Will Radeon ever actually compete with NVIDIA?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- Tim and Steve discuss whether Radeon will ever actually compete with Nvidia. The general consensus is no, but if they were to reduce pricing and improve features, maybe?
Join us on Patreon: / hardwareunboxed
Join us on Floatplane: www.floatplane.com/channel/Ha...
Buy relevant products from Amazon, Newegg and others below:
Radeon RX 7900 XTX - geni.us/OKTo
Radeon RX 7900 XT - geni.us/iMi32
GeForce RTX 4090 - geni.us/puJry
GeForce RTX 4080 - geni.us/wpg4zl
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti - geni.us/AVijBg
GeForce RTX 3050 - geni.us/fF9YeC
GeForce RTX 3060 - geni.us/MQT2VG
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti - geni.us/yqtTGn3
GeForce RTX 3070 - geni.us/Kfso1
GeForce RTX 3080 - geni.us/7xgj
GeForce RTX 3090 - geni.us/R8gg
Radeon RX 6500 XT - geni.us/dym2r
Radeon RX 6600 - geni.us/cCrY
Radeon RX 6600 XT - geni.us/aPMwG
Radeon RX 6700 XT - geni.us/3b7PJub
Radeon RX 6800 - geni.us/Ps1fpex
Radeon RX 6800 XT - geni.us/yxrJUJm
Radeon RX 6900 XT - geni.us/5baeGU
Will Radeon ever actually compete with NVIDIA?
Disclaimer: Any pricing information shown or mentioned in this video was accurate at the time of video production, and may have since changed
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn a commission on some sales made through other store links
FOLLOW US IN THESE PLACES FOR UPDATES
Twitter - / hardwareunboxed
Facebook - / hardwareunboxed
Instagram - / hardwareunb. .
Music By: / lakeyinspiredg. .
What do you mean will compete? For me, they've been the better option for most of the generations I remember :D Haven't had Nvidia since GTX 8000 I think.
Granted, I am looking for price/performance in mainstream (currently have 6800XT) before anything. And the good open-source Linux support from AMD is huge plus too.
Right. This very channel recommends AMD cards over Nvidia cards when appropriate. That means they're competitive.
Not even mentioning that 6900XT was on par with 3090, 6950XT with 3090 Ti... And as you say in midrange it's been at least 3 gens since they were the better bang for buck options.
To be fair, it's a duopoly. Consumer GPUs are neither of the companies' primary revenue stream. Nvidia and AMD are targeting different sectors in the professional market to avoid out competing one another. In the consumer space they basically create lineups that are neck in neck with each other with products that are priced similarly (It doesn't help that Lisa Sue and Jensen Huang are cousins either) xD I don't think we can treat AMD vs Nvidia as ACTUAL competition in these discussions. These companies are holding hands, offering different flavors of GPUs in the consumer space... I have personally had equal amounts of ATi/AMD GPUs as I have had Nvidia GPUs over the years (since the late 90's) and the only thing I have noticed is that the actual differences has been shrinking. Today they are so similar in terms of raw performance that the only real difference is software features. With nvidia pricing their GPUs a tad bit higher due to public perception of being the more "premium" brand with more "premium features" (like DLSS and slightly higher RT performance). Ultimately it's just smoke and mirrors to make it seem like competition. But it doesn't really matter in the end as they are working together to best exploit the market.
This correct, best comment here.
They are clearly competing. Honestly, the fact that Radeon is able to stay at all relevant is a miracle given the differences in resources.
@@beachslap7359 Same majority share holder same hedge fund manager, two sides of the same coin. AMD exists to sell more Nvidia cards and offer different services to other sectors but as it stands now AMD help Nvidia maintain their Ai dominance.
Is what it is Bro, you think RT and DLSS important and are willing to spend for it buy Nvidia but if you want a better deal and those features aren't a selling point buy an AMD card.
Check for yourself, what we say is true.
@@pituguli5816 hehe, yup. And once you have worked for larger companies. Especially in the marketing departments and seen the ins- and outs- of how companies like these run. It's not even tinfoil territory anymore. They do what they can to exploit profit. In many cases it makes more sense to be a couple of different companies on the market sticking together rather than enabling any real competition in an open market.... Everybody wins by sticking together and having their own niches.
@@PixelShade And people seem to think we have a free market.. Its not a free market its a monopoly. If the brand loyalists only knew hehe.
Never say never. I have an AMD CPU for the first time in 20 years.
AMD is a decade behind Nvidia. Never.
It's not 100% never but as what they discussed, AMD able to win Intel because Intel got comfort of their win. Nvidia in the other hand always 1 up AMD, oh your GPU Ray Trace performance starting to pick up my 30 series card? Bam Nvidia Video Upscale. Oh you come out with my alternative Frame Gen? Bam, Ray Reconstruction. Oh so your 7800xt eating up my 4070 sales? Bam, Super series. So you come up with Mi300x to compete with my H100? Bam, H200. Nvidia always 1 up AMD. They make sure they win almost everything
That's because Intel just stoped investing in CPU development because there was no inovation from AMD... Nvidia just keeps inovating and making proprietary technologies not caring if they're in a dominant position over AMD by years.
@@hugovieira6298 The idea is to be years ahead of your competition.
I'd say nvidia is a different beast and this is coming from a 7900xt owner but never say never. Hell wasn't the 6950xt on par with nvidias flagship 3090 ti or I'm bugging?
Intel was a different story cause bulldozer sucked which just made intel continuously make more quad cores. Not to mention intel's struggle getting 10nm to work while still being on top. Amd had potential cause ryzen wasn't the first time amd beat intel. In the early to mid 2000s amd was for sure cooking back then so there was always hope cpu wise. Socket A was competition for sure and Athlon 64 undoubtedly gave amd the lead.
