john_I would expect from AMD, that probably has many employees from ATI, who are in business for over 20 years to know that even things that look non important, can kill the reputation of a company over night.

i don't think many of them still at AMD.

mamaSo, Radeon sales down 48% year on year? Am I reading that right?

Yes sort of but it's the whole Gaming Segment. Net revenue is down from $1.757 billion Q1 2023 to $922 million Q1 2024, operating income dropped from $314 million to $151 million for the same period.. A lot of that since the last quarter, Q4 2023 when net revenue was $1.368 billion and operating income was $224 million. AMD say decline in revenue "...due to lower semi-custom (console) and Radeon GPU sales" and consequently drop in operating income mirrors fall in revenue.

Commenting on the forecast for Q2 2024 Jean Hu - Executive Vice President (AMD) - is quoted as saying (source: wccftech) "...we actually think the second-half will be lower than first-half that's basically how we're looking at this year for the gaming business. And at the same time, Gaming's gross margin is lower than our company average. So overall, will help the mix on the gross margin side, that's just some color on the gaming side. But you're right, Q2 game is down a lot." So more of this to come, probably.

DavenThe silver lining is upcoming APUs. AMD is finally combining real GPU, CPU and memory bandwidth together in a single package. Many have been waiting for this.

Depends on how they get released. I can't say I'm a fan of artificial crippling up to 66% of iGPU cores unless you buy the top-end one (780M vs 760M vs 740M) which then tends to be "double-brand-gated" by OEM's behind only the most premium brands, eg, you want a laptop with 780M = you have to buy 7840 which being Ryzen 7 = they're treated as premium only and thus often limited to 4-digit HP EliteBooks & Lenovo Thinkpads with most lower end stuff still being Zen 2-3 + Vega based leftovers. A relative of mine went through this last year when shopping for a laptop - it ended up almost £300 cheaper to buy a budget gaming brand HP Victus laptop with Intel i5 12500H + RTX 4050 dGPU than to find a 7840U (by itself without dGPU) in anything that wasn't an +£1200 Elitebook / Thinkpad. If their future APU's are going to be more of the same, then hardly anyone is waiting for that...

Vya DomusThis simply cannot work for them, it's not their business model. We know from what AIBs been have saying over the years that Nvidia forces them to operate on very low margins despite the high MSRPs, if it ever gets to the point where Nvidia will price their products to a similar level that will mean AIBs will make literally no money, not sustainable.

That's also what AMD does though so I don't really get what your point is here in relation to your first quote. Margins on GPUs in general are still very large, except at the low end.

AMD's entire strategy is to slightly undercut Nvidia. They've been doing this for decades. I bet they even deliberately launch their GPUs after Nvidia releases theirs to do this. Nvidia sets the price and AMD follows. I wouldn't even exclude collusion on this.

Rough day for AMD, down 9% currently...
YTD they're up only 4% and 6Mo up 33%. Definitely peaked early this year in early March.

DavenThe $2.3B in data center is close to the $3B made by Intel. While its nice that AMD is making almost as much money as Intel on server tech, neither company is anywhere near the over $20B made by Nvidia in this category.

This is correct, but let's not be blinded by the success of one company, which already raises high eye-brows from electrical engineers and governments around the world, as it has side effects on regional and even national electrical grids in different parts of the world.

We also need to be aware of the fact that Nvidia sells hugely expensive and power hungry systems to the richest companies in the world during AI-craze. Many of those large systems consume INSANE amount of power from electricity grid, to that extent that even the US government is becoming increasingly concerned about it.

Total installation of Nvidia AI systems alone by the end of this year is estimated to use almost 14 Gigawatt hours, which is almost twice as much than the most powerful nuclear power station in the world can produce annually, to put it in the perspective.

www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/nvidias-h100-gpus-will-consume-more-power-than-some-countries-each-gpu-consumes-700w-of-power-35-million-are-expected-to-be-sold-in-the-coming-year
www.bbc.com/news/technology-67053139
www.tweaktown.com/news/95180/nvidia-h100-ai-gpus-inside-of-data-centers-use-as-much-electricity-guatemala-and-lithuania/index.html

nguyenConsoles and Radeon sales have gone down the drain

Q1 is usually weaker, plus saturation. Most of people who wanted to buy this gen GPUs and consoles have already done it, and more so for Xmas. Hence console refresh is planned and new gen later in the year. I think two year cycle for GPUs is just too long. This should decrease to ~18 months max.

john_Unfortunately Su while being the CEO who saved AMD, seems to be not the right CEO to make AMD bigger than what it is the last 5 years. And that's probably because she can't understand the retail market.

You need to check the numbers for the last 5 years first before making baseless, silly claim that sounds more like trolling than genuine analysis.
www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/revenue

john_She is the perfect CEO probably for servers, expanding EPYC success, seeing the value of spending 30+ billions for Xilinx, but until now it seems that she is unable to understand GPUs, laptops and desktops.

So, you want AMD to "understand" all market segments in the industry to consider them succesful? Is there any other company that does that? No.
- GPUs are in the transitional period toward chiplet design and this takes time to perfect and mature; no one else dares venturing there at the moment, but eventually everybody will have to move to chiplets too.
- for laptops, chips are good, they will need to execute line-ups faster, plus Intel has had a stranglehold on OEMs for years now, to that extent that they lost a court process for anti-competitve practices for OEMs deliberately excluding AMD from their designs; so, it's neither easy nor straight-forward
- desktop has been gradually and consistently growing in market share. Check the numbers.
- plus, AMD is in sandwitch between larger and richer companies and actually they are doing remarkably well considering the environment

john_AMD could be making 10 billions per quarter by now, but no matter how match favorable conditions can enjoy at a certain period, it's a 5-6 billions top company. I think even if they had CUDA and H200 hardware in their product portfolio they would still not be able to pass over 6-7 billions. It's like in sports where a coach who saves a team from dissaster, ends up being the wrong person to make that team champions.

- they cannot make 10 billions per quarter now for several reasons, independent from Dr Su, as volumes of certain products are ramping up and most revenues will be reaching their accounts in Q3 and Q4
- semiconductor sector is not football and AMD does not need to behave in the same way to reach even better position in coming years
- AMD, of course, has not had such an explosive entry into AI-craze period, but this does not mean that long-term steady growth is at risk

john_Customer mindset was towards Ryzen after Zen 3 introduction. Intel grabbing the market with Hybrid processors was also AMD's fault.

Fault? Was the coffee too sour today?

john_They failed to secure cheap AM5 boards from manufacturers, they failed to see that DDR5 pricing will remain too high for too long

- you keep forgetting that AM4 platform is still successful around the world, while AM5 is gradually picking up. There are cheap AM5 boards.
- selling both platforms actually allows them to gradually increase market share in x86 space. Check the numbers.
- DDR5 argument is nonsense as by the time AM5 was released the prices were already much lower than in 2021 when Alder Lake was introduced
www.guru3d.com/story/ddr5-memory-dimms-dropped-in-price-under-200-eur-for-32gb/

john_they where wrong to not introduce X3D chips for AM5 sooner,

- maybe, maybe not. Vanilla chiplets and packaging got priority on a production line due to EPYC products being more important. And rightly so, as those bring more revenues and orders are much bigger from hyperscalers than from gamers.

john_they let Intel push it's CPUs and power consumption to ridiculous levels and never really tried to do a campaign to explain to consumers that a CPU needing 250W and top of the line hardware and cooling to reach benchmarks numbers, is not what the average consumer gets. And their marketing is not doing anything this period to take advantage of the situation with 13900K and 14900K.

