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

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Yea the lower down the stack you go, the less impressive the gains have been since Turing era. Quite the shame really considering how 60 series once used to defeat the previous gen 80 series.

Idk why people keep suggesting Nvidia will leave the gaming market where they hold over 80% of the market share. Like has there ever been a case of a business saying "Welp we hold 80%+ market share of a highly profitable industry, lets just leave for the luls?" Like Nvidia made 1.8 Billion dollars in gaming vs 3.6 Billion dollars in Datacenter Q4 FY23. That's no small chunk in revenue to just say, yea lets leave something that they have a guaranteed win in every generation.

Plus if Nvidia leaves and Radeon becomes the dominant player, you think the industry will be any better? If anything, the GPU market will be significantly worse when you realize that when AMD had market dominance against Intels CPU with Zen 3, they refused to launch proper budget CPUs for nearly 1.5 years after the initial release Zen 3. It took Intel to launch Alder Lake before AMD bothered to release a proper CPU in the budget segment as they were riding the success of Zen 3 to their fullest extent.

I don't see NVidia leaving the gaming market either. What could happen somewhere down the line is that they put less focus on gaming and more focus on Tegra/Quadro, giving both AMD and Intel a chance to catch up on them both in market share and capabilities (as in, things like DLSS or CUDA). If that were to happen, then the market would be much more open without any dominant player and the prices probably also much more competitive. But that's really a best-case scenario for consumers, and I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

Yea I do agree with your scenario much more although it is still pretty unlikely unless Radeon finds another lightning in a bottle.

Chazore said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Well if that is the case, then the clock is ticking cause Blackwell could come out next year.

Yea the lower down the stack you go, the less impressive the gains have been since Turing era. Quite the shame really considering how 60 series once used to defeat the previous gen 80 series.

Idk why people keep suggesting Nvidia will leave the gaming market where they hold over 80% of the market share. Like has there ever been a case of a business saying "Welp we hold 80%+ market share of a highly profitable industry, lets just leave for the luls?" Like Nvidia made 1.8 Billion dollars in gaming vs 3.6 Billion dollars in Datacenter Q4 FY23. That's no small chunk in revenue to just say, yea lets leave something that they have a guaranteed win in every generation.

Plus if Nvidia leaves and Radeon becomes the dominant player, you think the industry will be any better? If anything, the GPU market will be significantly worse when you realize that when AMD had market dominance against Intels CPU with Zen 3, they refused to launch proper budget CPUs for nearly 1.5 years after the initial release Zen 3. It took Intel to launch Alder Lake before AMD bothered to release a proper CPU in the budget segment as they were riding the success of Zen 3 to their fullest extent.

Yeah, but why hold onto a market you clearly aren't going to make much from over the long-term, the more you keep going hardcore into shafting your customers?.

Like this is it, the past 3-4years have been Nvidia going more and more into sicko mode against customers, seeing what they will/won't tolerate, and their focus on the Crypto bros and AI markets and Ai cars are showing this.

Yes 80% of the market, but what else are they actually doing within that market that isn't DLSS branding out the wazoo, a 4090 barely many can afford, and a whole stack that are just price horribly and not doing much compared to last gen cards?. You can have that market share, but you ain't going to have it in 100 years, like it's been written in stone or something.

I know where their interests lie, because if it was us, truly us, the gamers, they wouldn't be going this hardcore into giving us the worst line-up and experience and relying so damn hard on one piece of tech to carry their perf metrics along. Like remember hairworks?, where's that at?.

I'm not saying Nvidia is going to leave overnight, like turn the lights off "we're done lads", but look at how it took Konami years to fcuk themselves out of the core gaming market. There is only and truly so much fucking around you can do as a corp to your customer base, before you either fuck off to another market and test those customers out, or reform and treat your existing customers fairly, before they decide to just straight up move on.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot have a repeat of this gen and last gen ad infimum, because it's not going to pay off, and the course of relying on the band aid of DLSS won't last long either, before people start to notice, and DLSS won't be here for 50yrs either, so they'll need to come up with some new marketing gimmick to keep ppl hooked, and that song and dance can also only go on for so long.

Also, like you pointed out with the data centers, they still made more there than with gaming, and yes, while it's no small chunk, it's still small when you look at the rising tech of AI and the general scope of where we're headed, it'll only get smaller as time goes on (remember how we were once the money makers of the industry?, well mobile now dwarfs PC and console gaming combined, and again, it'll only get smaller as time goes on). 

What do you mean they aren't going to make much more in the long term? They legit made 1.8 Billion dollars in a single quarter because of gaming during a recession. They are coming out with new features every generation in gaming that the competition can't even keep up with. They popularized Ray Tracing, then they came out with DLSS 2 which still has has no equivalence, then they came out with DLSS 3 which also has no equivalence not to mention Reflex, now they are pouring R&D into neural texture compression, path tracing and plenty of other things related to gaming. They wouldn't pour so much R&D into gaming if they weren't here to stay. If anything, they would be the least innovative when it comes to gaming if what you are saying is true but they have been the opposite.

What you should be asking is what the competition is doing to gain a chunk of that 80% that Nvidia has. What innovate features has either Radeon or Intel come up with that gives Nvidia a run for their money? It also sounds like you keep thinking DLSS is the only reason anyone buys Nvidia but the fact of the matter is that people buy Nvidia because first and foremost, the Raster performance is competitive if not faster than the competition. DLSS, Ray Tracing and Reflex are the cherry on top that makes people choose Nvidia when Raster is similar or close enough. So if Nvidia has competitive pricing vs the competition with competitive Raster performance and good amount of vram along with all the Nvidia features that has no equivalence, why would people choose the competition?

The reality is that Nvidia does what the market gives them the opportunity to do. RDNA 2 was very competitive so what does Nvidia do? Makes their cards equally if not more competitive. RDNA 3 is not all that competitive so what does Nvidia do? Exploit the market. If there is more competition from AMD or Intel, Nvidia will react accordingly as proven by Ampere. And the reason is because they are here to stay. And yes, Ai and all that are big money makes but this isn't one or the other situation. Nvidia can have gaming and Ai because they make so much money that they can make profit on both.

Last edited by Jizz_Beard_thePirate - on 19 May 2023