For what Nvidia does there aren't many bigger companies out there. Intel licenses Nvidia technology for their GPUs.
lmao. Those numbers were meant to illustrate a point, not to be taken as some insiders revelation. To make it easy for you, its easier to charge more on something like a car than a console.
AMDs GPUs are fine. I don't care if you need them to significantly outpace nvidia to acknowledge the fact that
a fury beats a 980
a 390x trades with a 980
a 390 trades with a 970 (290x beats)
a 380 beats a 960
AMD has a million cards below that faster than a 750ti
The MAIN reason nvidia does well on GPUs is perception. Even in the freesync vs Gsync test it was assumed by some that G-sync was better. Just like that you get a bias. Same with GPUs. even if nvidia had a worse design, they would often be considered better. Maybe it's fortune, maybe its good PR or some lingering mistakes and wins from the past for both companies. eg. one could argue nvidias GPUs are toys because they are more cut down than AMDs. get this idea to cement in people's heads and you get an idea of the power of company/product image.
Its good to not rely too heavily on GPUs for gaming. When it comes down to it nvidia is still a lightweight in terms of expertise and they seem to be trying to break into/create big industries. The only specialty they have is GPUs? Applying that in unique ways looks good to investors. The danger of this can be seen with AMD and their expertise in CPUs though. they were there, but someone bigger beat them down with a big stick and they burned tons of cash as a result. If nvidia faces a bigger competitor similar to intel they could burn investments and end up in a bad situation. If GPUs are a unique solution to this feature then unlikely, but I could imagine intel wanting in. "intel inside" your car with discounts if you don't deal with nvidia.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...ce-systems-self-driving-technology-paper.html
of course they are already.
19.95 to 23.xx is not exactly skyrocketing lol.
We would not be surprised if the company reaches 10 million Tegra automotive chips by the end of the year, something most of their competitors claimed it wasnt possible (or true). Furthermore, their upside is viewed through the fact that the automotive Business Unit attracted over 50 customers for their DRIVE PX product line for autonomous driving cars.
a fury beats a 980
a 390x trades with a 980
a 390 trades with a 970 (290x beats)
a 380 beats a 960
lmao. Those numbers were meant to illustrate a point, not to be taken as some insiders revelation. To make it easy for you, its easier to charge more on something like a car than a console.
AMDs GPUs are fine. I don't care if you need them to significantly outpace nvidia to acknowledge the fact that
a fury beats a 980
a 390x trades with a 980
a 390 trades with a 970 (290x beats)
a 380 beats a 960
AMD has a million cards below that faster than a 750ti
Is anyone else scared, after reading that NV is getting into the autonomous car driving business, after having a GPU driver release history that included GPU-killing driver.
The MAIN reason nvidia does well on GPUs is perception. Even in the freesync vs Gsync test it was assumed by some that G-sync was better. Just like that you get a bias. Same with GPUs. even if nvidia had a worse design, they would often be considered better.
If you're referring to the tom's hardware test, I don't see how the conclusion, people would just select nvidia by default, could be made. It was a blind test so participants didn't know what brands they were using to prevent a bias in the results.
19.95 to 23.xx is not exactly skyrocketing lol.
144 hz GSYNC monitor vs 90 hz FS monitor. You can figure it out.
Yeah, we know. Anything Nvidia reportedly does better is rigged, paid for, bought. Never crossed your mind that they just might in fact do something better. I mean in the real world.
If you want to consider 10% gains a skyrocketing stock that's fine. AMD recently went up about 20% in a short time I'd consider that a nice healthy payday but skyrocketing not even close.10% gains are considered quite good.
19.95 to 23.xx is not exactly skyrocketing lol.
Part of the Stock Price increase is undoubtedly due to the Stock Buy back. Great results don't hurt though.
Nvidia has been repurchasing their own stock for two years now. The continuation of their stock repurchase program was already baked into their stock price and otherwise had a negligible effect.
When and if there's a proper comparison, then I will take the results more seriously. When its a damn marketing stunt, I will call into question why it exists at all and published on a review site. It never crossed into YOUR mind that NV will pay for marketing?
If you want to consider 10% gains a skyrocketing stock that's fine. AMD recently went up about 20% in a short time I'd consider that a nice healthy payday but skyrocketing not even close.