- so, you blame AMD for Intel's shady power consumption practices? Lame argument. It's up to Intel to clear their name and not AMD to smear them.
- AMD does not produce "Snake Oil" Power Points. They allow their products to speak for themselves
- they regularly and consistently inform the public about efficiency of their different products. We don't need a propaganda about it.
- to take advantage? The best selling CPU in the world for last 14 months is 7800X3D. Have you not noticed yet?

john_Look how Nvidia managed to make AMD look bad with their campaign(it was their campaign in my opinion) about AMD blocking DLSS in Starfield. That's how marketing works.

- nvidia did not manage; they tried to be toxic, plus their community of fans and online trolls, but it did not work entirely, as both Starfield and 7800XT sold really well; it was a storm in a cup of tea; one big noisy nonsense

john_In GPUs they failed to see the importance of RT performance, they thought that raster was enough and RX 7000 series was a disaster. As for APUs, they are too slow improving their iGPUs. They stayed too long with VEGA, they should move forward with RDNA 3.5 and leave behind RDNA2. They should also introduce Infinitive Cache fast for ALL APUs, before Intel has Battlemage ready, because they will lose the APU market also. And if they lose the APU market, the console market will be lost next. In laptops they failed to promote anything over 5000 series. 6000 series APUs where no where to be found for months and even now their market share is flat.

- RT remains largely irrelevant after all these years of heavy marketing push; vast majority of GPUs users cannot take a meaningful advantage of it as most people in the world use weak GPUs, crippled by compute demands of RT
- leave to them as to what they "should" introduce. I am sure their people know better.
- RDNA3.5 will be released in a few months on Strix APUs, so I don't understand what are you banging about here?
- Inifinitive Cache does not exist. 'Infinitive' is a form of verbs. Learn something.
- you must have spoken to Nostradamus and now you know the future of APU market. Thank you for enlightening us here, mere mortals.
- for laptops market to move, sometimes you need a court to intervene, as Intel keeps OEMs in a very tight grip, but will gradually change too. If you did not know, Intel has actually lost makret share in laptop to Apple and AMD in last 5 years. Again, check the numbers. The change is slow, but it's happening and Snapdragon will accelerate it further.

Your rant is just a noisy blip in digital jungle. It will not work. The sooner you realize this, the better for this tech community.

Random_UserI guess, AMD should just fire the entire marketing department for good, and nothing bad will happen. I think it's a good start for increasing "efficiency by reviewing operating costs".

They do not produce "Snake Oil" Power Points, so they are at least sane, can stay and learn.

DenverBut it's always been clear to me that RT in games isn't viable, simply because the evolution curve we're on in terms of manufacturing processes doesn't offer anything close to what's needed to make it viable for the masses.

This.

john_A few years passed and I think everyone can see today that RT performance is crucial

If people care about it. Most do not, as simply explained by @Denver above.

john_Nvidia drives the narrative with the help of the tech press and tech press will try to paint a picture where RT performance is as important as raster.

They actually don't, at least not with independent reviewers. Nvidia tried their dirty tricks with Hardware Unboxed in order to shape their narrative and they utterly failed. Besides, Steve is doing a great job explaining to the public that RT is not viable for masses in most cases. It's a hyped feature and increasing number of people are educated about it. He does this clearly and plainly everytime he tests cards for RT.

EatingDirtEven for someone like myself that prefers AMD because of their support for open standards(FSR, Freesync/Adaptive sync), next year I may be looking at a Nvidia card to upgrade my 6800XT unless AMD improves FSR and significantly improves their Raytracing performance.

Next year 6800XT will be 5 years old, so that's a good longevity for 16GB card and good time to think about upgrade.

unlock the power limits on the RX 7000s and maybe I will be interested in purchasing one.

@Tek-Check
You know that you can post your OPINIONS without throwing rude and offensive remarks in between, right?
I really don't have time for your OPINIONS, but as for RT, it's good reading that AMD is fixing it in RDNA4. And they are fixing it because, based on YOUR OPINION, no one cares about.
...or maybe they realized that they can't sell successfully hi end/enthusiast level GPUs when lacking in RT performance.......
By the way, Nvidia is going to play heavily AI marketing in the near future. Hope RDNA4 will be good at that too, or we have a problem.

john_I really don't have time for your OPINIONS,

I gave you links to a few websites so that you could actually check information, because several things you wrote were blatantly wrong. You didnt check whether your opinions were informed before positng such opinions. That's all to it.

Would you like me to dress this into even more polite language?

Tek-CheckWould you like me to dress this into even more polite language?

I guess you just can't help it. It will either be rude remarks, or plain irony.

Tek-Checkgave you links to a few websites so that you could actually check information, because several things you wrote were blatantly wrong. You didnt check whether your opinions were informed before positng such opinions. That's all to it.

You just posted an angry post, because you didn't liked mine. Nothing more.
Let's see your facts OPINIONS.

Tek-CheckYou need to check the numbers for the last 5 years first before making baseless, silly claim that sounds more like trolling than genuine analysis.
www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/revenue

The last 2 years AMD is unable to go over 6 Billions, no matter what. They hit some kind of a ceiling. Hope doing more business with Samsung can somehow help them to break it. But for now they gain in one market while losing on another. It's not baseless, silly claims that look like trolling. It seems you just can't even read and understand the diagrams of your own links.

So, you want AMD to "understand" all market segments in the industry to consider them succesful? Is there any other company that does that? No.

Because you say so. They are not new in business. They are not new in CPUs, they are not new in GPUs, they are not new in servers, they are not new in mobiles, they are not new in desktops, they are not new in consoles. They not new in FPGSs either because they bought Xilinx, they didn't started making FPGAs themselves. They are not new in compute either. GCN started as a compute design capable also for gaming and GCN is 12? years old. If a 250 billions company can't understand market segments that are in fact closely connected to each other, then you agree that there is a problem in the company.

- GPUs are in the transitional period toward chiplet design and this takes time to perfect and mature; no one else dares venturing there at the moment, but eventually everybody will have to move to chiplets too.

Excuses are not arguments, just excuses. And if you are not part of AMD's engineering team, you are just guessing here. AMD was first in chiplets and helped with the creation of HBM. They should know better if it was a good idea to bet a whole generation of GPUs on whether they can make chiplets work with the first try. Not to mention that AMD tried to build the first native quad core processor almost 20 years ago. Not only they gave time to Intel to catch up and take over the market with glued dual cores, but also Barcelona end up with a nice TLB bug. Not to mention that it was also slower than Core.

- they cannot make 10 billions per quarter now for several reasons, independent from Dr Su, as volumes of certain products are ramping up and most revenues will be reaching their accounts in Q3 and Q4

More excuses. I used to be using excuses for AMD when it was a company trying to survive. A few years ago AMD was unable to improve a product both in efficiency and performance. So you where getting better performance with generation 1 and better efficiency with generation 2. But today they have much more money for investments. While they can't compete with Intel in capacity, because Intel owns fabs, which is a reason why OEMs will keep building more Intel based systems no matter how much better AMD CPUs/APUs are, they should have never let Nvidia become that much bigger in the gaming market. They could be making 10 billions by now, they just fear to take the risk to become bigger. Nvidia took the risk in the mining era and while they seemed to pay the price when mining and demand for graphics cards collapsed they moved forward and now they are a $2.5 trillions company.

