I guess MSI warns us that their Radeon products are subpar and we should left them keep them, so they can use them(vertically) as chair replacements.

DeathtoGnomesit aint so. Its just business as usual in capitalist amerika :rolleyes:

I like my way better!

john_I guess MSI warns us that their Radeon products are subpar and we should left them keep them, so they can use them(vertically) as chair replacements.

The original discussion that is in the screenshot of the OP is about laptop cards. Specifically the question was asked why MSI didn't offer AMD graphics in one of their gaming laptops. MSI's statements are true, when you know the context, there is no getting around that. For dedicated mobile GPUs, AMD's offerings are not as strong.

The MSI person was not making a blanket statement on AMD vs nVidia like people are trying to make it out to be. He also wasn't talking about desktop graphics cards, so I have no idea why people are going on trying to compare desktop cards to show he was wrong about AMD.

Vayra86You must be gutted you've got a 30% faster card now :kookoo:

If everything was about performance your wife would have left you for that porn star ages ago.

Jokes aside, being faster doesn't excuse shitty behavior by MSI or Nvidia. You are just encouraging the shitty side of PC culture that in part allowed Intel to monopolize the market for minute gaming gains now and slower market advances in the future. Extremely short sided.

Vayra86And so you should, but do realize that the last point you mentioned is entirely abstract and touted by every manufacturer. None of them are 'for the gamer'. Neither Nvidia or AMD. They make GPUs and they prefer selling them at as high a price as possible. Case in point with Vega: most of the production is fed towards MI25's and Frontier Editions, not regular 'gaming' cards.

I do get what you're saying. AMD has a rather much cleaner track record in terms of 'shady practices' overall. Then again, its also been on the short end of the stick for how long now? I cannot shake the feeling AMD is that sheep trying to play with wolves and I would much prefer a bit less sheep in AMD.

Last I checked Nvidia has started price wars, gameworks, broken physx, disallowed SLI, gouged FE prices, and released proprietary software when open source is available.

People love to hate the competitipn, for either not being out of business yet, not being competitive enough, being too competitive, being slow at something, being fast at something "crypto", features that are open source, features that aren't open source, the old interface, the new interface, the color, the company, how much power, too little power......

It must be exhausting hating so much, and to have most users buy a 1050 or lower.....

SteevoLast I checked Nvidia has started price wars,

A legit business practice, last I checked.

Steevogameworks,

Works on AMD, too, hasn't been shown to cripple hardware only on one side (i.e. when fps tanks on AMD hardware, it will tank on similar Nvidia hardware as well).

Steevobroken physx,

?

Steevodisallowed SLI,

AMD is also backpedalling on CrossFire.

Steevogouged FE prices,

Again, a legit business practice, when you competition is no show (and yet another reminder of how everybody benefits from AMD stepping up their game, even if you don't use their hardware)

Steevoand released proprietary software when open source is available.

Not neccesarily harmful. E.g. OpenCL 2.0 is open, yet it doesn't leverage Nvidia hardware as well as CUDA does. Open is better than closed, but if you start shunning closed, you'll stifle innovation, too. Mandating software to be open is akin to abolishing patents - fewer people will have an incentive to invest their time into coming up with something new.

newtekie1The original discussion that is in the screenshot of the OP is about laptop cards. Specifically the question was asked why MSI didn't offer AMD graphics in one of their gaming laptops. MSI's statements are true, when you know the context, there is no getting around that. For dedicated GPUs, AMD's offerings are not as strong.

The MSI person was not making a blanket statement on AMD vs nVidia like people are trying to make it out to be. He also wasn't talking about desktop graphics cards, so I have no idea why people are going on trying to compare desktop cards to show he was wrong about AMD.

