2 years. Why can't they compete with Nvidia on the graphics side?

just not enough horsepower from AMD GPUs, and the majority isn't switching over the linux to use Vega cards.

 

Even in CPUs for pure gaming, 8700k is still king, but the 2600x/2700x is close enough for most.

 

For GPUs they arent even close.

[MaktimS]

I may be late, but I just want to add my two cents to this. 

 

The reason why is Nvidia so strong and why Turing costs so much is because people are stupid and too lazy to inform themselves. And Nvidia knows how to use this to their advantage. Take GTX 400 series for example. Nvidia offered worse GPUs for more money than AMD, however they marketed the sh*t out of it and sold more units than AMD.

 

Nvidia is also known to do some shady things, like cheating in 3D mark so their GPUs look better but that was like 15 yrs ago.

 

 

[Motifator]

Looks like you haven't done your research back then. The GTX 480 was a better card than the 5870 as far as graphical power went, and CrossFire support was even more terrible than SLI in those days. However, where the 5870 shined was efficiency. The Ferminators were hot and power hungry, but that didn't stop those that wanted the best of the best from watercooling them.

Yes, Nvidia is greedy but AMD doesn't have ANYTHING in the market that can stand against the RTX GPUs...

[MadPistol]

AMD is competitive up to the RX 580, which competes with the GTX 1060 6GB. Vega is not competitive because it is generally more expensive and slower than Nvidia's competing solutions.

 

Which means that Nvidia is basically uncontested with the following products.

 

GTX 1070

GTX 1070 Ti

GTX 1080

GTX 1080 Ti

Titan X (Pascal)

Titan Xp (Pascal)

Titan V (Volta)

RTX 2070 (soon to be released)

RTX 2080 (soon to be released)

RTX 2080 Ti (soon to be released)

 

 

The problem is not Nvidia or the people that buy their products.. it's AMD. Nvidia has a highly competitive product stack that is EXPENSIVE because AMD is simply not competing at prices above around $250. 

 

 

Also note that GPUs and CPUs are completely different architecturally. You can be really good at one and terrible at the other. AMD seems to have hit gold with Zen. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for Vega.

[Motifator]

Nvidia is actually contested with all three of the cards you mentioned if the user doesn't care about the issues like inefficiency regarding Vega. AMD has the Freesync market so that's a huge bonus for them. When you consider the rip off that is planned between AUO and Nvidia, aka selling 3 year old G-Sync monitors for overly expensive prices, Vega actually makes a bit of sense. Not that I'm a huge fan of mine.

[MadPistol]

18 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Nvidia is actually contested with all three of the cards you mentioned if the user doesn't care about the issues like inefficiency regarding Vega. AMD has the Freesync market so that's a huge bonus for them. When you consider the rip off that is planned between AUO and Nvidia, aka selling 3 year old G-Sync monitors for overly expensive prices, Vega actually makes a bit of sense. Not that I'm a huge fan of mine.

The problem with Vega is price, not power or performance. Vega performs fine. Yes, the power draw is a bit high, but again, that's not a huge concern. My issue is that the Vega 64 is generally more expensive than a GTX 1080 while being slighly slower than said 1080.

 

If you're the underdog (AMD), you don't sell your inferior product at a higher price. That makes no sense at all.

[Motifator]

9 minutes ago, MadPistol said:

The problem with Vega is price, not power or performance. Vega performs fine. Yes, the power draw is a bit high, but again, that's not a huge concern. My issue is that the Vega 64 is generally more expensive than a GTX 1080 while being slighly slower than said 1080.

 

If you're the underdog (AMD), you don't sell your inferior product at a higher price. That makes no sense at all.

A properly clocked V64 is not really slower than a 1080. My LC performs right in the ballpark of an OC'ed 1080.

The card sells for more because of the HBM that goes into it, partly. Yes, it's too expensive but mining also affected that.

[MadPistol]

1 minute ago, Motifator said:

A properly clocked V64 is not really slower than a 1080. My LC performs right in the ballpark of an OC'ed 1080.

The card sells for more because of the HBM that goes into it, partly. Yes, it's too expensive but mining also affected that.

 

I would generally agree with you... but not after watching this.

 

 

[Motifator]

I have benchmarked my LC with a very slight OC (it's already clocked to almost max) in Superposition DirectX 4k optimized, and it fell right within the benchmarks of OVERCLOCKED 1080s. The card performs worse in older games because it doesn't, for example, natively do DX9 on a hardware level. It does that with software, ending up in much poorer results than 1080s. You can clearly see an example of this on UserBenchmark. TechPowerUp relative performance disagrees with your video, more so, IIRC in a few titles like DIRT V64 LC murders a 1080. I can benchmark mine right now in Siege if you want, pretty sure it's not as poor as you make it out to be when compared to the 1080.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2992/radeon-rx-vega-64-liquid-cooling