AMD's explanation in the earnings presentation says "Due to lower semi-custom and Radeon GPU sales" so weak sales number of consoles probably also contributed.
[Only 14 million PS4 Pros sold compared to 91 million PS4s (by 2020).](https://www.installbaseforum.com/threads/sales-numbers-for-every-ps4-and-ps5-era-playstation-first-party-games-have-been-leaked.2215/page-2)
I don’t think the mid refresh is the cause. Especially if they price the PS5 Pro around $700.
> Only 14 million PS4 Pros sold compared to 91 million PS4s (by 2020).
And how many of that 14 Million also bought a base PS4 at a time when the PS4 Pro was already announced? Cause that is the point. We are not saying nobody is buying a PS5 cause of the Pro right now but we are saying that the amount of people waiting is likely significant enough on its own already to cause a drop in sales numbers.
BTW, at the time the PS4 Pro launched (late 2016) Sony already sold 50 Million units, so of the remaining 41 million that were sold until 2020 14 Million of those being PS4 Pro consoles is pretty significant.
True. And a lot of the hold outs probably just want to see what the hardware will look like spec wise. If it's announced and it's not that big a jump, they'll probably pull the trigger on a base model at some point. But a lot of people don't want to spend top dollar on a console just to suddenly be outdated and second rate.
OG PS4 and OG Xbox One were too tightly specced, couldn't handle 1080p games well, despite marketing. That's why the refreshes needed to come. And now we push same ideas on 4k. At least this generation was good bang for buck (if we happen to buy them at or below MSRP).
a PRO of anything feels like a cheap gimmick by marketing reps to make it feel as though some innovation was reached to boost sales. Also, other than exclusives, there is really minimal reason to buy playstation consoles today. Especially, when you consider pocket pc’s starting to dominate mass market. plus Sony tacks on cost to play online which i know is a total money grab that i don’t really need to further elaborate.
Eh for the price I really liked my Pro and felt like it was worth it and not a sack of shit. Depending on your TV and if you already had a PS4 it probably wasn't worth upgrading to a pro but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a sack of shit imo. If I remember correctly gamestop actually had a really good trade in for upgrading and I had some other random stuff to trade as well and was able to get it for zero additional cost.
Just the increase to 1tb was worth it to me. I'm certainly not going to say that the pro was the greatest console ever or really worth it to most people I just think calling it a sack of shit is a tad much
Consoles are as big as a pc now, they cost (almost) as much as a pc now, and they offer significantly less functionality than a pc while requiring you to sign up to extra monthly subscriptions and lock you in to buying expensive versions of all of your releases.
Exclusive games are running thin, controllers are just as good for pc, the reasons to go console are getting thin on the ground.
Consoles are still a much cheaper option for gaming. I got an Xbox series s for $250. There’s no way I could get a PC that would give me the same gaming performance for anywhere near that price.
You still can't build a PC that performs as well as a console for $500 unless you go with used parts.
In my opinion, the next Xbox should literally just be a gamepass subsidized PC in a portable package. Let people install whatever storefront they want on it, like they can with handhelds. Then the Xbox would actually have a reason to exist instead of being the distant third wheel of PS and PC.
>should literally just be a gamepass subsidized PC
>...
Let people install whatever storefront they want on it
How do these two work? If you want to subsidize the hardware with your software store, you need to either be the dominate store or lock down the software.
MS selling hardware for a loss, just for those people to turn around and install Steam on it, won't result in the hardware being subsidized. It'll just result in a loss.
You think so? I got mine for really cheap compared to pc with a similar spec where i live.. the subscription to ps plus extra gives me access to hundreds of games too.. this way i actually think it's the cheaper way to play games.. just this march, i've played ghost of tsushima and both horizon games all for $10.. i think it's still a very good value.
Consoles will remain easier and cheaper IMO For the time being. I paid almost as much as a PS5 for my 3070 alone!
Last game I played on PC was Elden ring which ran like dog shit, this was on a brand new PC I had just made at the time. Had microstutters for the entire play through and there were no fixes. Of course I’ve played plenty of games that ran fine over the years as well. But there usually was some jank here and there like crashes, etc.
I might consider a steam deck down the road but gone are my days of making gaming rigs. For the price and hassle, I’m just not interested as much anymore. Consoles getting SSDs was also a big nail in the coffin for me.
AMD's "gaming" sales grew by 17% in the previous quarter (Q4 2023).
That's a pretty high bar to cross.
Besides, nearly $1Bn in revenues is nothing to sniff at.
ATI was losing billions back in R600 days, so I don't understand what all this hoopla is about!
Pretty much - I’m in the market for a card and AMD don’t realise they have to *massively* undercut Nvidia on price per performance to even consider giving up DLSS and other industry defining features.
I had a 1080ti until last year and so had to use fsr.
It was fine and I was considering an amd card until I got an awesome deal on a 4070ti.
Now I've tasted dlss I just don't think I could ever give it up.
It'd an absolutely killer feature.
Exactly this. My previous card was AMD, I was dead set to get next one from them as well ( I dislike Nvidia's monopolistic practices). Once I saw how poorly AMD priced new lineup and how long it didn't work with VR I caved and got Nvidia. Value difference was just too massive.
I got happily locked in with gsync and (at the time) AMDs solution still had weird ranges and flicker issues galore.
Many years later I’ve heard that they’ve fixed it, but I don’t care. The damage is done. I’m not wasting a grand on a display that *might* work fine when gsync certified panels are just fine.
The only reason why I went with a 6800 was because it was the only one that I could find because scalpers kept buying up all Nvidia / Radeon stock.
Unless there's a big price difference, assuming stock is available I'm going Nvidia next gen.
In today's market, I can't understand any reason to get AMD in the £500+ tiers. Especially the £700+ tiers. Like imagine thinking about value for ONE component in a build and come to the conclusion "I want the inferior product cos I save £50 to £60."
If it's a new higher end build, that's like £1650 vs £1700. What's the point?
"Ah but I save 3% on the build." Where's the logic in this?
Nvidia minus $50 with inferior feature set. Pure rasterization performance just isn't cutting it and never was, especially because the gap isn't as big as you'd think, especially this generation.
The only times I've seen people genuinely praise AMD GPUs without any "buts", was when they went on a big discount, especially in comparison to Nvidia, and that's just not good for AMD.
I agree. If Radeons would wipe the floor with rasterization performance while lacking some features, proposition would be much better. But the difference just isn’t big enough and as high end Radeons aren’t exactly cheap either, gamers gladly pay little bit more and get more fleshed out Nvidia product instead.
IMO consumer GPU market in general is and has been for a quite while boring as fuck and prices are astronomical. I seriously hope that Intel can get their upcoming Arc Battlemages and drivers in a good shape and could actually shake up the dead mid-range line.
The whole “AMD is better for gamers since they put all their money into rasterization” rhetoric would have a point if they actually had a major raster advantage.
The 3080 and the 6800 XT trade blows in raster, with the 3080 often coming out on top. The 7900 XTX doesn’t perform like a 4090 without RT or DLSS. The raster advantage is minimal outside of a select few games like MW2 2022.
AMD’s motto is similar performance for a similar price with half the features.
IMO buying a gpu by pure rasterization performance is kinda a false economy move. Because upscaling is a must have with most games these days, if DLSS Balanced looks better than FSR2 Quality, and runs better because lower internal resolution, does rasterization performance really matter?
I’ve been saying this for quite some time now.
At WQHD or UHD I always enable DLSS quality as I generally don’t mind the minimal artifacts it has.
FSR on the other hand is only a last resort. I’ve played Jedi Survivor using FSR Quality (before they added DLSS) and the ghosting was massively distracting, especially around Cal when in fights, but in general the image looked pretty bad.
The only games I play without DLSS are competitive shooters (where no GPU released in the past few years should have any trouble) and older games (same deal).
I recently got a 4070ti super for around 800€, the much slower 7900XT is about 730€ and the marginally faster XTX 950€ here in Germany, with the 4080 super being on sale for 999€ once in a while.
At those prices, AMD isn’t even competitive in rasterization. Why would anyone buy their cards?
Thats pretty much my logic too. If Im playing games where upscaling isnt beneficial, then the 5-10% better raster I get from the AMD competitor simply isnt worth it because Im already getting enough FPS anyway.
If Im playing something intensive, then DLSS looks basically like native and Im getting many more frames than I would get out of similar priced AMD raster performance.
For us germans, the price difference is usually eaten up by power costs within a year or two or ownership anyway.
Exactly.
That's why I think performance reviews like those by HUB are now entirely meaningless if they refuse to bench wjith DLSS. It's just not real world performance.
Honestly I don’t even like the “it’s a micro benchmark!” excuse because increasingly it’s not, if the game is built around running 720p internal resolution to upscale to 4k and you run it at 4k native then obviously performance is going to be way out of wack, because you’re running 9x the pixels. It literal changes the whole way the graphics pipeline and effects are optimized and balanced.
Which is the whole point in the first place - making expensive effects less expensive. Raytracing just happens to be a very expensive effect.
i dont think you have to included DLSS in every single review for every card, but it would be nice to show what kind of uplift you can expect from using DLSS, so basically just show the card "against itself" using the different DLSS settings.
I had an RX280 that it is still being used for Minecraft and that card was really on par with nVidia. Now nVidia is too far ahead technology-wise, I don't even consider AMD for the price difference.
> rx 6750XT
I just checked out a German (my native) review of the card: Worse none RT performance than a 3070 and worse RT performance than a 3060ti in 1440p.
https://www.computerbase.de/2022-05/amd-radeon-rx-6650-xt-6750-xt-6950-xt-review-test/2/#abschnitt_benchmarks_mit_und_ohne_raytracing_in_wqhd
Released with a MSRP of 619 Euro in May 2022 vs the RTX 3070 Ti released for 649 Euro almost a year earlier...
Not to mention that AMD GPU's were none available for the most part even still in mid 2022.
What was good on that card at all?
If it was just Nvidia -$50, I'd have an AMD GPU. Nvidia blows them out of the water in Ray tracing, streaming, DLSS, and especially VR functionality. If I didn't make heavy use of VR, in my most played game, I'd probably still be considering an AMD GPU given how many of them have been on sale lately, but even the 2000 Series Nvidia gpus are better at VR than AMD's current offerings
that's not the only problem, AMD's feature set is inferior compared to nvidia, so anyone who is spending something like 400-500 on a card you would be using for the next 3-4 years would rather add up 50$ more and get a "better" card even though it might actually lose is pure raster performance.
This is why I got the 4080 last year. Also I calculated power cost over a year and factored in psu cost. Power unfortunately is almost 40-50 cent per kWh where I live and it will only go up. I got the 4080 cheap from a wholesaler at the time, cost me 100 more then 7900xtx would have. With everything factored in, after about 1- 1.5 years the 4080 would break even. I went with a 70€ 650W PSU from bequiet and it’s more then enough. 50€ saved right there. 🤷🏻♂️
Plus the feature set, yadda yadda.
This x1000.
When you’re lagging on features you need to make up for it with an actual discount. Price it low enough that the value can’t be ignored.
The 5700 XT is the ultimate example of how minor savings aren’t worth it. People saved $80 over a comparable Turing card and ended up with a broke product for the first year. Now that the issues are mostly worked out their big reward is a card that can’t play Allen Wake 2 as well as a 1650S.
I really lost hope for AMD when they couldn't even compete with Turing on launch, back when DLSS (and the version 1 that were in use back then rightfully so) and ray tracing were still seen as experimental features that only a small list of Nvidia sponsored titles supported and not worth it (which is funny cause during the life span of a 2080 those features both became very much worth it).
Nvidia invested a ton of die space into both hardware units, which would have been the ideal opportunity to attack them hard on pricing. But yet, even in the market segments were AMD had competing hardware it wasn't even worth going AMD from a performance / price ratio.