If the customer wants an AMD gpu in the laptop, you can always have it as an option. I don't think MSI is paying AMD anything for having them as an option. And in any case you don't post statements like this. Statements of this kind just call for a monopoly because AMD is sub par any way in everything. Both CPUs and GPUs. By long margin, by a tiny margin, it doesn't matter, if we go by that logic.
And you are wrong in that last part. I am not trying to make it a comparison of desktop GPUs(the fact that make better chairs for representatives who post this kind of messages, is irrelevant), I just find that reply of MSI's represantative the root of the problem that gives companies like Intel and Nvidia the right to use monopolistic tactics. I can understand replies of this kind from the random fan of a company or a product, but not from a person who's part of the salary, is coming from AMD based products that MSI sells.

john_If the customer wants an AMD gpu in the laptop, you can always have it as an option. I don't think MSI is paying AMD anything for having them as an option.

That isn't not true at all. We have an entire other thread about what happens when you try to stuff a dedicated GPU into a laptop that clearly isn't designed to handle the heat.

You can't just slap an RX 580 into a laptop that is designed for a GTX1060.

The gaming laptops with AMD dedicated GPUs have to be bigger, thicker, heavier, have much worse battery life, and get a lot hotter. These are the facts, and it is also why the AMD gaming laptop market has pretty much dried up. Just go to newegg and go the gaming laptop section and search for laptops with AMD radeon GPUs. You get 5 results, 3 models from ASUS, 1 from Lenovo, and 1 from HP. Manufacturers aren't going to put products out in the market, spending the time to develop them, if the product can't compete.

john_And in any case you don't post statements like this.

Sure you can, they are true, why can't they? The problem is when people try to make a statement that was very clearly about a specific thing, and make it seem like a blanket statement against they company they prefer.

john_Statements of this kind just call for a monopoly because AMD is sub par any way in everything. Both CPUs and GPUs. By long margin, by a tiny margin, it doesn't matter, if we go by that logic.

No they don't. They state the truth, if we can't make true statements explaining why we do things without the fanboys getting pissed off, then the fanboys have won.

john_And you are wrong in that last part. I am not trying to make it a comparison of desktop GPUs(the fact that make better chairs for representatives who post this kind of messages, is irrelevant),

I'm not saying you did this, I'm saying others in the thread did. There were like 2 pages of comparisons of desktop GPUs for some reason.

john_I just find that reply of MSI's represantative the root of the problem that gives companies like Intel and Nvidia the right to use monopolistic tactics. I can understand replies of this kind from the random fan of a company or a product, but not from a person who's part of the salary, is coming from AMD based products that MSI sells.

That's bull. The question was asked why MSI doesn't offer AMD GPUs in their gaming laptops, this person is giving the reasoning behind the decision, and those reasons are very valid.

newtekie1That isn't not true at all. We have an entire other thread about what happens when you try to stuff a dedicated GPU into a laptop that clearly isn't designed to handle the heat.

You can't just slap an RX 580 into a laptop that is designed for a GTX1060.

The gaming laptops with AMD dedicated GPUs have to be bigger, thicker, heavier, have much worse battery life, and get a lot hotter. These are the facts, and it is also why the AMD gaming laptop market has pretty much dried up. Just go to newegg and go the gaming laptop section and search for laptops with AMD radeon GPUs. You get 5 results, 3 models from ASUS, 1 from Lenovo, and 1 from HP. Manufacturers aren't going to put products out in the market, spending the time to develop them, if the product can't compete.

A 580 is power hungry? Throw a 560 there. People might just want an AMD card for various reasons. Fans of the company, haters of Nvidia control panel, a specific game/application, whatever logical or illogical reason. And even in the case of the 580, even if the laptop is "bigger, thicker, heavier, have much worse battery life, and get a lot hotter" could be selling at a lower price, even slight lower price. Not to mention that many consumers buy what the seller will advice them to buy. If this looks bad, well it was much worst 12(?) years ago when almost every seller was promoting Pentium 4 systems, while at the same time burring the Athlon64 models.

Sure you can, they are true, why can't they? The problem is when people try to make a statement that was very clearly about a specific thing, and make it seem like a blanket statement against they company they prefer.

