It got me my R9 290 Trixx OC for $250 2 years ago so it benefited me quite well. More options to choose from benefits all consumers.
Last edited:
What proof do you have that the recent improvement in amd performance as a company (if you can even call it that up for debate) has made things better for the consumer/customers?
What evidence is there that amds increased marketshare has led to benefits for the consumer/customer?
That's fine and dandy to say in general what it should do.
Im saying we've seen amd claw marketshare for the last year as well as other metrics.
What impact has that had on improving our experience as customers?
Everytime over the past year and then some you have people cheering when amd does well and how it will lead to lower prices, better products, etc. So what's the evidence over the past year or so that has led us to Polaris today....
snip
290(X) did launch at great prices, too bad the lackluster reference cooler, missing aftermarket cards at launch and the balloon pricing due to mining ruined it.
980 Ti launched 3 months after the Titan X for $650, just like the 780 launched 3 months after the Titan for $650. Why change a strategy that worked wonderfully before?
You have no idea what the 1060 would have launched had the 480 not been released.
Post would have been better had you just posted the first and last paragraph.
You have no idea what the 1060 would have launched had the 480 not been released.
Except amd has matched Nvidia pricing. Before amd used to undercut Nvidia by a decent amount.It makes perfect sense if you've ever heard of the game theory and know how an oligopoly and a cartel, like the GPU market, can influence prices. Both companies could collude and significantly increase their prices leaving customers worse off had AMD had higher market share. The reason why AMD pricing is so low is because they don't have dominant control or the branding that Nvidia has. If AMD pricing is low, Nvidia also has to follow suit or else they would not be competitive in the mid-tier range. If AMD prices high, Nvidia will also follow suit because they want higher revenues (they already have the branding and market share, so no need to price lower) - both companies would be better off while consumers worse off.
Except amd has matched Nvidia pricing. Before amd used to undercut Nvidia by a decent amount.
There is a ton of gpu history rewriting going on in this thread and it's great that people got cheap r9 290s during the period in which amd was at low marketshare. But that's not the recent amd trend in gaining marketshare.
Unless you're seriously trying to make a case that r9 290 sales 2 years ago is the reason amds is gaining marketshare recently, explain to me how amds recent marketshare increases are benefiting consumers.
So far people have used the r9 290 which is actually just showing amd would sell at firesale prices when they have low marketshare and need to clear inventory. This isn't relevant to amds recent gain in marketshare.
As for the 1060 comment. Nvidia released the gtx 960 at $200. Nvidia was able to release the gtx 1060 at an even higher price. How did amds rx480 stop Nvidia from releasing the gtx 1060 at a higher price than the gtx 960?
290/290X released for much lower prices then their competition and forced Nvidia to drop prices. Win for AMD and Nvidia consumers.
980Ti was released at $550 to compete with the Fury X. If AMD had no card to compete with the 980Ti at the time, I think it's safe to say the 980Ti would have been much more expensive as we saw with the release of the Titan X (P) (I realize the Fury X dropped after the 980Ti but Nvidia had to have had some idea of the upcoming competition when it set the 980Ti price). Win for AMD and Nvidia consumers.
RX 480 releases at $200/$240 and the GTX follows soon after at $240. Would the 1060 have released at that price point with no 480 to compete with? Seems highly unlikely. Win for Nvidia and AMD consumers.
Strong competition is better for consumers because it keeps prices in check and causes each company to strive harder to win over consumers. What does that extra "striving" look like? More tech features, game bundles, software innovations, overclocking options, etc.
You have a flaw in your thought processes, due to completely omitting ram population. Which explains the pricing fallacy you are laboring under. The 960 launched in reverse order to 1060 i.e. lower ram population first, higher after. The 960 2GB was $200 MSRP base, so is the 3GB 1060. The 960 4GB was $240 MSRP base, the 1060 6GB was $249.As for the 1060 comment. Nvidia released the gtx 960 at $200. Nvidia was able to release the gtx 1060 at an even higher price. How did amds rx480 stop Nvidia from releasing the gtx 1060 at a higher price than the gtx 960?
I'm more put off by no freesync and them wanting to put game ready drivers behind their stupid gfe bloatware with mandatory login.i wonder if people are put off by nvidias pricing as of late?
that and their founders edition strategy.
Looking at the data there is no reason to believe AMD's "gain" is the result of anything but a seasonal slump on NV's part precisely because of the Maxwell getting to EOLed -> Start of Pascal product cycle.
Unless you one of those who keeps citing Steam HW survey as a perpetual conspiracy theory against AMD.
GPU ASP remained flat sequentially and decreased year‐over year. The year‐over‐year decrease was primarily driven by lower desktop GPU ASP.
Computing and Graphics operating loss was $81 million, compared to an operating loss of $70 million in Q1 2016, primarily due to lower revenue
AMD didnt gain anything in revenue. Nvidia gained a lot. So AMD increased shipments while not getting more revenue. In other words, they exchanged more expensive parts for cheaper parts in greater volume. The parts we talk about here is really low end parts. 350 series and below, GT740 series and below. To give a hint the lowest Maxwell card was 750 and the lowest Pascal card is 1050 on the desktop if we exclude 2 rare OEM versions. Nvidia dropped the low end after Kepler.
From the CFO.
Sounds like a "great win".
Good to see the news "rereleased". Just in time to finish the stock dilution.
So what you are saying is that market share is a completely worthless metric and should never, ever again be brought up as a means to show the dominance of one company over the other, like say Nvidia over AMD? I'll remember that because I've sworn I've heard nothing but the exact opposite from several forum posters for years now about Nvidia and their dominance in market share.
Baffles me why we have so many people who devote so much time, years and 10s of thousands of posts, to making sure one side or the other looks as bad as it absolutely can in online forums.
AMD didnt gain anything in revenue. Nvidia gained a lot
In other words, they exchanged more expensive parts for cheaper parts in greater volume.
The parts we talk about here is really low end parts.
“Our strong second quarter graphics performance was capped by the launch of our new Polaris-based RX 480 GPUs at the end of June, which helped contribute to our highest desktop channel GPU shipments since the fourth quarter of 2014,” said Lisa Su, chief executive officer of AMD, during the conference call with investors and financial analysts. “We also delivered our third straight quarter of sequential professional graphics revenue growth and believe we gained share driven by increased adoption of FirePro graphics by OEMs as well as several cloud data center GPU compute wins.”
Yea, lots of rationalization about how AMD is out to gain market share with low end cards. Simple fact is, they aren't able compete in any other segment, and won't be for several more months.Market share is relevant. But its just as important to understand the product mix of it. Specially when the market is moving upwards in SKUs while the overall segment is decreasing.
Nvidia gained a lot. .
Yea, lots of rationalization about how AMD is out to gain market share with low end cards. Simple fact is, they aren't able compete in any other segment, and won't be for several more months.
Funny how its "rationalization", yet that is what AMD stated when they announced Polaris back in January. They said they wanted to gain marketshare by providing a quality mid-range option. They never said that Polaris was going to compete in the high end.
What else would they say? They are hardly going admit they can't compete in the most profitable and prestigious segments.I didn't find it hard to understand when that's exactly what AMD said, thought it was pretty straight forward. Funny how certain individuals can't understand it when it was basically thrown in their face.