When intel brought back hyperthreading on consumer cpus in 2008 I think that's when they started a near decade long lead along with the core2quad days. I'll never forget the arguments I had with people saying "lol fake cores hyperthreading isn't needed" funny how that argument aged like milk and was the reason why intel stayed on top while only making 4c/8t for the longest. My old i7860 cpu aged like fine wine 🍷 and those that had sandybridge had the cream of the crop which aged even better imo considering the overhaul that sandybridge brought compared to gen 1 of the i3/i5/i7s. Everything after sandybridge didn't seem huge overhauls imo but it was still enough to beat amd until ryzen
Nvidia on the other hand seems to always be ahead in some sort of way whether it was tessellation back in the day or ray tracing. Still we will see. I'll only picked up a 7900xt for 700 cause these super cards nvidia released didnt seem that impressive at their prices points with the 4080 super never at 999 lol.
The last time I bought an AMD GPU because it was the top performer was when the 7970 GHz edition came out in mid 2012. Sure I've bought other AMD GPUs like the RX 480 and R9 270X OC but those were bang for buck purchases. I just splurged this last Christmas on a 4090 because AMD doesn't have anything that competes against it.
Let's be fair to AMD. From RDNA 1 to RDNA2, it was a very decent leap in terms of both performance and power efficiency. For their RDNA3 lineup they still boosted the performance by a lot but nvidia did better, so like maybe not now but in a couple of generations if radeon division keeps improving the performance by a steady 20-30% rate per generation, it can be the number one. Next generation they'll improve the RT and the power efficiency, they'll probably release a 7900XT level mid range card but it'll be power efficient and it'll probably compete with RTX 4080 class cards in Ray Tracing. That means if they keep on improving both RT and power efficiency, maybe like by the time they make RDNA 5, if they make an uncut, full size RDNA5 9900XTX or something, they'll probably compete with nvidia in the top end both in RT and Raster.
ATI, wake up! We need you!
ATI was bought by AMD back in the late 2000s. The Radeon brand lives on, but not the spirit in some regards?
@@cameronbosch1213No no no, they have a point. ATi getting bought my AMD was one of the worst things to happen to the market. The AMD APU strategy is what started the downfall of Radeon graphics.. then cutting funding to software when ATi was finally as stable as nVidia.
I was MAD when AMD bought ATi, and I am still mad about it. I actually wonder if RTG would have done better if AMD has sold them to Intel. :( I feel like AMD would finally have the budget to push forward with some aggressive strategies. RTG needs to get aggressive with RoCM and increase SDK and runtime support to all RNDA2 and newer products... and seeing AMD recently not push forward with ZULDA when it is such a compelling piece of software is INFURIATING.
@@TheXev They probably has a baseline now for their own framework, weren't AMD funding the guy that made Zluda?
RDNA 2 was their Zen moment... But Nvidia moved the goal post to raytracing/DLSS
I remember that the price of the graphics card compared to the rest of the configuration was 40 - 45%. In the case of the RTX 4090, it is more than 70%.
The problem is in the price ratio. To the average PC user, the RTX 4090 means nothing. They will never buy it because of the price.
It is necessary to reduce the price of graphics cards, while maintaining the same performance.
For example, if the RX 7900 XTX costs 950 euros, it is necessary to make a graphics card in the same performance range as the RX 7900 XTX, but it should costs 550 - 600 euros.
That would be a real hit.
If they had done that they would have been too good and would have been constantly out of stock
Something more reasonable would have been a 7900xt at 600 and a 7900xtx at 750/800
7900xtx will be $500 by the end of the year on the used market. I bet no one will care because by then the next big thing will be here and expectations will increase.
I have a lot of hope since the 3000 and 6000 series gpu flagships were neck and neck with each other.
It's not just being neck and neck in terms of performance, AMD simply can't innovate like Nvidia, and that's a fact.
@@SweetFlexZ that fact is why i might switch to nvidia. AMD was always for people who don't care about raytracing but i actually like it and DLSS 3.5 is too cool. Plus fsr 3 took a year after announcement they're way too late on features.
@@AELabsHonkai Yeah, in raster AMD is better and for even less money, but it's true that we're going to less raster and more RT so... But yeah, to me I see AMD as a cheap option with features that Nvidia had years ago, a bit sad but it is what it is.
@@SweetFlexZ i forgot to even mention the differences in quality. People deny how big of an impact fsr shimmering is but it’s extremely noticeable. Dlss has been outclassing since day 1. My AMD loyalty struggled in that fsr 3 wait 😭. I could go on about how nvidia has been on top but you already know
Even when they are neck and neck on paper, Nvidia always has something up their sleeve which ups their value. And they won't even be neck and neck in raster this time, AMD flagship is going to be the same raster performance as their current flagship but better in RT and at a cheaper price. Could for some people but not for those interested in high end performance.
AMD's honest best chance at greater success and market growth would be to:
1. Get ahead of AMD on pricing to the point where most people would look and say "You know, you get so much better native performance per dollar that it's worth getting."
2. Get comparable RT performance
Features can come later, that's fine. FSR2 isn't great, but TSR looks better and with a slew of UE5 games coming that'll be an appropriate possibility. The 6700XT for a long while was like, $300-350 and absolutely dunked on the similarly (at the time) priced 3060 and was cheaper than the comparable 3060ti. I bought one after having nothing but nvidia from the 8000 series on (ATI before that), and I love the thing for what it is and how much I paid for it.