- semiconductor sector is not football and AMD does not need to behave in the same way to reach even better position in coming years

Looking at the tree and totally missing the point? Figures.

- AMD, of course, has not had such an explosive entry into AI-craze period, but this does not mean that long-term steady growth is at risk

AMD needs to take advantage all the favorable occasions when they present to them. Intel might collapse or it might come up stronger with 20A and 18A latter. If by then AMD is not established in AI and gaming markets, they will have a problem. If Intel fixes it's manufacturing OEMs will having an easier time preferring Intel over AMD hardware. ARC graphics will also start looking more mature and more competitive when Battlemage comes out. What are we going to be talking then. That AMD can't handle so many market segments? Your arguments are not even arguments.

Fault? Was the coffee too sour today?

Definitely not the coffee. I don't drink coffee. Maybe that's it?
AMD failed to run a campaign to prove that more cores in a hybrid design is not better than less cores but all P cores. It let Intel's marketing campaign to go wild, with tech press repeating Intel's marketing book to the letter. You see a tech review/video saying that the X Intel CPU comes with 24 cores that turbo up to 5.5GHz, for example, when in fact you have only 8 P cores and only those can turbo up to that frequency. AMD done nothing to educate the consumers of how much misleading Intel's marketing was and is. Even now that Intel top CPUs are unstable and degrading, do you see press releases with marketing material using those new information to convince consumers that in fact AMD's CPUs are better? Have you? I haven't. Believe me Intel wouldn't had pass that opportunity. Nvidia definitely wouldn't either.

- you keep forgetting that AM4 platform is still successful around the world, while AM5 is gradually picking up. There are cheap AM5 boards.

The X3D chips for the AM4 platform are really god send, because otherwise AMD's market share and income from CPUs would have been much lower. The fact that AMD needs the AM4 platform to even have a presense at low/mid range says much about their good luck and not about their good planning. Cheap boards where non existent when AM5 came out and the lack of cheaper CPUs was aproblem from day one. If AMD didn't had X3D chips ffor both AM4 and AM5 platforms, things would have been pretty ugly today.

- selling both platforms actually allows them to gradually increase market share in x86 space. Check the numbers.

The first thing Su did when she took over AMD was to cut platforms, killing AM1 and any plans for an ARM based Opteron. AMD keeps AM4 alive because they failed to see that the AM5 platform would remain extremelly expensive in the eyes of the consumer and Intel will manage to turn the tables with it's Hybrid design on core count. Where AMD was selling more cores, now Intel sells more cores. And the average consumer will happily swallow the bait of more cores, even when only 2 of the 10 cores are in fact P cores.

- DDR5 argument is nonsense as by the time AM5 was released the prices were already much lower than in 2021 when Alder Lake was introduced
www.guru3d.com/story/ddr5-memory-dimms-dropped-in-price-under-200-eur-for-32gb/

Nonsense because, I guess, you say so, so it's not an opinion but fact, right? Under $200 when you could had 32GBs of 3200DDR4 for way under $100. Good one. I like comedy.

- maybe, maybe not. Vanilla chiplets and packaging got priority on a production line due to EPYC products being more important. And rightly so, as those bring more revenues and orders are much bigger from hyperscalers than from gamers.

They kept the X3D chips so they can enjoy higher profitability from vanilla chips and have the X3D chips latter as a respond to Intel's refresh line. While as a strategy this was correct and by the book, they should have predicted that matching Intel in gaming and losing in productivity while having a more expensive DDR5 only platform, whould have ended bad. And it did. They gave Intel the opportunity to present itself as the better and cheaper all around option in the market. That was a marketing dissaster and everything they had build from Ryzen 1000 to Ryzen 5000 was getting ready to collapse. The X3D chips came and things started turning around again. Even someone blind can see this.

- so, you blame AMD for Intel's shady power consumption practices? Lame argument. It's up to Intel to clear their name and not AMD to smear them.

You are totally missing the point, either knowingly, or just failing to understand my point. It's not a lame argument if you are not capable understanding my point. AMD's marketing department souldn't be throwing away such opportunities and it should be doing lab tests themselves, find typical cases where an average system with average board and average cooling system will be hitting much lower numbers than those in reviews and start bombarding the press with press releases about it. Not sleep for years until 13K and 14K CPUs start crushing on their own.

- AMD does not produce "Snake Oil" Power Points. They allow their products to speak for themselves

Tech press promotes the narratives of Intel and Nvidia. Either they start producing ""Snake Oil" Power Points" or we will be the only one talking about their products.

- they regularly and consistently inform the public about efficiency of their different products. We don't need a propaganda about it.

They don't do it as often as they should and having better products means that you don't have to do propaganda, just keep consumers informed ALL THE TIME.

- to take advantage? The best selling CPU in the world for last 14 months is 7800X3D. Have you not noticed yet?

Numbers say that Intel is still selling much more CPUs thanks mostly to OEM ties, fabs and marketing. 7800X3D is one battle in the CPU war that helpes to give value to the AM5 platform. But it not enough. Either AMD wins the war, or just one battle. You know, the first Ryzen series managed to be a success even when Intel was still way ahead in games.

- nvidia did not manage; they tried to be toxic, plus their community of fans and online trolls, but it did not work entirely, as both Starfield and 7800XT sold really well; it was a storm in a cup of tea; one big noisy nonsense

All the press swallowed and promoted that "AMD bad, makes developer not include DLSS" idea, making Nvidia, a company with shaddy practices for 2 decades to look like a victim and you say that it didn't worked? Oh my..... Really?

- RT remains largely irrelevant after all these years of heavy marketing push; vast majority of GPUs users cannot take a meaningful advantage of it as most people in the world use weak GPUs, crippled by compute demands of RT

RT performance sells cards. If you can't see it, or don't want to see it, it's not my problem.

- leave to them as to what they "should" introduce. I am sure their people know better.

They should knew better.

- RDNA3.5 will be released in a few months on Strix APUs, so I don't understand what are you banging about here?

Don't worry and it is clear by now that you keep looking at a tree, losing the whole forrest constantly.

- Inifinitive Cache does not exist. 'Infinitive' is a form of verbs. Learn something.

Θέλεις να συνεχίσουμε την κουβέντα στα Ελληνικά και όποτε κάνεις κάποιο λάθος, να το παρουσιάζω ως επιχείρημα ότι είσαι λάθος; Διότι μέχρι τώρα, μόνο τέτοιου επιπέδου επιχειρήματα διαβάζω από εσένα. Ανούσια.

- you must have spoken to Nostradamus and now you know the future of APU market. Thank you for enlightening us here, mere mortals.

Says the person who thinks he posts facts and not opinions. Ah yeah. You posted links, that shows otherwise, but ....you posted links!!!!

- for laptops market to move, sometimes you need a court to intervene, as Intel keeps OEMs in a very tight grip, but will gradually change too. If you did not know, Intel has actually lost makret share in laptop to Apple and AMD in last 5 years. Again, check the numbers. The change is slow, but it's happening and Snapdragon will accelerate it further.

No link this time? Why? AMD gain marketshare in laptops but it doesn't seem to keep moving up. Apple is another story. Is your excuse in 2-3 years going to also include Qualcomm?

Your rant is just a noisy blip in digital jungle. It will not work. The sooner you realize this, the better for this tech community.

Your rant was just been reported on CNN. Clearly your rant is more than a blip in the digital jungle.

If people care about it. Most do not, as simply explained by @Denver above.

