No, it is not. The only bottlenecks for AMD GPUs are always clocks, and Memory bandwidth.
Seriously? The HD7970 is quite commonly referred to as the best card of that generation. Its life greatly exceeded that of the GTX 680. Bulldozer was never considered good. Piledriver made that architecture adequate, but nobody considered Bulldozer to be good. While lots of people considered Tahiti to be amazing.
I feel like a lot of people that make these kind of statements don't remember how poorly received HD 7970 UNTIL a lot of things happened.
* Bad driver support at launch. This led to the Fine Wine rhetoric we'd hear until Vega basically killed it.
* It had a lot of OC headroom because AMD didn't clock it to the moon. So buyers were getting a lot of "free" performance out of the gate, until the GHz Editions rolled out, which cost less than the launch models roughly 5-6 months later with a great bundle!
* AMD raised their prices, a lot! If Russian were still around I'm sure he can recite his many posts slamming AMD for this.
The card only became "legendary" after the drivers were fixed, AMD bundled it with 3-GAMES [from 6], the price dropped, and BITMINING.
I had two 7970's, loved them. Wish I kept one. But no one was openly recommending HD 7970's especially after GTX 680 came out, UNTIL prices dropped and people realized they can make easy money (which led to this card hurting AMD for years, of which they've yet to recover from).
It sure was a great product, probably did more harm to AMD than good.
now check nvidias 580 price then you will know why it was priced that high.
Yes of course, AMD is to totally blame for the $2500 Titan RTX, that comes to you from the company that was asking $650 for their highend card card in 2008.....If the only justification for the $550 pricing was that it was faster than a gtx 580, that a horrific excuse and completely justifies the current turing pricing which looks great with the midrange cards filling out the lineup. It also makes Nvidia look like saints for the pricing of pascal.
The GTX 580 was a huge monolithic 520mm2 die and a completely different die class than the 7970. Just as importantly, it came at a time when new wafers were largely static and cost per transister was still decreasing(28nm).
If the only requirement for pricing is performance and not cost to build, then turing pricing is okay(atleast as good as 7970 series was, probably better) and pascals was downright Nvidia giving away their products away.
The 7970 and the 7870 was priced in a manner where there was essentially zero improvement in terms of price to performance much like turing. This is why we saw such a great increasing in pricing for videocards for Turing if we go by 7970/7870 logic. As long as a card is faster than the generation before it, it can be priced the same or higher. Atleast Turing has the die size increase, Nvidia brand and lack of competition response for 10 months going for it. Look at techpowerup charts for price to performance and the relative pricing and positioning and they are in the same spots.
The 7870 was probably the more egregious offender because it was a mainstream part given high end pricing(not enthusiast). Looking at the 350 dollar pricing vs cards like the rx480/gtx 1060/GTX 1660 ti and the fact that it was made on cheap 28nm just shows you how much AMD was trying to fleece customers. It was a 213mm2 die, that had the same price to performance as 520mm2 die(at initial MSRP, not dropped street pricing) in the form of the GTX 570.
So what happens when a company only takes into account performance and not any potential savings in BOM, we get the pricing we get today.
However 7970/7870 pricing was done in a manner where AMD the sword of Damocles was hovering over them which ultimately made it a stupid move in the long run.
What made the 7970/7950/7870 pricing stupid and greedy unlike Turing which was simply greedy was the AMD brand, the time line of the competition to arrive and the die sizes.
Keplers launch was only 2 to 3 months away. The high pricing of AMD 28nm made a lot of people wait on the fence on top of the mediocre increase in performance compared to the 5870 series on top of the price increase. This was on top of the AMD brand enhancing all these risk factors because consumers are more hesitant to spend money on AMD at premium prices. Ultimately this bet did not pay off and AMD lost.
The price AMD paid was a gigantic loss of good will built up as AMD fans even bought Nvidia, helping the competition look like heroes and having to price their cards lower with price drops and free games to the extent it was selling below what a fair initial price would have been. (Drop from $550 to 399 + 3 free games). The GTX 680/670 looked like king kong by taking the price/performance/efficiency on top of the Nvidia brand. The consumers paid a high price as well with increased pricing across the board. Pascal
In comparison, pascal worst value, the GTX 1080, brought 20% extra performance vs the GTX 980 ti for 599/699(essentially no increase in pricing) looks terrific vs the 7970. The GTX 1070's 399/449 pricing for performance 5% faster than a gtx 980 ti looks downright nobel peace prize winning compared to the 7970/7950/7870 when we look at the GTX 980 ti's $650 dollar pricing. Combine this with the cost of finfet and perhaps we should give sainthood to Nvidia. Sarcasm aside, it just shows you how prosperous the pricing of the 7970/7870 was and why it accelerated pricing so much for consumers.
Turing pricing simply goes along with 7970/7870 pricing logic(priced without improving price to performance for consumers) without the risk factors like eminent competition arrival and the Nvidia brand.