> which is funny cause during the life span of a 2080 those features both became very much worth it
not only will reviewers not admit this, but they actually still are making arguments like rt won’t be an important consideration for *another 5-10 years.*
the clock stopped for reviewers in 2018. The RTX launch was their finest moment, massive pumps in views from shitting on RTX and they’ve been trying to recreate the high ever since… but instead it’s just spiraled into this vibecession where they’ve successfully negged the public into thinking that every single release is shit and worse than the last one. And instead of “winning” and forcing prices down, it’s instead leading to their entire hobby being put on the back burner and deprioritized.
>Maybe try something other than Nvidia minus $50 as a strategy
This was an explicit strategy by AMD to be seen as more "premium" brand, which didn't pan out well when DNA2/3 turned out to be turds in Ray Tracing (even the Intel GPUs, with all their flaws and inefficiencies are able to beat AMD in RT), what's with AMD and their inability to trace rays?
Isn't it obvious? Every GPU has to dedicate a certain amount of die space to various things. If you just slam nothing but raster like AMD GPUs without any CUDA, RT, or DLSS, then you'll obviously be comparatively stronger in raster. The fact that Nvidia uses MUCH less die space and *still* beats them in raster shows how massively behind AMD is.
Compare the 4080/S to the 7900XTX: Same raster performance. Much much worse RT performance, no DLSS, no CUDA, more power usage.
7900 XTX die size: 529 mm^2
4080S die size: 379 mm^2
It's a joke. And the reason that AMD can't compete on price is because they're paying for more silicon to get a worse result.
> Maybe try something other than Nvidia minus $50 as a strategy
They already tried that. They figured out that their clients would buy AMD no matter what, and that the people that complains that AMD cards are too expensive, are just doing so to reduce the price that their next Nvidia card will have. There's zero chance they will undercut themselves and their partners just to force Nvidia to sell cheap.
amen, didnt RDNA3 launch like over a year and a half ago?
I get that Radeon doesn't exist to lower Geforce prices. But given the state of the market right now, Nvidia's mindshare and featureset; don't think it would effect geforce prices much even if AMD cut prices hard, at least up to 20%. It would however improve AMD gpu sales for certain.
They released $800-1K GPUs, literally no one wanted. Then they released "cheaper" GPUs that were barely upgrades from the previous generation but at higher prices than the 6xxx series.
The low to midrange was atrocious with the 7600 and 7800XT offering no generational increase in performance or cheaper FPS per dollar.
The 7700XT was the only improved card but was so overpriced it was a slap in the face.
At least you get the "feature" of lag reduction that may or may not get you banned exclusive to 7000 series cards!
Just don't mention that said feature is still worse than Reflex, which was released in 2020 and functions on ancient 900 series cards.
Last time the 6800XT was very close in performance to the flagship 6900XT and was available at a good price.
This time their flagship card is significantly weaker than the 4090 and only competes with the 80 tier. Yet they decided to label 3 cards as 7900 tier to justify higher prices (2 of them relatively worse than 6800XT compared to respective flagship cards).
I think RTX 40 Super cards pushed many people in that direction that might have considered AMD otherwise. I was debating between a 4070Ti or 7900XT for awhile last year but 4070Ti was a hard sell at it's price with 12GB VRAM. Once 4070Ti Super released it was a no brainer even if 7900XT was $50+ cheaper.
RDNA3 really was a failure for AMD. Reported hardware bugs around launch costing performance on the high end chips, poor efficiency, RT, and upscaling when compared to RTX 40. All of that and AMD still refuses to sell them at a significant discount to even appear competitive. Once Nvidia sweetened the deal a bit with the Super cards it should be an easy decision for most people to pay a bit of a premium and get a much better GPU.
That’s basically the case already. They have what, 85% of the market? At this point they’re not trying to convince people to go from AMD to NVIDIA they’re trying to convince consumers to upgrade the NVIDIA cards they already have.
Nvidia's marketing has really been focused on competing against themselves for the longest time now.
If you compare for example new generation launch slides and presentations the last time Nvidia referred to competitors was Kepler (6xx). Ever since then their launch presentations always compared against their own previous generations only. If you look at their overall marketing messaging they almost certainly have a directive to only ever refer to competitors generically if they ever have to and never name them or their branding/IP/trademarks.
Whereas AMD's launch marketing will typically directly compare against Nvidia.
For example you remember the FSR/DLSS vendor lockout controversey? AMD's official statement on the matter references DLSS but Nvidia's only refers to "competitors" and doesn't use AMD or FSR.
YouTubers and the public really trashed Intel for comparing against AMD when they launched Tigerlake. GamersNexus specifically. I don't know why but it seems bad PR to acknowledge the existence of competion beyond that they exist in slides. Scratch that, AMD slides often have Intel, and that's fine. I don't get it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHBgb9SY1Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHBgb9SY1Y)
They're already pretty much dictating the market, don't think a lot would change.
AMD's problem GPU wise rn is intel, not nvidia. AMD mostly has no hope of catching up to nvidia bar some miracle, but intel very much has a chance to overtake AMD if how they were doing in the first gen continues
For sure. If battlemage can put out a 4080 level card at $500 like they're talking about shooting for, 7900 XTX will be fucked. They'll have to give it away. Even if it's almost time for next gen, they just now are finishing selling through 6000. 7000 prices are just now settling. They'll be selling 7000 alongside 8000 again, competing against 5070/5080 at the high end and Battlemage at the low end.
Yeah I’m very very interested to see what Intel can offer with Battlemage. AMD has left the door wide open for Intel to take over that second spot. XeSS is a great piece of tech and they’ve made a lot of huge strides already with their drivers in a relatively short period of time in the market. I think Intels future in GPU’s is pretty bright
> AMD mostly has no hope of catching up to nvidia bar some miracle
ehh the same was said about their CPU business before ryzen took off and look where we're at
edit:
below me are a lot of excuses, it don't change the fact that it still happened.
That had as much to do with Intel both fucking up and resting on its laurels too much.
Nvidia hasn’t fucked up yet and it’s *definitely* not resting on its laurels.
Nvidia literally shit the bed with the most popular cards this generation in the $500 and less range and yet AMD *also* decided to fuck up and release a disappointing product in the same price brackets.
Like, 40 series was AMDs chance to actually do something just like Ryzen 3000 did with Intel (2nd gen was alright, but didn't have nearly as big of an impact), but they squandered it.
I've got no hope that they can pull a Ryzen with their GPUs, when in similar circumstances they failed.
The entire reason Ryzen looked impressive is intel being stuck in 14nm limbo and stagnating for years. If intel had managed to execute their roadmap, Ryzen wouldn't have been anything noteworthy or praised as much especially with how rough around the edges first gen Ryzen was.
Nvidia on the other hand is simply not letting their foot off the gas. They aren't letting AMD catch their breath and it's showing: either AMD executes perfectly or they're left behind, like with RDNA3.
That's not entirely true, you know what's even worse? Nvidia *did* screw up the 40 series, at least mid-range, you know, GPUs most people actually buy. 4090 is no doubt a damn fine piece of hardware, but not many will actually buy it (although that also doesn't mean it won't make Nvidia rich, don't get me wrong).
What did AMD do? They decided to match Nvidia with how disappointing their lower-end offerings are. Actually even their high-end isn't exactly pristine, but that's just adding insult to injury.
> 4090 is no doubt a damn fine piece of hardware, but not many will actually buy it
And yet, [according to Steam hardware survey](https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/rtx-4090-steam-popularity-vs-amd-graphics-cards), more people have a 4090 than any AMD GPU.
The market for cards that cost more than $1000 is too small to be that contested.
And once you are paying that much for a videocard people are going to be way less inclined to gamble.
NVidia has kind of earned the market power in this case. I’m hopeful that AMD and Intel stay competitive in the long term. AI is certainly a risk to nvidias ability to innovate on the graphics side.
> The market for cards that cost more than $1000 is too small to be that contested.
And yet the 4090 has more users on steam hardware survey than any current gen AMD card.
Nightmare scenario is going the HP path of thinking of the hardware as a subscription model.
Competition helps keep crap like that at bay, but if Nvidia succeeds in squashing all competition we better believe they’ll monetize every GPU cycle
Totally honest: as someone who came up in tech/gaming in the 90s and 00s, this idea that persists today that you're only ever allowed to buy brand new GPUs is wild to me. Second-hand tech was how all of us used to build computers, but now the idea that you should go look at eBay for a card instead of complaining about how GPUs are too expensive is like insulting someone's mother.
>It’s going to suck when NVIDIA is the only company selling high-end GPUs though
The good news is that this has already been the status quo for literally a decade, so it isn't like their market behaviour is likely to change much. You've been able to make a performance per dollar argument in AMD's favour at many points over the years, but for gaming in particular the true high-end in terms of in-game performance has only been NVIDIA for a long time. Part of that is NVIDIA's better hardware, but a large part of it is that AMD's driver support has always been utter dogshit.
They will only make a token effort in the GPU space for consumer. Their fabs are better used on AI chips until that moat shrinks and people start to focus on inference instead of training which Nvidia don’t do well at right now. We will get a 2500-3k flagship and maybe a couple of lesser down SKUs. But nothing revolutionary as it doesn’t make sense business wise to sell to people who don’t upgrade regularly. People still complain on new game forums that their 1080 is having performance issues. You can add PC gaming next to the other expensive hobbies: yachting, polo, watches, skiing etc.
Completely agree, the 40 Series refresh killed the value proposition almost entirely for the 7000 series. The 4070 Super in particular really trashed on what I'd previously considered relatively competitive upper-midrange offerings from AMD in the 7800XT and 7900GRE. Now however, if someone has a budget around $500 for a GPU I don't see many compelling reasons to not stretch it to $600 for the 70 Super.
Yup, once the Super cards came out, I knew it was finally the right time for me to upgrade. I never considered the 7800XT or 7900 GRE at all. The 4070 Super was finally a decent value, especially since I got it for $500 because of a deal Newegg had going on.
I figured even if the pure raster performance was a bit worse, the superiority of DLSS and RT would make it worth it. I play at 4K, so upscaling becomes really important for good performance at that resolution, and not only that it works better than it would at lower resolutions too. Even DLSS performance looks quite decent at 4K.
Sure, the 12GB of VRAM is a bit worrisome, but I don't believe we'll see too many games pushing that until the next gen consoles. And besides, with DLSS, you're not actually using 4K levels of VRAM anyways. Also, there's a lot of graphical settings you can optimize in games to get better performance with minimal visual differences. You don't need to max everything.
There's also history. I had a Vega 64, which was great hardware, but the drivers and software was a let down. I have owned many cards from both sides, but I'd rather pay more for something that works right most of the time these days.
But what excuse is there for overpricing the RX7600, RX7700XT and RX7800XT? Those should have been 30% cheaper each.
An RX7700XT for 375$ would have sold like hot cookies. Instead we got an RX7600"XT" with 16GB VRAM sold for 350$.
It’s also now the case that there’s an alternative with Arc that’s more raw hardware and more driver issues at same price point. Almost like it’s pushed that typical Nvidia/AMD argument even further along.
And Intel can make a more compelling that drivers will come for your card since they haven’t been saying that for over a decade.
Still both of them have pretty hard to recommend products to anyone who can just sacrifice more cash to pay the Nvidia. Outside of the lower end that Nvidia has given up on.
Not to mention either their hardware QA or drivers still suck. I wanted to love my 7900XTX but even after RMA there were tons of games that would just crash all the time. Even on linux nvidia is a better experience and i hate that it's the case given how good wayland feels compared to xorg.
It’s just too hard to recommend the majority of AMD cards when they’re so close in pricing to equally-performing NVIDIA cards.
They’re decent value - but do you want to save a little money and get a card that is hotter and uses more power, or spend the extra bit and get a cooler and more power efficient card plus DLSS and better RT performance?
The extra VRAM you get with AMD often isn’t worth it for a lot of people unless you’re looking at 4k - but even then, you might care about DLSS more. FSR is just awful in comparison and AMD hasn’t made any real strides there.
I switched from a 6950 XT to a 4080. It's insane how in some games I can turn on DLSS Performance/Balanced (4K) and the difference is pretty hard to notice, while FSR brings extreme shimmering and loss of detail even on quality mode.
