KipicogYou obviously know nothing about esport.

prosettings.net/lists/cs2/

And watch that video. Shows 7900XTX draws 100-150 watts more than 4080 while delivering worse performance

Hxxlol how tf do you know what I know or don’t . That link doesn’t prove any nonsense u said so far but keep linking it .

power draw is a moot point depending on the user and here’s why- those who drop 5k on a system generally care very little about efficiency . Also those power figures are under load not daily use. Nvidia is much more efficient sure but don’t think you’re saving 150w/hr by going with nvidia . Again you are cherry picking your point . Are you also one of those folks who think a 4090 is a good value for gaming ? Lol

KipicogLMAO, it shows exactly what system every single pro player use. Top 10 CS2 teams are listed. Every single player in it are listed. All use Nvidia. Keep dreaming. No pro's use AMD GPUs, but several use AMD CPUs.

Power draw is not a moot point. Players don't want additional 100-150 watts slammed in their face while gaming. Or additional noise, since many use open headsets.

Once again, you have zero knowledge about eSport. I've worked close with many top players and teams. Been at 100+ tournaments. Build tournament rigs. I know for a fact that pretty much zero use AMD GPU.

Hxxlol you build tournament rigs . Alright Where is the system ?

KipicogClick on the PLAYER ... LMAO

:roll:

KipicogLMAO, it shows exactly what system every single pro player use. Top 10 CS2 teams are listed. Every single player in it are listed. All use Nvidia. Keep dreaming. No pro's use AMD GPUs, but several use AMD CPUs.

Power draw is not a moot point. Players don't want additional 100-150 watts slammed in their face while gaming. Or additional noise, that being louder fans or coilwhine, since many use open headsets, at least at home, mostly closed at tournaments. Also, Nvidia have better minimum and higher averages fps, just less issues in general.

Once again, you have zero knowledge about eSport. I've worked close with many top players and teams. Been at 100+ tournaments, all over the world. Build tournament rigs. I know for a fact that pretty much zero of them use AMD GPU. Most want Reflex + LDAT support. AMD has nothing that even comes close.

You can act like AMD is "just as good" all you want, in reality, they don't even have 2% of the pro base when talking GPUs and Steam HW Survey also tells me that 8 out of 10 players buys Nvidia - store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Lets stop dreaming now.

LeiesoldatYa'll clearly didn't follow the moderator's instructions to stay on topic which is discussing whether Nvidia is acting like a cartel or not. The cartel actions are mostly in the enterprise environment and that's where the lion's share of the chips are going. I think AMD has a good shot at breaking the cartel-like grip with the MI300 chip especially considering its price is orders of magnitude lower than the Grace Hopper chip.

Stop talking about the FPS charts.

ScaLibBDP>>...statements made by executives at rival chipmaker Groq and former AMD executive...

These companies are direct competitors of NVIDIA and they will do whatever it takes to harm business of NVIDIA!

Are there any complaints from Meta ( recently ordered 350,000 NVIDIA GPUs ), Amazon, or X?

Groq and AMD did Not publish benchmark results of famous MLPerf benchmarks for accelerators they design and sell.

Try to find any MLPerf benchmarks for accelerators ( Not CPUs ) of both companies at:

mlcommons.org/benchmarks/training

"This happens more than you expect, NVIDIA does this with DC customers, OEMs, AIBs, press, and resellers. They learned from GPP to not put it into writing. They just don't ship after a customer has ordered. They are the GPU cartel, and they control all supply,"

The comments reference the NVIDIA GeForce Partner Program (GPP) from 2018, which was abandoned following backlash over its exclusivity requirements.

evernessinceNo, it wasn't. As I pointed out months after the launch of the RX 7000 series all the top SKUs from ASUS, MSI, and Gigabyte are clearly reserved solely for Nvidia this generation. Nvidia didn't get rid of the GPP, they implemented it on the down low and tech journalists don't seem to give two hoots.

3valatzyI don't like a few things:
1. Nvidia competes with much smaller chips. AD104 measures around 294 mm2 and yet in manages to perform the same as the Navi 31 529 mm2 in Radeon RX 7900 GRE.
Can you imagine how much the larger chip increases the cost and decreases the profit margin?

