Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

Bofferbrauer said:

JEMC said:

A new study has been made public detailing the GPU market share as of this quarter, among other things, and things look really bad for AMD

http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/add-in-board-market-decreased-in-q215

To AMD: That's what happens for leaving the 9x0 series without proper competition for half a year, and then launch mostly rebranded cards.

AMD had to concentrate both their development ressources and their money on their new upcoming CPU Design since the last year, which is why GCN only gets incremental upgrades and rebrands right now. With the shrink to 14/16nm and the first tape-outs coming from Zen and Arctic Islands the focus should now gradually shift back to the graphics division.

The R9 Nano and Fury could boost sales up again, but I doubt they will get above 25% again before the release of the Rx 400 Series (Arctic Islands)

I have a hard time believing that neither Nano nor the Fury cards will improve things for AMD.

Leaving Fury X aside (because unless space is a problem the Fury X is a poor choice over the similarly priced but better performing 980Ti), it's true that Fury is a good card as it offers better performance than the Vanilla 980 while costing a bit more and almost the same performance of its Fury X sibbling while costing $100 less, but Nano...

Nano has the same specs (4096 SP, 4GB, etc.) and price of Fury X, but its power consumption is 100 W lower and yet somehow it's supposed to go "up to 1,000 MHz", only 50 MHz slower than Fury X? I really, really doubt it. Even with the best of the best chips, it will have to run a lot slower than that claimed speed, and that will limit its performance a lot, making it pointless.