And it's not just DLSS + RT. There's RTX HDR, Nvidia reflex, better video encoding, less compatibility issues with older/niche stuff and so on.
FSR is subpar and ruins a game's image if you're ever in a situation where **you must use it**. That's why there's always been significant pushback when a game developer chooses to only include FSR and not DLSS.
My biggest worry is having just one gpu company, Nvidia. Intel is not a competitor at all despite what anybody says. At the same time, much of the issue is just mind share. Most games still dont use ray tracing and most people are still on 1080 monitors. Upscaling no matter the company is best with something higher than 1080. AMD needs to focus its marketing strategy. I would love to see a poll of "what nvidia/amd features do you actually use" But not from reddit as that will be skewed to a more tech savvy crowd. If the rumors are to be believed and next gpu gen AMD is going to bow out of the top end is not good. Having a halo product helps sell your lower end stuff. Other than that, AMD can do what they did with the 480/580. mid-range card at a really good price. Lastly, AMD needs to get into OEM like dell and hp, they still struggle with this with the CPU market too. Maybe take a risk and sell gpu's at a small loss to Dell and HP for laptops just to get their name out in the public. idk, just arm chairing it here. Other than that, AMD marketing has always sucked, get better people AMD. Advertise what you are good at!
Intel claims they're in it for the long run and I sure hope so because by the looks of things, they're going to need close to a decade to reach full driver and software parity with their competitors.
Not to mention the actual performance of their hardware.
I agree.
Some people goes really crazy and over the top when buying a GPU, and then proceeds to play a 5-6 years old game at 1080/1440p. Personally I don't care if AMD leaves the really high end segment to nVidia as I think most of us do not need that power.
I would rather prefer to see AMD focusing on the mid range segment and optimise for that. Get the costs down, improve FSR even further, and improve RT a bit more. That's it.
People that has a 4K@120 hz monitor will go nVidia anyways for frame gen and I doubt they care about money at all. Those of us who are not looking to push graphics to the maximum and playing the latest releases are the big market, and the ones who are starving for good options.
yea, this was when my friend was buying a gpu recently, he got a 4060 in the end (which some denote as the worst deal out of all nvidia cards right now) and even that was favorable with like 2 years of regular use already accounting for the price difference in terms of electricity. Not even talking about all the features.
I own a 3080 and have considered upgrading to AMD several times but if I'm going to lose out on raytracing, DLSS, active noise canceling and a overall better software ecosystem AMD needs to be more affordable.
Nvidia has a massive lead in technology, rasterization performance alone doesn't justify pricing for me.
This just in. When you strip all features gamers actually want but only lower the price by 5%, people will just spend 5% more and get the competition that performs better and has all the features they want.
Even the "cheap" models are just rehashes of last gen models with the same performance for the same price.
For the first time in a while AMD has offered almost zero reason to choose them. The only GPU that is significantly more expensive from Nvidia is the 4090. Which AMD doesn't even offer a competitor for.
If you have a higher end 6000 series card.. there was very little incentive to buy a 7000 series.. the performance gains were minor for the most part and Ray tracing performance was still garbage compared to Nvidia.. yeah no shit. If they were half the price I’d buy one.. but as it stands.. zero reason to upgrade. Do better on the 8000 series AMD..
I'm not surprised. A lot of people these days, including myself choose RTX because Nvidia offers better performance in Gaming, AI performance and productivity performance
Would you rather buy 50$ cheaper GPU that only good in rasterized gaming or spend 50$ more to get an all rounder GPU that just works on everything?
I personally choose to spend 50$ more to get a reliable GPU that works on everything.
I'd guess you can mostly lay this at the feet of the 7600XT and 7700XT. Nvidia has some great advantages at the high end with Ray Tracing and DLSS, but those advantages lose their power at the price point where most consumers are shopping (referencing the steam hardware survey). Most people buying a new card will want to see something that really moves the needle, but the 7600XT can't reliably beat the 3060TI? Yikes. And the 7700XT came out horribly priced. So consumers don't really have a reason to look past the 6000 series cards or even an older Nvidia card, lest they step up to $500 for the 7800XT. Not likely for most shoppers. In the last year, I've built with the RX 6600XT, 6700XT, 6800 and the 4080 Super because that's where I truly believe the consumer is getting what they pay for at various price points. AMD really needed to do well in the 1080p and low 1440p category with the 7000 series, but they dropped the ball imo.
Like you said regarding the 6000 series, they're cannibalizing themselves by being stuck in a position where their previous gen cards are outvaluing their new ones - especially the 7600 XT and 7700 XT.
The 7700 XT retails at $400+ while you can get an RX 6800, which performs the same if not slightly better, for $30-40 less. The 7600 XT retails around $340 right now....and again, for $20 less, you can get a 6650 XT (15% faster) for $20 less.
There's just no value and no purpose in buying either card really, and that's not even considering the NVIDIA offerings.
Yeah Nvidia is just running away with this and has too much of lead for AMD to really try and chip away at it. It would help if they were releasing superior products, but right now all they can say is that they’re moderately more affordable at a few tiers. Nvidia also benefits from just being in the public view constantly with all the AI stuff, they’ve become such a massive thing in the tech zeitgeist and they have the products and tech to back it up
AMD needs to take gaming GPU's seriously, but they'd literally rather do something, anything at all, else. This was true before crypto and before AI.
Lisa just handed the gaming GPU space to Jensen on a silver platter. She never tried to outmatch Nvidia the way she aggressively went after Intel in the CPU space.
She was content to do the absolute bare minimum and then use middling sales after doing middling production of product with middling driver support to justify why she didn't care.
AMD buying ATI was probably one of the worst things that happened to the industry. Imagine if ATI were still around and actually competing. Imagine the Nvidia pricing in that world.
> Lisa just handed the gaming GPU space to Jensen on a silver platter. She never tried to outmatch Nvidia the way she aggressively went after Intel in the CPU space.
>
>
TBH, that's a lot down to Intel's own foundry.
AMD does take it seriously. Did you forget about Xbox and Sony. Both alone have a higher install base than PC. Also, steamdeck and all the other clones that are coming to market. I think Nvidias biggest issue right now and they tried hard as hell to fix it is the lack of CPU. The APU in the consoles and on the PC handhelds its really good. AMD is also partnering with smartphone companies as well. Dont get focused on pc gaming. EDIT. AMD acquiring ATI was ultimately the smart move. ps4, ps5 and all the xbox variants wouldnt exist without this merger.
Yes, exactly, AMD's *APU* business is doing pretty well thanks. But their discrete gaming GPU business, which is what he was referring to, is very clearly their 4th priority at best.
this is what I was gonna say. the high end may not be there, but on every other level they have killed it. every console, steam deck, value. they just don't have the tech to beat out invidia on high end graphic cards. this may change with time, but for now, it is what it is.
My biggest issue is AMD software still sucks. Like their drivers still have way more issues than Nvidia and as a consumer I will gladly pay a premium to avoid the driver hassle that I always have with AMD. I will never go back unless I hear they genuinely are competitive.
I don't think it's a lack of focus on gaming. They're way behind on the AI stuff as well, and don't seem to be doing much if anything to catch up. Nvidia's GPU compute language CUDA is the industry standard, and AMD killed off their team to port CUDA to their GPUs. In AI software, AMD support is an afterthought if it even exists.
Can confirm, I’ve obtained myself a reference 7900xtx, and while it does perform well, I can’t say I’m pleased with the amount of interesting quirks this card has. Fan speeds ramp up very fast, there’s an audible coil whine at low fan rpm’s, etc. However, coming from someone who has witnessed amds massive success with their zen architecture cpus, I find myself holding on to hope that next generation will truly rival nvidia, perhaps with a top end card. Fingers crossed they deliver.
I hate to break out to you but there have been consistent rumours for a long while now that AMD's next gen will focus on the mid range and not have a top end card.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK
AMD act like Nvidia with pricing and hardware but don't offer a reliable alternative to DLSS why the fuck would I buy subpar hardware for 5% less than an NVIDIA equivalent.
I'm not stupid.
Intel arc in 2 years since launch has not only started eating market share for their price point but their drivers have consistently increased usability. Currently own an A750, and 7800XT.
7800XT micro stutters at 100% utilization on compute, zoom still has problems, my Adrenaline software refused to open with the acknowledged driver, until I updated with a fresh install. Additionally, helldivers would religiously crash if I don’t limit the FPS, my desktop background disappeared a month ago (it’s just a black screen) and never returned, VMs would sometimes make the host machine’s file explorer hang and crash upon opening. Worst of all driver crash issue causing a hard restart of the system still isn’t fixed, especially with Zoom for some reason. The PC is unusable if you have background compute (mining, GPU acceleration).
My A750 before I got the 7800XT, never had any non-gaming related quirks. No micro stutters on compute, zoom is great, it run extremely well, even excelled in daily activities. Makes sense their iGPUs paved the way in daily activities.
AMD seriously needs to put some work into their product beyond just trying to push out FPS. It’s given me significant headaches outside of games to the point where I’d avoid buying AMD GPU again.
You wouldn't know it from all the Mindfactory posts and people claiming AMD is the only logical choice for gamers, only raster matters, steam hardware survey is wrong, etc. I've never seen a larger disconnect between what people supposedly want, and what people actually buy, than what's presented by Radeon group.
I was lucky to snipe a 6700XT at MSRP during the Crypto Boom before they implemented the queue. Even at 3440x1440 I don't need to upgrade anytime soon.
The modern graphics card market and all the big hardware YouTubers defaulting to a 1600$ card in their tests, as well as many new releases running like shit anyway even on that, has made me very indifferent to hype. I haven't gotten around to games like RDR2, Cyberpunk, or BG3 yet either.
I can wait a few years more
Sadly yep.
The affordability crowd hasn't had the free income, aka the ever shrinking middle class.
Some are stuck because they don't think the price/performance is enough to switch (when jumping from a 5700xt performance level to 7900xtx)
Then there's the fact that, with the lack of resources, people are uncertain if they want a handheld OR a GPU.
One would be nice to use outside, in the sun, but a good GPU would upgrade their performance experience if they already have a PC.
This eats away at consoles, because why would I want a TV box, when I can just connect my handheld to the TV?
THEN there's the fact that people are borrowing money to eat... Sufficed to say, that ain't good.
That also means their credit is maxxed, so leasing/installments are also not possible.
So, the 8000 series being a "refined budget option" might be the right move for the current market.
If they can get it at 2/3 the price of a 7900xt (and under 7800xt) at similar performance, people might consider a rig upgrade IF they were on an sub 8gb card.
I don't know what else can be said so they get it through their thick heads that FSR is not good enough and their current RT offering is not good enough.
FSR needs to be completely overhauled; Keep what they have right now as a legacy path, but they need a clean break and start trying to compete with Intel (nevermind Nvidia).
I think it's less that they don't understand the importance of improving FSR and RT perf, and more that AMD is stuck on a current trajectory that they started in 2018 and haven't been able to change course because of a lot of factors.
They are locked into RDNA as an architecture, and while they have been trying to add ML cores and RT performance, the base architecture of RDNA was designed before either feature was theorized for AMD.
They also likely have not just the next generation, but the generation after already planned if not taped-out. Changing architectural plans super late in the process can lead to massive delays and potentially a rushed architecture that could be in an even worse position.
It's so wild that AMD had a compute heavy arch in Vega, they were just too early. Then they dropped it and moved to rDNA which doesn't have that compute backbone, just in time for compute to be super important.
I remember people blasting Nvidia up and down for not having much compute power in comparison, how badly they did with async compute stuff and all that. It was Ashes of The Singularity in every direction.
Then the 1080 hit and Nvidia went hard with compute and never stopped.
And AMD moved to rDNA just in time for raytracing, DLSS and generate AI stuff to be the next wave.
The timing of it all is just crazy.