It is an OK comment when you are running a grocery, not when you represent a multi billion international company. And do you know that MSI representative personally to know for sure that this was not a blanket statement?

No they don't. They state the truth, if we can't make true statements explaining why we do things without the fanboys getting pissed off, then the fanboys have won.

Based on that truth, you have a warranted monopoly in EVERY MARKET. I mean, only the best performing and the best value products would be selling. Everything else is sub par, DOA, the end, nothing to explain here.

I'm not saying you did this, I'm saying others in the thread did. There were like 2 pages of comparisons of desktop GPUs for some reason.

Haven't read the other posts and you quoted me. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

That's bull. The question was asked why MSI doesn't offer AMD GPUs in their gaming laptops, this person is giving the reasoning behind the decision, and those reasons are very valid.

It's easy to give a reasonable reply when it has to do with AMD. You don't feel any threats incoming. If it had to do with Intel or Nvidia, some other type of question and a reply that could make Intel or Nvidia look bad, that could easily send someone searching for a new job or at least make him be more careful about the replies he posts.
More bull? I think not. Until recently and for years, all the tech press was proving this point.
in any case when a representative of a multi billion international company that SELLS AMD products, call them sub par, even not in a blacket statement, that's the worst kind of negative publicity for that company and music in the ears of competing companies.

newtekie1That isn't not true at all. We have an entire other thread about what happens when you try to stuff a dedicated GPU into a laptop that clearly isn't designed to handle the heat.

You can't just slap an RX 580 into a laptop that is designed for a GTX1060.

The gaming laptops with AMD dedicated GPUs have to be bigger, thicker, heavier, have much worse battery life, and get a lot hotter. These are the facts, and it is also why the AMD gaming laptop market has pretty much dried up. Just go to newegg and go the gaming laptop section and search for laptops with AMD radeon GPUs. You get 5 results, 3 models from ASUS, 1 from Lenovo, and 1 from HP. Manufacturers aren't going to put products out in the market, spending the time to develop them, if the product can't compete.

Spoiler

Sure you can, they are true, why can't they? The problem is when people try to make a statement that was very clearly about a specific thing, and make it seem like a blanket statement against they company they prefer.



No they don't. They state the truth, if we can't make true statements explaining why we do things without the fanboys getting pissed off, then the fanboys have won.



I'm not saying you did this, I'm saying others in the thread did. There were like 2 pages of comparisons of desktop GPUs for some reason.



That's bull. The question was asked why MSI doesn't offer AMD GPUs in their gaming laptops, this person is giving the reasoning behind the decision, and those reasons are very valid.

Hmm this all reminds me of that Alienware Radeon laptops. Are they just discontinued or part of all this GPP mumbojumbo. Looking at the newest 17" model and comparing it to model that was selling on August 25. 2017; Radeon RX 570 as option is gone. Other thing on Radeon side is how switchable graphics works now-a-day(amd version of nvidia optimus). I remember hearing some horrible nightmares with Enduro when HD 7970M was shiny new piece of hardware.

john_A 580 is power hungry? Throw a 560 there. People might just want an AMD card for various reasons. Fans of the company, haters of Nvidia control panel, a specific game/application, whatever logical or illogical reason. And even in the case of the 580, even if the laptop is "bigger, thicker, heavier, have much worse battery life, and get a lot hotter" could be selling at a lower price, even slight lower price. Not to mention that many consumers buy what the seller will advice them to buy. If this looks bad, well it was much worst 12(?) years ago when almost every seller was promoting Pentium 4 systems, while at the same time burring the Athlon64 models.

Some companies are not willing to put the development time and money into a product that isn't going to make the money back because it isn't competitive. Let the bigger companies fight over the few scraps, it isn't worth it for most companies. Hence why most companies aren't offerering AMD options.

The fact is MSI's reasoning is sound, and their statements true.

john_It is an OK comment when you are running a grocery, not when you represent a multi billion international company. And do you know that MSI representative personally to know for sure that this was not a blanket statement?

I don't have to know him. Just read the facebook conversation. Did you even bother to read the news post that started this thread?

