AMD post big loss in Q1 2015 | New graphic cards coming in H2 2015

[BFG10K]

As a consumer it's disappointing to see AMD post loss-after-loss. We need this company to be profitable and viable in order to provide competition to Intel and nVidia.

It's a deluded fantasy to think Intel and nVidia prices will stay the same if AMD dies because "they'll be competing with themselves".

 

[ocre]

They are nowhere close to competitive in the CPU space and they've cut their prices so much in the GPU space without any significant gains that they're really at a point where there just isn't much they can do. The average consumer apparently just doesn't want to buy AMD products.

I thought AMD turned a corner when the PS4 and XB1 started selling so well. I think most people thought they would turn that corner. It didn't happen. PS4 and XB1 are no longer keeping them afloat. I don't think AMD makes it out of 2015 the same company that they are right now. I think they're either going to enter bankruptcy restructuring, coming out much more lean and focused (strictly low, to moderate power laptop CPU's and lean mid-range GPU's) or their going to enter bankruptcy liquidation, splitting up and selling off their IP. I don't think any new products, no matter how great, can save them at this point. They are too far buried and have cut too many resources to stay viable.

So do you think we can all admit now that the console payouts arent all that large after all?

 

[RussianSensation]

I think they're either going to enter bankruptcy restructuring, coming out much more lean and focused (strictly low, to moderate power laptop CPU's and lean mid-range GPU's) or their going to enter bankruptcy liquidation, splitting up and selling off their IP. I don't think any new products, no matter how great, can save them at this point. They are too far buried and have cut too many resources to stay viable.

You cannot be serious?! I know you follow stocks as a hobby but you cannot possibly be making such statements without doing an objective financial analysis, looking at the big picture and talking to AMD's management to forecast and vet their projections over the next 12-18 months. Since you haven't done any of these things, your statements are an opinion with hardly any tangible information backing it. Frankly, you don't know when they are launching R9 300 series, what revenue its projected to bring, at what profit margins, etc. You don't know when AMD is launching Zen in 2016, AMD's Nintendo's NX console revenues, etc. Also, the slower sales of PS4/XB1 consoles are fully expected since Q1-2 tend to be slow sales in consoles (esp. Q1). You know in Q4 2015 PS4/XB1 will sell like hot cakes which will provide AMD with a big increase in profits in that division. You haven't even accounted for that. But let's skip all of these details and focus on these big points you missed:

1) Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were $906 million at the end of the quarter, down $134 million from the end of the prior quarter.
http://www.hpcwire.com/off-the-wire/amd-reports-2015-first-quarter-results/

AMD can survive 5 consecutive quarters with losses of $180 million, but we know there is Zen in 2016, R9 300 series this year. However, anyone in finance understands for a capital intensive consumer products business what matters is not net income or net loss but movements in cash flows. You can have a $180 million loss but if $75 million of that are accounting impairment charges (i.e., this is a write-down on the books but not a real loss of cash since the cash has been lost during the purchase), the actual negative cash flow is not $180 million. Does AMD's net loss include a non-cash adjustment? Yes, it does!

2) "AMD recorded $75 million of special charges in Q1 2015 primarily related to impairment of previously acquired intangible assets."

This adjustment has nothing to do with existing cash flows. It's a non-factor. I am just using this as 1 example to show you that you need to arrive at your net adjusted cash flows for Q1 2015 to understand the real loss of cash for the firm. If the loss is only $115 million, then AMD can survive $906 / $115 = 7.8 quarters of similar losses it suffered in Q1 2015.

Let's look at the 'big picture' and try to connect the dots:

Who are the big investment players in AMD and GLOBALFOUNDRIES?

1) "ATIC owns unlisted GlobalFoundries, having completed a buyout of joint venture partner Advanced Micro Devices Inc in March 2012. ATIC is controlled by Abu Dhabi state investment fund Mubadala.

