Shoot, I'd even wager that a huge number of Vegas were sold to people who purchased them to mine XMR before the bots ruined the market.
Thats the problem here for AMD. AMD and ATi has brand perception that for people to buy their products they need to outvalue their competitiors for their hardware to sell. Where is the financial incentive for AMD to design good GPUs?
Lets say that 40 CU chip has 150W TDP, and performance of RTX 2080. AMD prices it at 599$. Is it good deal, for GPU that is as fast, or faster than RTX 2080, uses less power and costs 100$ less? Of course it is. Would people buy it?
Not as much as Nvidia RTX-hyped RTX2080, because they are AMD's GPUs.
This is the problem, Why should AMD sell RTX 2080 performance level cards for $250, when Nvidia's cheapest and slowest option sells for $250 in the GTX 1660. I mean most custom GTX 1660 models sell for $240, the GTX 1660ti sells for $290/300, the RTX 2060 sells for $370/380, etc...
Why should AMD have to sell a RTX 2080 level performance GPU for less than what Nvidia is selling their shitware as the GTX 1660 and GTX 1660ti?
This is the problem for AMD, you and people like you ONLY want Nvidia hardware no matter what, even if AMD came out with $250 RTX 2080 killer, you'd still buy an overpriced 2080ti and say its 30% faster, therefore its worth $750 over a $250 amd gpu that is equal to the 2080.
You want the impossible from AMD in order to justify your overpriced Nvidia purchase. Again how and why would AMD release a RTX 2080 performance GPU for $250, cheaper than Nvidia's shitware like the GTX 1660?
AMD was instrumental in creating the Windows PC gaming monopoly and the current discreet GPU vendor duopoly. They worked hard to get things the way they are, there's plenty of incentive for them to try and maintain their position, even if it's a weaker position than their competitor. Do you actually believe AMD is selling it's products at a loss?Exactly the point. Where is the incentive for AMD to design more powerful GPUs, if those what they will design, will be considered crap, despite being as fast, or faster than Nvidia's latest offering, use less power, and also - cheaper.
AMD to succeed in people minds has to be twice as fast as Nvidia latest offerings, or cost half as much. Which makes completely pointless for AMD to design GPUs if there is no money incentive. Just for the sake of it?
Again. People want AMD to be competitive so they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper.
AMD was instrumental in creating the Windows PC gaming monopoly
It's off-topic.. but the short answer, x86-64. They empowered and worked with Intel (and Microsoft) to ensure Windows was effectively locked to x86 and the only choice for PC gaming.Wut?
It's off-topic.. but the short answer, x86-64. They empowered and worked with Intel (and Microsoft) to ensure Windows was effectively locked to x86 and the only choice for PC gaming.
RTX 2060 performance for 350$? Are you sure problem is solved here?
The 1050 was a massively successful gpu because it was the best available for it's market, better then the 560 (it's opposition) - price, power, performance, availability, size, features - take all of them into account and you got a good package. That's why its sold, not because the world is against AMD and it's so unfair."if their gpu's are bad they will sell less"
And what about the nVidia 1050, 1650? Bad GPUs can sell well based not on how good they are, but because of market perception.
Exactly the point. Where is the incentive for AMD to design more powerful GPUs, if those what they will design, will be considered crap, despite being as fast, or faster than Nvidia's latest offering, use less power, and also - cheaper.
AMD to succeed in people minds has to be twice as fast as Nvidia latest offerings, or cost half as much. Which makes completely pointless for AMD to design GPUs if there is no money incentive. Just for the sake of it?
Again. People want AMD to be competitive so they can buy Nvidia GPUs cheaper.
Windows NT supported a host of RISC ISA's and Intel was pursuing Itanium for the long term. AMD kept x86 alive, kept it relevant and their cross license with Intel made x86 effectively a duopoly. Then Intel and AMD's deals with Microsoft and OEMs killed IBM, Dell and HP's early 2000s efforts to bring Linux to the desktop and PC gaming properly. This was indeed a brilliant move as it's ultimately kept AMD relevant on both the CPU and GPU side, even when they couldn't properly compete.Microsoft's consumer OS have required an IBM-compatible processor (386) since MS-DOS first came out. Gaming on Windows has so much sway because Windows had the market share. AMD and Intel followed the market leader, to not do so would be stupid.
I'd like to hear your theories on how nVidia enabled the Windows gaming monopoly via the VGA adapter.
30% up from polaris(rx590) is not RTX2070 performance.2070 is 65-70% faster than 590...Looks like fake.
RTX 2070 performance. If priced right(250-300$ price target) it will be good offering.
Navi 14 will be roughly 50% of that performance levels. So RX 590-GTX 1660 Ti-ish.
Sounds plausible with >2GHz clocks and the kind of changes the uArch might bring. It's probably BS, though.2070 performance on 2560 shaders? Hmm.
~30% is just the clock speed increase, I think.30% up from polaris(rx590) is not RTX2070 performance.2070 is 65-70% faster than 590...Looks like fake.
You missed that he mentions 2 GHz clock speeds? 2 GHz is 30% higher than Polaris(RX 590)30% up from polaris(rx590) is not RTX2070 performance.2070 is 65-70% faster than 590...Looks like fake.
+30% vs 590 is +- GTX1070 performance not 2070
We will see.But 2070 perf at 250-300usd will be good.I just hope AMD will not kill it with their"matching NV performance 1year later for same money" crap.You missed that he mentions 2 GHz clock speeds? 2 GHz is 30% higher than Polaris(RX 590)
The 1050 was a massively successful gpu because it was the best available for it's market, better then the 560 (it's opposition) - price, power, performance, availability, size, features - take all of them into account and you got a good package. That's why its sold, not because the world is against AMD and it's so unfair.
We will see.But 2070 perf at 250-300usd will be good.I just hope AMD will not kill it with their"matching NV performance 1year later for same money" crap.
There is a 1030 in their lineupi think the 1050 did so well because its the cheapest they offer and smallest so less have to upgrade case / psu. i didnt get to read this thread much but i would be so excited fora good gpu from amd that is even the same price as similar performance Nvidia.
This post aimed at AtenRa of all people...haha. I'm at a lost of words. Welcome AtenRa to the NV shills club! I got your badge and press kit ready for you.
1030 is not better than onboard gfx it really doesnt count imo as a gaming card.There is a 1030 in their lineup
1030 is not better than onboard gfx it really doesnt count imo as a gaming card.
But now seriously, if we had GTX1080Ti performance at MSRP of $699 back in March 2017, why as a consumer have to pay the same price for the same performance again in July 2019 ??