Yeah RT performance kinda sucks, but for the next year or two that probably won't be an issue, and if I can get 3-4 years of great 1440p performance out of a $300 purchase that's pretty great. AMD needs to embrace that cheaper market and make the comparison always be something like a 6700xt compared to a 3060, rather than their initial pricing which was just shy of a 3070 where it lost on all fronts outside of VRAM.
You don't get it. AMD isn't competing against Nvidia. Lisa Su and Jensen Huang are related. Lisa lets Jensen take the GPU market while she takes the CPU market.
It's not even just the hardware, for me it's CUDA and NVENC that are the icing on the cake. If it was only about gaming performance and cost per frame then I'd feel like I have options, but it's just not that simple for some of us.
There's more than cost per frame (raster) for gaming. Raster isn't cutting it in every new game being released, quality feature sets are becoming very important as well. Not everyone likes RT currently since they can't see what it looks like beyond 16fps, so of course without it in smooth motion it may not seem impressive in still shots alone. Every generation we are getting farther away from rAsTeR price 2 performance ratios being the only thing that matters. What happens when raster isn't good enough? FSR upscaling? FSR frame gen? how lovely to have to rely on that just to hope you can get closer to getting the most out the TV you purchased that is far more capable than what raster alone can hope to take advantage of. These GPUs are getting big (for rAsTeR), they are sucking up power (for rAsTeR), and even Nvidia has been trying to tell people "we have to be smarter, raster can only go so far so fast".
-You know what, nvm. If people want to do price to performance ratios for rAsTeR just so they can complain they didn't get enough rAsTeR for their dollar, that's probably just going to be something many enjoy most about the GPU purchasing experience.
@@Mcnooblet Raster perf is king. GPU makers can take their upscaling, fake frames, and shove it back up their collective pipelines.
Well, the Radeon 5000 HD series was a time when Radeon was the leader. The ATI Radeon 5870 HD was the first DirectX 11 GPU in Sept of 2009. Nvidia released the GTX 400 series in April of 2010, but that series of cards ran hot, required more power, and was released roughly seven months later than the Radeon competition. It's been a while.
You could argue AMD's GPU game is already great. It's just that Nvidia are just that bit further because they a comoany that only makes GPUs. Also, if AMD really tried to make a card faster than Nvidia, Nvidia will just crank the clock speeds and electricity consumption to compensate. Gamers like to complain about GPUs being space heaters, but has that truly stopped them buying saud space heaters? No, of course not. So Nvidia will remain as the company with the performance crown and thanks to AMD's recent price blunders it seems like Nvidia and Intel are catching up to them in the price department as well.
Nvida is more efficient than AMD. The only reason RDNA2 had better efficiency was due to RTX 30 used the garbage Samsung node instead of TSMC.
So the reality is AMD needs to crank their power to become the space heater while Nvidia can stay in a reasonable power range.
@@user-hr4hu8xb5f But again, Nvidia can always crank it themselves, making that strategy moot.
@@mix3k818Yeah but them not being space heaters is a genuine selling point compared to AMD because electricity has gone up massively in the last few years in many countries. I would be surprised if they went backwards to 3000 series power consumption.
I'd say if you're not focused on Ray-tracing then AMD Radeons are still good buys esp after a few months or so when the prices drop unlike nVidia who still charge MSRP for cards that are on their way out.
Amd should have made fsr3 exclusive to amd gpu only. Letting nvidia gpu use it kills their USP
The only reason ryzen felt like such an innovation was because Intel stopped investing in R&D when there was no competition.
Nvidia keeps investing in making their GPUs better and have amazing engineers. Catching up with them would be extremely hard, if not impossible.
I hate Nvidia as much as other tech bros but their products simply have no match in the industry, even if they are overpriced
Much needed rant!
Last generation with the 3090ti/ 6950xt they were damn close. This generation they were a ways off. Likely they wont be that close again unfortunately.
great topic. i agree with you guys.
never say never, wasnt apple almost bankrupt in the 90s 😂 I think Radeon was really competitive in the 2000s? they've done it before, they can do it again...
I think AMD gave up on investing to be truly competitive with nvidia years ago. Instead they will follow the trends in architecture and price accordingly to be the slightly cheaper secondary option.
Honestly price to performance is all I care about.
I wonder how a HBM memory based RDNA chip would do. Since rdba2 amd used all that infinity cache to speed up their gpus without using expensively huge memory buses. But what if they added HBM2.0 (or 3.0) to a consumer rdna gpu? It would be expensive of course and likely only used on halo products.
My thought is that people are so obsessed with small 10 or even 5% performance boost that they would throw away their hard-earned money for it.
HBM is way too expensive to be put on a consumer gpu again, it won't happen.
AMD's David Wang admitted that they had higher end gpu planned, but scrapped it because they didn't think it was worth creating. Then they dropped 7900 XTX at $999. This card was probably gonna be 7800xt 250w at $500~ originally, but they saw that the 4080 was expensive and pushed the clocks on the 7900XTX to 350w to try and get $999 out of the dies.
I gotta say, I have slowly been swayed back to Nvidia after getting a 6800XT, its a great GPU and I absolutely made the right decision vs the 3080 on launch, but the amount of features that interest me and messing with AI il probably look at a 5070 or 5070ti depending on how good Blackwell is.
I feel the same after switching from 3070 to 7800xt. Performance is great but FSR is unusable to me in both upscaling and frame gen. I miss DLSS and since getting a qd oled monitor I can’t help but feel I’m missing out on rxt hdr vrs windows auto hdr which is lacking.