"We have received commitments from Mubadala for an additional $9-10 billion for expansion of our facility in New York," ATIC Chief Executive Ibrahim Ajami told Reuters." ~ Jan 3, 2014

2) "Mubadala now has a 15 percent stake in AMD, and unexercised warrants for additional stock purchases bring its total holdings to about 19 percent. Its latest re-investment in the company has helped ease concerns about AMD's liquidity." ~ Dec 4, 2012

3) "AMD entered into a fifth amendment to our Wafer Supply Agreement with GLOBALFOUNDRIES. AMD expects to purchase approximately $1 billion in wafers in 2015, in line with the company’s current market expectations." ~ April 16, 2015

You don't need to be a CFA or a Corporate Finance professional to connect the dots. GLOBALFOUNDRIES benefits greatly from purchases of AMD. AMD relies on GLOBALFOUNDRIES as a manufacturing partner. Mubadala invested billions of dollars across both of these firms. Mubadala has an investment portfolio valued at $66 billion.

AMD is not going anywhere because GloFo would instantly lose a client that brings them $1 billion+ of revenue annually. For Mubadala, one of the largest shareholders, they will lose MORE money if AMD goes bankrupt than to give AMD $200-300 million capital injection.

That's why we can never have any serious financial discussions on this forum since people just go into 'doom and gloom' mode but aren't connecting the dots. I suppose it's a lot easier to jump on the 'doom and gloom' bandwagon than perform a business valuation analysis and actually prove (or disprove) if AMD will go bankrupt. Currently the financial indications do not point to this situation.

That Red Team hyped that AMD CPU and GPU will gain a lot from this but as always AMD lies and over promise always plays a big role in their market shares and that is why AMD is all most dead company and majority don't give dam about it.

Console sale revenues/profits will pick up in the 2H of the year. You should know if you follow the seasonality of console sales. Also, unless you are a chartered business valuator, CFA/CA, CFO or have real world knowledge and experience valuing firms, your opinion on the financial matters is basically 'baseless.' Don't take it as an offense. Frankly, the first thing taught at any top business school is that net income and net loss are metrics used by unsophisticated investors. When you are using a DCF model for valuing a firm, you need to arrive at your net adjusted cash flows. You can have a company with $500 million of net losses a year and it survives for 100 years because Net Income / Loss is an accounting measurement for financial reporting purposes, which means that on its own it tells very little about the movement of actual cash flows.

 

[BFG10K]

I think Mantle was a colossal blunder. Resources they could ill-afford were spent, but they gained absolutely no competitive advantage from it. "We feel good because we helped Vulcan" doesn't make money. That's not how capitalism works.

I also think they should scrap multi-GPU. Half of their driver resources are spent on this to benefit perhaps 5% of their customer base, if even that. I say strip out all Crossfire driver code to reduce the driver complexity, and move those programming resources to make a more robust single card experience, especially on DX12. Then start a campaign along of the lines of "AMD provides a robust gaming experience in a range of games".

Also put Fusion on hold and focus on iGPUs and CPUs. Armchair experts have been proclaiming the death of these for about a decade, yet in reality nVidia's and Intel's profits continue to rise year after year from exactly this market space.

This is probably not what people want to hear, but when you're bleeding millions quarter after quarter, you have to be realistic.

 

[Silverforce11]

I think Mantle was a colossal blunder. Resources they could ill-afford were spent, but they gained absolutely no competitive advantage from it. "We feel good because we helped Vulcan" doesn't make money. That's not how capitalism works..

You can apply that to their entire GE program as well. It provides no advantage over NV hardware, not when they openly release source code for their features, allowing NV easy access to optimize. GE games in recent times have launched with excellent performance on NV hardware, note: Alien Isolation, Civ BE.

In contrast, NV GameWorks game that launch with horrid performance on AMD? Every single one. In fact, it took ~3 months until their developers release a patch for performance to improve on AMD GPUs. The damage has been done.

AMD has no chance to compete when they are not actually competing, but enabling their competitors. Most recent case: GTA V with AMD's CHS. Computerbase.de noted that NV ran CHS FASTER than their PCSS as well as faster than AMD running CHS. Interesting point? AMD crashes when running NV's PCSS in-game.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is probably not what people want to hear, but when you're bleeding millions quarter after quarter, you have to be realistic.