3valatzyI assure you want to be an Nvidia shareholder, no an AMD shareholder.


www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-4070-super.c4186

2. AMD always leaves imperfections with their implementations - high power consumption (media playback, idle, power spikes, etc.), and lower than usual performance in certain games (Counter-Strike 2 as a prime case), and lack of interest to put more efforts in the ray-tracing development where it lags a few years behind Nvidia's solution.

3valatzy3. Always skipping the largest chips. Radeon RX 5700 XT, Radeon RX 8700 XT, Radeon Vega 64, to name a few.



We shall see.

ilyonI disagree: the other companies don't offer RTX™ and DLSS™ for free.
NVIDIA maybe is a cartel, but an honest one.

Outback BronzeHmm, GTX 970 with 4GB vram anybody?

nguyenYou mean Scott walked on stage and told everyone that RDNA3 would be 50-70% faster than RDNA2 didn't make him a liar?

AnarchoPrimitivYes, this is exactly it! It seems inherent to capitalism that when a corporate entity reaches a certain size, they rely less and less on innovation and fair competition and instead increasingly focus on manipulating the system, anti-competitive practices, and using accumulated size and resources to compete rather than innovation. For example, consider Intel's or Nvidia's behavior whenever they've even perceived the slightest threat from AMD. We can recall from the early 2000s that Intel resorted to bribing OEMs with their "rebate" plan or Nvidia's GPP program in the mid to late 2010s, both of which undoubtedly have implications in the present and, imo, act more as temporary windows into the everyday running of these relationship to this day, than as aberrations of their corporate behavior. For example, I think we can all agree that AMD's mobile offerings are just as good, if not better (especially in efficiency) than Intel's and yet there are far fewer laptop models based on AMD, the ones that are are usually cheaper options (in quality), and sometimes they seemingly don't even apply the products in the best possible way, i.e. how I'm constantly seeing laptops with AMD APUs paired with nvidia dGPUs, which is fine as an option, but there seems to be very few laptop models where the stronger AMD APUs are used ALONE which I would think would be their BEST use, i.e. a thin and light, premium ultrabook with a 7840H(S)/7940H(S)/8840H(S)/8940H(S) and that's it!

I think the lack of AMD laptops testifies to the nature of the relationship between Intel/AMD and the OEMs and how Intel's bribery of OEMs like Dell previously still deeply affects everything. For example, I believe that Dell doesn't have a single AMD XPS laptop option and this is 100% a reflection of Intel's influence on OEMs and while Intel might no be giving obvious bribes or payments, they go to these OEMs form a "development partnership" where Intel basically throws a lot of cash at them...does anybody here think that Dell, Asus, MSI, etc do not have the resources to develop a top of the line laptop model based on an AMD sku? While some may argue that this is merely "just doing business", the fact still remains that in the instance of laptops (arguably the most lucrative x86 market behind enterprise) the superiority of the product (CPU) is seemingly the LAST factor in determining what laptops get produced, and I'm sure the same can be said for pre-built Desktop PCs from OEMs as well.

True story: My coworkers are aware at my interest in computers, that I build them, and I've basically become the "computer guy" if anybody has a question or needs advice....well, just a few days ago, I was talking to a coworker about laptops because his wife is in the market for one, and I mentioned AMD. His perception of AMD was as though it was still 2013, that they were a cheaper, lesser option that somebody would only buy because they have to. This guy isn't dumb, and while he isn't an enthusiast, he also isn't completely ignorant, but I tried to parse out the basis for his perception and it was largely due to his observation that for example, when you're at Best Buy, the top of the line laptop models never have an AMD option, and when there are AMD options, they're usually budget tier. It really makes you wonder how much of Intel's business in the post-ryzen era has been based upon their cartelistic relationships with OEMs and the ability it has created to curate an image and perception in the minds of consumers that is divorced from reality.

3valatzy1. Nvidia competes with much smaller chips. AD104 measures around 294 mm2 and yet in manages to perform the same as the Navi 31 529 mm2 in Radeon RX 7900 GRE.
Can you imagine how much the larger chip increases the cost and decreases the profit margin?
I assure you want to be an Nvidia shareholder, no an AMD shareholder.

lexluthermiesterYou're citing Hardware Unboxed? Really?!? That alone is embarrassing for you.. Steve Walton is incompetent and a known sellout. Nothing he presents can be trusted. LTT is a better source of benchmark data...