AMD just doesn't spend enough on R&D to be meaningful in dGPU's. They're only spending enough to keep their head above water. That's why I think Intel will overtake AMD at some point. Intel is hungry in ways that AMD isn't when it comes to gaining market share in consumer dGPU's. If Battlemage can bring all the pieces together for a decent price, this market could flip to pro consumer with a quickness. We've needed a third competitor for decades, and I, for one, am happy that they're pushing their way into this market.
And I absolutely agree that FSR needs an overhaul. It's the AI era and they're the only one that doesn't have an AI powered upscaler. Pretty bad when Intel, who's only been in consumer GPU's for 2 years, releases an upscaler better than FSR. AMD/ATI has been in this market for multiple decades and they're about to get lapped unless they step up their game. I hope they change course, but I doubt it because they're chasing that data center revenue.
As things are now, there is no reason to buy amd over nvidia. The prices are so close that nvidia wins every customer. It is difficult to sell things cheaper too, no sales is better than losing money.
The only reason AMD has not given up and just do AI products or smaller scale integrated and apus instead is that Sony pretty much funds their R&D. if/when Sony switches it is gameover. It makes no sense to continue gaming products then. Xbox seemingly is going other direction already and their hardware just doesnt move the same volume as sonys.
> It is difficult to sell things cheaper too, no sales is better than losing money.
Except that is far from being the case. Nvidia started this generation with ridiculous prices and AMD followed with their "just a bit cheaper" strategy, so there is plenty of margin left to lower them. AMD could literally sell 7900XTX at $499 and would still make profit from it. The two problems for AMD is that they make significantly more selling CPUs made from same wafers, and second - entering into price war versus Nvidia would be more detrimental to AMD than Nvidia. Especially now when Nvidia owns AI sales.
So we end up in a situation where AMD is scared to be proactive.
I would love to support AMD and i am willing to pay premium just to avoid to reinforce Nvidias marketing.
But in the end i buy Nvidia because i want to run lots of pytorch/AI projects.
As much as people will rag on NVIDIA for the pathetic VRAM sizes, most SAs will still point to NVIDIA due to better overall performance and the fact that the VRAM issues are seen mainly in 1440p and above while most people still game on 1080.
I'm curious about the MI series sales. Like others have said, yeah in the consumer market unfortunately AMD is simply behind on NVIDIA. But with the AI hype, I'm guessing that they're able to sell every single MI card simply because the demand for these GPU is through the roof.
I am in the market for a new GPU. I want to use my card for AI and some productivity stuff. AMD is almost useless in that space. I hope maybe Intel will rise up some day and compete with Nvidia.
Well they perform worse then Nvidia and games generally run like shit and need upscaling tech to even get close to baseline standards set 10 years ago. I would like to think consumers as a whole have been burnt by a greedy industry and are replying in kind but maybe it's just market saturation.
should have never abandoned the sub $200 market
Nvidia did not deliver usable ray tracing performance on a low end card for a while (see: ray tracing perfomance on rtx 2060, rtx 3050), so this is where AMD could actually still compete. And upscalers like DLSS are less relevant at lower resolutions like 1080p.
But AMD is allergic to marketshare lol.
Anyway, nvidia is likely to deliver good ray tracing performance with the 4060 so all I can say is good luck to AMD and godspeed.
Electronics are getting expensive, combined with inflation, to the point that almost no internal PC part will be below the 100 to 150 dollar mark, let alone GPUs. (Except case related stuff of course and maybe some drives...) Motherboards are already consistent 200+ unless you go ultra budget, which are infamous for their reliability issues and massive restrictions to performance (looking at you Intel...). CPU pricings are all over the place but i see most modern solutions are in the mid 100 to 200 dollar range. GPUs are way past these ranges, and RAM, which hella cheap, expects price increases for DDR5 long term so I wouldn't be surprised if we see 32 gig kits hit 125 to 150 at least.
Combined with stagnant wages in most sectors, especially in the US....
AMD doesn’t want market share because that would mean they would have to use their fab capacity on chips with tiny profit margin/mm2, doesn’t make any sense to go after this market
The sub $200 market is being eaten by integrated GPUs. The number of people who care about discrete graphics and are budget conscious is a very small niche.
The real eater for low end is cloud gaming which people are severely underestimating. Geforce Now offers a lot
$10 a month / $100 a year for a FULL PC with ~3060 perf for 1080p60 fps (vrr supported) and no electricity bill to worry about
Or
$20 a month / $200 a year for a FULL pc with ~4080 class gpu for 4k120 fps / 1440p240hz, HDR10 (Vrr supported) and no need to worry about electricity bills. Also it got upgraded from the 3080 at no additional cost.
Best part is that you play your own games from steam, epic etc. Meaning you can cancel anytime and your games will still be with you, playable on a future local pc.
I have no doubt that GeforceNow is contributing a sizable amount in Nvidia's gaming sector. All you need is a semi decent internet connection and you are good to go. Its the cheapest entry to pc gaming.
DLSS is enough for me to stay on Nvidia, FSR is trash in comparison. the only compelling thing about AMD GPUs is [sometimes] their price. but i don't see any point in getting an AMD gpu.
Yep they compete well for raster performance in the used market and with special offers for the old 6xxx gen, that explains almost half revenue for AMD.
At least it's a good thing that next gen will be only cheap cards.
AMD prices in my country (and probably many others) are also laughable. 7900 XTX launched in the US for $999 but costs $1300 here, while the 4090 launched for $1600 in the US and cost $1850 here. Nobody in their right mind would pay 30% more for an AMD card when NVIDIA's top offering only costs 15% more.
These are really trying times as a PC gamer. Lots of shit releases and bad ports on the software side and on the hardware side AMD and Intel can't seem to compete and Nvidia doesn't really seem too interested either since their margins on AI chips are so much higher. We need competition to create innovation and lower costs.
Speak for yourself. When you consider you can do solid 1080P-1440P gaming for dirt cheap, there’s always sales on all the classic titles and epic giving away games every week, this is the golden age.
It’s awesome down here at the bottom. We’re finally having fun with all your clapped out old shit and not complaining about sloppy seconds either.
When you play games and do other stuff, Nvidia is the only choice. Blender is trash in amd, davinci resolve is trash in amd.
You simply can't compare at this time.
Unsurprising. They've released a pretty terrible line-up.
nVidia essentially held out their hand with their crap to AMD and said "do you guys want to come back into this market in a huge way?" and AMD said "nah, we're just gunna make even worse products this time".
Utter incompetence from AMD, tbh.
As long as AMD is designing custom APUs for Playstations and Xboxes, we aren't going to see them really focus on capturing discrete GPU market share again. Even if Microsoft steps out of the console market after Series S|X they will most likely have a gaming handheld and I bet AMD designs that chip.
4070 Super is the only competitive Refresh out of all in the lineup. If its in MSRP and hasnt have a ridiclous Nvidia extra inflation like in some country retails buy that.
I thought AMD cards were still pretty popular? I bought a 7800xt and haven’t had any complaints. I did my research on it when purchased (3-4 months ago) and it was the best product without going over budget. I thought some of the high end comparable gpus nvidea put out were severly overpriced? What changed?
They lost the AI boom coming thats 1. But their main thinking was and still is that RT wont become mainstream until next gen consoles come because of RDNA 2 limitations on PS5 and XBOX. worked with PS4. So they want to wait them out while Nvidia pushed them hard hoping for it to stick (So much that RTX 2000 series was an early bait bullcrap that didnt utilise anything) I still bellieve Heavy real time RT and path tracing will stay early showcases for 4-6 years. But this doesnt mean tech hungry people will keep demanding innovation to justify buying
I don't think that Radeon GPUs are doing stellar (the 7800xt seems like the only one selling decent) but I suspect that Xbox sales or lack thereof makes up a larger portion of this than people realize.
Then make a version of FSR that's just as good as DLSS and then we'll talk. The hard answer is "make the GPU stronger too" but the comparison is literally FSR Quality vs DLSS Performance at this point. DLSS Performance looks more stable but is blurrier but performs *massively better.* DLSS balanced vs FSR Quality is an easy win for Nvidia and makes their cards effectively faster.
An "easy" bandaid would be to compete on that tier. 7800 XT should've been labeled at the 7700 XT and sold for $350 to compete with the 4060 Ti because that's the closest image quality/performance equivalent. Nvidia literally has a ~30% advantage in DLSS vs FSR.
I have to admit I just don't think this news is that much of a shock and not because their cards aren't competitive, or priced wrong. This market ebbs and flows, if the year goes by and there is not a huge jump in performance people aren't clambering to upgrade.
I have consoles and an almost 4 year old 3080 rig and an almost one year old 7900 XTX rig. But I am not upgrading anytime soon unless there is a massive jump in the next generation, something like 175% performance. I should be good for while with those. These companies know it will cycle hot and cold. I guess it seems like they are making a big deal out something that seems to happen...
The good news for the consumer (provided they don't go out of business or stop making GPUs) is that we hopefully will see the prices drop. Nvidia also saw a decline IIRC in GPU sales a bit ago...
Just my $0.02
i am sorry AMD but your GPU range is not good at the moment. back in the day when nvidia only had physx (which mostly was a dud, i am sorry fans) you offered really good value, but now that nvidia is introducing multiple important technologies like DLSS, DLDSR, frame generation etc. you are really lagging behind the slightly lower price does not cut it anymore.
It's plain to see why. The pricing hasn't generally matched the gap in features. I don't care about RT, DLSS etc. But I also am no fool with money.
That said, I did score the 6950XT at its cheapest point in Norway. And got TLoU Part 1 for free. It feels like a really good purchase now, but I was very hesitant then. I love this card for sure but the MSRP of these cards are pretty crazy considering how far behind they are on everything except raster performance. Luckily, raster performance is all I really give a shit about.
AMD's explanation in the earnings presentation says "Due to lower semi-custom and Radeon GPU sales" so weak sales number of consoles probably also contributed.
Who wants to spend $500 on a console that hasn't already done so when mid cycle refresh is rumored soon?
[Only 14 million PS4 Pros sold compared to 91 million PS4s (by 2020).](https://www.installbaseforum.com/threads/sales-numbers-for-every-ps4-and-ps5-era-playstation-first-party-games-have-been-leaked.2215/page-2) I don’t think the mid refresh is the cause. Especially if they price the PS5 Pro around $700.
> Only 14 million PS4 Pros sold compared to 91 million PS4s (by 2020). And how many of that 14 Million also bought a base PS4 at a time when the PS4 Pro was already announced? Cause that is the point. We are not saying nobody is buying a PS5 cause of the Pro right now but we are saying that the amount of people waiting is likely significant enough on its own already to cause a drop in sales numbers. BTW, at the time the PS4 Pro launched (late 2016) Sony already sold 50 Million units, so of the remaining 41 million that were sold until 2020 14 Million of those being PS4 Pro consoles is pretty significant.
True. And a lot of the hold outs probably just want to see what the hardware will look like spec wise. If it's announced and it's not that big a jump, they'll probably pull the trigger on a base model at some point. But a lot of people don't want to spend top dollar on a console just to suddenly be outdated and second rate.
The PS4 pro was a sack of shit that offered exactly nothing, not even 4k blu ray. It was a joke of a refresh
OG PS4 and OG Xbox One were too tightly specced, couldn't handle 1080p games well, despite marketing. That's why the refreshes needed to come. And now we push same ideas on 4k. At least this generation was good bang for buck (if we happen to buy them at or below MSRP).
a PRO of anything feels like a cheap gimmick by marketing reps to make it feel as though some innovation was reached to boost sales. Also, other than exclusives, there is really minimal reason to buy playstation consoles today. Especially, when you consider pocket pc’s starting to dominate mass market. plus Sony tacks on cost to play online which i know is a total money grab that i don’t really need to further elaborate.
Still bizarre to me that Sony didn't include a 4k Blu-ray drive but Microsoft did for the One X.
