JEMC said:
I honestly hope AMD doesn't try to catch up Nvidia in the high end. Yes, it's a lucrative market and being able to brag about having the fastest card in the world is relatively important, but that market isn't really that big. AMD should focus on the mid-high and below market, where bang for buck is more important, and where, historically, AMD has done best. Leave the $1000+ segment to Nvidia and focus on the $600 and below one. There are far more people that can buy $400 cards than those that can buy $1000 ones. |
I'd argue Nvidia's high-end GPUs are a consequence and afterthought of their main business, CUDA and GPGPUs for data centers.
Since CDNA is its own non-graphical thing and Ponte Vecchio exists only on paper, it's doubtful either AMD or Intel will release anything comparable. They could, but it's just not worth designing it just for gaming, financially speaking.
This is also why the main threat to Nvidia's business isn't nice AMD or Intel GPUs taking over their marketshare, it's CUDA being abandoned in favor of an open parallel computing architecture. Both of these companies know this, which is why they're beginning to sell packages with CPUs included in that market, to help drive down CUDA adoption.
Essay Pro