You made some good points. But AMD needs to have good products. Most of this forum is focused on desktop GPUs but the reality is that AMD has bombed in the notebook sector more. Since notebook GPUs are more important than desktop GPUs for the graphics business industry, AMD's focus should be on laptops, not desktops. If anything AMD should invest resources into gaining laptop market share by getting lower end to mid-upper range chips in there, but instead AMD is focusing in on the R9 390/390X series which < 20% of PC gamers care about. Improving drivers won't help you when you barely have notebook products to sell for 3.5 years. Considering > 50% of the entire GPU market is notebook discrete GPUs, AMD has failed miserably in this regard.

 

[casiofx]

The graph clearly shows when ATI went after the performance crown, they duked it out versus NV trading blows.

When AMD got ATI and turned it into a value brand, making smaller dies that offer good value against NV's large die, that's when it all went downhill.

Also note, before 970/980 launch there was a small up-tick in marketshare. R290/X competed very well against 780/ti.

It just cannot compete against next-gen Maxwell when its old-gen GCN.

To have a chance of reversing the trend (which history has proven its possible), 390/X needs to smash Titan X class performance. Go big, go balls to the wall or go home (exit dGPU market).

It was a big blunder for AMD to put the low performance cooler on the ref card.

It would've been a bigger market share if this wasn't the case. Even the game benchmarks still reflects this to this day because reviewers used ref cards.

The funny thing is while ref 290/290X are bombarded, 295X2 are praised because of the AIO solution and escaped this hell.

 

[Silverforce11]

You made some good points. But AMD needs to have good products. Most of this forum is focused on desktop GPUs but the reality is that AMD has bombed in the notebook sector more. Since notebook GPUs are more important than desktop GPUs for the graphics business industry, AMD's focus should be on laptops, not desktops. If anything AMD should invest resources into gaining laptop market share by getting lower end to mid-upper range chips in there, but instead AMD is focusing in on the R9 390/390X series which < 20% of PC gamers care about. Improving drivers won't help you when you barely have notebook products to sell for 3.5 years. Considering > 50% of the entire GPU market is notebook discrete GPUs, AMD has failed miserably in this regard.

AMD's notebook strategy is this: give up because they won't be able to compete with dGPU Maxwell parts.

Wait til they have HBM + APU combo ready. Fast & efficient, death of the dGPU for most notebooks (with exception of "gaming bricks").

 

[Silverforce11]

He doesn't even understand the graph he posted. It's not really showing NV gaining market share because its products are better because NV hasn't been able to increase its GPU unit sales in the last 9 quarters since Q3 2012.

It's showing AMD not moving GPUs into channel. NV's profits and revenue growth are not really coming from selling more GPUs, but selling GPUs at way higher gross margins (55% vs. mid- to high-30s during Fermi era :whiste and higher average selling prices. Of course NV doesn't want you to know this because as a consumer you would sure feel ripped off for paying $550 for a mid-range GM204 when GTX560Ti was $249.

The #1 reason AMD is losing market share because it doesn't show up.

True & also false.

AMD isn't moving good volume but dropping because their products aren't attractive for gamers compared to NV products. Look at the gap, 9.5M units sold vs 3M, with NV having massive margins whilst AMD of late would be about break even (R290/X class SKU at $240!).

 

[Silverforce11]

Btw, it is the 970 that is killing AMD. NV has said they moved over 10M units within a quarter after its launched, most of them were 970 and lower volume of 980.

People who claim that top end cards cannot alter marketshare need to wake up.

A 390 at $400 with killer performance will easily take the marketshare back, guaranteed.

ps. Desperado, your graph proves that gamers will swing to whoever has the better product. AMD can reach 40% marketshare if they have a competitive GPU.

 

[desprado]

Btw, it is the 970 that is killing AMD. NV has said they moved over 10M units within a quarter after its launched, most of them were 970 and lower volume of 980.

People who claim that top end cards cannot alter marketshare need to wake up.

A 390 at $400 with killer performance will easily take the marketshare back, guaranteed.

ps. Desperado, your graph proves that gamers will swing to whoever has the better product. AMD can reach 40% marketshare if they have a competitive GPU.