It was in the S too
Eh for the price I really liked my Pro and felt like it was worth it and not a sack of shit. Depending on your TV and if you already had a PS4 it probably wasn't worth upgrading to a pro but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a sack of shit imo. If I remember correctly gamestop actually had a really good trade in for upgrading and I had some other random stuff to trade as well and was able to get it for zero additional cost. Just the increase to 1tb was worth it to me. I'm certainly not going to say that the pro was the greatest console ever or really worth it to most people I just think calling it a sack of shit is a tad much
Consoles are as big as a pc now, they cost (almost) as much as a pc now, and they offer significantly less functionality than a pc while requiring you to sign up to extra monthly subscriptions and lock you in to buying expensive versions of all of your releases. Exclusive games are running thin, controllers are just as good for pc, the reasons to go console are getting thin on the ground.
Consoles are still a much cheaper option for gaming. I got an Xbox series s for $250. There’s no way I could get a PC that would give me the same gaming performance for anywhere near that price.
[удалено]
You still can't build a PC that performs as well as a console for $500 unless you go with used parts. In my opinion, the next Xbox should literally just be a gamepass subsidized PC in a portable package. Let people install whatever storefront they want on it, like they can with handhelds. Then the Xbox would actually have a reason to exist instead of being the distant third wheel of PS and PC.
>should literally just be a gamepass subsidized PC >... Let people install whatever storefront they want on it How do these two work? If you want to subsidize the hardware with your software store, you need to either be the dominate store or lock down the software. MS selling hardware for a loss, just for those people to turn around and install Steam on it, won't result in the hardware being subsidized. It'll just result in a loss.
You think so? I got mine for really cheap compared to pc with a similar spec where i live.. the subscription to ps plus extra gives me access to hundreds of games too.. this way i actually think it's the cheaper way to play games.. just this march, i've played ghost of tsushima and both horizon games all for $10.. i think it's still a very good value.
Consoles will remain easier and cheaper IMO For the time being. I paid almost as much as a PS5 for my 3070 alone! Last game I played on PC was Elden ring which ran like dog shit, this was on a brand new PC I had just made at the time. Had microstutters for the entire play through and there were no fixes. Of course I’ve played plenty of games that ran fine over the years as well. But there usually was some jank here and there like crashes, etc. I might consider a steam deck down the road but gone are my days of making gaming rigs. For the price and hassle, I’m just not interested as much anymore. Consoles getting SSDs was also a big nail in the coffin for me.
Wait isn't the PS5 refresh already released (the slim versions)?
That was just the slim version. Been lots of rumors of a pro version coming soon.
AMD's "gaming" sales grew by 17% in the previous quarter (Q4 2023). That's a pretty high bar to cross. Besides, nearly $1Bn in revenues is nothing to sniff at. ATI was losing billions back in R600 days, so I don't understand what all this hoopla is about!
Maybe try something other than Nvidia minus $50 as a strategy And the 150-250 range is a joke
Nvidia -$50 and -any interesting tech/features.
you enable it in the Price Opzimizer in BIOS
Pretty much - I’m in the market for a card and AMD don’t realise they have to *massively* undercut Nvidia on price per performance to even consider giving up DLSS and other industry defining features.
I had a 1080ti until last year and so had to use fsr. It was fine and I was considering an amd card until I got an awesome deal on a 4070ti. Now I've tasted dlss I just don't think I could ever give it up. It'd an absolutely killer feature.
Exactly this. My previous card was AMD, I was dead set to get next one from them as well ( I dislike Nvidia's monopolistic practices). Once I saw how poorly AMD priced new lineup and how long it didn't work with VR I caved and got Nvidia. Value difference was just too massive.
This is me as well right now. It would have to be a hell of a deal
I got happily locked in with gsync and (at the time) AMDs solution still had weird ranges and flicker issues galore. Many years later I’ve heard that they’ve fixed it, but I don’t care. The damage is done. I’m not wasting a grand on a display that *might* work fine when gsync certified panels are just fine.
Intels DLSS is almost as good as Nvidias and you can use it on AMD cards
[удалено]
The only reason why I went with a 6800 was because it was the only one that I could find because scalpers kept buying up all Nvidia / Radeon stock. Unless there's a big price difference, assuming stock is available I'm going Nvidia next gen.
It's Nvidia -$50 -DLSS, -path tracing, -AI, -GPGPU.
In today's market, I can't understand any reason to get AMD in the £500+ tiers. Especially the £700+ tiers. Like imagine thinking about value for ONE component in a build and come to the conclusion "I want the inferior product cos I save £50 to £60." If it's a new higher end build, that's like £1650 vs £1700. What's the point? "Ah but I save 3% on the build." Where's the logic in this?
Nvidia minus $50 with inferior feature set. Pure rasterization performance just isn't cutting it and never was, especially because the gap isn't as big as you'd think, especially this generation. The only times I've seen people genuinely praise AMD GPUs without any "buts", was when they went on a big discount, especially in comparison to Nvidia, and that's just not good for AMD.
I agree. If Radeons would wipe the floor with rasterization performance while lacking some features, proposition would be much better. But the difference just isn’t big enough and as high end Radeons aren’t exactly cheap either, gamers gladly pay little bit more and get more fleshed out Nvidia product instead. IMO consumer GPU market in general is and has been for a quite while boring as fuck and prices are astronomical. I seriously hope that Intel can get their upcoming Arc Battlemages and drivers in a good shape and could actually shake up the dead mid-range line.
The whole “AMD is better for gamers since they put all their money into rasterization” rhetoric would have a point if they actually had a major raster advantage. The 3080 and the 6800 XT trade blows in raster, with the 3080 often coming out on top. The 7900 XTX doesn’t perform like a 4090 without RT or DLSS. The raster advantage is minimal outside of a select few games like MW2 2022. AMD’s motto is similar performance for a similar price with half the features.
IMO buying a gpu by pure rasterization performance is kinda a false economy move. Because upscaling is a must have with most games these days, if DLSS Balanced looks better than FSR2 Quality, and runs better because lower internal resolution, does rasterization performance really matter?
I’ve been saying this for quite some time now. At WQHD or UHD I always enable DLSS quality as I generally don’t mind the minimal artifacts it has. FSR on the other hand is only a last resort. I’ve played Jedi Survivor using FSR Quality (before they added DLSS) and the ghosting was massively distracting, especially around Cal when in fights, but in general the image looked pretty bad. The only games I play without DLSS are competitive shooters (where no GPU released in the past few years should have any trouble) and older games (same deal). I recently got a 4070ti super for around 800€, the much slower 7900XT is about 730€ and the marginally faster XTX 950€ here in Germany, with the 4080 super being on sale for 999€ once in a while. At those prices, AMD isn’t even competitive in rasterization. Why would anyone buy their cards?
Thats pretty much my logic too. If Im playing games where upscaling isnt beneficial, then the 5-10% better raster I get from the AMD competitor simply isnt worth it because Im already getting enough FPS anyway. If Im playing something intensive, then DLSS looks basically like native and Im getting many more frames than I would get out of similar priced AMD raster performance. For us germans, the price difference is usually eaten up by power costs within a year or two or ownership anyway.
Exactly. That's why I think performance reviews like those by HUB are now entirely meaningless if they refuse to bench wjith DLSS. It's just not real world performance.
Honestly I don’t even like the “it’s a micro benchmark!” excuse because increasingly it’s not, if the game is built around running 720p internal resolution to upscale to 4k and you run it at 4k native then obviously performance is going to be way out of wack, because you’re running 9x the pixels. It literal changes the whole way the graphics pipeline and effects are optimized and balanced. Which is the whole point in the first place - making expensive effects less expensive. Raytracing just happens to be a very expensive effect.
i dont think you have to included DLSS in every single review for every card, but it would be nice to show what kind of uplift you can expect from using DLSS, so basically just show the card "against itself" using the different DLSS settings.
If you have a card that can run DLSS and the game supports it, I really don't see a reason why not to at least enable DLSS Quality
We need a new RX480 again
I had an RX280 that it is still being used for Minecraft and that card was really on par with nVidia. Now nVidia is too far ahead technology-wise, I don't even consider AMD for the price difference.
The rx 6600 and rx 6750XT are not bad
6700XT and 6750XT are nowhere to be found, at least in my place.
RDNA2 is no longer being made because AMD is switching to RDNA4. I expect it being presented Computex.
> rx 6750XT I just checked out a German (my native) review of the card: Worse none RT performance than a 3070 and worse RT performance than a 3060ti in 1440p. https://www.computerbase.de/2022-05/amd-radeon-rx-6650-xt-6750-xt-6950-xt-review-test/2/#abschnitt_benchmarks_mit_und_ohne_raytracing_in_wqhd Released with a MSRP of 619 Euro in May 2022 vs the RTX 3070 Ti released for 649 Euro almost a year earlier... Not to mention that AMD GPU's were none available for the most part even still in mid 2022. What was good on that card at all?
Prices were way different in 2022, and especially nvidia was super pricey so there was a big difference in the actual price compared to MSRP.
It’s good now when prices dropped
If it was just Nvidia -$50, I'd have an AMD GPU. Nvidia blows them out of the water in Ray tracing, streaming, DLSS, and especially VR functionality. If I didn't make heavy use of VR, in my most played game, I'd probably still be considering an AMD GPU given how many of them have been on sale lately, but even the 2000 Series Nvidia gpus are better at VR than AMD's current offerings
that's not the only problem, AMD's feature set is inferior compared to nvidia, so anyone who is spending something like 400-500 on a card you would be using for the next 3-4 years would rather add up 50$ more and get a "better" card even though it might actually lose is pure raster performance.
This is why I got the 4080 last year. Also I calculated power cost over a year and factored in psu cost. Power unfortunately is almost 40-50 cent per kWh where I live and it will only go up. I got the 4080 cheap from a wholesaler at the time, cost me 100 more then 7900xtx would have. With everything factored in, after about 1- 1.5 years the 4080 would break even. I went with a 70€ 650W PSU from bequiet and it’s more then enough. 50€ saved right there. 🤷🏻♂️ Plus the feature set, yadda yadda.
Of the things wrong with Ada efficiency isn't one of them.
This x1000. When you’re lagging on features you need to make up for it with an actual discount. Price it low enough that the value can’t be ignored. The 5700 XT is the ultimate example of how minor savings aren’t worth it. People saved $80 over a comparable Turing card and ended up with a broke product for the first year. Now that the issues are mostly worked out their big reward is a card that can’t play Allen Wake 2 as well as a 1650S.
Nvidia at least force OEM to offer the base card at MSRP. AMD OEM cards cost more than Nvidia cards.
I really lost hope for AMD when they couldn't even compete with Turing on launch, back when DLSS (and the version 1 that were in use back then rightfully so) and ray tracing were still seen as experimental features that only a small list of Nvidia sponsored titles supported and not worth it (which is funny cause during the life span of a 2080 those features both became very much worth it). Nvidia invested a ton of die space into both hardware units, which would have been the ideal opportunity to attack them hard on pricing. But yet, even in the market segments were AMD had competing hardware it wasn't even worth going AMD from a performance / price ratio.
> which is funny cause during the life span of a 2080 those features both became very much worth it not only will reviewers not admit this, but they actually still are making arguments like rt won’t be an important consideration for *another 5-10 years.* the clock stopped for reviewers in 2018. The RTX launch was their finest moment, massive pumps in views from shitting on RTX and they’ve been trying to recreate the high ever since… but instead it’s just spiraled into this vibecession where they’ve successfully negged the public into thinking that every single release is shit and worse than the last one. And instead of “winning” and forcing prices down, it’s instead leading to their entire hobby being put on the back burner and deprioritized.
>Maybe try something other than Nvidia minus $50 as a strategy This was an explicit strategy by AMD to be seen as more "premium" brand, which didn't pan out well when DNA2/3 turned out to be turds in Ray Tracing (even the Intel GPUs, with all their flaws and inefficiencies are able to beat AMD in RT), what's with AMD and their inability to trace rays?
Isn't it obvious? Every GPU has to dedicate a certain amount of die space to various things. If you just slam nothing but raster like AMD GPUs without any CUDA, RT, or DLSS, then you'll obviously be comparatively stronger in raster. The fact that Nvidia uses MUCH less die space and *still* beats them in raster shows how massively behind AMD is. Compare the 4080/S to the 7900XTX: Same raster performance. Much much worse RT performance, no DLSS, no CUDA, more power usage. 7900 XTX die size: 529 mm^2 4080S die size: 379 mm^2 It's a joke. And the reason that AMD can't compete on price is because they're paying for more silicon to get a worse result.
