Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

Nvidia is easily dominating over amd, despite having more expensive gpus than the competitor.

But why?

Every time we hear an nvidia thread about insane prices, everyone believes amd could take a market share. I also read people hoping for more people to jump on amd, even though they won't them selves.

I've tried amd as well like one and a half decade ago, and while the output on the card was great, I had problems in most games because of shitty drivers.

But and mist surely have improved since then.

Is it because amd has ghosts from the past, or are they still behind performance wise?

Also, what's the reason miners tend to use nvidia cards and not amd?

I'm a green snake in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if amd wouldn't exist if it wasn't for console manufacturing.

 

[Warnen]

40s aren’t even out yet…

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nvidia offers a better product. Period. It's been that way for like 20 years now.

People who complain about Nvidia pricing and threaten to go to AMD never actually do it, they just want AMD to undercut Nvidia and force Nvidia to lower prices so they can buy Nvidia again.

AMD has to use the same TSMC foundry for manufacturing that Nvidia does. Anyone who thinks AMD can just conjure up a lot of GPU's out of thin air to steal market share from Nvidia is delusional.

Mining is now finally really dead with the ETH 2.0 merge to PoS, so we will finally see how much actual inherent demand there is for Nvidia's consumer gaming video cards for the first time in nearly a decade.

Hold onto your butts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride while true demand and supply search for the new equilibrium.

 

[Daytonabot]

If PC gamers wanted to settle because of cost, they'd be console gamers.

 

[The_Mike]

U Unknown Soldier do you believe we see a price change in the foreseeable future?

Nvidia sounded really cocky about the high prices. "it's a thing in the past"

If PC gamers wanted to settle because of cost, they'd be console gamers.

Yeah no. You don't get the same experience as a pc user if you prefer keyboard and mouse.

 

[Fbh]

I'm not too knowledgeable but until this new 4000 series Nvidia wasn't THAT much more expensive, right?

And from what I know Nvidia cards also have better ray tracing performance and DLSS is superior to whatever AMD is offering

 

[Mister Wolf]

Better technology. People that spend that kind of money want the best raytracing and temporal upscaling. I'm very excited for DLSS 3.0 and modders remastering games with RTX Remix.

 

[winjer]

Nvidia is easily dominating over amd, despite having more expensive gpus than the competitor.

But why?

Every time we hear an nvidia thread about insane prices, everyone believes amd could take a market share. I also read people hoping for more people to jump on amd, even though they won't them selves.

I've tried amd as well like one and a half decade ago, and while the output on the card was great, I had problems in most games because of shitty drivers.

But and mist surely have improved since then.

Is it because amd has ghosts from the past, or are they still behind performance wise?

Also, what's the reason miners tend to use nvidia cards and not amd?

I'm a green snake in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if amd wouldn't exist if it wasn't for console manufacturing.

nvidia has always been market leader, since the first GeForce. The only exception was during the Radeon 9000 vs Geforce FX.
More recently, AMD went trough a very bad phase after the Bulldozer CPU line failed. And that also hit the GPU side, as there was little money to invest.

Regarding the RDNA2 vs Ampere. There was the chip shortage, with very high demand.
AMD allocated a big chunk on TSMC N7 node, but that had to be split between AMD CPUs, GPUs APUs and console SoCs.
The thing with CPUs vs GPUs is that CPUs are much more profitable. Also, Zen3 was the best CPU in the market for a whole year. So AMD allocated more waffers for CPUs, than to GPUs.
The result was that there was little production of GPU chips. So neither miners nor gamers could get them.

 

[Patrick S.]

nVidia became king when 3dfx lost the game, and nothing has changed that.

 

[rofif]

DLSS and some other tech like physx, rt and so on exclusive features.

 

[THE DUCK]

Some key features and better tech, but here's hoping amd can actually compete this round. If they can, nvidia will be forced to lower pricing.

 

[zcaa0g]

AMD needs to get smarter and figure out how not to get smoked in ray tracing. I'm rooting for them with the 7000 series, but not optimistic.

 

[slade]

Nvm, misread.

 

[Louay]

Competitors are just behind in many areas especially the big One AI Investments, Professional work pretty much dominated by NV Cards,

 

[Brigandier]

I'm seriously rooting for AMD I'm sick to death of the GPU scene being so one sided, competition is great for consumers, I couldn't give a fuck about brand loyalty I want more bang for my buck.

