The GPU Vendor Bias Admission Thread

[Despoiler]

I disagree. The poll just shows what we have known for years. As I said, you would also end up with something that wouldn't reflect reality in the CPU section. Reality and this forum is light years apart.

So you are using the poll to reinforce your own incorrect understandings? Is that what you are saying?

 

[BigDaveX]

I'd guess that there's a lot of people in the CPU forum who prefer AMD as a company over Intel, but only the most delusional of them would try to claim that AMD's line-up is better than Intel's.

 

[xthetenth]

As far as a CPU thread goes you'd probably need to split AMD into AMD bias and AMD bias strong enough to actually buy construction cores. If AMD got competitive again I'd definitely strongly consider them but not now.

Doesn't NVIDIA currently have around 80% marketshare? What would make this forum lean so far the other way? Seems suspicious.

What's the difference between the average market and a bunch of people who spend their days arguing about video cards? There's a very serious sampling bias towards knowledgeable and educated users in this poll (also there's a lot of people who say they lean AMD's way but say themselves they're easily swayed).

You don't really have to speculate why such a high percentage of posters are picking AMD because they are telling you in their posts. It's a unique phenomenon that you only in tech enthusiasts and it's the, "I'm cool because I support the underdog" line of thought. I have no idea why it is so prevalent among tech enthusiasts, but I know you don't see it in such numbers anywhere else. Does anyone go to the grocery store and pick their peanut butter based on whoever they perceive as the underdog peanut butter brand? Do you pick your clothes brands this way? A TV? Furniture? A car?

How many markets are this close to a monopoly, and how many markets are this hard to get into for outsiders? If we lose a company we lose competition and it's likely for good. Peanut butter? Who cares, there's ten brands and all you need is some nuts and a grinder. Clothes? Same deal, more brands than we can know or want. TV? Five to seven brands easily (also note that the same people fighting forums holy war for their team in VC&G never bring up that reasoning in the Displays section). Furniture? The only people who care about furniture brands are yuppies. Car? Car brands are too big to fail and we've got plenty although you do see some serious team loyalty there.

TIL: My open Radeon bias and years of buying Radeons stems from my secret love for Nvidia and some kind of personality perception by random strangers.

Considering the poll is anonymous, outside of people posting their preference, who likes what is unknown.

I prefer the best overall and i do not care if it is AMD or Nvidia. That is why i have GTX 980 TI lightning edition which is simply 25% to 30% faster then fury X.

That's one whose claims in this regard I find strongly dubious.

 

[Headfoot]

These polls arent worth much IMO because the most blatantly biased are also the most likely to flatout deny any bias, despite that obviously not being the case

 

[tential]

These polls arent worth much IMO because the most blatantly biased are also the most likely to flatout deny any bias, despite that obviously not being the case

Why not? You do realize the regular posters on here don't reflect the poll counts right?

200 people voted. We have maybe 30-50 regular posters here tops? So a LOT of people voted. They may have bias. IF you just only took responses of people in the thread it's probably different.

 

[railven]

edit

That's one whose claims in this regard I find strongly dubious.

Misunderstood your comment, so just assuming you were referring specifically to the second quote. Like I said, some posters wear their bias as if tattooed on their forehead. Haha.

 

[Creig]

On the side, I like seeing people honestly say they hate Nvidia's shady business deals but have no qualms supporting Intel. If all the allegations are true, Intel has done some even shadier business transactions*. Haha.

EDIT:
*I'd like to note some legal and some illegal.

Sure they have. Which is why I have an AMD CPU powering my HTPC and an AMD CPU running my daughter's computer. Compared to Intel, AMD's offerings for the intended usage was competitive in both performance and price. But for my gaming rig, AMD simply doesn't have anything that can directly challenge Intel for FPS. So I had to choose Intel due to lack of any other alternative. If Zen was available now and slugging it out fairly equally with Skylake, I probably would have gone with Zen instead.

 

[Haserath]

I was beginning to lean towards nvidia in 2014 with Maxwell, but then the GTX 970 incident killed it for me. Hardly put a dent in the sales if at all.

Really want AMD to succeed with Zen and Polaris. Their current offerings are either mediocre or uncompetitive(GPUs or CPUs).

 

[xthetenth]

edit

Misunderstood your comment, so just assuming you were referring specifically to the second quote. Like I said, some posters wear their bias as if tattooed on their forehead. Haha.

I was referring to that.

 

[Taylor18]

I voted AMD.

However, I've only bought AMD once (290 MSI x-fire) since I first started purchasing cards (64MB GeForce2 GTS). I had a Nvidia bias for a long time and I feel kind of dumb for not purchasing more AMD cards. I believed the crap about Nvidia having better drivers etc. The only reason I gave AMD a try was because I was getting sick of Nvidia's overpriced gpu's and the way they were conducting their business (970). I'm definitely going AMD Polaris this time around. Likely two high end cards this time around.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't think I ever felt to attached to one brand

I've probably had a similar number of NV and ATI/AMD cards since 2002 ( before that I had other brands), I feel like I got the better price/perf and hardware reliability with the red side, but at the moment I feel more attracted to the Nvidia offerings, but not because of the brand or anything like it, just because AMD pricing is not as aggressive as it used to, also they used to be the ones with the more power efficient GPUs and latest display/video tech, not anymore.