They were SO close with the RX6000 series. The 6900XT could've CRUSHED with a 384bit bus and a larger die. It did good enough already, but they NEED to take risks and swing for the fences. The max memory bus size of RX6000 series was only 256bit Vs. 320bit and 384bit with Nvidia on the 3080 and 3090 respectively. They can make good cards, they need to commit. Then they released the 7900XTX with a larger bus but they SHOULD'VE GONE BIGGER ON THE DIE, the total die size was again around 525mm² with a 300mm² GCD. They should have done with a 400-425mm² GCD. I'm convinced they are looking at scalability and chip size and must put hard limits on die size or something, as smaller chips are much cheaper to produce due to the constraints of manufacturing silicon. I dunno... friggin figure it out. I may end up buying a 5080/5090 or used 4090, cause I wanted the next gen version of an XTX, but if they don't make it... ffs Radeon get it together.
Well I guess the mess came about when RDNA3 didn't hit performance target. AMD Marketing simply didn't know how to respond when the 7900 XT was supposed to compete with the 4090 and it struggled against the 4080.
If the 4090 was available at USD1200 and the 7900XTX at USD1000, I would jump ship and buy the 4090. But at that time, the 4090 was USD2000 and I got my 7900XTX at SGD2000 (USD1500) so the choice was clear. I'm not going to spend an extra USD500 for RT in game when it's not that big a deal at 4K HDR. I tried playing Cyperpunk with RT on and off and the major difference is reflections and some volumetric lightning. And I don't upscale the image at all.
To be fair, I play CP2077 first and foremost for its combat so raster lighting already look good enough for me. On the other end of RT quality, can anyone tell me why I should switch on RT in Hogwarts Legacy?
So to answer the question, can AMD ever compete with NVidia? Yes! At the low-end and mid-range. But even for RDNA3, AMD has no high-end option and that's why RDNA4 will remind the same since it's based on a similar MCM design from RDNA3.
Only with a ground-up approach for RDNA5, can AMD have a chance. This is my speculation at this point. AMD has to ditch the organic interconnect and move to silicon interposer (way more expensive) for RDNA5 in order for MCM to have the better latency and frequency that monolithic designs enjoy. Even then, monolithic has the advantage.
On the CPU side, Zen5 is supposed to be using a new higher frequency interposer, maybe the same one from RDNA3, so its IPC is rumoured to be 30% better than Zen4, this should put it on par with Intel Arrow Lake but with lower power draw. From this point, we can note how important the interconnect latency and bandwidth is to a chiplet design.
For AMD to have the "Zen" moment, NVidia will have to suffer the same interconnect issue as their GPU grew so large, they have to move to an MCM design. At current, with NVidia already designing well beyond Blackwell, they have a 2 generation lead and 3 years to solve the MCM interconnect issue.
Apple has already proven that edge interconnect works well, is cheap and scalable on the 2D plane so that's 1 way NVidia can go. AMD, Intel and Qualcomm are all made by TSMC using 3D stacking which is harder to dissipate heat but still very doable with TSMC wafer capable of withstanding 90+ degree C Tjmax.
So only if NVidia fails to deliver on silicon design that scales on monolithic die and they couldn't have a compelling MCM design will AMD have their "Zen" moment. In other words, I'm thinking NVidia just have to fail in 1 generation for AMD to catch up.
This is because adding more RT cores into RDNA is not that hard. It's just like adding more shader cores or adding more cache. The limiting factor is power draw and die area and how much they can sell their cards for.
In all honesty, if my wife didn't need my old 6900XT for her new UW 1440p gaming rig, I'd have no excuse to pony up USD1500 for a new GPU.
Now can AMD upgrade their FSR to use the AI cores in the 7900XTX? Much appreciated!
I dont think AMD will have a Zen moment over Nvidia as much as I'd love to see it. Nvidia is constantly innovating and AMD playing catch up.
Whereas Intel became stagnant it gave AMD an opportunity to shine. Mayne Nvidia does the same in the future but I can't see it anytime soon. Radeon is also a sort of an afterthought for AMD meaning their CPU market is priority, which makes sense.
The question is... do they even want to? It seems like they don't. It seems like they're more content selling gaming GPU's to fund the APU's to sell to Sony, M$ and all the new handhelds... but I don't know how much longer they're going to have that gravy train. At this point, I believe Intel has more of a shot. Their feature set is rather impressive compared to NVIDIA's right out of the gate... more so than AMD. Like a lot of people, I'm excited to see what Battlemage brings. Intel seems to be hungry to take market share and while they're saying they're going to take it from AMD... but AMD doesn't have a lot of market share and I really doubt Intel will be content with the scraps AMD has been fine with for so long. Once they met that goal, it would be about taking market share from NVIDIA... I really hope they do. And maybe NVIDIA will start to pull an Intel 14nm++++++++++ as they focus more on AI and perhaps they sleep on the consumer cards, leaving the door open from someone to come and take it.
It's to do with money, ultimately. AMD only has the money to allocate a certain amount of fab capacity, and so they give that allocation to (1) Console CPUs (since they need to fulfil contractual obligations), (2) CCDs for Epyc and Ryzen CPUs (since these generate a high return). Radeon is much further down the list. So long as it does not actively lose money for AMD they will keep it going, but they need to grow revenue in other areas to justify the investment into Radeon
I think the fellows at AMD that work in the GPU division are one of the most respected ones because of how much they can do with so little actual budget given to them. I can't really find the source because it was told in one of the MLID podcasts but yeah, it's kind of weird how much the consumer berates them when the actual people working on them are actually very respected.
@@flintfrommother3gaming When winning consecutive Championships Lewis Hamilton had the most dominant car on the grid, without such car he wouldn't be able to achieve what he's achieved and everybody who's into F1 knows that a good car is like 60-70% of success, and yet he will be remembered as one of the greatest F1 drivers. It's the sum of things that matters in the end.