But sadly they are way behind Nvidias DLSS and RT.... AMD got their work cut out.

 

[killatopak]

I think it started when AMD drivers weren’t up to par with Nvidia. I occasionally still see people say they prefer Nvidia because of past reputation.

 

[Sgt.Asher]

Better products, simply as that.
AMD can change as seen with their cpu division. their boulder CPUs were garbage, but now they are on par if not better than intel.
Mostly everyone wants amd to be on par with nvidia.

 

[squarealex]

Because Nvidia have other interesting tech (Cuda / DLSS / PhysX / GeForce Experience / DRDLSS / Nvidia Encoder)

 

[Hot5pur]

Maybe AMD doesn't mind where things are at? Seems Nvidia's chips will be more expensive than AMDs because of chiplets being higher yield. AMD can just price their stuff slightly below Nvidia and sit back and enjoy the massive profit margins. If they become competitive on price then Nvidia will just drop theirs, and still offer the better product. End result is cheaper GPUs for consumers, similar market shares, but less profit for GPU makers. Unless AMD can absolutely match Nvidia on performance and produce much cheaply, it can try to gain market share, otherwise why bother, it's not their core business anyway and they have the console side locked down pretty good.

 

[nkarafo]

They are better cards with better features.

I wish AMD would be more competitive. But they are not, that's why Nvidia is allowed to do what they want.

 

[Xellos]

Nvidia has the reputation of providing better features and support while being competitive in terms of performance. In the early 2010s it was driver support and PhysX, in the mid 2010s it was their huge advantage in efficiency with Maxwell and Pascal, in the late 2010s and onward it has been ray tracing support and DLSS. Also AMD had no product for the high end for several years and this also hurt their image. PC market is willing to pay more for high end performance and for better features/support. Current AMD GPUs seem to be more competitive than any time since GCN vs Kepler, but it is hard to overcome reputation.

I'm rooting for AMD, but what Unknown Soldier said is true - if AMD 7000 GPU is good but Nvidia has a competitive price on comparable 4000 series GPU, I'll probably just go Nvidia again. I'd even pay a slight (~10%) premium to stay with Nvidia just due to past experience with their products. AMD has to have a decisively better product for me to switch and in the last decade Nvidia hasn't screwed up enough for that to happen. One area where Nvidia might screw up is VRAM, they have always been cheap there but I think 12GB is the minimum for midrange cards going forward. If 4060/4070 come in with <12GB I will not consider buying them.

 

[DrCheese]

U Unknown Soldier do you believe we see a price change in the foreseeable future?

Nvidia sounded really cocky about the high prices. "it's a thing in the past"

It depends. Nvidia have gone on record (Believe it was during an investor call) that they would sooner lower production to keep demand high than accept lower prices, but that's just leaving gobs of market share for someone else to hoover up.

Long and short of it is if they get too cocky, someone else will eventually crap over them. It may not feel it now but it will happen. Microsoft had the same shitty mindset back in the day & made blatant anti-consumer choices which eventually backfired on them.

 

[ahtlas7]

Better product overall and is within price range of capturing the sale over AMD. I am curious how Nvidia‘s current strategy will work out for them this cycle.

 

[TheBreezyBB]

Amd has always been playing catch-up with Nvidia. Performance wise it's almost catching up and they certainly will pass Nvidia, just a matter of time now, just like they caught up with intel.
Nvidia, is greedy right now.

 

[DryvBy]

I've dealt with AMD in the past. Never again in my PC. I'd rather spend money than time on a video card.

 

[MikeM]

With my upcoming build, i’m going with whatever is best bang for buck. Pure raster unless every game is coming out with DLSS. Does not matter if AMD or Nvidia.

 

[Neo_game]

AMD are just two steps behind when it comes to RT, machine learning. Though in rasterization AMD are on par if not better. Nvidia is considerably rich and I guess hence have better R&D. RDNA2 is going to competitive and some predicted it to be better RTX 40 series but we shall know soon. It is highly unlikely they can match RT or DLSS 3.0. I think AMD need to release their product before Nvidia and undercut them in price. It took AMD almost a decade to compete against Intel and still Intel has market share, so it takes time. I also think Nvidia has very good programmers and their drivers seem to have better optimization so gamers prefer to buy continue with them.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Nvidia’s simply offered better cards.