 

[Ranulf]

I've leaned towards AMD for cpus overall for the past 15 years but ultimately it is price/performance that wins out.

Graphics wise, I was mostly nvidia (had a voodoo2 card and a S3 virge back in the day) until 2010 when I went to AMD with a 5850, because of price/perf. I've not been a big fan of nvidia since then, mostly because their cards have been overpriced given the performance. I've gotten a lot for my money with the 5850 and especially the 7870. Hopefully my 290s hold up. I have a feeling they will more than the 970 I got last summer.

 

[SniperWulf]

Definitely prefer AMD. Primarily because of how nvidia carries on business wise.

However, I'll buy/use whatever is best for my build.

 

[poofyhairguy]

TV? Five to seven brands easily

Eh, not really unless you are buying the TV to primarily use with gaming. If you buying the TV to watch movies or television shows the TV market might as well be the CPU market right now- it's LG OLED or bust. No one else makes an OLED TV, or anything close to it for picture quality.

In fact in a lot of areas of technology we are seeing a narrowing of the field:

-Mobile five years ago was many different OSes and ecosystems fighting it out. Now it's the iPhone vs everything, and much like Intel does with CPUs Apple now holds back punches on the iPhone (that Android competitors can't hold back) just for a little extra margin.

-Consoles went from a last gen that saw Xbox, Wii and PS3 do well to the current gen where the PS4 is dominating and people are wondering if MS and Nintendo can stay in the game.

-the PC CPU market where Intel is dominating

It happens in markets when a clear leader emerges.

 

[Vaporizer]

I usually prefer AMD since i hold my card for more than 2 years which is a bad idea if you chose a green one.
Also i usually play games not at the day of release and therefore do not suffer from Gameworks delay of Radeon Performance.
Lastly I really dislike the whole customer philosophy of NV with playing dirty where possible, blunty lying to costomers about specs or D Support.
So for my personal preference ther is currenty a monopol in the gfx market.

 

[Kenmitch]

Voted AMD. I wouldn't really consider myself a AMD fanboy though.

Usually go with the AMD solutions as they usually have the best bang for buck when I get the urge to purchase a new GPU.

Only recent Nvidia purchase was the GTX 970(S). When the truth came out the 2nd card was returned as I didn't like the way it was handled by Nvidia and defended by the faithful. The other card was sold on craigslist with my old rig. The constant praising of all things Nvidia and bashing all things AMD in the forums combined with the FUD is a big turn off for me.

The results of the poll are somewhat eye opening at least.

I wouldn't really call the forum pro AMD. Too me it kind of looks like it's just tired of the praise all things Nvidia and crap on all things AMD than anything else. Certain members do all they can to keep the Red vs Green fight going on. Some I guess get the kicks by antagonizing other members it looks like.

 

[Spjut]

Nvidia because of its long-term driver support

 

[Bacon1]

I prefer the best overall and i do not care if it is AMD or Nvidia. That is why i have GTX 980 TI lightning edition which is simply 25% to 30% faster then fury X.

I'd hope so, it costs over 20% more.

 

[Keysplayr]

I've always preferred Nvidia. But you guys knew that....

 

[MrTeal]

Eh, not really unless you are buying the TV to primarily use with gaming. If you buying the TV to watch movies or television shows the TV market might as well be the CPU market right now- it's LG OLED or bust. No one else makes an OLED TV, or anything close to it for picture quality.

In fact in a lot of areas of technology we are seeing a narrowing of the field:

-Mobile five years ago was many different OSes and ecosystems fighting it out. Now it's the iPhone vs everything, and much like Intel does with CPUs Apple now holds back punches on the iPhone (that Android competitors can't hold back) just for a little extra margin.

-Consoles went from a last gen that saw Xbox, Wii and PS3 do well to the current gen where the PS4 is dominating and people are wondering if MS and Nintendo can stay in the game.

-the PC CPU market where Intel is dominating

It happens in markets when a clear leader emerges.

LOL... No offense, but I think the vast majority of people looking for a 1080P 55" TV would disagree with your statement that it's a $2000 OLED or bust. Over time OLED will move down from the high end premium sets, but right now it's still pretty niche. LG OLED are certainly not dominating.

 

[swilli89]

Nvidia because of its long-term driver support

Kepler falling off a cliff relative to gcn is long term support to you?

