By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 07 July 2020
Edit Thread
Captain_Yuri said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

Well the problem with being in AMD's position and competing against Nvidia is that Nvidia will try to match almost every price point. AMD releases 5600 XT, Nvidia responds with 2060 KO. AMD releases 5700, Nvidia responds with 2060 Super price cut. AMD releases 5700 XT, Nvidia sandwiches it by re-releasing 2070 and releasing 2070 Super. AMD releases anything lower than a 5600 XT and Nvidia has a billion iterations of 1650/1660/1660Ti.

The thing with beefing up existing features is that it only really works if the competition sacrificed existing features for those new features therefore having less performance in return. Nvidia stayed relatively the same sure but AMD only caught up. So you have a situation where Nvidia is giving you good-excellent rasterization performance + giving you a taste of the future while having the full feature set ready for next generation vs AMD is giving you good-very good rasterization for the similar price with worse driver support...

There is certainly a market for AMD cards no doubt and the once in a few years crypto boom that seems to happen also helps with AMD's sales. But it's a position of uncertainty as Nvidia is playing in the same space.

I like this analogy but I don't think it's quite works in this comparison. Waiting for AMD drivers doesn't get you a better driver than what Nvidia gives you in day one. Waiting on AMD driver allows you to play the games like the Nvidia people have been playing all this time.

And yea that's true but it is a risky business being in second place as your competitor gets to dedicate how much profit you can have which I would say isn't very good for business.

So if AMD can't beat Nvidia on price point since they will match it or come close, what's AMD's incentive to undercut Nvidia or themselves? Why bother with dedicated (consumer) GPU's at all if you're surrounded?

Could Nvidia have done more with existing (hardware) features if they left out things like RT on the 2000 series? Did they really do the right thing that was best for the consumer? Based on the 3000 series leaks, it seems like the consumers agreed, prices be damned. AMD likes money too just by chance.

I don't just mean drivers. What about waiting for prices to get to a point where they are at the very least, reasonable, top to bottom? If fewer people bought in so early, the prices would flat line and remain there since they won't drop much without serious competition along with a price war. Some people won't wait though, so why offer better pricing? In fact, why not keep increasing?

Second place has it's benefits as well though. You aren't expected to always have the newest features. You aren't expected to have the best tech. You're seen as the underdog, which helps a lot if you ever decide to take a shot at the title. The fall is a lot further from the top.