Quantcast
Nvidia Gets SALTY

Forums - PC Discussion - Nvidia Gets SALTY

Well it's not some finely crafted press release, it's an interview with a competitive guy who's having some fun at the expense of his rival and their seemingly pointless next round of hardware.

Doesn't come across as salty to me... almost seems more like a victory lap from a guy who knows what's coming.



Around the Network
freebs2 said:
DonFerrari said:
And they will be extra salty with PS5 and Scarlet being AMD powered again and doing good sales plus having good performance for console side.

For their prospective probably while ps and xb move a lot of units, console chips have very thin margins compared to graphics cards and laptops gpus.

Mind me, I don't have anything against AMD, but PS and Xbox use their chips not because they're superior to Nividia's but only because they're chepaer.

Not only because they are cheaper. They are cheaper for that performance envelope.

And certainly the margins are thin. But it grants a stable and good revenue stream. And just on the money flow it creates a lot of leverage and gain of scale that they can use to finance other technologies and recover their position (AMD).

As console customer, knowing they won't make a 2000 USD box, I rather they get the best possible GPU under 200 USD cost and with the CPU and GPU into a single chip they gain a little more on the cost for best performance per money expend.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

JRPGfan said:

Look at what AMD did with their new Ryzen chips.
They beat out the Intel 9900k (which is 180watt+) and do so at 130watts.

They just had a massive improvement in perf/watt (for their cpu line), and at the same time finally managed to beat intel in cpu performance.

Uh, what? The Ryzen 2700X is almost certainly better value for money than a 9900K, but the latter is pretty decisively ahead performance-wise.

If you're talking about the new third-generation Zen chips they announced, I think it'd probably be best to wait until there are benchmarks from someone other than AMD themselves before making that sort of claim.



JRPGfan said:
Conina said:

Why do you think that?

Radeon VI will be more efficient than a Vega 64, but it will use the better efficiency to push more pixels and polygons than the Vega 64, not to deliver the same performance with less power consumption:

I think perf/watt will massively be improved with the Radeon VII compaired to the RX Vega 64.

Look at what AMD did with their new Ryzen chips.
They beat out the Intel 9900k (which is 180watt+) and do so at 130watts.

They just had a massive improvement in perf/watt (for their cpu line), and at the same time finally managed to beat intel in cpu performance.

Only 25% improvement at the same power according to AMD themselves. And since the performance improvements compared to the Vega64 are more than 25%, I doubt that it will consume less power than the Vega64:



Azzanation said:
Salty yes, truth also yes. Nvidea is light years ahead of AMD at this stage.

I think most people didn't actually watch that presentation or don't fully understand the Radeon VII.

The Radeon VII isn't just a Vega in 7nm, as it improves far more than just the clock speed. The clock speed increases by 10-15% while framerates increase almost throughout by 20-35%, and that's despite lacking 4CU. That brings the card to about RTX 2080 level in terms of FPS.

However, this Radeon is more of a Prosumer card like NVidias Titan line originally was. The latest Titan however has those capabilities locked in the Driver to force those interested in this to shell out for a Quadro or Tesla GPU. For anybody who uses OCL or FP64 and can't afford any of these professional GPUs this card is a godsend.

I can understand that from a pure gamer standpoint the GPU is disappointing, but for those Navi will come later down the line. But for those who use their GPU not just to play, but also for work, this is a very good offering.



Around the Network

I actually wish AMD would put up a better fight. I'm happy to splurge on $1000+ graphics cards, but when we start seeing $2500 >single< GPUs not in the Quadro field, it is obvious that they are selling it that high because, well, they can. Sure, I'm in a different tier as a high-priced buyer, but even we know that there is a limit to this stuff.

That said, Jensen is FAR from salty here. More like beating his chest ~ knowing, yet again, they'll have the PC gaming market cornered. Plus, this tells me a new console generation is close, as NVIDIA openly attacked AMD just prior to the release of the PS4/XB1.



                                                                                                                                            

OlfinBedwere said:
JRPGfan said:

Look at what AMD did with their new Ryzen chips.
They beat out the Intel 9900k (which is 180watt+) and do so at 130watts.

They just had a massive improvement in perf/watt (for their cpu line), and at the same time finally managed to beat intel in cpu performance.

Uh, what? The Ryzen 2700X is almost certainly better value for money than a 9900K, but the latter is pretty decisively ahead performance-wise.

If you're talking about the new third-generation Zen chips they announced, I think it'd probably be best to wait until there are benchmarks from someone other than AMD themselves before making that sort of claim.

Yes Im not talking about the 2700x but their upcomeing 3000 series of ryzen chips.

Anyways gaming is where Intel has the biggest lead and even here its like 8% differnce:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

 

the 3000 series of Ryzen will beat out the 9900k in gaming benchmarks too I suspect.



Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249

I'm not seeing the logic here. What is he supposedly salty about?



This is just one of many reasons why I dislike Nvidia. Yes, it's kind of sad that it took a die shrink down to 7nm for AMD to match or slightly exceed Nvidia's 12nm GTX 2080, but that is no good reason for Nvidia to trashtalk AMD. I like people and companies who are humble instead of those that gloat and trashtalk. And this is just one reason why I dislike Nvidia, I also dislike them because of their practice of designing tech like PhysX and Hair Works specifically so that it will have trouble running on AMD cards, and then moneyhat developers into using that tech in their games, effectively handicapping AMD cards in those games (and the consoles since they use AMD APU's). It is one thing to moneyhat an optimization deal where a dev spends more time optimizing for your cards than for your competition's cards, both AMD and Nvidia do that, but it is another entirely to pay a dev to handicap the competition. It is because of underhanded tactics like that that I will never buy an Nvidia card again, even if they are technically superior to AMD cards in some ways.

In the end, AMD gets the last laugh, it's looking like they got the contract for both Xbox Scarlett and PS5, so that is basically 160m+ APU's they just sold next gen.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 12 January 2019

thismeintiel said:

Probably more salty that they won't see an almost guaranteed 120M+ sales from the PS/Xbox lines again.

I do find it interesting that AMD had Xbox onstage and then later announced the Radeon VII, and used it to run FH4. Wonder if this is what XB2 is getting, while PS5 gets Navi.

It's possible that Xbox Scarlett Anaconda will use a cut down version of this with a few less cores and with GDDR6 instead of the more expensive HBM2 I suppose, but even then it might be too expensive. Radeon VII offers roughly RTX 2080 tier performance for $700, while the top end Navi GPU, the RX 380, will supposedly offer GTX 2070/Vega 64 tier performance for $250. That is a huge price difference, and I can't see MS having a massively higher launch price on Anaconda just to get a measly 15% performance advantage over PS5, at most Anaconda will be $100 more than PS5 imo. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 13 January 2019