You guys need to stop thinking that the Radeon VII is going to stay. If Navi is close to it, Radeon VII is going bye bye.
I agree.NV always had really great cards when AMD released something good.Thats why they kept market share.Referring to Glo post and Adoredtv in general, it is simply lazy analysis and an over simplification to make AMD to make the free viral marketers for them to work harder. This is because it triggers an emotional response from people.
When AMD has a strong product like the 4870 and 5870 and price it well, AMD is able to get somewhere in the high 30's to mid 40 in terms of marketshare. Adored simplifies this to people not recognizing AMD product and how good they are for the price, but when you look at the 18% marketshare they carry today, people are recognizing it.
Big shifts in marketshare do not happen overnight. Whether it is the mobilephone industry, clothing industry shoe industry and every other industry. The market has favorites which allow them a greater marketshare at the same price/perfomance because brands do carry value. Companies have to consistently deliver over and over again to become the market leader and the superior brand. However this is not the only reason why Nvidia was able to maintain their marketshare.
Look at adores analysis of the Fermi generation and he completely omits of the GTX 460/560 ti because it weakens his argument tremendously. These cards were extremely well priced and was target at the mainstream segment which carries higher volume than the enthusiast segment adored was focused on.
https://www.anandtech.co2m/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king
Combine high volume card at superior price to performance than the competition on top of being the favored brand in the marketplace and it should be no surprise Nvidia was able to counter AMD and maintain their marketshare lead. The gtx 460/560 marketshare volume was greater than the GTX the GTX 480/580/5870/5850/5770 combined.
Another thing helping Nvidia was their relations with system builders/manufactures due to their driver support(before AMD cleaned up their drivers) and stronger brand.
Similarly, when the 4870 launched, Nvidia dropped their prices the next day and quickly launched the GTX 270 216 core, added game bundles(which AMD didn't really have since Roy Taylor was not with the company yet). Nonetheless the 48xx series took a tonne of marketshare back.
If we want to see a gigantic disparity between price/performance not translating into sales, look at the CPU market. Ryzen has dramatically better price to performance than Intel's processors. Much more than their GPUs and look at their marketshare.
Even with the strength of Ryzen 2 years later, AMD is still under 20 percent marketshare(under 10 percent in the server market). Intel has been mostly rehashing the skylake architecture, had security blunders and increasing the price of their products and they are still able to keep most of the marketshare. Intel has been poorly executing unlike Nvidia.
Intels launches have been generally mediocre since the skylake launch(including skylake) and their processors still sell incredibly well.
So should AMD give up because they are not getting 50% marketshare even though their processors command vastly better price to performance. Now they should not because those 5% marketshare gains in the market are because of the superior price to performance which still translate into 40-50% more processors year on year.
So at a lower pricing and higher price to performance, AMD was succeeding when they offered better price to performance than Nvidia. The idiotic notions that complete marketshare shifts happen when a company develops a superior product overnight is ridiculous and naive to how real business work. AMD succeeded when they gained near 50% marketshare in the discrete market. Although they did not outsell Nvidia, they doubled their marketshare compared to now. If we measure the success of a product purely based on being able to get more marketshare than the competition, Ryzen and threadripper are out right failures because they did not remotely get 50% marketshare. So why don't we get the same CPU mindshare argument/narrative from AMD vs Intel. It's because Nvidia is a easier company to hate and hate allows irrational arguments to get traction.
Intel's questionable(and illegal business behavior) occured over 10 years ago.This makes the hate against intel generally forgotten and the illogical arguments would simply be picked apart without the emotions distorting the validity of the argument. The same thing cannot be said for Nvidia. Nvidia have not done anything so outright bad as Intel but their small acts do add up and are somewhat numerous.(founders edition, poor driver support when arch comes out, bad performance with some game works games, the abrasiveness and cockiness of CEO).
For all the people asking why AMD wasn't doing better in the days of the 4000 and 5000 series GPUs, one answer to that is drivers. AMD had substantially inferior drivers to Nvidia until a couple of years ago. Even now, though their drivers are competitive in overall quality, they lag far behind on OpenGL.
VII will probably be EOL'd once Navi landsMy bad, i was looking at the techpowerup, site.Still, its between 15 and 35% so , depends.
However it would still be too close to VII, which is more like a 1080Ti performance.
Or simply stay as the niche product that it is, mostly aimed towards professionals who want a cheap compute oriented card to play at home with.VII will probably be EOL'd once Navi lands
Agreed. The point is gaming price/performance ratio of the VII is irrelevant when positioning NaviOr simply stay as the niche product that it is, mostly aimed towards professionals who want a cheap compute oriented card to play at home with.
Not according to AMD's slides: https://wccftech.com/amd-7nm-ryzen-3000-epyc-rome-radeon-navi-availability-confirmed-q3-2019/VII will probably be EOL'd once Navi lands
there's a lot of forgetfulness/revisionist history.