The rumor of AMD not going to introduce hi end models with their next series of GPUs, says much more than you, me or anybody else in here about the importance of RT performance and how much people care about it. It's clear that at AMD they realised that without parity with Nvidia in features, they can't sell hi end GPUs at the numbers they need to justify the R&D costs.

They actually don't, at least not with independent reviewers. Nvidia tried their dirty tricks with Hardware Unboxed in order to shape their narrative and they utterly failed. Besides, Steve is doing a great job explaining to the public that RT is not viable for masses in most cases. It's a hyped feature and increasing number of people are educated about it. He does this clearly and plainly everytime he tests cards for RT.

Hardware Unboxed is today the biggest advertising platform for Nvidia's DLSS. What year is it in your room? 2022?

Shiiiiiit...

I had to update my avatar for this news...

john_People complaining about AMD pricing it's offerings too close to Nvidia's will rush to buy Nvidia anyway

But that's entire point. If two products have the same price, and the same or almost the same performance, the people will go and buy the one with more ticks and labels on the box. AMD is either have the alternative feature set of the same scale and quality, or lower the prices, to look better choice and bang for the buck. Most people seeking for new VGA, are not going to get one for a grand or two. And someone with fat pockets will eventually get the top performant, just to not look like sore looser, among their peers.

mamaSo, Radeon sales down 48% year on year? Am I reading that right?

Correct. Radeon's hanging by a thread. It's of minimal importance to AMD and easily one of the biggest liabilities of the company right now. Things don't look good.

Vya DomusI sincerely doubt it, everything points to Nvidia being an absolute nightmare to work with. From the more recent events like the EVGA situation and the GPP thing to stuff that goes back years and years, like the PS3/2006-2008 era of their chips dying in droves, they never took responsibility for that, blamed everyone but themselves. People may have forgotten these things but Nvidia has a long standing history of screwing companies over that they work with.

1st party Nvidia GPUs aren't available worldwide, and EVGA's demise was long since written on the wall. It was solely their fault. AIBs won't get choked out at least until Nvidia ensures global availability of FE hardware, which doesn't look like it's gonna happen any time soon.

Bumpgate was almost 20 years ago and had regulatory issues involved. let that grudge go.

john_I guess you just can't help it. It will either be rude remarks, or plain irony.

There's no rudeness. There's robust engagement. If you decide to unleash frontal and brutal attack, which also contains strands of inaccurate or one-sided information in the mix, expect robust response.

john_You just posted an angry post, because you didn't liked mine.

There's no anger either. Liking is irrelevant. We don't need to like or dislike each other in order to engage. Focus.

john_The last 2 years AMD is unable to go over 6 Billions, no matter what. They hit some kind of a ceiling. Hope doing more business with Samsung can somehow help them to break it. But for now they gain in one market while losing on another.

2 years is not 5 years, but I am glad we are going in a good direction with basics. Also, if you look again into that annual revenues graph, you will see that it's not even two years, but one single year. AMD posted record revenues in 2022, so 2023 is the first and only year that they were "unable to go over" and surpass the record previous year. Hardly a ceiling, no?

Context is everything. You might remember that entire semiconductor sector experienced a large dip post-Covid and majority of companies, apart from a few, experienced losses in revenues. Entire sector dipped from ~$600 billion in 2022 to ~$535 in 2023. Intel was one of the biggest losers. They lost $25 billion in revenues in last two years. Sasmsung lost billions too. Nvidia was the biggest winner due to AI craze. A few other companies escaped the dip, but others did not. AMD escaped the dip due to rebalancing of segment revenues and signing dozens of long-term deals with hyperscalers and telecoms. They were neither 'losers' or 'winners'. For one year. There is no "ceiling" trend there. Trends may be identified after 2-3 years. They expect $4-5 billion more this year, so any idea of ceiling does not seem to have merit.

john_If a 250 billions company can't understand market segments that are in fact closely connected to each other, then you agree that there is a problem in the company

Q1 report shows that they doubled client CPU revenues. They are also expected to reach parity in server revenues with Intel within 18-24 months, which is huge for them considering the fact that just 6 years ago Intel commanded more than 97% of this market. Several other segments are ramping up and there will be a big opening with Zen5, the most simple drop-in upgrade across segments without additional costs, plus new opportunities for those who were hesitant with Zen4. I agree that AI will gradually increase with collaboration with Samsung after $3 billion deal was signed for 12-Hi HBM3E memory for MI350.

The only hiccup is client graphics at the moment, after Xmas saturation. I'd increase cadence for GPUs to ~18 months instead of two years, but it's not clear whether this is possible until new US fabs come online, as currect capacity at TSMC is really tight on advanced nodes. Intel and Samsung do not have at the moment as competive nodes for graphics. Everybody suckles milk from TSMC. Consoles are flat at the moment as both Sony and Microsoft have long cadences for next gen, expected in 2026/2027. PS5 Pro refresh will get some traction for a year or two and bring $2-3 billion. That's one of reasons why AMD decided to develop Strix Halo, a platform for laptops and mini-PCs that will act as alternative source of revenues to consoles. More than 150 designs are planned for this year alone with Strix, plus plenty of mini-PCs. We will need to wait and see how volume production proceeds.

john_Excuses are not arguments, just excuses. And if you are not part of AMD's engineering team, you are just guessing here. AMD was first in chiplets and helped with the creation of HBM. They should know better if it was a good idea to bet a whole generation of GPUs on whether they can make chiplets work with the first try.

There are no excuses, just pure reasoning that should help us explain and understand what is going on. Ultimately, I do not care which company is more successful than the other, as I have no financial interest or personal attachment to any of them. You can say that I am "Samsung fan" because I have never bought Apple phone. That's as far as it gets with my personal preferences.

Chiplets needed to be introduced in GPUs too, in one way or the other. Initial Zen was not perfect either, but one needs to persevere and bite, including bumps in the road. Maturity of Zen is now in full swing across segments. First generation of chiplet GPUs is not perfect, of course, but it's good enough and it paradoxically allowed them to claim back a bit of market share by the end of 2023, as published in market analysis by Tom's Hardware a few months ago. Bumps ahead with no halo model on RDNA4, but I prefer them to shift R&D into halo RDNA5 and focus on creating attractive enough offer for widest possible market, which is broadly understood as mid range. This should be fine.

john_While they can't compete with Intel in capacity, because Intel owns fabs, which is a reason why OEMs will keep building more Intel based systems no matter how much better AMD CPUs/APUs are, they should have never let Nvidia become that much bigger in the gaming market. They could be making 10 billions by now, they just fear to take the risk to become bigger.

They actually compete with Intel on capacity at TSMC, as Intel is not even able to use their own fabs to full capacity now and outsources almost entire client CPU and GPU etching process to TSMC. It's ironic situation for Intel, but they also block significant amount of capacity for AMD at TSMC. It is true that Intel still keeps majority of OEMs in a tight grip, but this is gradually changing. More designs are planned this year with AMD and Elite X chips, like never before, as several OEMs got fed-up with Meteor Lake shenanigans and plan to purchase a lot of Strix APUs, as outlined by Su during the call. As a reminder, Intel had 90% of laptop market share just 6 years ago. Now, it's gradually dipping below 70%, as Apple took ~10%, AMD ~20% and Qualcomm is poised to make further dent in it. By 2030, Intel may easily drop to 50% in laptop market.

john_Nvidia took the risk in the mining era and while they seemed to pay the price when mining and demand for graphics cards collapsed they moved forward and now they are a $2.5 trillions company

Nvidia is on explosive AI-rodeo, no doubt, but there's a catch. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Increasing number of institutions and governments are becoming aware of and concerned about immense pressures on regional and national power grids of large AI-systems, including the US government. This is despite the fact that the same entities crave those systems. Total installation network of Nvidia AI systems in 2024 is estimated to consume up to whopping 14 Gigawatt hours of energy, almost twice as much as the most powerful nuclear energy power plant in the world can produce annually. There will be serious challenges here at some point. We will watch and see whether Nvidia is allowed to become an equivalent of Wallace Corporation from Blade Runner 2049.

john_Where AMD was selling more cores, now Intel sells more cores.