 

[BennyBlanco]

nvidia is just better. simple as.

 

[Bonfires Down]

AMD had poor drivers for a long time which turned people off their GPUs, and I think that still lingers to some degree. But also, if you’re already spending $1000+ on a PC, might as well spend $100 extra on an Nvidia GPU to get their extras, whether that be RT or DLSS or whatever.

 

[hinch7]

Nvidia has been ahead of the curve in technologies in front of RTG and made better products for years. Radeon GPU's kinda went downhill after the HD series cards.. and haven't really recovered since.

Here's hoping that AMD kicks it out the park with RDNA 3 so we have actual competition and less gouging from Nvidia going forward (a bit of wishful thinking).

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

If you want high-end, there's no other choice.

 

[Solrac]

amd drivers

 

[Kacho]

People go with Nvidia because their cards have few issues and have superior features like DLSS & RTX. Nvidia is the gold standard and that’s why they will get away with jacking up prices and selling a 4070 as a 4080.

I keep seeing people say AMD will gain significant market share because of Nvidia’s arrogance, but it’s like saying Battlefield will hang with COD. It just isn’t happening.

 

[Kacho]

I think it started when AMD drivers weren’t up to par with Nvidia. I occasionally still see people say they prefer Nvidia because of past reputation.

Yeah if it ain’t broke why fix it. The last AMD PC I built was in 2005 for WoW and Oblivion. Been Nvidia exclusive ever since.

I saw a few AMD users saying one of the older Total War games still doesn’t work on their cards. That kind of shit keeps me away forever.

 

[PhoenixTank]

A little bit of selective memory/history going on in places here.
ATi had better market share for about a year between the middle of 2004 & 2005.
When Nvidia last stumbled hard with Fermi, ATi freshly acquired by AMD, had the Radeon HD 5000 series. There was no contest really: AMD/ATi had the better cards for a couple of generations around then and I'm pretty sure for less money to boot. Unfortunately this did not translate into a majority market share in this instance.


This is where the whole Nvidia mindshare argument stems from. AMD have had competitive products but they just don't reap the same sales.

I can't recall perfectly but there was a really good video or article that helped explain the different approaches the companies have had. Essentially Nvidia focused on large dies sizes repeatedly while ATi opted for smaller dies and would double them up for crossfire. Crossfire/SLI is dead now, and had been dying since about...2011? 2012? Whenever deferred rendering killed AFR.

There is a huge gulf in R&D money between the companies that has grown over time. AMD has had woes to the point of having to sell their HQ and lease it back from the new owners have left the company starved. Things are a bit better these days with zen money actually breathing life into the company, but it had all been snowballing against them for many years. Software, personnel, R&D: all things that take time and money to recover from. A lot of this haunts them in reputation and they absolutely pull stupid shit on the radeon side of things still.

I'm a green snake in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if amd wouldn't exist if it wasn't for console manufacturing.

Those past gen console contracts were low margin but kept the company alive, so you're right.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I mean, as of RDNA 2 vs Ampere back when they launched, not with these "let's get rid of overstock prices" now, the MSRP of AMD was a joke for AIBs. When AMD was like $50 cheaper than Nvidia, AIBs would be +$100 / $150 more expensive than the same AIB's ampere counterparts with the SAME cooler and shroud for some manufacturers.

AMD's MSRP was bullshit, they tried to pull out of making the reference cards and when they got called on that, stayed. But it was clearly not the price that AIBs could ever reach.

Before RDNA2 you have peoples with 5000 series and older having driver problems that persisted for years with the r/AMD community basically telling them to fuck off "i personally have no issues and therefore nobody has issues". You can find tons of posts on reddit and around about the issues.



Then they had worse RT performance per CU than Turing. No AI solution (even Intel got that right before they have even launched the card lol).

So AMD was not really cheaper in general, not as strong with features, came from generations of users having poor driver experiences.

AMD would have to be like $400 cheaper on the high end to even make a wave i think. The 3090 sold more than the entire RDNA 2 series, yup, Nvidia's most expensive card at the time.

