vivster said:
How do you think your "just don't buy anything" solution will fix anything? You think a competitor will just jump into a market full force where people aren't buying and then hope they will suddenly start buying their shit? Not sure that's how economy works. |
If nobody, or very very few bought next gen GPU's, assuming things don't change much in terms of competitiveness, then it will force both to drop pricing. If neither company is selling product, they will find out the problem, price vs performance in this case, and will adjust prices. It's not like consumer GPU's are making razor thin margins as it is. Now if consumers demand too low of a price then the company's won't bother advancing the tech much, but they will lower prices if they aren't selling enough new products, especially early on.
Chazore said:
The problem there, lies within the fact that Nvidia have pulled ahead with their offerings, like GFE, GFN and DLSS, so atm, we're already expecting less from AMD, but the asking prices will be high, so not only are expectations not even being met here, but the fact that their asking prices will be out of touch from their end. Again, firmly where I stand, they need to work to earn it, which means bringing what Nvidia has to the table. accepting less and paying more still buys into the charity ideal, which isn't something I would vouch for. So far, all other spectrums have proven that going all in for each can be equally as bad, but as it stands, Capitalism is what the current market operates on, and socialism with the GPU market wouldn't even begin to work out well. AMD so far are creaming Intel's CPU div, as well as the glaring and disgusting fact that Intel still refuse to fully and abruptly address their CPU vulnerabilities, while AMD has been working on theirs. Sure, Intel still has some of that mind-share, but that is now starting to fade, while Nvidia's is not, because AMD isn't trying as much as they are in the CPU dept, but then again, Lisa and co seem to just care more about a fight they know they could win over the long term, and just wait till Nvidia gets bored with the GPU market in the future (which they likely will, going by their ventures into other tech markets) |
Well it's not exactly charity if you're getting something in return, and what you're getting isn't some small token of appreciation. It's a decent product, just simply not the absolute most advanced. Though I would say after a while of buying into something like this, if that company still hasn't become competitive overall, then leaving them behind wouldn't be out of the question as they were given worthy support and a reasonable opportunity.
No existing system is entirely capitalistic. They all have other forms baked in to some degree. It's not a one or the other scenario as that doesn't work long term.
AMD has the CPU tech advantage overall, but their overall CPU market share and income ain't jack compared to Intel. Without the same level of brand recognition, AMD needs something way beyond Ryzen to even come close to catching Intel. Even if they had that tech, they likely couldn't manufacture enough product since they don't have their own fabs and it's not like TSMC could meet the demand tomorrow, let alone years from now if AMD wanted them to.
I'd guess that if Nvidia ever decides to take a giant step at branching out that it'll be CPU related. With SOC's/APU's supposedly being the future, Nvidia will need a much higher performing CPU to make a competitive SOC at the high end to go along with their GPU's. Otherwise you're probably going to end up with AMD on top, with Intel in second, and Nvidia a distant third.