Yes but remember one thing better product does not mean better support.So many people shifted from R9 295X2 in 3 or 4 months due dull and BS support.U cannot even hope to compare Nvidia and AMD driver division it is like u are comparing Sky and land.


Right i am a bit confident that there some what there are more owners of Titan X than R9 295X2 and most of them were R9 295X2 owners but i could be wrong.

 

[BFG10K]

You can apply that to their entire GE program as well. It provides no advantage over NV hardware, not when they openly release source code for their features, allowing NV easy access to optimize. GE games in recent times have launched with excellent performance on NV hardware, note: Alien Isolation, Civ BE.

Agreed.

With Mantle, AMD spent money and resources while nVidia did nothing except sit around and sell DX11 graphics cards for a profit. Now nVidia gets DX12 and Vulcan handed to them on a silver platter without spending a dime or lifting a finger.

Mantle benefits AMD exactly how? "We helped the industry" warm fuzzies didn't stop their 180 million loss.

We see time and time again in this forum people knocking nVidia for playing dirty and uncompetitive. But when it's time to vote with wallets, nVidia ends up being the one with the profit. So despite protestations to the contrary, people tacitly approve of nVidia's actions. I'm probably equally as guilty here.

Maybe it's time to change tactics:

• Lock out and encrypt GE code exactly how nVidia does to GW, sabotage competitors' hardware like Batman AA, then respond with circular and vague statements when scrutinized.
• "Accidentally" mis-spec cards, then make a blog post by their CEO saying it was for our benefit that it was done.
• Lock out nVidia hardware out of their motherboards just like nVidia locks out SLI and PhysX when it suits them. Then use the same claptrap excuse as nVidia does ("it's not optimized for the best experience").

As a consumer I don't like it, but perhaps that's the harsh reality of staying afloat in this business.

 

[casiofx]

Agreed.

With Mantle, AMD spent money and resources while nVidia did nothing except sit around and sell DX11 graphics cards for a profit. Now nVidia gets DX12 and Vulcan handed to them on a silver platter without spending a dime or lifting a finger.

Mantle benefits AMD exactly how? "We helped the industry" warm fuzzies didn't stop their 180 million loss.

We see time and time again in this forum people knocking nVidia for playing dirty and uncompetitive. But when it's time to vote with wallets, nVidia ends up being the one with the profit. So despite protestations to the contrary, people tacitly approve of nVidia's actions. I'm probably equally as guilty here.

Maybe it's time to change tactics:

• Lock out and encrypt GE code exactly how nVidia does to GW, sabotage competitors' hardware like Batman AA, then respond with circular and vague statements when scrutinized.
• "Accidentally" mis-spec cards, then make a blog post by their CEO saying it was for our benefit that it was done.
• Lock out nVidia hardware out of their motherboards just like nVidia locks out SLI and PhysX when it suits them. Then use the same claptrap excuse as nVidia does ("it's not optimized for the best experience").

As a consumer I don't like it, but perhaps that's the harsh reality of staying afloat in this business.

AMD should've done that. AMD was screwed by Intel before and now Nvidia, it's pretty sad that AMD still tries to be the good guy handing stuffs to people without getting anything back.

I would be voting with my wallet and it won't be Nvidia for some time.

 

[RussianSensation]

If u try harder u will understand why i post this graph.I know it hurts to be in Red team but try to look carefully how AMD is going down hill in terms of percentage gaps and and new products gaps.

U look from the start it shows Nvidia was nothing compare to ATI and how they improved and learn from their mistake except GTX 970 where AMD did opposite of it.

That's hilarious. Are you trolling now? GeForce 3 wasn't better than Radeon 8500? NV didn't have the entire market to itself with GeForce 4 until 9700 series came out? You are saying GeForce 6 and 8 sucked? NV has always been competitive except the horrendous GeForce 5.

You yourself bought 780Tis which are slower than R9 290Xs but cost more money and you make it sound like AMD has nothing worth buying. Even when AMD has, NV users ignore its products. :hmm:

People who claim that top end cards cannot alter marketshare need to wake up.

There is no evidence in this thread that indicates 970 is what's destroying AMD's market share. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. For all we know, 860M/965M/970M sold 5X more this quarter than desktop 290/290Xs. Also, if you look at AMD's unit sales, their sales bombed way before 970/980 came out.