I think the problem is that they haven't had the breakthrough that Ryzen has yet. We never thought AMD would dominate the CPU market and here we are. Without that, there's no way they will fully compete, but if they can make that amount of performance jump, they could easily match pound for pound especially at their pricing structure. The biggest hurdle I think they run into is that AMD has always been AMD, but Radeon used to be ATI, which...used to be okay but was never really pushing the line forward versus Nvidia.
AMD needs dedicatdd pro card with its own architecture that accelerates professional use cases MASSIVELY at expesne of gaming perf(but still plenty good) these cards tend to have higher prices, longer support and they could make double the profit easily
AMD have CDNA
I'd like to know when is the next Maxwell moment -- when an 80 or 800 class GPU will both be no more than $549, AND use no more than 165 watts :)
I run an Nvidia GPU currently, but have had good experiences with AMD GPUs, RDNA2 was quite good. I will say that I do miss Adrenalin, it is a lot better than the Nvidia control panel and GeForce Experience.
Should I upgrade my 10700 i7 to a 7800x3d or wait another gen ? My gou is a 6950xt
only if you play at 1080p
@@mexreax4493 1440
AMD still competes in raster. It’s the other technologies AMD find themselves behind. But that’s understandable because AMD’s portfolio is broader than Nvidia. The question becomes are Nvdias innovations worth the price?
I don't think I want AMD Radeon to compete with Nvidia. I like them for being the price-to-performance kings of the market, and they've carved out a very good niche for themselves in that exact category. If they ever decided to become direct competitors with Nvidia I fear they might just go off and do that exact same thing and create ultra-expensive GPUs with awful price-to-performance ratios. I will agree in that we need another Nvidia-like entity to force that greedy company to innovate and get us better prices, but we also need someone to serve the budget and mid-range category too. AMD Radeon is that, and I'm genuinely hoping that Intel doesn't quit with their ARC program yet so they can be AMD's main competition in this niche as well.
I don't get what people are talking about about with AMD "not competing," AMD compete up and down the stack except at the very top. The 6950XT was about 85% of the performance of the 3090 Ti for 56% of the price and the 7900 XTX is about 81% of the performance of the 4090 for 62% of the price. Unless you are buying the absolute Nvidia flagship with it's ridiculous price and power consumption there is an AMD product that gives you as good or better price/performance throughout the entire rest of the stack. How many people are REALLY buying 3090 Ti's and 4090's? They are the only part of the market for which you could claim that AMD don't compete.
im sitting here wondering the same. They compete fine with the range they want to be in. They could make a huge GPU and beat a 4090, but would rather make two smaller GPU's and make more money (for them) that way.
Same. I have a 6950 XT and scratching my head.. they competed for my business and won and the numbers suggest I am a sizable part of the market so.. AMD doesn't compete? What?
Amd sales are excellent
Not if they're happily chasing after Nvidia, putting their prices just a tad below at every tier, and just copy whatever tech Nvidia came up with, hence duopoly sucks..
This long hair on Tims beard is destructing my concentration on answer.
Must admit I've been tempted by Nvidia lately, but I have relented and kept with AMD and even sent some funds to lil ol intel as well for an Arc card. If Intel can pick up the pace and compete well enough with AMD and Nvidia to justify doing it again, I'll do it again. Likewise, the next time AMD releases something that I think is going to be well worth every red cent over the MSRP; I'll buy that again too. Why not Nvidia, though I am tempted and accept that yes they do make hands down a better quality product?
Because they also don't. They'll have some of the best performance typically though challenged sometimes; but they also tend to try to do things that just make me not want to spend money on their cards. Like the 12v connector thing and all the burning cables and cards because of it. I've been burnt by Nvidia already once before back with some of their ol heater cards of the 2000's. Aftermarket cooling was basically a must; and I didn't have the cash for that. Not readily. Meanwhile, swapped for an albeit less powerful Ati card at the time, and bob was my uncle. Sure, I had to sacrifice on some settings, but it actually ran without trying to go heat seppuku mode. What more can a person ask for? A reliably running card perhaps?
AMD has always delivered on that front for me, albeit via Sapphire purchases only. Asus and me need to have a talk from a while ago. As for my new Arc card? A380 low profile. The probably almost weakest card in the series aside from I think the mobile and A310 card if I got the model right. Why this card?
Av1 encode. My current AMD gpu only does decode. I'm waiting for the 7900XTX to come down in price, or for my savings to grow large enough to get the W7900XT or whatever its named workstation card instead. Whichever is still available, and cheaper, when I finally pulled the plug on that. Specifically the Sapphire Nitro+ version of the 7900XTX. Either all that, or if they release a 7950XTX after deciding not to... (I think that became the high end workstation instead, but I could be wrong.)
I don't believe AMD cares about the high-end GPU Market. Why would they it's not even have 1% of GPU sales. And anyone who has ever had 1st hand experience with a 4090 after the excitement passes you realize the 4090 isn't really that much different than the $500 RX7800XT you have. Unless you have money to waste, you have to ask if this 4090 worth $1500 dollars more than a 7900xt?
This is true about RTG's mindset, but the fact-of-the-matter is AMD needs that top end GPU to actually compete with the mind share that "nVidia is just better" overall.
@TheXev I agree it would be beneficial in multiple ways. Having a high-end overpriced GPU would serve as a testing platform for advancement or the rest of the lineup.
AMD has focused on putting an end to Intel for well over a decade. Hell, that's the entire purpose for Threadripper. So obviously, AMD understands the importance of a keystone product.