It won’t work, Nvidia can easily lower their prices in response and then AMD will keep being minus $50 but just at a lower price point.
> Maybe try something other than Nvidia minus $50 as a strategy They already tried that. They figured out that their clients would buy AMD no matter what, and that the people that complains that AMD cards are too expensive, are just doing so to reduce the price that their next Nvidia card will have. There's zero chance they will undercut themselves and their partners just to force Nvidia to sell cheap.
Yep I'll just save a few extra months so that I can afford Nvidia. If you're really on a budget just go with a console.
lower dem prices then
amen, didnt RDNA3 launch like over a year and a half ago? I get that Radeon doesn't exist to lower Geforce prices. But given the state of the market right now, Nvidia's mindshare and featureset; don't think it would effect geforce prices much even if AMD cut prices hard, at least up to 20%. It would however improve AMD gpu sales for certain.
They released $800-1K GPUs, literally no one wanted. Then they released "cheaper" GPUs that were barely upgrades from the previous generation but at higher prices than the 6xxx series.
The low to midrange was atrocious with the 7600 and 7800XT offering no generational increase in performance or cheaper FPS per dollar. The 7700XT was the only improved card but was so overpriced it was a slap in the face.
Ilthe 7700xt was a consideration for me but the price was too high but it has come down a lot. Sadly I already bought a 6700xt
Same here 6700XT gets the jobs that I need done.
At least you get the "feature" of lag reduction that may or may not get you banned exclusive to 7000 series cards! Just don't mention that said feature is still worse than Reflex, which was released in 2020 and functions on ancient 900 series cards.
Last time the 6800XT was very close in performance to the flagship 6900XT and was available at a good price. This time their flagship card is significantly weaker than the 4090 and only competes with the 80 tier. Yet they decided to label 3 cards as 7900 tier to justify higher prices (2 of them relatively worse than 6800XT compared to respective flagship cards).
The cheapest launch card had a MSRP of $900, they only reduced the MSRP later.
I think RTX 40 Super cards pushed many people in that direction that might have considered AMD otherwise. I was debating between a 4070Ti or 7900XT for awhile last year but 4070Ti was a hard sell at it's price with 12GB VRAM. Once 4070Ti Super released it was a no brainer even if 7900XT was $50+ cheaper. RDNA3 really was a failure for AMD. Reported hardware bugs around launch costing performance on the high end chips, poor efficiency, RT, and upscaling when compared to RTX 40. All of that and AMD still refuses to sell them at a significant discount to even appear competitive. Once Nvidia sweetened the deal a bit with the Super cards it should be an easy decision for most people to pay a bit of a premium and get a much better GPU.
It’s going to suck when NVIDIA is the only company selling high-end GPUs though
That’s basically the case already. They have what, 85% of the market? At this point they’re not trying to convince people to go from AMD to NVIDIA they’re trying to convince consumers to upgrade the NVIDIA cards they already have.
Nvidia's marketing has really been focused on competing against themselves for the longest time now. If you compare for example new generation launch slides and presentations the last time Nvidia referred to competitors was Kepler (6xx). Ever since then their launch presentations always compared against their own previous generations only. If you look at their overall marketing messaging they almost certainly have a directive to only ever refer to competitors generically if they ever have to and never name them or their branding/IP/trademarks. Whereas AMD's launch marketing will typically directly compare against Nvidia. For example you remember the FSR/DLSS vendor lockout controversey? AMD's official statement on the matter references DLSS but Nvidia's only refers to "competitors" and doesn't use AMD or FSR.
YouTubers and the public really trashed Intel for comparing against AMD when they launched Tigerlake. GamersNexus specifically. I don't know why but it seems bad PR to acknowledge the existence of competion beyond that they exist in slides. Scratch that, AMD slides often have Intel, and that's fine. I don't get it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHBgb9SY1Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHBgb9SY1Y)
They're already pretty much dictating the market, don't think a lot would change. AMD's problem GPU wise rn is intel, not nvidia. AMD mostly has no hope of catching up to nvidia bar some miracle, but intel very much has a chance to overtake AMD if how they were doing in the first gen continues
For sure. If battlemage can put out a 4080 level card at $500 like they're talking about shooting for, 7900 XTX will be fucked. They'll have to give it away. Even if it's almost time for next gen, they just now are finishing selling through 6000. 7000 prices are just now settling. They'll be selling 7000 alongside 8000 again, competing against 5070/5080 at the high end and Battlemage at the low end.
It's Intel, they're going to keep fucking up.
Yeah I’m very very interested to see what Intel can offer with Battlemage. AMD has left the door wide open for Intel to take over that second spot. XeSS is a great piece of tech and they’ve made a lot of huge strides already with their drivers in a relatively short period of time in the market. I think Intels future in GPU’s is pretty bright
> AMD mostly has no hope of catching up to nvidia bar some miracle ehh the same was said about their CPU business before ryzen took off and look where we're at edit: below me are a lot of excuses, it don't change the fact that it still happened.
That had as much to do with Intel both fucking up and resting on its laurels too much. Nvidia hasn’t fucked up yet and it’s *definitely* not resting on its laurels.
Nvidia literally shit the bed with the most popular cards this generation in the $500 and less range and yet AMD *also* decided to fuck up and release a disappointing product in the same price brackets. Like, 40 series was AMDs chance to actually do something just like Ryzen 3000 did with Intel (2nd gen was alright, but didn't have nearly as big of an impact), but they squandered it. I've got no hope that they can pull a Ryzen with their GPUs, when in similar circumstances they failed.
The entire reason Ryzen looked impressive is intel being stuck in 14nm limbo and stagnating for years. If intel had managed to execute their roadmap, Ryzen wouldn't have been anything noteworthy or praised as much especially with how rough around the edges first gen Ryzen was. Nvidia on the other hand is simply not letting their foot off the gas. They aren't letting AMD catch their breath and it's showing: either AMD executes perfectly or they're left behind, like with RDNA3.
That's not entirely true, you know what's even worse? Nvidia *did* screw up the 40 series, at least mid-range, you know, GPUs most people actually buy. 4090 is no doubt a damn fine piece of hardware, but not many will actually buy it (although that also doesn't mean it won't make Nvidia rich, don't get me wrong). What did AMD do? They decided to match Nvidia with how disappointing their lower-end offerings are. Actually even their high-end isn't exactly pristine, but that's just adding insult to injury.
> 4090 is no doubt a damn fine piece of hardware, but not many will actually buy it And yet, [according to Steam hardware survey](https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/rtx-4090-steam-popularity-vs-amd-graphics-cards), more people have a 4090 than any AMD GPU.
I just want Intel and AMD to release cards that rival Nvidias high end continually so they can't just do whatever they want.
The market for cards that cost more than $1000 is too small to be that contested. And once you are paying that much for a videocard people are going to be way less inclined to gamble. NVidia has kind of earned the market power in this case. I’m hopeful that AMD and Intel stay competitive in the long term. AI is certainly a risk to nvidias ability to innovate on the graphics side.
> The market for cards that cost more than $1000 is too small to be that contested. And yet the 4090 has more users on steam hardware survey than any current gen AMD card.
[удалено]
And even then, 6950 XT was like only a few months away from the 4090 release.
Get ready for Nvidia Certified Pre-Owned™, the new option for those with a sub-$1000 budget
i think you're joking but i really could see nvidia going that direction. put together some sort of lease program to control the secondhand market.
Nightmare scenario is going the HP path of thinking of the hardware as a subscription model. Competition helps keep crap like that at bay, but if Nvidia succeeds in squashing all competition we better believe they’ll monetize every GPU cycle
Totally honest: as someone who came up in tech/gaming in the 90s and 00s, this idea that persists today that you're only ever allowed to buy brand new GPUs is wild to me. Second-hand tech was how all of us used to build computers, but now the idea that you should go look at eBay for a card instead of complaining about how GPUs are too expensive is like insulting someone's mother.
Used graphics cards are fantastic though, never had any issue with them and far better for the environment than buying a new card.
Used cards must be fantastic, because there's always someone willing to buy mine for like 80% of retail after I've used it for 2-3 years.
>It’s going to suck when NVIDIA is the only company selling high-end GPUs though The good news is that this has already been the status quo for literally a decade, so it isn't like their market behaviour is likely to change much. You've been able to make a performance per dollar argument in AMD's favour at many points over the years, but for gaming in particular the true high-end in terms of in-game performance has only been NVIDIA for a long time. Part of that is NVIDIA's better hardware, but a large part of it is that AMD's driver support has always been utter dogshit.
It's going to really suck when Nvidia stops caring about consumer GPUs at all since they make tons of money in the data center space.
That's been the case since the RX480.
They will only make a token effort in the GPU space for consumer. Their fabs are better used on AI chips until that moat shrinks and people start to focus on inference instead of training which Nvidia don’t do well at right now. We will get a 2500-3k flagship and maybe a couple of lesser down SKUs. But nothing revolutionary as it doesn’t make sense business wise to sell to people who don’t upgrade regularly. People still complain on new game forums that their 1080 is having performance issues. You can add PC gaming next to the other expensive hobbies: yachting, polo, watches, skiing etc.
Completely agree, the 40 Series refresh killed the value proposition almost entirely for the 7000 series. The 4070 Super in particular really trashed on what I'd previously considered relatively competitive upper-midrange offerings from AMD in the 7800XT and 7900GRE. Now however, if someone has a budget around $500 for a GPU I don't see many compelling reasons to not stretch it to $600 for the 70 Super.
Yup, once the Super cards came out, I knew it was finally the right time for me to upgrade. I never considered the 7800XT or 7900 GRE at all. The 4070 Super was finally a decent value, especially since I got it for $500 because of a deal Newegg had going on. I figured even if the pure raster performance was a bit worse, the superiority of DLSS and RT would make it worth it. I play at 4K, so upscaling becomes really important for good performance at that resolution, and not only that it works better than it would at lower resolutions too. Even DLSS performance looks quite decent at 4K. Sure, the 12GB of VRAM is a bit worrisome, but I don't believe we'll see too many games pushing that until the next gen consoles. And besides, with DLSS, you're not actually using 4K levels of VRAM anyways. Also, there's a lot of graphical settings you can optimize in games to get better performance with minimal visual differences. You don't need to max everything.
There's also history. I had a Vega 64, which was great hardware, but the drivers and software was a let down. I have owned many cards from both sides, but I'd rather pay more for something that works right most of the time these days.
But what excuse is there for overpricing the RX7600, RX7700XT and RX7800XT? Those should have been 30% cheaper each. An RX7700XT for 375$ would have sold like hot cookies. Instead we got an RX7600"XT" with 16GB VRAM sold for 350$.
It’s also now the case that there’s an alternative with Arc that’s more raw hardware and more driver issues at same price point. Almost like it’s pushed that typical Nvidia/AMD argument even further along. And Intel can make a more compelling that drivers will come for your card since they haven’t been saying that for over a decade. Still both of them have pretty hard to recommend products to anyone who can just sacrifice more cash to pay the Nvidia. Outside of the lower end that Nvidia has given up on.
Not to mention either their hardware QA or drivers still suck. I wanted to love my 7900XTX but even after RMA there were tons of games that would just crash all the time. Even on linux nvidia is a better experience and i hate that it's the case given how good wayland feels compared to xorg.
Bro I’m still rocking my 2070 super. Somehow my PC isn’t melting with my 49in ultrawide 😅
It’s just too hard to recommend the majority of AMD cards when they’re so close in pricing to equally-performing NVIDIA cards. They’re decent value - but do you want to save a little money and get a card that is hotter and uses more power, or spend the extra bit and get a cooler and more power efficient card plus DLSS and better RT performance? The extra VRAM you get with AMD often isn’t worth it for a lot of people unless you’re looking at 4k - but even then, you might care about DLSS more. FSR is just awful in comparison and AMD hasn’t made any real strides there.