Look at the data:

AMD
- Q4 2013 = 5.25 million units
- Q1 2014 = 4.9 million
- Q2 2014 = 4.36 million
- Q3 2014 = 3.55 million

AMD's total GPU sales declined from 5.25 million to 3.55 million before Sept 2014 when GM204 desktop cards launched. So your point isn't valid at all! But you know what happened in Q4 2013? 99% of GPU reviewers ripped apart R9 200 series for being hot, loud, inefficient, with 100% of the focus on reference designs. At that point NV could have released a GTX960 2GB at $300 and you couldn't move an R9 290X at $300. The media destroyed R9 200 series' image from day 1 and AMD's launch mismanagement and awful engineering choices is to blame here. Even now gamers are paying 80% premiums for a 980 over a 290X. What does that tell you? R9 290's image is shot. That's why if AMD rebrands them, might as well go on vacation for 6 months.

 

[raghu78]

Nah, I used R9 290 since January 2014 and it was still awesome to this day. Performance is still relevent while what happened to the 780/780 Ti?

I bought mine for 480 usd (asian place) while 780 was retailing at 625 usd and 780 Ti was 780 usd at my place.

It feels pretty awesome to be in Red Team on the 290s generation actually.

Where's the 780 users specifically Keplers now?

What a nice business strategy by Nvidia to abandon kepler's optimization in games, hell, you bought two 980 to SLI over previous 780 Ti! Nice addition to the graphs:biggrin:

very well said. Nvidia is making a fool out of the very customers who are extremely loyal to them. This might work in the short term but there are many spurned Nvidia users who are waiting to teach Nvidia a lesson. It just requires AMD to deliver very competitive products with the R9 3xx series and all indications are the upcoming products are competitive. AMD will gain back the lost market share and some more.

 

[desprado]

If u try harder u will understand why i post this graph.I know it hurts to be in Red team but try to look carefully how AMD is going down hill in terms of percentage gaps and and new products gaps.



That's hilarious. Are you trolling now? GeForce 3 wasn't better than Radeon 8500? NV didn't have the entire market to itself with GeForce 4 until 9700 series came out? You are saying GeForce 6 and 8 sucked? NV has always been competitive except the horrendous GeForce 5.

You yourself bought 780Tis which are slower than R9 290Xs but cost more money and you make it sound like AMD has nothing worth buying. Even when AMD has, NV users ignore its products. :hmm:



There is no evidence in this thread that indicates 970 is what's destroying AMD's market share. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. For all we know, 860M/965M/970M sold 5X more this quarter than desktop 290/290Xs. Also, if you look at AMD's unit sales, their sales bombed way before 970/980 came out.

Look at the data:

AMD
- Q4 2013 = 5.25 million units
- Q1 2014 = 4.9 million
- Q2 2014 = 4.36 million
- Q3 2014 = 3.55 million

AMD's total GPU sales declined from 5.25 million to 3.55 million before Sept 2014 when GM204 desktop cards launched. So your point isn't valid at all! But you know what happened in Q4 2013? 99% of GPU reviewers ripped apart R9 200 series for being hot, loud, inefficient, with 100% of the focus on reference designs.

No it was not.Games still favored AMD back in 2004,2005 and 2006 and than 2007 was the starting and revolutionary year for nvidia but again in GTX 260 era Nvidia was getting owned by AMD 4870 and AMD 4890 and dam at that time Crysis helped AMD a lot because of better performance.

 

[Silverforce11]

There is no evidence in this thread that indicates 970 is what's destroying AMD's market share.

I'm not talking about overall dGPU share including notebooks, even if you look at JP morgan's desktop dGPU numbers, its around the 20% mark for AMD.

NV has publicly stated after 970/980 launch (IIRC ~2 months), they moved 10M units of those combined, with the bulk being the 970 SKU.

The 970 is incredibly popular. At its launch, priced at $330 (well below what we were all expecting), I had said that NV is going for the killing blow. The next quarter update, AMD's marketshare tank the biggest in recent history and continues to shrink rapidly once the 960 arrived. It's no coincidence.