"The handle was responding to a question as to why the notebook didn't come with AMD Radeon graphics options." - TheNewPost

It is stated right in the damn article!

And specifically, the person was responding to why the Ultra Thin GS63 7RD Stealth didn't come with an AMD graphics option. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because it is an Ultra Thin, and AMD GPUs just don't work well in Ultra Thins? The max GPU they offer in this laptop is a GTX 1050. So it obviously isn't designed for high TDP GPUs. The notebook GTX 1050 is rated for 40w, does AMD even have a mobile gaming GPU that falls in the 40w range?

john_Based on that truth, you have a warranted monopoly in EVERY MARKET. I mean, only the best performing and the best value products would be selling. Everything else is sub par, DOA, the end, nothing to explain here.

Um, no. When a question is about a specific ultra thin laptop, and it is literally not possible to do that with an AMD product, that is not the case at all. Sure, I guess nVidia has a monopoly on Ultra-thin dedicated GPUs. But that is because you literally can't put an AMD dedicated GPU in an ultra-thin and keep it cool. It is impossible to put an AMD GPU in this laptop's form factor and get even close to the same performance. These are the facts that backup MSI's statement.

john_It's easy to give a reasonable reply when it has to do with AMD. You don't feel any threats incoming. If it had to do with Intel or Nvidia, some other type of question and a reply that could make Intel or Nvidia look bad, that could easily send someone searching for a new job or at least make him be more careful about the replies he posts.
More bull? I think not. Until recently and for years, all the tech press was proving this point.
in any case when a representative of a multi billion international company that SELLS AMD products, call them sub par, even not in a blacket statement, that's the worst kind of negative publicity for that company and music in the ears of competing companies.

So what you are saying is, they should have instead lied and not pointed out that AMD's products are in fact sub-par for the given application of a ultra-thin laptop? If that is their reasoning behind it, and it is valid, there is no reason not to say so. Sorry it hurts AMD Fanboy's feelings, but sometimes the truth hurts.

So people asking the lack of Amd radeon options in MSI Notebook offering and then MSI rep saying nvidia GPU was ahead in experience....what GPP have to do with this? Even long before GPP exist AMD pretty much non-existent in this market (thanks to Rory Read decision back in 2012). The thing about notebook is OEM did not simply buy the card from AMD, put proper PSU for it and voila it's done like dekstop PC. it is effort that is done on both side where both OEM and gpu maker spend R&D to develop and design the notebook. Back in 2012 this R&D effort is something that AMD not wiling to commit hence they pretty much handed the market to nvidia. Looking at how AMD major effort right now is on Ryzen and not so much on RTG i'm not surprise AMD will not going to commit a lot of resource to win the notebook design with majority of laptop OEM. and there is also the issues with efficiency. Back on fermi era while nvidia quite dominating on desktop GPU market in mobile it is quite the opposite (if i remember correctly AMD own roughly 60% of the market share for discrete gpu in notebook at the time). So when the rep says "experience" it could be to integrate AMD GPU inside a notebook is more challenging than nvidia counterpart.

renz496So people asking the lack of Amd radeon options in MSI Notebook offering and then MSI rep saying nvidia GPU was ahead in experience....what GPP have to do with this? Even long before GPP exist AMD pretty much non-existent in this market (thanks to Rory Read decision back in 2012). The thing about notebook is OEM did not simply buy the card from AMD, put proper PSU for it and voila it's done like dekstop PC. it is effort that is done on both side where both OEM and gpu maker spend R&D to develop and design the notebook. Back in 2012 this R&D effort is something that AMD not wiling to commit hence they pretty much handed the market to nvidia. Looking at how AMD major effort right now is on Ryzen and not so much on RTG i'm not surprise AMD will not going to commit a lot of resource to win the notebook design with majority of laptop OEM. and there is also the issues with efficiency. Back on fermi era while nvidia quite dominating on desktop GPU market in mobile it is quite the opposite (if i remember correctly AMD own roughly 60% of the market share for discrete gpu in notebook at the time). So when the rep says "experience" it could be to integrate AMD GPU inside a notebook is more challenging than nvidia counterpart.