They sell more cores, but not proportionally more CPUs. Intel is very slowly, gradually and consistenly losing overall CPU market share. It's so slow that it's almost unnoticeable among aggressive marketing, but numbers don't lie. Yes, they had some recovery period with hybrid CPUs, but the big picture is that this has not made a bigger positive difference for them. Remember, they lost $25 billion in global revenues in last two years and significant amount of overall market share in last 6 years. The client segment has become de facto their only Trojan horse they would need to fight very hard to keep and cling to. Also, Gaudi3 is estimated to bring no more than ~$500 million this year and server could drop from $3 billion towards $2.7-2.5 in next 12-18 months. Finally, there are currently no big contracts for Intel foundry on the horizon. Have you heard of any multi-billion deal signed in recent months? I have not.

john_AMD needs to take advantage all the favorable occasions when they present to them. Intel might collapse or it might come up stronger with 20A and 18A latter. If by then AMD is not established in AI and gaming markets, they will have a problem. If Intel fixes it's manufacturing OEMs will having an easier time preferring Intel over AMD hardware. ARC graphics will also start looking more mature and more competitive when Battlemage comes out. What are we going to be talking then. That AMD can't handle so many market segments? Your arguments are not even arguments.

I generally follow what's happening in the industry, as you can see with the amount of information I share with you from diverse sources. Intel showed the slide below. 20A and 18A do not look very good until 2026. They have the smallest number of EUV machines in comparison to TSMC and Samsung. This was one of bigger mistakes they made which made them more dependent now on TSMC. The first high-NA EUV was recently assembled with big media coverage, but it will take years for any commercial chips, and in volume to come to your and my laptops/desktops. Years.



The best Battlemage can do is not allow GPU prices from AMD and Nvidia go crazy bonkers in coming years. So, everyone should pray it is more mature and competitive. And not subsidised by Intel. Apologetics of "duopoly" may yet become disappointed when they realize that Intel joined them to create GPU triopoly. What then? Buy MooreThreads? On the other hand, AMD does not need to be present everywhere and at all times. Like Intel that exited SSD market, in a few years, AMD may decide to leave parts of discrete GPUs for longer if efforts put in RDNA5 do not work well. No reason to keep a segment if it does not work in long-run. And that's fine. Businesses need to adapt and let go sometimes. I am ok with that.

john_Looking at the tree and totally missing the point? Figures.

Which figures would you like?

john_AMD done nothing to educate the consumers of how much misleading Intel's marketing was and is. Even now that Intel top CPUs are unstable and degrading, do you see press releases with marketing material using those new information to convince consumers that in fact AMD's CPUs are better? Have you? I haven't. Believe me Intel wouldn't had pass that opportunity. Nvidia definitely wouldn't either.

Well, we saw how Snake Oil embarrassment backfired on Intel... I do not want to see more toxic propaganda against other company. It's brain-washing. Nvidia today released "real AI PC" absurdity, a petty slide showing that their GPUs are better than upcoming AI-laptops. It's nonsense. Noise. We saw hundreds of slides with Meteor Lake architecture. Still, increasing number of OEMs are pissed and plan to release a record number of AMD and Qualcomm designs later this year. Marketing propaganda and beautiful slides can go just as much. Recent CPU instability scandal does not need more input from AMD. It's enough embarrassing on its own. Clear evidence of that is 13 consecutive months of 7800X3D being the best selling CPU in the world.

john_The fact that AMD needs the AM4 platform to even have a presense at low/mid range says much about their good luck and not about their good planning. Cheap boards where non existent when AM5 came out and the lack of cheaper CPUs was aproblem from day one.

This is industry-wide problem, not specific to Intel, AMD or Nvidia. Companies mostly release top products first, or a cluster of top products. I do not like this approach, but understand why they are doing it, to increase milking and desire from buyters to buy shinny new products bringing big margins.

john_The X3D chips came and things started turning around again.

Well, it's complex... We need to find out how production line works. It is not clear whether X3D chips can be released earlier, as EPYC is always a priority. I'd like to know whether at TSMC they can run two production lines at the same time or they must run in single batches. Entire fab machinery experiences a significant change when different chiplets are produced. This can happen only once in a while, but not every few weeks. It does take time. As EPYC goes first, they have to produce tones of vanilla chiplets first and package those, then X3D SKUs. Not sure whether this could be mixed up in future, so I am not going to go with hastily negative judgements here. Better to have vanilla chips in the market until X3D arrive than nothing for a few months and then release all of those together. We can't have it all. There is just one TSMC in the world, with a lot of hungry customers...

john_Tech press promotes the narratives of Intel and Nvidia. Either they start producing ""Snake Oil" Power Points" or we will be the only one talking about their products.

I am against this toxic propaganda. It usually backfires as it is seen as petty and hypocritical. Luckily, we have enough of popular techtubers, like Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed who happily debunk such nonsense for entire tech community. AMD products have probably never been as recognisable and widely discussed as nowadays thanks to electronic media that everybody is hooked to. Everybody who has ever watched a few youtube videos know that the best gaming chips in the world are X3D from AMD.

john_Numbers say that Intel is still selling much more CPUs thanks mostly to OEM ties, fabs and marketing. 7800X3D is one battle in the CPU war that helpes to give value to the AM5 platform. But it not enough. Either AMD wins the war, or just one battle.

Intel does sell more in volume, but proportionally less, year-on-year. Big difference. The shift is, as I said, gradual. market share is a metric that moves rather slowly in this industry. On average, people keep a PC for 5 years. Besides, this shift is faster in server space, but we don't hear much about it apart from periodical quarterly or annual analysis, as this is boring and under the radar, but it's still happening even if no one shouts about it.

john_All the press swallowed and promoted that "AMD bad, makes developer not include DLSS" idea, making Nvidia, a company with shaddy practices for 2 decades to look like a victim and you say that it didn't worked? Oh my..... Really?

It did not work. Sure, a bit of hysteria in media and on fora, but ultimately the guy from Bethesda clearly showed a middle finger to noisy media and said that they would roll it out a few months later when it's ready. And that's exactly what happened. Done, dusted and forgotten. It was a storm in a cup of tea, a bunch of conspiracy theories deisgned to damage AMD, but it did not work and the game sold really well plus 7800XT also sold well. So, Nvidia fans of Starfield needed to learn to wait, like every child needs to learn patience and wait for a meal. You know, even internet needs to learn that real world does not suffer from hysteria and that delayed gratification is a skills that we teach little children to master.

john_RT performance sells cards. If you can't see it, or don't want to see it, it's not my problem.

It does sell, but also increasing number of users are educated by techtubers that VRAM capacity is equally important for RT to work properly in many scenarios. Hardware Unboxed is especially well engaged with this content in tech community and users are gradually more knowledgeable.

john_Θέλεις να συνεχίσουμε την κουβέντα στα Ελληνικά και όποτε κάνεις κάποιο λάθος, να το παρουσιάζω ως επιχείρημα ότι είσαι λάθος; Διότι μέχρι τώρα, μόνο τέτοιου επιπέδου επιχειρήματα διαβάζω από εσένα. Ανούσια.