 

[Golgo 13]

The Nvidia driver pipeline is much more refined, for one. Nvidia has been doing this a lot longer - and the card buying public seems to know this - their shit is compatible, reliable, and is easy to incorporate into your other components.

Putting AMD cards into your system can create driver headaches, thermal issues (AMD cards run hotter than Nvidia and can create multiple peripheral issues to other components), all in the interest of saving a few hundred dollars and feeling like you “beat the man”.

I’ll pass.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Nvidia is easily dominating over amd, despite having more expensive gpus than the competitor.

But why?

Every time we hear an nvidia thread about insane prices, everyone believes amd could take a market share. I also read people hoping for more people to jump on amd, even though they won't them selves.

I've tried amd as well like one and a half decade ago, and while the output on the card was great, I had problems in most games because of shitty drivers.

But and mist surely have improved since then.

Is it because amd has ghosts from the past, or are they still behind performance wise?

Also, what's the reason miners tend to use nvidia cards and not amd?

I'm a green snake in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if amd wouldn't exist if it wasn't for console manufacturing.

Going back to when it was ATI(AMD's former GPU guise) fighting Nvidia in the GPU space it was clearly known that ATI used Micro-architecture designs and Nvidia used Superscalar, which in optimal conditions for ATI - that were unfavourable to Nvidia -gave parity or an advantage to ATI, where fast-path - shortcuts if you will - provided a power/silicon saving over brute forcing with superscalar.

Under equally optimal conditions for each superscalar draws or wins out more, and it is this predictable performance aspect of Nvidia GPUs that has made them favourable. Going back to Opengl 2.0 ATI capable cards like the ATI 9800 Pro, when Opengl 2.1 (with geometry shading came) and then OpenCL, many or most nvidia cards were able to get new drivers that enabled these capabilities to map to the superscalar hardware - usually with a performance hit -, whereas the ATI cards were all trapped on Opengl 2.0 and needed replaced.

Obviously, today less and less of the micro-architecture issues exist, but the design strategies typically still feed into performance/cost ratio, such as a RTX 3060 has tensor cores to brute force RTX or AI calculations, whereas a RX 6700 will be leaner and meaner, making it weak in those tasks, but potentially faster for say VR using forward renderers with minimal latency because of higher clocked cache.

 

[FutureMD]

With Nvidia you get DLSS, better raytracing performance, better HEVC codec (vr wireless stream higher quality support), ability to run cuda/tensor apps. Amd you get... um... FSR that's available to everyone?

 

[dcx4610]

For me, it's brand loyalty and reliability. Also, DLSS is a bit of a game changer.

Every time I've tried AMD (granted it's been years now), I've always regretted it and had problems. You might pay more for Intel and Nvidia but I have never had a single one of their products die on me and they usually end up performing the best - albeit with a premium.

I WANT AMD to do well and compete with Nvidia. They are certainly getting there in the CPU space but I feel like they have a long ways to go GPU wise. You can get some good cards from them but they've always felt like compromises to me and they've always felt a step behind. Now is the time to strike and I hope they can eventually compete in specs, price and peformance.

 

[lostinblue]

Nvidia is easily dominating over amd, despite having more expensive gpus than the competitor.

Some theories say they control inventory a lot better.

By making it seem like a commodity/not as readily available as AMD GPU's they end up selling more. It's obvious that they have a not of RTX 3000 stock now, but instead of dump they'll make RTX 4000 more expensive. With RTX 2000 and 3000 it's obvious they never wanted to flood the market.

They also sell directly to a lot of OEM's, as well as miners (before the crash).

Also, what's the reason miners tend to use nvidia cards and not amd?

Better hashrate and better resell value.

Seeing these used to pay themselves, in the long run better made it more profitable per unit.

AMD are just two steps behind when it comes to RT, machine learning. Though in rasterization AMD are on par if not better. Nvidia is considerably rich and I guess hence have better R&D. RDNA2 is going to competitive and some predicted it to be better RTX 40 series but we shall know soon. It is highly unlikely they can match RT or DLSS 3.0.

They are, but FSR2 is closing the gap on DLSS.