Well, GPP supposedly forbids manufacturers to use AMD video cards. If you believe that, taking this story without a grain of salt goes a long way reinforcing that belief.

renz496So people asking the lack of Amd radeon options in MSI Notebook offering and then MSI rep saying nvidia GPU was ahead in experience....what GPP have to do with this? Even long before GPP exist AMD pretty much non-existent in this market (thanks to Rory Read decision back in 2012). The thing about notebook is OEM did not simply buy the card from AMD, put proper PSU for it and voila it's done like dekstop PC. it is effort that is done on both side where both OEM and gpu maker spend R&D to develop and design the notebook. Back in 2012 this R&D effort is something that AMD not wiling to commit hence they pretty much handed the market to nvidia. Looking at how AMD major effort right now is on Ryzen and not so much on RTG i'm not surprise AMD will not going to commit a lot of resource to win the notebook design with majority of laptop OEM. and there is also the issues with efficiency. Back on fermi era while nvidia quite dominating on desktop GPU market in mobile it is quite the opposite (if i remember correctly AMD own roughly 60% of the market share for discrete gpu in notebook at the time). So when the rep says "experience" it could be to integrate AMD GPU inside a notebook is more challenging than nvidia counterpart.

Not sure if the cause is bad decision by anyone. Pitcairn was competitive in mobile space and got rebranded (too) many times(HD 7970M(Full) -> HD 8970M(Full) -> R9 M290X(Full) -> R9 M390(castrated)). And that because Kepler(which got it's own rebranded siblings too) vs GCN perf/W was not too large. They had two other chips which they aimed to be mobile: for lower end Bonaire and for Higher end Tonga. Tonga's faith was sealed by Nvidia's new Maxwell architecture: perf/W was not competitive at all, so it got picked mainly by Apple's(R9 M295X) iMacs. The same story continued with Pascal vs Polaris, Polaris perf/W equals Maxwell but that goal post was already moved further by Pascal. And they got absolutely nothing which could answer to gp104. And again Apple is the only main buyer of AMDs mobile radeons. While one can play with macbooks, players are not really their targeted audience, so mobile radeons on Apple's products can be kept in ideal clocks for Polaris architecture.

bugWell, GPP supposedly forbids manufacturers to use AMD video cards. If you believe that, taking this story without a grain of salt goes a long way reinforcing that belief.

They forbid partners not to sell geforce under the same branding as AMD Radeon but they outright state that they did not asking to directly stop selling AMD parts. If they did this then AMD already have very solid case to bring to the court. The issues with OEM maker is they still see consumer demand and react to that. Geforce is the prefered brand by majority of consumer so there is no way they going to produce laptops with Radeon with the same amount of volume they produce laptops with Geforce. And this is also why Rory rejects OEM offer back in 2012. If OEM did not intend to make large enough volume that Rory thinks worth the R&D then the deal is no go. That's why despite MSI already being part of nvidia GPP i don't think the lack of laptops with Radeon inside is caused by GPP let alone "MSI rep being drunk with GPP koolaid". Just that GPP is the big issue with nvidia and right now it seems to me everyone want to tie/blame everything on it.

renz496They forbid partners not to sell geforce under the same branding as AMD Radeon but they outright state that they did not asking to directly stop selling AMD parts. If they did this then AMD already have very solid case to bring to the court. The issues with OEM maker is they still see consumer demand and react to that. Geforce is the prefered brand by majority of consumer so there is no way they going to produce laptops with Radeon with the same amount of volume they produce laptops with Geforce. And this is also why Rory rejects OEM offer back in 2012. If OEM did not intend to make large enough volume that Rory thinks worth the R&D then the deal is no go. That's why despite MSI already being part of nvidia GPP i don't think the lack of laptops with Radeon inside is caused by GPP let alone "MSI rep being drunk with GPP koolaid". Just that GPP is the big issue with nvidia and right now it seems to me everyone want to tie/blame everything on it.