If you want to consider 10% gains a skyrocketing stock that's fine. AMD recently went up about 20% in a short time I'd consider that a nice healthy payday but skyrocketing not even close.
Product names are just that. I was referring to engineering efforts and payoff. AMD's best chip is as big and uses 900,000,000 more transistors than Nvidia's best chip, yet Nvidia's is faster. AMD's next chip is bigger, uses many more transistors, sucks down way more power, doesn't OC as well, and is slower than Nvidia's next best chip. And so on, and so fourth.
AMD is getting drastically out engineered at every level now. They require bigger, more dense, and more power hungry chips to stay competitive. That translates into smaller margins. Smaller margins means less R&D, and R&D has already been cut over the past several years.
If you're referring to the tom's hardware test, I don't see how the conclusion, people would just select nvidia by default, could be made. It was a blind test so participants didn't know what brands they were using to prevent a bias in the results. You can't legitimately say nvidia won simply because more people would say nvidia is better. The bottom line is sometimes a price premium is worth it for a variety of reasons. In case of the syncs most preferred G-sync and even said they would be willing to pay a small premium for it. nvidia has made some smart business decisions by definitely charging extra for some of the added features, but that allows them to continue innovating and bringing newer products to bear.
I've bought only AMD GPUs for my main PC (though have put plenty of NV GPUs in secondary rigs) since the Radeon 8500 (14 years?), but lately I've been more interested in moving SFF and making things quieter, cooler, and more efficient, and AMD's GPUs just don't compete in these metrics. If I were to build from scratch right now, I'd very likely opt for NV, despite my general distaste for proprietary and closed standards.
I don't think I'm alone in the desire to go small, cool, and quiet.
AMD employees were also there and approved of the setup comparison.......how is this an Nvidia marketing stunt? sounds like sour grapes or incompetent AMD marketing as usual
I was not aware of that part. (I didn't actually read the article, perhaps I should).
As for the bold, yeah - both. Definitely, both.
Is anyone else scared, after reading that NV is getting into the autonomous car driving business, after having a GPU driver release history that included GPU-killing driver.
You definitely should. There are at least 5 glaring issues with that "blind study".
1) The study was not performed on brand angostic users exclusively. In fact, only 4 people preferred AMD products to 19 people who preferred NV, before any testing began.
2) 10 users knew what test systems used which parts which automatically means there was some flaw(s) in the methodologies as no one should ever be able to guess which PC has an AMD vs. NV GPU if the testing was truly blind.
3) It was chosen to test with VSync OFF, however, AMD's GPUs have lower input lag than NV's with Vsync ON. Now if I am playing a game that has wild FPS jumping from 40-80 fps, I am not about to go and turn VSync Off for my 35-60 fps range and then go turn back VSync on when my game exceeds 60 fps. That means I'll probably pick gaming with VSync ON at all times. But this decision gives GSync a major win automatically per Linus' testing. How would things turn out if the entire test was conducted with VSync ON?
4) The competence of the testers themselves. People actually picked the gaming experience with BF4 on High (NV cards) over BF4 on Ultra (AMD cards) but it doesn't take a genius to realize that Ultra settings would bring down performance on the AMD setup. So if someone wanted to measure the smoothest experience (not IQ), the High setting would automatically win.
5) Borderlands 2 was an automatic win for NV (see details in the test).
-----------------------
As far as some commenters mentioning that AMD makes cards that run hot and loud, Sapphire Fury Tri-X is quieter at max load than NV's reference 980Ti is at idle. Fury cards are also cool.
After how many people bought the jet engine Gigabyte G1, GTX970/980/980Ti reference cards, it's become obvious that noise levels do NOT matter when it comes to NV products for NV fans when comparing NV vs. AMD videocards. Noise levels and low temps ONLY matter if it's good enough to justify one's purchase of an NV card for fans of that brand but as soon as NV starts losing in those metrics (or any metric), this metric no longer matters.
As a side-note, having worked in Asia and Middle East and of course having lived and visited Russia and Brazil, based on my anecdotal evidence, in 3rd world/developing countries, people are most brand attached (this isn't just about NV). In any event, in Central Asian country I've lived, the market share for NV sales based on discussions with store managers was close to 99%. They don't sell AMD cards at all unless the customer custom ordered it from Urumqi, China or Taiwan. In Russia and Brazil, the love for American brands is incredible, and they also automatically associate higher priced products = better. NV wins in those markets automatically.