I am trained to nitpick. It's my daily job

john_AMD gain marketshare in laptops but it doesn't seem to keep moving up. Apple is another story. Is your excuse in 2-3 years going to also include Qualcomm?

I don't really care which company has better chips for laptops. I will simply buy one that meets my needs, whoever provides CPU. I am brand agnostic and think we should have 4-5 competitors in order for everybody to put more effort into silicon.

john_Your rant was just been reported on CNN. Clearly your rant is more than a blip in the digital jungle.

It's the same blip, of course, but it was necessary to provoke you and tone down highly aggressive anti-AMD narrative that was not necessary in the first place. Your long response is much, much better, despite a few bites, but those should quickly disapper too as we focis more on topics.

john_It's clear that at AMD they realised that without parity with Nvidia in features, they can't sell hi end GPUs at the numbers they need to justify the R&D costs.

Yes and no. It's more complicated. For example, the overall ratio of sold GPUs used to be roughly 6:1 two years ago in favour of Nvidia. Now it is 5:1 overall. Interestingly, 4080 has never sold in 5:1 ratio against 7900XTX, its nearest competitor. It is roughly 2:1 ratio, which is also visible on Steam.

john_Hardware Unboxed is today the biggest advertising platform for Nvidia's DLSS. What year is it in your room? 2022?

I don't find this to be correct portrayal of them because I watch them regularly. I find them to be well-balanced and neutral. They mock every nonsense from any company.

Tek-CheckYes and no. It's more complicated. For example, theoverall ratio of sold GPUs used to be roughly 6:1 two years ago in favour of Nvidia. Now it is 5:1 overall. Interestingly, 4080 has never sold in 5:1 ratio against 7900XTX, its nearest competitor. It is roughly 2:1 ratio, which is also visible on Steam.

The only problem is that the 4080 is the worst performing 80-tier GPU in Nvidia's history. The 4090 despite being much more expensive sold almost thrice as many units. I wish W1zzard made the GPU-Z detection statistics public... perhaps with a fiscal quarter of delay so he can keep the freshest information for the customers of his SDK as I presume he does.

Dr. DroThe only problem is that the 4080 is the worst performing 80-tier GPU in Nvidia's history. The 4090 despite being much more expensive sold almost thrice as many units. I wish W1zzard made the GPU-Z detection statistics public... perhaps with a fiscal quarter of delay so he can keep the freshest information for the customers of his SDK as I presume he does.

7900XTX is the only 7000 series GPU that show up on Steam Hardware Survey, meanwhile every Ada GPU is on there.
So the best selling rx7000 still lost to the worst selling rtx4000 :rolleyes:

nguyen7900XTX is the only 7000 series GPU that show up on Steam Hardware Survey, meanwhile every Ada GPU is on there.
So the best selling rx7000 still lost to the worst selling rtx4000 :rolleyes:

It did and by a very significant margin, indeed. It seems that 4090's sold almost 5 to 1 if we extrapolate from the data we can find on the internet such as Steam surveys, even at almost triple the price. This earnings report is dismal, it's actually baffling at how badly Radeon performed all the while the GPU market's never been hotter. Demand is extreme across all segments.

Dr. DroThe only problem is that the 4080 is the worst performing 80-tier GPU in Nvidia's history. The 4090 despite being much more expensive sold almost thrice as many units. I wish W1zzard made the GPU-Z detection statistics public... perhaps with a fiscal quarter of delay so he can keep the freshest information for the customers of his SDK as I presume he does.

It's just the most overpriced and the worst value for buck. And buyers saw through it.

Tek-CheckIt's just the most overpriced and the worst value for buck. And buyers saw through it.

The only problem with the 4080 was the pricing. The 4090 was substantially faster, but its MSRP was not much higher. The 4080 Super has resolved this problem by lowering price and nominally improving performance, it mostly closes the gap to the 7900 XTX in raster and widens the existing gap in RT, all while retaining Nvidia's superior power efficiency and feature set. Those are great to have but they were never truly "worth" the difference between these two cards. Still, the 4080 sold more. Way more.

@Tek-Check Just different perspectives. I do not agree with many of your analysis, but our replies are getting way too long.

@Random_User AMD can't compete with Nvidia. So they can't price their offerings too aggressive. It's not just margins.
Let me explain with an example, numbers mostly random, but I hope you get the point.
7900XTX at $1000 - 4080 drops at $1200 ---- people buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
Let's assume AMD's profit margin at 50%, Nvidia's will be at 65%, but let's drop it to 40%, lower than AMD's, just for the sake of the example.
7900XTX at $900 - 4080 drops at $1100 ---- people still buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 35%, Nvidia's profit margin at 29%.
7900XTX at $800 - 4080 drops at $950 ---- people think it a little harder, but then buy again Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 20%, Nvidia's profit margin at 13%.
7900XTX at $750 - 4080 drops at $880 ---- people mostly buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses, but AMD enjoys a little better sales.
AMD's profit margin now at 13%, Nvidia's profit margin at 4.5%.

Even if we start the 4080 at a much lower profit margin than the 7900XTX, which is probably totally unrealistic, AMD will have to drop it's flagship's price to a level that is not sustainable. Nvidia will also suffer, but having 4-5 times the market share can help tremendously because quantity is going to help with low profit margins. And just imagine starting Nvidia's 4080 with the same 50% profit margin or even a 65% profit margin. AMD would be selling at a loss and still looking expensive.
We can of course assume that Nvidia would never follow AMD's price drop, but this would be wishful thinking. The Super cards proved that. Nvidia could keep selling the original 4080 at a price close to 7900XTX, introduce the 4080 Super model at the same $1000 that was released, leave a huge gap between 4080 Super and 4090 and never really care about that, because people will still keep buying 4090s at over $1600.

In my opinion AMD realized that without feature parity they can't sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. Raster alone isn't enough anymore for models over $500-$600. That's why we hear rumors of RDNA4 not targeting the hi-end/enthusiast market and also that RDNA4 will have a totally different RT architecture. They try to fix that first, RT performance, see if it will be enough to get people in their camp and maybe try with RDNA5 to sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. They might also hope Nvidia to hit a roadblock by then. They thought that Nvidia would have a problem with power consumption, but that didn't really happened, with 4000 series cards being more efficient than 7000 series cards.

john_@Tek-Check Just different perspectives. I do not agree with many of your analysis, but our replies are getting way too long.

@Random_User AMD can't compete with Nvidia. So they can't price their offerings too aggressive. It's not just margins.
Let me explain with an example, numbers mostly random, but I hope you get the point.
7900XTX at $1000 - 4080 drops at $1200 ---- people buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
Let's assume AMD's profit margin at 50%, Nvidia's will be at 65%, but let's drop it to 40%, lower than AMD's, just for the sake of the example.
7900XTX at $900 - 4080 drops at $1100 ---- people still buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 35%, Nvidia's profit margin at 29%.
7900XTX at $800 - 4080 drops at $950 ---- people think it a little harder, but then buy again Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 20%, Nvidia's profit margin at 13%.
7900XTX at $750 - 4080 drops at $880 ---- people mostly buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses, but AMD enjoys a little better sales.
AMD's profit margin now at 13%, Nvidia's profit margin at 4.5%.