That's what I read, too. But others seem convinced GPP is but a ploy to kick AMD out and nothing you and I will say can convince them otherwise. Quite frankly, I'm not 100% convinced it isn't either, but I haven't seen anything in GPP to back that up. If that's the plan, chances are it's not enforced in the open (i.e. written as such in the GPP).

newtekie1Some companies are not willing to put the development time and money into a product that isn't going to make the money back because it isn't competitive. Let the bigger companies fight over the few scraps, it isn't worth it for most companies. Hence why most companies aren't offerering AMD options.

That's an explanation I have no problem to accept.....

The fact is MSI's reasoning is sound, and their statements true.

....but it is far from what MSI's representativity decided to post. I mean, post this "We have estimated the number of consumers interested for AMD option to be prety small this period of time making financially problematic to develop versions with AMD GPUs".

I don't have to know him. Just read the facebook conversation. Did you even bother to read the news post that started this thread?

"The handle was responding to a question as to why the notebook didn't come with AMD Radeon graphics options." - TheNewPost

It is stated right in the damn article!

And specifically, the person was responding to why the Ultra Thin GS63 7RD Stealth didn't come with an AMD graphics option. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because it is an Ultra Thin, and AMD GPUs just don't work well in Ultra Thins? The max GPU they offer in this laptop is a GTX 1050. So it obviously isn't designed for high TDP GPUs. The notebook GTX 1050 is rated for 40w, does AMD even have a mobile gaming GPU that falls in the 40w range?

Of course I read it. Again the reply was really really bad. "AMD unfortunately doesn't offer a fast enough GPU with 40W TDP". The end./ Not AMD products are sub par. Doesn't matter if the conversation is about a specific product, because the reply doesn't look like to be specific about one product, one case, one category. Of course you can continue saying the opposite. No problem by me.

Um, no. When a question is about a specific ultra thin laptop, and it is literally not possible to do that with an AMD product, that is not the case at all. Sure, I guess nVidia has a monopoly on Ultra-thin dedicated GPUs. But that is because you literally can't put an AMD dedicated GPU in an ultra-thin and keep it cool. It is impossible to put an AMD GPU in this laptop's form factor and get even close to the same performance. These are the facts that backup MSI's statement.

You insist to keep talking about how MSI's representative was talking about one product category or laptop model, but the reason we have an article here - probably written by an AMD fanboy? - is because of how that reply was written. You can keep insisting in looking at the tree, but sorry, there is a forest around that tree.

So what you are saying is, they should have instead lied and not pointed out that AMD's products are in fact sub-par for the given application of a ultra-thin laptop? If that is their reasoning behind it, and it is valid, there is no reason not to say so. Sorry it hurts AMD Fanboy's feelings, but sometimes the truth hurts.

And here we go to the best part of your post. First you come in a hapily conclution about what I mean and then you making it clear to me that you consider me a fanboy and you will never ever find anything correct in what I post. By the way, while you avoid parts of my posts, that maybe does not suit you, I would like to point out that this fanboy, said in a previous post that Ryzen processors can be considered sub par to Intel latest models. You can always find reasons to call something "sub par". Nothing is perfect anyway.

It's getting boring, especially after you make it clear that you are not doing a dialog, if you know what that is, you just want to nail that AMD fanboy, so, let's stop losing out time and end it here.

altimmons

seams strange to cry HYperbole and scandle mongery with a paragraph and a half that necro's a thread that's not seen any hype since the end of march.
Definitely The most shill like piece of opinion I've ever seen, note where you're attention is drawn ,what it says then see the wall and move on with the idea of what exactly, new members i like,and welcome, but this is certainly no forum noob here.

Strange yes.

Its a picture of all things. I did enjoy the part were their spouse works at "large international law firm" and he hears a lot of this. Maybe she doesn't know what attorney client privileges are. Then he goes further off track.