 

[Silverforce11]

Agreed.

With Mantle, AMD spent money and resources while nVidia did nothing except sit around and sell DX11 graphics cards for a profit. Now nVidia gets DX12 and Vulcan handed to them on a silver platter without spending a dime or lifting a finger.

Mantle benefits AMD exactly how? "We helped the industry" warm fuzzies didn't stop their 180 million loss.

We see time and time again in this forum people knocking nVidia for playing dirty and uncompetitive. But when it's time to vote with wallets, nVidia ends up being the one with the profit. So despite protestations to the contrary, people tacitly approve of nVidia's actions. I'm probably equally as guilty here.

Maybe it's time to change tactics:

• Lock out and encrypt GE code exactly how nVidia does to GW, sabotage competitors' hardware like Batman AA, then respond with circular and vague statements when scrutinized.
• "Accidentally" mis-spec cards, then make a blog post by their CEO saying it was for our benefit that it was done.
• Lock out nVidia hardware out of their motherboards just like nVidia locks out SLI and PhysX when it suits them. Then use the same claptrap excuse as nVidia does ("it's not optimized for the best experience").

As a consumer I don't like it, but perhaps that's the harsh reality of staying afloat in this business.

Others berated me for suggesting AMD take NV's play and go nasty with GE, they did so because they dislike NV's approach.. so what do they do? They buy NV GPUs, repeatedly. Some people here need to convert their ethical stance from mere words to actions.

ps. Lockout example, more recent than Batman AA, The Crew, HBAO doesn't work on AMD. GTA V, NV PCSS crashes ingame on AMD.

 

[casiofx]

If u try harder u will understand why i post this graph.I know it hurts to be in Red team but try to look carefully how AMD is going down hill in terms of percentage gaps and and new products gaps.



That's hilarious. Are you trolling now? GeForce 3 wasn't better than Radeon 8500? NV didn't have the entire market to itself with GeForce 4 until 9700 series came out? You are saying GeForce 6 and 8 sucked? NV has always been competitive except the horrendous GeForce 5.

You yourself bought 780Tis which are slower than R9 290Xs but cost more money and you make it sound like AMD has nothing worth buying. Even when AMD has, NV users ignore its products. :hmm:



There is no evidence in this thread that indicates 970 is what's destroying AMD's market share. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. For all we know, 860M/965M/970M sold 5X more this quarter than desktop 290/290Xs. Also, if you look at AMD's unit sales, their sales bombed way before 970/980 came out.

Look at the data:

AMD
- Q4 2013 = 5.25 million units
- Q1 2014 = 4.9 million
- Q2 2014 = 4.36 million
- Q3 2014 = 3.55 million

AMD's total GPU sales declined from 5.25 million to 3.55 million before Sept 2014 when GM204 desktop cards launched. So your point isn't valid at all! But you know what happened in Q4 2013? 99% of GPU reviewers ripped apart R9 200 series for being hot, loud, inefficient, with 100% of the focus on reference designs. At that point NV could have released a GTX960 2GB at $300 and you couldn't move an R9 290X at $300. The media destroyed R9 200 series' image from day 1 and AMD's launch mismanagement and awful engineering choices is to blame here. Even now gamers are paying 80% premiums for a 980 over a 290X. What does that tell you? R9 290's image is shot. That's why if AMD rebrands them, might as well go on vacation for 6 months.

After 970 is out Nvidia gained higher sales while AMD lost it. Results of the combination of reviewers blasting the 290 ref cooler and praising maxwell's efficiency at the same time. Even though in real world aftermarket 290s are really good.

Hope it would be a great lesson for AMD on next refresh. They already gained good praise for 295X2, it's funny since it's reversed situation. Reviewers blasting the Titan Z while praising the 295X2.

 

[RussianSensation]

very well said. Nvidia is making a fool out of the very customers who are extremely loyal to them.

NV is laughing all the way to the bank. They spun perf/watt marketing into a key competitive advantage and managed to burry price/perf under the rug. Now we are supposed to pay hundreds of dollars more to save on electricity. I guess it's worth it then to pay $1100 for 980 SLI over $560 R9 290X to get a couple more FPS in GTA V because it saves polar bears.