 

[Snarf Snarf]

The recurring answer here seems to be that people prefer the "bang for your buck" and perf/$ that Radeon has offered. The problem with that sentiment is that it doesn't really help AMD's bottom line or financial position. $200 used R9 290 cards are a great value proposition for the consumer but it really doesn't help AMD very much unless that value leads to a future sale on the high end this generation. AMD needs to reach the mind share and perceived value that NVidia, Apple, Intel, and Samsung have. That is that consumers no longer view them as a great "bang for the buck" solution or a budget friendly solution.

The challenge RTG face is to convince those buyers who buy Radeon to buy the brand because of its quality and performance, not because you get a better deal. Most normal people don't care that they pay 35% more for 15% performance. I work in PC sales and do custom builds for a living and no matter how many times I recommend a R9 380x over a GTX 960, or a R9 390 over a GTX 970, my customers will always go Nvidia. Why? They don't even know, they have used it in the past and it worked, so why change what isn't broken. I've even gone as far as showing my more knowledgeable customers hard empirical data that supports the claims I'm making about relative performance to no avail. "Nvidia is better, Radeon's are hot power hungry space heaters" is what I get 90% of the time AMD is even mentioned.

I hope that everyone that said they lean AMD on this thread actually goes out and buys the high end 14nm cards due out, or even better buy 2 mid range for crossfire. AMD needs the money in the price points with the high margins to continue to stay competitive in this market. Radeon's being cheaper than Nvidia taking market share for razor thin margins isn't a strategy that will last long term as long as the market perceives their product as inferior.

 

[poofyhairguy]

LOL... No offense, but I think the vast majority of people looking for a 1080P 55" TV would disagree with your statement that it's a $2000 OLED or bust.

Sure, just like majority of smartphone users can't afford iPhones or the vast majority of GPU consumers can't afford 980 tis.

The point isn't that the LG OLEDs are the only TV that anyone can buy, the point is that if you are buying a Tv and you really care about picture quality the LG OLED is in a category by itself when it comes to quality. Much like the iPhone or the 980 ti.

There is always room in the market for people who don't care as much and just want a moving picture screen to keep the kids happy. That doesn't change what the high-end is.

LG OLED are certainly not dominating.

Sales-wise, no they aren't dominating because of the cost. The "cheap" 1080p OLED is twice what a 4K LED of the same size can cost.

If we are talking about product quality via picture quality, I would argue that right now the LG OLED dominates the TV market more than any other product line dominates any other market in technology. The measurable picture quality (as defined by the most important metric of contrast ratio) is magnitudes better than anything else on the market. If the LG OLED was a CPU it would be a 6700K and all the LED tvs would be AMD Turions. If the LG was a GPU it would be a 980 ti and all the LED tvs would be GT 210s. OLED technology makes a huge huge difference.

 

[swilli89]

LOL... No offense, but I think the vast majority of people looking for a 1080P 55" TV would disagree with your statement that it's a $2000 OLED or bust. Over time OLED will move down from the high end premium sets, but right now it's still pretty niche. LG OLED are certainly not dominating.

Actually poofy is right. Any videophile/TV ENTHUSIAST agrees it's OLED or bust just as how it was for many years plasma or bust. It's hard to compare because basically anyone buying a cpu for a build is pretty much an enthusiast, where as TV shoppers have a much more diversified demographic, including a lot of clueless buyers that just pick the brightest set under those harsh Walmart or best buy lights

 

[Ancalagon44]

Sure, just like majority of smartphone users can't afford iPhones or the vast majority of GPU consumers can't afford 980 tis.

The point isn't that the LG OLEDs are the only TV that anyone can buy, the point is that if you are buying a Tv and you really care about picture quality the LG OLED is in a category by itself when it comes to quality. Much like the iPhone or the 980 ti.

There is always room in the market for people who don't care as much and just want a moving picture screen to keep the kids happy. That doesn't change what the high-end is.



Sales-wise, no they aren't dominating because of the cost. The "cheap" 1080p OLED is twice what a 4K LED of the same size can cost.

If we are talking about product quality via picture quality, I would argue that right now the LG OLED dominates the TV market more than any other product line dominates any other market in technology. The measurable picture quality (as defined by the most important metric of contrast ratio) is magnitudes better than anything else on the market. If the LG OLED was a CPU it would be a 6700K and all the LED tvs would be AMD Turions. If the LG was a GPU it would be a 980 ti and all the LED tvs would be GT 210s. OLED technology makes a huge huge difference.

LG is not dominating the market as a result.

At the ultra high end of the market, yes I'm sure OLED is the best choice, and LG are the only ones who make them. At all other segments of the market, LG is not the clear winner, which means, LG is not dominating the TV market.

It is the same as Bugatti. They make some of the fastest and most powerful cars on the market, but they don't dominate the market. Hyundai sells more cars than Bugatti, for instance. Doesn't mean that anyone would rather have a Hyundai, just means that having a high end halo product does not mean you dominate the rest of the market. It just means you own that segment of the market, nothing more, nothing less.