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

[JEMC]

Random_Matt said:

Intel will concentrate on integrated graphics going forward I guess; they never had the cash to begin with and needed their GPUs to be a massive success, which they are not.

I think I won't get used to see "Intel" and "they never had the cash to begin with" on the same sentence. It's difficult to understand how hard has Intel fallen and how fast it has happened.

In any case, limiting to just iGPUs will only make them worse as time goes on, because the budget for that part will be so much smaller. And that's a shame, because the latest iGPUs from Intel are actually better than AMDs, except for the high end mobiel parts where AMD still puts bigger GPUs.

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

JEMC said:

True. But if they only do entry level cards (if $200 can be called that), the perception most people will get is that they only make good enough products, and that can harm them in the future if/when they ever try to put a fight in other segments.

It's like people arguing that AMD should always do higher end cards, even if they don't sell, because not competing in that segment damages their image.

The problem with Radeon competing in the high end is they can never seem to consistently do it. They have these one hit wonders and then spend the rest of the successive generations going down in gpu segments.

RDNA 2: Top "202" competitor

RDNA 3: Top "203" competitor

RDNA 4: Mid "203" competitor

Personally instead of Radeon investing in designs that don't seem to work properly like MCM with RDNA 3 and HBM with GCN, they need to figure out what works and scale it up. Otherwise they are just largely wasting R&D into failed projects such as HBM which is no longer used in consumer gpus and by the looks of it, neither will MCM anytime soon or maybe ever if Ai is used to generate frames. Where as with Nvidia, their R&D into Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores and Ai are paying off in multitudes.

I think if they could have scaled RDNA 2 to say 120CUs with 5nm for RDNA 3, probably would have achieved similar if not better results than going MCM. Then invested R&D into their own Tensor cores, Ray Tracing and Ai, RDNA 3 likely would have not only competed against 4090 in Raster instead of 4080 but also in features. But that's just in theory of course where it's easier said than done.

The problem of the high end market is that with the prices those products go nowadays, the product has to be flawless. The card with the less "buts" is the one that gets all the money, and Nvidia has been the one that delivered those products often.

In any case, it's not like I think AMD has to compete in all segments of the market, but what they and Intel need to do is to not limit themselves to only one segment, because that has an impact on the way people will see them.

I'll say, tho, that I hope AMD doesn't try to go after the high-end market again next gen. We don't know how will the market share evolve during this gen, but spending another gen undercutting Nvidia to get more marketshare and customers goodwill is something that they'll need in their next attempt. Plus, with the reunification of RNA and CDNA, their next architecture can go very well or very bad, and that's somewhat easier to get around in the other segments.

Talking about architecures and what AMD should have done with RDNA 2 or 3, that's another topic all together. Architectures take years to develop and bring to the market, and what looks good on paper not always translates into the real world with the performance you expected.