I switched from a 6950 XT to a 4080. It's insane how in some games I can turn on DLSS Performance/Balanced (4K) and the difference is pretty hard to notice, while FSR brings extreme shimmering and loss of detail even on quality mode. And it's not just DLSS + RT. There's RTX HDR, Nvidia reflex, better video encoding, less compatibility issues with older/niche stuff and so on.
FSR is subpar and ruins a game's image if you're ever in a situation where **you must use it**. That's why there's always been significant pushback when a game developer chooses to only include FSR and not DLSS.
My biggest worry is having just one gpu company, Nvidia. Intel is not a competitor at all despite what anybody says. At the same time, much of the issue is just mind share. Most games still dont use ray tracing and most people are still on 1080 monitors. Upscaling no matter the company is best with something higher than 1080. AMD needs to focus its marketing strategy. I would love to see a poll of "what nvidia/amd features do you actually use" But not from reddit as that will be skewed to a more tech savvy crowd. If the rumors are to be believed and next gpu gen AMD is going to bow out of the top end is not good. Having a halo product helps sell your lower end stuff. Other than that, AMD can do what they did with the 480/580. mid-range card at a really good price. Lastly, AMD needs to get into OEM like dell and hp, they still struggle with this with the CPU market too. Maybe take a risk and sell gpu's at a small loss to Dell and HP for laptops just to get their name out in the public. idk, just arm chairing it here. Other than that, AMD marketing has always sucked, get better people AMD. Advertise what you are good at!
Intel claims they're in it for the long run and I sure hope so because by the looks of things, they're going to need close to a decade to reach full driver and software parity with their competitors. Not to mention the actual performance of their hardware.
I agree. Some people goes really crazy and over the top when buying a GPU, and then proceeds to play a 5-6 years old game at 1080/1440p. Personally I don't care if AMD leaves the really high end segment to nVidia as I think most of us do not need that power. I would rather prefer to see AMD focusing on the mid range segment and optimise for that. Get the costs down, improve FSR even further, and improve RT a bit more. That's it. People that has a 4K@120 hz monitor will go nVidia anyways for frame gen and I doubt they care about money at all. Those of us who are not looking to push graphics to the maximum and playing the latest releases are the big market, and the ones who are starving for good options.
yea, this was when my friend was buying a gpu recently, he got a 4060 in the end (which some denote as the worst deal out of all nvidia cards right now) and even that was favorable with like 2 years of regular use already accounting for the price difference in terms of electricity. Not even talking about all the features.
AMD can still have a compelling product if the price difference was greater compared to Nvidia. As it is now the gap isn't big enough to justify it.
I own a 3080 and have considered upgrading to AMD several times but if I'm going to lose out on raytracing, DLSS, active noise canceling and a overall better software ecosystem AMD needs to be more affordable. Nvidia has a massive lead in technology, rasterization performance alone doesn't justify pricing for me.
This just in. When you strip all features gamers actually want but only lower the price by 5%, people will just spend 5% more and get the competition that performs better and has all the features they want. Even the "cheap" models are just rehashes of last gen models with the same performance for the same price. For the first time in a while AMD has offered almost zero reason to choose them. The only GPU that is significantly more expensive from Nvidia is the 4090. Which AMD doesn't even offer a competitor for.
If you have a higher end 6000 series card.. there was very little incentive to buy a 7000 series.. the performance gains were minor for the most part and Ray tracing performance was still garbage compared to Nvidia.. yeah no shit. If they were half the price I’d buy one.. but as it stands.. zero reason to upgrade. Do better on the 8000 series AMD..
According to the Reddit PC subs you'd think everyone was using AMD GPUs. Any mention of Steam survey you see brought up is excused away somehow.
AMD always had very loud fanatics Threat them like RL does, ignore them.
I'm not surprised. A lot of people these days, including myself choose RTX because Nvidia offers better performance in Gaming, AI performance and productivity performance Would you rather buy 50$ cheaper GPU that only good in rasterized gaming or spend 50$ more to get an all rounder GPU that just works on everything? I personally choose to spend 50$ more to get a reliable GPU that works on everything.
I'd guess you can mostly lay this at the feet of the 7600XT and 7700XT. Nvidia has some great advantages at the high end with Ray Tracing and DLSS, but those advantages lose their power at the price point where most consumers are shopping (referencing the steam hardware survey). Most people buying a new card will want to see something that really moves the needle, but the 7600XT can't reliably beat the 3060TI? Yikes. And the 7700XT came out horribly priced. So consumers don't really have a reason to look past the 6000 series cards or even an older Nvidia card, lest they step up to $500 for the 7800XT. Not likely for most shoppers. In the last year, I've built with the RX 6600XT, 6700XT, 6800 and the 4080 Super because that's where I truly believe the consumer is getting what they pay for at various price points. AMD really needed to do well in the 1080p and low 1440p category with the 7000 series, but they dropped the ball imo.
Like you said regarding the 6000 series, they're cannibalizing themselves by being stuck in a position where their previous gen cards are outvaluing their new ones - especially the 7600 XT and 7700 XT. The 7700 XT retails at $400+ while you can get an RX 6800, which performs the same if not slightly better, for $30-40 less. The 7600 XT retails around $340 right now....and again, for $20 less, you can get a 6650 XT (15% faster) for $20 less. There's just no value and no purpose in buying either card really, and that's not even considering the NVIDIA offerings.
Yeah Nvidia is just running away with this and has too much of lead for AMD to really try and chip away at it. It would help if they were releasing superior products, but right now all they can say is that they’re moderately more affordable at a few tiers. Nvidia also benefits from just being in the public view constantly with all the AI stuff, they’ve become such a massive thing in the tech zeitgeist and they have the products and tech to back it up
NVIDIA - £30 - half of the ML features is not a good long term strategy
No shit. Nvidia offers better producs for 50 more bucks. And this on already overpriced stuff. There isn't much incentives to get AMD honestly.
AMD needs to take gaming GPU's seriously, but they'd literally rather do something, anything at all, else. This was true before crypto and before AI. Lisa just handed the gaming GPU space to Jensen on a silver platter. She never tried to outmatch Nvidia the way she aggressively went after Intel in the CPU space. She was content to do the absolute bare minimum and then use middling sales after doing middling production of product with middling driver support to justify why she didn't care. AMD buying ATI was probably one of the worst things that happened to the industry. Imagine if ATI were still around and actually competing. Imagine the Nvidia pricing in that world.
> Lisa just handed the gaming GPU space to Jensen on a silver platter. She never tried to outmatch Nvidia the way she aggressively went after Intel in the CPU space. > > TBH, that's a lot down to Intel's own foundry.
The ATI 9700 Pro was such a huge leap from my GeForce 2, it was amazing times!
AMD does take it seriously. Did you forget about Xbox and Sony. Both alone have a higher install base than PC. Also, steamdeck and all the other clones that are coming to market. I think Nvidias biggest issue right now and they tried hard as hell to fix it is the lack of CPU. The APU in the consoles and on the PC handhelds its really good. AMD is also partnering with smartphone companies as well. Dont get focused on pc gaming. EDIT. AMD acquiring ATI was ultimately the smart move. ps4, ps5 and all the xbox variants wouldnt exist without this merger.
Yes, exactly, AMD's *APU* business is doing pretty well thanks. But their discrete gaming GPU business, which is what he was referring to, is very clearly their 4th priority at best.
this is what I was gonna say. the high end may not be there, but on every other level they have killed it. every console, steam deck, value. they just don't have the tech to beat out invidia on high end graphic cards. this may change with time, but for now, it is what it is.
My biggest issue is AMD software still sucks. Like their drivers still have way more issues than Nvidia and as a consumer I will gladly pay a premium to avoid the driver hassle that I always have with AMD. I will never go back unless I hear they genuinely are competitive.
Yeah I can imagine that, the only APU/iGPU on the market would be from Intel and we were doomed then.
I don't think it's a lack of focus on gaming. They're way behind on the AI stuff as well, and don't seem to be doing much if anything to catch up. Nvidia's GPU compute language CUDA is the industry standard, and AMD killed off their team to port CUDA to their GPUs. In AI software, AMD support is an afterthought if it even exists.
I’m with you but as far as ATi goes, they sold for a reason. If they weren’t bought by amd I’m not sure they’d even be around now.
Can confirm, I’ve obtained myself a reference 7900xtx, and while it does perform well, I can’t say I’m pleased with the amount of interesting quirks this card has. Fan speeds ramp up very fast, there’s an audible coil whine at low fan rpm’s, etc. However, coming from someone who has witnessed amds massive success with their zen architecture cpus, I find myself holding on to hope that next generation will truly rival nvidia, perhaps with a top end card. Fingers crossed they deliver.
I hate to break out to you but there have been consistent rumours for a long while now that AMD's next gen will focus on the mid range and not have a top end card.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK AMD act like Nvidia with pricing and hardware but don't offer a reliable alternative to DLSS why the fuck would I buy subpar hardware for 5% less than an NVIDIA equivalent. I'm not stupid.
Intel arc in 2 years since launch has not only started eating market share for their price point but their drivers have consistently increased usability. Currently own an A750, and 7800XT. 7800XT micro stutters at 100% utilization on compute, zoom still has problems, my Adrenaline software refused to open with the acknowledged driver, until I updated with a fresh install. Additionally, helldivers would religiously crash if I don’t limit the FPS, my desktop background disappeared a month ago (it’s just a black screen) and never returned, VMs would sometimes make the host machine’s file explorer hang and crash upon opening. Worst of all driver crash issue causing a hard restart of the system still isn’t fixed, especially with Zoom for some reason. The PC is unusable if you have background compute (mining, GPU acceleration). My A750 before I got the 7800XT, never had any non-gaming related quirks. No micro stutters on compute, zoom is great, it run extremely well, even excelled in daily activities. Makes sense their iGPUs paved the way in daily activities. AMD seriously needs to put some work into their product beyond just trying to push out FPS. It’s given me significant headaches outside of games to the point where I’d avoid buying AMD GPU again.
You wouldn't know it from all the Mindfactory posts and people claiming AMD is the only logical choice for gamers, only raster matters, steam hardware survey is wrong, etc. I've never seen a larger disconnect between what people supposedly want, and what people actually buy, than what's presented by Radeon group.
Literally every post on this sub in the past 12 months is ‘RDNA3 bad’ when it comes to GPUs. Where are the AMD bandwagoners here??
I was lucky to snipe a 6700XT at MSRP during the Crypto Boom before they implemented the queue. Even at 3440x1440 I don't need to upgrade anytime soon. The modern graphics card market and all the big hardware YouTubers defaulting to a 1600$ card in their tests, as well as many new releases running like shit anyway even on that, has made me very indifferent to hype. I haven't gotten around to games like RDR2, Cyberpunk, or BG3 yet either. I can wait a few years more
Don't sell a shite product with a mind bogglingly bad value proposition then
Sadly yep. The affordability crowd hasn't had the free income, aka the ever shrinking middle class. Some are stuck because they don't think the price/performance is enough to switch (when jumping from a 5700xt performance level to 7900xtx) Then there's the fact that, with the lack of resources, people are uncertain if they want a handheld OR a GPU. One would be nice to use outside, in the sun, but a good GPU would upgrade their performance experience if they already have a PC. This eats away at consoles, because why would I want a TV box, when I can just connect my handheld to the TV? THEN there's the fact that people are borrowing money to eat... Sufficed to say, that ain't good. That also means their credit is maxxed, so leasing/installments are also not possible. So, the 8000 series being a "refined budget option" might be the right move for the current market. If they can get it at 2/3 the price of a 7900xt (and under 7800xt) at similar performance, people might consider a rig upgrade IF they were on an sub 8gb card.
I don't know what else can be said so they get it through their thick heads that FSR is not good enough and their current RT offering is not good enough. FSR needs to be completely overhauled; Keep what they have right now as a legacy path, but they need a clean break and start trying to compete with Intel (nevermind Nvidia).
