Chazore said:
But when you think of it that way, what other choice do I have in that already small high end market?, buy lesser hardware, in the hopes AMD might one day actually bring their A-game?. AMD just isn't trying hard enough, and they've allowed Nvidia to gain quite a great deal of leeway and mind share. Because they are going to charge high means that those paying higher prices allow for it. I personally don't, because my limit budget is at least £7-800, but the recent prices for high end have gone beyond that already. Really though, we could say this to just about any market in the games industry. MT's are now steadily grounded in many games, because casuals don't think they are harmful and thus allow them to permeate throughout the entire industry, to a point that we laughably are seeing the car industry enforcing a subscription service for heated car seats, and I know the media side (Netflix) and the gaming side (consoles/MT's) have shown a different industry that it's okay to adopt a bad practice, because casuals will allow and support it's growth. Those that are paying even more out the backside for the latest RTX cards are thus setting a bad example, in saying that AMD and Nvidia can charge high, because those people can seemingly somehow afford those cards, despite people like me currently not being able to. It's just a different number of people auto dictating how a market should be run, without actually telling the market directly. It's just how we are as a species sadly, just look at shitty laws being passed, because normie folk don't care, or don't read too much into it. Look at the car industry with subscriptions for heated seats, or high end GPU's now all costing a kidney. There's no core co-operation and dedication within each industry's group of consumers, because everyone wants what they want for themselves, not what their choices could do to the industry in general. Look at consoles and how one console charged for online, because now all 3 do, because one group of consumers said "yeah, that's fine, keep charging me", and now all 3 suffer that fate. In short, I hate normies, casuals and the 0000.1% rich folk that pay out the arse for something that could be far greater than what it currently lacks. Both sides cause their own damage, and they either don't care, or don't know what they are doing. |
Yes, that would be the other choice, if you can't stick with what you already have or buy used.
AMD isn't just fighting one giant, it's fighting two. Expecting more from them recently is like asking for perfection, and that doesn't exist.
Yes, people with more money than brains, along with the people who don't use their brains, are a bigger part of the price problem as per consumers.
Intel could certainly find a place in the dedicated GPU market shortly, if their tech is reasonably worthy while priced and marketed correctly.
Captain_Yuri said:
I was mainly being sarcastic loll. With that being said, the problem is, if a company is in second place, it's gonna be up to them to bring out the competition and have competitive pricing. Imo Nvidia has both the brand power and the product. 5000 series is a good value sure but it doesn't offer much more than Pascal did in terms of features while being priced similar to Turing. You want ray tracing? You have to go Nvidia. You want DLSS? You have to go Nvidia. You want full compatibility with Direct X 12 Ultimate? You have to go Nvidia. You want the best performance? You have to go Nvidia. Like you look at the two very talked about features right now... DLSS and Ray Tracing... You can't even bring RDNA1 gpus into the conversation... Yea they are pricey but I wouldn't say people are over-paying for Nvidia if their only alternative is nothing or less performance. The 5000 series really should have had Pascal pricing since it doesn't have a lot of Turing's features yet it didn't. And the problem with that is Nvidia can lower it's price to match which is exactly what they did. Not to mention the driver issues that still plagued Vega and RDNA at launch. The thing that made Ryzen a success against Intel isn't AMD charging a similar price. It's AMD showcasing how much of a (imo) shit value Intel really has been. Yea Intel was and still are the gaming king but AMD is close enough while offering better value and dominating performance in many other areas. Like one of the benchmarks that reviewers did is showcase gaming + streaming. Ryzen 1700 did it without little to no issues doing it vs a quad core i5 or i7 was like, pls buy HEDT, thanks or do some process priority adjustments and etc. Of course the Ryzen 1000 launch wasn't very smooth but since CPUs rarely need driver/bios updates, once you got past it the issues, Ryzen was smooth. For me personally to get RDNA2 GPU, they not only need to make a GPU that has similar performance to Nvidia all the way up to a 3080 but they also need to make sure they are on top of drivers. Cause I have Cyberpunk 2077 pre-ordered. And if Nvidia is ready day 1 with their drivers and I have to wait a week or two for AMD to release theirs, no thanks. I am not gonna buy gaming GPU where I have to wait to play new games... And I will also be looking at their launch drivers as well. Yea it's a lot to ask but there's a reason why Nvidia is king right now... |
Ah. Thought you might be but wasn't all that certain.
Only if AMD wants Radeon to gain considerable market share and mind share. The problem is, AMD has never really dominated the GPU market like Nvidia has for so long. For Radeon GPU's, it might make more sense to just make as much money as possible instead of fight a losing battle in terms of having the most products out in the wild. Not to mention the highest tier. Nvidia may be cocky, but they didn't push in the clutch like Intel did. Ryzen could change the game, but RDNA may not be able to do the same no matter how competitive. In that case, make what you can, while you can.
Nvidia may be offering new features, but how much are those new features actually put to (good) use, and would gamers prefer those minor upgrades plus new features for their money vs simply beefing up existing features until the new features can really make a big difference across the board?
AMD has had it's problems as well, but if they can get away with it like their competition can in their own ways, why should they bother doing a much better, more finalized job before launching? Companies do what they have to, to get consumers money. If you give it to them too easily, they will take it for granted the majority of the time.
Ryzen had much more of an opportunity to make waves than RDNA has so far. Intel was asleep at the wheel while Nvidia has always been ready to shift into next gear, it's how much gas do they have to give it after shifting is the question Jensen struggles with. Ryzen and it's chiplets and IF allow for much cheaper pricing as well, which RDNA doesn't have the benefit of. At least not yet. Who knows?
People who won't wait are like fish who jump straight into the fisherman's boat. All the fisherman has to do is paddle out and crack a beer. If you want bait, or the very best bait at that, you've got to at least nibble at the worm and make them hook you and work for it.
Not everyone wants to be king though, or maybe they do, but are content with their lands and don't wish to wage war to take slightly more. Sometimes it's unavoidable pressure or necessity that's required to drive expansion.