My Dell XPS13 and XPS15 would like to have a word with you about Bumpgate. "Not perfect" is quite the euphemism for an entire generation of faulty Nvidia GPUs that eventually died anywhere from 6 months to 3-5 years of usage. It seems forgetfulness and revisionist history is fully working in the Nvidia camp too, but hey, it's understandable, we all want to put this kind of crap behind us, otherwise we'd be talking about wood screws all day long.Nvidia releases by comparison were so much smoother - not perfect (e.g. the 2080 space invaders) - but much better then AMD and these are the reasons people continue to buy Nvidia.
Who was actually bought a card with wood screws - no one. That you have to bring up that as a reason for bad Nvidia releases says a lot. Nvidia is not perfect, just a lot better then AMD. If AMD want sales then they need to get better at releases. Then people will slowly switch to buying their cards and we won't have to have AMD fans complaining that no matter what AMD does everyone just buys Nvidia anyway.My Dell XPS13 and XPS15 would like to have a word with you about Bumpgate. "Not perfect" is quite the euphemism for an entire generation of faulty Nvidia GPUs that eventually died anywhere from 6 months to 3 years of usage. It seems forgetfulness and revisionist history is fully working in the Nvidia camp too, but hey, it's understandable, we all want to put this kind of crap behind us, otherwise we'd be talking about wood screws all day long.
Did you just reply to my post reminding you about Bumpgate and focused only on the wood screw joke?Who was actually bought a card with wood screws - no one. That you have to bring up that as a reason for bad Nvidia releases says a lot. Nvidia is not perfect, just a lot better then AMD.
If the 2080TI has come in at the 1080TI price point I don’t think we would have seen the VII.
Did you just reply to my post reminding you about Bumpgate and focused only on the wood screw joke?
I guess I'll take it: nobody bought cards with wood screws, they bought cards with chip bumps that slowly cracked after repeated thermal stress, all of them. The Dell XPS 13 had it's mainboard replaced 4 times at 6 months intervals in a Dell authorized center and the Dell XPS 15 managed to die on me just outside of the "extended" warranty period. I continued to be an Nvidia customer after this, as I buy hardware on the merits of the hardware generation, not some weirdly misunderstood brand allegiance that keeps body counts on one side and cherished memories on the other.
You want to talk about Nvidia's better brand appeal? Sure go ahead, I'll agree on the spot. But don't attempt to rewrite history in front of everybody.
Not to defend nVidia, but Dell XPS13 has never had nVidia graphics, it always used integrated Intel graphics. You can't blame dell's xps13 quality control failures on nvidia.Did you just reply to my post reminding you about Bumpgate and focused only on the wood screw joke?
I guess I'll take it: nobody bought cards with wood screws, they bought cards with chip bumps that slowly cracked after repeated thermal stress, all of them. The Dell XPS 13 had it's mainboard replaced 4 times at 6 months intervals in a Dell authorized center and the Dell XPS 15 managed to die on me just outside of the "extended" warranty period. I continued to be an Nvidia customer after this, as I buy hardware on the merits of the hardware generation, not some weirdly misunderstood brand allegiance that keeps body counts on one side and cherished memories on the other.
You want to talk about Nvidia's better brand appeal? Sure go ahead, I'll agree on the spot. But don't attempt to rewrite history in front of everybody.
Not to defend nVidia, but Dell XPS13 has never had nVidia graphics, it always used integrated Intel graphics. You can't blame dell's xps13 quality control failures on nvidia.
While i agree that amd certainly needed better drivers, i think they already have better ones then nvidia.
And i REALLY doubt many people were put off by opengl thing.To me its the launches, with consistently bad cooling so they were getting the opinion of very loud, also launch day drivers were badish.
We got basically the same thing with vegas and VII.They need good coverage on day 1, not 2 months later with aib cards and fixed issues.
This is the laptop I had: Dell XPS M1330. Soon after that it was followed by a model called Studio XPS 13 and then XPS 13. The bigger 15" model from the same year was called Dell XPS M1530.Not to defend nVidia, but Dell XPS13 has never had nVidia graphics, it always used integrated Intel graphics. You can't blame dell's xps13 quality control failures on nvidia.
Not to defend nVidia, but Dell XPS13 has never had nVidia graphics, it always used integrated Intel graphics. You can't blame dell's xps13 quality control failures on nvidia.
I had an XPS 13 and it sported an nvidia 8400M, exactly the one they were referring to (I had to have a motherboard changed too)Not to defend nVidia, but Dell XPS13 has never had nVidia graphics, it always used integrated Intel graphics. You can't blame dell's xps13 quality control failures on nvidia.
My bad guys, I didn't realize you were referring to prehistoric 12 year old XPS lineup.I had an XPS 13 and it sported an nvidia 8400M, exactly the one they were referring to (I had to have a motherboard changed too)
Any Navi card that's less than 40% faster at the same price bracket is a fail in my opinion.
$130 Rx570 successor as fast as a 1660ti.
$180 RX580 successor as fast as a gtx1070ti/Vega64,
$300 Vega 56 successor as fast as a gtx1080ti.
$400 Vega 64 successor as fast as a rtx2080 .
a $650 Vega Vll successor faster than a 2080ti early next year.
All with 40% lower power at the same performance tier.
Anything less on 7nm, to me ,is a fail.