Yes of course, AMD is to totally blame for the $2500 Titan RTX, that comes to you from the company that was asking $650 for their highend card card in 2008.....
Yes of course, AMD is to totally blame for the $2500 Titan RTX, that comes to you from the company that was asking $650 for their highend card card in 2008.....
Yes, I ignored the wax lyrical on nvidia.Is that seriously all you took from that post?
What should have happened is AMD should have released the HD 4800 in line with their performance vs the GTX 2xx series instead of getting into a price war with NV then. Would have made some margin and avoided this mess.
Instead AMD snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and took on the mantle of the Value brand. Everyone is happy when AMD when they price so NV cards get cheaper. Everyone is mad at AMD when they refuse to price down NV cards. At the end of the day, it's NV's market and everyone wants what they're selling and AMD is the fool that gets them what they want...
List So said she doesn't want AMD to be the Value brand anymore. Radeon VII pricing suggests as much and if AMD has the performance they will charge within spitting distance of what NV is asking from now on.
The biggest problem is that NO MATTER what AMD will do, everybody will complain about AMD GPUs.What should have happened is AMD should have released the HD 4800 in line with their performance vs the GTX 2xx series instead of getting into a price war with NV then. Would have made some margin and avoided this mess.
Instead AMD snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and took on the mantle of the Value brand. Everyone is happy when AMD when they price so NV cards get cheaper. Everyone is mad at AMD when they refuse to price down NV cards. At the end of the day, it's NV's market and everyone wants what they're selling and AMD is the fool that gets them what they want...
List So said she doesn't want AMD to be the Value brand anymore. Radeon VII pricing suggests as much and if AMD has the performance they will charge within spitting distance of what NV is asking from now on.
The biggest problem is that NO MATTER what AMD will do, everybody will complain about AMD GPUs.
People want AMD to be competitive, so they can buy Nvidia cards cheaper. Which should tell you something.
Even if AMD has better products in certain market segments people still prefer Nvidia products. We have seen this with Polaris GPUs, and see it today, also, with 1650 vs RX 570 debate.Everything I've seen indicates that people want competition... period, so that whatever purchase they make, it will be cheaper and Nvidia seemingly has a more performant and feature rich product right now so obviously that's what plenty of people would prefer. This isn't abnormal or illogical in the slightest.
It has nothing to do with convincing Asus, but consumers. The reason Nvidia is able to push so many productas everywhere is because there is extreme demand for their products, and Nvidia products are mainly occupying gamers minds. Every brand will ten to go to company which products are selling, instead of their competitor.So AMD really needs to convince their partners to go against Nvidia and start pushing AMD cards aggressively! Right now AMD can come up with a beast of a card, lets call it Nvidia ravager 5000x and it can be 10% faster than 2080ti, cost $1000, have same power consumption and it will still not sell as good as Nvidia, because everyone is pushing out Nvidia cards.
Is Nvidia outselling AMD in that market segment (where AMD is competitive) to the degree they are across other segments?Even if AMD has better products in certain market segments people still prefer Nvidia products. We have seen this with Polaris GPUs, and see it today, also, with 1650 vs RX 570 debate.
This is abnormal.
Yes. It's still common to hear people saying: "I don't care what AMD is offering, I'll go for Intel & nVidia". So, the only thing they can do is to increase the quality of their products. And invest way more money in marketingIs Nvidia outselling AMD in that market segment (where AMD is competitive) to the degree they are across other segments?
Are you sure? Cursory research is showing me that the RX 570 is AMD best selling card and was/is outselling it's closest Nvidia counterpart all along, since day one even.Yes. It's still common to hear people saying: "I don't care what AMD is offering, I'll go for Intel & nVidia". So, the only thing they can do is to increase the quality of their products. And invest way more money in marketing
Most people buy cards locally or from prebuilt shops, and when they are trying to push to sell their 100 Nvidia cards vs only 30 AMD cards its a big reason why Nvidia sells more.It has nothing to do with convincing Asus, but consumers. The reason Nvidia is able to push so many productas everywhere is because there is extreme demand for their products, and Nvidia products are mainly occupying gamers minds. Every brand will ten to go to company which products are selling, instead of their competitor.
Now put what I have written into this perspective: People want AMD to be competitive so they can buy Nvidia cards cheaper.
Steam hardware survey doesn't show that, market data analysis doesn't show that. It seems as though the GTX 1050ti outsold the RX 470/570 by a 5 to 1 margin.Are you sure? Cursory research is showing me that the RX 570 is AMD best selling card and was/is outselling it's closest Nvidia counterpart all along, since day one even.
I was under the impression that Steam survey was flawed and not representative at all of actual marketshare, specifically in relation to AMD's numbers. Market data analysis is actually what I've been trying to find and look at but clearly I'm not seeing what you're seeing.Steam hardware survey doesn't show that, market data analysis doesn't show that. It seems as though the GTX 1050ti outsold the RX 470/570 by a 5 to 1 margin.
It seems as though the GTX 1060 outsold the RX 480/580 by 6 to 1 margin.