That's why I think they just don't care to put a lot of energy into the GPU market. I hear that might be changing later this year. I sure hope so.
you need to care about high end market because that is what sells. Hell even 4080 and 4090 together sold more cards than whole rx7000 lineup, which failed after a promising 6000 series.
@tomorpedreiro3032 FYI, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Using steam data kinda makes your opinion foolish. I will never understand how people can become emotionally attached to a company.
@@jamesmcd71 I own 7900 xtx lol, im just stating facts. Im using JPR numbers that shows almost as same % as steam survey.
at the end of 2022 amd had a 24% gpu market share, now they have around 15-17%.
Well Intel was actually stumbling since 2nd-3rd gen, since then they just pulled the handbrake and gave like 5% ipc increases per gen, up until 8th-9th..you had dual core i7s up to 7th-f****n gen, they'd just fallen asleep at that point.
Nvidia is different, AMD has to compete from the ground up and win at each position like you say, they already have a great marketing win with people noticing and appreciating amd cards.
I really want to buy and support AMD again but DLSS and RT are just too good to pass up. Like in most cases FSR2 Quality is only as good as DLSS Performance at best in terms of image quality.
Radeon is fine but they need to price themselves 20-30% UNDER NVIDIA to be appealing to buyers. I bought a 6800XT last gen and had so many display issues with black screens. That coupled with lack of DLSS, RTX and higher power draw makes no sense to buy an AMD card.
Amd needs new leadership on the gpu development team and for the owners/leaders of the company to back up that department more. Needs much more aggressive development and expansion. The entire R&D budget for amd (ryzen and Radeon combined) is a fraction of both nvidia and intel.
That's because Nvida started out as a gaming division....but is slowly moving away from that insearch of more profits...and it's in data center....and AMD is following suite. AMD just made there first 24gb vram gpu...but it's a by product of gaming...they will be moving over to data centers as well. Nvida is making 40k per card in data vs 2k with a 4090 gaming gpu...and now that A.I is taking off using the same die, TSMC is upping its prices...I don't think Nvidas gaming division will be around much longer...I give it 15 to 20 years...and Nvida won't have a gaming division.
I don't agree with this take, first the guys more pointed out poor marketing/sales strategy for AMD(which yes obviously has had some issues over the years). But I saw the question as will the high end chips from both companies ever compete directly. And I would say short of ray-tracing they did last gen. It isn't like the radeon architecture is miles behind. GA102 is 628 mm², NAVI21 was 520mm². Those dies were the 3090ti and the 6950xt respectively; which were within a few % of each other in rasterization. It's hard to do apples to apples since the two aren't ever on the same node which has profound effects on the end performance. Now that AMD is going chiplet it is even harder to compare architecture but this doomer concept that radeon just can't build a competing chip when ADA102 is ~100mm² physically larger doesn't tell me that they are superior at building a chip. It's that Nvidia are just putting more shaders in a chip. It's like building a V8 and bragging that a V6 can't keep up in a drag race.
They design these chips years out and I don't see any reason to think that if AMD decided to make a 600mm² die on a cutting edge node that it wouldn't be as performant as an Nvidia die. It might take a couple more gens but yea I don't see why they couldn't trade the crown in the next couple of years.
THey would have to drop the prices to compete, They dont want the zen moment anymore they are more than happy to jsut charge as much as they cant to their existing cosumers
I ditched a decade long relationship with Nvidia for AMD and it's been worth it. Better performance and better software.
It's like AMD Ryzen and AMD Radeon are 2 completely different companies based on marketing & pricing strategies. I would fire everyone in the Radeon marketing division if I was AMD's CEO.
my headcanon is that their driver team is a five-person squad of unpaid interns who need a bottle each of adderall to get through each launch cycle
the performance/features determine the price, and its hard to market a lesser performing product.
AMD needs to sell off the radeon division to someone who wants to compete.
Exactly my thoughts
Radeon :D Good luck !
u can t compete with only 96 CU vs 128 SM plus tensor for RT
For my profession architectural visualization, most of the software does not support Amd GPU as they are based on CUDA and Amd stopped supporting OpenCL capabilities for rendering. It will be difficult for any 3d company to use Radeon card especially when it comes to GPU rendering. For gamers Amd isn't doing badly but for professional work it a hard sell.
I am buying GPUs for gaming for almost 20 years and there where times when AMD was selling better GPUs and right now AMD offers more for the money where it counts for, 350 to 700 with rdna 2 still on the market.
Hard to say in the future, but I agree that if NVIDIA will not make something very stupid, then AMD will be unlikely on to top of GPU market with the product. They should focus to compete by price in my opinion. Many times we heard that the next GPU will be the best, Vega64, Radeon 7, whole Navi lineup, all are behind NVIDIA. Remember that AMD has the future in APU for consoles, next stationary X and PS will have AMD apu, and both of the companies will also have a handheld with AMD APU, steam deck is around the corner too probably.
Say it with me: AMD is not there to actually compete; they're there to let Nvidia avoid monopoly lawsuits! Lisa Su and Jensen Huang ARE blood relatives, after all!
AMD can reach nvidia when they use tensorcores im your gpus , they cant create technology at same level of nvidia just because the graphics cards doesnt have tensor cores
Nvida is like cadillac and Amd is like Chevy...but they all fall under the GM brand.
Just because amd isnt winning the crown does not mean they dont compete. That is such a ridiculous statement.
Nvidia. Al is a wild card. Nvidia engineers will move on to working on Al as a major focus; this will affect the gaming GPU for both good and bad. Now AMD integrated GPU I think that is going to be AMD's next Zen moment, I bet we're going to see a new generation of motherboards built around an integrated GPU that on a new socket, and that's going to be a game changer for AMD this integrated GPU will be entry-level+ for gaming. That what I think the AMD engineers are doing?