NV convinced the average Joe that looking at how long it takes to recoup the extra cost for a more efficient card doesn't matter anymore as long as you are getting a more efficient product, you are a cool/modern dude! :biggrin:

Oh, and of course, NV users don't care about older cards bombing since they'll just upgrade to the next greatest - the Apple customer mentality. Back then they all praised 680 and today it gets creamed by the 7970Ghz, while the $1K Titan is just 5 fps faster.

Also, notice how anyone who prefers price/perf is now labelled as a "Red Team" player? Must be some red herring to downplay the importance of paying less for similar performance. All those 680/780/Titan users, how do they feel about their cards? I bet they are pissed, but they'll still buy NV next.....

 

[casiofx]

NV is laughing all the way to the bank. They spun perf/watt marketing into a key competitive advantage and managed to burry price/perf under the rug. Now we are supposed to pay hundreds of dollars more to save on electricity. I guess it's worth it then to pay $1100 for 980 SLI over $560 R9 290X to get a couple more FPS in GTA V because it saves polar bears.

NV convinced the average Joe that looking at how long it takes to recoup the extra cost for a more efficient card doesn't matter anymore as long as you are getting a more efficient product, you are a cool/modern dude! :biggrin:

Oh, and of course, NV users don't care about older cards bombing since they'll just upgrade to the next greatest - the Apple customer mentality. Back then they all praised 680 and today it gets creamed by the 7970Ghz, while the $1K Titan is just 5 fps faster.

Also, notice how anyone who prefers price/perf is now labelled as a "Red Team" player? Must be some red herring to downplay the importance of paying less for similar performance. All those 680/780/Titan users, how do they feel about their cards? I bet they are pissed, but they'll still buy NV next.....

Guess what I found?

Me too i was hungry for GTX Titan X horse power but i will wait and for GTX 980 Ti SLI or whatever it is called.

http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=37337826

Do not instigate responses. This is a borderline call out, but also a troll post.
-Subyman

 

[desprado]

Guess what I found?



http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=37337826

That is why u must read forums rule.

Member Call out are not allowed and if u want to troll than find another forum.

 

[casiofx]

That is why u must read forums rule.

Member Call out are not allowed and if u want to troll than find another forum.

That was a response to RussianSensation because he mentioned about upgrading to the fastest and greatest, and I posted one very recent example with quote.

Did I ever mentioned for you to reply?

 

[desprado]

That was a response to RussianSensation because he mentioned about upgrading to the fastest and greatest, and I posted one very recent example with quote.

Did I ever mentioned for you to reply?

It is a member call out and now u better go to forum rule section and try to give a bit of time and read it carefully.

In this forum u have to respect his or her choice and if u cannot understand than that u better leave this section.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD can afford to lose millions, but can't afford to hire a driver team capable of pushing quality software along with the hardware?

AMD is in no position to be matching Nvidia. They need to be better. Not just a few frames per second better, but in everything. With AMD falling further and further behind with each release, I fear we won't be seeing any AMD cards in a few years and they'll be a dedicated to the APU. It feels like Nvidia isn't even trying anymore. And then we'll end up with GPU stagnation just like in the CPU market, unless Intel can step in and compete for compute based purposes. That might be the only thing soon still advancing the dGPU soon.

AMD has a poor driver team? Have you actually looked at the relative performance between the two brands lately? Tahiti faster than GK104, Hawaii faster than GK110, Compared to release Hawaii has closed the performance gap with Maxwell.

Quality software? Mantle which has laid the foundation for all of the new graphics API's. Freesync with no additional hardware needed in the monitor.

A generation behind? They're getting ready to release HBM while nVidia is still on GDDR5. AMD could have pushed out their next gen sooner if they were going to rely on old tech, but they are going to once again, as usual, bring the latest tech out first. Just like you had the next generation API tech ~2yrs sooner with AMD.

GCN is a far more powerful compute platform than anything nVidia currently offers and has been for a long time.

Rory read was clueless with zero vision. That's what put AMD into the position they are in now. It's not their software. It's not their hardware being behind.