Even if we start the 4080 at a much lower profit margin than the 7900XTX, which is probably totally unrealistic, AMD will have to drop it's flagship's price to a level that is not sustainable. Nvidia will also suffer, but having 4-5 times the market share can help tremendously because quantity is going to help with low profit margins. And just imagine starting Nvidia's 4080 with the same 50% profit margin or even a 65% profit margin. AMD would be selling at a loss and still looking expensive.
We can of course assume that Nvidia would never follow AMD's price drop, but this would be wishful thinking. The Super cards proved that. Nvidia could keep selling the original 4080 at a price close to 7900XTX, introduce the 4080 Super model at the same $1000 that was released, leave a huge gap between 4080 Super and 4090 and never really care about that, because people will still keep buying 4090s at over $1600.

In my opinion AMD realized that without feature parity they can't sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. Raster alone isn't enough anymore for models over $500-$600. That's why we hear rumors of RDNA4 not targeting the hi-end/enthusiast market and also that RDNA4 will have a totally different RT architecture. They try to fix that first, RT performance, see if it will be enough to get people in their camp and maybe try with RDNA5 to sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. They might also hope Nvidia to hit a roadblock by then. They thought that Nvidia would have a problem with power consumption, but that didn't really happened, with 4000 series cards being more efficient than 7000 series cards.

I get what you mean. And I agree with many things. But you don't get the point. Sorry for the unnecessarilly long and rubbish post.

This is not a mystery, that nVidia creates their pricing out of the thin air. They just testing the waters, with how far they can push their BS baseless pricing, and get away with. Many ppl know this, and refrain from buying any dGPUs at all. As much as that nVidia almost solely guilty of the price formation, which created the situation, where consumers are held hostages, and have either buy it, or get without the VGA they need.
And there's AMD's guilt as well. Many people still remember how instead of shatter Nvidia's position by selling the cards to the consumers during the last crypto-fever, and thus relieve the stress and GPU shortage, AMD did the opposite, and joined Nvidia with the scam gouging, by also selling pallets of cards to the crypto-farms. But AMD being AMD, and by this they again have shot themselves in the foot. Firstly because they definitely could use the situation, and increase the mindshare, simultaneously undercut Nvidia, and make them bleed the buyers. heavily. And secondly, right after that, they've adopted Nvidia's scammy exorbitant pricing. Looks like the brilliant way to grow the consumer base.

But the main point is, that the closer AMD prices their stuff to Nvidia counterparts, while lacking features/check boxes, the less reason buyers have to buy AMD products, if the gap is so small. This is obvious, that if people already paying through the nose, they will rather add a bit more, and buy the card with more features, fancier look, or more agressive marketing. Again, the smaller the gap, the less appealing the Radeon products look, due to the herd mentality, already mentioned by yourself. AMD can't win the Nvidia's game. AMD has to invest in their consumer products, not widthdraw from it.

Look at intel. They could abandon the Arc idea altogether, after the DG1 fail. Which many people thought was the case, just like the Larabee before. But they push their R&D, they push the investments, and cutting their way through, despite the harsh start, delays, and many problems. They still managed to lower the power consumption of their cards, by new iterations of the drivers alone. Again, I'm not an intel fan, never was. But what stops AMD, to fix the idling and media playback, multi-monitor power hog issue? This is not the new problem. This lasts like since Vega. Do you really think the poor AMD with market cap alsmost twice as big as intel (what an irony), can't fix the stuff, that is already about decade old. Really... And this is important.
AMD screwed themselves royally. Because they didn't use the situation with RX6000 vs RTX3000, since the last used the Samsung inferior node, and was literally a heater, and been memed by everyone and their pet, while Radeons were very efficient. Why, just why AMD didn't increase their fan base by this fact alone. Because they did not give a crap. Whose fault is this? Don't tell me about the TSMC capacity/allocation, or logistic issues. They still sold the cards to miners. If the restrictions were so rough, they should have sold every single possible card to the avarage consumers, to fight the marketshare, and take strong control over the way the cards beens sold. That alone would make AMD look more reliable and caring company. But that's not the case, and AMD didn't and doesn't care. So why consumers should.

Now Nvidia overtook AMD at the same "superior node" game, and AMD got into an ass of situation, with neither efficiency, nor performance advantage. Again, who's fault it was. Did anyone at AMD knew, that by selling barges of their hot garbage, Nvidia would make a fortune, because money is money and no matter how awful were their alternatives, they still sold them, to both miners and later consumers, when the availability became less horrible.

AMD maybe the leader in CPU market, but on the GPU land they are the underdog. However they really behave like they are the leaders. I get that using the Ryzen bandwagon, is maybe a good marketing idea, but it's sadly not the case. If they will keep their strange game, soon Intel will overtake them as well, by rolling full steam. Just remember, how harsh was the path of Ryzen. They had to undercut intel at every corner, and loose to the army of paid/bribed "independent" reviewers, which poured the ocean of disgusting liquid crap from all media. But it didn't stop AMD, and they broke through the Intels enormous armour of then infinite budget. Now that behemoth is shaken, but it did return the hit elsewhere, and now steps on Radeon's feet. Intel is also pursuit AI market, but they don't discard the avarege joe's products, and still doing well.

And no. Sadly, Nvidia isn't going to hit the roadblock anytime soon, because the biggest pockets of the world's business pouring their money into it. This isn't usual 90'th company. They suddenly took an unprecedented control over so many areas of life, outide of just gaming, and AI bandwagon. Many businesses rely on their hardware, that being used in the cloud services, data centers, etc. So Nvidia has much more stable and stronger position, and miles bigger advantage, than console market. Now AMD tries to catch up Nvidia at all costs, but here comes the budget limitations, you were mentioning so many times. AMD, no matter how much they try, can't reach Nvidia at AI, because by the time NV dominance will end, be it introduction of another independent participant, or any other factor, Nvidia will have so much money, that will be able to simply buy out everyone, and no regulators will do anything. Might as well become bigger and richer than Apple.
And AMD will not be able to get any of it, because they are already late. They have to catch any straws, which would help them stay afloat

john_@Tek-Check Just different perspectives. I do not agree with many of your analysis, but our replies are getting way too long.

@Random_User AMD can't compete with Nvidia. So they can't price their offerings too aggressive. It's not just margins.
Let me explain with an example, numbers mostly random, but I hope you get the point.
7900XTX at $1000 - 4080 drops at $1200 ---- people buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
Let's assume AMD's profit margin at 50%, Nvidia's will be at 65%, but let's drop it to 40%, lower than AMD's, just for the sake of the example.
7900XTX at $900 - 4080 drops at $1100 ---- people still buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 35%, Nvidia's profit margin at 29%.
7900XTX at $800 - 4080 drops at $950 ---- people think it a little harder, but then buy again Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses.
AMD's profit margin now at 20%, Nvidia's profit margin at 13%.
7900XTX at $750 - 4080 drops at $880 ---- people mostly buy Nvidia for the known reasons/excuses, but AMD enjoys a little better sales.
AMD's profit margin now at 13%, Nvidia's profit margin at 4.5%.

Even if we start the 4080 at a much lower profit margin than the 7900XTX, which is probably totally unrealistic, AMD will have to drop it's flagship's price to a level that is not sustainable. Nvidia will also suffer, but having 4-5 times the market share can help tremendously because quantity is going to help with low profit margins. And just imagine starting Nvidia's 4080 with the same 50% profit margin or even a 65% profit margin. AMD would be selling at a loss and still looking expensive.
We can of course assume that Nvidia would never follow AMD's price drop, but this would be wishful thinking. The Super cards proved that. Nvidia could keep selling the original 4080 at a price close to 7900XTX, introduce the 4080 Super model at the same $1000 that was released, leave a huge gap between 4080 Super and 4090 and never really care about that, because people will still keep buying 4090s at over $1600.