The fact the super series had to be released shows amd is verrry comeptitive in all but the 9 series top end space.....
What are they supposed to wake up for? A trash gaming market right now? Video games are such shit right now so no point investing in a high end GPU for some time.
AMD had a HUGE opportunity when they released the 7000 series if they had priced their cards properly, but got greedy and screwed themselves again.
Based on reviews, they may need another 10yrs or more to beat nvidia.. so nvdia will just continue to put premium on pricing.. cos whatever they do, nvidia is always on top .. hopefully intel can break this soon.. for me honestly, im still going nvidia.. raster maybe on par but technology leans towards nvidia..
Well..... we have to admit that they have at least a GREAT(sarcasm) marketing campaign.
AMD appeals to the budget minded by manufacturing with less features and cheaper raytracing processes.
It allows budget gamers a way in
Maybe AMDs eyes are on market share and not ‘the fastest’ gpu
I have to say, to say AMD is not competing in GPU is not true, the Radeon cards have been good for the last 2 gens in all but raytracing, which most people don't even use. They really only haven't competed on the high end (4090) and from a business perspective, that is not a bad move since it is a very limited market. They also have never put their whole focus on Radeon. I agree Nvidia are about a 1/2 gen ahead all the time, in hardware and software, but Nvidia are getting very out of touch with the consumer too and that should not be glossed over. They used to be gamer focused, but since the mining boom, Nvidia have morphed into just another big company focused on shareholder return over consumer sentiment. Great video, you guys always kill it!
@@jimmer411 I agree, but the tech is not good enough for path tracing yet and raytracing is poorly implemented in most games so it is almost meaning less to most gamers. Path tracing is the future though.
AMD Radeon's division's issue is they are super reactionary and not aggressive like their Ryzen counterparts.
It's almost like the GPUs make no margin and they are just squeezing you what they can get out of your pocket. From what I hear on CZcams because they don't use the latest nodes margins aren't the issue. So maybe they are just greedy?
That are for sure just following N'greadia.
Considering the monster that nvidia became after investing in AI I am looking forward to see how they will further implement the tech in GPUs
I mean, AMD they're doing great with their CPU against Intel. But the GPU is unfortunately, Nvidia is just beyond them (at least the high-end cards, the low-end cards I think AMD is doing great). Still, I'm rocking with my RX 6600, runs great and cool.
No, because as they told, Nvidia isn't slipping like Intel did. I remember upgrading from i5 2500 to i5 6500 after 5 years and it was essentially the same CPU. Intel slacked for a very long time. In the meanwhile, Nvidia has been innovating in the field continuously for quarter a century. They have always been expensive but they probably have the best engineers in the industry. AMD could keep parity until Turing but no longer.
For some (not all) of the GPU models from each of them:
AMD - Price to performance, better rasterization performance, better control panel experience & modern UI.
Nvidia - High/higher price, better for Ray Tracing, better upscaling result, better running AI tools locally, more efficient for video content creator.
What else?👀
AMD better software lol what are you smoking
I think AMD is competing. 3d cache has been the game changer techology in gaming in a longtime.
the only good thing amd is doing is allowing cpu to overclock very easily, where intel wants you to pay to overclock like get a overclockable motherboard and cpu
They seem always hardballing their prices that eventually will fall and to be honest it makes me thinking it should have been that low. They just low cutting Nvidia trying to make the most money out of it. I hope with Intel entering the market it will pressure AMD from the low to medium segment.
No. They will never compete. End of story.
Lisa Su has been an absolute disaster for Radeon GPUs.
I actually do not care if AMD is able to deliver the best GPU in the world. That would be just a cherry on the cake.
I much more appreciate reasonable priced middle tier GPUs that anyone can afford and the less "evil" mindset.
Will Nvidia ever actually compete with AMD? AMD's gpu's are objectively better than Nvidia's gpu's at the same price.
AMD does not believe in specialized cores like Nvidia's RT cores and Tensor cores, and now with Nvidia's Optical Flow Accelerators. So long as AMD think that they can never compete with Nvidia. Even Intel has such cores, like Intel's XeSS. Hopefully with the push for AI AMD will have to change that way of thinking of not relying on just software.
I hope Intel comes and takes the budget market or under $400 market away. That might wake AMD up because they seem to have gotten comfortable eating Nvidia scraps.
I'm gonna be real, NVIDIA even before the AI boom was so much bigger than AMD. it's a miracle they can even keep up IMO.
Fully agree, AMD don't WANT to beat NVIDIA in the graphics space. They just want their margins to be good enough. GPU's make them almost no money compared to CPU's especially in the datacenter, so they've just given up.
They problem is they basically copy NVIDIA's homework including the obvious mistakes which they don't learn from poor naming schemes ("XTX" like WTF is that, high pricing of 7900 series etc) which makes them slightly worse at everything, and without any meaningful advantages over Nvidia.
I'm hoping intel will provide some competition in 3-4 years.
We need an earthquake to happen around Nvidia DnD division for AMD to catch up.
Its pretty simple...
AMD Understand that you're not N1. Don't try to compete with Nvidia with similar pricing methods...
Most people buy Nvidia cause that's the only brand they know.
Make your effort.. price accordingly and attract new customers. What are you expecting with these prices, really?
I'm an Amd+Amd user btw, and 7900 pricing is keeping me away.
Exactly I dont wanna reward nvidia for their greed but amd is way too expensive for what they offer, id love to get an 7600xt for the vram for blender npr but its way expensive
Honestly, I only see AMD as the cheap option, but they don't offer anything else, just lower prices.