It's not that they needed to use tensor cores for DLSS as you had DLSS 2.0 running on regular shader units on Control before they revamped it to require them. It's just that it was free to do DLSS there seeing it wasn't being used for anything else in a gaming scenario.

Nvidia using it for that though, most likely limits it's use for AI or other game related task if developers wanted to. So AMD doesn't really need to have them if they have more performance in the first place. For games that is.

Tensor Cores of course are valuable for professional workloads and AMD doesn't have a solution for that.

With RT, AMD's solution is seemingly similar, adding ray accelerators to the CU's. It can pay off later on as well against dedicated units, if the GPU's have overhead that is. Again, it's "free" on Nvidia because they'd be sitting unused otherwise.

I think AMD need to release their product before Nvidia and undercut them in price.

They should, yes.

Undercutting them in price shouldn't be hard though.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Personally I've always gone Nvidia because they support their cards for such a long period of time after release (both standard drivers and game specific driver updates) which is important if you only upgrade every 4 or 5 years. But, if Nvidia gets too crazy with the pricing many might be forced to finally give AMD a look.

 

[64bitmodels]

But and mist surely have improved since then.

Is it because amd has ghosts from the past, or are they still behind performance wise?

they have
I don't see the supposed driver issues people have with AMD, 6600xt works great for me, in most games

 

[PeteBull]

Better drivers, and by a lot, in big sheme of things that additional 50 or 100 bucks doesnt matter much compared to stability of ur experience, every time some1 goes amd, then has major issues with all kinds of shutdowns/bluescreens amd gonna lose customer for many years.

All those "youtubers/influencers" testing cards and announcing that amd is better value can fuck right off- when u playing 20-30-40h/week or more, not just benchmarking in controlled enviroment u really want drivers to be simply stable af or all ur fun from playing is gone.
Im not saying amd has bad drivers now, or much worse from nvidia, but in last 20years on average that was for sure major factor customers went with more expensive but safer bet- they bet on the green team.

It can all change ofc, good drivers+ good prices(so not 5-10% below nvidia for same performance, but meaningful difference- say if u can get from amd performance of 16gigs 4080 for cost below 12gigs 4080(so 20% higher price/perf ratio, then many ppl will consider it).

Amd is challenger so gotta knock out reign champion, not just fight 12 rounds and hope for a draw on score cards- coz in that case nvidia will win once again.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Because people are lovin' it.

Nvidia still leader with those prices is a market non-sense or that's monopole, you chose.

 

[Three]

Nvidia is easily dominating over amd, despite having more expensive gpus than the competitor.

But why?

Every time we hear an nvidia thread about insane prices, everyone believes amd could take a market share. I also read people hoping for more people to jump on amd, even though they won't them selves.

I've tried amd as well like one and a half decade ago, and while the output on the card was great, I had problems in most games because of shitty drivers.

But and mist surely have improved since then.

Is it because amd has ghosts from the past, or are they still behind performance wise?

Also, what's the reason miners tend to use nvidia cards and not amd?

I'm a green snake in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if amd wouldn't exist if it wasn't for console manufacturing.

As much as I love AMD I personally prefer nvidia. They have usually been ahead in terms of at least marketing tech like physX, gsync, raytracing, dlss etc. Would I prefer the more open or more compatible tech AMD and others make more widely adopted? absolutely. But you can't deny that nvidia make and market some good tech and those who want the latest thing would go for them.

 

[Amiga]

I think AMD makes more money staying 2nd to Nvidia by keeping the supply small and prices high rather than go for market share with lower prices. They are like a cartel.

 

[I Master l]

​

With RT, AMD's solution is seemingly similar, adding ray accelerators to the CU's. It can pay off later on as well against dedicated units, if the GPU's have overhead that is. Again, it's "free" on Nvidia because they'd be sitting unused otherwise.

Honestly i don't like having 30% of the silicon dedicated for AI/RT, Nvidia also increased the L2 cache
by massive amount which will eat even more silicon, if they made a GPU without all that specialized
silicon we could end up with much faster GPUs that can handle 4k with ease also nvidia is using this
tech to make their previous GPUs obsolete very fast

 

[Knightime_X]

Last time I had an amd card was when it was a rx 5700 xt by assrock.
All it did was crash crash crash.

Nvidia might be more expensive but at least it works.