In my opinion AMD realized that without feature parity they can't sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. Raster alone isn't enough anymore for models over $500-$600. That's why we hear rumors of RDNA4 not targeting the hi-end/enthusiast market and also that RDNA4 will have a totally different RT architecture. They try to fix that first, RT performance, see if it will be enough to get people in their camp and maybe try with RDNA5 to sell hi-end/enthusiast level cards. They might also hope Nvidia to hit a roadblock by then. They thought that Nvidia would have a problem with power consumption, but that didn't really happened, with 4000 series cards being more efficient than 7000 series cards.

The reason AMD can't compete with Nvidia is because their GPUs just don't meet the same quality standards. It's not even raster vs. RT, it goes much deeper than that. All of the value additions, the superior video encoder, the ecosystem that Nvidia built - unless you're using Linux, there's little point in buying a Radeon, you're just willingly getting hosed.

Dr. DroThe reason AMD can't compete with Nvidia is because their GPUs just don't meet the same quality standards. It's not even raster vs. RT, it goes much deeper than that. All of the value additions, the superior video encoder, the ecosystem that Nvidia built - unless you're using Linux, there's little point in buying a Radeon, you're just willingly getting hosed.

That's your opinion and probably at over $600 you do have a point. Investing a significant amount of money for a graphics card to keep for years and all those years having to do with less features, could make many happy to pay the Nvidia tax. That's if they buy the card not just for games, but also everything else that normally would have been totally unimportant to them, but now becomes important just so they can justify paying happily that Nvidia tax. Paying for a graphics card just so they can raytrace faster, even when they don't raytrace and they will only use the card for a few times that way, convert a high number of videos to another format, when they don't really need to, because storage is plenty today and cheap, try streaming game videos, when they don't really want to stream their gaming sessions, run AI applications, just out of curiosity for a day or two, before dropping that out, well, yeah, I guess someone can convince their self of all those features being as important as gaming performance. On gaming I can understand that DLSS is important, because tech press tells us all day everyday that if we slow down the video at 25% and zoom in 4 times, FSR looks like crap. Of course the press will not talk about AMD's advantage of being able to enable FSR in every game through driver, even in cases where the game doesn't offer native FSR support. The only excuse I would happily swallow is that raytracing performance is the only way to see and enjoy modern games. But then again I never felt the need to rush to play a game with raytracing enabled. But I do realise that it is the main reason for someone to feel that is paying for a "future proof" graphics card.

Of course if we go much lower than $600, like for example at less than $250, why would someone at their right mind chose an RTX 3050 over an RX 6600? Because in the end the reasons are different than those you mension. Marketing and brand recognition.

@Random_User
You do have many points.

But in the crypto era, how easy was to sell cards to individuals that wouldn't end up being scalpers? It would need some effort and obviously AMD gone the easy way of making easy money instead. They lost an opportunity there, but let's remember that when they came up with RX 6500XT NO ONE focused on the fact that the card was giving an option to people building new PCs, at somewhat not unreasonable price, the whole tech press and users, all focused to how much bad it was the card on PCIe 3.0 systems and they all used it as a way to keep attacking AMD, even until today. When much latter Nvidia announced the much worst GTX 1630, everyone just SHUT THE F UP and never attacked to Nvidia about that model. I mean really attack, not just doing a quick review and forgeting about the card's existence. Double standards.

AMD can't control how much big the price gap will be. Nvidia does. That's why AMD sells at such close prices. My whole post was pointing at that. And in any case RX 6600 is the proof that the consumer herd will keep paying the extra money that Nvidia asks, even when they know they will end up with a much worst performing product. Of course tech press has hypnotised them that DLSS is better than native, so,... yeah.

For many months many where saying that Intel is pulling out of the GPU business because ARC failed. And for all those months I was saying that this will never happen. Intel is not blind. It sees that the era of CPU being the one and only brain in a system is coming to an end. FPGAs, GPUs, AI accelarators, they will push in all fronts because with only Xeons, even if they manage to beat EPYC in 3-4 years, it will noty be enough to make the money they where making a few years ago. As for AMD they could fix everything, they just don't try and in the process introduce new problems. RX 6000 series was much more efficient in idling and video playback than RX 7000 series, meaning while they have talent in building high performing GPUs, they lack talent in other areas. Of course media playback being better on Intel hardware shouldn't surprice anyone. Before ARC, Intel's iGPUs had only one strong area. Media playback. That's probably Intel's most optimized part in theirs GPUs.

Fun fact about power consumption. AMD had the RTX 3000 in their mind when making their marketing material for the RX 7000 series. They haven't even imagine how bad Samsung's node was. When RTX 4090 came out and realised how much more efficient that card was on TSMC's node, they just throw away the page from their slides where they where tooting the 7900XTX as being more efficienmt than 4090. That's INCOPETANCE with all leters capital, not knowing what your main competitor is bringing to the market.

As for power consumption as an advantage. Tech press mentions it only when AMD is worst. When Intel or Nvidia are worst, it's not an important parameter. Just wait a few days and you will see the 13900K and 14900K fiasco getting forgotten and every tech press out there using the ASUS baseline profile because it doesn't cut much performance.

I did said in one of my posts that Su doesn't seem to understand GPUs and I got a reply that AMD doesn't need to be good in all market segments. On GPUs I do agree that most fails are AMD's doing but then again tech press is doing an also excellent job into taking small dissadvantages of AMD hardware and making them look like deal breakers, then sugarcoat everything about Nvidia and Intel hardware problems. 4090's getting burned is user error and Intel's latest CPU problems almost already forgotten.

Nvidia becoming as huge as it is today, proves that all those wanting to stop ARM's aquisition, where right.
As for AMD. They need to start doing business with Samsung. Even a worst node from Samsung will be enough for Zen2/3/4 CPUs and RX 6000/7000 mid range GPUs. While redesigning old designs for the Samsung node looks stupid and financialy even stupidier, they could flood the market with more products while keeping the TSMC capacity for their more importand products. Or maybe they could split their future products to both fabs. Zen is already more efficient than Intel's cores, so using for example Samsung for the desktop line and TSMC for the laptop line of CPUs/APUs could be a viable idea.

TheLostSwedeAnd a little breakdown.


x.com/EconomyApp/status/1785412626979373104

That's an impressive 28% R&D spend. Apple spends 8% and Nvidia spends 11%.

mb194dcAMD market cap 255B, yet annual revenue is only 22B odd and net income not even 1B...

Batshit crazy stock price.

If you have a brokarage account, open up the valuations tab.

AMD and Nvidia have nearly the same forward P/E of 27 to 28.

AMD has a profit margin of 5% and Nvidia has a profit margin of almost 50%. One can lower prices and the other can't. That's why there are shelves full of $1,000 7900 XTXs next to $1,000 4080 Supers at my local Microcenter. Once Nvidia gets DP2.1, there won't be a reason to get AMD cards if they're the same price.

I currently have a 6950XT that amazingly MC still sells for $550. However, I don't see a reason to upgrade to 7900 XTX to get up to 50% gain. I will probably wait for 5080 since AMD is skipping the high end next gen.