I don't know guys, this generation, nvidia and amd, is disappointing.
Besides the 4090.
If you are on the 3000 series or the 6000 series, you dont have any reason to upgrade.
Ryzen makes the best gaming chips and the GPUs are much better when it comes to price to performance I mean how many normal people are buying a 4090?
In my experience, nGreedia sure it has the fastest cards(not with the previous gen where RTX 3090/TI could not beat in every game 6900XTX/ 6950XTX), and some stuff like now RT or back in the day PsysX.. But when it comes to quality and durability, they are total garbage... Many of their old cards die and get rekted, while way less Radeon cards do that.. Also on older systems i can clearly see, the nGreedia drivers have nasty driver overhead, that makes the systems way worse, while Radeon drivers dont do that.. Not to mention how many new failed cards they had like RTX 2080/TI that had space invaders bad memory, or RTX 3090 die in game menu, or RTX 3080 had bad capacitors and die, or the BS with GTX 970 memory edition... For me Radeon wins, since is WAY more reliable, and on price to performance is crushing nGreedia..
The only reason I didn't get a card from the Radeon RX 7000 series is the poor efficiency. I don't care about Raytracing. Now I'm going to wait for the next generation. If AMD doesn't match Nvidias efficiency, I'll buy an Nvidia card.
Stop thinking that Nvidia and AMD are competitors. It's very clear they work in cooperation, they both already agreed on who works on what and target markets for each other, wonders of duopoly. Think about it, if Nvidia introduces something whether it's a new feature like dlss or a gpu that exceptionally bad price to performance ratio, AMD is always going to repeat exactly the same thing, they will always introduce their own similar tech and they will also bring the same failed gpu (literally fsr3 and 7600XT situation). It's like a theater play, they both have a roles, like a "good policeman, bad policeman" strategy, Nvidia is playing the antagonist who's only thinks about money yet still going to sell well because there's no alternative, and AMD is playing as a pro consumer company who cares about everyone and tries to provide said alternative.
I want to support AMD GPU's, but they do so poorly against Nvidia, that I have no choice but to use Nvidia GPU's. I play games with Ray Tracing, use applications that take advantage of features like CUDA. I do local AI Image Generation on my PC. Until AMD can show that they can do as good, or better than Nvidia in these areas, I am sticking with Nvidia.
It took a 4 year stagnation from intel for amd to catch up. Radeon is way too reactionary how are you gonna fumble the pricing for the 7000 this bad. Nvidia releases the 4060 and is horrible price to performance and reacts by releasing the same thing for 30 bucks less. Rx 7800xt barely better than the Rx 6800xt for 50 bucks more on release
Radeon Really Needs to have a solid game plan. They need to improve on the marketing, and make sure everyone is on the same page. They need to fix the weird haphazard nature of the company. They also really need to double down on the software suites and feature WHILE being aggressive on pricing. They cant rely on word of mouth if they wish to grow their brand, they need to appeal to the masses, so they will have to make sure they get their ducks in a line and come up with some good marketing, but that doesn't work if they don't fix the communication issues.
They also gotta stop being the depressed kid in the corner with their head down saying 'everyone will just buy Nvidea anyways...." cuz then they just make a self fulfilling prophecy. They will need to be super aggressive if they wish to really claw back some marketshare, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. I know that gaming isnt a big source of revenue for AMD, but same can be said for Nvidea, who are still kicking their ass. Each have larger sources of revenue, that shouldn't be an excuse either. We need competition, or prices will climb. At this rate it seems AMD is happy to be second in a two man race and scrape out as much profit as they can following in the footsteps of their competitors.
Part of Me wishes Intel would come in swinging and crush it, just to prove that you can break into a market so AMD can see that if you try, you can do it.
That's funny. I've been using radeon for a decade and I can play any game any time. I can play games without spending a grand. If radeon caught up, whatever that even means, then you'd be paying amd a grand to play games. Why is it even necessary to explain this to grown ups?
When I want a goof off I use AMD. When I want something seriously done I use Nvidia.
Radeon has NEVER been more powerful than nvidia when it comes to most poweful card on the market, Radeon has always been about the price to performance, I think back to something like a HD 5770 that was god tier price to performance at the time. AMD does not have to have the most powerful card in the market because only the top 1% of the market cares/ can afford about the highest of high end cards.
But even when price matched, the feature cut back is massive. You don't ever go from an AMD card to an Nvidia card and go "my, I wish I had X feature". It's largely a one way street
AMD's 6000 series cards did god agnst Nvidia 30 series
amd drivers is not that bad
Radeon will never reach Nvidia for the simple reason of company size, the boat has sailed away. The Radeon branch is absolutely tiny compared to Nvidia meanwhile AMD is 1:1 with Intel while as a whole company they are about 4-5 times smaller than Nvidia. At this point Nvidia can literally throw shit (money) on the wall and some gonna stick. They can always at least match Radeon if not straight up being better. Sad but true.
AMD nuked ATI, everything went downhill after that.
I disagree it's gonna happen you watch
The 7000 series was the worst launch of products they have released to date, the 7900 xt should have replaced the Rx 6800xt @ a price of 650 USD the 7900 xtx should have replaced the rx 6900xt @ 800 usd max, the 7800xt should have replaced the rx 6800 @ 450- 500 usd, amd cant compete but yet they try and sell their products why more thans the 6000 series
must be new here, thy've had several far worse product launches.
Nvidia had to release super series cards to beat current Radeon cards, amd only "had" to lower prices, am i missing something about amd not competing. Except for the 4090 i think amd is doing pretty good.