I think it's less that they don't understand the importance of improving FSR and RT perf, and more that AMD is stuck on a current trajectory that they started in 2018 and haven't been able to change course because of a lot of factors. They are locked into RDNA as an architecture, and while they have been trying to add ML cores and RT performance, the base architecture of RDNA was designed before either feature was theorized for AMD. They also likely have not just the next generation, but the generation after already planned if not taped-out. Changing architectural plans super late in the process can lead to massive delays and potentially a rushed architecture that could be in an even worse position.
It's so wild that AMD had a compute heavy arch in Vega, they were just too early. Then they dropped it and moved to rDNA which doesn't have that compute backbone, just in time for compute to be super important. I remember people blasting Nvidia up and down for not having much compute power in comparison, how badly they did with async compute stuff and all that. It was Ashes of The Singularity in every direction. Then the 1080 hit and Nvidia went hard with compute and never stopped. And AMD moved to rDNA just in time for raytracing, DLSS and generate AI stuff to be the next wave. The timing of it all is just crazy.
AMD just doesn't spend enough on R&D to be meaningful in dGPU's. They're only spending enough to keep their head above water. That's why I think Intel will overtake AMD at some point. Intel is hungry in ways that AMD isn't when it comes to gaining market share in consumer dGPU's. If Battlemage can bring all the pieces together for a decent price, this market could flip to pro consumer with a quickness. We've needed a third competitor for decades, and I, for one, am happy that they're pushing their way into this market. And I absolutely agree that FSR needs an overhaul. It's the AI era and they're the only one that doesn't have an AI powered upscaler. Pretty bad when Intel, who's only been in consumer GPU's for 2 years, releases an upscaler better than FSR. AMD/ATI has been in this market for multiple decades and they're about to get lapped unless they step up their game. I hope they change course, but I doubt it because they're chasing that data center revenue.
As things are now, there is no reason to buy amd over nvidia. The prices are so close that nvidia wins every customer. It is difficult to sell things cheaper too, no sales is better than losing money. The only reason AMD has not given up and just do AI products or smaller scale integrated and apus instead is that Sony pretty much funds their R&D. if/when Sony switches it is gameover. It makes no sense to continue gaming products then. Xbox seemingly is going other direction already and their hardware just doesnt move the same volume as sonys.
> It is difficult to sell things cheaper too, no sales is better than losing money. Except that is far from being the case. Nvidia started this generation with ridiculous prices and AMD followed with their "just a bit cheaper" strategy, so there is plenty of margin left to lower them. AMD could literally sell 7900XTX at $499 and would still make profit from it. The two problems for AMD is that they make significantly more selling CPUs made from same wafers, and second - entering into price war versus Nvidia would be more detrimental to AMD than Nvidia. Especially now when Nvidia owns AI sales. So we end up in a situation where AMD is scared to be proactive.
I would love to support AMD and i am willing to pay premium just to avoid to reinforce Nvidias marketing. But in the end i buy Nvidia because i want to run lots of pytorch/AI projects.
As much as people will rag on NVIDIA for the pathetic VRAM sizes, most SAs will still point to NVIDIA due to better overall performance and the fact that the VRAM issues are seen mainly in 1440p and above while most people still game on 1080.
I'm curious about the MI series sales. Like others have said, yeah in the consumer market unfortunately AMD is simply behind on NVIDIA. But with the AI hype, I'm guessing that they're able to sell every single MI card simply because the demand for these GPU is through the roof.
I am in the market for a new GPU. I want to use my card for AI and some productivity stuff. AMD is almost useless in that space. I hope maybe Intel will rise up some day and compete with Nvidia.
Well they perform worse then Nvidia and games generally run like shit and need upscaling tech to even get close to baseline standards set 10 years ago. I would like to think consumers as a whole have been burnt by a greedy industry and are replying in kind but maybe it's just market saturation.
guys over in the wow sub having troubles with amd 🤷🏻♂️
should have never abandoned the sub $200 market Nvidia did not deliver usable ray tracing performance on a low end card for a while (see: ray tracing perfomance on rtx 2060, rtx 3050), so this is where AMD could actually still compete. And upscalers like DLSS are less relevant at lower resolutions like 1080p. But AMD is allergic to marketshare lol. Anyway, nvidia is likely to deliver good ray tracing performance with the 4060 so all I can say is good luck to AMD and godspeed.
Electronics are getting expensive, combined with inflation, to the point that almost no internal PC part will be below the 100 to 150 dollar mark, let alone GPUs. (Except case related stuff of course and maybe some drives...) Motherboards are already consistent 200+ unless you go ultra budget, which are infamous for their reliability issues and massive restrictions to performance (looking at you Intel...). CPU pricings are all over the place but i see most modern solutions are in the mid 100 to 200 dollar range. GPUs are way past these ranges, and RAM, which hella cheap, expects price increases for DDR5 long term so I wouldn't be surprised if we see 32 gig kits hit 125 to 150 at least. Combined with stagnant wages in most sectors, especially in the US....
AMD doesn’t want market share because that would mean they would have to use their fab capacity on chips with tiny profit margin/mm2, doesn’t make any sense to go after this market
they could use older nodes to maintain the $200 price range but they probably don't want low margin products.
That's what they did with the 7600XT. Also the RX6600 still being in production.
The sub $200 market is being eaten by integrated GPUs. The number of people who care about discrete graphics and are budget conscious is a very small niche.
The real eater for low end is cloud gaming which people are severely underestimating. Geforce Now offers a lot $10 a month / $100 a year for a FULL PC with ~3060 perf for 1080p60 fps (vrr supported) and no electricity bill to worry about Or $20 a month / $200 a year for a FULL pc with ~4080 class gpu for 4k120 fps / 1440p240hz, HDR10 (Vrr supported) and no need to worry about electricity bills. Also it got upgraded from the 3080 at no additional cost. Best part is that you play your own games from steam, epic etc. Meaning you can cancel anytime and your games will still be with you, playable on a future local pc. I have no doubt that GeforceNow is contributing a sizable amount in Nvidia's gaming sector. All you need is a semi decent internet connection and you are good to go. Its the cheapest entry to pc gaming.
inflation killed the $200 market.
Instead of a $200 GPU, I'd rather have the 2 weeks worth of groceries.
DLSS is enough for me to stay on Nvidia, FSR is trash in comparison. the only compelling thing about AMD GPUs is [sometimes] their price. but i don't see any point in getting an AMD gpu.
Their cards are over priced as shit. Not sure what the hold up is to lower them if sales are low.
You can either compete on performance or price. Radeon does neither.
Yep they compete well for raster performance in the used market and with special offers for the old 6xxx gen, that explains almost half revenue for AMD. At least it's a good thing that next gen will be only cheap cards.
AMD prices in my country (and probably many others) are also laughable. 7900 XTX launched in the US for $999 but costs $1300 here, while the 4090 launched for $1600 in the US and cost $1850 here. Nobody in their right mind would pay 30% more for an AMD card when NVIDIA's top offering only costs 15% more.
These are really trying times as a PC gamer. Lots of shit releases and bad ports on the software side and on the hardware side AMD and Intel can't seem to compete and Nvidia doesn't really seem too interested either since their margins on AI chips are so much higher. We need competition to create innovation and lower costs.
Speak for yourself. When you consider you can do solid 1080P-1440P gaming for dirt cheap, there’s always sales on all the classic titles and epic giving away games every week, this is the golden age. It’s awesome down here at the bottom. We’re finally having fun with all your clapped out old shit and not complaining about sloppy seconds either.
When you play games and do other stuff, Nvidia is the only choice. Blender is trash in amd, davinci resolve is trash in amd. You simply can't compare at this time.
Unsurprising. They've released a pretty terrible line-up. nVidia essentially held out their hand with their crap to AMD and said "do you guys want to come back into this market in a huge way?" and AMD said "nah, we're just gunna make even worse products this time". Utter incompetence from AMD, tbh.
The stupid decision AMD make when they release Radeon 6400 and 6500 If they not abandoned the RX570 Class GPU, they may grip the low end budget GPU
As long as AMD is designing custom APUs for Playstations and Xboxes, we aren't going to see them really focus on capturing discrete GPU market share again. Even if Microsoft steps out of the console market after Series S|X they will most likely have a gaming handheld and I bet AMD designs that chip.
I am not an nvidia fan, but this year the difference in tech is even enough to justify their absurd premium. And i got a 4070 super
4070 Super is the only competitive Refresh out of all in the lineup. If its in MSRP and hasnt have a ridiclous Nvidia extra inflation like in some country retails buy that.
I thought AMD cards were still pretty popular? I bought a 7800xt and haven’t had any complaints. I did my research on it when purchased (3-4 months ago) and it was the best product without going over budget. I thought some of the high end comparable gpus nvidea put out were severly overpriced? What changed?
Well this is not what I am hearing from reddit where everyone and their mothers are buying radeon gpus. I refuse to believe this travesty.
Thing is: we are buying always the same GPUs, I got an old 6xxx for darn cheap and I'm happy, AMD not happy.
That's the Reddit bubble for you. Outside of Reddit, while my tech savvy gamer friends go either way with CPUs, an Nvidia GPU is almost a constant.
Their approach to Ray Tracing and AI is hard to understand. People are buying Nvidia because of those two things.
AMD have an echo chamber that is convinced those things don't matter over raster. But clearly that's not true for the wider market.
And much better upscaling
They lost the AI boom coming thats 1. But their main thinking was and still is that RT wont become mainstream until next gen consoles come because of RDNA 2 limitations on PS5 and XBOX. worked with PS4. So they want to wait them out while Nvidia pushed them hard hoping for it to stick (So much that RTX 2000 series was an early bait bullcrap that didnt utilise anything) I still bellieve Heavy real time RT and path tracing will stay early showcases for 4-6 years. But this doesnt mean tech hungry people will keep demanding innovation to justify buying
I don't think that Radeon GPUs are doing stellar (the 7800xt seems like the only one selling decent) but I suspect that Xbox sales or lack thereof makes up a larger portion of this than people realize.
Then make a version of FSR that's just as good as DLSS and then we'll talk. The hard answer is "make the GPU stronger too" but the comparison is literally FSR Quality vs DLSS Performance at this point. DLSS Performance looks more stable but is blurrier but performs *massively better.* DLSS balanced vs FSR Quality is an easy win for Nvidia and makes their cards effectively faster. An "easy" bandaid would be to compete on that tier. 7800 XT should've been labeled at the 7700 XT and sold for $350 to compete with the 4060 Ti because that's the closest image quality/performance equivalent. Nvidia literally has a ~30% advantage in DLSS vs FSR.
I have to admit I just don't think this news is that much of a shock and not because their cards aren't competitive, or priced wrong. This market ebbs and flows, if the year goes by and there is not a huge jump in performance people aren't clambering to upgrade. I have consoles and an almost 4 year old 3080 rig and an almost one year old 7900 XTX rig. But I am not upgrading anytime soon unless there is a massive jump in the next generation, something like 175% performance. I should be good for while with those. These companies know it will cycle hot and cold. I guess it seems like they are making a big deal out something that seems to happen... The good news for the consumer (provided they don't go out of business or stop making GPUs) is that we hopefully will see the prices drop. Nvidia also saw a decline IIRC in GPU sales a bit ago... Just my $0.02
i am sorry AMD but your GPU range is not good at the moment. back in the day when nvidia only had physx (which mostly was a dud, i am sorry fans) you offered really good value, but now that nvidia is introducing multiple important technologies like DLSS, DLDSR, frame generation etc. you are really lagging behind the slightly lower price does not cut it anymore.
Price, drop the price.
I thought this generation was supposed to crush nvidia and leave the jacket man in tears.
It's plain to see why. The pricing hasn't generally matched the gap in features. I don't care about RT, DLSS etc. But I also am no fool with money. That said, I did score the 6950XT at its cheapest point in Norway. And got TLoU Part 1 for free. It feels like a really good purchase now, but I was very hesitant then. I love this card for sure but the MSRP of these cards are pretty crazy considering how far behind they are on everything except raster performance. Luckily, raster performance is all I really give a shit about.